Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
FederalRegulations
Ask Donna
How this section applies to your facts.
Federal Register › Vol. 64 › 64 FR 55880
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-6455-1]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
proposing to grant a petition submitted by Rhodia, Incorporated Houston
(Rhodia). Rhodia petitioned the Agency to exclude (or delist) filter-
cake sludge generated at its Houston, Harris County, Texas, facility
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.24, 261.31,
and 261.32 (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless
otherwise indicated).
Rhodia submitted this petition under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22(a).
Section 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to
modify or revoke any provision of Secs. 260 through 266, 268 and 273.
Section 260.22(a) specifically provides generators the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator
specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.
The Agency bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner.
If finalized, we would conclude that Rhodia's petitioned waste is
nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that the
waste process Rhodia uses will substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents from this waste. We would also
conclude that their process minimizes short-term and long-term threats
from the petitioned waste to human health and the environment.
DATES: We will accept comments until November 29, 1999. We will stamp
comments postmarked after the close of the comment period as ``late.''
These ``late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final
decision.
Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by November 1, 1999. The
request must contain the information prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of your comments. Two copies should
be sent to William Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning
and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third copy should be sent to the
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), P.O. Box
13087, Austin, Texas, 78711-3087. Identify your comments at the top
with this regulatory docket number: ``F-99-TXDEL-Rhodia.''
You should address requests for a hearing to the Acting Director,
Robert Hannesschlager, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
(6PD), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Harris at (214) 665-8302.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The information in this section is organized as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
C. How will Rhodia manage the waste if it is delisted?
D. When would EPA finalize the proposed delisting?
E. How would this action affect States?
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting program?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What waste did Rhodia petition EPA to delist?
B. Who is Rhodia, and what process does it use?
C. How did Rhodia sample and analyze the waste data in this
petition?
D. What were the results of Rhodia's analysis?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about Rhodia's analysis?
G. What other factors did EPA consider?
H. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
B. What happens if Rhodia violates the terms and conditions?
V. Public Comments
A. How can I, as an interested party, submit comments?
B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed
exclusion?
VI. Regulatory Impact
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
X. Executive Order 12875
XI. Executive Order 13045
XII. Executive Order 13084
XIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Overview Information
A. What Action is EPA Proposing?
The EPA is proposing:
(1) To grant Rhodia's petition to have it's filter-cake sludge
excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste,
subject to certain verification and monitoring conditions; and
(2) To use a fate and transport model to evaluate the potential
impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment. The
Agency uses this model to predict the concentration of hazardous
constituents released from the petitioned waste, once it is disposed.
B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Approve This Delisting?
Rhodia's petition requests a delisting for listed hazardous wastes.
Rhodia does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria
for which EPA listed it. Rhodia also believes no additional
constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's
review of this petition included consideration of the original listing
criteria, and the additional factors required by HSWA. See section 222
of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)-(4). In making the
initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Secs. 261.11 (a)(2)
and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing
criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste
remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste were
originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition.) The
EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria to
assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. The
EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet these criteria.
EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from Rhodia's facility is based
on the information submitted in support of today's rule, i.e.,
descriptions of the Sulfuric Acid Regeneration Unit (SARU) and the
Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) system and analytical data from the
Houston facility.
C. How Will Rhodia Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?
Rhodia currently disposes of the petitioned waste (filter-cake
Sludge) generated at its facility in off-site, RCRA permitted TSD
facilities which are not owned/operated by Rhodia. If the waste is
delisted it will meet the criteria for disposal in a Subtitle D
landfill.
D. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting?
The HSWA specifically requires EPA to provide notice and an
opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion.
Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until it addresses all timely
public comments (including those at public hearings, if any) on today's
proposal.
Section 3010(b) at 42 USCA 6930(b) of RCRA allows rules to become
effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not
need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case
here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing
requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes.
The EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective
immediately upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not
necessary to achieve the purpose of Sec. 3010(b), and a later effective
date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this petitioner.
These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule effective
immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
E. How Would This Action Affect States?
Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of
States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA
requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received
authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
Here are the details: We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under
section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal
(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's
waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
The EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana,
Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in place of
the Federal program, that is, to make State delisting decisions.
Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If
Rhodia transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any
State with delisting authorization, Rhodia must obtain delisting
authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the State.
II. Background
A. What is the History of the Delisting Program?
The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its
final and interim final regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA.
The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.
We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (that is, ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in Secs. 261.11 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste
from an individual facility meeting the listing description may not be
hazardous.
For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA
should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating
facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of a
Petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an
authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.
The facility petitions the Agency because they do not consider the
wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for
the listed wastes. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in Part
261 and in the background documents for the listed wastes.
In addition, under Sec. 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that
is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present
sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (See Part 261 and the background documents for the
listed wastes.)
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their
waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics
even if EPA has ``delisted'' the wastes.
C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a
Delisting Petition?
Besides considering the criteria in Sec. 260.22(a), in 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, EPA
must consider any factors (including additional constituents) other
than those for which we listed the waste if a reasonable basis exists
that these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
(See 3010(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.)
The EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Secs. 261.3(a)(2) (iii and iv)
and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded.
The ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules are now final, after
having been vacated, remanded, and reinstated. On December 6, 1991, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the
``mixture/derived from'' rules and remanded them to EPA on procedural
grounds. See Shell Oil Co. v. EPA., 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On
March 3, 1992, EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and
solicited comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and
residues See (57 FR 7628). These rules became final on October 30, 1992
See (57 FR 49278). Consult these references for more information about
mixtures derived from wastes.
II. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What Waste Did Rhodia Petition EPA To Delist?
On November 4, 1997, Rhodia petitioned the EPA to exclude from the
lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32, a waste
by-product (Filter-Cake Sludge) which falls under the classification of
listed waste because of the ``derived from'' rule in RCRA 40 CFR
260.3(c)(2)(i). Specifically, in its petition, Rhodia, Incorporated,
located in Houston, Texas, requested that EPA grant an exclusion for
1,200 cubic yards per year of filter-cake sludge resulting from its
hazardous waste treatment process. The resulting waste is listed, in
accordance with Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the ``derived from'' rule).
B. Who Is Rhodia, and What Process Does It Use?
Rhodia owns and operates a 46-acre facility which is primarily
involved in the manufacture of sulfuric acid. Rhodia has been in
operation since 1917, primarily producing various strengths and grades
of sulfuric acid, sulfur dioxide, oleum, and sulfur trioxide. Rhodia
generates sulfuric acid using a spray burning SARU. The recycling
process requires the use of an industrial furnace. The furnace utilizes
natural gas as the primary fuel. However, Rhodia also treats high and
low British Thermal Unit (BTU) pumpable liquid hazardous waste in the
furnace. Rhodia accepts hazardous waste from off-site generators for
incineration in the sulfuric acid regeneration furnace. A weak acid
blowdown stream generated from the wet gas scrubber, cooler, and
electrostatic precipitator is treated at the AWT system. The petitioned
waste is dewatered filter-cake sludge resulting from the AWT system.
The waste by-product (filter-cake sludge) currently falls under the
classification of listed waste according to RCRA 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)
because of the ``derived from'' rule. The waste codes of the
constituents of concern are EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. D001-D043, F001-
F012, F019, F024, F025, F032, F034, F037-F039, K002-004, K006-K011,
K013-K052, K060-K062, K064-K066, K069, K071, K073, K083-K088, K090-
K091, K093-K118, K123-K126, K131-K133, K136, K141-K145, K147-K151,
K156-K161, P001-P024, P026-P031, P033-P034, P036-P051, P054, P056-P060,
P062-P078, P081-P082, P084-P085, P087-P089, P092-P116, P118-P123, P127-
P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205, U001-U012, U014-
U039, U041-U053, U055-U064, U066-U099, U101-U103, U105-U138, U140-U174,
U176-U194, U196-U197, U200-U211, U213-U223, U225-U228, U234-U240, U243-
U244, U246-U249, U271, U277-U280, U328, U353, U359, U364-U367, U372-
U373, U375-U379, U381-U396, U400-U404, U407, U409-U411.
C. How Did Rhodia Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This Petition?
Rhodia analyzed the samples for the complete list of constituents
included in 40 CFR Part 264, Appendix IX and the additional parameters
for waste common to the petrochemical, oil and gas industries. The
analyses was performed using EPA-approved methods. The analytical
parameters and methods are provided in Table I.
Table I.--Analytical Parameters and Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Matrix Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GC/MS BNA, App IX List........ Solid............ SW846 Method 8270.
GC/MS VOA, App IX List........ Solid............ SW846 Method 8240.
Metals--App IX List........... Solid............ SW846 Methods 6010/
7000 Series.
Herbicides--App IX List....... Solid............ SW846 Method 8150.
Pesticide/PCB, App IX List.... Solid............ SW846 Method 8080.
Organophosporus Pesticides, Solid............ SW846 Method 8140.
App IX List.
Sulfide....................... Solid............ EPA 376.1.
Cyanide, Total................ Solid............ SW846, Method 9010.
Dioxin/Furan--App IX List..... Solid............ SW846 Method 8280.
TCLP--40 CFR 261.24 List, and Solid............ SW846 Method 1311.
Nickel.
Neutral Leach Cyanide......... Solid............ SW846 Method 1311
(Modified).
Oil & Grease.................. Solid............ EPA 413.1.
Reactive Cyanide.............. Solid............ SW 846 Chapter
7.3.3.2.
Reactive Sulfide.............. Solid............ SW846 Chapter
7.3.4.2.
Flash Point Closed Cup........ Solid............ SW846 Method 1010.
pH............................ Solid............ SW846 Method 9045.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Rhodia performed TCLP analyses for specific constituents detected
in the total analyses for a given sample.
D. What Were the Results of Rhodia's Analysis?
The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Rhodia hazardous
waste process and analytical characterization, in conjunction with the
proposed verification testing requirements (as discussed later in this
notice), provide a reasonable basis to grant Rhodia's petition for an
exclusion of the filter-cake sludge. The EPA believes the data
submitted in support of the petition show Rhodia's process can render
the filter-cake sludge non-hazardous. The EPA has reviewed the sampling
procedures used by Rhodia and has determined they satisfy EPA criteria
for collecting representative samples of the variations in constituent
concentrations in the filter-cake sludge. The data submitted in support
of the petition show that constituents in Rhodia's waste are presently
below health-based levels used in the delisting decision-making. The
EPA believes that Rhodia has successfully demonstrated that the filter-
cake sludge is non-hazardous.
E. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting the Waste?
For this delisting determination, EPA used such information
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water,
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the
petitioned waste. The EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D
landfill/surface impoundment is the most reasonable, worst-case
disposal scenario for Rhodia's petitioned waste, and that the major
exposure route of concern would be ingestion of contaminated ground
water. EPA applied a particular fate and transport model, EPA Composite
Model for Landfills (EPACML), to predict the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous constituents that may release from the
petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of
the disposal of Rhodia's petitioned waste on human health and the
environment. Specifically, EPA used the maximum estimated waste volumes
and the maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to estimate
the constituent concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical
receptor well downgradient from the disposal site. The calculated
receptor well concentrations (referred to as compliance-point
concentrations) were then compared directly to the health-based levels
at an assumed risk of 10-6 used in delisting decision-making
for the hazardous constituents of concern.
The EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned waste in
a landfill/surface impoundment, and that a reasonable worst-case
scenario is appropriate when evaluating whether a waste should be
relieved of the protective management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C.
The use of some reasonable worst-case scenario resulted in conservative
values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensured that the
waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, may not pose a
significant threat to human health or the environment. In most cases,
because a delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste
control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does not presently
control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after delisting.
Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate to consider
extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and transport
model.
The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, EPA
determined that it would be unnecessary to request ground water
monitoring data. Rhodia currently disposes of its waste in an off-site
RCRA landfill. This landfill did not begin accepting this petitioned
waste generated by the Rhodia facility until 1991. This petitioned
waste comprises a small fraction of the total waste managed in the
unit. Therefore, EPA believes that any ground water monitoring data
from the landfill would not be meaningful for an evaluation of the
specific effect of this petitioned waste on ground water.
From the evaluation of Rhodia's delisting petition, EPA developed a
list of constituents for the verification testing conditions. Proposed
maximum allowable leachable concentrations for these constituents were
derived by back-calculating from the delisting health-based levels
through the proposed fate and transport model for a landfill management
scenario. These concentrations (i.e., ``delisting levels'') are part of
the proposed verification testing conditions of the exclusion.
Similar to other facilities seeking exclusions, Rhodia's exclusion
(if granted) would be contingent upon the facility conducting
analytical testing of representative samples of the petitioned waste at
its Houston facility. This testing would be necessary to verify that
the treatment system is operating as demonstrated in the petition
submitted on November 4, 1997. Specifically, the verification testing
requirements, demonstrate that the processing facility will generate
nonhazardous waste (i.e., waste that meet EPA's verification testing
conditions). The EPA believes
that the descriptions of the Rhodia, Inc. hazardous waste process and
analytical characterization, in conjunction with the proposed
verification testing requirements (as discussed later in this notice)
provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the likelihood of migration
of hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste will be
substantially reduced so that short-term and long-term threats to human
health and the environment are minimized. Thus, EPA should grant
Rhodia's petition for a conditional exclusion of the filter-cake
sludge.
The EPA Region 6 Delisting Program guidance document states that
the appropriate fate and effect model will be used to determine the
effect the petitioned waste could have on human health if it is not
managed as a hazardous waste. Specifically, the model considers the
maximum estimated waste volume and the maximum reported leachate
concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent concentrations in
the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well downgradient from the
disposal site. The calculated receptor well concentrations (referred to
as compliance-point concentrations) are then compared directly to the
health-based levels used in delisting decision-making for hazardous
constituents of concern. EPA Region 6 has selected the EPA Composite
Model for Landfills (EPACML, Federal Register Vol. 56, No. 138, July
18, 1991, Page 32993) as the appropriate model for the delisting
program. This subsection presents an evaluation of the potential for
ground water contamination for the petitioned waste using the EPACML
model.
The EPA considered the appropriateness of alternative waste
management scenarios for Rhodia's filter-cake sludge. The EPA decided,
based on the information provided in the petition, that disposal of the
filter-cake in a municipal solid waste landfill is the most reasonable,
worst-case scenario for the filter-cake sludge. The disposal of the
filter-cake sludge in a surface impoundment would be the most
reasonable worst-case scenario. Under a landfill/surface impoundment
disposal scenario, the major exposure route of concern for any
hazardous constituents would be ingestion of contaminated ground water.
The EPA, therefore, evaluated Rhodia's petitioned waste using the
modified EPA Composite Model for Landfills/Surface Impoundments
(EPACML) which predicts the potential for ground water contamination
from waste landfilled/placed in a surface impoundment. See 56 FR 32993
(July 18, 1991), 56 FR 67197 (December 30, 1991) and the RCRA public
docket for these notices for a detailed description of the EPACML
model, the disposal assumptions, and the modifications made for
delisting. This model, which includes both unsaturated and saturated
zone transport modules, predicts reasonable worse-case contaminant
levels in ground water at a compliance point (i.e., a receptor well
serving as a drinking-water supply). Specifically, the model estimated
the dilution/attenuation factor (DAF) resulting from subsurface
processes such as three-dimensional dispersion and dilution from ground
water recharge for a specific volume of waste.
For the evaluation of Rhodia's petitioned waste, EPA used the
EPACML to evaluate the mobility of the hazardous constituents detected
in the extract of samples of Rhodia's filter-cake sludge. Total
analysis was also utilized for the filter-cake sludge. Typically, EPA
uses the maximum annual waste volume to derive a petition-specific DAF.
The maximum annual waste volume for Rhodia is 1,200 cubic yards per
year. The DAFs are currently calculated assuming an ongoing process
generates waste for 20 years.
Analytical data for the filter-cake sludge samples were used in the
model. The data summaries for detected constituents are presented in
Tables II, III, IV, and V.
The EPA's evaluation of the Filter-cake Sludge is based on the
maximum reported Total and TCLP concentrations (See Table III).
Consequently the compliance point concentrations are below current
health based levels and Land Disposal Restrictions for Non-Wastewater
(See Table V).
Based on the EPACML, the petitioned waste should be delisted
because no constituents of concern exceed the delisting concentrations.
Table II.--Acetone and Chloroform Data Summary \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analytical parameter (VOCs)
Filter-cake samples (mg/kg) ---------------------------------------
Acetone Chloroform
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix IX Reporting Limit \2\. 0.010 0.05
FC970512-01..................... 0.60 0.10
FC970512-01RE \3\............... 0.26 0.02
FC970513-02..................... 0.30 0.10
FC970513-02RE \3\............... 0.28 0.04
FC970514-03..................... 0.25 0.056
FC970514-03RE \3\............... 0.16 0.023
FC970515-04..................... \4\ ND ND
FC970515-04RE \3\............... \5\ NA NA
FC970517-05..................... 0.043 ND
FC970517-05RE \3\............... NA NA
FC970520-06..................... 0.050 ND
FC970520-06RE \3\............... NA NA
FC970521-07..................... 0.049 ND
FC970522-08..................... 0.058 ND
FC970522-08RE \3\............... 0.17 ND
FC970522-08..................... ND ND
FC970522-08RE \3\............... 0.13 ND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table only summarizes the analytical results for the volatile
organic compounds that were detected by the laboratory against the
Appendix IX reporting limits.
\2\ The Appendix IX reporting limits for acetone are chloroform are
referenced from 40 CFR 264, Appendix IX.
\3\ RE--Replicate samples.
\4\ ND--Not detected.
\5\ NA--Not analyzed.
Table III.--Maximum Total and TCLP Constituent Concentrations Filter-
Cake Sludge \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCLP Leachate
Constituent Total constituent Concentration (mg/
analyses (mg/kg) l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic......................... 830.00 ND
Barium.......................... 193.00 ND
Cadmium......................... 3.50 ND
Chromium........................ 852.00 ND
Cobalt.......................... 81.20 4.06
Copper.......................... 1500.00 75.00
Mercury......................... 81.60 ND
Lead............................ 861.00 ND
Nickel.......................... 1210.00 3.00
Selenium........................ 36.30 ND
Silver.......................... 94.90 ND
Vanadium........................ 92.10 4.61
Zinc............................ 3130.00 156.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
specific levels found in one sample.
Table IV.--Oil and Grease Results Summary \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analytical Parameter
Filter-cake samples (mg/kg) (specific) Oil and
grease
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Reporting Limit \2\................. 3,520
FC970520-06.................................... 3,660
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table only summarizes the results for those special parameters
that were detected above laboratory detection limits.
\2\ Appendix IX reporting limits are not available for oil and grease.
Therefore, the laboratory's detection limits were used for the
comparison.
Table V.--EPACML: Comparison of Filter-Cake Sludge Calculated Compliance-Point Concentrations Against Regulatory
Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance point
Constituents concentrations Levels of concern LDR non-wastewater
(mg/l) 1 (mg/l) 2 (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic............................................. 0.001 0.05 5.00
Barium.............................................. 0.006 2.00 21.00
Cadmium............................................. 0.001 0.005 0.11
Chromium............................................ 0.001 0.1 0.60
Mercury............................................. 3 ND 0.002 0.025
Nickel.............................................. 0.033 0.1 11.00
Lead................................................ 0.001 0.015 0.75
Selenium............................................ 3 ND 0.05 5.70
Silver.............................................. 0.001 0.2 0.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Using the maximum TCLP leachate concentration, based on a DAF of 90 for a maximum annual volume of 1,200 cubic
yards.
2 See ``Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,''
May 1996 located in the RCRA Public Docket for today's notice.
3 ND = Not Detected.
F. What Did EPA Conclude About Rhodia's Analysis?
The EPA concluded, after reviewing Rhodia's processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which tested,
are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by products
in Rhodia's waste. In addition, on the basis of explanations and
analytical data provided by Rhodia, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, the EPA
concludes that the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See
Secs. 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.
G. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider?
During the evaluation of Rhodia's petition, EPA also considered the
potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water routes
(i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne
dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from Rhodia's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no
appreciable air releases are likely from Rhodia's waste under any
likely disposal conditions. The EPA evaluated the potential hazards
resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous
constituents released from Rhodia's waste in an open landfill. The
results of this worst-case analysis indicated that there is no
substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the
environment from airborne exposure to constituents from Rhodia's
Filter-cake sludge. A description of EPA's assessment of the potential
impact of Rhodia's waste, regarding airborne dispersion of waste
contaminants, is presented in the RCRA public docket for today's
proposed rule.
The EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned
waste via a surface water route. The EPA believes that containment
structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control
surface water runoff,
as the Subtitle D regulations (See 56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991)
prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters. Furthermore, the
concentrations of any hazardous constituents dissolved in the runoff
will tend to be lower than the levels in the TCLP leachate analyses
reported in today's notice due to the aggressive acidic medium used for
extraction in the TCLP. The EPA believes that, in general, leachate
derived from the waste is unlikely to directly enter a surface water
body without first traveling through the saturated subsurface where
dilution and attenuation of hazardous constituents will also occur.
Leachable concentrations provide a direct measure of solubility of a
toxic constituent in water and are indicative of the fraction of the
constituent that may be mobilized in surface water as well as ground
water.
Based on the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that the
contamination of surface water through runoff from the waste disposal
area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, EPA evaluated the potential
impacts on surface water if Rhodia's waste were released from a
municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. See, the
RCRA public docket for today's proposed rule. The estimated levels of
the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would be well
below health-based levels for human health, as well as below EPA
Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS,
1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that Rhodia's filter-cake Sludge
is not a present or potential substantial hazard to human health and
the environment via the surface water exposure pathway.
H. What is EPA's Final Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?
The descriptions of Rhodia's hazardous waste process and analytical
characterization, with the proposed verification testing requirements
(as discussed later in this notice), provide a reasonable basis for EPA
to grant the exclusion. The data submitted in support of the petition
show that constituents in the waste are below the applicable treatment
standards (see Table V). We conclude Rhodia's process will
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the petitioned waste. Their process also minimizes
short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to human
health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes we should grant Rhodia an exclusion for the
filter-cake sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in support of
the petition show Rhodia's process can render the filter-cake sludge
nonhazardous.
We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by Rhodia and have
determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative
samples of variable constituent concentrations in the filter-cake
sludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show that
constituents in Rhodia's waste are presently below the compliance point
concentrations used in the delisting decision-making and would not pose
a substantial hazard to the environment. The EPA believes that Rhodia
has successfully demonstrated that the filter-cake sludge are
nonhazardous.
The EPA therefore, proposes to grant a conditional exclusion to the
Rhodia Corporation, in Houston, Texas, for the filter-cake sludge
described in its petition. The EPA's decision to conditionally exclude
this waste is based on descriptions of the treatment activities
associated with the petitioned waste and characterization of the
filter-cake sludge.
If we finalize the proposed rule, the Agency will no longer
regulate the petitioned waste under parts 262 through 268 and the
permitting standards of part 270.
IV. Next Steps
A. With What Conditions Must the Petitioner Comply?
The petitioner, Rhodia, must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR
part 261, Appendix IX, Tables 1 and 2. The text below gives the
rationale and details of those requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels
This paragraph provides the levels of constituents that Rhodia must
test the leachate from the filter-cake sludge, below which these wastes
would be considered nonhazardous.
The EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents
specified in Paragraph (1) because of information in the petition. We
compiled the list from the composition of the waste, descriptions of
Rhodia's treatment process, previous test data provided for the waste,
and the respective health-based levels used in delisting decision-
making.
We established the proposed delisting levels by calculating the
Maximum Allowable Leachate (MALs) concentrations from the Health-based
levels (HBL) for the constituents of concern and the EPACML chemical-
specific DAF of 90, that is, MAL = HBL x DAF. We also limited the
MALs so the concentrations would not exceed non waste water
concentrations in the Land Disposal Restriction treatment standards in
40 CFR part 268. These delisting levels correspond to the allowable
levels measured in the TCLP extract of the waste.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that any filter-cake
sludge which might contain hazardous levels of inorganic and organic
constituents are managed and disposed of in accordance with Subtitle C
of RCRA. Holding the filter-cake sludge until characterization is
complete will protect against improper handling of hazardous material.
If EPA determines that the data collected under this condition do not
support the data provided for the petition the exclusion will not cover
the petitioned waste.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
(A) Initial Verification Testing. If the EPA determines that the
data from the initial verification period shows the treatment process
is effective, Rhodia may request that EPA allow it to conduct
verification testing quarterly. If EPA approves this request in
writing, then Rhodia may begin verification testing quarterly.
The EPA believes that an initial period of 60 days is adequate for
a facility to collect sufficient data to verify that the data provided
for the filter-cake sludge in the 1998 petition, is representative.
We are requiring Rhodia to conduct a multiple pH analysis because
in our experience more leaching can occur from disposed waste when the
pH of the waste is extremely acidic or basic. The multiple pH test is
similar to the TCLP, but the test uses different pH extraction fluids.
Rhodia should design the analytical test to show that the petitioned
waste when disposed of in an acidic and basic landfill environment
would not leach concentrations above the levels of regulatory concern.
The second condition should reflect how the petitioned waste will
behave when it is disposed in a landfill environment similar to the pH
of the waste. The EPA believes that evaluating the leachate generated
from using extraction fluids over a range of pH's can simulate general
disposal conditions and provide added assurance that the waste will
remain nonhazardous when disposal conditions change. The petitioner
must perform these analyses to confirm that the leachate concentrations
do not exceed the concentrations in Paragraph 1 over a wide pH range.
While the waste's pH does vary, the Agency believes that under the
various pH
conditions the waste will remain stable, and thus will proceed with the
promulgation of the proposed decision.
If we determine that the data collected under this Paragraph do not
support the data provided for the petition, the exclusion will not
cover the generated wastes. If the data from the initial verification
period demonstrate that the treatment process is effective, Rhodia may
request quarterly testing. EPA will notify Rhodia, in writing, if and
when they may replace the testing conditions in paragraph (3)(A)(i)
with the testing conditions in (3)(B).
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing. The EPA believes that the
concentrations of the constituents of concern in the filter-cake sludge
may vary over time. As a result, to ensure that Rhodia's treatment
process can effectively handle any variation in constituent
concentrations in the waste, we are proposing a subsequent verification
testing condition.
The proposed subsequent testing would verify that Rhodia operates
the AWT as it did during the initial verification testing. It would
also verify that the filter-cake sludge does not exhibit unacceptable
levels of toxic constituents. The EPA is proposing to require Rhodia to
analyze representative samples of the filter-cake sludge quarterly
during the first year of waste generation. Rhodia would begin annual
sampling on the anniversary date of the final exclusion. They must also
use the multiple pH extraction procedure for samples collected during
the annual sampling.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
Paragraph (4) would allow Rhodia the flexibility of modifying its
processes (for example, changes in equipment or change in operating
conditions) to improve its treatment process. However, Rhodia must
prove the effectiveness of the modified process and request approval
from the EPA. Rhodia must manage wastes generated during the new
process demonstration as hazardous waste until they have obtained
written approval and Paragraph (3) is satisfied.
(5) Data Submittals
To provide appropriate documentation that Rhodia's facility is
properly treating the waste, Rhodia must compile, summarize, and keep
delisting records on-site for a minimum of five years. They should keep
all analytical data obtained through Paragraph (3) including quality
control information for five years. Paragraph (5) requires that Rhodia
furnish these data upon request for inspection by any employee or
representative of EPA or the State of Texas.
If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to
1,200 cubic yards of filter-cake sludge, generated annually at the
Rhodia facility after successful verification testing.
We would require Rhodia to file a new delisting petition under any
of the following circumstances:
(a) If they significantly alter the thermal desorption treatment
system except as described in Paragraph (4).
(b) If they use any new manufacturing or production process(es), or
significantly change from the current process(es) described in their
petition; or
(c) If they make any changes that could affect the composition or
type of waste generated.
Rhodia must manage waste volumes greater than 1,200 cubic yards of
filter-cake sludge as hazardous until we grant a new exclusion.
When this exclusion becomes final, Rhodia's management of the
wastes covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C
jurisdiction. Rhodia must either treat, store, or dispose of the waste
in an on-site facility that has a State permit, license, or is
registered to manage municipal or industrial solid waste. If not,
Rhodia must ensure that it delivers the waste to an off-site storage,
treatment, or disposal facility that has a State permit, license, or is
registered to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
(6) Reopener Language
The purpose of Paragraph 6 is to require Rhodia to disclose new or
different information related to a condition at the facility or
disposal of the waste if it is pertinent to the delisting. Rhodia must
also use this procedure, if the waste sample in the annual testing
fails to meet the levels found in Paragraph 1. This provision will
allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion if a source provides new or
additional information to the Agency. The EPA will evaluate the
information on which we based the decision to see if it is still
correct, or if circumstances have changed so that the information is no
longer correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition if presented.
This provision expressly requires Rhodia to report differing site
conditions or assumptions used in the petition in addition to failure
to meet the annual testing conditions within 10 days of discovery. If
EPA discovers such information itself or from a third party, it can act
on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is similar to those
provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions
at Sec. 268.6.
The EPA believes that we have the authority under RCRA and the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 (1978) et seq., to
reopen a delisting decision. We may reopen a delisting decision when we
receive new information that calls into question the assumptions
underlying the delisting.
The Agency believes a clear statement of its authority in
delistings is merited in light of Agency experience. See Reynolds
Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62 FR 63458 where the delisted waste
leached at greater concentrations in the environment than the
concentrations predicted when conducting the TCLP, thus leading the
Agency to repeal the delisting. If an immediate threat to human health
and the environment presents itself, EPA will continue to address these
situations case by case. Where necessary, EPA will make a good cause
finding to justify emergency rulemaking. See APA 553 (b).
(7) Notification Requirements
In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, EPA is
requiring that Rhodia provide a one-time notification to any State
regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being
carried. Rhodia must provide this notification within 60 days of
commencing this activity.
B. What Happens if Rhodia Violates the Terms and Conditions?
If Rhodia violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, the Agency will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment,
the Agency will continue to evaluate these events on a case-by-case
basis. The Agency expects Rhodia to conduct the appropriate waste
analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in Paragraphs
3,4,5 and 6 of the exclusion.
V. Public Comments
A. How can I as an Interested Party Submit Comments?
The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision.
Please send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to William
Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a third copy to the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas
78753. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory docket
number: ``F-99-TXDEL-RHODIA.''
You should submit requests for a hearing to Robert Hannesschlager,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
B. How May I Review the Docket or Obtain Copies of the Proposed
Exclusion?
You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at
the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in the EPA Freedom of
Information Act Review Room from 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for
appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket
at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for
additional copies.
VI. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions.
The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its
effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a facility
to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
Because there is no additional impact from today's proposed rule,
this proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/
benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review
under section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an
agency is required to publish a general notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of
the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or
delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any
impact on a small entities.
This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact
on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs
of EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one
facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed regulation,
if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Public Law 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year.
When such a statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205
of the UMRA EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The EPA must select that
alternative, unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it
was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector.
The EPA finds that today's delisting decision is deregulatory in
nature and does not impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed
delisting decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for
small governments and so does not require a small government agency
plan under UMRA section 203.
X. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local,
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
XI. Executive Order 13045
The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is
not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
XII. Executive Order 13084
Because this action does not involve any requirements that affect
Indian Tribes, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order
13084 do not apply.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects
that communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments.
If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to meaningful and timely input'' in the
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities of Indian tribal governments. This
action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian
Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
XIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Agency is directed to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies.
Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires that Agency to provide
Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using
such standards.
This rule does not establish any new technical standards and thus,
the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards in developing this final rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f)
Dated: September 29, 1999.
Robert Hannesschlager,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Appendix IX of part 261 it is proposed
to add the following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to
read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility and address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Rhodia, Houston, Texas....... Filter-cake Sludge, (at a maximum
generation of 1,200 cubic yards per
calendar year) generated by Rhodia using
the SARU and AWT treatment process to
treat the filter-cake sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. D001-D43, F001-
F012, F019, F024, F025, F032, F034, F037-
F039) generated at Rhodia.
Rhodia must implement a testing program
that meets the following conditions for
the exclusion to be valid:
(1) Delisting Levels:
All concentrations for the following
constituents must not exceed the
following levels (mg/l). For the filter-
cake constituents must be measured in
the waste leachate by the method
specified in 40 CFR Part 261.24.
(A) Filter-cake Sludge
(i) Inorganic Constituents: Antimony--
1.15; Arsenic--1.40; Barium--21.00;
Beryllium--1.22; Cadmium--0.11; Cobalt--
189.00; Copper--90.00; Chromium--0.60;
Lead--0.75; Mercury--0.025; Nickel--
9.00; Selenium--4.50; Silver--0.14;
Thallium--0.20; Vanadium--1.60; Zinc--
4.30
(ii) Organic Constituents: Chlorobenzene-
Non Detect; Carbon Tetrachloride-Non
Detect; Acetone--360; Chloroform--0.9
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
Rhodia must store in accordance with its
RCRA permit, or continue to dispose of
as hazardous waste all Filter-cake
Sludge until the verification testing
described in Condition (3)(A), as
appropriate, is completed and valid
analyses demonstrate that condition (3)
is satisfied. If the levels of
constituents measured in the samples of
the Filter-cake Sludge do not exceed the
levels set forth in Condition (1), then
the waste is nonhazardous and may be
managed and disposed of in accordance
with all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements:
Rhodia must perform sample collection and
analyses, including quality control
procedures, according to SW-846
methodologies. If EPA judges the process
to be effective under the operating
conditions used during the initial
verification testing, Rhodia may replace
the testing required in Condition (3)(A)
with the testing required in Condition
(3)(B). Rhodia must continue to test as
specified in Condition (3)(A) until and
unless notified by EPA in writing that
testing in Condition (3)(A) may be
replaced by Condition (3)(B).
(A) Initial Verification Testing:
(i) At quarterly intervals for one year
after the final exclusion is granted,
Rhodia must collect and analyze
composites of the filter-cake sludge.
TCLP must be run on all waste and
constituents for which total
concentrations have been identified
including constituents listed in
Paragraph 1. Rhodia must conduct a
multiple pH leaching procedure on
samples collected during the quarterly
intervals. Rhodia must perform the TCLP
procedure using distilled water and
three different pH extraction fluids to
simulate disposal under three
conditions. Simulate an acidic landfill
environment, basic landfill environment
and a landfill environment similar to
the pH of the waste. Rhodia must report
the operational and analytical test
data, including quality control
information, obtained during this
initial period no later than 90 days
after the generation of the waste.
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:
Following termination of the quarterly
testing, Rhodia must continue to test a
representative composite sample for all
constituents listed in Condition (1) on
an annual basis (no later than twelve
months after the final exclusion).
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
If Rhodia significantly changes the
process which generate(s) the waste(s)
and which may or could affect the
composition or type waste(s) generated
as established under Condition (1) (by
illustration, but not limitation, change
in equipment or operating conditions of
the treatment process), or its NPDES
permit is changed, revoked or not
reissued, Rhodia must notify the EPA in
writing and may no longer handle the
waste generated from the new process or
no longer discharge as nonhazardous
until the waste meet the delisting
levels set in Condition (1) and it has
received written approval to do so from
EPA.
(5) Data Submittals:
Rhodia must submit the information
described below. If Rhodia fails to
submit the required data within the
specified time or maintain the required
records on-site for the specified time,
EPA, at its discretion, will consider
this sufficient basis to reopen the
exclusion as described in Paragraph 6.
Rhodia must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through
Paragraph 3 to Mr. William Gallagher,
Chief, Region 6 Delisting Program, EPA,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, Mail Code, (6PD-O) within the time
specified.
(B) Compile records of operating
conditions and analytical data from
Paragraph (3), summarized, and
maintained on-site for a minimum of five
years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when
EPA or the State of Texas request them
for inspection.
(D) Send along with all data a signed
copy of the following certification
statement, to attest to the truth and
accuracy of the data submitted:
Under civil and criminal penalty of law
for the making or submission of false or
fraudulent statements or representations
(pursuant to the applicable provisions
of the Federal Code, which include, but
may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1001 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6928), I
certify that the information contained
in or accompanying this document is
true, accurate and complete.
As to the (those) identified section(s)
of this document for which I cannot
personally verify its (their) truth and
accuracy, I certify as the company
official having supervisory
responsibility for the persons who,
acting under my direct instructions,
made the verification that this
information is true, accurate and
complete.
If any of this information is determined
by EPA in its sole discretion to be
false, inaccurate or incomplete, and
upon conveyance of this fact to the
company, I recognize and agree that this
exclusion of waste will be void as if it
never had effect or to the extent
directed by EPA and that the company
will be liable for any actions taken in
contravention of the company's RCRA and
CERCLA obligations premised upon the
company's reliance on the void
exclusion.
(6) Reopener Language:
(A) If, anytime after disposal of the
delisted waste, Rhodia possesses or is
otherwise made aware of any
environmental data (including but not
limited to leachate data or groundwater
monitoring data) or any other data
relevant to the delisted waste
indicating that any constituent
identified for the delisting
verification testing is at level higher
than the delisting level allowed by the
Regional Administrator or his delegate
in granting the petition, then the
facility must report the data, in
writing, to the Regional Administrator
or his delegate within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that
data.
(B) If the annual testing of the waste
does not meet the delisting requirements
in Paragraph 1, Rhodia must report the
data, in writing, to the Regional
Administrator or his delegate within 10
days of first possessing or being made
aware of that data.
(C) If Rhodia fails to submit the
information described in paragraphs (5),
(6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any other
information is received from any source,
the Regional Administrator or his
delegate will make a preliminary
determination as to whether the reported
information requires Agency action to
protect human health or the environment.
Further action may include suspending,
or revoking the exclusion, or other
appropriate response necessary to
protect human health and the
environment.
(D) If the Regional Administrator or his
delegate determines that the reported
information does require Agency action,
the Regional Administrator or his
delegate will notify the facility in
writing of the actions the Regional
Administrator or his delegate believes
are necessary to protect human health
and the environment. The notice shall
include a statement of the proposed
action and a statement providing the
facility with an opportunity to present
information as to why the proposed
Agency action is not necessary. The
facility shall have 10 days from the
date of the Regional Administrator or
his delegate's notice to present such
information.
(E) Following the receipt of information
from the facility described in paragraph
(6)(D) or (if no information is
presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the
initial receipt of information described
in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the
Regional Administrator or his delegate
will issue a final written determination
describing the Agency actions that are
necessary to protect human health or the
environment. Any required action
described in the Regional Administrator
or his delegate's determination shall
become effective immediately, unless the
Regional Administrator or his delegate
provides otherwise.
(7) Notification Requirements:
Rhodia must do following before
transporting the delisted waste: Failure
to provide this notification will result
in a violation of the delisting petition
and a possible revocation of the
decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written
notification to any State Regulatory
Agency to which or through which they
will transport the delisted waste
described above for disposal, 60 days
before beginning such activities.
(B) Update the one-time written
notification if they ship the delisted
waste into a different disposal
facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility and address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Rhodia, Houston,Texas........ Filter-cake Sludge, (at a maximum
generation of 1,200 cubic yards per
calendar year) generated by Rhodia using
the SARU and AWT treatment process to
treat the filter-cake sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. K002-004, K006-
K011, K013-K052, K060-K062, K064-K066,
K069, K071, K073, K083-K088, K090-K091,
K093-K118, K123-K126, K131-K133, K136,
K141-K145, K147-K151, K156-K161)
generated at Rhodia. Rhodia must
implement the testing program described
in Table 1. Waste Excluded From Non-
Specific Sources for the petition to be
valid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Wastes Excluded From Commercial Chemical Products, Off
Specification Species, Container Residues, and Soil Residues Thereof
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility and address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Rhodia, Houston,Texas........ Filter-cake Sludge, (at a maximum
generation of 1,200 cubic yards per
calendar year) generated by Rhodia using
the SARU and AWT treatment process to
treat the filter-cake sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. P001-P024, P026-
P031, P033-P034, P036-P051, P054, P056-
P060, P062-P078, P081-P082, P084-P085,
P087-P089, P092-P116, P118-P123, P127-
P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-P199,
P201-P205, U001-U012, U014-U039, U041-
U053, U055-U064, U066-U099, U101-U103,
U105-U138, U140-U174, U176-U194, U196-
U197, U200-U211, U213-U223, U225-U228,
U234-U240, U243-U244, U246-U249, U271,
U277-U280, U328, U353, U359, U364-U367,
U372-U373, U375-U379, U381-U396, U400-
U404, U407, U409-U411) generated at
Rhodia. Rhodia must implement the
testing program described in Table 1.
Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
for the petition to be valid.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-26663 Filed 10-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.