Response
to
Comments
to
the
Proposed
Regulation:
Land
Disposal
Restrictions:
Notice
of
Intent
to
Grant
Two
Site­
Specific
Treatment
Variances­
U.
S.
Ecology
Idaho,
Incorporated
in
Grandview,
Idaho
and
CWM
Chemical
Services,
LLC
in
Model
City,
New
York
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
(5302
W)
1200
PA
Ave.,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
May
2002
There
were
three
comments
received
on
the
July
24,
2001
proposed
regulation.
They
are:

1.
Brian
Correa
­
Safety
Kleen,
Docket
Number
TVLN­
00001
2.
Safety
Kleen,
Chemical
Services
Division,
Docket
Number
TVLN­
00002
3.
Alcoa,
Docket
Number
TVLN­
00003
Comment
#1:
It
is
fine
for
the
26.1
ppm
total
arsenic
standard
to
apply
to
newly­
generated
K088.
All
other
mixture,
derived­
from
and
contained­
in
K088
should
use
the
5.0
ppm
arsenic
TCLP
Universal
Treatment
Standard.
Instead
of
repeating
the
variance
process,
EPA
should
consider
permanently
fixing
it
by
bifurcating
the
treatment
standard
between
newly­
generated
K088
and
derived
from
KO88.
The
cost
and
delay
to
industry
and
taxpayers
seems
unnecessary.

Response:
EPA
does
not
believe
it
is
an
appropriate
course
of
action
to
bifurcate
the
treatment
standard
for
arsenic.
The
existing
regulations
are
sufficient.
In
cases
where
site­
specific
variances
from
the
26.1
ppm
total
arsenic
standard
are
appropriate,
EPA's
regulations
set
forth
the
infrastructure
for
generators
or
treaters
of
hazardous
waste
to
file
petitions
for
variances
from
treatment.
To
date,
EPA
has
responded
to
only
four
petitions
regarding
the
treatment
standard
for
arsenic
in
K088
derived­
from
waste
in
the
past
two
years.
(66
FR
33887,
June
26,
2001
and
65
FR
45978,
July
26,
2000,
plus
the
two
granted
today.)
There
are
no
outstanding
treatment
variance
petitions.

Comment
#2:
Based
on
its
own
experiences
in
meeting
the
relevant
Land
Disposal
Restrictions,
Safety
Kleen,
Chemical
Services
Division
supports
EPA's
decision
to
grant
site­
specific
treatment
variances
from
the
26.1
ppm
total
arsenic
standard.

Response:
No
response
needed.

Comment
#3:
Alcoa
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
grant
alternate
treatment
standards
for
the
relevant
wastes,
with
clarifications
and
changes
as
seen
in
the
detailed
comments
below.

A­
1:
"Clarify
that
the
alternate
treatment
standard
for
arsenic
in
the
K088­
derived
baghouse
dust
and
incinerator
residue
"generated"
at
CWM's
facility
is
not
limited
to
the
waste
currently
managed
on­
site."

Response:
The
treatment
standard
granted
under
this
variance
applies
to
existing
and
future
baghouse
dust
generated
at
CWM's
Model
City
facility.
The
treatment
standard
also
applies
to
existing
and
future
incinerator
ash
treated
at
CWM's
Model
City
facility.
(The
comment
did
not
address
filtercake.
The
variance
also
applies
to
any
K088
derived­
from
filtercake
generated
in
the
future
at
the
Model
City
facility.)

A­
2:
Clarify
what
incinerator
residue
at
CWM's
Model
City
facility
are
covered
by
the
rule.

Response:
The
variance
granted
to
CWM's
Model
City
facility
under
this
rulemaking
is
limited
to
incinerator
residue
wastes
generated
at
the
Model
City
facility,
i.
e.,
from
treatment
processes
occurring
at
this
facility.

A­
3:
If
EPA
would
allow
CWM
to
dispose
of
K088­
derived
incinerator
residue
received
from
off­
site
without
further
treatment
provided
the
incincerator
residue
meets
the
LDR
treatment
standards,
why
is
EPA
limiting
the
disposal
of
these
residues
to
CWM's
Model
City
Subtitle
C
landfill?
The
result
seems
unnecessary,
since
other
Subtitle
C
landfills
would
be
protective.
Response:
As
stated
above,
the
variance
granted
to
CWM's
Model
City
facility
under
this
rulemaking
is
limited
to
wastes
generated
or
treated
at
the
Model
City
facility.
Waste
from
offsite
that
meets
the
26.1
ppm
total
arsenic
standard
(i.
e.,
the
non­
variance
standard),
could
be
disposed
in
the
CWM
landfill.
Facilities
other
than
CWM's
Model
City
facility
who
believe
their
wastes
meet
the
criteria
for
a
variance
from
the
K088
standard
can
submit
their
own
variance
petition
to
EPA
for
consideration.

A­
4:
Amend
the
LDR
treatment
standard
for
arsenic
in
K088
wastes
as
opposed
to
requiring
facilities
to
submit
site­
specific
treatability
variances.

Response:
As
mentioned
in
our
response
to
comment
#1,
EPA
does
not
believe
it
is
an
appropriate
course
of
action
at
this
time
to
bifurcate
the
treatment
standard
for
arsenic.
The
existing
regulations
are
sufficient.
EPA's
regulations
set
forth
the
infrastructure
for
generators
or
treaters
of
hazardous
waste
to
file
petitions
for
variances
from
the
treatment
standard.
To
date,
EPA
has
responded
to
only
four
petitions
regarding
the
treatment
standard
for
arsenic
in
K088
derived­
from
waste
in
the
past
two
years.
(66
FR
33887,
June
26,
2001
and
65
FR
45978,
July
26,
2000,
plus
the
two
granted
today.)
