Re:	Response to Draft Delisting Petitions


Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC (Emerald) submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 (EPA) the following draft delisting petitions on August 31, 2016:

 "DRAFT Delisting Petition for Mixed Material Stored at Fire Mountain Farms Big Hanaford Facility" (BH Petition)
 "DRAFT Delisting Petition for Mixed Material Stored at Fire Mountain Farms Burnt Ridge Facility" (BR Petition)
 "DRAFT Delisting Petition for Mixed Material Stored at Fire Mountain Farms Newaukum Prairie Facility" (NP Petition)
 "DRAFT Delisting Petition for Emerald Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant Biological Solids" (IWBS Petition)
According to Emerald, the petitions have not been reviewed by Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. (FMF).

Ecology and EPA noticed several details in the draft petitions that need to be improved.  Ecology and EPA's comments on the draft petitions are shown below.  These comments are not imbedded in the PDFs because many items apply to all or most of the petitions.

Please address the comments below and resubmit the draft petitions.  Emerald and FMF may wait to resubmit the draft petitions after all the sample results are finalized according to the Waste Characterization Plan.

Many of the comments apply to all or most of the draft delisting petitions.  Each comment will specify which petition the comment is intended for.


Comment 1:  Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

Define each acronym used in the petition at first use.  For example, but not limited to, "RCRA", "C.F.R.", "TCLP", "LDR", and "°C", should be defined whenever each is first used.

Comment 2:  Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

On page one in the first paragraph, list Ecology as a recipient of the petition.  For example, change the paragraph to read, ". . . jointly petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the Washington State Department of Ecology ("Ecology") to exclude . . ."  Although the waste is federally listed, Ecology must approve the delisting petition as a separation action.



Comment 3:  Applicable to IWBS Petition

On page two in the second section, add "and Ecology" after EPA so the sentence starts, "Emerald requests EPA and Ecology to send the Kalama IWBS . . ."  Also, on page two in the third section, add "and Ecology" after EPA so the sentence starts, "Emerald is seeking EPA and Ecology approval to delist . . ."

Comment 4:  Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page two in the second section, add a period to the second sentence in paragraph two.

Comment 5:  Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page three in the first full section, add "and Ecology" after EPA so the sentence starts, "Emerald and FMF are seeking EPA and Ecology approval to delist . . ."

Comment 6:   Applicable to BR Petition

On page one in the first paragraph, correctly describe the mixture of material stored at Burnt Ridge.  For example, change the paragraph to read, ". . . to exclude the mixture of industrial wastewater biological solids ("IWBS") generated by Emerald at its Kalama facility, municipal wastewater treatment plant biosolids accepted by FMF, industrial wastewater treatment plant biological solids accepted by FMF, and cow manure barn runoff and currently stored . . ."

Comment 7:   Applicable to NP Petition

On page one in the first paragraph, correctly describe the mixture of material stored at Newaukum Prairie.  For example, change the paragraph to read, ". . . to exclude the mixture of industrial wastewater biological solids ("IWBS") generated by Emerald at its Kalama facility, municipal wastewater treatment plant biosolids accepted by FMF, and industrial wastewater treatment plant biological solids accepted by FMF and currently stored . . ."

Comment 8:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page one in the first paragraph, add "from designation as a RCRA hazardous waste" to the end of the sentence to specify what Emerald and FMF are wanting excluded.  See the IWBS Petition for an example.

Comment 9:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

On page one in the third paragraph, change the first sentence to ". . . EPA and Ecology approval to send . . ."



Comment 10:   Applicable to BH and NP Petitions

On page one in the third paragraph, the petition says that "the waste meets applicable LDR treatment standards."  According to the Pacific Groundwater Group's (PGG) 2014 sample results, the mixed material is above the LDR treatment standard for toluene.  Update this sentence to correctly say which LDRs are met.

Comment 11:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

Throughout the petition, whenever a Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is cited, include the full reference and corresponding Washington Administrative Code (WAC) citation as well, if applicable.  For example, on page two, the first section stating the name and address of petitioner(s) should be cited as "40 C.F.R. 260.20(b)(1); WAC 173-303-910(1)(b)(i)".  Also, in the section called, "Pertinent data on and discussion of the factors . . .", "Appendix VIII to Part 261  -  Hazardous Constituents" should also have WAC 173-303-9905 Dangerous waste constituents list.

Comment 12:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section called, "A description of the proposed action, including . . ." (page three in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page two in IWBS Petition), add waste code F003 to the list with U019, U154, and U220.  

Comment 13:   Applicable to IWBS Petition

On page two in the fourth section, add an "s" to the word "request" in the second sentence of the first paragraph.

Comment 14:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page four in the first full paragraph, remove the word "biosolids" from the second to last sentence.  Also, remove the word "Biosolids" from Table 1's title.  In Table 1, remove the extra "Municipal" from the "Camas Municipal Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant" line.

Comment 15:  Applicable to BR Petition

On page four in Table 1, the total is given as 126.0 tons but the sum of the individual sources is 125.9 tons.  Change the total to accurately show the sum of the individual sources, or double check the individual sources amounts.  Also on page four, in the first paragraph, the petition says that, ". . . approximately 90 percent of the material in the Burnt Ridge impoundment is municipal biosolids . . ."  This is not correct.  According to Table 1, industrial sources compose 18.2 tons (Emerald and Darigold), municipal sources compose 103.9 tons, and other sources compose 3.8 tons (cow manure).  Out of the total 125.9 tons, municipal sources of 103.9 tons equals 82.5 percent.  Change the "90 percent" to "82.5 percent" or round up to "83 percent."




Comment 16:   Applicable to NP Petition

On page four in Table 1, the total is given as 340.0 tons but the sum of the individual sources is 339.9 tons.  Change the total to accurately show the sum of the individual sources, or double check the individual sources amounts.  Also on page four, in the first paragraph, the petition says that, ". . . approximately 93 percent of the material in the Newaukum Prairie impoundment is municipal biosolids . . ."  This is not correct.  According to Table 1, industrial sources compose 46.9 tons (Emerald, Darigold, and Port of Longview) and municipal sources compose 293.0 tons.  Out of the total 339.9 tons, municipal sources of 293.0 tons equals 86.2 percent.  Change the "93 percent" to "86.2 percent" or round down to "86 percent."  Also, capitalize the "l" in "longview".

Comment 17:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

The language in the delisting petitions should be consistent with how Ecology and EPA would approve the delisting.  This means avoiding absolute statements.  For example, in the sentence, "The IWBS do not contain any other chemical constituent that would cause it to be hazardous" (page five in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page three in IWBS Petition), the "do not contain" has an absolute meaning which is difficult to prove true without continuous monitoring.  An example of how to make this sentence more acceptable could be, "The IWBS likely do not contain any other chemical constituent that would cause it to be hazardous, according to waste sampling."  Review the draft petition and change those sentences/words that suggest an absolute meaning to something that is less absolute (such as conditional on sampling data).

Comment 18:   Applicable to IWBS Petition

On page three, remove the duplicate paragraph starting with, "The IWBS do not contain any other chemical constituent . . ."

Comment 19:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

The petition should focus on the mixed material and not rely solely (or significantly) on Emerald's IWBS.  For example, on page five in the paragraph starting with, "The mixed biosolid material must be acceptable for disposal in a Subtitle D landfill given that the IWBS has never . . .", the petition fails to take into account the other sources that FMF mixed with Emerald's IWBS.  Therefore, the basis for delisting cannot solely rely on information and test results from the IWBS.  According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 40 CFR 260.22(b), the basis for delisting "must be made with respect to the waste mixture as a whole."  Ecology and EPA recognize the importance of and support the use of information and test results from the IWBS, but the entire mixture must be the main focus of the delisting analysis.  Throughout the entire petition, include more information about the mixed material and the other sources that FMF mixed with Emerald's IWBS when discussing how each delisting criteria is met.




Comment 20:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page five in the paragraph starting with, "The mixed biosolid material must be acceptable for disposal in a Subtitle D landfill given that the IWBS has never . . .", the word "never" is another example of using an absolute as described in Comment 17.  Also, the paragraph says that the IWBS did not exhibit any of the characteristics of the associated waste codes.  The RCRA toxic and state-only wastes should be addressed in this paragraph as well.  For example, the paragraph should be similar to the following:

      The mixed biosolid material should be acceptable for disposal in a Subtitle D landfill given that the IWBS have never contained above detection any of the chemicals that would cause it to be hazardous, exhibited any of the characteristics for which the waste was listed, designated as RCRA toxic waste or Washington State-only wastes, and comprises approximately five percent of the total mass of material in the Big Hanaford impoundment.

More information is needed about the mixed material and the other sources that FMF mixed with Emerald's IWBS in order to make the conclusion that the mixed material should be acceptable for disposal in a Subtitle D landfill as described in Comment 19.  Also, ensure the percent values are accurate according to Comments 15 and 16.  Also, toluene was detected in the IWBS so the statement "that the IWBS have never contained above detection" is not true.  Add a qualifier to the sentence, such as, "that the IWBS have never contained above detection (except for one isolated incident in January 2013)."

Comment 21:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

In the section called, "The waste does not exhibit the characteristic of ignitability . . ." (page five in BH Petition and page six in BR and NP Petitions), add the second and third paragraphs from the IWBS Petition's same section.  These two paragraphs are applicable to the BH, BR, and NP Petitions.

Comment 22:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page six, in the section called, "The waste does not exhibit the characteristic of ignitability . . .", the second to last paragraph says that municipal biosolids do not carry any RCRA waste codes.  Include additional explanation on how this was determined.

Comment 23:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page six, in the section called, "The waste does not exhibit the characteristic of ignitability . . .", update the percent values in the last paragraph according to Comments 15 and 16.


Comment 24:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page six, in the section called, "The waste does not exhibit the characteristic of ignitability . . .", in the last paragraph, preliminary delisting levels (PDLs) should be the standard to meet with respect to the delisting petition, not the LDRs.  Add language to include PDLs.  Also, this paragraph has absolute statements/words and should be changed according to Comment 17.  This paragraph should include more information about the mixed material, not only the sources that make up the mixture according to Comment 19.

Comment 25:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section called, "Demonstration samples must consist . . ." (page six in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page four in IWBS Petition), in the first paragraph, change the second sentence to begin with, "All of these data are summarized . . ."  Check the petition for other instances where sentences with "data" need to be changed to a plural context.  For example, see the second paragraph of the same section.

Comment 26:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

In the section called, "Demonstration samples must consist . . ." (page six in BH Petition and page seven in BR and NP Petitions), in the third paragraph, change "biosolids" to "mixed material" or something similar.

Comment 27:   Applicable to BH Petition

On page seven in the section called, "Demonstration samples must consist . . .", in the paragraph starting with, "Most analytes and parameters . . .", only include analyses of PGG's results for those LDRs that are associated with the mixed material.  For example, remove 4-methyl phenol and phenol from the discussion since they are not applicable to the waste.

Comment 28:   Applicable to NP Petition

On page seven in the section called, "Demonstration samples must consist . . .", in the paragraph starting with, "All analytes and parameters . . .", change this paragraph to be similar to the BH Petition since toluene was detected at a concentration greater than the LDR treatment standard.

Comment 29:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

After the sample results are finalized according to the Waste Characterization Plan (currently in draft), the section called, "Demonstration samples must consist . . ." should be updated to include the new sample results and associated analysis.


Comment 30:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

The required information from 40 CFR 260.22(i) is presented in the petition (starting on page eight for BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page five IWBS Petition).  The petition incorrectly uses 40 CFR 260.22(h) as the reference.  Change all the sections' references related to the information from 40 CFR 260.22(i) to the correct citation.  Also, in accordance with Comment 11, add the corresponding WAC reference.

Comment 31:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section called, "Names and qualifications . . ." (page eight in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page five in IWBS Petition), the petition must include the qualifications of the persons sampling and testing the waste.  Describe the qualifications in the petition.  Also, see the definition of "person" in 40 CFR 260.10.

Comment 32:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section called, "The dates of sampling . . ." (page eight in BH Petition, page nine in BR and NP Petitions, and page five in IWBS Petition), the petition must include the dates of sampling and testing.  Ensure that the sample date and the test date are clearly specified in the tables referenced in the petition.

Comment 33:   Applicable to BH and NP Petitions

On page nine in the section called, "The location of the generating . . .", the business and physical locations should both be listed for the FMF generating facility.  The BH Petition should be listed similar to the following:

Business Location			Physical Location
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc.		Fire Mountain Farms, Inc.
856 Burnt Ridge Road		307 Big Hanaford Road 
Onalaska, WA 98570			Centralia, WA 98531

The NP Petition should be listed similar to the following:

Business Location			Physical Location
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc.		Fire Mountain Farms, Inc.
856 Burnt Ridge Road		349 State Route 508
Onalaska, WA 98570			Chehalis, WA 98532




Comment 34:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page nine in the section called, "A description of the manufacturing . . .", in the first paragraph, change the beginning of the first sentence to, "There are approximately . . ."  Also, update the percent values according to Comments 15 and 16.

Comment 35:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page nine in the section called, "A description of the manufacturing . . .", in the second paragraph, change the second sentence to, "As part of that treatment process, the plant generates IWBS."  This is more clear and consistent with the IWBS Petition.

Comment 36:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section called, "A description of the manufacturing . . .", in the paragraph starting with, "The Kalama facility's biological . . . " (page nine in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page six in IWBS Petition), do not use an absolute statement in the third sentence according to Comment 17.  Instead, start the sentence similar to, "Emerald's IWBS are basically the same material . . ."

Comment 37:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section called, "A description of the manufacturing . . .", in the paragraph starting with, "The Kalama facility periodically treats . . . " (page ten in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page six in IWBS Petition), change the word "material" in the second sentence to "IWBS" to clarify what material is being referred to.  Also, clarify the second to last sentence which says LDRs must be met before a hazardous waste can be land applied.  More specifically, LDRs must be met before a hazardous waste can be disposed in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill.  The last sentence says that the, "Kalama facility regularly samples the IWBS for various constituents as previously discussed".  Is Emerald still sampling the IWBS for the various constituents and at the indicated frequencies as previously mentioned in the petition?  For example, does Emerald still test the IWBS for benzene and toluene annually; pH, lead, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, chromium, molybdenum, mercury, and barium quarterly; and total solids percent, copper, nickel, zinc, and cobalt monthly?  According to Table 1 in Appendix A, the last sample results are from March 21, 2014.  Include all sampling done on the IWBS.

Comment 38:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section called, "A description of the manufacturing . . .", in the paragraph starting with, "Emerald understands the nature of all . . ." (page ten in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page six in IWBS Petition) and through the paragraph starting with, "Stormwater that falls along . . .", include the specific waste codes associated with the waste streams discussed.  Also indicate whether or not the waste code applies to the IWBS.  This clarification will help show how the waste codes discussed in previous sections of the petition are determined.

Comment 39:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the chemical manufacturing process description section (starting on page ten in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page seven in IWBS Petition), describe how the byproducts are managed.  For example, are the byproducts sent to through wastewater treatment system or used somehow else?  Separate the products and the byproducts to increase clarity.  Also, for those products and byproducts that go to the treatment system, describe the toxicity of each pollutant.  Discuss the treatment's ability to effectively treat the wastewaters.  Include treatment efficacy discussions for those chemicals sent to the treatment system that are do not have a PDL.  This is critical information for Ecology and EPA to make a delisting determination.

Comment 40:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the specialty department processes section for hexaldehyde (page 15 in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page 12 in IWBS Petition), a product or byproduct is listed as, "2-ethyl butanaldehyde  -  impurity ?"  Delete the "?" or explain why it should be retained.

Comment 41:   Applicable to IWBS Petition

On page 16 in the section called, "A description of the waste and an estimate . . .", do not use an absolute statement in the third sentence according to Comment 17.  Instead, start the sentence similar to, "Emerald's IWBS are basically the same material . . ."

Comment 42:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page 19 in the section called, "A description of the waste and an estimate . . .", update the percent values according to Comments 15 and 16.

Comment 43:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section called, "Pertinent data on and discussion . . ." (page 19 in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page 17 in IWBS Petition), remove the extra "(" in the first factor.

Comment 44:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section called, "Pertinent data on and discussion . . ." (starting on page 19 in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page 17 in IWBS Petition), the petition lists most of the factors from 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3).  Add the two missing factors from 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) to the petition.  The petition must provide Ecology and EPA with sufficient information to evaluate the factors in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3).  Include additional discussion that address the factors from 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3).  Include, but not limited to, a discussion on how the application of nitrogen in the mixed material may relate to factor (ix).  

Comment 45:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page 20 in the section called, "A description of the methodologies and equipment . . .", in the second paragraph, clarify which appendix will describe the methodology and equipment that will be used.  The petition says Appendix C but that is PGG's 2014 sludge report.  Also, refer to the Waste Characterization Plan (currently in draft) in this section.  Change the "mixed biosolids" in the last sentence to "mixed material."

Comment 46:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page 20 in the section called, "A description of the sampling handling . . .", in the second paragraph, change "Biosolid" in the first sentence to "Mixed material."  Also, refer to the Waste Characterization Plan (currently in draft) in this section.  The first paragraph of this section is an exact copy of the first paragraph from the previous section.  Consider revising it to match the corresponding paragraph in the IWBS Petition.

Comment 47:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

The section called, "A description of the tests performed . . ." (starting on page 20 in BH Petition and page 21 in BR and NP Petitions) is very similar to the previous section called, "Demonstration samples must consist . . ." (starting on page six).  Since the earlier comments and discussion are also applicable, add the information to the section called, "A description of the tests performed . . ." (starting on page 20 in BH Petition and page 21 in BR and NP Petitions) or reference the previous section.  Also, check that all sentences have a period at the end of the sentence.

Comment 48:   Applicable to IWBS Petition

On page 18 in the section called, "A description of the tests performed . . .", include a reference back to the section citing 40 CFR 260.22(h) starting on page four since this previous section has more applicable information.  Also, analysis must be done to compare the IWBS test results to PDLs as was done in the Waste Characterization Plan (currently in draft) with the mixed material from each of the three FMF storage locations.  See the letter dated December 7, 2016 Re: Ecology and EPA Clarifications on Comments to the Waste Characterization Plan for more information.  The previous PDLs from the Waste Characterization Plan discussion can't be used to compare with the IWBS.  A new list of PDLs applicable to the IWBS is attached to the email with this letter.  An explanation of what settings and procedures where used for using EPA's Hazardous Waste Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) are shown in Enclosure 1.

Comment 50:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section called, "Certification" (page 22 in BH, BR, and NP Petitions and page 18 in IWBS Petition), the petition should be consistent with previous sections and use a formal section title with references.  The section title should say, "The following statement signed by the generator of the waste or his authorized representative: (40 C.F.R. 260.22(i)(12); WAC 173-303-910(3)(c)(xii))."

Comment 51:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page 22 in the section called, "Certification", signature blocks must be used for both Emerald and FMF.  An example of how the signature blocks could look is shown below.  For the final petition, Ecology and EPA must each receive "wet" ink signatures.  "Wet" ink signatures means not a copied signature.  Ecology and EPA prefer that the petition not be signed in counterparts.


______________________________		Date:  ________________________
Robert Thode
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc.
President



______________________________		Date:  ________________________
Edward Gotch
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC
Chief Executive Officer

Comment 52:   Applicable to IWBS Petition

On page 18 in the section called, "Certification", a signature block must be used.  An example of how the Emerald signature block could look is shown in Comment 51.  For the final petition, Ecology and EPA must each receive a "wet" ink signature.

Comment 53:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In Appendix A, Table 1, ensure all the test results are included.  In 2014, Emerald submitted a spreadsheet similar to Table 1 that had more test results than what the Appendix A Table 1 is showing.  For example, on January 16, 2013, Emerald sampled the IWBS and the toluene result was 69 parts per billion but this test result is not on the Appendix A Table 1.

Comment 54:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In Appendix A, Table 2, include the non-detect value for the sample results expressed as "ND."  Ecology and EPA must evaluate if low enough detection limits were used.

Comment 55:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In Appendix A, Table 4, include the non-detect value for the sample results expressed as "ND."  Ecology and EPA must evaluate if low enough detection limits were used.

Comment 56:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

When the petition is ready for final signature, Ecology and EPA must each receive an original petition with "wet" ink signatures.  Send the petition to the following people:

Dave Bartus				Greg Gould
USEPA Region 10			Washington State Department of Ecology
1200 Sixth Avenue			PO Box 47600
Mail Code: AWT-150			Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Seattle, WA 98101


Comment 57:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

Double check that WAC 173-303-072(3) and -072(4) are addressed according to WAC 173-303-910(3)(b).

Comment 58:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

On page one, the sentence starting with, "In accordance with the treatment variance . . .", should be amended to say the waste likely meets applicable LDR treatment standards.  Since the treatment variance is submitted concurrently, a final decision has not been determined yet.

Comment 59:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page two in the second section, the last sentence in the first paragraph should be amended to something similar to, "The fourth  -  cleanup and closure of the three units in which the mixed material is being stored  -  will generate wastes requiring disposal that are the subject of and reason for this delisting petition."

Comment 60:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

On page three in the second paragraph, the last sentence should be amended to something similar to, "If the delisting petitions are granted, the parties intend to close the three units in accordance with an approved closure plan under the terms of the Agreement, and dispose of the mixed material to be generated during closure in a Subtitle D landfill."

Comment 61:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

On page three (for BH, BR, and NP Petitions) and page two (for IWBS Petition) in the last paragraph, the last sentence should be amended to something similar to what Comment 36 says.
Comment 62:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section starting with, "The waste produced by a particular generating facility . . .", "data is" should be changed to "data are".  See the first and second paragraphs in this section.  Search the document for other cases.  Also, search for "this data" which should be "these data".

Comment 63:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

Do not combine LDR authority with delisting authority.  The focus of the delisting petitions should not have anything to do with compliance of applicable LDR treatment standards.  Results should be compared with PDLs as appropriate.

Comment 64:   Applicable to BH, BR, and NP Petitions

In the section starting with, "Demonstration samples must consist . . .", include the pH EPA Method number on the second list of parameters.

Comment 65:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

In the section starting with, "A description of the manufacturing processes . . .", the petition mainly discusses chemicals that are already considered dangerous constituents or listed wastes.  Given the range of organic chemicals associated with the production processes, there should be discussions as to why other chemicals listed as products and/or byproducts are not considered other factors that may cause the material to be retained as dangerous waste.  For example, in the Intermediates Department Processes for benzoic acid and benzaldehyde, formic acid is listed a byproduct.  Formic acid is a dangerous waste constituent as listed in WAC 173-303-9905.  The discussion should include why the chemicals are not other factors that may cause the material to be retained as dangerous waste.

Comment 66:   Applicable to BH, BR, NP, and IWBS Petitions

Whenever percent solids are discussed, clarify if the basis is dry weight or wet weight.



                                  Enclosure 1
                                       
Procedures for Determining Preliminary Delisting Levels (PDLs) using EPA's Hazardous Waste Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS)
                                       
                                       
For more information about DRAS and to download the software, visit https://www.epa.gov/hw/hazardous-waste-delisting-risk-assessment-software-dras.  A user guide is available online to help explain how to run the model.  Also, the website has the Delisting Technical Support Document which presents extensive information delineating all chemical release, exposure and risk assessment algorithms employed by the DRAS program.

After installing DRAS on a computer, open the DRAS model file provided called "PrelimDelistingLevels.DRS".  Alternatively, open DRAS and start with a new model file.  The chemicals and values have already been populated into the model file provided, which will save time later.

Ecology and EPA adjusted the main inputs in the Step 2 - Waste Management Unit and Risk/HQ Information section on the first screen (see Figure 1).  The inputs Ecology and EPA used are as follows:

Waste Management Unit Type
 Selected the `Landfill' option (indicates the final disposal unit type).
 Entered the Waste Volume as 2,000 cubic yards (this is approximately equivalent to 1,601 tons referenced in the IWBS Petition on page 16).
 1,601 tons/year equals 3,202,000 pounds/year
 IWBS are approximately 90% and water density is around 62.4 pounds/cubic feet
  3,202,000 pounds/year divided by 62.4 pounds/cubic feet equals 51,314 cubic feet/year
 51,314 cubic feet/year equals 1900 cubic yards/year
 Incorporate a factor of safety and use 2,000 cubic yards/year
Risk/HQ Values
 Set the Cancer Risk Level at 1E-6.
 Set the Hazard Quotient (HQ) at 0.1.
Waste Management Unit Active Life
 Selected the `Multiple Year Batch' option.
 Entered 20 for the Active Life (this is the default value for landfills according to the DRAS user guide).
Figure 1.  User-adjusted inputs to the DRAS model.



After setting the inputs to the correct options and values, click the `Update Information' button in Step 3 on in the main screen.  Next click the `Calculate Delisting Levels' button.  DRAS will automatically show a few new screens which can be ignored.  Click the maximization button on the minimized window (bottom left of screen) to open the main screen again.  Then click the `To Steps 4-5>>' button. 

Now at Step 4 - Select Chemicals of Concern and Enter Concentrations, if the provided model file is opened, all of the available chemicals in the model should be populated.  If a new model file is started, the chemicals may need to be entered one at a time.  Also, fake values for the TCLP Concentration (mg/L) and Total Concentration (mg/kg) columns need to be entered for the model to work.  A value of 0.00001 should be low enough not to affect the model results.  Again, if the provided model file is used, the chemicals and values are already populated.

If the `Update Site COCs' button is available to select, click this first then select `Run DRAS'.  The model will generate a series of screens.  Find the screen called `Limiting Pathways'.  The values in this screen are the PDLs.  To export the table, make sure the Limiting Pathways screen is selected (at the forefront).  Go to `File' and select `Export to Table'.  When saving, use the `MS Excel Tab Delimited Text File' option.  This text file can be opened in Excel.

Ecology and EPA generated the site specific PDLs for the IWBS.  The PDLs are provided in the Excel file called "PrelimDelistingLevelsIWBS.xlsx".
