7536 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

Warrick Co. Farm Bureau Coop ................................................................................................................................. RF272–93758 11/08/94

Mauston Farmers Coop Assn. .................................................................................................................................... RF272–93765

Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. ...................................................................................................................................... RF272–93779

Dismissals

The following submissions were

dismissed:

Name Case No.

CSX Transportation, Inc ....... RF321–20757

Dennis McQuade .................. VFA–0006

E.C. Crosby & Sons, Inc ...... RF321–20695

Economy Rentals, Inc ........... RF272–93453

Elgin Wipf .............................. RF321–11393

Englefield Oil Company ........ LEE–0148

Faulkner Bros., Inc ............... RF321–4676

Ferro Corporation ................. RF272–93208

International Business Machines Corp.RF272–91403

McGil Specialized Carriers ... RF321–19853

Petro Ltd ............................... RF349–19

Ray’s Gulf ............................. RF300–13246

Rubicon Inc ........................... RF321–18817

Sellers’ Texaco ..................... RF321–482

Wayne’s Texaco ................... RF321–20660

Wempner’s Texaco ............... RF321–12919

Copies of the full text of these

decisions and orders are available in the

Public Reference Room of the Office of

Hearings and Appeals, Room 1E–234,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

Monday through Friday, between the

hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., except

Federal holiday. They are also available

in Energy Management: Federal Energy

Guidelines, a commercially published

loose leaf reporter system.

February 2, 1995.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

[FR Doc. 95–3139 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[SWH–FRL–5151–3]

Hazardous Waste Management

System: Land Disposal Restrictions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of approval of

application for a case-by-case extension

of land disposal restrictions effective

date.

SUMMARY: EPA is today approving the

application submitted by Great Lakes

Chemical Corporation (Great Lakes),

requesting an extension of the June 30,

1994, effective date of the RCRA land

disposal restrictions (LDR) treatment

standards applicable to wastewaters

with the hazardous wastes codes K117,

K118, K131, K132, and F039. to be

granted such a request, the applicant

must demonstrate, among other things,

that there is insufficient capacity to

manage its waste and that he has

entered into a binding contractual

commitment to construct or otherwise

provide such capacity, but due to

circumstances beyond its control, such

capacity could not reasonably be made

available by the effective date. As a

result of this action, Great Lakes will be

allowed to land dispose of its K117,

K118, K131, K132, and F039 wastes,

until June 30, 1995, without being

subject to the land disposal restrictions

applicable to such wastes. If warranted,

EPA may grant a renewal of this

extension, for up to one additional year,

which, if requested and granted, would

extend the effective date of the LDR for

these wastestreams to June 30, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This approved

extension of the LDR effective date

becomes effective January 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action is

located at the EPA Region 6 office, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, and

is available for review during normal

business hours, 8:00 a.m. through 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, at (800)

424–9346 (toll-free) or (703) 412–9810,

in the Washington, DC metropolitan

area or Gus Chavarria, Chief UIC

Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone

(214) 665–7166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Congressional Mandate

Congress enacted the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of

1984 to amend the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

to impose additional responsibilities on

persons managing hazardous wastes.

Among other things, HSWA required

EPA to develop regulations that would

impose restrictions on the land disposal

of hazardous wastes. In particular,

Sections 3004 (d) through (g) prohibit

the land disposal of certain hazardous

wastes by specified dates in order to

protect human health and the

environment except that wastes that

meet treatment standards established by

EPA are not prohibited and may be land

disposed. Section 3004(m) requires EPA

to set ‘‘levels or methods of treatment,

if any, which substantially diminish the

toxicity of the waste or substantially

reduce the likelihood of migration of

hazardous constituents from the waste

so that short-term and long-term threats

to human health and the environment

are minimized.’’

In developing such a broad program,

Congress recognized that adequate

alternative treatment, recovery, or

disposal capacity which is protective of

human health and the environment,

may not be available by the applicable

statutory effective dates. Section

3004(h)(1) authorizes EPA to grant a

variance (based on the earliest dates that

such capacity will be available, but not

to exceed two years) from the effective

date which would otherwise apply to

specific hazardous wastes. In addition,

under Section 3004(h)(2), EPA is

authorized to grant an additional

capacity extension of the applicable

deadline on a case-by-case basis for up

to one year. Such an extension is

renewable once for up to one additional

year.

On November 7, 1986, EPA published

a final rule (51 FR 40572) establishing

the regulatory framework to implement

the land disposal restrictions program,

including the procedures for submitting

case-by-case extension applications.

On August 18, 1992, EPA published a

final rule (57 FR 37194, 37252),

establishing treatment standards under

the land disposal restrictions (LDR)

program for certain listed hazardous

wastes, including the following:

1. K117—Wastewaters from the reactor

vent gas scrubber in the production of

ethylene dibromide via the

bromination of ethylene.

2. K118—Spent adsorbent solids from

the purification of EDB produced by

bromination of ethylene.

3. K131—Wastewater from the reactor

and acid dryer from the production of

methyl bromide.

4. K132—Spent adsorbent and

wastewater separator solids from the

production of methyl bromide.

Because of a determination that

available treatment, recovery, or

disposal (TRD) capacity did not exist at

that time for wastewaters K117, K118,

K131, and K132 that are underground

injected, EPA granted a two-year

national capacity variance for these

wastes. The variance expired June 30,

1994. The mixture of wastes for which

Great Lakes requested an extension of

the LDR treatment standards also will be

subject to the treatment standards for

F039 since that is a component of the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices 7537

mixture. (See the footnote in 59 FR

41742.)

On August 15, 1994, EPA proposed to

approve the case-by-case extension

application submitted by Great Lakes

Chemical Corporation for the K117,

K118, K131, K132 and F039 wastes

generated at its main plant (EPA I.D.

ARD043195429) located in El Dorado,

Arkansas. (See 59 FR 41741 for details

of the proposed rule.) These waters was

comprised of recovered groundwater,

leachates from two on-site closed

landfills, and process wastewater that

are mixed prior to underground

injection. The proposed extension

would allow Great Lakes to continue

disposing of these wastes in on-site

underground injection wells until June

30, 1995, while they construct a

treatment unit to treat the leachates to

Best Demonstrated Advanced

Technology (BDAT) standards. As

discussed below, only one public

comment was received in response to

the proposed notice. The sole

commenter was Great Lakes.

B. Applicant’s Demonstrations Under 40

CFR 268.5 for Case-by-Case Extension

Case-by-case extension applications

must satisfy the requirements outlined

in 40 CFR 268.5. EPA believes that Great

Lakes, owner/operator of the El Dorado,

Arkansas facility, at which a treatment

unit is being constructed to provide

treatment of leachates to meet BDAT

standards, has made the necessary

demonstrations to be granted a case-bycase extension. Based on the timeline

submitted by Great Lakes, projecting

completion of the leachates treatment

until by June 1995, EPA is granting an

extension of the current LDR effective

date, until June 30, 1995. The following

is a discussion of each of the seven

demonstrations of 40 CFR 268.5(a)(1)–

(7) made by Great Lakes: Section

268.5(a)(1). The applicant has made a

good-faith effort to locate and contract

with treatment, recovery, or disposal

facilities nationwide to manage its waste

in accordance with the effective date of

the applicable restriction (i.e., June 30,

1994).

Great Lakes initially asked ten

hazardous waste management facilities

located throughout the nation whether

they could treat the waste for which the

case-by-case extension is being

requested. As discussed in the proposed

notice, five of these facilities indicated

they, collectively, had between 298,000

to 385,000 gallons per day of available

treatment capacity. Thus, there may be

available treatment capacity to manage

approximately two-thirds of the more

than 500,000 gallons per day of waste

being generated by Great Lakes, for

which a case-by-case extension was

requested. In order to ship these wastes

off-site, however, Great Lakes would

need to obtain a permit and construct a

transfer facility. Consequently, although

off-site treatment capacity is available to

treat a portion of Great Lakes’

wastewaters, EPA believes considerably

less time is necessary to construct the

proposed treatment system and obtain

the necessary permit modifications than

it would take for Great Lakes to

construct facilities to transport these

wastewaters to off-site treatment. As

noted in its public comments, Great

Lakes, subsequent to EPA’s notice

proposing to grant the extension sought

by Great Lakes, received information

that a commercial facility may have

sufficient capacity to manage the full

quantity of leachates being generated

daily at the El Dorado, Arkansas facility.

(For further information, see public

comment submitted by Great Lakes in

response to the proposed approval of its

case-by-case extension (59 FR 41741).

This information can be found in Docket

No. F–94–GLCP–FFFFF.) Great Lakes,

given its extensive previous experience

in evaluating the feasibility of using

biological treatment for this waste, has

expressed reservations regarding the

acceptability of such treatment. In any

case, as pointed out by Great Lakes, use

of this treatment capacity, even if

technically acceptable, poses the same

permitting and construction

requirements needed to use capacity at

any other off-site commercial facility.

Therefore, EPA continues to agree that

the lack of transfer facilities needed by

Great Lakes to use the available

treatment capacity off-site to treat the

wastes generated at its El Dorado,

Arkansas facility provide an adequate

basis to fulfill the requirements of this

demonstration. Section 268.5(a)(2). The

applicant has entered into a binding

contractual commitment to construct or

otherwise provide alternative treatment,

recovery, or disposal capacity that meets

the treatment standards specified in 40

CFR Part 268, subpart D or, where

treatment standards have not been

specified, such treatment, recovery, or

disposal capacity is protective of human

health and the environment.

Great Lakes provided EPA with

sufficient documentation, including

purchase orders for equipment and a

contract for the installation of

equipment and the construction of the

treatment system demonstrating that it

is fully committed to construction of the

necessary on-site treatment capacity.

EPA is convinced that Great Lakes is

making a good-faith effort to construct a

treatment unit that will treat the K117,

K118, K131, K132, and K039 wastes

generated at its El Dorado, Arkansas

facility to BDAT standards. Another

issue discussed in the proposed notice

was EPA’s recent proposal to list certain

2,4,6-tribromophenol (TBP) wastes as

hazardous wastes and to add these

wastes to the list of hazardous

constituents in appendix VIII of 40 CFR

part 261 (see 59 FR 24530, May 11,

1994). In its comments submitted in

response to EPA’s proposed approval of

the case-by-case extension, Great Lakes

noted that these TBP wastes are not and

have never been generated at the El

Dorado facility. EPA believes Great

Lakes has provided the necessary

documentation to meet the requirements

of this demonstration.

Section 268.5(a)(3). Due to

circumstances beyond the applicant’s

control, such alternative capacity cannot

reasonably be made available by the

applicable effective date. This

demonstration may include a showing

that the technical and practical

difficulties associated with providing

the alternative capacity will result in the

capacity not being available by the

applicable effective date.

As discussed in the proposed notice

of approval of the Great Lakes

application for a case-by-case extension

of the LDR effective date, EPA believes

that Great Lakes has made a good-faith

effort to provide treatment capacity by

the effective date. Great Lakes has

aggressively pursued the development

of technology capable of treating their

wastes to BDAT standards. EPA believes

Great Lakes has acted in good faith to

provide the necessary treatment

capacity but that such capacity could

not reasonably be made available by

June 30, 1994, the effective date of the

land disposal restriction for these

wastes. As such, EPA believes this

demonstration of non-availability of

capacity, due to circumstances beyond

the applicant’s control, is adequate for

the purposes of this demonstration.

Section 268.5(a)(4). The capacity

being constructed or otherwise provided

by the applicant will be sufficient to

manage the entire quantity of waste that

is the subject of the application.

Great Lakes has shown that the

treatment system to be constructed at its

El Dorado, Arkansas facility has a

design capacity of 28,800 gallons per

day (20 gallons per minute) and thus

has adequate capacity to treat the

leachates that exceed BDAT treatment

standards, generated at a rate of up to 10

gallons/minute, prior to its being

managed by underground injection.

Great Lakes believes that treatment of

these leachates to BDAT standards will

allow the remaining portion of the
7538 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

500,000 gallons/day of generated wastes

covered by this extension (i.e., those

wastes currently mixed with the

leachates) to meet BDAT standards

without further treatment. As such, the

planned treatment system is expected to

have sufficient treatment capacity.

Thus, EPA believes that Great Lakes has

adequately demonstrated that the

treatment unit to be constructed will

provide the necessary treatment

capacity to treat the entire quantity of

these leachates for which Great Lakes is

requesting a case-by-case extension.

Section 268.5(a)(5). The applicant

provides a detailed schedule for

obtaining operating and construction

permits or an outline of how and when

alternative capacity will be available.

Great Lakes has provided EPA with a

detailed schedule for the construction

and permitting of the treatment system

to be constructed at its El Dorado,

Arkansas facility. Although Great Lakes

had planned to begin construction of the

treatment system in March 1994, final

approval of required State permits has

not yet been received. Great Lakes

continues to believe that the leachate

treatment unit will achieve full

operational status by June 30, 1995. EPA

believes that Great Lakes has provided

the necessary construction and

permitting milestones for bringing its

treatment system on-line and therefore

meets the requirements of this

demonstration.

Section 268.5(a)(6). The applicant has

arranged for adequate capacity to

manage its waste during an extension,

and has documented the location of all

sites at which the waste will be

managed.

During the approved extension

period, Great Lakes will inject these

wastes into its on-site Class I wells it has

been using for this purpose. Great Lakes

has shown that these wells will have the

necessary capacity available to manage

these wastes during the approved

extension. EPA believes that Great Lakes

has met the requirements of this

demonstration.

Section 268.5(a)(7). Any waste

managed in a surface impoundment or

landfill during the extension period will

meet the requirements of 40 CFR

268.5(h)(2).

Great Lakes will not be using any

surface impoundments or landfills to

manage this waste during the extension

period.

II. Response to Comments

Only one public comment was

submitted in response to EPA’s notice to

propose approval of the case-by-case

application submitted by Great Lakes.

This sole comment was submitted by

the applicant, Great Lakes. Where

appropriate in this notice, EPA has

noted and addressed those issues raised

by the applicant in its comments.

III. Consultation With State

In accordance with 40 CFR 268.5(e),

EPA consulted with the State of

Arkansas (Arkansas Department of

Pollution Control and Ecology) to

determine if the State had any

permitting, enforcement, or other

concerns regarding this respective

facility that EPA should take into

consideration in deciding to grant or

deny Great Lakes’ application for a caseby-case extension of the LDR effective

date. The State of Arkansas encouraged

EPA to approve the case-by-case

application submitted by Great Lakes.

IV. EPA’s Action

EPA believes that Great Lakes has

made and is continuing to make a goodfaith effort towards providing sufficient

and appropriate treatment capacity for

the K117, K118, K131, K132, and F039

wastes that are the subject of its case-bycase application. Therefore, EPA is

approving an extension of the

applicable LDR effective date for these

wastes generated at the El Dorado,

Arkansas facility, until June 30, 1995.

As such, these wastes may be managed

by underground injection until June 30,

1995 (unless the extension is renewed

for up to one additional year, in which

case the extension would expire no later

than June 30, 1996), which the proposed

treatment system is being constructed.

This extension remains in effect unless

the facility fails to make a good-faith

effort to meet the schedule for

completion, the Agency denies or

revokes any required permit, conditions

certified in the application change, or

the facility violates any law or

regulations implemented by EPA.

Having been granted this case-by-case

extension of the LDR effective date,

Great Lakes must immediately notify

EPA of any change in the

demonstrations made in the petition (40

CFR 268.5(f)). Great Lakes must also

submit monthly progress reports that

describe the progress being made

towards obtaining adequate alternative

capacity, identify any delay or possible

delay in developing the capacity, and

describe the mitigating actions being

taken in response to the event (40 CFR

268.5(g)). (Sections 1006, 2002(a), 3001,

and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal

Act, as amended by the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,

as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a),

6921, and 6924)).

Dated: January 31, 1995

O. Thomas Love,

Acting Director, Water Management Division.

[FR Doc. 95–3116 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPP–00401A; FRL–4935–7]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Open

Meeting; Change of Agenda

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of

January 25, 1995, EPA announced a 1–

day meeting of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)

Subpanel on Plant Pesticides to review

a set of scientific issues being

considered by the Agency in connection

with Monsanto’s application for

registration of a transgenic plant

pesticide. This notice announces an

agenda modification to the meeting. The

Agency’s original agenda focussed on

the plant pesticide containing the active

ingredient Bacillus thuringiensis subsp.

tenebrionis delta endotoxin protein as

produced by the CryIIIA gene and its

controlling sequences in potatoes. The

discussion will now include risk issues

associated with the production of

Bacillus thuringiensis tenebrionis delta

endotoxin in other plants.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

Wednesday, March 1, 1995, from 8:30

a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at:

Crystal Mall #2, 11th Floor Conference

Room (Fish Bowl), 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Robert B. Jaeger, Designated

Federal Official, FIFRA Scientific

Advisory Panel (7509C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 40l M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location

and telephone number: Rm. 819B, CM

#2, 192l Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA, (703) 305–5369 or 7351.

Copies of documents may be obtained

by contacting: By mail: Public Docket

and Freedom of Information Section,

Field Operations Division (7506C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 40l

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. ll28 Bay, CM #2, l92l Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703)

305–5805 or 5454.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information concerning data