Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2004-0009-0012
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-06-14T04:00Z

1
Response
to
Comment
Document
This
document
contains
comments
submitted
to
the
Direct
Final
Rule
that
EPA
promulgated
to
grant
a
site­
specific
treatment
standard
of
28
mg/
L
selenium,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP,
to
Chemical
Waste
Management,
Chemical
Services
LLC
(
CWM)
in
Model
City,
New
York
(
November
19,
2004,
69
FR
67695).
(
EPA
also
published
a
parallel
proposed
rule
seeking
comments
on
the
site­
specific
treatment
standard.)
Additional
comment
was
sought
on
February
28,
2005.
EPA
responses
are
identified
in
bold
and
by
the
letter
R.

First
Comment
Period:
Heritage,
Nov
30,
2004
"
When
Heritage
was
granted
the
39.4
mg/
L
site­
specific
LDR
variance
for
the
Guardian
selenium
waste,
our
Heritage
Technology
Group
took
seriously
EPA's
desire
that
further
optimization
of
the
treatment
process
be
pursued.
For
this
reason,
as
well
as
a
genuine
desire
to
better
assure
to
our
customer
and
owners
that
the
post­
treated
selenium
material
was
indeed
stabilized,
Heritage
continued
their
intensive
research
on
alternative
selenium
stabilization
methods.
Shortly
after
completing
the
variance
process
Heritage
developed
a
new
stabilization
technology
for
the
Guardian
waste.
Our
new
chemical
stabilization
technology
is
far
superior
to
the
technologies
upon
which
the
current
and
proposed
variances
were
based.
In
addition
to
exhaustive
lab
scale
testing,

Heritage
verified
the
effectiveness
of
the
new
technology
on
the
Guardian
waste
via
several
rounds
of
full­
scale
demonstrations.
In
accordance
with
our
recent
patent
application
titled
"
Method
for
Chemically
Stabilizing
Waste
Materials
Containing
Multivalent
Oxyanions"
(
see
attachment),
Heritage
has
established
that
a
TCLP
selenium
criterion
of
10
mg/
L
can
be
reliably
achieved
for
the
Guardian
selenium
waste
referenced
in
69
FR
67647."

There
are
many
embodiments
of
our
technology
as
discussed
in
the
patent
application,

but
features
developed
from
applications
on
the
Guardian
selenium
waste
include
the
following:
2
"
The
treatment
method
employs
cement,
lime
and
aluminum
sulfate
(
or
a
wide
variety
of
reagent
substitutes)
that
can
be
incorporated
in
batch
or
continuous
processes
for
chemically
stabilizing
selenium.
Reagent
addition
can
be
sequential
in
any
order
or
simultaneously
as
desired.
Like
previous
technologies,
water
is
also
added
to
make
a
thick
paste
that
upon
curing
solidifies
into
a
hard,
cemented
material.
The
main
reagents
used
in
the
process
can
be
supplemented
with
the
addition
of
other
reagents
to
assist
in
stabilizing
other
oxyanions
such
as
chrome.
The
stabilization
chemistry
is
effective
almost
immediately
and
generally
becomes
even
more
effective
after
several
days
of
curing."

R:
EPA
reviewed
the
performance
data
provided
by
Heritage
and
concurs
that
the
new
stabilization
treatment
can
treat
the
glass
manufacturing
waste
to
a
lower
treatment
standard
than
the
proposed
28
mg/
L,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP,
by
the
Chemical
Waste
Management
facility
in
Model
City,
New
York.
Furthermore,

Heritage
uses
stabilization
as
the
method
of
treatment,
which
is
consistent
with
EPA's
determination
that
stabilization
is
the
best
available
treatment
technology
for
this
waste.

"
Laboratory
testing
and
subsequent
field
testing
demonstrated
that
Guardian
wastes
having
total
selenium
concentrations
of
up
to
8.5%
or
untreated
TCLP
selenium
concentrations
of
over
600
mg/
L
were
reliably
stabilized
with
TCLP
selenium
results
routinely
less
than
10
mg/
L.

Comparison
of
stabilization
technologies
performed
on
five
different
samples
of
the
Guardian
selenium
waste
showed
an
average
TCLP
selenium
concentration
of
only
7.1
mg/
L
for
Heritage's
new
technology.
This
compared
to
29
mg/
L
and
38
mg/
L
for
selenium
stabilization
formulations
EPA
previously
granted
to
Heritage
and
CWM,

respectively
(
see
Example
1
in
the
patent
application)."

R:
Heritage
used
two
stabilization
technologies
to
verify
the
performance
of
treatment
recipes
against
their
new
stabilization
method.
In
addition
to
lab­
scale
testing,
Heritage
verified
the
effectiveness
of
the
new
stabilization
recipe
on
the
Guardian
waste
via
several
rounds
of
full­
scale
demonstrations.
All
information
and
data
from
lab­
scale
testing
conducted
by
Heritage
can
be
found
in
the
RCRA
3
docket
(
RCRA­
2004­
0009).
Collectively,
the
TCLP
tests
on
all
treated
Guardian
waste
samples
indicate
a
significant
reduction
in
leachability.
The
commenter
achieved
selenium
TCLP
results
ranging
from
6.8
to
8.0
mg/
L
TCLP.
The
new
chemical
stabilization
treatment
recipe
obtained
results
that
were
one
order
of
magnitude
lower
than
the
other
two
treatment
recipes
tested.
The
reduction
in
all
cases,
however,
was
not
enough
to
meet
the
LDR
treatment
standard
of
5.7
mg/
L
for
selenium,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP.

"
On
a
dry­
weight
basis,
the
reagent­
to­
waste
ratio
demonstrated
for
the
highconcentration
Guardian
selenium
waste
is
about
1.8:
1.
This
is
compared
to
the
2.35:
1
ratio
EPA
previously
granted
Heritage
for
the
Guardian
waste;
and
the
2.7:
1
ratio
EPA
previously
granted
CWM
for
similar
selenium
wastes
at
other
facilities.
Moreover,
the
1.8
ratio
is
competitive
with
the
1.2
ratio
reflected
in
CWM's
newest
petition,
and
yet
the
degree
of
stabilization
is
dramatically
improved
(
TCLP
selenium
criterion
of
only
10
mg/
L
compared
to
28
mg/
L)."

R:
When
EPA
developed
the
national
treatment
standard
of
5.7
mg/
L
for
D010
selenium
non­
wastewaters,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP,
it
used
data
with
reagent
to
waste
ratios
that
varied
from
1.3
to
2.7
to
calculate
the
treatment
standard.
The
Heritage
selenium
variance
that
was
previously
granted
for
the
Guardian
waste
reflected
a
reagent
to
waste
ratio
of
2.35
(
69
FR
6567,
February
11,
2004).

Heritage,
treating
the
same
Guardian
waste
with
their
proprietary
chemical
stabilization
technology,
achieved
a
reagent
to
waste
ratio
of
1.8.
The
Agency
notes
that,
by
keeping
the
reagent
to
waste
ratio
to
minimal
levels,
both
treatment
facilities
are
minimizing
the
amount
of
treated
waste
to
be
disposed
of
in
the
hazardous
landfill.
The
Agency
recommends
that
CWM
and
Heritage
use
a
reagent
to
waste
ratio
of
1.8
as
an
upper
limit.

"
Accordingly,
Heritage
is
proposing
that
the
current
site
specific
LDR
treatment
standard
for
the
Guardian
selenium
waste
be
revised
downward
from
the
current
39.4
mg/
L
to
the
more
environmentally
protective
criterion
of
10
mg/
L
TCLP
selenium.
This
is
in
contrast
to
the
rather
incremental
reduction
CWM
has
proposed
from
39.4
mg/
1
downward
to
28
mg/
L."
4
R:
The
Agency
agrees
with
Heritage's
recommendation.
Using
the
BDAT
methodology,
the
Agency
has
calculated
an
alternative
treatment
standard
of
11
mg/
L,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP,
based
on
eight
data
points
that
were
the
result
of
stabilization
treatment
using
a
reagent
to
waste
ratio
of
1.8
for
the
waste
generated
by
Guardian
Industries
Corp.

"
We
believe
that
our
technology
is
indeed
the
best
demonstrated
available
technology
and,
as
such,
is
likely
applicable
to
other
high
concentration
selenium
bearing
wastes
including
those
from
Owens
Brockway
Glass
Container
Company
and
St.
Gobain
Containers
for
which
EPA
has
previously
granted
site­
specific
variances
of
51
mg/
L
and
25
mg/
L,
respectively.
Heritage
would
thus
be
willing
to
conduct
laboratory
treatability
tests
on
these
or
other
selenium
wastes
to
further
evaluate
our
method
in
terms
of
more
universal
applications.
Where
appropriate,
Heritage
would
be
amenable
to
licensing
the
technology
to
other
organizations."

R:
EPA
invites
Heritage
to
conduct
tests
on
the
high
concentration
selenium
bearing
wastes
from
Owens
Brockway
Glass
Container
Company
and
St.
Gobain
Containers.
If
in
fact
Heritage
can
demonstrate
that
their
technology
works
to
significantly
exceed
the
current
alternative
treatment
standards
established
for
these
selenium
wastes,
EPA
would
consider
amending
the
these
variances
to
a
more
stringent
level.

First
Comment
Period:
Niagara
Health
Science
Report
Inc.,
December
17,
2004
"
The
dramatic
increase
from
5.7mg/
L
to
28mg/
L
TCLP
in
the
treatment
standard
proposed
by
CWM,
and
recommended
by
the
EPA,
is
not
appropriate:
wastes
with
such
high
selenium
TCLP
values
are
not
suitable
for
disposal
in
a
class
C
landfill
(
CWM
is
class
C.)
The
current
treatment
standard
for
selenium
of
5.7mg/
L
is
already
above
the
EPA's
Toxicity
Characteristic
Level
of
1.0mg/
L;
the
level
at
which
the
selenium
could
leach
into
groundwater,
or
be
taken
up
by
plants,
etc.
and
pose
a
risk
to
human
health.

The
EPA
should
be
focused
on
how
to
bring
the
treatment
standard
down
from
5.7mg/
L,

instead
of
further
relaxing
the
standard
further
across
the
nation,
as
is
currently
proposed.
It
seems
unacceptable
to
raise
the
current
TCLP
levels
by
any
amount,
5
notwithstanding
such
an
exponentially
large
increase,
in
order
to
accommodate
specific
waste
streams
from
an
industrial
customer,
rather
than
because
the
proposed
level
is
appropriate
to
human
health
risk
factors."

R:
The
Agency
set
the
national
treatment
standard
of
5.7
mg/
L
for
selenium
D010
hazardous
wastes
nonwastewaters
using
performance
data
from
the
stabilization
of
a
selenium
characteristically
hazardous
mineral
processing
waste
(
waste
code
D010),
which
we
determined
at
that
time
to
be
the
most
difficult­
to­
treat
selenium
waste.
This
untreated
waste
contained
up
to
700
ppm
total
selenium
and
3.74
mg/
L
selenium
in
the
TCLP
leachate.
In
contrast,
concentrations
of
total
selenium
in
the
untreated
Guardian
waste
vary
between
10,000
ppm
and
85,000
ppm
(
1%
­
8.5%)
and
untreated
TCLP
selenium
concentrations
of
over
600
mg/
L.

The
Guardian
waste
differs
significantly
in
chemical
composition
from
the
waste
used
to
establish
the
national
selenium
treatment
standard.
Selenium
TCLP
concentrations
in
the
untreated
Guardian
waste
are
one
or
three
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
TCLP
concentrations
in
the
waste
used
to
develop
the
treatment
standard
for
D010
hazardous
wastes.

CWM
and
Heritage
have
demonstrated
that
the
Guardian
waste
cannot
be
treated
to
levels
specified
in
the
regulations
(
see
40
CFR
268.40).
For
such
wastes,
EPA
has
a
process
by
which
treaters
like
CWM
and
Heritage
may
seek
a
treatment
variance
(
see
40
CFR
268.44)
establishing
an
alternative
treatment
standard
for
the
site­
specific
waste
at
issue.
Establishment
of
the
site­
specific
variances
for
the
Guardian
waste
will
not
change
the
treatment
standard
for
other
D010
waste
streams.

Niagara
states
that
the
LDR
treatment
standard
for
D010
wastes
is
above
EPA's
Toxicity
Characteristic
Level
of
1.0mg/
L.
A
key
role
of
the
TCLP
in
the
treatment
standard
is
to
measure
whether
the
leachability
of
the
waste
is
reduced
to
levels
established
by
the
best
demonstrated
treatment
technology.
Thus,

unlike
the
toxicity
characteristic
level,
which
is
used
as
a
means
of
identifying
whether
or
not
a
waste
is
hazardous,
the
TCLP
measures
whether
the
mobility
of
metals
has
been
substantially
reduced
in
order
that
threats
posed
by
land
disposal
are
minimized
(
as
required
by
section
3004(
m))
(
May
26,
1998,
63
28572).
6
"
At
a
May
2003
public
information
session,
CWM
published
its
assurance
that,
"
No
changes
to
the
types
of
waste
[
it
accepts
at
its
Model
City,
NY
facility]
will
be
requested."
This
latest
request
to
landfill
material
with
dramatically
higher
selenium
TCLP
levels,
at
the
very
least,
contradicts
the
spirit
of
the
commitment
CWM
gave
the
community."

"
The
EPA
states
one
of
its
reasons
for
recommending
this
proposal
is
that
alternate
technology
needed
to
meet
the
current
or
lower
TCLP
level
is
not
available
in
the
U.
S.

However,
the
EPA
fails
to
explain
why
alternate
technologies
being
used
or
developed
outside
the
U.
S.
are
not
being
applied
to
CWM
and
other
similar
U.
S.
landfills.
There
are
a
number
of
companies
operating
in
the
U.
S.
in
the
area
of
metals
treatment
technology
with
the
potential
of
solving
the
problem.
What
research
has
the
EPA
done,

independent
of
the
industry?
The
EPA's
relaxation
of
the
accepted
standard
will
not
provide
any
incentive
for
the
waste
industry
to
develop
a
solution."

R:
Primary
selenium
is
a
co­
product
in
the
mining
of
copper
ores.
Primary
selenium
is
extracted
mostly
from
waste
products
from
the
manufacture
of
copper
that
contain
around
80%
selenium
content.
In
contrast,
concentrations
of
total
selenium
in
the
untreated
Guardian
waste
vary
between
1.0%­
8.5%.
Because
selenium
is
a
non­
renewable
resource,
and
because
the
glass
manufacturing
wastes
contain
significant
selenium
concentrations,
EPA's
preference,
rather
than
stabilization
and
land
disposal,
would
be
to
recover
the
selenium
in
an
environmentally
sound
manner.
However,
there
was
no
recorded
domestic
production
of
secondary
selenium
in
2004
in
waste
material
with
less
than
10%

selenium.
The
Agency
has
sought
comment
on
the
ability
to
recover
selenium
from
glass
manufacturing
waste
in
several
occasions
(
October
23,
1998,
63
FR
56886
and
May
28,
2002,
67
FR
36813).
EPA
has
not
received
valid
information
from
the
treatment
industry
stating
that
such
technology
is
available.
All
potential
secondary
selenium
recovery
technologies
in
and
outside
the
U.
S.
that
have
been
considered
remain
pilot
projects
and
none
of
them
have
been
shown
to
be
economically
viable.
These
factors
suggest
that
development
of
an
environmentally
protective
secondary
selenium
recovery
system
is
not
7
reasonably
expected
in
the
near
future,
and
stabilization
remains
the
best
available
treatment
technology.

"
Chemical
Waste
Management
was
granted
temporary
permission
to
accept
and
landfill
material
with
higher
TCLP
levels
at
its
Kettleman
City,
CA
facility
back
in
1999,
with
the
proviso
that
Chemical
Waste
Management
would
work
to
develop
a
method
of
meeting
the
5.7mg/
L
TCLP
standard.
Waste
Management
failed,
so
the
EPA
relaxed
the
standard,
rather
than
require
Chemical
Waste
Management
to
make
the
necessary
investment
to
achieve
the
goal.
What
work
by
the
waste
industry
has
EPA
reviewed
in
order
to
have
such
confidence
in
the
U.
S.
landfill
industry's
claim
that
it
cannot
solve
the
problem?"

R:
The
temporary
variances
were
granted
to
CWM
on
May
26,
1999
(
64
FR
28387)

for
a
three
year
period
and
required
CWM
to
conduct
studies
on
approaches
to
reduce
the
leachability
of
the
treated
wastes
at
the
Kettleman
facility
in
California.

CWM
was
required
to
report
annually
on
the
alternative
treatment
technologies
they
were
investigating
to
optimize
the
treatment
of
their
particular
waste
streams.
The
CWM's
submissions
also
include
information
showing
which
stabilization
recipe
CWM
was
using
to
meet
their
alternative
treatment
standards,

the
selenium
concentrations
in
untreated
wastes,
and
the
analytical
results
from
these
treated
wastes.
Performance
data
from
the
optimized
stabilization
recipes
indicated
that
although
LDR
treatment
standards
were
not
achievable,

significantly
lower
concentration
levels
were
obtained
in
the
treatment
of
these
two
selenium
hazardous
wastes
streams.
Treatment
of
these
two
wastes
is
especially
difficult
because
of
the
presence
of
other
metals
(
i.
e.,
arsenic,

cadmium,
chromium,
and
lead)
above
their
respective
characteristic
levels.

According
to
the
three
annual
reports
submitted
to
EPA
by
CWM1,
their
facility
in
Kettleman,
California
is
currently
disposing
of
their
treated
waste
with
significantly
lower
selenium
concentrations,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP,
than
what
is
permitted
in
their
site­
specific
treatment
standard
variance.

1
The
three
CWM
Annual
Reports
are
available
in
Docket
ID:
RCRA
2002­
0015
(
Document
number
0015,0016,
and
0019)
8
First
Comment
Period:
Heritage,
February
24,
2005:

"
First
it
should
be
pointed
out
that
Heritage
is
accustomed
to
licensing
technologies
to
others.
Examples
from
our
Heritage
Technology
Group
include
the
recycling
of
spent
chemical
etchants
from
circuit
board
manufacturing,
the
removal
of
arsenic
from
drinking
water,
additives
for
the
enhanced
combustion
of
coal
and
coke
plant
fines,
and
the
widespread
use
of
steel
mill
slag
in
asphalt
paved
highways.
One
of
our
newest
technologies,
to
be
field
demonstrated
this
fall,
is
a
process
for
recovering
the
iron
and
zinc
values
from
electric
arc
furnace
dust."

"
Second,
we
have
prepared
a
draft
of
the
standard
licensing
agreement
that
we
intend
to
use
for
granting
non­
exclusive
licenses
for
use
of
our
selenium
stabilization
technology.
It
was
written
to
assure
our
technology
would
remain
available
to
all
qualified
users
and
requires
a
royalty
per
ton
of
waste
processed.

"
Third,
in
developing
this
response
we
reviewed
the
preamble
to
a
Final
Rule
for
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
(
Federal
Register,
Vol.
1,
No.
216,
Nov.
7,1986,
pg
405
89)

that
discusses
the
determination
of
"
Available
Treatment
Technologies"
(
see
Attachment
B).
We
believe
that
our
approach
satisfies
the
criteria
discussed
therein
because
the
proprietary
technology
is
commercially
available
by
Heritage
and
can
be
purchased
from
Heritage.
In
addition,
as
we
have
previously
commented,
the
technology
substantially
diminishes
the
likelihood
of
migration
of
hazardous
constituents
from
the
waste."

R:
EPA
is
using
the
new
data
provided
by
Heritage
on
their
proprietary
stabilization
technology
as
the
basis
for
an
alternative
treatment
standard
based
on
performance
of
best
available
treatment
technology
(
BDAT)
for
the
Guardian
waste.
EPA
has
addressed
the
issue
of
the
use
of
proprietary
or
patented
technologies
for
establishing
BDAT
in
the
Solvents
&
Dioxin
Rule
(
November
7,

1986,
51
FR
40572).
In
that
rule,
EPA
stated
that
it
considers
a
technology
that
is
proprietary
or
patented
to
be
available,
"
if
the
Agency
determines
that
the
treatment
method
can
be
purchased
from
the
proprietor
or
is
a
commercially
available
treatment."
(
51
FR
40588,
November
7,
1986)
9
EPA
is
also
aware
that
the
level
achieved
by
Heritage's
proprietary
stabilization
technology
as
the
best
available
technology
treatment
standard
for
the
Guardian
waste
may
necessitate
actual
use
of
the
Heritage
technology.

Heritage
has
indicated
that
it
will
offer
its
use
through
a
licensing
arrangement.

EPA
has
examined
the
Heritage
licensing
agreement
and
believes
that
it
allows
for
the
technology
to
be
reasonably
available
for
use
by
other
entities.
A
boilerplate
of
the
licensing
agreement
can
be
found
in
the
RCRA
Docket
of
this
rulemaking.

Second
Comment
Period:
Heritage
March
3,
2005
"
Heritage
has
reviewed
the
"
Selenium
Variance
Notice
for
Comment"
you
sent
us
on
February
28,
2005
and
is
in
agreement
with
it.
However
there
was
a
typographical
error
in
the
concluding
paragraph
of
section
1
that
mistakenly
included
kiln
dust
and
ferrous
sulfate
in
the
stabilization
formulation.
The
corrected
version
of
the
paragraph
should
read
as
follows:"

"
EPA
believes
from
its
analysis
of
the
data
submitted
by
Heritage
that
the
most
effective
stabilization
recipe
for
this
waste
consists
of
1
part
cement,
0.5
part
lime,
0.28
part
aluminum
sulfate,
and
0.017
part
calcium
polysulfide
(
CaSx),
resulting
in
a
reagent
to
waste
ratio
of
1.8.
Water
is
also
added
to
make
a
quick
paste
that
upon
curing
solidifies
into
a
hard,
cemented
material."

R:
EPA
has
incorporated
this
correction
to
the
treatment
recipe
in
its
final
determination.

Second
Comment
Period:
Niagara
Health
Science
Report
Inc.,
March
22,
2005
"
Heritage
has
achieved
11
mg/
L
for
selenium
(
Guardian
waste),
as
measured
by
the
TCLP;
is
EPA
requiring
more
work
to
reduce
this
figure
further?"

R:
The
Agency
is
issuing
a
new
alternative
treatment
standard
of
11mg/
L
for
Selenium,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP,
in
contrast
to
Heritage's
previously
approved
treatment
standard
variance
of
39.4
mg/
L,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP,
10
approved
in
February
2004.
The
approval
of
the
new
alternative
treatment
standard
will
allow
Heritage
and
CWM
to
treat
the
Guardian
waste
to
match
or
exceed
the
level
of
performance
established
as
BDAT
by
the
Heritage
technology,

which
is
not
much
greater
than
the
LDR
treatment
standard
of
5.7
mg/
L
for
nonwastewaters
containing
selenium,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP.
EPA
is
not
requesting
additional
work
to
reduce
this
figure.

"
Has
any
work
with
proprietary
binders
been
submitted
to
EPA,
as
a
solution
to
meeting
the
5.7mg/
L
standard?"

R:
EPA
has
received
information
on
proprietary
binders
from
Heritage,
from
Rocky
Mountain
Remediation
Services,
and
from
CWM.
The
information
from
Rocky
Mountain
Remediation
Services
and
CEM
is
discussed
in
the
next
response.
In
the
Heritage
Environmental
Services
petition
(
May,
2003,
Document
ID:
RCRA
2003­
0025)
for
a
treatment
variance
to
EPA,
Heritage
explored
the
feasibility
of
other
selenium
stabilization
technologies,
but
these
technologies
did
not
appear
to
be
economically
viable.
Heritage
performed
nearly
200
TCLP
tests
on
this
particular
waste
stream
using
a
wide
variety
of
stabilization
treatment
recipes
based
upon
the
use
of
cement,
but
none
were
capable
of
achieving
the
5.7
mg/
L
TCLP
criterion.
This
information
is
in
the
Land
Disposal
Restriction
Treatability
Variance
Petition
submitted
by
Heritage,
which
can
be
found
in
the
EPA
Docket
under
RCRA
2003­
0025
Document
ID:
0015.
Additional
laboratory
testing
and
subsequent
field
testing
was
conducted
using
a
proprietary
binder
developed
by
Heritage
on
the
Guardian
waste.
Their
method
of
treatment
generated
results
that
were
routinely
less
than
10
mg/
L
selenium,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP,
but
not
enough
to
achieve
the
5.7
mg/
L
selenium
LDR
treatment
standard.
This
information
can
be
found
in
the
EPA
Docket
under
Laboratory
Treatability
Tests
for
Selenium
Wastes
under
RCRA
2004­
0009
Document
ID:

0003.

"
A
treatability
study
using
a
binder
system
called
"
Envirobond"
was
reviewed
in
1999;

has
EPA
encouraged
or
required
any
similar
studies
using
other
binder
systems?
Has
Heritage
considered
the
use
of
binder
systems?"
11
R:
Between
December
1998
and
March
1999,
Rocky
Mountain
Remediation
Services
(
RMRS)
submitted
comments
to
a
proposed
treatment
variance
for
the
two
selenium
waste
streams
(
RCRA
2002­
0015).
In
their
comments,
RMRS
suggested
that
before
finalizing
the
CWM
variance,
EPA
should
allow
RMRS
to
stabilize
the
two
selenium
waste
streams
using
its
proprietary
binder
(
known
as
Envirobond).
The
treatability
study
was
conducted
by
RMRS
from
December
1998
to
February
1999.
RMRS
treated
selenium
waste
streams
from
both
Owens
Brockway
and
Ball
Foster.
The
results
showed
that
Envirobond
could
not
achieve
TCLP
results
comparable
to
the
treatment
standards
we
proposed
for
the
two
waste
streams.
Both
companies
agreed
that
since
Envirobond
was
not
able
to
stabilize
the
wastes
to
a
lower
TCLP
value,
EPA
should
finalize
the
temporary
variance
as
proposed.

On
May
26,
1999,
EPA
granted
to
the
CWM
facility
in
Kettleman,
California,

the
following
temporary
alternative
treatment
standard
variances
for
selenium:
51
mg/
L
TCLP
for
Owens
Brockway;
and
25
mg/
L
TCLP
for
Ball
Foster
(
now
St.

Gobain).
EPA
also
included
a
requirement
in
the
temporary
variance
that
CWM
submit
to
EPA
annual
reports
on
treatability
studies
containing
any
analytical
data
using
alternative
treatment
technologies,
data
showing
the
stabilization
recipes
they
are
using
to
meet
the
alternative
treatment
standards,
and
the
untreated
and
treated
selenium
concentrations
in
these
wastes.
During
the
following
4
years,
Chemical
Waste
Management
investigated
several
stabilization
treatment
recipes,
and
alternative
treatment
technologies,
including
research
on
binder
systems.
CWM
stated
in
all
4
reports
that
both
wastes
continue
to
have
elevated
levels
of
leachable
selenium,
and
were
unable
to
achieve
the
selenium
treatment
.
standard
consistently.
CWM
also
asserted
at
that
time
that
they
are
unaware
of
any
additional
reagents
that
would
be
more
effective
in
the
treatment
process.

Heritage's
new
patented
stabilization
technology
uses
binders.
Heritage
conducted
treatability
tests
and
field
tests
to
determine
the
best
performing
chemical
binder
to
use
for
treatment
on
the
Guardian
waste
to
exceed
the
alternative
treatment
standard
of
11mg/
L
selenium,
as
measured
by
the
TCLP.
12
"
Please
provide
specific
information
on
how
EPA
evaluated
and
concluded
that
secondary
recovery
was
not
a
viable
option.
(
Since
the
proposed
waste
contains
7%

selenium,
EPA
has
indicated
that
landfilling
is
not
the
best
alternative)
Please
provide
all
reports
and
studies
indicating
why
recovery
is
not
the
EPA's
first
option
in
this
case."

R:
We
disagree
with
the
commenter
that
recovery
is
not
EPA's
preferred
option.

That
is,
EPA's
preference
would
be
to
recover
the
selenium
in
an
environmentally
sound
manner
over
stabilization
and
land
disposal.
However,
there
was
no
recorded
domestic
production
of
secondary
selenium
in
2002,
2003
and
2004
("
Selenium"
U.
S.
Geological
Survey­­
Minerals
Yearbooks).
Secondary
selenium
treatment
methods,
like
hydrometallurgical
recovery,
and
methods
for
converting
the
extracted
selenium
to
a
useful
product,
have
been
evaluated
by
Heritage
in
their
variance
petition.
Attempts
to
recover
materials
from
relatively
low
volume
wastes
suggested
that
financial
viability
was
a
concern
(
RCRA
2004­
0009­
0011,

Conference
call
summary
with
Dr.
Ralph
Roper
from
Heritage
Environmental
Services
LLC).

Chemical
Waste
Management
also
determined
that
the
selenium
waste
from
the
glass
manufacturing
industry
did
not
contain
sufficient
organics
to
qualify
as
a
candidate
for
incineration
(
RCRA
2003­
0025,
Document
ID:
0011,
Letter
to
Hugh
Davis,
USEPA
from
Jim
Sook,
Chemical
Waste
Management,
Inc.,
re:
Selenium
Variance
Annual
Report
Update,
July
2003).

These
factors
suggest
that
development
of
an
environmentally
protective
secondary
selenium
recovery
system
for
low­
concentration
selenium
wastes
in
the
U.
S.
is
not
reasonably
expected
in
the
near
future.

Second
Comment
Period:
Niagara
Health
Science
Report
Inc.,
March
28,
2005
"
Heritage
has
demonstrated
its
ability
to
reliably
achieve
a
TCLP
criterion
of
10mg/
L
and
its
new
treatment
technology
is
superior
to
the
chemical
stabilization
technologies
on
which
the
current
and
proposed
variances
were
based.
The
extensive
trial
data
13
supplied
by
Heritage
shows
that
its
treatment
technology
is
more
protective
than
CWM
attempts
to
modify
its
standard
selenium
stabilization.
There
is
no
requirement
or
critical
need
for
granting
a
variance
to
CWM
Model
City
at
this
time."

R:
Niagara
commented
that
there
is
no
critical
need
to
grant
a
variance
for
the
Guardian
waste
since
Heritage
had
demonstrated
their
ability
to
achieve
a
TCLP
selenium
criterion
of
10
mg/
L
to
CWM.
The
Agency
agrees
that
Heritage
has
developed
a
treatment
method
that
performs
better
that
the
stabilization
technologies
that
were
used
to
base
the
proposed
alternative
treatment
standard
for
the
Guardian
waste.
The
Agency
is
therefore
establishing
a
site­
specific
treatment
standard
based
upon
the
performance
of
the
Heritage
technology.
As
a
result,
Guardian
will
have
the
option
of
sending
their
waste
to
either
treater/
disposal
facility
to
be
treated
to
match
or
exceed
the
level
of
performance
established
as
BDAT
by
the
Heritage
technology.

"
The
EPA
has
asserted
that
secondary
recovery
of
wastes
containing
high
levels
of
selenium
is
most
appropriate,
not
landfilling.
The
EPA
presumably
considers
existing
European
recovery
facilities
as
impracticable
for
U.
S.
use.
However,
the
EPA
has
not
created
incentives
for
establishing
similar
facilities
in
North
America.
As
a
result
of
the
Heritage
comments,
if
EPA
were
to
grant
either
of
the
variance
options
under
consideration,
it
will
create
a
financial
disincentive
for
the
market
to
develop
a
secondary
recovery
facility
in
the
U.
S."

R:
In
the
Heritage
Environmental
Services
petition
(
May,
2003,
Document
ID:

RCRA
2003­
0025)
for
a
treatment
variance
to
EPA,
Heritage
explored
the
feasibility
of
other
selenium
recovery
technologies,
but
these
technologies
did
not
appear
to
be
economically
viable.
All
potential
secondary
selenium
recovery
technologies
being
considered
have
remained
pilot
projects
and
none
of
them
have
been
shown
to
be
economically
viable.
These
factors
suggest
that
development
of
an
environmentally
protective
secondary
selenium
recovery
system
in
the
U.
S.
is
not
reasonably
expected
in
the
near
future,
and
stabilization
remains
the
best
available
treatment
technology.
14
"
The
availability
of
substantially
more
protective
treatment
technology
requires
that
the
EPA
consider
the
impact
of
containment
and
monitoring
risk
at
CWM.
CWM
operates
on
property
that
is
a
Formerly
Used
Defense
Site.
The
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
has
detected
elevated
levels
of
Selenium
on
CWM
property
(
under
the
DERP­
FUDS
program.)
It
would
be
difficult
if
not
impossible
for
the
EPA
to
monitor
and
determine
whether
the
Selenium
waste
proposed
by
this
variance
started
leaking
from
CWM
landfills.
CWM
landfills
may
already
be
leaking.
CWM
is
under
an
April
of
2001
Consent
Order
issued
by
the
NYS
Dept.
of
Environmental
Conservation
Division
of
Water
to
reduce
PCB
contamination
levels
found
in
its
stormwater.
As
of
September
2004,
CWM
was
in
violation
of
that
Consent
Order.
EPA
approval
for
CWM
of
either
the
variance
originally
proposed,
or
the
modified
version
proposed
in
your
recent
letter,

seems
unnecessary."

R:
CWM,
as
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
hazardous
waste
treatment
and
disposal
facility,
is
responsible
for
investigating
and,
as
necessary,
cleaning
up
releases
at
their
facility.
All
hazardous
waste
disposal
facilities,
including
the
Model
City
facility,
are
subject
to
the
interim
status
(
pre­
permit)
or
permitting
conditions
in
the
hazardous
waste
regulations,
as
well
as
other
conditions
that
may
be
enacted
under
state
law
or
in
the
permit.
These
requirements
include
groundwater
monitoring,
to
detect
any
releases
from
the
landfill,
and
corrective
action
to
address
any
such
releases.
In
addition,
as
a
permitted
RCRA
facility,
CWM
is
subject
to
facility­
wide
corrective
action
requirements
for
releases
from
solid
waste
management
units,
as
well
to
other
state
and
federal
authorities
to
address
environmental
releases.
As
a
result,
we
believe
the
necessary
controls
are
in
place
to
ensure
that
management
of
this
waste
at
the
CWM
facility
in
Model
City,

New
York
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

In
addition,
the
Agency
is
requiring
that
Heritage
and
CWM
not
place
the
stabilized
waste
from
Guardian
directly
on
the
operation
layer
on
the
floor
of
the
landfill,
nor
in
the
area
of
a
stand
pipe
or
leachate
sump
pump.
This
restriction
of
the
placement
of
the
waste
in
the
cell
would
minimize
potential
leaching
in
the
landfill.