Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 47, March 12, 2009, Pages 10673-10810 Page: 10,682
vii, 10810, iii p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 47/Thursday, March 12, 2009/Rules and Regulations
any provision of 40 CFR Parts 260
through 265 and 268. Section 260.22
provides generators the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste from a particular generating
facility from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What information must the generator
supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to EPA to allow EPA to
determine that the waste to be excluded
does not meet any of the criteria under
which the waste was listed as a
hazardous waste. In addition, the
Administrator must determine, where
he/she has a reasonable basis to believe
that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which
the waste was listed could cause the
waste to be a hazardous waste and that
such factors do not warrant retaining the
waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did Bayer Material
Science petition EPA to delist?
On September 2, 2004, Bayer
petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous waste contained in
261.32, toluene diisocyanate (TDI)
residues generated from its facility
located in Baytown, Texas. The waste
falls under the classification of a listed
waste under 261.30. The waste is
listed as K027 hazardous wastes. These
are centrifuge and distillation residues
from TDI production.
B. How much waste did Bayer Material
Science propose to delist?
Specifically, in its petition, Bayer
Material Science requested that EPA
grant a conditional exclusion for 9,780
cubic yards per year of TDI residues
resulting from the TDI production
processes at its facility.
C. How did Bayer Material Science
sample and analyze the waste data in
this petition?
To support its petition, Bayer Material
Science submitted:
* Analytical results of the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) and total constituent analysis for
volatile and semivolatile organics,
pesticides, herbicides, dioxins/furans,
PCBs and metals for five TDI samples;
* Analytical results from multiple pH
leaching of metals; and
* A description of the TDI productionprocess.
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rule?
There was one set of comments
submitted regarding this petition. The
commenter was an industry consultant
in the field of hazardous waste
recycling.
B. What were the comments and what
are EPA's responses to them?
Comment 1: Is EPA aware of the fact
that mishandling of TDI waste bottoms
at a cement plant permitted to burn
hazardous waste resulted in a major
explosion and fire? Please see http://
www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2001/
HZM0101.pdf for the DOT report on this
incident.
Response 1: The EPA reviewer was
not aware of the incident at the Essroc
Cement Corporation in 1999. The DOT
report identified has been reviewed. As
a result, EPA will require Bayer to
employ additional management
requirements to ensure that the residues
are offloaded safely and opportunities
for chemical self-reaction and expansion
are minimized.
Comment 2: Did EPA require the
petitioner to analyze samples of the
waste for phosgene? Is EPA aware of
how difficult it is to completely remove
this highly toxic compound from these
bottoms?
Response 2: No, EPA did not require
the samples to be analyzed for
phosgene. Phosgene is not included in
Appendix 9 of Part 264. EPA is aware
that complete removal of phosgene is
extremely difficult. However, Bayer
does use a process to remove TDI,
phosgene, and orthodichlorbenzene
from the residuals. Review of
compliance records did not indicate
issues that would suggest unsafe
handling of this highly toxic compound
has occurred at the Bayer facility.
Comment 3: Is EPA aware of the fact
that TDI bottoms are often water
reactive, potentially generating heat and
gas when in contact with water?
Response 3: Yes, EPA is aware that
TDI is water reactive and has a potential
to generate heat and gas when it
contacts water. However, EPA believes
that the amount of heat generated from
the TDI residuals will be minimal due
to the small amount of TDI remaining in
the residuals. Bayer uses an additional
reaction step to ensure that there is no
free TDI remaining in the residues,
which further alleviates the situation.
Comment 4: Did EPA require the
petitioner to submit tests demonstratingwaste? Is EPA aware of the toxicity and
reactivity of TDI relative to this issue?
Response 4: The concentrations of
leachable TDI in the waste samples
analyzed were reported as non-detect at
concentrations less than 0.039 mg/1. As
a result of the comment made EPA has
added TDI to the list of constituents,
Bayer must monitor for and set the limit
of TDI as 0.039 mg/1.
Comment 5. Did EPA require the
petitioner to test the material for
residual orthodichlorobenzene and
evaluate the potential environmental
problems from releasing such a solvent
outside of hazardous waste regulations?
Response 5: Yes, the residuals were
tested for orthodichlorobenzene. The
potential for release was modeled using
the DRAS software. The total
constituent analysis detected this waste
in concentration of 10 mg/kg; the
leachable concentration was less than
0.001 mg/1. The delisting limit is 9.72
mg/1. This limit will be added to the list
of constituents Bayer must monitor for
the TDI residue prior to disposal.
Comment 6. Is EPA aware of the fact
that TDI itself can dimerize leading to
the release of CO2 and potential build
up of pressure in confined tanks,
especially upon heating? Given the
history of the very large explosion at the
Essroc cement plant in Indiana that
resulted from mishandling this
hazardous waste the commenter
believes that it is imperative that EPA
make absolutely certain that the
material proposed for delisting does not
have any of the hazardous
characteristics (not EPA definition
hazardous-but real hazardous in a real
world setting) that resulted in the
massive explosion and fire at the
Indiana plant.
Response 6: The disposal scenario for
the Bayer TDI residue is not associated
with combustion as detailed in the
Essroc Cement incident because this
TDI residue is only delisted if and when
it meets the delisting limits and is
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. In light
of the information presented by this
commenter, EPA has required that prior
to its disposal, Bayer handle the
material safely to prevent its contact
with water and to continue to minimize
the possibility of significant amounts of
free TDI in the residue. As stated above,
Bayer employs an additional reaction
step to ensure that free TDI, phosgene,
and ortho-dichlorobenzene are
minimized. Therefore, the Agency does
not believe that the allowable
concentrations of TDI remaining in the
waste will pose a significant risk whenthat there was no TDI present in the
10682
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 47, March 12, 2009, Pages 10673-10810, periodical, March 12, 2009; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc132909/m1/17/: accessed April 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.