[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21371]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 30, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268

[FRL-5060-8]

 

Land Disposal Restrictions: Proposed Treatability Variance For 
Citgo Petroleum

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:Proposed approval of site-specific treatability variance for 
Citgo Petroleum Facility at Lake Charles, Louisiana.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or 
Agency) is today proposing to grant a site-specific treatability 
variance from the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards 
for F037 and F038 nonwastewaters that are contained in, and to be 
removed from, a 26 acre surface impoundment (Surge Pond). The specific 
waste was generated when the Surge Pond filled with water and primary 
sludge from the disposal of process wastewater and stormwater at the 
Citgo Corporation petroleum refinery located outside Lake Charles, 
Louisiana. Approximately 625,000 tons of waste remains in and is to be 
removed from the surface impoundment; this waste was subject to a 
national capacity variance until June 30, 1994.
    If this proposal is finalized, Citgo may complete their remediation 
effort that was approved by the Louisiana Department of Environmental 
Quality (LDEQ) and EPA Region VI, provided they comply with the 
alternative treatment standards specified in this proposal, and also 
comply with any other applicable land disposal restrictions for this 
waste as specified in 40 CFR Part 268.

DATES: EPA is requesting comments regarding today's proposed decision. 
Comments will be accepted until September 29, 1994. Comments postmarked 
after the close of the comment period will be stamped ``late''.

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments to EPA. Two copies should 
be sent to the EPA RCRA Docket (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. A third copy should be 
sent to Richard Kinch, Chief, Waste Treatment Branch (5302W), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. Identify your comments at the top with the regulatory docket 
number: F-94-TVLP-FFFFF.
    The official record for this rulemaking is identified by Docket 
Number F-94-TVLP-FFFFF, and is located in the EPA RCRA Docket, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, room 2616, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The RCRA Docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. 
Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. The public must 
make an appointment to review docket materials by calling (202) 260-
9327. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory 
document at no cost. Additional copies cost $.15 per page. The mailing 
address is EPA RCRA Docket (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact the 
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 toll-free or (703) 920-9810 locally. For 
information on specific aspects of this document, contact Shaun 
McGarvey, Treatment Technology Section, Waste Treatment Branch (5302W), 
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8603.

Supplementary Information:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Authority
    B. Site Description
    C. Regulatory History
    1. Surface Impoundment Regulations
    2. Listing and LDR Treatment Standards for F037 and F038
    3. Citgo's Management Decisions
    D. Waste Description
    E. Description of Treatment System
    F. Summary of Citgo's Petition for a Treatability Variance
II. Basis for Proposed Treatability Variance
    A. EPA Evaluation of Citgo's Petition
    B. Proposed Alternative Treatment Standards

I. Background

A. Authority

    Under section 3004(m) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments 
of 1984 (HSWA), EPA is required 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.'' EPA has interpreted 
this language to mean treatment standards based on the performance of 
best demonstrated available technology (BDAT). This interpretation was 
sustained by the D.C. Circuit in HWTC v. EPA, 886 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 
1989), cert. den. 111 S. Ct. 139 (1990). The Agency, however, has 
recognized that there may be wastes that cannot be treated to the 
levels specified in the rules, due to the fact that the wastes are in a 
form that is substantially more difficult to treat than those the 
Agency evaluated in establishing the treatment standard (51 FR 40576, 
November 7, 1986), or where the treatment technology is inappropriate 
for the waste. For such wastes, EPA has established a treatability 
variance (40 CFR 268.44), to establish alternative treatment standards 
on a case-by-case basis.
    The requirements for qualifying for a site-specific treatability 
variance are contained in 40 CFR 268.44(h), which states, ``Where the 
treatment standard is expressed as a concentration in a waste or waste 
extract and a waste generated under conditions specific to only one 
site cannot be treated to the specified level or where the treatment 
technology is not appropriate to the waste, the generator or treatment 
facility may apply to the Administrator, or her designated 
representative, for a site-specific variance from the treatment 
standard. The applicant for a site-specific variance must demonstrate 
that because the physical or chemical properties of the waste differ 
significantly from the waste analyzed in developing the treatment 
standard, the waste cannot be treated to specified levels or by the 
specified methods.'' For a more thorough discussion of the conditions 
which justify granting a treatability variance and the supporting 
information the petitioner is required to submit, please refer to the 
November 7, 1986 Federal Register Notice, also known as the Solvents 
and Dioxins Final LDR Rule (51 FR 40605-40606).

B. Site Description

    The specific site addressed by this proposed variance is located at 
Citgo Corporation's Lake Charles Refinery, 4401 Louisiana Highway 108 
in Calcasieu County in the southwest corner of Louisiana. The surface 
impoundment in question, referred to as the ``Surge Pond'' in Citgo's 
literature, is situated immediately adjacent to the west bank of the 
Calcasieu River, approximately 10 miles southwest of Lake Charles and 
15 miles north of the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. The Surge Pond 
has a surface area of twenty six (26) acres. Much of the pond is 15 to 
20 feet deep; the deepest part is about 40 feet deep. The water surface 
elevation of the pond is six feet above sea level; the water layer is 
about 15 feet deep. The bottom of the pond is filled with sludge which 
has been accumulating since the 1940's. The pond has been receiving 
untreated petroleum refining process water and stormwater runoff from 
the site throughout most of the site's history. The sludge at the 
bottom of the pond is a primary sludge generated by the settling of 
petroleum refining wastewater and thus meets the definition of RCRA 
Hazardous Waste Codes F037 and F038.
    The Surge Pond discharges into the old onsite wastewater treatment 
system. This system consists of an earthen equalization basin, followed 
by dissolved air flotation (DAF) tanks, an earthen aeration basin, 
clarifier tanks, a settling pond, a polishing pond, and then discharges 
into the Calcasieu river at a NPDES regulated outfall (Permit number 
LA0005941). (The company's request for a treatability variance only 
includes sludge from the Surge Pond; it does not include any sludge 
generated by the rest of the old wastewater treatment system.)
    A new onsite wastewater treatment system has been in operation 
since May 13, 1994. The system now receives stormwater and process 
wastewater from the site. The system consists primarily of above ground 
tanks with floating roofs. Air emissions from the tanks are routed to a 
vapor control system. The new wastewater flow path is from API 
separators, to an equalization tank, to a DAF unit, to aerated 
activated sludge tanks, to a clarifier. Clarifier effluent discharges 
to the settling pond of the old wastewater treatment system.

C. Regulatory History

1. Regulations Applying to Citgo's Surge Pond
    The Surge Pond began operating in the late 1940's, and has been 
generating sludge since that time. The RCRA regulatory history of the 
impoundment, set out in full in Citgo's petition, is complicated. (See 
Citgo's variance petition for a more thorough discussion of the 
regulatory history of Citgo's refinery.)
    Most of this history is not relevant for evaluating the petition. 
It is clear, however, that the sludge in the pond is listed as F037 and 
F038; as such, it became subject to the land disposal restriction 
treatment requirements and prohibitions on June 30, 1994, the date that 
the national capacity variance for this waste expired. See Sec. 268.36 
(c), promulgated at 57 FR 37271 (Aug. 18, 1992). Thus, the sludge or 
any residues generated from its treatment cannot be placed on the land, 
including back in the Surge Pond, unless first treated to meet the 
treatment standards for F037/F038, since the impoundment does not 
qualify as a section 3005 (j) (11) impoundment. Nor does the company 
want to put the treated sludge back into the impoundment. The company 
has also constructed a new tank-based wastewater treatment system to 
replace the old system of surface impoundments.
2. Listing and LDR Treatment Standards for F037 and F038
    As indicated earlier, sludge from the Surge Pond meets the 
definition of F037 and F038 nonwastewaters. The listing of these waste 
codes was promulgated on November 2, 1990 (55 FR 46354) and amended on 
May 13, 1991 (56 FR 21955). LDR treatment standards for these wastes 
were finalized on August 18, 1992 (Phase I LDR Rule).
    The final treatment standards for nonwastewaters set total 
concentration limits for 14 hazardous organic constituents based on the 
performance of combustion or solvent extraction, TCLP leachate 
concentration limits for nickel and chromium based on stabilization, 
and a total cyanide standard based on combustion. However, a two-year 
national capacity variance was granted for F037/F038 wastes generated 
from the cleanout of surface impoundments, on the basis of a 
determination that existing capacity at bulk solid incineration systems 
was insufficient to treat these wastes. This capacity variance expired 
on June 30, 1994. Before this date, these wastes could be land disposed 
in a subtitle C facility without meeting the LDR treatment standards.
    EPA also determined that impoundments receiving F037/F038 wastes 
during the national capacity variance would continue to have four years 
from the promulgation of the F037/F038 listing date to retrofit the 
impoundments to meet the minimum technology requirements (MTRs), or to 
close them (59 FR 37220-37221). After June 30, 1994, the wastes must 
meet either the LDR treatment standards or alternative standards 
established by a treatability variance prior to land disposal, be 
granted a case-by-case capacity extension, or be disposed of in a unit 
from which there is no migration.
3. Citgo's Management Decisions
    Citgo conducted a feasibility study in early 1993 (after 
promulgation of the LDRs for F037/F038) to compare and evaluate their 
options for closing the Surge Pond. The closure alternatives considered 
were a ``no action'' alternative, traditional RCRA clean closure, 
traditional RCRA in-situ closure as a landfill, closure by removal 
followed by risk assessment (risk based closure), and delay of closure. 
Citgo chose to pursue closure by removal followed by risk assessment 
(see Citgo's variance petition for the basis of their decision). This 
alternative entailed treatment and disposal of a tremendous quantity of 
F037/F038 nonwastewater that was to be removed from the pond. The 
treatment technologies considered in this feasibility study included:

In-situ and ex-situ stabilization
In-situ and ex-situ bioremediation
In-situ steam stripping
Ex-situ thermal desorption
Ex-situ incineration
In-situ and ex-situ air sparging
Ex-situ dewatering
Ex-situ oil/water separation

    At the time this feasibility study was conducted (early 1993), 
approximately a year and a half remained before the expiration of the 
national capacity variance for the F037/F038 wastes. Citgo planned that 
the cleanout would be finished and that all the sludge removed would be 
landfilled in a subtitle C unit meeting the minimum technology 
requirements, as required by Sec. 268.5(h)(2), before the national 
capacity variance expired. They constructed a treatment system which is 
designed to meet the NESHAP waste limit for benzene and controls air 
emissions. The treated waste also must meet certain landfill acceptance 
criteria. In particular, this treatment system meets the LDR level for 
benzene and also achieves oil recovery, partial removal of volatile 
organics, and dewatering and stabilization of the sludge which meets 
LDR standards for nickel and chromium (the two regulated metals in 
F037/F038 wastes); however, the treatment system would not meet the LDR 
treatment standards for most of the semivolatile organics. Wastewater 
from the system is redisposed back into the Surge Pond.
    Citgo hired a contractor to perform the removal and treatment of 
the Surge Pond sludge. The conditions of the contract stated that the 
clean-up must be completed before June 30, 1994. However, due to 
technical difficulties with scale-up, dewatering performance, and the 
automatic control system for the vapor recovery system, the progress of 
the clean-up was seriously delayed. In early 1994, it became clear to 
Citgo that the clean-up would not be finished before the expiration of 
the national capacity variance and that they would need a treatability 
variance from the LDRs in order to continue disposing of the residuals 
from their existing sludge treatment system.

D. Waste Description

    One of the most significant distinguishing characteristics of this 
waste is its tremendous quantity. The feasibility study conducted in 
early 1993 estimated that the total volume of sludge contained in the 
Surge Pond was 770,000 cubic yards, and the total mass as 745,000 tons 
with a 30% solids content (230,000 tons dry solids). However, Citgo 
indicated in its petition that it now appears that these quantities 
were underestimated by as much as 25%, which would mean that the 
original mass of sludge was about 993,000 tons. Citgo indicated that 
approximately 625,000 tons of sludge would remain in the pond after 
June 30, 1994, the date that the national capacity variance for this 
waste expired. This is the quantity of waste that will be affected by 
this proposed variance. Approximately 427,000 tons of solid residual 
will be generated by the treatment of the waste in the Surge Pond.
    Sampling and analysis of the sludge was performed for Citgo's 
feasibility study and again for this variance petition. Concentrations 
of hazardous constituents in untreated sludge are summarized in table 
A.

E. Description of On-site Treatment System

    The treatment system Citgo is using consists of air sparging in 
tanks to remove benzene (other volatiles do not appear to be removed 
effectively) followed by sludge dewatering. Air emissions from some of 
the unit processes (shaker system, air sparging tanks, and chemical mix 
tanks) are routed to a vapor control system which consists of scrubbers 
for removal of hydrogen sulfide and a portable thermal oxidizer for 
destruction of volatile organics. The dewatered sludge is then mixed 
with lime or flyash for purposes of stabilization of metals and 
providing structural integrity to meet the landfill acceptance 
criteria. The stabilized sludge is land disposed at Chemical Waste 
Management's Subtitle C landfill in Carlyss, Louisiana. The liquid 
phase goes to tanks functioning as oil-water separators for recovery of 
oil; approximately 18% of the oil present in the sludge is recovered. 
The aqueous discharge (wastewater) from the separators is discharged 
back into the Surge Pond; overflow from the Surge Pond discharges into 
the old wastewater treatment system.
    Regulations that the sludge treatment system must satisfy include 
the NPDES permit limits for discharge of all site wastewaters, air 
emission limits, the benzene NESHAP limit (10 ppm), and structural 
criteria for acceptance at the landfill. Treatment performance data is 
presented in table B.

F. Summary of Citgo's Petition for a Treatability Variance

    Citgo submitted a site-specific treatability variance petition to 
EPA on April 13, 1994, and submitted additional materials as per EPA's 
request. The petition requests that EPA allow Citgo to continue land 
disposing the treated sludge generated by the remediation of the Surge 
Pond and to meet alternate LDR standards for their F037/F038 
nonwastewaters. The alternative treatment standards suggested by Citgo 
are presented in table B.
    Citgo made the following arguments as justification for this 
request:
    (1) Citgo claimed that incineration is not an appropriate 
(technology for this waste because
    (a) the tremendous quantity of wastes generated by this remediation 
exceeds the annual excess capacity available nationwide for F037/F038 
wastes (Citgo estimated that the eight incinerators willing to treat 
their F037/F038 waste can treat 374 thousand tons of F037/F038 wastes 
per year; the Surge Pond remediation will generate approximately 427 
thousand tons of waste after June 30),
    (b) the metal content of this waste (4,084 ppm reported average) is 
higher than that of typical F037/F038 wastes, such that incineration of 
this waste could release large quantities of metals to the atmosphere, 
and
    (c) the hazards of transporting the waste long distances for 
offsite incineration exceed the hazards of treating the waste onsite 
and disposing the residuals in the subtitle C landfill seven miles from 
the site. Citgo estimated that transportation of 427 thousand tons of 
waste to offsite incinerators would require a total of 24 million 
highway miles and result in 48 traffic accidents (24 with a possible 
release of hazardous material to the environment) and 7 traffic 
fatalities.
    (2) Citgo claimed that cement kiln combustion is inappropriate for 
this waste due to the low BTU content (less than 2,000 BTU/lb) of the 
waste.
    (3) Citgo claimed that, ``When compared with other treatment 
options, the CITGO approach is clearly the safest for the environment 
and human health.''
    (4) The company could simply close the impoundment with the waste 
in place, thus doing no treatment at all.

II. Basis for Proposed Treatability Variance

A. EPA Evaluation of Citgo's Petition

    After careful evaluation, EPA is proposing to grant a treatability 
variance for the F037 and F038 nonwastewaters generated by the 
remediation of the Surge Pond, subject to the conditions described in 
section II.B. Our basis for proposing to grant the petition is 
described below:
    (1) EPA wants the remediation of the Surge Pond to be completed. 
Although Citgo has stated that they prefer to close the Surge Pond by 
removal of the sludge followed by a risk assessment, the closure 
regulations for interim status surface impoundments in Sec. 265.228 (52 
FR 8708, March 19, 1987, amended at 57 FR 3493, Jan. 29, 1992) allow 
the option of closing the impoundment with the waste in place. This 
would mean that several hundred thousands tons of untreated hazardous 
waste could remain indefinitely in an unlined impoundment immediately 
adjacent to and in hydraulic communication with the Calcasieu River, 
several miles upstream from the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 
Hazardous waste constituents have already been detected in the 
groundwater collected and analyzed from monitoring wells in the 
vicinity of the Surge Pond. EPA, the authorized state, and the company 
have worked out an arrangement whereby the impoundment can be 
effectively closed and remediated, and the sludge securely disposed 
after treatment. Thus, the alternative of closing in place appears to 
be clearly less desirable than partial though substantial treatment of 
the sludge followed by disposal of the treatment residue in a subtitle 
C MTR landfill. EPA supports the ongoing remediation plan, Citgo's 
choice to close the pond by removal of hazardous waste, rather than 
closing with the waste in place.
    (2) As noted, Citgo's remediation plan has been approved by 
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). LDEQ has also 
approved a temporary variance to a small source exemption for air 
emissions which establishes operating specifications for temperature 
and residence time for the portable thermal oxidizer used to destroy 
stripped volatile organics. Although regional approval of the 
remediation plan was not required, EPA Region VI concurs with this 
proposed treatability variance and is currently reviewing Citgo's plan 
for risk based closure of the Surge Pond.
    (3) EPA agrees that standards which could necessitate offsite 
incineration are not appropriate for this waste, within the meaning of 
Sec. 268.44(a). The quantity of waste being generated by this 
remediation exceeds the available incineration capacity for F037/F038 
wastes. Although the national capacity variance for this waste has just 
expired, the fact remains that offsite incineration is not logistically 
feasible for this large quantity of waste.
    (4) The Citgo treatment system achieves oil recovery and 
substantial treatment of some of the regulated constituents. Citgo 
estimates that approximately 16 thousand tons of oil will be recovered 
during the course of this remediation. Waste minimization is a high 
priority for the Agency and activities achieving recovery of valuable 
resources are strongly encouraged. In addition, the Citgo treatment 
system achieves substantial reduction of most of the regulated 
constituents.
    In short, EPA is proposing to grant the variance request because 
the treatment technology that is the basis for BDAT ``is not 
appropriate to the waste'' under Sec. 268.44 (a) and (h). The treatment 
technology is not appropriate because of the enormous volume of sludge 
needed to be treated and because requiring those standards to be met 
could result in a net environmental detriment. (EPA is convinced that 
CITGO, for reasons that are legally permissible, will choose to close 
its impoundment with hundreds of thousands of tons of sludge left in 
place.) Under these exceptional circumstances, EPA believes that a 
treatability variance can be issued and accordingly is proposing to do 
so here.
    Although EPA is proposing to grant Citgo a treatability variance 
for the F037/F038 wastes contained in and to be removed from the Surge 
Pond, the company made a statement in their petition with which the 
Agency does not agree. In particular, the Agency does not agree that 
the chemical properties of the waste make thermal destuction 
inappropriate for this waste. Specifically, EPA does not agree that the 
metal content of the waste is sufficiently high to make the waste 
nonamenable to combustion.
    Finally, it should be noted that wastewater from the sludge 
treatment system is currently being put back in the Surge Pond. 
Although characterization of this wastewater has not been provided, 
this wastewater may contain significant concentrations of volatile 
organics which could simply evaporate from the pond. It may be possible 
to reduce releases of volatile organics from the wastewater to the air 
by treating this wastewater in the newly constructed closed-tank 
wastewater treatment system instead of the old system of open surface 
impoundments. However, the Final Listing Rule for F037/F038 established 
the Agency's position that wastewater removed from wastewater treatment 
sludges by dewatering that is recycled to process operation or returned 
to the treatment system is not a ``derived from'' hazardous wastes if 
it can be demonstrated that the water removed from the sludge is no 
more contaminated than the original influent to the treatment unit from 
which the sludge was removed for dewatering (55 FR 46372, November 2, 
1990). Thus, wastewater from the sludge treatment system is excluded 
from the definition of hazardous waste and its management is not within 
the jurisdiction of RCRA.

B. Proposed Alternative Treatment Standards

    If this treatability variance is finalized, Citgo Corporation may 
renew the disposal of the treated sludge generated by the onsite 
treatment system for sludges removed from the Surge Pond at the Lake 
Charles Refinery site in a Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal facility 
(since it remains a hazardous waste), subject to the following 
conditions:
    (1) The stabilized sludge generated by the treatment system must 
meet the F037/F038 nonwastewater treatment standards for benzene, 
chromium, and nickel and the NESHAP standard for benzene prior to 
disposal in a subtitle C regulated facility. Treatment of benzene will 
also result in incidental treatment of volatile organics in the waste. 
Meeting LDR and NESHAP standards for benzene should also assure 
optimized operation of the treatment process, since it is designed to 
treat benzene. Other constituents that are normally regulated for F037/
F038 nonwastewaters are not regulated for this waste.
    (2) The vapor control system must be operated in accordance with 
performance specifications required by LDEQ, which state that the 
thermal oxidizer fire box temperature shall be maintained at 1600 deg.F 
or higher for one second or more. If the vapor control system 
malfunctions, operation of the system must cease until the problem has 
been corrected.

List of Subject in 40 CTR Part 268

    Environmental protection, Hazardous Waste.
    Dated: August 4, 1994.
Michael Shapiro,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS.

    1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.

    2. Section 268.44 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 268.44  Variance from a treatment standard.

* * * * *
    (p) Citgo Corporation may dispose the treated sludge generated by 
the onsite treatment system for sludges removed from the Surge Pond at 
the Lake Charles Refinery site in a Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal 
facility, subject to the following conditions:
    (1) The stabilized sludge generated by the treatment system must 
meet the F037 and F038 nonwastewater treatment standards for benzene, 
chromium, and nickel and the NESHAP standard for benzene. Other 
constituents that are normally regulated in F037 and F038 
nonwastewaters are not regulated for this waste.
    (2) The vapor control system must be operated in accordance with 
performance specifications required by Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality, which state that the thermal oxidizer fire box 
temperature shall be maintained at 1600 deg.F or higher for one second 
or more. If the vapor control system malfunctions, operation of the 
system must cease until the problem has been corrected.

                                 Table A.--Characterization of Untreated Sludge                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Feasability study data Total conc.   Variance petition
                                                                       (mg/kg)                  data Total conc.
                    Chemical name                      ---------------------------------------   (mg/kg) 4-day  
                                                          Average       High          Low           average     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics:                                                                                                       
    Acenaphthene......................................         49.0        120.0         17.0                 NA
    Anthracene........................................         33.0         65.0          7.0              23.37
    Benz(a)anthracene.................................         44.9        160.0          7.1              17.02
    Benzene...........................................         66.9        190.0          3.9              26.84
    Benzo(a)pyrene....................................         34.4        120.0          6.0               9.40
    Chrysene..........................................         73.9        220.0         16.0              29.36
    Di-n-butyl phthalate..............................           ND           ND           ND               0.00
    bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate........................           ND           ND           ND               0.00
    Ethylbenzene......................................        135.0        300.0         32.0              37.36
    Fluorene..........................................         89.0        170.0         23.0                 NA
    Naphthalene.......................................        280.0        490.0         75.0             103.16
    Phenanthrene......................................        308.3        550.0         71.0             123.09
    Phenol............................................         32.0         46.0           ND               0.00
    Pyrene............................................         94.2        200.0         18.0              42.71
    Toluene...........................................        182.3        490.0           ND              56.06
    Xylenes (total)...................................        438.0        930.0         14.0             154.42
Inorganics:                                                                                                     
    Cyanides (total)..................................           ND           ND           ND              10.11
Metals                                                                                            TCLP (mg/l)   
    Barium............................................        389.0        613.0        207.0                 NA
    Chromium (total)..................................       1085.0       2330.0        268.0               3.10
    Lead..............................................       2200.0       5410.0        618.0                 NA
    Nickel............................................         75.0        229.0         34.8               0.12
    Vanadium..........................................        324.0        962.0         34.0                NA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not Analyzed.                                                                                               
ND--Not Detected.                                                                                               


                                      Table B.--Treatment Performance Data                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Variance petition data 4-day average concentrations         Worst case
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------   sample   
          Chemical name                             Treated: system A         Treated: system B     ------------
                                     Untreated  ----------------------------------------------------            
                                                  Dewatered   Stabilized    Dewatered   Stabilized   Stabilized 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics: Total (mg/kg)                                                                                         
    Anthracene....................        23.37        17.25        14.68        13.75        10.23         24.5
    Benz(a)anthracene.............        17.02        13.78        14.25        11.39         8.43         22.9
    Benzene.......................        26.84       *15.44         8.86         8.83         3.50        *19.8
    Benzo(a)pyrene................         9.40         7.62         6.87         6.28         5.47         12.8
    Chrysene......................        29.36        24.02        22.36        18.86        13.36         29.1
    Di-n-butyl phthalate..........         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.05         0.00          0.0
    bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate....         0.00         8.24        15.66         2.63         0.00         81.1
    Ethylbenzene..................        37.36        31.10        27.00        25.03        17.39         35.4
    Naphthalene...................       103.16        87.74        78.23        67.67        50.33         98.2
    Phenanthrene..................       123.09       109.33        96.33        82.47        65.41        119.0
    Phenol........................         0.00         1.80         0.00         0.00         0.00          0.0
    Pyrene........................        42.71        32.76        29.93        27.30        20.16         40.7
    Toluene.......................        56.06        53.67        35.92        36.42        21.49         69.8
    Xylenes (total)...............       154.42       158.34       123.86       112.35        84.94        173.4
Inorganics: Total (mg/kg)                                                                                       
    Cyanides (total)..............        10.11         0.90         1.05         1.02         0.75          2.8
Metals: TCLP (mg/l)                                                                                             
    Chromium (total)..............         3.10         0.04         0.04         0.39         0.04         0.04
    Nickel........................         0.12         0.04         0.04         0.15         0.04        0.04 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System A consists of filter presses followed by the Aran stabilization unit.                                    
System B consists of centrifuges followed by the Portec stabilization unit.                                     
*The company has agreed to continue treatment as required for treated wastes that do not meet the benzene NESHAP
  level of 10 mg/kg.                                                                                            

[FR Doc. 94-21371 Filed 8-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P