Jump to main content.

Project XL Logo

Union Carbide

Draft Final Project Agreement

Draft 8/8/96UCC
Union Carbide Corporation
Taft, LA Facility
Table of Contents

1.0 Final Project Agreement

1.1 Introduction and Purpose
1.2 Project Summary
1.3 Summary of Environmental Benefits
1.4 Description of Facility
1.5 Stakeholder Support and Involvement
1.6 Project XL Criteria
1.7 Roles and Responsibilities of FPA Signatories
1.8 Term of Agreement
1.9 Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
1.10 Reporting and Periodic Reviews
1.11 Provisions for Modification
1.12 Dispute Resolution
1.13 Enforcement
1.14 Time for Compliance with Otherwise Applicable Requirements
1.15 Termination of EPA
1.16 Notice
1.17 Severability
1.18 Effective Date

2.0 Stakeholder Involvement

2.1 Stakeholder Process
2.2 List of Stakeholders

3.0 Union Carbide Environmental Management System (EMS)

4.0 Demonstration Project Appendices

4.1 Appendix I: Regulatory Flexibility (Reg/Flex) Work Process
4.2 Appendix II: Summary of Completed projects
4.3 Appendix III: EMS–Based Performance Standards for BIF Waste Transfer
4.4 Appendix IV: Secondary Air Emission Offsetting
4.5 Appendix V: On–Site Soil Reclamation



Union Carbide Corporation
Taft, LA Facility

1.1 Introduction and Purpose

Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide"), Taft Facility, has been accepted as a participant in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Project XL" (Excellence and Leadership) Program. Project XL is an EPA initiative to test the extent to which regulatory flexibility and other innovative environmental approaches can be implemented to achieve both superior environmental performance and reduced economic and social burdens.

This document, the Final Project Agreement ("FPA"), states the intention of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), Union Carbide and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") to carry out demonstration projects at Union Carbide's Taft, LA Facility as part of EPA's Project XL program.

The FPA is intended to be a framework statement of the parties' plans and intentions with regard to the demonstration projects described below. It is intended to clearly state the plans of the various participants and to represent the firm commitment of each participant to carry out the projects. The FPA is not, however, intended to create legal rights or obligations and is not a contract, or a regulatory action such as a permit or rule, although some provisions in this FPA may be implemented through separate rules or permits or other implementing mechanisms which will be legally enforceable.

1.2 Project Summary

This XL Project will demonstrate multi–stakeholder–developed alternatives to current regulatory requirements to provide the basis for achieving significant advances in environmental performance and concomitantly to reduce costs to EPA, DEQ and Union Carbide. These alternatives ("Demonstration Projects") will serve to pilot potential rule changes at both the State and Federal levels which then would be available for utilization by the entire regulated community). Each discrete Demonstration Project that requires rule changes or permit modifications (see Sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, below) will describe how all of the XL criteria (see Section 1.6, below) are met. Demonstration Projects that have been completed during the course of the development of this final FPA and that received multi–stakeholder acceptance but did not require rule changes or permit modifications to achieve are summarized in Section 4.2, below. New Demonstration Projects will be proposed on an ongoing basis and will be developed in accordance with the XL Work Process as described in Section 4.1, below. Upon agreement of the signatories to this FPA and after review and acceptance by stakeholders, the parties intend that the FPA will be revised to incorporate new demonstration projects as provided in Section 1.11, below. These projects, taking into account Union Carbide's Environmental Management System, will result in a greater overall level of environmental performance than can be achieved under existing regulatory requirements.

While detailed descriptions of the three currently–defined Demonstration Projects that require rule changes or permit modifications are included as separate appendices to this FPA (see Sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, below), these Projects are summarized as follows:

a. Under current regulations, 40 CFR 265.193(f), 40 CFR 265.195(b), 266.103(j)(2) and 266.111(e)(3), the Taft Facility is required to visually inspect above–ground piping used to transfer hazardous waste on a daily or hourly basis for leaks or corrosion and document those inspections in operating records of the Facility. In this project, those requirements will be modified or interpreted to require the inspection of the piping, the documenting and correcting of leaks in accordance with Union Carbide Taft Facility environmental management systems, and corrosion and pressure testing of the piping on a periodic basis. The objectives of this project are (a) a greater emphasis on pollution prevention by imposing more stringent testing requirements to prevent leaks and spills and (b) reducing the burden of inspection and record keeping requirements and reducing compliance costs. This project is superior in environmental performance to the existing regulations because it is expected to prevent spills and leaks, instead of focusing on identifying and stopping leaks after they have occurred.

b., etc. [will use similar description to a. above for other projects if a. is acceptable to EPA and DEQ.]

1.3 Summary of Environmental Benefits

While detailed descriptions of environmental benefits of each demonstration project are included in the project are included in the project descriptions (see Demonstration Project Appendices, Sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, below) the following is a summary of the aggregate health, safety and environmental benefits of the projects covered by this FPA:

a. Continuous improvement in plant environmental performance through effective implementation of Union Carbide's corporate and Facility Environmental Management System. In particular, the emphasis on pollution prevention in the design of new products and processes will result in a continuing decrease in waste generation per pound of product, while also assuring effective overall risk management.

b. Reduced worker exposure from multiple handling of hazardous waste.

c. Reduced potential for worker injury by transferring wastes from smaller containers to larger ones.

d. Prevention of leaks from waste transfer lines in lieu of the current approach which focuses on a visual inspection system that could allow a leak to go unrecognized for as much as 24 hours.

e. Reduction in the use of epoxy–based coatings for secondary containment areas, resulting in reduced VOC emissions and worker exposure.

f. Early reduction of approximately 80 tpy of secondary air emissions, compared to the approximately 4 tpy reduction that would have resulted under RCRA and Clean Air Act requirements that appear to be conflicting and / or redundant.

g. On–site reclamation and reuse of contaminated soil, thereby reducing air emissions from incineration and transportation, saving landfill space, not shifting the risk burden off–site, and facilitating faster cleanup and reuse of land within the plant boundary.

1.4 Description of Facility

The Taft complex (the "Facility") in Hahnville, LA is an integrated petrochemicals and plastics manufacturing operation with approximately 1100 employees situated on 1900 acres. The Facility contains fifteen individual production units with an aggregated output on the order of five billion pounds of product per year. The Facility produces a variety of ethylene–chain chemicals, including ethylene, ethylene oxide, ethylene glycol and other ethylene derivatives, butanol, acrylates, and polyethylene. Applications for these materials include textiles, paints, plastic products, detergents, pharmaceuticals, antifreeze, lubricants, and a host of other consumer and industrial products. The Facility has a well–defined Environmental Management System that promotes emission, waste and risk reduction. Union Carbide has invested in new process technology that achieves environmental performance and energy conservation superior to the conventional technologies they replace (e.g., a new butanol unit and a new low pressure polyethylene unit that are more energy efficient and achieve better environmental performance than the units they replace).

1.5 Stakeholder Support and Involvement

The stakeholder process is well–defined (see Section 2.1, below). The Union Carbide Project XL had early involvement by stakeholders due to Union Carbide's previously established community outreach program and participation in EPA's Sustainable Industry Initiative. The Stakeholder group is comprised of local citizens, State and Federal environmental agency representatives, members of national and State environmental organizations, a trade organization representative and a Facility employee (a complete listing is included in Section 2.2, below). They have been involved in the development and review of the existing demonstration projects. With the exception of the one non–management employee of Union Carbide at the Taft Facility, Stakeholders do not do business with nor are they employed by Union Carbide. These Stakeholders and/or their successors will continue to be involved in the implementation and evaluation of existing Project Demonstrations and in the development, implementation and evaluation of new Project Demonstrations. New or additional Stakeholders may be added to the Stakeholder group by agreement of the parties to the FPA, after consultation with the Stakeholders.

Only Union Carbide, EPA and DEQ are signatories to this FPA. However, all the other Stakeholders have been and will be encouraged to express their opinions on the FPA and on the Demonstration Projects. They may submit written reports or comments to any party on the FPA or the Demonstration Projects. To the extent it will assist in reaching consensus, it is Union Carbide's intent to respond to any written comments or reports.

1.6 Project XL Criteria

EPA's Project XL Guidelines (in a May 23, 1995 Federal Register notice) provide eight criteria which are to be met for any approved demonstration project. Each demonstration project will be described in detail in a separate appendix, which will describe how that project meets each individual criterion. These criteria include:

a. Environmental Results
b. Stakeholder Support
c. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation
d. Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction
e. Innovation/Multi–Media Pollution Prevention
f. Transferability
g. Feasibility
h. Shifting of Risk Burden

In addition to the above criteria required by the EPA guidelines, two additional criteria are addressed in the Project Demonstrations. These are:

i. Relationship to the Facility Environmental Management System
j. Regulatory Flexibility Required for Demonstration Project Implementation.

1.7 Roles and Responsibilities of FPA Signatories

Union Carbide, EPA and DEQ are committed to a high level of cooperation, communication and coordination to assure successful, effective and efficient administration of the Demonstration Projects. The agencies are committed to the migration of successful concepts to other affected industries by general rule–making, permit modification or some other appropriate mechanism.

Each Demonstration Project will specify the roles of the agency signatories, including, as appropriate, the naming of EPA or DEQ as the coordinating agency. Designation of EPA or DEQ as the coordinating agency is solely for administrative convenience and is not intended to restrict the scope of either agency's oversight or enforcement authority or affect in any manner any existing delegation agreements between the agencies. Designation of one of the agency signatories as the coordinating agency is intended to streamline regulatory oversight where possible, reduce confusion as to which agency to consult regarding implementation issues, and provide a means for development and coordination of environmental issues that arise during the term of this FPA.

Some of the roles and responsibilities of the parties to this FPA may include:

a. Participant–Union Carbide Corporation, Taft Facility

– Delineate how Demonstration Projects meet the XL Criteria
– Meet all commitments defined in FPA and Demonstration Projects
– Identify and alert EPA and DEQ to proposed or promulgated rules which may have potential to impact any Demonstration Project
– Prepare performance and other reports (see Section 1.10, below)
b. State Agency–Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

– To the extent designated in a Project Description, serve as coordinating agency for the administrative aspects of the FPA.
– Complete final rule making, issue permit or other appropriate mechanism to provide for the implementation of Demonstration Projects
– Migrate appropriate concepts to other affected industries by general rule making or other appropriate means
c. Federal Agency–U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

– Provide coordination for the administrative aspects of the FPA for which the DEQ has not received delegation or aspects which are agreed by all the signatories.
– Complete final rule making, issue permit or other appropriate mechanism to provide for the implementation of Demonstration Projects
– Migrate appropriate concepts to other affected industries by general rule making or other appropriate means
1.8 Term of Agreement

The term of this FPA is 5 years. The implementing mechanism for each Demonstration Project will define the term of that Project, which may be longer than 5 years so that the FPA process is not biased against capital intensive projects. The parties intend that demonstration project terms will allow Union Carbide to recapture any capital expenditures it makes.

If any party to the FPA desires to renew the FPA, then all parties to the FPA should negotiate in good faith for a renewal of the FPA, but each party has the option not to renew. Stakeholders involved in the initial FPA process will be included in the renewal process, if they desire to be included. Where a project meets its performance criteria, it is the expectation of the parties that the FPA will be renewed with respect to that project, although there can be no assurance that the FPA can be renewed.

1.9 Regulatory Flexibility Provisions

It is recognized that regulatory flexibility needed to implement a given Demonstration Project may or may not exist within existing rules. It is agreed that UCC, DEQ and EPA will work together to jointly define the appropriate regulatory or statutory mechanism for a given Demonstration Project. This mechanism will be defined in each Demonstration Project.

It is the intent of EPA, DEQ and Union Carbide to work together with the XL Stakeholders to find a path so that the projects described in this FPA will be in compliance with applicable environmental regulations and laws, and to take such steps as are needed to implement the agreed–upon path. This may be accomplished, for example, by a site–specific rule or permit for a specific project which operates instead of the generally applicable environmental regulations. It might also be accomplished by use of existing variance mechanisms or by issuance of interpretations of existing requirements.

The parties intend that compliance with a project as it is incorporated into an implementing mechanism will be deemed to be compliance with the applicable regulations. If a citizen's suit is filed under environmental laws alleging that UCC is in violation of regulatory provisions which UCC does not have to comply with under the terms of the implementing mechanism for a specific Demonstration Project, EPA and DEQ are committed to taking appropriate steps to assist Union Carbide in defending against such allegation.

1.10 Reporting and Periodic Reviews

UCC will make biennial performance reports (due by September 30 of every other year beginning in 1998) available to the EPA, DEQ and XL Stakeholders describing the progress made in attaining the goals of the Demonstration Projects so that those entities may evaluate Union Carbide's performance. These reports, as well as any other reports or monitoring information prepared by Union Carbide will be described more fully in the specific Demonstration Projects. Taking into account the views of the Stakeholders, the Agency will review these reports for the purpose of determining (1) whether superior environmental benefits have been achieved as anticipated in the FPA, (2) whether Union Carbide has met its commitment to implement the Demonstration Projects, and (3) whether the FPA should be renewed. If any party to the FPA determines that continuation of the FPA is not warranted, then termination, in accordance with 1.13, below, will be invoked. If the Demonstration Projects in the aggregate fail to achieve superior environmental performance, it is the intent of the parties that, prior to termination of the FPA, Union Carbide will be provided with an opportunity to propose improvements to any Demonstration Project(s) so that they will achieve the performance anticipated by the parties and the Stakeholders. The Agencies and Union Carbide will, in good faith, attempt to reach an agreement on necessary modifications to the Demonstration Project(s), which, if agreed upon, shall be implemented using the modification procedure of Section 1.11, below.

1.11 Provisions for Modification

This FPA may be modified Upon agreement of all the signatories, and after involvement of Stakeholders in accordance with the process set forth in Sections 2.2 and 4.1, below.

It is the intent of the parties that additional projects be identified at the Taft Facility which all parties believe will provide greater environmental benefits at lower cost than existing regulatory requirements as presently interpreted by EPA and that such new Demonstration Projects be incorporated into this FPA upon agreement of the signatories and after opportunity for stakeholder and public participation.

The parties acknowledge that new or modified environmental regulations may be promulgated from time to time which apply to a Demonstration Project. Once Union Carbide learns about new final or proposed rules, Union Carbide will advice the parties to the FPA what Union Carbide believes the impact of the new regulations would be on the project. Whenever possible, rather than terminating a Demonstration Project because of regulatory changes, the parties intend to appropriately amend or modify the projects and the implementing mechanism so that they address the change. If a Demonstration Project already provides superior environmental performance than these new or modified regulations would have required from the Facility, then it is the intent of the parties to, where legally possible, make appropriate changes to the project implementation mechanism so that such new or modified regulations impose no additional duties or obligations on Union Carbide.

1.12 Dispute Resolution

Any dispute which arises concerning the commitments of the parties, the interpretation or meaning of the FPA or the implementation of specific Demonstration projects will, in the first instance, be the subject of informal negotiations. To initiate informal negotiations, any party which believes it has a dispute with any other party will simultaneously notify all of the parties, in writing, setting forth the matter in dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved by the parties within 35 days of receipt of such notice, then one or more of the disputants may invoke non–binding mediation by setting forth the nature of the dispute, with a proposal for its resolution, in a letter submitted to the EPA Region 6 Regional Administrator or, if the LA DEQ is serving as the coordinating agency, to the Secretary of the LA DEQ, with a copy of all parties (as provided in the Notice provisions in Section 1.16, below). Any party to the dispute may request an informal mediation meeting. The disputants may request an opinion from the Regional Administrator or the Secretary of LA DEQ (if the LA EQ is serving as the coordinating agency) in lieu of or in addition to the mediation meeting. An opinion, written or oral, by the Regional Administrator or the Secretary will be non–binding and non–enforceable and nothing in this section shall be construed as altering any signatory's right to request termination pursuant to Section 1.15, below.

1.13 Enforcement

Nothing in this FPA affects the ability of EPA or DEQ to act in cases of imminent endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment or to initiate enforcement proceedings under existing provisions of law and nothing affects the ability of Union Carbide to exercise its rights to defend against such proceedings. Union Carbide agrees not to argue that EPA or DEQ has waived or relinquished any enforcement rights based upon their participation in this FPA. The Agencies do commit themselves, however, to (i) be guided by the principles enunciated in those documents entitled and identified as Principles for Development of Project XL Final Project Agreements, from David Gardiner, dated December 1, 1995, and OECA's Operating Principles for Project XL Participants, from Steven A. Herman, dated October 2, 1995; (ii) provide Union Carbide an opportunity to, prior to institution of enforcement action, an opportunity to take corrective action with respect to a Demonstration Project, to the extent consistent with the foregoing documents and the reservation of enforcement authority above; and (iii) consider and weigh the willingness of Union Carbide to enter into this FPA in the event of any enforcement action undertaken.

1.14 Time for Compliance with Otherwise Applicable Requirements

The parties recognize that after a term of a Demonstration Project ends either because the Project is terminated or the Project expires, Union Carbide may require additional time so as to come into compliance with otherwise applicable regulations or permit provisions. It is the intent of the parties that Union Carbide will have a period after the termination or expiration to comply with then existing compliance requirements, which will be set forth in the implementing mechanisms in the individual Demonstration Project Appendices (Section 4, below). But until compliance with those requirements is implemented, Union Carbide will continue to comply with the management practices specified in the project implementation mechanism.

1.15 Termination of FPA

It is the desire of the parties for the FPA to remain in effect and be implemented as fully as possible and it is not their intent to seek termination of or withdraw from the FPA unless there is a compelling reason to do so, such as the failure of any party to implement material provisions of this FPA or a failure of a Demonstration Project to achieve superior environmental performance. Nonetheless, any party to this FPA may terminate or withdraw from the FPA at any time upon issuance of written notice of intent to terminate the FPA or withdraw from the FPA to the other parties.

Termination of the FPA shall take effect 120 days following receipt of the Notice of Termination or Withdrawal in order to assure an orderly transition process, unless the parties all agree that another deadline is necessary in order to achieve an orderly transition.

Termination of the FPA does not terminate the Demonstration Projects. However, after termination, EPA or DEQ can modify permits, regulations or regulatory interpretations in ways that vary from those set forth in the appendices to this FPA. The process for modification of permits, regulations or regulatory interpretations or for termination of a Demonstration Project by the agency signatories will be as provided in the implementing mechanisms as provided in the applicable Demonstration Project Appendix (see Section 4, below).

Since the provisions of this FPA are intended to provide an alternative, rather than the exclusive means of compliance, Union Carbide may elect to terminate an individual project and comply with then existing regulations instead of the FPA, but will give 30 days advance notice to DEQ and EPA before initiating the steps to implement such an election. Until such time as compliance with the alternative requirement is achieved, Union Carbide will continue to comply with the management practices specified in the implementation mechanisms as provided in the applicable Demonstration Project Appendix (see Section 4, below).

This section does not limit or otherwise affect the Agencies' enforcement rights in Section 1.13, above, or rights of Union Carbide under federal and State law.

1.16 Notice

Any notices or communications to the parties to this FPA shall be deemed sufficiently given if in writing and hand–delivered or sent by another method of communication, including electronic mail or facsimile, to the representatives of the parties at the addresses set forth below:

If to Union Carbide, to

Tom Jones
Senior Staff Engineer
Union Carbide Corporation
Taft Plant
P.O. Box 50
Hahnville, LA 70057
504–783–4738 (telephone)
504–783–5423 (facsimile)


James Dement
Assistant Director
Health, Safety and Environmental Department
Union Carbide Corporation, K–3
39 Old Ridgebury Road
Danbury, CT 06817–0001
203–794–5506 (telephone)
203–794–5275 (facsimile)

If to EPA, to:

David Bond
Project XL Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214–665–6431 (telephone)
214–665–7446 (facsimile)


[to be supplied by EPA]

If to DEQ to:

John Glenn
Program Manager
LA Department of Environmental Quality
Office of the Secretary
P.O. Box 82263
Baton Rouge, LA 70884–2263
504–763–3538 (telephone)
504–765–0299 (facsimile)


[to be provided by DEQ]

The signatories to this FPA may change their representatives by sending a written notice to the other two signatories' representatives.

1.17 Severability

Should any term or provision of this FPA be modified or withdrawn, such modification or withdrawal shall not affect any other term or provision of this FPA.

1.18 Effective Date

This Final Project Agreement shall take effect upon the date on which it is signed by the last signatory who will be the Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 6.


Regional Administrator Date
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI


Secretary Date
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality


Zulma A. Boroughs Date
Plant Manager, Taft Union Carbide Corporation


Union Carbide Corporation
Taft, LA Facility

2.1 Stakeholder Process

From its beginnings under EPA Sustainable Industries Program (SIP), the Taft project has enjoyed significant stakeholder involvement. In fact the original Project XL application was developed with the involvement of stakeholders, many of whom continued to be active in the XL project. The specific process for stakeholder involvement in the XL Project was determined by the SIP Stakeholder Work Group. Stakeholders have been involved in the selection and design of the various demonstration projects, including the assessment of environmental benefits, and information/monitoring requirements.

The foremost task of the SIP Workgroup upon approval of the XL application was to recruit additional local stakeholder involvement. This was accomplished using a selection process similar to that for recruitment of the area Community Advisory Panel (CAP). The major steps are described below.

Developed "sketch" of desired local stakeholder. Criteria included residence in St. Charles Parish, no direct connection to Union Carbide, demographically representative of ––and recognizable to –– the community, involvement in environmental issues, involvement in emergency response activities. The latter criteria were a "plus" rather than a requirement.
Drafted a list of "potential" stakeholders. The SIP Stakeholder Workgroup developed an initial list of candidates.
Identified key contacts in the community and requested input. The following types of community thought leaders were solicited for input:
–– Parish President

–– District Council member

–– District School Board member

–– Pastors of four churches in Killona and Hahnville (4).

–– Current and former CAP members.

–– State environmental organizations.

Direct solicitation of "potential" stakeholders. Potential stakeholders were then contacted by Union Carbide to determine their interest in participating. The complete stakeholder group list appears in Appendix III.
Recruitment–of a plant worker representative. The past chairperson of the plant Employee Health Safety and Environmental Advisory Committee was recruited/asked and agreed to participate.
Article placed in local paper notifying community about project and offering opportunity for involvement. Copies of articles and press releases appear in Appendix ___.
Establish stakeholder group procedures. The SIP stakeholder Workgroup met several times to draft rules of procedure to define the roles and guide the decision making process of the group. These draft procedures were then considered by the entire Project XL stakeholder group and adopted by consensus. The complete set of procedures is included as an Attachment to this section of the FPA.
The stakeholder group and Union Carbide team formed a series of subgroups to manage the project. They included:

Stakeholder Subgroup: Responsible for recruitment and communications with the broader community, and others who, while not desiring full participation, wanted to be kept informed.
Information Subgroup: Responsible for defining information and measurement needs for the individual demonstration projects and the Environmental Management System. The qualitative and quantitative metrics and other information components of this agreement should assure that performance is verifiable and meets the needs of facility and company employees, the community, and regulators at the local, state, and national levels.
Environmental Management System (EMS) Subgroup: Responsible for assessment of and recommending possible enhancements to the plant EMS.
Demonstration Projects Subgroup: Responsible for development of the individual demonstration projects to be covered in this Final Project Agreement.
Each subgroup was co–chaired by a Union Carbide representative and an outside stakeholder. Occasionally, smaller task groups were formed to address specific issues, such as information needs for the EMS, and to delve into particular demonstration projects more closely.
Stakeholder involvement will continue during the implementation phase, and as needed to help identify and effectuate future demonstration projects.

2.2 List of Stakeholders


Stakeholder Issues For Union Carbide Taft Plant BMP/XL Project


What is the Union Carbide Project?

Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) will initiate a program at its Taft, LA facility that will enhance environmental performance, reduce costs and generally improve upon current practices dictated by existing command and control environmental regulations. This program is under the auspices of EPA's Project XL, a voluntary initiative to make environmental regulation "cleaner, cheaper, and smarter." However, existing levels of environmental protection and enforcement will not be weakened. The EPA and the Louisiana DEQ will provide guidance and regulatory flexibility to facilitate this process. Stakeholders will be invited to participate in the development of a final project agreement between Union Carbide and both EPA and DEQ, and participate in the evaluation of the project throughout the course of its implementation.

Who is a stakeholder?

A stakeholder can be any member of the local community or representative of state or national organizations willing to work on the project. The pool of potential stakeholders may be individuals or representatives of interest groups or governmental entities. Provision will be made to keep all interested parties who do not participate in the formal stakeholder group informed of the progress of the project.

By March of 1966, a group of stakeholders will be established that represents the interests of the community, local environmental interests, emergency responders, employees and management of UCC, state and national environmental groups, and others. Additional stakeholder involvement may be sought if the scope or complexity of the project warrants such involvement.

There will be a cutoff date after which no additional stakeholders may be added, unless approved by the existing workgroup.

Both EPA, and LADEQ are stakeholders, in addition to being the approval authority for the final project agreement.

Who selects the stakeholder group?

In a typical XL project, the project applicant is responsible for initiating the stakeholder selection process. Reasonable effort must be made to recruit a group that is representative of the community affected by the project. However, in the case of the Union Carbide project, the existing Sustainable Industries stakeholder workgroup has been carried over to the XL project, but must now be made more representative of the local community, in order to fulfill the Project XL criteria for "local" involvement. The workgroup now consists of about 23 members.

Currently a subcommittee of the work group composed of representatives from EPA, DEQ, UCC, environmental groups, and others is working to organize a meaningful and effective stakeholder process. This subcommittee is responsible for the recruitment of local stakeholders into the stakeholder group. The selection process proposed by the subcommittee consists of the following:

– Obtain suggestions from members of the existing area Community Advisory Panel and other community leaders.
– Review suggestions with key local community leaders and other constituents.
– Assure that significant segments of the population are reached by placing a notice in the local newspaper, and providing additional notification using non–traditional media (church groups, etc.).
– Establish a mechanism to identify constituencies who would be interested in direct and periodic project updates.
– To assure sufficient community involvement, the stakeholder group will hold periodic presentations/dialogue sessions with the community. Some trade–offs will need to be made between breadth of representation and the size and workability of the stakeholder workgroup.
Who decides whether the project goes forward?

The Final Project Agreement will be between Union Carbide and the U.S. EPA and Louisiana DEQ. DEQ and EPA, in deciding whether or not to approve the Final Project Agreement, will consider the degree and extent of stakeholder support. Letters of endorsement may be appended to the proposed agreement. Conversely, minority views may also be appended. While stakeholders are not signatories to the Final Project Agreement, they participate actively in the development of the agreement, and in the definition, performance and evaluation of the demonstration projects.

How does the stakeholder group make its recommendation?

The stakeholder group will participate in the development of a final project agreement for Project XL, principally during the months of March and April. There will be a series of meetings and work sessions at which stakeholders will discuss and help define project demonstrations. We expect to conduct 3–4 such gatherings, each lasting approximately 2–3 hours, in addition to a half–day introductory session and a half–day concluding session. The Final Project Agreement will be completed by May 30. Stakeholder participation will continue, on a less intensive level, during project implementation and evaluation. While "consensus" is the desired goal, consensus shall not imply that the stakeholder group must reach unanimous decisions, or that a small minority of stakeholders may "veto" a proposed agreement. EPA and DEQ will give significant weight to the level of stakeholder support in deciding whether to approve the agreement.

Additional stakeholder issues:

Confidential information: We will need a common understanding of what we all view to be confidential information. Union Carbide's interest is protecting its intellectual property from its competitors. Information deemed confidential by the corporation may be made available to the workgroup under formal confidentiality agreements.

Termination of the project: Nothing would preclude any of the parties from unilaterally withdrawing from the project at any time prior to approval of the enforceable agreement. Thereafter, the conditions of withdrawal would be governed by the provisions of the agreement. If all or part of the project is unsuccessful, provision will be made to assure an effective transition back to the regulatory conditions prior to the project, as appropriate.

Technical Assistance and Funding: There may be circumstances in which the stakeholders desire the benefit of expertise not available from Union Carbide, EPA or the State. In such cases, the workgroup will work together to identify third party experts who can provide value added information and/or a range of opinion on subjects in question. Where related exclusively to Project XL, reasonable costs may be borne by Union Carbide.


Union Carbide Corporation

Taft, LA Facility

Union Carbide Health. Safety and Environmental Management System (EMS)

Both Union Carbide and the Taft Plant have well–developed Health, Safety and Environmental Management Systems (EMS). These systems integrate the requirements of the Chemical Manufacturers Association's Responsible Care initiative and Union Carbide's internal standards. Union Carbide Corporation's and the Taft Plant's EMS are designed, implemented, and maintained at all management levels to provide assurance that Union Carbide Corporation complies with governmental and internal requirements. The corporate and plant EMS currently meet many of the proposed IS0 14000 requirements.

In this agreement, the Taft plant EMS serves as a basis for the framework that will allow regulatory flexibility in exchange for demonstrated improved environmental performance and potential health benefits to the community and the other XL project criteria discussed as a part of each demonstration project.

Corporate EMS Description

The Union Carbide EMS may be described as a three–step process: top officers set standards, employees implement them and comprehensive audits worldwide measure compliance.

Standards are developed by the vice president, health, safety and environment (HSE), who reports directly to the chief executive officer. The standards are contained in a corporate Responsible Care manual covering health, safety, environment, medical, product stewardship, and other areas, and are mandatory for all the corporation's businesses and sites worldwide. Compliance accountability rests with line management. Businesses establish programs and practices to meet standards, with support from corporate and local Responsible Care staff.

A worldwide audit program, run by a department reporting to the vice president, measures compliance with internal standards and government requirements. Results are summarized for UCC's chief executive officer and reported quarterly to a special Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs committee of the board of directors. Additional external oversight is provided by an independent auditing company, Authur D. Little, Inc.

Corporate Responsible Care Policy

Union Carbide will conduct its business responsibly and in a manner designed to protect the health and safety of its employees, its customers and the public, and to protect the environment. The company will continue to be a leader within the chemical industry in operational safety performance and in avoidance of injuries, illnesses, spills and accidents.

Programs will be implemented and maintained that provide reasonable assurance that the corporation:
– Complies with all applicable governmental and internal health, safety and environmental requirements.
– Operates plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of its employees and the public.
– Develops and produces products that can be manufactured, transported, used and disposed of safely.
– Recognizes and responds to community concerns about chemicals and our operations.
– Makes health, safety and environmental considerations priorities in planning for all existing and new products and processes.
– Reports promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public information on health or environmental hazards, and recommends protective measures.
– Counsels customers on the safe use, transportation and disposal of chemical products.
– Extends knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety and environmental effects of products, processes and waste materials.
– Works with others to resolve problems created by past handling and disposal of hazardous substances.
– Participates with government and others to create responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment.
– Promotes the principles and practices of Responsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of chemicals.

Taft Plant EMS Description

The Taft plant EMS is directly traceable to the corporate EMS. In addition to the features described in the Corporate EMS section above, the plant has developed applicable health, safety and environmental procedures. The plant has an experienced HSE staff to provide expert counsel to the operating units on regulatory compliance issues and utilizes a self audit program to verify compliance with applicable internal and regulatory HSE requirements.

Extensive training is another key part of the plant EMS. Job knowledge requirements have been identified for HSE–related training. There are also numerous opportunities for employee involvement in improving plant HSE performance, including an active Employee Environmental Advisory Committee that provides input on issues of importance to the employees and the plant.

HSE performance is a consideration in each individual's annual performance evaluation. Recognition programs exist and the plant has a performance incentive program that provides progressive rewards based on meeting specific annual HSE performance targets.

The plant has a well–developed outreach program for communicating with its local stakeholders and responding to questions and concerns of its neighbors. Along with other local petrochemical companies, the Taft plant participates in a Community Advisory Panel facilitated by an independent facilitator to further increase the opportunities for dialogue with the local citizens Periodic updates are communicated on topics of interest to the local community related to health, safety and/or environmental protection.

Pollution Prevention

The EMS drives pollution prevention. Section 5 of the Union Carbide Responsible Care Standards focus on Pollution Prevention and protection of the environment. Requirements include identification of preferred waste and release reduction options including first source reduction, second recycling/beneficial reuse, and third treatment. An assessment of waste minimization and release reduction opportunities in research and in the design of new or modified facilities, processes and products is also required.

The Taft plant has had an active program of emission, waste, and risk reduction, and has invested in new process technology that achieves environmental performance and energy conservation superior to the conventional technologies they replace. Examples include the recently installed Butanol unit and Low Pressure Polyethylene unit that are each cleaner and more efficient than the "older" technologies they replaced.

In this agreement, Union Carbide's EMS serves as a basis for the framework that will allow regulatory flexibility in exchange for demonstrated improved environmental performance and potential health benefits to the community; stakeholder support in the process; monitoring, reporting, and evaluating results; cost savings and paperwork reduction; innovation/multimedia pollution prevention; transferability; feasibility; and positive risk burden considerations.

As part of UCC's Project XL, the Taft plant EMS will be evaluated with respect to source reduction and/or process optimization. A draft "Checklist for a Process Optimization/Source Reduction Program" has been developed with involvement of UCC Project XL stakeholders. It is included as an attachment to this document. The checklist will be further refined and used as a measure of the effectiveness of the plant's EMS in this area. The initial evaluation of the plant's EMS should occur within three months of final approval of the FPA. Opportunities for improvement or enhancement will be identified

One area where the Taft plant's EMS will be enhanced is in the development of a mechanism for sharing specific information related to the demonstration projects and overall plant waste reduction programs. The Taft plant commits to becoming a charter member of the state's new voluntary pollution prevention initiative called the Louisiana Environmental Leadership Program. The goal of this new program is to encourage improved environmental performance of participating companies and require public reporting of progress against stated goals. Information on individual Louisiana company efforts to reduce wastes and emissions will be tracked and reported periodically to the public.
Facility status should be ranked between 1 and 5 where "1" indicates the facility has a program in place that completely matches the description at left, to "5" which indicates there is no matching program in place at the facility and there are no plans for establishing one.1 = full match

2 = partial match and plans for improvement

3 = partial match and no plans for improvement

4 = no match and plans for improvement

5 = no match and no plans for improvement

I. Source Reduction Policy
Is the facility's definition of source reduction the same as in the Federal Pollution Prevention Act of 1990: any practice which (i) reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and (ii) reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The term includes equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. The term "source reduction" does not include any practice which alters the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not integral to and necessary for the production of a product or the providing of a service. 1 2 3 4 5
Does your company have a written policy favoring source reduction as the primary strategy for protection of human health and the environment (i.e. has it adopted EPA's environmental management hierarchy: source reduction, followed by recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal/release?) 1 2 3 4 5
Does the policy apply to all environmental media (air, water and land)? 1 2 3 4 5
Are source reduction options routinely considered during the engineering and design phase when planning new products or processes, or retooling old one? 1 2 3 4 5
II. Source Reduction Leadership
Is there a person responsible for source reduction at the facility? 1 2 3 4 5
Does this individual's performance and salary review include measurable source reduction progress? 1 2 3 4 5
III. Involving Employees
Is there a formal program designed to train employees to recognize source reduction opportunities and put them to use? 1 2 3 4 5
Is there a mechanism is used to involve managers and workers in identifying and implementing source reduction activities (i.e. task teams, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
Does the facility have an incentive/reward system designed to encourage managers and workers to submit ideas for source reduction activities? 1 2 3 4 5
IV. Collecting Information on Materials Use and Handling
Does the facility quantitatively track all chemicals used and produced at the facility as they move sequentially through the plant? 1 2 3 4 5
Are these materials tracked in both production and non–production areas of the plant? (Nonproduction areas include storage, loading, transfer, and pollution control sites.) 1 2 3 4 5
Are materials tracked on a chemical specific basis (as opposed to chemical categories, waste streams, etc.)? 1 2 3 4 5
Does the system track all types of materials (gases, liquids and solids)? 1 2 3 4 5
Are all material tracked regardless of whether they are regulated when released to air, land, or water? 1 2 3 4 5
Does the tracking system include an examination of the activities of workers which might lead to waste generation (for example, maintenance practices or the way raw materials are transferred from one area of the plant to another) 1 2 3 4 5
Are statistical process controls (SPC) used for all production process at this facility? 1 2 3 4 5
V. Collecting Materials Balance Data
Does the facility go further by performing a detailed materials balance at each process? (A materials balance aims to account for every pound of a chemical that is: a) shipped to the process, b) created or destroyed in the process, c) delivered as a product or co–product from the process, and d) generated as a waste by–product. If no materials balance is performed, please explain why. 1 2 3 4 5
VI. Using the Collected Information
Do you calculate pounds of waster per unit of production on a process level? 1 2 3 4 5 Is the data collection system computerized?
Are facility–wide efficiency calculations performed for each chemical substance? 1 2 3 4 5
Do you know the nature and level of uncertainty in the measurement methods used? 1 2 3 4 5
Are these levels of uncertainty factored into the analysis of the overall results? 1 2 3 4 5
Are the data used for:
– identifying source reduction opportunities 1 2 3 4 5
– improving process efficiency 1 2 3 4 5
– tracking impact of employee training programs 1 2 3 4 5
– identifying health and safety concerns 1 2 3 4 5
– ensuring regulatory compliance 1 2 3 4 5
– other 1 2 3 4 5
How frequently are the data collected? 1 2 3 4 5
Have you established a base year from which present and future accomplishments are measured? if so, what is that year? 1 2 3 4 5
VII. Assigning the Full Cost of Waste Back to the Source
Are waste–related costs assigned back to their source in the facility's accounting system (as opposed to environmental costs being a fixed overhead expense?) 1 2 3 4 5
Are all types of waste (air emissions, wastewater discharges and solid wastes) included in the cost accounting? 1 2 3 4 5
Are costs designated by specific chemicals (as opposed to chemical categories, or waste categories, etc.?) 1 2 3 4 5
What types of costs are captured by the full cost accounting method you use:
– Materials (e.g., the costs of wasted starting materials and lost products?)
1 2 3 4 5
– Waste handling (e.g., capital and operational expenses for on–site recycling, treatment, storage or disposal facilities; transportation and other expenses for wastes sent off–site? 1 2 3 4 5
– Regulatory compliance? 1 2 3 4 5
– Insurance? 1 2 3 4 5
– Future liabilities from accidents, worker illness, or waste site clean–up)? 1 2 3 4 5
– Public/customer relations dealing with waste issues? 1 2 3 4 5
– Other (please specify)? 1 2 3 4 5
VIII. Preparing Source Reduction Plans and Progress Reports
Does the facility measure source reduction progress? If so, how (ex. as decrease in pounds of chemical used per pound of product produced, decrease in pounds of chemical waste generated per pound of product produced, decrease in pounds of chemical waste generated per year for the facility as a whole, decrease in releases and transfers reported to EPA's Toxics Release Inventory, etc.)? 1 2 3 4 5
Does the plant prepare source reduction plans and progress reports? 1 2 3 4 5
Does your plan include specific source reduction goals and timetables? 1 2 3 4 5
Are your source reduction plans based on specific chemicals (as opposed to chemical categories, or waste categories?) 1 2 3 4 5
Are they process specific (as opposed to plant specific or for the company as a whole?) 1 2 3 4 5 4.0 DEMONSTRATION PROJECT APPENDICES

Union Carbide Corporation
Taft, LA Facility

4.1 Appendix I: Regulatory Flexibility (REG FLEX) Work Process

There are no specific regulations but scope includes all environmental regulations in general for which there may be a cleaner, cheaper and smarter way of meeting if given sufficient flexibility.

Based on piloting efforts with three demonstrations projects defined in the Project XL application, i.e., a) Elimination of Redundant Waste Analysis, b) Hazardous Waste Accumulation Revisions to Satellite Accumulation Requirements to Allow Use of Newer Technology, and c) Assuring the Integrity of Hazardous Waste Secondary Containment Structures, a formal work process will be defined to move a cleaner, cheaper, smarter concept to implementation. This will serve as the basis for ongoing Project XL Demonstration Projects.
These three projects have been substantially completed by relying on interpretation of the existing regulations to facilitate the needed flexibility. The experience gained in this effort will be utilized to define and document the work process (REG FLEX) that can be used for regulatory flexibility.
The work process will be one where UCC and DEQ/EPA will review existing regulations to determine whether the regulations can be interpreted to allow for a cleaner, cheaper and/or more environmentally appropriate result, while still meeting the underlying intent of the rules. This work process includes numerous opportunities for stakeholder involvement and communication.

This work process will identify and develop additional demonstration projects that either individually or collectively result in improved overall environmental results.

This process itself requires no regulatory flexibility. However, individual projects identified in this process may require specific flexibility.


I. Conceptual Definition of Demonstration Project
–Project Title
–Definition of Regulatory Requirements
–Project Proposal
–Environmental Benefits
–Needed Flexibility

II. Present Conceptual Demonstration Project to Stakeholders for Comments
–Face to Face meeting at originator's facility
–Provide conceptual review of Demonstration Project
–Determine which Demonstration Projects should proceed
–Stakeholders communicate with constituencies as necessary

III. Full Definition of Demonstration Project
–Project Title
–Regulatory Requirements
–Project Proposal
–Environmental Benefits
–Stakeholder Support
–Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation
–Cost Savings and paperwork Reduction
–Innovation/Multi–Media Pollution Prevention
–Shifting of Risk Burden
–Relationship to Environmental Management System
–Needed Flexibility (Legal Mechanisms)–Joint Agency/Originator

IV. Gain Agency Top Level Management Support
–Provide same conceptual review as in II above
–Request agency management to communicate top level support to appropriate agency Program (Media) Manager

V. Stage Setting Meeting with Agency
–Face to Face meeting at Agency
–No decisions to be made
–Gain Program People XL Ownership
–Provide Program People Project XL "Backgrounder"
–Provide Program Manager Demonstration Project review as necessary
–Identify appropriate Program People (Open minded able to think outside the box)
–Set stage for legal issues of flexibility needs

VI. Demonstration Project Refinement
–Face to Face meeting at originator's facility
–Roll up sleeves working meeting
–Trust building Exercise–Lay groundwork for honest, non confrontational dialogue
–Decisions will be made
–Plant tour of specific areas related to Demonstration Project
–Detailed review of each element in Demonstration Project against the EPA XL criteria
–Make changes as necessary
–Define additional information needs as necessary
–Document any unresolved issues

VII. Develop Final Project Agreement
–Incorporate Demonstration Projects

VIII. Legal Review of Draft Final Project Agreement
–Confirm Flexibility Mechanism earlier defined
–Third Party litigation protection
–Soft Landing Provisions

IX. Stakeholder Review of draft FPA
–Detailed review of Demonstration Project (XL Project Criteria)
–Request stakeholder agreement
–Document stakeholder agreement and concerns
–Emphasis on measures of success and future reporting metrics for the Demonstration Project

X. Sign Final Project Agreement
–Signatories will take into consideration and respond to stakeholder comments in signing the FPA

XI. Implement Demonstration Project

XII. Progress Reports to Stakeholders on Agreed Upon Metrics
–Evaluate success of project


4.2 Appendix II: Summary of Completed Projects

A. Eliminate Redundant Waste Analysis

– Classify waste (40 CFR 261, 262)
– Determine source, listed or characteristic
– Analyze or determine with process knowledge for Hazardous Waste Characteristics
(Ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, Leachable toxic organics (TCLP))
– Analyze or determine with process knowledge the Dept. of Transportation (DOT) properties & name
– Determine per the Land Disposal Restriction requirements (40 CFR 268) the Universal Hazardous Constituents (UHC) to determine applicable Universal Treatment Standards (UTS)
– Disposal of the waste using EPA/State approved treatment in EPA/State approved facilities.
– Analyze waste treatment residues for UHC / UTS to determine if all UTS are met before land based disposal (e.g., incinerator ash to a landfill).
Eliminate redundant waste analysis requirements for hazardous wastes sent to non–landbased, hazardous waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, or Recycling (TSDR) facilities treated in a permitted/interim status TSDR facility. Instead of detailed chemical analysis, the facility can establish a general waste classification to ensure proper and safe treatment, shipping, and disposal requirements, in accord with DEQ, EPA, and DOT regulations. (Eliminate the generator UHC/UTS analysis.) Note: Agency inspectors have historically insisted that analyses be used for determinations of hazardous waste characteristics and UHC/UTS.

Treatment facility analysis before point of land disposal, to protect the land. Redundant generator analysis of constituents before treatment.


– Generator UHC analyses deleted only where EPA approved treatment is used and UHC analyses is performed before final land based disposal.
– Waste is fully classified and characterized.
– Potential less personnel exposure due to less sampling.
– Potential less waste holding time before treatment.
The [attached] letter from DEQ clarifies that the waste analysis done prior to shipment to the treatment facility is redundant and is not required to meet the above referenced regulatory requirements.

– A flowchart [is attached] showing the current waste analysis process and the proposed changes.
– Cost savings information will be developed.

4.2 Appendix II: Summary of Completed Projects

B. Hazardous Waste Accumulation Revisions to Satellite Accumulation Requirements to Allow Use of Newer Technology

– Louisiana rules, but not federal rules, require secondary containment for 90 day container storage, if the container contains free liquids.
– Containment must be big enough to hold 10% of volume of all containers or the volume of the largest container
– Purpose of regulations is to prevent the release of hazardous constituents into the environment from spills or discharges from the container
– Purpose of 90 day accumulation provisions was to allow a generator to accumulate enough waste to economically dispose of the waste
Union Carbide proposes that the size of the secondary containment be equal to or greater than the volume of free liquids in a container used to store hazardous wastes. Union Carbide will determine the maximum amount of free liquid in the waste to be stored and will provide secondary containment for that amount. This will meet the intent of the rules by containing a liquid release from the container which might affect the environment. The solids would not pose a similar release risk. This will normally allow UCC to use commercially available secondary containment devices. Otherwise, UCC will have to use smaller drums for storage, which are less efficient to use and cost much more to dispose of because most waste disposal companies charge much more for disposal of drums and fiber packs per gallon than they do for bulk wastes.

Additionally, UCC proposes to accumulate and store in 90 day or interim status/permitted units mostly solid hazardous wastes that contain some free liquids in containers that continuously drain the free liquids to controlled/approved treatment without providing secondary containment for the storage containers.

– Reduces the chance of personnel injury by eliminating the emptying of 55 gallon containers into larger containers.
– Reduces the chance of personnel exposure to waste vapors/odors by avoiding the opening of the containers to transfer to a larger container.
– Reduces the fugitive emission releases from the waste materials by avoiding the opening of the containers to transfer to a larger container.
– Reduces the chance of spills of waste material by eliminating the transfer of smaller containers to larger containers.
– Reduces the amount of waste generated since one large container is used for disposal instead of many smaller ones. The smaller fiber packs are also normally placed inside a larger wrangler box for cost reasons, creating more waste than is created when a wrangler box is used directly.
DEQ and EPA have determined that the "state only" requirement of secondary containment for <90 day storage is the only impediment to allowing use of larger containers. Where a hazardous waste containing some free liquids (such as polymer being washed out of equipment with water) is accumulated and stored in a container that continuously drains the free liquid to controlled treatment (such as the process sewer), the storage of the waste shall be considered "solids" storage (no free liquids) and not require secondary containment. This applies to storage in 90 day or interim status/permitted facilities. In other words, the solution is to designate the accumulation area as a <90 day storage area. To facilitate this:
– Rolloff dumpsters with false bottoms which can collect and contain or pipe free liquids to a treatment system constitutes secondary containment.
– Other commercially available containers, such as a "Wrangler Box", when used in conjunction with portable containment systems capable of containing the contained liquid, constitutes secondary containment.
DEQ has verbally agreed to the rolloff dumpster concept in prior meetings. The other item concerning commercially available containers is still being discussed. UCC needs a letter supporting this interpretation from DEQ.

– A flow chart [is attached] showing the current small waste container process and the proposed changes.
– Annually, a report will be prepared that lists a) the types of wastes involved, b) spills/leaks from satellite storage containers, and c) spill history from satellite storage areas for __ prior years.
– Cost savings information will be developed.

4.2 Appendix II: Summary of Completed Projects

C. Assuring the Integrity of Hazardous Waste Secondary Containment Structures

– Hazardous Waste Tanks and Container Storage Areas must have secondary containment. (LAC33:V.1907.A.,2111.A.)
– Secondary containment must be free of "cracks and gaps".
– Agency Enforcement interpretation requires repair of surface cracks.
– Secondary containment must be "designed to prevent migration of wastes out of" the containment.
– EPA Guidance and Agency Enforcement has interpreted "impervious" to mean sealed/coated concrete.
– Operator must be able to detect liquid accumulation in the secondary containment within 24 hours.
– Operator must remove the accumulated liquid within 24 hours.
For concrete secondary containment systems, (which is the standard industry practice)
– Allow small surface cracks to exist.
– Require sealing / repair of larger cracks or cracks that extend through the concrete from the interior to the exterior.
– Do not require sealing / coating of concrete if the stored hazardous waste will not impair the concrete liquid holding ability in 24 hours (or other agreed upon duration).
– Provide removal of any waste material from inside the secondary containment area as soon as possible.
– Promptly repair any cracks which do impair containment.
– Any spilled waste is contained, removed, and handled in an environmentally protective manner.
– Less waste generation due to the frequent repair of the concrete coating.
– Less worker exposure due to the reduced application of the concrete coating (coating application process emits solvent vapors).
– Less solvent emissions from coating applications.
– It has been determined that UCC is going beyond industry–accepted maintenance practices by removal of the surface coating material and in doing so creating unnecessary solid waste and air emissions in the coating replacement.
– UCC will begin utilizing the existing industry practice for repair of small cracks by providing surface repairs.
– Annually, a report will be prepared that lists a) the types of wastes involved, b) spills/leaks of hazardous waste into containment structures, c) time interval between spill and cleanup, and d) spill history of hazardous wastes from containment structures for __ prior years.
– Cost savings information will be developed.

4.3 Appendix III: Prevention–Based Performance Standards for BIF Waste Transfer

Prevention Based Performance Standards for BIF Waste Transfer


There are two specific regulatory provisions related to the inspection of transfer lines of hazardous waste to treatment for energy recovery in a Boiler or Industrial Furnace (BIF). They are:
– For Hazardous Waste that is transferred from a tank by pipe to a boiler or industrial furnace, the transfer line must be visually inspected (walked) daily. (40 CFR 266.102(e)(8)(iii), 266.103(j)(2) and LAC 33:V. 1911.B.1, 3005.F.3., 3007.J.2.)
– For Hazardous Waste that is transferred from a transport vessel / container by pipe to a boiler or industrial furnace, the transfer line must be visually inspected (walked) each operating hour. (40 CFR 266.111(e)(3)(B) and LAC:33 V.3025.E.3.z.)
These provisions are largely "after the fact" spill/leak detection and provide little to prevention. Additionally, a spill/leak can go undetected for an extended period up to 24 hours until the next visual inspection.

UCC proposes to replace "walking the line" visual inspection with preventive pipeline integrity with preventive elements of the plant Environmental Management System (EMS) including:
– Valve and piping Test and Inspection (T&I) Program
– Valve and piping Materials of Construction (MOC)
– Operational procedures to assure safe transfer of hazardous waste
– Operational procedures to assure prompt detection, correction and reporting of any leaks and spills
This program is equivalent to preventive program used for raw material, process, and product piping throughout the rest of the plant.


Demonstration that the plant EMS as described above is equivalent to the visual inspection as defined in the rule.

– EPA and DEQ will promulgate general rulemakings providing that the use of the above elements of an EMS are equivalent to the daily visual inspection. The elements of the EMS are
– Valve and piping Test and Inspection Program
– Valve and piping materials and service specifications
– Operational procedures to assure safe transfer of hazardous waste
– Operational procedures to assure prompt correction and reporting of any leaks and spills
– Approval of this FPA provides that the existing UCC EMS contains the above elements and constitutes equivalency to the existing rule, including documentation requirements.
– The proposed program will be proactive toward the prevention of leaks, rather than emphasizing leak detection after it has occurred.

Stakeholders for the Taft Plant Project were identified and selected per the Taft Plant Stakeholder Work Process (See FPA Section 1.4)
This demonstration project has been reviewed by the Taft Plant Project XL Stakeholder Group as part of a formal review process per step IX of FPA Appendix I. Comments were noted and either incorporated or are identified as minority opinions with appropriate responses.


– Maintain documentation of spill/leak history of BIF transfer lines
– Annually report to stakeholders successes, failures, trends, and opportunities for improvement as noted in Section 1.10 of the FPA.

Basic to a discussion on cost savings is a clarification between cost savings and cost avoidance. Cost saving is a clear translation of dollars saved. For example, if chemical analyses are no longer required that have costs $50,000 per year, then this is a clear cost savings. Likewise, if it is clear that a capital investment is required to meet a regulatory requirement and that expenditure is no longer needed, then that is also a cost savings. However, if work such as report generation and monitoring can absorbed into a normal workload or work is done more efficiently, then there is no real affect on budgets and is considered a cost avoidance.
This Demonstration Project results in a cost avoidance by eliminating work and daily checksheets. This is roughly equivalent to 0.5 work year of time.

No increased cost as the EMS is already in place for all valves / piping in plant Daily visual inspection @ 0.5 work years 0.5 work year @ 80,000/year = $40,000/year 0

This Demonstration Project is innovative in that for the first time elements of an EMS are recognized as being equivalent to a specific rule requirement.
This Demonstration Project can prevent spills to the air, water and ground.
This Demonstration Project promotes pollution prevention in that it institutes preventive measures in place of reactive measures.


This concept is very transferable. Most all chemical manufacturing facilities utilize the same elements of the EMS as described above. Acknowledgment of this equivalency with the rule could be a recognition by the regulating community that EMS's are a preferred way of meeting regulatory requirements.


Overall risk can be reduced by implementation of preventive over reactive means. It is acknowledged that there will be no risk reduction at UCC in that the EMS has already been implemented. However, if the concept is transferred to other locations then there could be a significant risk reduction.


This Demonstration Project is feasible in that the elements of the plant EMS already exist.



Utilization of the EMS as described above as being equivalent to the regulatory requirement is the essence of this Demonstration Project.


4.4 Appendix IV: Secondary Air Emissions Offsetting

Waste Water Secondary Emissions Offsetting


There are three separate regulatory requirements relating to the control of emissions from waste water. None of these are water regulations. Two are air rules and one is a hazardous waste rule. All three have significantly different applicability requirements as well as emission control, monitoring and record keeping requirements. These requirements can be very confusing when attempting to implement due to their differences in applicability, definition of controlled chemicals and the overlapping emission controls required.

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 60, Subpart YYY, Proposed NSPS for Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industries (SOCMI) waste water requires the control of Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOC's) emissions from waste water. Louisiana has not adopted comparable rules but will incorporate by reference upon final Federal rulemaking.

This requirement is effective from the date of final rule making or to the startup of a new, reconstructed or modified source whichever is later. It is also retroactive to projects that modify, construct or reconstruct after the rule proposal date which is September 14, 1994. This proposed rule creates a dual burden.

Facilities that manufacture certain chemicals (SOCMI) and begin construction between the dates of the rule proposal and the final rule making must install control measures based on requirements that may, and usually do, change. This creates serious problems for project management to design and construct to meet ill defined requirements.

An additional requirement is the very low amount of waste water loading required to trigger this requirement (deminimus value). Waste water streams that contain as little as 1.6 lbs/day VOC's require controls. This may require significant investment for very minimal environmental gain.

Union Carbide Taft Plant has identified 94 separate points of generation of waste water. Assuming that Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is equivalent to VOC and if modified or reconstructed, 48 of the 94 streams would meet or exceed the deminimus values established that trigger this NSPS; 10,000 ppm Volatile Organic Concentration (VOC) for any flow and/or 500 ppm VOC for flows greater than or equal to one liter/minute (500 ppm @ one liter/minute equals 1.58 lbs/day)

Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)

40 CFR Part 63.100 and 63.131–139 require record keeping and the control of emissions from individual waste water drain systems with Volatile Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants (VOHAP's) greater than 1% (10,000 ppm) concentration or 1000 ppm and >one liter/minute flow (Group 1 Streams) and record keeping for waste waters greater than 0.1% and flow greater than ten liters/minute (Group 2) Streams VOHAP. Louisiana Air Toxics Rules, LAC 33, Part III, Chapter 51, has comparable requirements with broader applicability in that they are applicable to all emission points of Air Toxics compared to Federal applicability which is based on industry category, e.g., SOCMI, etc.

Other MACT Standards Impacting Wastewater operations

Listed below are potential CAA 112(d) maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards that may impact the Taft plant wastewater collection and treatment operations. It is unknown at this time the exact magnitude of their impact.

Offsite Waste & Recovery Operations (final rule)
Polyether Polyols (pre–proposal)
Miscellaneous organic NESHAP (MON) (pre–proposal)
Ethylene Manufacturing (pre–proposal)

Hazardous Waste

40 CFR Part 265.1080–1090, Subpart CC requires the control of emissions from individual waste water drain systems with Volatile Organic Concentrations (VOC) greater than 100 ppm and a capacity greater than 26 gallons. No state counterpart to this regulation has been adopted.

Currently this requirement is not applicable to the Taft Plant as the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) in nonhazardous. However, if the WWTF were to become hazardous (formerly considered hazardous), then this requirement would be applicable. No quantification of potential impacts has been determined at this time.

Intent of Regulations

The intent of the above regulations is to control the air emissions from wastewater. The structure of these rules focuses on controlling these emissions at the source. However, the rules are not very effective and provide a good example of how three narrowly focused regulations in separate media, air and solid waste, can totally lose sight of the big picture of creating measurable environmental gains.

New Source Performance Standard YY >500 PPM VOC @
>One Liter/Min. or >10,000 PPM @ any flow
40 CFR 60.770, 781, 782, 784–786
No State Counterpart adopted
>99% of VOC in the wastewater stream discharged from facilities
Hazardous Organic NESHAP >1000 PPM VOHAP @ > 10 Liter /Min. >10,000 PPM VOHAP @ any flow 40 CFR 63.132–138
LAC 33, Part III
Chapter 51
>99% control of secondary emissions
No State Counterpart adopted
>95% of the total organic content of the inlet vapor stream vented to the control device


Union Carbide Taft proposes to eliminate approximately 82 TPY secondary emissions from the primary clarification portion of their Activated Sludge (WWTF) instead of the <3.4 TPY as dictated by current rules. In exchange, UCC would not be subject to the below rules governing secondary emissions.


No flexibility is required to allow for elimination of secondary emissions from the primary clarifiers. However, regulatory relief from:

– NSPS Subpart YYY–40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart YYY,
– Air Emissions Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments and Containers–RCRA Subpart CC–40 CFR, Part 264 1080–1091 as they relate to wastewaters and
– Hazardous Organic NESHAP for waste waters MACT has already been installed on three Group I Streams.–40 CFR 63.100 and 63.131–139 and 63.143–147 and LAC 33, Part III Chapter 51 as applicable to wastewaters,
is required to justify this voluntary expenditure.

The above needed flexibility listing may not be comprehensive. If additional flexibilities are identified subsequent to signing of the Final Project Agreement (FPA), then the FPA will be amended per section 1.10 of the FPA to reflect this identified need.


– The EPA will promulgate site specific rules providing that the "Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation" as proposed herein are equivalent to the above referenced rules.
– The DEQ will promulgate project specific rules providing that the "Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation" as proposed herein are equivalent to the above referenced rules.

The secondary emissions eliminated from the Primary Clarifiers exceeds the emissions that would be controlled as prescribed in the three rules noted above because:

a) there are a greater amount of secondary emissions eliminated at the Primary Clarifiers than in the units (82 Tons/Yr vs. <3.4 Tons/Yr.) (See Attachment I of this Appendix for quantification)
b) not one or the combination of all the three rules noted will be applicable to all in unit secondary emission sources, hence not all in unit emissions will required per the regulations to be controlled
c) the NSPS is applicable only when a unit is modified and emissions are increased so the Primary Clarifier controls will be in effect sooner.
d) not all specific chemicals in a unit warrant control, VOCs for NSPS, VOHAPS for HON and only if the wastewater is a hazardous waste for Subpart CC.
e) a significant odor source will be eliminated as the Primary Clarifiers have a history of being a source of odors due to its proximity to the property line.
The above noted study (Attachment I) was completed to quantify secondary emissions in a representative process unit and from the Primary Clarifiers of the wastewater treatment system. The EPA computer model, WATER8 and a CMA computer model SEAM were used. Secondary emissions at the primary clarifiers of the WWTF are 82 Tons/Year. If ALL individual secondary emissions in units were controlled, secondary emissions are 3.4 Ton/Year. Clearly, control of emission from the Primary Clarifiers is significantly cleaner.

It should be noted that an earlier compliance strategy identified for MACT for the HON included the installation of an air stripper with emission controls at the influent to the WWTF. This would have resulted in reduction in emissions even greater than this proposal. When the final rule determined that steam stripping or its equivalent is MACT for wastewaters, then the strategy shifted to identifying and controlling Group I sources at source, hence the three Group I streams noted above. If XL or more flexibility had been allowed in implementation of the HON, then significantly more emissions could have been controlled and greater environmental benefits. For future wastewater MACT definitions, this flexibility should be allowed as a general rulemaking.


Stakeholders for the Taft Plant Project were identified and selected per the Taft Plant Stakeholder Work Process (See FPA Section 1.4)

This demonstration project has been reviewed by the Taft Plant Project XL Stakeholder Group as part of a formal review process per step IX of FPA Appendix I. Comments were noted and either incorporated or are identified as minority opinions with appropriate responses.


– Reporting of successful elimination of use of Primary Clarifiers
– Reporting and cumulative summation of new sources of secondary air emissions in all air permits for new or modified sources. This summation will not exceed the 82 TPY reduced by the elimination of the Primary Clarifiers.
– Maintain documentation of WWTF influent Total Organic Carbon concentration and flow.
– Annually report to stakeholders successes, failures, trends, and opportunities for improvement as noted in Section 1.10 of the FPA.

Basic to a discussion on cost savings is a clarification between cost savings and cost avoidance. Cost saving is a clear translation of dollars saved in a budget. For example, if analyses are no longer required that have costs $50,000 per year, then this is a clear cost savings. Likewise, if it is clear that a capital investment is required to meet a regulatory requirement, that is also a cost savings. However, if reports and monitoring is normally absorbed into a normal workload or work is done smarter and there is no real affect on budgets.

Cost savings/avoidance from this demonstration project are not easily quantifiable without completing the detailed specifics of applicable requirements from the three overlapping regulations. This, in fact, is part of what is to be avoided by this Demonstration Project. However, in preparation for compliance with the HON, applicability determination has already been done. As such there are costs projections for monitoring and recordkeeping.

It is estimated that the cost of taking the Primary Clarifiers out of service is minimal. However, closure costs are anticipated to be about $100,000. In addition, this capital may be spent sooner than required by the NSPS, HON sources are already controlled and it is unclear if the RCRA Subpart CC would have any applicability as the Wastewater Treatment System is no longer a hazardous waste facility.

The real benefit derived is the avoidance of a regulatory quagmire of overlapping record keeping (See REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS), applicability determination (compliance) and the great unknown of meeting a requirement that is retroactive to its proposal date but not effective until its final promulgation.

Misc. piping and closure
$239,000 Initial analytical/ monitoring $10,000 Ongoing monitoring/reports
$10,000/year $239,000–100,000= $139,000

This demonstration project is innovative in that it identifies the piecemeal regulatory approach to controlling secondary emissions and offers a comprehensive alternative that reduces overall secondary emissions by >24 times plus eliminates confusingly, overlapping monitoring, record keeping and controls.

This demonstration project addresses both air and water. The elimination of the Primary Clarifiers from the WWTF results in the biological treatment of 82 TPY of emissions that currently are emitted to the air. By keeping these volatile organics in solution as it enters the biological treatment reactors (Air Stabilization Basins–See Figure 2 of Attachment IV) of the WWTF, they are biodegraded rather than emitted.
In actuality, there are significantly more than 82 TPY currently emitted from the Primary Clarifiers. However, some of this is treated and some is emitted to the air from the Air Stabilization Basins. The difference between that emitted and treated is 82 TPY.

Pollution Prevention
Significantly greater amount of pollution is prevented bv this project over that required by regulation. It will result in air emissions being reduced sooner and by more than >24 times that required by regulation.


This concept is very transferable. Controlling a single large source of secondary emissions versus the many small sources from overlapping and confusion regulations can be easily utilized by other manufacturing facilities.
As noted in ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS, utilization of control equipment that provides less efficiency than that required by HON MACT can result in greater air emission reductions. The concept of demonstrating greater emission reductions than required by the HON as currently written, should be allowed and promoted. The transfer of this approach to other MACT definitions could greatly promote greater emission reductions and simplify reporting and recordkeeping.
It should be noted that the Taft Plant has some uniqueness that other facilities may not have. The process sewer system is a forced (not gravity flow) system that has pipes that are full versus partially filled lines that creates a headspace and more secondary emissions. Even with this consideration, the magnitude of the difference in emissions indicates that this would still be a very transferable concept.

Bypassing of the Primary Clarifiers will result in additional secondary sludge generation. This sludge is currently landfarmed so there is a shift of risk from air to ground. However, air emissions as a route of exposure is significantly greater than land treatment so overall risk is reduced. Additionally, toxicity is greatly reduced as the secondary air emissions are currently untreated and will be treated when the Primary Clarifiers are bypassed.

This Demonstration Project is very feasible in that elimination of the Primary Clarifiers initially only requires the addition of minor piping changes. Longer term, the Primary Clarifies will require closure.



The project to eliminate the use of the Primary Clarifiers was not initiated because of Project XL. Continuous improvement of the operation of the WWTF is driven by the plant EMS. Significant R&D is invested into the operation of the WWTF and has resulted in the discharge of TSS and BOD being significantly less than that currently allowed by NPDES permit.
Also, it should be understood that this continuous improvement was done in anticipation of the more stringent OCPSF Effluent Guidelines. However, it should be recognized that as improvements were identified they were implemented sooner rather than waiting until a new permit is issued mandating the improvements. The plant EMS drives this continuous improvement



The objectives of this study are two: (1) to quantify the secondary emissions from a site–specific process wastewater collection (sewer) and treatment systems, and (2) to demonstrate the efficacy of modifying the existing process wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) to reduce secondary emissions of VOC from process wastewaters at the Union Carbide Taft plant. The specific modification is bypassing the primary clarifiers at the WWTF. The secondary emission estimates are quantified using models developed specifically for wastewater collection and treatment systems; SEAM and WATER8, respectively.
It is estimated that the inside battery limits (ISBL) secondary emissions for a process unit block is about 3,000 lb/yr (1.5 tons/yr) and that the all ISBL secondary emissions for all processes at the Taft plant is about 6,300 lbs/yr (3.2 tons/yr).
The estimated "end–of–the–pipe" secondary emissions from the WWTF for the entire Taft plant wastewater discharges are summarized in Figures Sl and S2. Figure Sl shows the estimated secondary emissions from the existing WWTF by each unit operation: pH adjustment, primary clarification, equalization, biological treatment, and secondary clarification. As shown in Figure S2, bypassing the primary clarifiers substantially reduces, by about 82 tons per year (tons/yr), the secondary emissions of VOC from the WWTF.
The impact of the WWTF modification model in this study are summarized in the Table Sl below:

Table Sl. Estimated Secondary Emissions from Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems.

Secondary Emission (tons/yr)
System ExistingModifiedReduction
(AE process units)
(AAE process units only)
(Entire Taft plant)

NA = not applicable; modification applies to the WWTF only.

Figure Sl. Estimated secondary emissions from existing WWTF operations.
Figure S2. Estimated secondary emissions from modified WWTF operations.

The following can be obtained from the modeling approached used:
– Approximately 619 ton per year (tons/yr) of total VOC are emitted from the existing WWTF.
– ISBL gravity sewer system accounts for an insignificant amount of the total secondary emissions from the Taft plant; about 1.5 tons/yr from a process unit with high organic load and highly volatile VOC.
– By–passing the primary clarifiers reduces by approximately 80 tons/yr of the total VOC secondary emissions from the entire WWTF.
– Compounds with significant organic loading but that have a high degree biological removal, such as acetic acid, contribute little to reduction of ISBL secondary emissions reductions.
– Biological treatment achieves a high degree of removal of many VOC.
– More than 94% of the secondary emissions from the WWTF result from five compounds: diisopropyl ether (DIPE), acetic acid, ethylenediamine, n–butanol and ethyl acetate. Four of these compounds: DIPE, acetic acid, n–butanol and ethyl acetate are discharged exclusively from the Acrylic ester (AE) process units.
It is demonstrated that by–passing the primary clarifiers, approximately 80 tons/yr emissions reduction of VOC can be achieved. Also, the modeling results show that by–passing the primary clarifiers and conveying the wastewater in a more "suppressed" system, the biological basin achieves a higher fraction of biological removal for all VOC.

4.5 Appendix V: On–Site Soil Reclamation

On Site Soil Reclamation

Contaminated soil that is considered a hazardous waste upon excavation must be treated to, or must be less than the Universal Treatment Standard (UTS) prior to land disposal.
Union Carbide Taft Plant has identified contaminated soil that meets the definition of hazardous waste due to the Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP), toxicity characteristic for benzene of 0.5 parts per million (ppm). This soil is considered a hazardous waste once it is excavated (unless returned to original site of excavation). Land Ban regulations, LAC 33: V CHAPTER 22 require hazardous waste to be treated to meet requirements of the Universal Treatment Standard (UTS), e.g., 10 ppm total contained benzene, prior to land disposal. Treatment to meet this UTS, Best Demonstrated Achievable Technology (BDAT), is defined as incineration.
Contaminated soil that is not considered a hazardous waste upon excavation must be managed in an environmentally sound manner to prevent spreading the contamination.
Union Carbide Taft Plant has identified contaminated soil that is non hazardous. This soil is considered a solid waste once it is excavated and not returned to original site of excavation.


On an ongoing basis, the Taft plant excavates soil as part of unit expansions and other activities. Some of these excavated areas are contaminated and have been identified in the RCRA Facilities Investigation (RFI), a plantwide plan identifying all areas of chemical contamination. In most of these areas, the contamination levels are minor and not sufficiently high enough to make it a hazardous waste. However, all soil excavated that has contamination must be managed as either a solid waste or a hazardous waste depending upon the level of contamination. Historically, these contaminated soils have been transported offsite for disposal in industrial landfills.
In lieu of transporting contaminated soil offsite to incineration facilities and/or subsequent land filling, the Taft Plant proposes to provide onsite treatment of contaminated soil. Once treated, the soil would be reused onsite for various purposes such as construction or fill of low areas.
It should be noted that this proposal addresses only contaminated soil originating from the Taft Plant. No contaminated soil will be taken from other locations for treatment. Likewise, the treated soil will only be reused onsite for purposes that will not affect drainage in the surrounding community.
Biopile technology is chosen for treatment of the contaminated soils. Biopile treatment is an accelerated biodegradation process. Contamination in soil, if left undisturbed, will naturally biodegrade. However, this can take years due to nature providing low concentrations of bacteria, necessary nutrients and low levels of oxygen for the biodegradation. Biopile treatment is simply accelerating this process by providing additional bacteria, sufficient nutrients and enhanced aeration to provide treatment in three to six months.
Biopile technology provides all necessary environmental safeguards and is unique in that it provides for minimal releases to the environment. Because the biopile is totally enclosed, air emissions are negligible. Air is pulled through the soil to promote aeration with air exhausted through an activated carbon emission control device. Likewise, rainwater does not come in contact so there is no opportunity for water contamination. Water is the medium to carry the needed nutrients and is recycled with zero discharge.
It should be noted that the excavation areas will be subject to collecting stormwater. Berms will be provided during construction to minimize any surface runoff but there will be some water collected in the excavated areas during construction. This water may become contaminated and will need to be managed properly. This project proposes to collect wastewater and treat onsite in the plant wastewater treatment system.
If this water exceeds the Toxicity Characteristic then an allowance is needed to allow for this treatment as the current wastewater treatments system is not a hazardous treatment facility. Please note that this wastewater will be generated in any case and is not unique or caused by this proposal.
An area within in the Taft Plant for the biopile has been identified. This area is near the initial area to be excavated and adjacent to another area that has similar contamination. This area is chosen for its accessibility to both the immediate and anticipated future areas of excavation. The soil win be treated to a level that will allow for future reuse within the plant.
According to the "Proposed Approach for Implementing a Louisiana DEQ Risk–Based Corrective Action (RBCA) Program" (Draft, August 9, 1995), soil identified for re–use shall meet the Risk–Based Corrective Options 1 or 2. The corrective action Option 1 (CO–1) is a risk–based approach to corrective action using generic, conservative corrective action levels developed by LA DEQ. There are two levels under CO–1. Level 1 is based on a residential exposure scenario, while Level 2 is based on an industrial exposure scenario. Corrective option 2 allows the responsible party to conduct a site–specific baseline risk assessment to determine if remediation is necessary for the protection of human health and to develop site–specific risk–based corrective action levels (if necessary).
For this "Project–XL", the treated soil will meet the Corrective Action Option 1, Level 2 (SCAL–2), for onsite re–use. The site is surrounded by operating industrial facilities, and the contaminated media are not reasonably expected to migrate to a non–industrial area. The continued future land–use as industrial facility is anticipated.
Based on "The draft of LA RBCA", Union Carbide must comply the following.
– Submit a soil re–use plan to LADEQ and obtain approval prior to re–using soil;
– Conduct a qualitative exposure assessment for the proposed location of soil placement. Submit the assessment to LADEQ and obtain approval prior to soil placement;
– Conduct verification sampling to demonstrate the treated soil meeting SCAL–2 as well as the pertinent soil level protective of groundwater (SCALgw) for organic constituents;
– Demonstrate to LADEQ that cumulative risks associated do not exceed 10–4 and the total hazard index does not exceed 1.
(It should be noted that the RBCA is a work in progress and requirements may change in the final document)
Contaminated soil excavated from the construction of the Olefins Modernization Project at the Taft Plant will be the first soil treated. There is approximately 1000 cubic yards of contaminated soil from this project. Initial sampling has determined that approximately 130 cubic yards of this soil meet the definition of hazardous waste when excavated. This soil is defined as a hazardous waste due to benzene concentrations being greater that 0.5 parts per million (ppm). Benzene TCLP concentrations range from 1.02 ppm to 5.65 ppm. Current Land Ban rules require that this soil be treated with Best Demonstrated Achievable Technology (BDAT) if total contained benzene is greater than 10 ppm. BDAT is defined as incineration. It can then be land disposed.
Current Land Disposal (LDR) regulations effectively do not allow use of treatment such as biopile technology for hazardous waste, since it is defined as a form of land disposal and waste can't be land disposed unless it first meets extremely low treatment standards based on incineration. Although when written, this was seen as being more protective of the environment, this project demonstrates why this is not always the case.
The LDR regulations operate as a powerful disincentive to dig up and treat hazardous soil since, once excavated, it must often be incinerated. If left in place it can be capped or treated in situ with a less effective, but not LDR regulated technology. EPA has recognized this disincentive in that their 1996 proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) for media, and the proposed rule does provide for treatment in remediation piles on a case by case basis if proper environmental safeguards are provided.
The remaining 870 cubic yards of contaminated soil is less than 0.5 ppm benzene and considered a nonhazardous solid waste. Current solid waste rules require proper management of this soil which is disposal in a nonhazardous waste landfill or a more stringent facility.
The UTS of 10 ppm total contained benzene applies only to hazardous wastes. It is ironic that if the TCLP is less than 0.5 and the total contained benzene is greater than 10 ppm, then it can be land disposed without any treatment, incineration or otherwise.
It is calculated that there is approximately 20 pounds (three gallons) of benzene in this soil.

1.08 63.7 86 2000 10.9
5.65 171 25 2000 8.5
1.02 5.95 17 2000 0.2

After successful demonstration of biopile treatment, other, onsite, contaminated soil may be treated and recycled within the Taft Plant. This will be an ongoing activity. Only contaminated soil that is amenable to biopile technology will be treated.


If regulatory interpretation mechanisms do not allow full flexibility of operation, regulatory flexibility will be required to implement this proposal. In order to assure that all environmental concerns are addressed within the defined flexibility, those protective measures will be demonstrated in the Basic Facilities Scope Package which will be reviewed by DEQ. Use of the biopile is contingent upon this review.

Regulatory flexibility needed includes:

– Allowance for land based treatment (Land Ban prohibition of land treatment (Biopile Treatment)
– No RCRA permitting
– No air permitting and groundwater certification
– Abbreviated storage and Subpart CC requirements for stockpiling of hazardous soil
– Allowance to treat to Risk Based level in lieu of background
– Allowance to demonstrate protection of the environment in lieu of certain design specifications and regulatory requirements including but not limited to:
–Use of a single liner (Double liner requirement for solid and hazardous waste Minimum Technology Requirements (MTR)
–Groundwater or vapor zone monitoring
–Post closure monitoring
–No post closure restriction on industrial reuse of treatment area
– Allowance to stockpile and recycle treated soil on site, even if arguably "used in a manner constituting disposal" or regulated under Louisiana Solid Waste Rules.
– Allowance for the plant wastewater treatment facility to treat stormwater/groundwater which may be hazardous due to toxicity characteristic.
The above needed flexibility listing may not be comprehensive. If additional flexibilities are identified subsequent to signing of the Final Project Agreement (FPA), then the FPA will be amended per Section 1.10 of the FPA to reflect this identified need.


– The EPA will promulgate site specific rules providing that the "Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation" as proposed herein are equivalent to the above referenced rules.
– The DEQ will promulgate project specific rules providing that the "Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation" as proposed herein are equivalent to the above referenced rules


Environmental benefits of this proposal are many. The most notable are:
– Areas of contamination could be cleaned much sooner than with the current regulatory system of remediation. The current remediation process defined in regulation is a very protracted process taking years from onset to completion. The Taft Plant began this process in 1988 and has just recently began actual remediation.
Additionally, there may be a stronger incentive to clean areas at the Taft Plant earlier than at other facilities as it is running out of "brown field" (developed) real estate. Taft has plenty of "green field" (undeveloped) property within its contiguous property that can be developed but prefers to utilize the brown sites for both economic and environmental reasons.
– C Maintains risk onsite rather than shifting offsite. Also overall risk onsite would be less than if shifted offsite.
– C Contaminated soil will be treated in a more environmentally sound manner. On site land treatment is more environmentally sound in that it does not shift risk burden, utilizes fewer nonrenewable resources and reuses the soil on site rather than land filling.
– Valuable landfill space will not be utilized hence extending the life of the landfill preventing need for building additional landfills. Current hazardous waste landfill cost is $138/cubic yard and $31/cubic yard for nonhazardous industrial landfills.
– Non renewable fossil fuel (diesel fuel) will not be utilized to transport the soil the approximately 400 miles round–trip for incineration and land filling.

Table 2. Nonrenewable fossil fuel consumption for off–site transportation

130 11 = 12 400 5 = 80 4800

– Non renewable fossil fuel (natural gas) will not be utilized to incinerate the soil

130 18,700 000 = 2,430,000,000 51.4 = 47,307,314

– Air emissions, VOC, NOx, CO and particulates from the combustion of the fossil fuels will not be emitted

Table 4. Transportation Related Emissions1
(gm/mi) 12.4 5.5 1 0.106 0.37 1.14 32,727
POUNDS 546 242 44 4.7 16 50 654,500,000
Table 5. Incineration Related Emissions
POUNDS 622 76 59 0.3 604 203 2,430,000,000

1 Emission calculation is based on Class VIII heavy–duty diesel vehicles. The capacity is (33,001+ lbs – vehicle's dead weight, approximately 20,000 lbs.) If the truck's capacity is 65,000 lbs, then it can hold approximately 20 cy of soil.
2 The Emission factors (EFs) for heavy–duty diesel vehicles (HDDV, Class VIII, GVWR 33,001+ lb) are obtained from US EPA Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, Michigan. BTU data for HDDV are not available from EPA. The BTU number here is estimated based on the light vehicle BTU data and the ratio of fuel consumption of light to heavy vehicles.
3 Emissions are calculated based on Annual Emission Estimates for One HWI (hazardous waste incinerator) Devices. A HWI model used was a large rotary kiln incinerator with a secondary combustion chamber, fired with 37,000 tons/yr of liquid and solid hazardous wastes during 7884 hrs/yr of operation. See reference, James J. Cudahy. June 1995. Comparison of Hazardous Waste Incineration Emissions with Common Non–Hazardous Combustion Devices. 88th Annual Meeting of the A&WMA, San Antonio, TX.

1 Emission calculation is based on Class VIII heavy–duty diesel vehicles. The capacity is (33,001+ lbs – vehicle's dead weight.) If the truck's net capacity is 25,000 lbs, then it can hold approximately 11 cubic yard of soil.
– All soil that has concentrations of contaminants in excess of that which is acceptable for reuse will be treated and not just the soil that is considered a hazardous waste. 1000 cubic yards of soil will be treated prior to reuse rather than the 130 cubic yards required by regulation.
– Although minimal, the risk of transporting hazardous waste on public highways would be eliminated


Stakeholders for the Taft Plant Project were identified and selected per the Taft Plant Stakeholder Work Process (See Section 2.0)
This demonstration project has been reviewed by the Taft Plant Project XL Stakeholder Group as part of a formal review process per step IX of Appendix I (REG FLEX WORK PROCESS). Comments were noted and either incorporated or are identified as minority opinions with appropriate responses.


– Quantification of yards of soil treated
– Pre/during/post soil contamination levels
– Odor Reports
– Disposition of Soil
– Annually report to stakeholders successes, failures, trends, and opportunities for improvement as noted is Section 1.10 of the FPA.


Basic to a discussion on cost savings is a clarification between cost savings and cost avoidance. Cost saving is a clear translation of dollars saved. For example, if chemical analyses are no longer required that have costs $50,000 per year, then this is a clear cost savings. Likewise, if it is clear that a capital investment is required to meet a regulatory requirement and that expenditure is no longer needed, then that is also a cost savings. However, if work such as report generation and monitoring can absorbed into a normal workload or work is done more efficiently, then there is no real affect on budgets and is considered a cost avoidance.
This Demonstration Project results in a cost savings by reducing a capital cost.

$135,000 $300,000 0 $300,000–


Biopile treatment of soil a is proven technology and is innovative as a treatment technology for hazardous/contaminated soil in lieu of incineration. More importantly, this project is innovative in the application of biopile technology as it promotes recycling/reuse rather than disposal. It is also innovative in the sense that it could be used to accelerate remediation of known soil and groundwater contamination.
Multimedia considerations include the avoidance of shifting a solid waste risk to an air risk. The transportation and incineration of the soil creates air emissions and utilizes nonrenewable resources. These environmental costs are not commensurate with the solid waste issue being resolved.
The most notable aspect of pollution prevention beyond the air emission and nonrenewable resource issues is the prevention of the disposal of soil in valuable landfill space. Soil is being cleaned and reused instead of cleaned and disposed.


This concept is very transferable. Many manufacturing facilities have areas with contaminated soil that are defined in Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUS) and/or in their RCRA Facility Investigations (RFI). Often these are very amenable to on site treatment and reuse of the soil.
Conventional remediation is not only costly but may take years to complete. Additionally, the regulatory process for facilitating remediation is very lengthy. This combination of lengthy remediation and regulatory process greatly protracts cleanup of contaminated sites.
This project could facilitate significantly earlier cleanup of contaminated areas due to the strong potential for cost savings. Cost savings and reuse of soil can be a strong incentive to clean contaminated areas within a facility.


The project is highly feasible due to:
– Current existence of regulatory flexibility mechanisms
– Proven cleanup technology
– Real environmental benefits
– Positive burden shift
– Reduced waste management costs


Risk burden from this project is shifted in a positive direction, i.e., from off site to on site. This externality of moving contamination from a site of origin to another location, i.e., offsite incineration/landfill is not good public policy.
Additionally, the movement of the contaminated soil within the same site is from one of no containment to one which is lined and is covered to prevent any contamination of stormwater.
The ultimate disposition of the soil, reuse on site, does not shift any burden. In fact, overall risk burden is greatly reduced since the soil is treated prior to reuse in the facility.


The Plant EMS drives the reduction of generating solid waste. The pollution prevention hierarchy identifies the following preference in managing waste; a) source reduction, b) recycling, c) treatment, d) disposal. In this case the soil continues to be treated but the method of treatment is more environmentally friendly and the treated soil will be recycled rather than disposed.

TABLE 1. Soil contaminant concentrations and the target cleanup level calculation

Compound Concentration TargetCleanup Level
in soil
in GW
(mg/l)SCAL 2
(mg/l)SCAL gw
Carbon Disulfide
Methylene chloride
<010 – 0.12
<0.005 – 171
<0.010 – 0.072
<0.005 – 0.026
<0.005 – 0.261
<0.005 – 832
<0.005 – 0.057
<0.005 – 4.58
<0.005 – 230
<0.005 – 426

<0.401 – 2.90
<0.401 – 3.60
<0.401 – 0.579
<0.401 – 0.621
<0.804 – 0.834
<0.401 – 6.29

<0.401 – 1.45
<0.401 – 4.49
<0.333 – 40.8
<0.333 – 113
<0.401 – 6.78
<0.401 – 1.21
<0.005 – 240
<0.005 – 4.62
<0.005 – 33.9
<0.005 – 0.032
<0.005 – 4.2
<0.005 – 105
<0.005 – 19.23118





SCAL 2 = LA–RBCA option 1, level 2 for soil
SoilGW = LA–RBCA option 1, default soil level protective of groundwater, used when soil/GW data are not available
SCALGW = LA–RBCA option 1, level 2 for groundwater with a dilution/attenuation factor of 100 (based on the three criteria of site conditions)
SCALGW = (SCALGW / GWS) (SS), LA–RBCA option 1, soil level protective of groundwater, used when soil/GW data are available; where, GWS, = site–specific groundwater concentration and SS = site–specific maximum soil concentration (mg/kg)
NA = not available

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.