530R98012c 518 1998 NEPIS online hardcopy LM 20150924 single page tiff United States Solid Waste and EPN53O-R-98-012C Environmental Protection Emergency Response July 1998 Agency (OS-343) RCRA Permit Policy EPA Compendium Volume 3 9441.1985 - 9441.1989 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (Part 261) • General TcchLaw 1/5949/Covers! 4 image: ------- DISCLAIMER The compilation of documents in this Compendium, as well as the policies, procedures and interpretations outlined in the documents themselves, is intended solely for the guidance of employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This compilation may not include all documents discussing Agency views on particular subjects. In addition, these documents are not intended and cannot be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. The views expressed in these documents do not necessarily reflect the current position of the Agency, and EPA reserves the right to act at variance with these views or to change them at any time without public notice. image: ------- 9441 .1985(01) L44 ii H. Lanier flickaan Czecutiv. Dir.ctor GRCDA P.O. Box 7219 Silver Spring, P4aryland 10910 D•ar Lannys In your letter of ovemb.r 6, l9S4y and our subsequent meeting on November 27, 1954, you requested our intsrpr.tation of th. tApact of th. RCRA r.ulations en landfill gas cend.nsat., This lstt.r reil.cts our discussion arid st arizes our position on this issue. s you recall, w• did review this issus for you in some d .tail 1 and pr.s.nt.d our int erpretatjo at your landfill gas symposium last April. I think the r cap of this issu. can best b. stated by looking at the s.v.ral landfill sc.narios that can apply bous.ho ld wast• only, normal municipal vast•, undefined (but not list.d) hazardous waste, jstad hazardous vast. (including any mixtures of other wastes, and list.d hazardous waste), The houssho3.d waste exclusion appli.s through its •ntirs management cyci., fro, collection through final disposition including tr.a s.nt and resultant r.sidues. Landfill gas Cond.rssat. d•riv.d from a till that contains household vast. exclusively is not a hazardous vast.. Condensate derived from landfill gas processing from a fill that contains municipal waste or undefined (not listed) hazardous waste is a hazardous waste if it •xhibits on. or more of the charactrjstjcs of hazardous waste (1..., ignitabjity, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure toxicity), On the other hand, condensate derived from a landfill containing listed waste is always a hazardous waste, unless specifically excluded in respons. to a delisting• petition. Of course, the oth.r •xe!uiptiofl..from..regulatjon provisions still apply — thee, for si all quantity generators and recycling, This synopsizes the Ped.ral position on whether landfill gas condensate is hazardous, As you know, RCRA is intended to be image: ------- i pl.a.nt.d through a Stat. wh . a Stat, has •n given autt rity, its rul.s apply in lieu of th. Pd .rai r.qutatjons. Tou should, th.refor., tnvsstigat. the ctate control, in those Stat•s of int.r.st to you. If you have any further qu.stjon please do not h.sitat• to call. Alan Conan (3124770), . cpiu. .r (382-3345 can ar v.r definitional or lami dispo. 1 question,, rssp.ctiv.ly. V.ry truly your., John U. Skinn.r Director Of tic. of Solid Waste image: ------- 9441.1985(02) jM Mr. Hershel Cutler Executive Director Institute of Scrap Iron arxl Steel, Inc. 1627 K St., P1W Washir ton, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Cutler: Your letter dated December 10, lqR4, was referred to my office for response. You expressed concern about the hazards posed by air bags that contain sodium azide, particularly as it affects the recovery of ferrous scrap frcz recycled autosobiles. The Department of Transportation addressed these issues in a study released July 11, 1984, called Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Amendment to FMVSS $2fl , Passenger Car Pront Seat Occupant Protection that explored many issues related to the use of air bags. A NHTSA staff member provided EP with a copy of the section that discusses sodium azide. Page 111—20 of that report explains that the gas generants consist mainly of sodium azide and oxidizers. Page 111—12 explains that upon ignition, the solid propellant begins to burn. produci n]trogen gas that inflates the air bag. Based on this analysis of the mechanics of air bag deployment, the sodium azide containing initiator would not be regulated as a ca’ mercia1 chemical product regulated by the hazardous waste regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA regulates ca’n’iercial chemicals which are pize or technical grade and for u1ation in which the chemical is the sole active ingredient. Air bac propellant cartridges contain, as active irçre’iients, both sodium azide and oxidizers. The gas is generated through the action of both materials. Thus, the Resource Conservation avvi Recovery Act would not define the sodium azide in air bag canisters of obsolete automobile hulks as a listed hazardr is waste. The Agency has not established de minirtic concentration levels of toxicante below which wastes listed under 6261.33 would cease to be regulated as hazardous wastes. Rather, exemptions are granted on a case—by—case basis in response to petitions. Again, the sodium azide that is in air bags would image: ------- riot b sub j.Ct to RCRA regulation a. a hiizar1 waste t )ecause it is not a-sole activ, ingredient, • EPA is preparing a n ’ regulation that would regujat. certain mixtures of can’nercial chemical proluces. Urici eucPi a regulation, it is conc•ivab l, that the propej1a csrtrj .. could be classified as a hazardous waste, However, as envision such a regulation, auto hulks Conta’ jnat with either sodium aside or the propellant cartridges would not be so classified, in additi’,n, tf the air bags are deployed within the auto, the sodium asid. is destroyed and there would be no question of even the spent canisters alone being cCTh5iiere j subject to regulation. it the canist.r. re reclaimed, they would also not be ragulate , The only case which may be raQulate j would be canisters which are r.mov.d ard disposed of, which appears to be an unlikely scenario at the present time, The DOT study on sodium aside propellant. concluded that non—deployed inflator modules can be deployed, that an electrical deployment system is avatiabi. n . that technical inspection. for non-deployed modules are evailable, that a nev retrofit air bag system is easily removed (and should have reasonably high salvag, value), arid that out 0.1 pound of sodium aside per site would be landfilled each working day. This study used a conservative estimate for the amount of odium aside expected in each car, and CPA does riot believe this management of sodium aside to be a proble. at this time. oreover, EPA understands that auto manufacturers have expressed an interest in providing incentives for re oval arid collection of air bag canisters, which would further reduce the environmental dispersion of sodium aside. DOT regulation of deployment of inflator module. arid reclamation of air ba canisters appears to pose no environmental concerns that CPA jurisdiction sP uld eddre.s at this time, If you have any further questions, please contact Alan Corson or Irene Homer of my staff at (202) 382—4770 for assistance. Sincerely yours, Jack W. Mc(raw Acting Aceistant A nintstrator bcc: Ruth Bell, OGC Joyce Dam, TSCA William Fanj, NHTSA image: ------- 9441.1985(03) Mr. Vincent J. T.ra.gno 2749 Delk Road, S.C. Marietta, Georgia 30067 Dear Mr. T.rsegno: Mr. Mitch Duben.ky of the Office of Water Regulation. and Standards forwarded your letter dated Dec.’ ber 7, 1 4, to the Office of Solid Waste since the exclusion you discussed in 40 CPR 26l (d) applie. to hazardous waste regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. As you know, the laboratory waste exclusion insures that waste sanpies are not Sub)ect to all the hazardous waste regul — tions while the waste is being handled by the s ipl. collector, transporter and laboratory for the purposes of waste character- ization. The amend nt specifically avoided using the word g.neratora since the exclusion intended to designate a person collecting a potentially regulated sasple. The enclosed copy of the Septnber 25, 1981, Pederal Register notice provides further explanatory material in the preanble. On page 47426, the first full paragra th of the middle column explains that sanples are sent for testing to determine whether or not the waste is hazardous. PurtPier” ore, testing to identify the c npoeition or characteristic, of a sazple is not trea ent as defined in C260.lO(a) as stiitel in Section C on page 47428. The first sentence at the top of tPi right column on page 47428 says any laboratory that treats or stores hazardous wastes prior to disposal must comply with applicable RCR.A regulations since these activities are not covered by the exclusion. The waste is excluded from RCR.A regulations as long as it meets the 5261.4(d) terms. At the site where a waste is produced, the storage and transportation prior to shLpment to a testirt laboratory is not re3ulated. The term r)enerator is definel in c260.10(a) as the person at a given site whose act or ro’ e s produces RCRA hazardous waste or whose act first causes e hazardous waste to become st ject to regulation. Theref’re, in many cases, waste covered by the laboratory exel’jqion has had no generator as long as the waste is cowered by the laboratory exclusion. If the waste is sent back to the site it c e from, the waste would be subject to rejul’ tion th ’ , and the generator would be at the original site. If the wast was kept by the laboratory for disposal, the laboratory is the image: ------- 2 generator. If the waste was .nt beck to a third party who cOllected the waste for analysis, that coll.ctor is generator. (Of cours.. so of these parti.s may be aall quantity genera subject to 5261.5.) The second sentenc, in th. second paregraph of section II on page 47426 of the preamble say. the sampl.s are shipped fr th. generator or sampi,. collector, but the rsgulation only r.f.rs to samp].. collectors. The regulation is worded appropriately because the sample collectnr may not be the person who is ultimately considered to be th. generator of the waste. Enclos.d is a c y of the October30, 1980, Federal Regists which specifies that sewaral people may qualify as th. gen.rato of waste. Although the specific example. in Section III on pages 72O26 7 do not apply directly to yo g inguiry, the multipl. definition idea means that the ter, sample collector could be the person who owns the waste or the person who actually ramoves the waits aliquot for analysts. No doubt your laboratory has made contractual agr..nts with your oustosser. regarding th. disposition of samples that specifies returning wast, to the site it case fr , in which case sample collector refers T to the c pany that paid you to t e aliquotsof waste for them. As you can see, the preambles and Agency explanations s .times clarify the intent aid cos erege of the regulations. The Office of Solid Waste arid Bsergency Response sponsors the RCRA/Supertund lotitne which can answ.r many of the.. kinds of questions toll tree on a routine basis at 800”424—9346. Of course, many States Piave aithorixed hazardous wast. progrwis which hive taken the place of the RCR program. States may have lion stringent requinaments, so you should confer with th.’i regarding specific State requiresents. The Notline can provide you with a list of the State Agency contacts, If you have any other questions about this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 382-4q04. Sincerely yours, Irene S. Homer environmental Protection Spectali t Studies and Methods 5ranc (wq..Sc q) Enclosures image: ------- 9441.1985(04) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY STJ) 4ARY DECEMBER 84 3. A treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) has agreed to accept •e!?pty containers per S261.7. Upon receiving the containers (55 gallon dr .ins), the TSDF found that although the containers held less than one inch, the containers could be and were ti d further by inverting the container and pouring out additional hazardous waste. According to 5261.7(b)(])(i), a container that has held hazardous waste is ty if all wastes have been re wed that can be rei oved using the practices caTironly nployed to re ove materials fr that type of container, e.g., pouring, p.miping, and aspirating. If the TS F further e ties the container by pouring, was the container ty when received even though it held under one inch of material? No; the container was r t eTçty. Pre ble language to the August 18, 1982 Federal (47 FR 36093) states that • it should be clear that one inch of waste material is an overriding constraint and may renain in an e pty container only if it cannot be reTcved by normal means. This indicates that a container i .ast be e’rçtied by pouring, puping, and aspirating. Then, if the container holds less than one inch, the container is ei ty per S261.7. Source: Alan Corson (202) 382-4776 .°‘ .‘ ‘ ) Research: am m.zsln image: ------- 9441.1985(05) FEB —“1. — — ‘— —- — • • 1 LI L. M ! MORA’lDUN SUBJECT: Applicability of RCRA Subtitle C to the Teledyne Uah Chang Albany Facility John B. Skinner, Director Of fL of Solid Waste (W1I-562) TO: Cbar.L.s F. Fiodl.y, Director Air and Waste Manag.mant Division, gion 10 On August S 1 84, you rsq stad that the Part B application submitted by Teledyne Wab Chang Albany ( A) he reviewed to determine whether the treatment of certain wastes at the facility ii sub .ct to the r.quir.nts of Subtitle C of ERA. ? CA’s Part B application has heen reviewed by the MITRE Corj rsejon (reprt attached) to assist in the clarification and resolution of two issues: • Whether the hazardous wastes Woduced by ‘!IICA and burned in the s kebouse facility and crucible burn ts are •zemt from RCRA by • the mining waste exclusion in Section 3001(b) (3)(A)(ii) of the Act. • Whether the combustion ocesses used by TWCA constitute incineration, or thermal treatnent other than incineration, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10. I. APPLICA!5ILITT OF MINING WASTE XCLuSIO A. Introduction TP CA engages in the rti!! ary oductton of zirconiui , hafnium, and titanium. Production of these metals consists of: image: ------- I) PrsS*ratory steps to transform the metals into a form that can he r.duced.l/ - 2) duction and distillation steps to produ , a mirconium, hafnium, or titanium s nq.. 3) Crushing, blending, alloying, -and melting of the s nge to form an -ingot. 4) Pabrication and finishing st.ps. Per each of the three metals the following waste streams er. generated by the reduction arid distillation steps used to produce the zirconium, hafnium, or titanium spunge, and, therefore, ar, uniquely associated with the processing of these metals: 1) Crucible oltLmg ring met.rial, z TVCLDL dump station 5 lt,. • ) agnesiu. chlörids a2t wittmgs, and 4) Magnesium chloride salt and metal. fifth vsate-strsam -s ngs handling salt, is gnerated during the production of an ingot from the zirconium, hafnium, or titanium • ng.. Ingot production involves breaking upend crushing the s nge, blending crushed •punge material from dif rent production runs, adding alloys, and melting the mixture ‘to fore an ingot. The spunge handling salt is generated by the breaking and Crushing steps. !%CA sometimes purchases titanium .crapto form ingot. as well. The five wastes from the above processes are treated in the smokehouse facility. t. t _A. c ’ :-.. Additional wastes are generated during the fabrication and finishing steps. They are treated in the crucible burn put.. S. gul.tory Statue of Waste Streams 1 Wastes Treated in Smokehouse Pact1i y The reduction and distillation processe. used to produce the zirconium, hafnium, and titanium spunges are essential to the sepsration of these metals from the ores and minerals in y In the psst, rather than psrforming this step on titanium or. itself, iCA has purchased titanium chloride. This doss not affect our analysis of the status of the wastes generated by processing titanium chloride in the subsequent three steps. image: ------- —3— h.y occur. Thsr•Eore, tt* four Vast.. streams listed ove which are generated by these ocess.d are e 1ui ed from regulation under SubtitJaC of IA. ?heformation of ‘irconium, hafnium, and titanIum ingots from sponge material or scrap (in the case of titanium) does not constitute extractjon, bSnSfjØLatj n, or i oces.inq of an ore or eineral because the metal ha already ben s. rat.d from the or. or mineral before this -step. In other words, the feedstøck for the ingot formation ocess ii neither an or. nor • mineral. Therefore, the sponge handling salts generated by ingot formation are not excluded from rsgu1atjo under Subtitle C of RCRA. 2. Wastes ?raat.d in Crucible Burn Pots The waste streams treated In the crucibl, burn pots are generated by the fabrication and consolidation of sireonium, - hafnium, titanium, niobium, tantalum, and vanadium. Thane ocesmes simply sha m the metal after it has been extracted -from the or. or minerals they do not constitute •xtractisn, hensficiation, or ocessing of an ore or minsral.• Therefore, the fines, turnings or ahiym, floor sweepings, grinder sludge, and other wastes generated by the.. oceases, do not qua ljfty forth mining waste exclusion. - - - - -. x i, APPLICAB ILTTY OP RCRA INC INERAfOR R!GUjATIONS We conclude that both the smokehouse facility and crucible burn pots are incinerator, under the definition in 40 CPR 260.10. Both are •nclosed devices and use crude forms of controlled flame combustion to break down waste. Therefore, the RCRA sermit for TbCA should regulate these conbustion devices as incinerators. -. Attachment image: ------- 9441.1985( 06) FEB 131985 Mr. H. Bzura Madison Indusries, Inc.-- P.O. Box 175 Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857 Dear Mr. Bzuraz This letter is response to our telephone conversation on January 24 and your letter dated January 25, 1985 regarding the regulatory status of the baghouse flue dust and zinc—oxide sludge which you are considering recycling at your plant. in addition, you also requested confirmation of the effective date for various provisions dealing with use/r.use in the definition of solid waste rulemaking. In particular, you indicated that you are interested in purchasing baghouse flue dust from manufacturers of brass as well as a zinc oxide sludge generated fro. air pollution control equipment. These secondary materials as veil a. hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid viii b. mixed and pumped into a reactor where either zinc chloride or zinc sulfate will be produced. These solutions are then purified. You furth.r indicated that no reclamation is carried—out as part of the operation, but rather these materials are used a. a raw material in the manufacture of zinc chemicals. - Based on this description, you are correct that the baghouse flue dust and zinc oxide sludge are not solid wastes provided that these secondary materials are not accumulated speculatively (as defined in the January 4, 1985 rule) or are not used to produce a product that is placed on the land for beneficial use4/ In addition, you are also correct in your reading of the regulations that the effective date for this provision of the rulemaking——that is, the use/reuse provision—— is December 20, 1984. Please give me a call if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely yours, Matthew A. Straus Chief waste Identification Branch 1/ It should be noted that even if the zinc were reclaimed, these secondary materials would not be defined as solid wastes since they are unlisted sludges. image: ------- 9441.1985(07) FEB 131985 7. ,. A. Whittig, Ph.D. Supelco, Inc. Bellefonte, PA 16823—0048 Dear Dr. lihittigi Thank you for your l.tt.r of January 21, 1985, and your further telephone conv.rsation with Dr. Judith Bellin, of my staff, on January 28. La you state in your letter, your company is a commercial manufacture of capillary ao1t ns vs.d in gas chr atography. As part of quality control considerations, you indicated a need to test thee. col ns with a dioxin standard prior to sal.. As a result, you g.rierat. a waste (primarily activated carbon) containing 700 nanograms of a mixture of seven tstrachloro dioxin ineamers per year. In add itiort, you also indicated that you generate between 1 to 2 grams of both 2. 4, 6,-trichiorophenol and pentachioropheriol from similar activities (i... production of chromatographic columns and analytical standards). La a generator of these vast.., you question whether thes. wastes would be covered under the recently promulgated dioxin regulations published tn the Federal Register on January 14 (see attackaent). - Upon our review, we believe that the.. wastes are not covered by the dioxin rulemaking sine, these wastes (as well as most laboratory wastes) do not r.sult. from the manufacturing processes described In the rul.. Therefore, you are not required to caviply with the dioxin rule. However, due to tho hazardousness of these wastes, we would strongly •ncourage you to manage these wastes very carefully. They should not be mixed with other hazardous wastes, since these could contain solubilizing solvents. Please cive me or Dr. Bellin a call if you have any further questions. We can be reached at (202) 475.8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch (Wu—562B) cci Judith S. Bellin image: ------- 9441. 19C5(08) F 2 2 985 Placid Refining — L y 3900 ikegiving l1as, 75201 er . 1ih: This letter La written in re nss to ) X P uary 14 iich requests that A cl Liy a p.rti alar refinery west atar s1td e is a 1 teted t ar is te (g048) • fl* t . in question La ger sted by a dissolved air flotation Osvios in ues at the Placid Refinery in rt Allen, & uiaiaia, that is m l ii pert of the .e ary t. tar eM ru ’s b 4 gi l lLd ft activat.d s1 gs ixtit. D i a recuit Pederal ctic. C_s b c iz.), U. srcy Ma maintained that the KD48 • KOSi listings . tht.r sd only to ___ oil/solids/water separation fr rimary neat. The d was used in the back ’o.x ‘ci.mant w m . eequently in the E.048 listing to de tbs rfigiratior. ier _ t_st.r ware used a nsecutively as to secordary ea nt consisting of biological oxidation. Th sl from this iiit is i t snt1y a listed Mxar i wta b.cas the dissolved air flotation i it at . Placid Refinery Lu imed to r ow biological ilt fr the eat.d .f fluent. Therefore, .r er Pederal hazerdr vest. uan ’.nt systu , this vest. he hazer us only if it eshibits one or sor. of the hazerd vast. aracteristica. At the ti!re, you s cu1d also he e that A is con 6 [ r 1 ed tout aecor ary s1i es biological se nt ot ref irax y wastewatera. uent1y, wa are ci r.ntly evaluating these wastes as part of the petrolet.c refining ir usUy st ies to determine whether they s uld he as haz& a. please feel free to give ma a call at (202) 475-8551 if you have — twther questions. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus. Qiiet mate Identification clos e image: ------- 9441. 1985 (09) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY FEBRUARY 85 2. Drainage from an active coal mine is collected in a large pond to be treated. The drainage is quite acidic due to the high concentration of iron suif ides (pyrite) in the coal. Both bacterial action and rain oxidize the pyrite material to form sulfuric acid. The coal mine owner has developed a sodium hydroxide (caustic) feeder system to neutralize the acid mine drainage prior to discharge. At one point, however, the feeder system added too much caustic to the pond. This caused a caustic sludge layer to form on the bottom of the pond. The pH of the sludge is generally above 12.5. The facility wants to remove the sludge and dispose of it. Would such removal be considered generation of a RCRA hazardous waste? The sludge meets the characteristic of corrosivity (D002) due to its pH being above 12.5 (S261.22) and its aqueous, semi—sludge state. A corrosive solid is not a hazardous waste unless it exhibits another characteristic or contains a listed waste (see 45 33109, May 19, 1980). Section 261.4(b) (7) excludes wastes from the “... extraction, beneficiation and processing of ores and minerals (including coal)...” Pollution control residues from the treatment of mining wastes are also exempted. Since the caustic sludge is a pollution control residue from the treatment of a mining waste, its generation and management is exempt from RCRA. Even though the waste is excluded from regulation, however, it should still be managed properly. Source: Meg Silver (202) 382—7709 This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441.1985(10) * 1, Lloyd R. Cress Greenebaum, Doll and McDonald 1400 Vine Center Tower P.O. Box 1808 Lexington, Kentucky 40593 Dear Mr. Cress: In your recent letter of March 19, 1985, you requested confirmation of an earlier opinion that a distillation residue containing perchioroethylene and surfactant is not a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when discarded. You stated that the unused per— chioroethylene and surfactant ware inadvertently mixed. Subsequent to that, the material was sent off—site for recovery. The waste in question ii the unreclaimed portion of the perchloroethylene—surfaCtaflt mixture. In considering your request, we have concluded that the residue frost the recovery of the conteminated perchloroethylene is a hazardous waste. Your argument that the perchloroethylene detergent mixture is not covered under the requirements for c iercial chemical products listed in 40 CPR 261.33 because it contains several active ingredients is not applicable to this waste. (Those atxtures not covered under 5261.33 are cosmercial chemical product mixtures where the listed chemical is not the sole active ingredient.) In your case, the listed commercial chemical product is perchioroethylene which became contaminated with surf actant. At no time was the p.rchloro— ethylene—detergent mixture considered a commercial chemical product mixture. Th.refore. the adulterated perchloroethylene is considered a listed hazardaie waste when discarded. You were correct, however, in stating that the perchioroethylene was not a hazardous waste when shipped off—site for recovery. Chemicals listed under 40 CFR 261.33 ar. not considered hazardous waste until they are intended to be discarded. image: ------- —&— I hop. this l .tt.r adsq st .ly addr... th. r .gu latory •tatua of .t. psr loro.thy1.a. frou your facility. Should you hav• qusatioas, p1.... call Jssq liu.. Sal. .. of sy staff. •t (202) 3SZ.47 O $i o .r.ly, 0• J ia N. Skia r Dir.ot.r of solid .t. Pd, 0 0 U B image: ------- 9441.1985(11) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARy MARCH 85 Dioxin Lab Sample 1. The January 14, 1985 Federal (50 FR 1978) published a final rule listing as hazardous wastes certain wastes containing particular chlorinated disalna, dlbenzofurans, and — phenols. A private analytical laboratory has the capability of testing for dioxin compounds In hazardous wastes. Section p61.4(d) excludes from KCRA regulation the management of samples that are transported to a lab for the purpose of testing to detereiine Its characteristics or c os1tion. Does this exclusion apply to this lab, and what mist the lab do if It generates dioxin waste from its analytical procedures? As long as the lab is testing samples for characteristics or composition to determine If the waste Is a hazardous waste, then the §261.4(d) lab sample exclusion applies. If the sample is known to be hazardous waste and It is shipped to the lab to be analyzed for treatabllity, for example, then the sample and Its management are subject to regulation. If the lab generates dioxin waste from Its analytical procedures in quantities greater than one kilogram per month, the lab mist notify EPA or the state, if authorized, that it Is a generator of hazardous waste. If tne lab has previously notified as a generator for other hazardous wastes, It mist renotlfy EPA or the authorized state of it’s dioxin generation activity no later than April 15, 1985, as discussed In the January 14, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 1978). Source: Alan Corson (202) 382—4770 image: ------- 9441.1985(12) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION APRIL 1985 Hazardcxzs Waste Determination 2. I thylene chloride is used as a reaction meditin in a manufacturing process. - Diring the process, this mediun is contaninated. After re ,ing the spent mediLmt fran the process line, it is placed in containers for less than 90 days prior to being reclaimed. After distillation, the reclaimed methylene chloride is returned to the production wiit. (A) Is methylene chloride that is used as a reaction mediun also considered to be used as a solvent, thus making the spent mediun F002? (B) How is this methylene chloride regulated? (A) Methylene chloride used as a reaction mediun is considered to be used as a solvent • Thus, in this scenario, methylene chloride is considered the listed spent solvent F002. Subsequently, this F002 waste is subject to RA hazardous waste regulations when it exits the production process unit. (B) Currently, listed hazardous wastes in SS261.31 or 261.32 and sludges_ exhibiting a Subpart C characteristic are subject to S261.6(b) which puts forth generator, transporter, and facility storage regulations prior to re- cycling. The actual recycling activity is not regulated. Pursuant to the new definition of solid waste (50 FR 614), listed hazardous wastes and characteristic hazardous spent materials are considered solid and hazardous wastes when reclaimed. The recycling activity is still not regulated under the new definition of solid waste. In A regulated states, (i.e., non- authorized states,) beginning July 5, 1985, spent solvents destined for recle- nation are subject to S261.6(b) for generators and transporter standards and S261.6(c) for facility storage standards. In states with autJ rized M prograns, the new solid waste definition and respective recycling regulations will be applicable when the states incorp- orate these changes into their pr rans in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. image: ------- 9441. 1985(12a) I RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION APRIL 1985 Lab S 1e 3. A generator sez s a sw ie of ste to a laboratory to determine * ether the ste is hezardous under M. e of the tests requires that the laboratory add solvent to the s p1e. es this action caime the laboratory to became a generator of a listed solvent Imate (due to the solvent they added), and boi should the laboratory send this contaminated s ple back to the original generator? 5261.4(d) excltdes lab samples 3010 notification under SectIon 3010 of Parts 262 throi çh 267, Part 270, and Part 124 as lorç as certain storage and transportation standards are imet. addition of hazardous chemicals (e.g., solvents) to the semple by the laboratory bthich are standard test peocedt es is allowable and does not affect this exclusion. Henoe, the lab is not regu- lated as a generator of spent solvent. The laboratory may send the semple back without manifest if other applicable transportation standards are followed per 5261.1(d) (i.e., r, T.EPS). image: ------- 9441.1985(13) .t %5 Mr. R. Chudacek Power Systems Division McGraw—Edison Company Post Office Box 28 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 )ear Mr. Chudacek: I am writing in response to your letter of April 3, 1985 concerning the regulatory status of waste electrolyte from rechargeable nickelcadmium batteries containing a potassium hydroxide electrolyte. Two questions must be asked in order to determin• if disposal of a given vast, is regulated under the Rsource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These ares 1. Is the wast• or its disposal considered to be solid waste disposal within the m.aning of RCRA? 2. Does th• waste et the definition of a hazardous waste (i.e., exhibits on. or sore characteriisttcs of a hazardous waste or is a listed hazardous waste)? In the case of th. situation you describ.d. disposal of the spent electrolyt, into a municipal sanitary s.war doss not constitute disposal under the RCRA. Such disposal is, however, .ub ject to regulation under oth.r envtror ntal r.g ulations and th• disposer would have to check with their local sewage treat nt authority for specific disposal restrictions. Spent electrolyte dispos.d of in any other manner would be solid waste disposal within Us. anirsg of the RCRA. Furth•rmore, from the information you presented, the spent .l.otrolyte would likely exhibit cnaract.ristios of hazardous waste. In addition to bsing a corrosive wast• (40 CPR 261.22), the spent eI.ctrolyt . is likely to exhibit the charactsristtc of Extraction Proosdure Tozicity (40 CIR 261.24). While neutralization would eliminate the vast.’. corrosivity. it may not change it. status under 40 CPR 261.24. image: ------- I hope L have answered your questions to your satisfaction. Unfortunately, these answers may not be identical to those you mi;ht receive from State off icals. Many states have been awarded authorization to conduct their own hazardous waste regulatory programs in lieu of the RC A program. I thus urge you to contact those states in which disposal of the batteries might occur, in order to ascertain their status under the applicable state programs. If the Stat. is unable to help you, I recom nd contacting the applicable EPA Regional office. For your con- venience, I am enclosing a list of State and EPA hazardous waste management offices and officials. Sincerely yours, David Fridaan anaq. r Methods Program (W —362D) Enclosure image: ------- 944]..1985( 15) MAY2Ø?g 5 Mr. Stanley L. Johnson t)tvision of Lic.neing and Enforcement uepartment of environz ntal Protection State douse station 17 Au justa, Maine 04333 Dear Sr. Johnsonl Alan Corson asked to respond to your letter dated April 10, l )85, because we previously collaborated on the paper ba issue. Section 261.33(c) considers a container that held a hazardous waste listed in S261.33(e) (P—listed waste) to be hazardouS waste until the bag is empty as defined in 5 6L.7(b)(3). S.ction 2I.7(b)(3)(i) involves triple rinsing with an appropriate solvent, (ii) allows cleaning ‘by another method that has been shown in the sci.ntific literature, or by tests coducted by th. generator, to achieve eqivalent removal,’ md (iii) declares that a container is empty if the liner is removed. Your question was how can paper bags ‘ et these criteria? The answer is that beating the bags after emptying can b an alternative to triple rinsing, as the RCRA/Sup.rfund Iotline sxplained. The Off ice of Solid Waste had no written policy until this )ett.r, but ‘bag beating’ has been an acceptable alternative to triple rinsing on an oral basis probably since 1981. There are, however, no references in the literature that compare the removal .fficiency of repeated tapping of the outside of an inverted paper bag vs. triple rinsing that th• regulations seem to require. Ray ru.ger, of the Offic. of pesticide Programs, EPA, said that rep.ated tapping with a stick is an effective removal mechanism, them OPP has no written policy saying so. He expressed cooceg’s about the worker exposure, and he suggested an alternativs, explained on the enclosed copy of PR notice 083—3, issued ‘arch 29, 1983, by OPP, that cites open burning as a possible disposal method, subject to Pederal, State, and local approval. Th• pesticids program ha s data that indicates that such open burning leaves little residu. in the soil, because the thermal trsatnt break down the chemicals. In terms of RCRA, the November 25, 1980, (45 PR 78528) preamble saysm ‘?orm. of container cleaning other than triple rinsing may constitute treatmsnt...the burning operation is designed image: ------- 2 to re ve mad dsstray the wa.t.s...Th... processes St th• RCRp d.finitien ‘treatane’ and are thus Subject to th. requir.— nts of Part 2 4 and 265. Unissa the generator t the saall quantity g.n.rator r.quirm.nts, generating less than one kilogria of P—list.d wastes in the giwen calendar nth, burning ths bags would be subject to RCPA treataent standards, I hop. this letter answers your question for euptying paper bags. If you have any questions, pleas. f..l fr.. to contact at (202) 382—2550. Sincerely your.. Irns S. Homer Bnvtro .nta], Protection Specialist Studies and Sethods Branch (WII—562B) Snclosure ecs Alan S. Corson RCMA/Superfund aotlin. image: ------- 9441.1985(18) MAY 2 I iG MEMORANOUM SUtIJECT: Lime Stabilized Waste Pickle Liquor Sludge from SIC Code No. 331 and 332 FROF4I Matthew Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch (WN—562B) TOz Michael 3. Sandereon, Chi.f RC A Branch Region VII •In your memorandum of Mardi 5, 1985, you requested guidance on whether lime—stabilized waste picki. liquor sludge (LSWPLS) generated by Va1i ont Industries Inc., (Valley, Nebraska) qualifies for the exclusion for L PLS from iron and steel industries promulgated on June 5, 1984. (Valmont was classified under SIC Code 331 for the purpose of a uiring a NPCKS permit.) Also, your request guidance regarding the types of facilities and processes included in SIC Code 331 and 332. Before addressing the items raised in your memorandum, one point should be clarified. That is, the RCRA inspection report for Valmont Industries indicates that the facility treats pickle liquor with anhydrous m.inia to raise the pM to 6.5 or above. The vast, is then pumped from the pickling tanks into ]a joons. Bowever, Wayne Kaiser, of your staff, has informed us of Valniont’s intent to pump the neutralized waste from the lagoons to the vastewatsr treatment system for tr.a nt with lime. It is at this point, that lii .. stabilized waste pickle liquor sludg. is generated. In determining the primary SIC cod. for a facility, the a jency considers the principal product or process. Thus, a facility that is Drinarily engaged in the manufacture or processing of steel Ci..., SIC code 331 or 332) qualifies for the exclusion. The following types of operations are included in these SIC codest 3312 — blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills 3313 — electrometallurgical products 3315 — steel wire drawing and st.el nails and spikes image: ------- —2— 3 .316 — cold rolled steel sheet, trtp, anti bars 3317 — steel jipe and tubes .3341 — gray iron foundries .3322 — malleable iron foundrie’ 3324 — steel investment foundries 3325 — steel foundries (not classified elsewhere) in considering Vai, nt for a NPDES p.rmtt, State ari i i egiona1 officials designat.d the facility as SIC cod. 331. etccording to the Rationale For NPD S Permit For Valsont Industries, Inc., the aegional Water Management Division cate.jorized the three wastewatet generating proc..s.s at Valmont Industries (acid pickling, çjalvantsing, and tube forming) as belon.Jing to the iron arid ste.l subcategory since these o .rations normally ar. associated with iron and steel mills. This designation, however, is inconsist.nt with the way tn. Agency normally classifies the various industry segments. In ?articular, many industries other than iron and steel are en aQ.d in acid pickling and may generat. spent pickle liquor (see Notice of Availability of Data, January 4, 1984). The alvanizing operation at Valmont Industries Is integrated into tn. various product lines and should not be constdsr.d under a separate SIC category. The tube forming cperatlon is the only process at Valirnt which falls under the iron and st..1 subeategory. Since the principal product is pivot irrigation systems, we believ, the primary SIC cod. to be 3S33 — Farm and Garden Machinery and Squtpm.nt. In resolving this matt.r, the Agency Is fac.d with three major options — we could re—open th. permit application for Valmont Industries and assign th. correct SIC code, wo could consider Valmont a. non-iron and steel only for purposes of determining whether the exclusion for LSWPLS is applicable. or we could stand by the SF083 SIC code designation and consider Valmont covered und.r the exclusion for LSWPLS. We realise that re—evaluating the permit application at this time would be resource intensive and impose additional costs to Valisont and the Agency. A decision to classify Valmont under different SIC codes for purposes of RCRA and CWA would e viewed as contradictory and unjustifiable. Since we believe it prudent to maintain consistency in assigning SIC codes for regulatory purposes. it is our recoumendatton that the Agency maintain its earlier SIC cods designation for Valment. A l a practical matter, this means that Valmont Industries would continue to be designated as SIC code 331, and as such, would be covered under the exclusion for LSWPLS. image: ------- We ‘,.lieve tPtat the situation rogardLn’ Valmont Industri.s represents an isoLated incident. The Agency will continue to t ake lecisions regardivvj applicability of the exclusion for L.SWPLIS based on th. rationale set forth earlier in this .. randua. If you have further question, or require additional information r. ardinci this guidance, pL•as• call Jacqu.liri. Sales, of my staff, at FTh 382—4807. image: ------- 94 41.1985(19) MAY Mr. Frank W. Scttaller Inco Limited Park 80 WestPlBZa Two saddle 8rook, New Jersey 07662 Dear Mr. Schaller In your letter of May 8, 1985, you request an Agency determination regarding the regulatorY status of .mpty drum that contained either metallic nickel or nickel oxide. Under the current hazardous waste r.gulations . i tal3ic nickel and nickel oxide are not listed hazard 5 wastes nor are they constitUents covered by the 8P Toxicity Characteristic. Thus, empty drums that contained these compounds are lik.viS. not a hazardous waste. Although these waste are not covered under the Federal rules. you should consult with State official’ to determine whether State requirements differ from the Federal. In many cases, State rules are more stringent. If you have question’ or require additional information, contact Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (202) 382—4807. Sincerely, Alan S. Corson Branch Chief Studies and Methods Branch ) image: ------- g 4 41. 1 985( 19a) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION 1985 MAY . Solid Waste DeterlTd.natia t 4. A ware cuse stores product acrylonitrile. An accidental fire destroys the ware- use and produces an ash fr an the burned acrylonitrile. The acrylonitrile was not a hazardais waste prior to the fire. Is the ash vieied as solid waste generated fran the disposal of a hazardous waste per §261.3(c) (2) (i) and therefore a listed hazardcus waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i)? The ash £ an an acrylcmitrile wareho se fire is regulated as U009 bazarda s waste. Burred product is vie,ed as discarded. Thus, the acrylonitrile is a solid waste per §261.2(b) (1) and §261.2(b) (50 R 614, January 4, 1985). Ash fran the acrylonitrile is a listed haz ir s waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i). image: ------- 9441.1985(20) June 5, 1985 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Use/Reuse Exemption as Applied to Spent Pickle Liquor FROM: John Skinner, Director Office of Solid Waste TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief Residuals Management Branch Region IV This memo is in response to your memorandum dated May 10, regarding the use/reuse exclusion as it relates to spent pickle liquor that is used as a wastewater conditioner. In particular, U.S. Steel uses spent pickle liquor as a substitute for ferric chloride (as a wastewater conditioner) and adds it to their wastewater treatment system; however, the Region and the State of Alabama question whether the use/reuse exclusion applies if the spent pickle liquor is discharged to a wastewater that is contained in an open unlined ditch. Furthermore, you expect the build-up of EP sludge/precipitate on the bottom of the unit. You question whether you can regulate the unit as a hazardous waste surface impoundment. While we agree with your conclusion that you can regulate the unit as a hazardous waste impoundment, we do not agree with the logic that led you to that conclusion. The sludge that forms in the impoundment is a solid waste and if it is hazardous ( i.e. , exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste), it is subject to regulation; thus, the impoundment would be subject to hazardous waste control. However, we do not agree with your logic concerning the use/reuse exclusion. The January 4 regulations (and preamble) to these regulations indicates that spent pickle liquor that is used as a wastewater conditioner is considered to be covered under the use/reuse exclusion, provided that the material is not speculatively accumulated. See, for example, Part I, Section III.B. (Secondary Materials That Are Not Solid Wastes), pg. 619 and Part II, Section u.N. (Section 261.2(e): Secondary Materials That Are Not Solid Wastes When Recycled), pg. 637. We also address this point indirectly in footnote 15 (pg. 628) where it states: This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— “We note, however that we do riot consider secondary materials that are used as wastewater conditioners to be within the scope of this provision (use constituting disposal provision). The activity is not similar to land disposal because the secondary material is chemically combined as part of a conditioning process and is subsumed as an ingredient in the conditioned water.” We, therefore, cannot agree with you (or the State of Alabama) that this activity constituents land disposal (under the Federal program). Rather, the January 4 rules indicate that the spent pickle liquor (if beneficially used as a wastewater conditioner) would be excluded from control under RCRA. However, as indicated above, the impoundment would still be regulated if it contains a characteristic hazardous waste or any other listed hazardous waste. Please give Matthew A. Straus a call if you have any further questions. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —3— 9441. 1985(21) June 6, 1985 Mr. Bruce Bzura Vice-President Madison Industries, Inc. Old Waterworks Road Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857 Dear Mr. Bzura: This letter is in response to your letter dated May 3, 1985, concerning the regulatory status of brass dross skimxnings that is to be recycled by a domestic or foreign refinery or a domestic or foreign processor. First, let me apologize for not getting back to you sooner; I have been very busy and hope my lateness has not created a problem for you. With regard to your questions, I will answer them in the same order as you presented them in your letter. • Is the brass dross skimznings a by—product or a scrap metal? These skimmings would be defined as a by-product. (See preamble discussion on pg. 624 of the January 4, 1985 Federal Register (C. Definition of Scrap Metal and Regulatory Distinctions Between Scrap Metal and Other Metal- Containing Wastes That Are Recycled for a detailed explanation.) • If this material is sent to a domestic refinery, does it have to be manifested? These skimmings (defined as a by-product) under the rules would be sent for reclamation (as you correctly noted in your letter). Since this material is not currently listed as a hazardous waste, it must be hazardous due to its exhibiting one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics ( i.e. , if this material were not hazardous, the hazardous waste rules would not apply). Under the rules, the reclamation of a nonlisted by—product would not be defined as a solid waste (provided the material is not This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- speculatively accumulated.!’ As a result, this material would not be a hazardous waste and, thus, need not be manifested or subject to any of the other applicable requirements. This answer is the same if it is sent to a foreign refinery.) • A processor processes the brass skimmings by separating the metal from the oxides. If the oxides are said to be a domestic or foreign fertilizer company, does the material have to be manifested? Yes. Under the rules, any material (whether it is a spent material, sludge, by—product, commercial chemical product or scrap metal) that is placed directly on the land or incorporated into a product that is placed on the land is defined as a solid waste and if hazardous, a hazardous waste. Thus, the oxide material (assuming it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic) would need to be manifested to the fertilizer company and the domestic fertilizer company would need to get a storage permit for this material. (The processor also would have to comply with the other applicable regulatory requirements.) It should also be noted that the brass skimmings would have to be manifested from the brass mill to the processor and the processor would need a storage permit if the ultimate destination of this material ( i.e. , the oxides) is to be placed on the land or incorporated into a product that is placed on the land. • If the oxide material were used as an ingredient to make a new product, would the oxides have to be manifested? Under the rules, any material that is used or reused as an ingredient to make a new product would not be defined as a solid waste, provided the material is not speculatively accumulated. (The exception to this is when the material is used as an ingredient in waste—derived fuels or in waste— derived products that will be placed on the land. In these situations, both the material being incorporated and the waste-derived product remains subject to RCRA jurisdiction.) Subsequently, this material would not have to be manifested or subject to any of the other applicable requirements. !‘ A material would be speculatively accumulated if: (1) it is being accumulated for recycling but no recycling market exists (or no feasible recycling market exists), or (2) 75% of the material is not recycled within a one—year period. See 40 CFR 261.1(a) (8). This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —3— (The answer is the same if it is sent to a foreign chemical processor.) I hope this letter responds to your questions. Please give me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441.1985(23) June 27, 1985 Mr. N. Ray Clark Universal Manufacturing Corp. 200 Robin Road Paramus, New Jersey 07652 Dear Mr. Clark: This letter is in response to your letter dated April 30, 1985, regarding the disposal requirements of scrap (of f- specification) DEHP and small capacitors which contain DEHP. First, let me apologize for taking so long in getting back to you; I have been very busy and hope my delay has not created a problem for you. Concerning your specific questions, I generally agree with the answers given by Mr. Travis Wagner of the RCRA Hotline. More specifically: Contaminated or unusable DEHP which is generated in the normal course of the manufacturing process and becomes a waste which must be disposed of is subject to the RCRA hazardous waste rules ( i.e. , if shipped—off—site must be manifested, must go to a facility with interim status or one which is fully permitted, etc.) Capacitors which are found to be unusable for electrical or mechanical reasons are presently not defined as a listed hazardous waste ( i.e. , U028). Therefore, these wastes would only be hazardous if they exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics ( i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity). With regard to your third question, you ask whether rags, gloves, and other miscellaneous solid materials which have absorbed some DEHP are RCRA hazardous wastes. The answer to this question is yes and no; that is, if the solid material has become contaminated as a result of waste management activities ( i.e. , clean-up of spills or leaks or from mixing waste DEHP with other wastes), these contaminated materials would be defined as RCRA listed hazardous wastes. On the other hand, if the contamination is a result of its use during the manufacturing process ( i.e. , gloves become contaminated as a result of handling during the manufacturing process), these solid materials would not be defined as listed hazardous wastes, these materials, however, would be a hazardous wastes if they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441.1985(24) JJN 2 - Mr. Dan Suanars Senior Corporate Attorney MaDoonell Douglas Corporation Saint Lcuis, Missouri 63166 Dear Mr. Su er 5$ This l.tt.r is in respons. to your letter dated April 15, 1S55, cenc.rnirig the regulatory status of .quipa.nt, such as a solvent still, which is used to legitiaately recycle huardous vast.. In particular, you indicat. that in endinq the regulations on January 4, 1 S5 regarding recycle/rouse, the •xenption fro. r.gulation for units (tr.atnant units) which are conducting l.gitiaat. recycling had b.a.d.l.t.d, •xc.pt for thos. faciliti.s aan.ging recyclable naterial. d.acrib.d in 5261.6(a)(3) and (3)... Svb j.eting these units to full regulation uid.r Subtitle C of RCIA, you believe, would be a substantial inpedinent to the continuation of on-site recycling activities. Therefore, you request clarification as to whether the actual recycling unit (i.e., solvent still) is subject to regulation under the revjsd solid waste rules. As we discussed during our telephone conversation, the g.acy .or.al ly will not regulate the actual recycling prooss itself ( i.e. , a distillation colunu in which solvents a r.ckaid or a susiting furnace in which n.tals are recovered), the only exception to this is when the recycling activity is analogous to land disposal or incineration. Although this point nay not be entirely clear in the rule, we believe the preble to this rulesaking clearly states this point. Sse, for ezasple. SO PR 643, 1st coluen, where we stato M in the proposal (and as under current regulat.is huardous wastes to be recycled-—called •r.cycl . exial . in the regulation—-are ordinarily sub ect ggulation under Parts 262 and 263 of the regulati (when generated and transported) and to the storage fLlity rquirsu.nts in Parts 264 and 265 (when stored before recycling). We usually do not regulate the recycling process itself, except when the recycling is analogous to land disposal or incineratioa, se. also 50 II 650, 2nd coluan, where we state Tb.s. provisions state that persons generating, transporting, or !! recyclable asterials, who are not explicitly addii$$Idin image: ------- 8261.6(a), ax. subject to all of the applicable r.quir .r* of Par* U2, 263, 264, and 265 of th. regulations, as v.11 a. to aijUcabi. prRit r.quir. nes. Ths’sfor., und•r Ut. January 4, 1985 solid waste rul.s, your solvsnt still would not be •ubj.ct to regulation. n sa.. f .. ] fr.. to gus a call if I can be of any further asiistancs; ay t.l.phon. nuabr ii (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Katthv A. Straus, Chi.f Wast. Idsntifi atjo Branch V62B/M8T AUS/p.s/475a$$5 1/6-2S—45/DLsk NSBS 0207 image: ------- 9441.1985(25) July 1, 1985 Mr. John A. Quinlan Legal Assistant Evans, Kitchel, and Jenckes, P.C. 2600 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004—3099 This letter is in response to your letter dated May 1, 1985, regarding the scope of the term Iabandoned t under revised 40 CFR §261.2. In particular, you indicate that §261.2(a) (2) (i) provides that a material may be discarded by being abandoned and §261.2(b)(i) defines abandoned to mean disposed of . You further state that disposal (as defined in S260.l0) includes the “placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water. . .“ Therefore, you are concerned that read together, these sections would state any material that is placed on the land is a solid waste, and that if the material is hazardous ( i.e. , if listed in Subpart D of Part 261 or exhibits one or more of the characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261), the regulations relating to hazardous wastes would apply. As we discussed previously, the Agency generally does not intend to regulate those secondary material that are bona fide products ( e.g. , secondary materials used as ingredients or feedstocks in production processes or as a substitute for commercial chemical products) even though they may be temporarily stored on the land. Thus, a listed emission control dust that is stored in piles on the land and is used as an ingredient in a production process would not be defined as a solid waste, provided that the material is not speculatively accumulated.!’ This position is supported (as you stated in your letter) by the parenthetical comment in the preamble, “By saying “abandoned,” we do not intend any complicated concept, but simply mean thrown away.” See 50 637, January 4, 1985. !‘ A material is considered speculatively accumulated if it is being accumulated without having a known recycling market or disposition, or no feasible means of recycling, and during a one-year calendar period, 75 percent of the material is not recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— On the other hand, if the material were to escape from the unit ( i.e. , leach from the waste and contaminate groundwater), this action would constitute disposal and meet the definition of abandoned and, thus, would be defined as a solid waste. In addition, if the material is hazardous, pursuant to §261.3, the material would be subject to the hazardous waste regulations. This point is discussed in the preamble to the regulations where we indicate “In addition, we note that black liquor that is disposed of and not recycled is a waste, and if hazardous, a hazardous waste. This includes black liquor that leaks, leaches, or overflows from an impoundment and is not recycled.” See 50 FR 642, 1st column. I hope this letter adequately responds to your question. Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441.1985(26) July 5, 1985 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Dioxin-containing Laboratory Wastes FROM: John H. Skinner, Director Office of Solid Waste TO: Dennis A. Huebner, Chief State Waste Programs Branch Region I This memo is in response to your memorandum dated May 28, 1985, regarding the regulatory status of laboratory wastes which contain dioxin. In particular, you question whether laboratory wastes which contain dioxin and which also are radioactive are subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) rules or some other set of regulations. First, you ask whether radioactive laboratory wastes are excluded from the definition of solid waste since they are under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. C’ 4 is a naturally-occurring radioisotope. EPA has authority, under RCRA, to regulate a material containing it. (See the February 21, 1984, memorandum from Lee Thomas to Ernesta Barnes, which you cited.) Such a material, therefore, is a solid waste, and is a hazardous waste if it meets one of the hazardous waste characteristics or is a RCRA—listed waste. You further question whether the particular laboratory waste you describe is a hazardous waste listed in 40 CFR 261.31. Laboratory wastes, in general, are not regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. Laboratory wastes such as chromatographic columns, discarded solutions, filter material, etc., are not currently listed. In the case of a laboratory which analyzes a RCRA hazardous waste, the unused portion of the waste being analyzed as well as any residue or sample from the analysis is a RCRA hazardous waste, and is subject to RCRA regulation. The particular laboratory wastes which you describe are, therefore, not regulated under RCRA. The January 14, 1985, dioxin regulations did not change this determination. With respect to the laboratory wastes you described in your May 28, 1985 memorandum, one can calculate an average TCDD concentration of 2.5 ppb (1.5 mg/25 x 12 x 2 kg). Material of This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— this degree of contamination should be safely disposed. These wastes are subject to NRC regulations for the disposal of radioactive wastes which should ensure that they are disposed in a satisfactory manner. If you have any questions regarding the dioxin listings, please call Dr. Judith S. Bellin of my staff. She can be reached at 382—4789. Attachment cc: Judy Bellin This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- UNITED ST’ ES ENVIRONMENTAL ROTECTION AG’ Y 9441.1985(27) Mt MORANDUM JUL 16 1985L SUBJ8CT: Status of Spent Pickle Liquor Used in the 2. Production of Ferric Chloride 0 FROM: John H. Skinner, Director Office of Solid Waste (WH—562) TO: Harry Seraydarian, Director Toxics and Waste Management Division Region IX CT—i) This memorandum responds to your inquiry of June 18, 1985, regarding the status of spent pickle liquor used in the production of ferrous and ferric chloride at Chem West Industries, Inc. (Fontana, CA) and Imperial West Chemical Company (Pittsburg, CA). The information attached to your memorandum indicates the Chem West Industries, Inc. receives spent pickle liquor (by pipeline) from Kaiser Steel Corp. The spent material is piped into tanks containing steel scrap to neutralize the free hydrochloric acid to below a certain percentage. The material is then discharged to lined surface impoundments to concentrate (recover) the ferrous chloride. After neutralization of the acid and concentration of the iron, the material is chlorinated and sold as technical grade ferric chloride. A similar situation exists at the Imperial West Chemical Company. Spent pickle liquor received at this facility is treated with ferric oxide and lime to decrease its acidity; this treatment also has the effect of increasing the concen- tration of ferrous chloride.!! The material is concentrated (recovered) in a surface impoundment and sold directly as ferrous chloride or further processed to produce ferric chloride. 1/ For both Chem West Industries, Inc. and Imperial West Chemical Company, the process of mixing the spent pickle liquor with scrap iron or ferric oxide produces ferrous chloride. Thus, it could be argued that this material is used as an ingredient However, based on our understanding of the process, the primary purpose of this mixing is to reduce the acidity in the spent pickle liquor; in addition, if the acidity (HC1 concentration) is below their level of concern, this activity would probably not be conducted. Thus, we believe that any ferrous chloride that is generated is incidental and not a major purpose of this particular activity. image: ------- —2— The process conducted at these facilities in which usable ferrous chloride is first recovered train the spent pickle liquor before it is used to produce ferric chloride is considered a reclamation activity. According to the revised definition of solid waste, spent materials, listed sludges, and listed by—products that are processed to recover usable products, or that are regenerated... are solid waste...’ (50 FR at 633—634, 3anuazy 4, 1985). As such, these materials are subject to regulation under RCRA prior to the reclamation operation. Once the ferrous chloride is recovered, the material would no longer be a waste. Although it may appear that the exclusion for secondary materials used as ingredients to make new products would apply in this case, it is clearly stated in the preamble that if the material is to be put to use after it has been reclaimed, the material is still a solid waste until reclamation is completed. Thus, the tact that wastes may be used after being reclaimed does not affect their status as wastes before and while being reclaimed. Consequently, in the case of Chem West Industries, Inc., and Imperial West Chemical Company, the spent pickle liquor used in the production of ferrous and ferric chlorides at these facilities is regulated under RCRA prior to the reclamation operation. Thus, the generators of the spent pickle liquor must comply with Part 262 and both Imperial West Chemical Company and Chern West Industries, Inc. must comply with Parts 264 and 265 for any storage of the pickle liquor prior to recycling. The recycling activity itself (i.e., the reclamation operation), however, is exempt from regulation; thus, the tanks and surface impoundments used as part of their recycling process are currently exempt from regulations. If, however, the material were to escape from the unit used in the recyclinq process ( i.e. , leach from the waste in the surface impoundment and contaminate ground water), this action would constitute disposal and would be subject to regulation under RCRA. (See 50 FR 642, January 4, 1985.) I hope that this memorandum adequately responds to your inquiry. If you have questions or require additional infonnation, please call Matthew Straus or Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (202) 475—8551. cc: Regions l—X image: ------- UNITED E5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ICY 9441. 1985 (28) U. 1S 5 Jean Summers Stinson R.W. Summers Railroad Contractor, Inc. P.O. Box 1456 Bartow, Florida 33830 Dear Mr. Stinson: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1985, in which you asked whether the disposal of cross ties treated with creosote is subject to regulation by the Environr enta1 Protection Agency (EPA). Under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recycling Act (RCRA), EPA has issued regula- tions listing only the commercial product creosote, when discarded, and two manufacturing process wastes (Bottom sediment sludge from the treatNent of wastewaters front wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachiorophenol (KOOl) and Wastewater treatment sludges generated in the production of creosote (1(035)) as hazardous under RCRA. Creosote treated cross ties are not covered by any of these listings. These ties also could be considered hazardous if they exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics ( i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, extraction procedure (EP) toxicity); however, it is unlikely that the creosote treated cross ties would exhibit any of these characteristics. Therefore, the treated ties are likely not defined as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA and, thus, not subject to the hazardous waste regulation. - The disposal of creosote treated cross ties are subject to some regulation under the recently promulgated rules developed under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide, and Rodenticiae Act (FIFRA), however. In particular, on July 13, 1984, the Agency issued its Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) for the three major wood preservatives——namely, inorganic arsenicals, pentachiorophenol, and creosote. Among other things, these rules require that wood which has been treated with pentachiorophenol and/or creosote should not be burned in an outdoor fire or in stoves or fireplaces; rather this wood should be buried in a landfill. This requirement was 1985—467—S53 image: ------- 2 included to ensure that no toxic contaminants would be released as a result of the burning process. (For more information on the FIFRA rules, please contact Carol Langley at 557—7400.) I presume this information provides sufficient answers to your question. If you need further clarification, please feel free to telephone Dr. Judith S. Baum at 202—382—4789. sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Waste Identification Branch WH_562B/JBELLIN/ecm/382—4789/ 62885 disk JB840]—42 image: ------- RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9441 .1985(28a) JULY 85 clamation, and the Manifest A photora y lab generates bet en 100 kg/ri nth and 1000 kg/zonth of a spent material which is EP toxic for silver. The lab does preluitinary reclamation of the silver and then sends the recyclable material off—site for further reclamation, a) Since the lab is generating bet een 100 kg/T Cnth and 1000 kg/rrcnth, must it keep the records prescribed in 5266.70(c) for persons who store recyclable precious metals? b) It st the partially reclaimed precious metal be shipped with a manifest if the material is sent off—site for final reclamation? a) Pb; the lab is not currently subject to the recozdkeepirç requirenents of 5266.70(c). A SOG that beneficially uses or re-uses, or legitimately recycles or reclaims the baste is not sub)ect to regulation according to 5261.5(g) (3)(v) (A). Therefore, the p tora *ly lab reclaiming silver fras the spent material uld not have to keep the records required by 5266.70(c) tr til the lab exceeds the 1000 kg SOG accunulation limit. The proposed SQG regulation dated August 1, 1985, (50 FR 31278) beS published pursuant to 53001 of the Solid ste Disposal Act (91n 5 as amended by 5221 of P. 1.. 98-616. Section 3001 (d) requires the EPA inistrator to prceulgate standards by March 31, 1986, under Sections 3002, 3003, and 3004 of IPJ for hazardous baste generated bebeen 100 kg/month and 1000 kg/zicnth. This proposed rule iculd require generators betbeen 100 kQJucnth and 1000 kg tcnth to canply with the recordkeepirç requirenents of 5266.70(c). b) Yes; the partially reclaimed material which is sent off-site for final reclam- ation is subject to the reduced manifest requireatents per 53001 of as amended by 5221 of P.L.. 98-616, effective August 5, 1985. The requirenents are less stringent canpared to the requirenents applicable to generators of 1000 kg,i nth or n re. Generators betbeen 100 kg/z nth and 1000 kg/month need only cauplete certain portions of the U ifo n Mazardous b ste Manifest (Manifest). Section 3001(d)(3)(A) through CE) states that the Manifest shall contain the following info nation: o the nene and address of the generator of the baste; o the t ited States par nent of Transportation (EDT) description of the baste, inclt ing the proper shipping name, hazard class, and identification n znber (UN / N h), if applicable; o the n znber and type of containers; o the quantity of ste being transported; and o the nene and address of the facility designated to receive the vests. These Manifest req.iirenents will d ange effective March 31, 1986. Section 3001(d) (8) of states that additional thfconetion will be required unless the EPA inistrator . ulgates standards by March 31, 1986. ecifi- cal.ly, this hainiier provision will require aenerators betveen 100 ka,itcnth and o inclt e the name of the veste transporters and the name and address of the facility designated tø receive the veste; o treat, store, or dispose of hazardous baste at a facility with interim status or a Rh permit (except for on-sits storage subject to reduced requirenents); o file manifest exception reports; and o retain copies of the manifest signed by the, designated facility that has received the veste for three years. 1 SOG proposed rule dated August 1, 1985, (50 FR 31278) specifies Manifest requirenents for generators betveen 100 kg/ironth and 1000 kaJmcnth. These gene- rators are subject to reduced requirenents when reclaiming hazardota vestes in cunpliance with 5262.20(e). Source: Matt Straus (202) 475—8551 qq’ . SD Cs:) image: ------- 9441. 1985(28b) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE JULY MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION 1985 R051 and HS 1. action 3004(q)(2)(A). of the I tardcus and Solid ste knen tients of 1984 states that the provisions regu1atir hazardous aste used as fuel hall not apply to petroleun bastes containing oil ich are converted into etro1eun coke at the sazi facility at i hich such bastes re generated ...unless the coke product exhibits a k racteristic of hazardous aste.’ es this mean t Mt KOSi .(API Separator Sludge) could be reused oh-site to produce new petroleun óoke? Yes; petroleun coke . ,roduod fizn the on-site reuse of .K051 (or any other listed petroleun refinery ste) is exeupt fran the labelir p isior.s of S3004(r) and any standards applicable to ha rdous baste fuel, fnless the coke product exhibits a character4stic of t zardous raste. image: ------- 9441.1985(29) UNITED S’ 1 ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROtECTION AC Cr AUG 23 1985 • £MOw.ANDUM SUBJECT: Applicability of the Mixture’ and Derived Pram Rules to Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems FROM; John H. Skinner, Director Office of Solid Waite TO: Director, Waits Management Division Regions I—X Over the past year, we have received several requests from Regions VI and VIII for interpretations relating to the conditions under which sludges g.nerat.d in refinery surtace impoundments are hazardous. Many of thos. questions should nave been answered by our December’ 7, 1984 memorandum to Robert Duprey. a copy of which ia attached. The Administrator has recently r.c.ived a petition from the Texas Mid—Continent Oil and Gas Association (TMOGA) that raises the question of whether the mizture ’ and •derived from’ rules provide a basis for the regulation of these units. We hope that this letter provides sufficient guidance on this issue to insure the proper application of the mizture’ and ‘derived from’ rules to refinery wastewater systems. Five waste streams generated by petroleum refineries are currently listed in 40 C?R 261.32. Based on a review of the American Petroleum Institute’s 1982 survey of refineries, we expect that as many as 40% of all ref mines are p.rforming some treatment of these wastes (primarily API S.parator Sludge. DA! Float, or Slop Oil ulsion Solids). Generally, the treat- ment involves some form of dewatering by sedimentation, filtration, or centnifugation. A literal reading of 40 Cu 261.3(c)(2)(i), the ‘derived from’ rule, would suggest that the resultant liquid stream is a hazardous waste and remaina on. until delist.d. Since refiners generally return the aqueous stream to the r.f nery vastewater system, the mixture rule (40 Cfl 261.3(a)(2)( IV)) would then 4.f ins the combined water stream sad all, subsequent residuals as hazardous wastes. (Note, however, that the •tfluent at the point of discharg. from thi wastevater tra .nt system would not be a solid waste by virtue of the indmatg’ial.wastevater dtsah.rg. .xglu•ign. 40 ç , iJ(a(2). ) image: ------- 2 *lt.r car.fu], consid.ration of th. characteristics of the currently listed refin.ry wastes, the waste man5 .iuent practices, arid he disposition of the recycle streams, we have concluded that the d.rived fr rule is not uniformly applica l. to the aqueous stream g.n.rat.d in a sludge d.wat.ririg process. .ir interpre- tation is based on the presumption that properly conducted dewaterir g of a wastswat.r tr.ata.nt residual will insurs that none of the 2j stsd vast, is returned to th. system, while simultaneously r.ducing th. total amount of vast. gen.rsted. It is our opinion that dewatering of the curr.ntly listed ref in.ry wastes can be conducted in a manner that insur.s the return of only the non—listed wastewater which came into contact with, but was not mixed with, the listed waste. This interpr.tation leaves a burden of proof on the facility to establish that they are ‘properly conducting dewatering. W believe that the demonstration of properly conducted dewatering can be made by the plant by conducting vast, analysis. S ecifically, if the refinery can show, to your satisfaction, that th. return water stream is chemically equivalent to the non—listed wast.water influerit to the wastewater treatment device that originally generated the listed waste, th.n the return water stream is not ‘derived fr ’ the hazardous waits. It should be noted that this demonstration cannot be made if the influant to the waste treatment unit itself contained a listed hazardous waste. In this case, all waste derived from its treatment would be hazardous since the original wastswater was hazardous. As an example, consider a refinery that generates an API separator sludge; suppose that the refinery pumps this listed hazardous wastes to an Lmpoun ent for sludge d.vatering, after which the sludge is sent to a landtarm and the water supernatent is sent to the influent to the API Separator. If the returned water stream is similar in composition of Appendix VIII hazardous constituents and total suspended solids (TSS) to tne intluent vastevatsr to the API Separator, then only the non—listed vastewater is being returned and the r.turn vast.water is not a hazardous vast.. On the other hand, if the level 0 f some Appendix VIII constituent or the TSS ii significantly hiç her than the level in the API separator influent, then hazardous waste is being returned to the vast.water treatment system and the-mixture rule is triggered for the entire vastewat.r system. What constitutes a significantly higher constituent level is obviously a case—Dy—case determination that is functionally dependent upon the amount of sampling data available. will be glad to provide an opinion for any specific case if you forward the required information on the waste streams. t image: ------- 3 .hould be noted, in passing, that the dewatering impoundment is a regulated unit regardless of the r.gulatory status of the water stream since this unit is being used to treat and store a hazardous waste. Application of the above rules has .a or implications for refineries that ar. returning hazardous waste to their wastewater treatment system. At these facilities, all downstream units are hazardous waste management units. Beyond that, all residuals generated downstream are hazardous wastes, unless an upstream or influent wastewat.r mixture, or th. residual itself, has been delisted by the Agency. We are concerned that the net effect of these rules, when coupled with the closeness of the part B submission deadline, may cause major problems for refiners who were practicing the desirable activity of waste minimization, but were not operating in a systematic fashion. We cannot, however, justify a blanket exemption from the mixture rule for all of the recycled liquid streams. Our hesitation tO grant a blanket exemption is based on the fact that the limited data which we have availabls at tnis time (data supplied by the American Petroleum Institute) su jgest that the liquid streams can contain appreciabl, amountS Of Appendix VIII hazardous constituents from the hazardous waste. Calculations performed by my staff further suggest that ma)Or portions of the constituents found in downstream wastewaters can result from the introduction of the recycle stream. Nevertheless, we do believe there ar. cases where a rigid application of th• two rules results in a less desirable out come. unfortunately, our procedural options are rather limited. The rules have been final for several years anc revision at this point would require issuing a proposal, along with providing an opportunity for public comw.nt. We could not )ustify starting such an effort until we receive maningful data from TMOGA or other petitioners. In the interim, the sole available mechanism for regulatory relief is through the d.listing process. Fortunately, scm . refineries have correctly interpreted. the subject rwl.es and are working tO submit their Part B’s in November, & 5 required. We believe, however, that a much larGer contiri ent of ref ineriss may not be exerting. any effort, due to a mis nt.rpretatiOn of the rulss or the hops that PA will ignore th. rules. Since those facilities would lose their interim status for tne if fect.d units, it is Iapsrativ. that your staff notify them of their r.sponsibilities at the earliest possible date. Facilities which fail, the t.st on the return water stream will need to submit a delisting petition if they hop . to receive an exclusion for their recycled liquid streams. image: ------- 4 sine, there is pot.ntia . for significant •concmic impact, we vi i i pertorm an expedited r.vi.w of all complet. petitions that ar. r.c.iv.d. The 1984 emendmenta, however, do not leave us the option to grant a t.mporary •zclusion under 40 CtR 261.22(m). Sea also 50 FR 28, 737. July 15, 1985. Specific information that is r.quTF.d of a delisting petitioner is described in the guidance manual for delisting petitions petitioners should take extra care to insure that App.naix V III characterizations are providec for all wastes that are being treated, the recycled liquid streams, the wastewaters receiving the recycled streams, and the non-recycled residuals of treatment. It is also important that all analyses be representative of tn. long t.rm variations in the quality of the recycled stream and factors that contribute to that variation. Complete volumetric and phase characterizations for all streams and data defining their variability are also •ss.ntial. Die to the tight time constraints involved, petitioners may want to contact Jim poppiti of my staff, at (202) 475—8551, before making th.ir submissions. In the way of guidance to your staffs, it is also essential that they understand and consistently apply the definitions of the wastes to insure that facilities are not erroneously categorized. Clearly, recycled streams are not regulated if the hazardous waste has not been generated. It may be useful to clarify the point of waste generation and associated applicability of the rules. They are as follows: K048 (DM Float) — Generated at the mos•nt they are formed in the top of the unit. Any liquid stream deriving from the concentration of 048 could be derived from a hazardous waste. K049 (Slop Oil ulsion Solids) — This waste, sometimes referred to as middle layer emulsion, is gensrat.d at the first instance where the emulsion layer is allowed to form. The layer will form in the first vessel to which slop oils are pumped from the wastevater system. with one exception, the wastewater from this first tank n.ed not be •valuat•d for the ‘derived from’ test. The case where. it would require testing s where a hazardous waste, such as M? Float, was 1ntroduc.d into the emulsion breaking tank. Wat•r phase derived from any subs.quent emulsion breaking or emulsion storage is sub ject to the ‘derived from • test. 050 (Bundle Cl.aning Sludge) — gixtures containing this hazardous waste which are part ot the refinery wast.wat.r system ar. exempted from the mixture rule (40 CFR 261.3(a). (iv) Cc)). image: ------- 5 KOSi (API Separator Sludge) — G.nerat.Ø at the mom.nt of deposition in the API separator. Note that d•pO 5itj is defin.ø as a condition where thers has been at least a temporary cessation of lateral particle movement. Liquids derived fro. the management of API Separator Sludge after its removal from th. separator (S.;., Centrifuçjing) must be evaluated to establish whether, or not, they are •derived from the hazardous waste. L052 Leaded Tank Bott .s) — Gnerated at the moment of depo.ition in thS gasoline storage tank. Section 261.4(c) e clud.s the tank from regulatory requir.m.nts. Any portion returned to the wastewater systems must be tested under the ‘derived from’ rule. This memorandum should clarify (when applied in concert vitn our previous guidance on scouring, slop oil systems, and vast, reactivity) the rsjjulatory status of most refinery wast.water iapoundm.nta. not hesitate to contact bert Smith of my staff (?TSs 382—4791). if you have any additional questions on this or other refinery related matters. We will keep you apprised of our progress with the ?MOGA petition and our waste listing efforts. Attachment ccg John Quarl.s WH—5628/BSPIITH/pes/475_8551/8_20_85,Djsk BS0825 image: ------- 94 41.1985 (30a) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 85 Battery Reqeneration 6. In the January 4, 985 Federal Reqister (50 FR 665), S261.6(a)(3) excludes certain recyclable materials fr 40 CFR Parts 262 thr gh 270. 5261.6(a)(3)(ii) excludes used batter ice (cc used battery cells) returned to a battery manufacturer fcc regeneration. • (a) Is this exclusion only applicable to battery manufacturers cc dces it also cover any facility that regenerates batteries? (b) Are spent lead- acid batteries also covered ur er this exclusion, cc are tt y specifically subject to Part 266 Subpart G? (a) This battery exclusion under S261.6(a)(3)(ii) ‘ s not maant to be appli- cable solely to battery manufact xers. Any facility that regenerates batter ice at does not recover t iced fus thou can be covered un e this exclusion. (b) !t1y if a spent iced-acid battery is sent to reclaim the teed (i.e., ack the battery and recover t iced), is it then subject to S266.30. Source: Mat t Staus (202) 475—8551 image: ------- 944i.i9 5(31) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, 0 C 20460 ocr SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Carl 7. Schafer, Jr. Director Environmental Policy Acquisition and Logistics Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Washington,(’ hC. 20301 Dear M c-fef1 In your letter of July 25, 1985, you requested EPA concurrence on the proposed DOD policy regarding the applicability of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations to the demilitarization of military munitions. These are munitions which have not yet been used and which now may be recycled or disposed. Your request raises two ues: 1.) are such military munitions subject to RCRA prior to ilitarization and 2.) can DoD directives be applied in lieu of tc .RA requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste? Military Munitions Subject to RCRA RCRA Section 6001 requires federal facilities to comply with all Federal, State, and local laws pertaining to the management of hazardous waste. RCRA hazardous waste regulations apply from the time and at the point that the material (e.g., military munitions) beconces a hazardous waste. The identification of munitions subject to RCRA must be based on the definition of solid and hazardous waste as presented in 40 CFR Part 261. Under 40 CFR S261.33, unused commercial chemical products become hazardous wastes only when discarded or Intended for discard. Recycling (i.e., use, reuse, or reclamation) is ordi- narily not considered to be a form of discard. Similarly, unused munitions ordinarily would not be considered to be wastes unless and until there Is an intent to dispose or destroy them, and they would not be wastes when recycled in lieu of disposal. We thus agree that the mere assignment of munitions to the Special Defense Property Disposal Account does not automatically subject munitions to RCRA. It Is not until DoD decides to handle the material in a nner which classifies it as a hazardous waste that its storage transportation must be in accordance with RCRA rules. image: ------- —2— You should be aware, however, that burning of these munitions in military deactivation furnaces is considered to be incineration because the main purpose of the activity is waste treatment. Like- wise, storage of these wastes prior to incineration would also be considered management of a hazardous waste. The DoD strategy for identifying those munitions subject to RCRA appears to be in accordance with the RCRA regulations with the exception of the exclusion of hazardous waste storage. Your letter states that military munitions are never waste until demilitarization occurs. We interpret “demilitarization as used in the DoD policy, to encompass all activities regulated under the RCRA rules except storage. Once there is an intention to dispose or destroy munitions, their storage as well as trans- portation would be regulated since they are hazardous waste. Therefore, the storaqe and transportation of military munitions that are hazardous waste are subject to RCRA prior to demilitarj— zat ion. RCRA Applicability to DoD Your letter suggests that because DoD directives provide aoequate protection of human health and the environment and “conform” to RCRA requirements, that DoD facilities may comply with DOD directives in lieu of the RCRA requirements. Our Initial review of your directives indicates that in many respects, the DoD directives adequately address the corresponding RCRA requirements. However, we have also identified several deficiencies. For example, RCRA Subpart I S264.175 requires a Containment system for container storage, whereas your directives do not, tinder RCRA Subpart C S264.113, a closure plan is required for all hazardous waste facil— ities whether or not the facility plans to close. Your directives inaccurately state that this requirement does not apply. Enclosed is a checklist which identifies all of the RCR.A regulations promulgated prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA or the “Amendments”). This checklist is used by the States during the State authorization review process to determine the equivalency of State standards to RCRA requirements. We believe the checklist will be useful to you, as a first step, to identify major omissions in the DoD directives when compared to EPA’s “base” (pre—HSWA) program. Unlike State programs, however, the DOD directives must do more than achieve an equivalent level of environmental protection to EPA ’s program. DoD facilities must meet EPA’s standards promulgated under RCRA, and thus the DOD ctives would need to be revised accordingly. We would be to help you determine whether specific parts of RCRA apply to i. ...... (e.g., closure requirements). image: ------- —3— m We are currently revising the checklist to reflect the .kmendrnents and we should be able to provide a copy of the draft revised checklist in approximately one month. The Amendments will primarily require additions to the checklist; however, a few of the current provisions of the checklist may also need to be revised slightly. Please contact Chaz Miller (382—2220) of the State Programs Branch, Office of Solid Waste, with regard to the use of the checklist and its revisions. we are confident that the final DOD directives will facilitate the permitting of DOD facilities and should reduce the need for authorized States to impose requirements other than those prescribed in your current directives. Since ly yours, ijj 1 IaCk W. McGraw Deputy Assistant Administrator I Enclosure image: ------- UNITEL £S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIC 9441.1985(32) Mr. Frank 3. Fox, Jr. Jones, Day, Reavie, and Pogue 2300 LTV Center 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 Dear Mr. Fox: This letter will confirm our previous telephone conversations and is a response to your letter oated July 19, 1985, in which you request an interpretation of the mixture rule ot the hazardous waste regulations. In particular, you indicate that a characteristic hazardous waste and a listed hazardous waste (which is list.d solely because it exhibits the ignitability characteristic) are mixed before they are combusted; the mixture is ignitable. The ash resulting from the incineration of thi. ignitable waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics, however. Based on your reading of the rules, you believe the ash is not a hazardous waste and thus, does not need to be delisted, even thouQh it is derived from a listed waste. I agree. bection 261.3(a)(2)(iii) of the regulations indicates that once a listed waste (that is listed solely because it exhibits a characteristic) has been mixed so that the mixture no longer exhibits any ot the hazardous waste characteristics, the waste would no longer be considered hazaroous.l/ Therefore, the ash is not hazardous provided it does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics. You should be aware, however, that this provision may be moditied. In particular, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSbiA) requires, among other things, that the Agency in evaluating delisting petitions consider all tactors (including additional constituents) 1/ Although the waste is not considered to be non—hazardous — until the waste is incinerated, we believe the same policy applies. .‘ S . ! -467-I5 image: ------- 2 other than those for which the waste was listea to determine the hazardousness of these wastes. This re ujrement appiies to all listed wastes, including those that are listed solely because they exnibit a characteristic. Therefore, we believe s26l.3(a)( s)(iii) is inconsistent with the intent of the new arnendwertts Until this rule is amended, however, the ash generated from the combustion process (as described abovej is not sub)ect to reçulation. Please feel free to give me a call If I can be of any further assistance; my telephone numDer is (202) 475-8 5l. Sincerly yours Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch image: ------- UNITED s.... ENVIRONMEP4TAL PR0TECTfO 9441.1985(33) CT 23 1985 Ms. Carlene Sassell, P.E. Manager, Environmental Technology L.ederle Laboratories Division of American Cyanamid Company Pearl River, New York 10965 Dear 148. Sassel ].: This letter is in response to your letter, dated October 10, 1985, and with regard to our telephone conversations concerning the regulatory status of reclaimed methanol produced at Lederle Laboratories and sent to American Cyanamic. As your letter aescribes, Lederle Laboratories generates a spent solvent (methanol) as part of their pharmaceutical manutacturing operations; this solvent is reclaimed on—site to a minimum of 99.5 percent purity. The reclaimed methanol Is then sent to American Cyanamid at their Willow Island facility; the Willow Island facility uses methanol in various manufacturing processes. However, the methanol must be reclaimed before it is used for a number ot reasons (I.e., methanol sometimes has too much color for direct usel. The question you raise is whether the methanol reclaimed by Lederle Laboratories and sent off—site to American Cyananiid is a commercial chemical product or a waste. You believe (based on discussions with Mr. James Gin] .ey of the RCRA/superfund Hotline) that Lederle’g reclaimed methanol is a commercial chemical product an therefore, not subject to the Subtitle C regulations. I agree, that is Lederle’s reclaimed methanol is a product, not a waste. Although the methanol that is sent to American Cyanamid needs to be reclaimed before it can be used and normally such materials are still defined as wastes (see 50 FR 633, January 4, 1985), we believe Lederle’s reclaime methanol (with a purity of 99.5 percent) is more product—like than waste—like. This is analogous to the situation of reclaimed metals that only have to be retined before they are used. See 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985. image: ------- 2 Therefore, Lederle’S reclaifl e methanol need not be manifested to the willow Island facility nor does American Cyanamid neeo a storage permit to store the reclaimed methanol. I hope this letter answers your questions. please tee] free to give me a cal] if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. incere1y yours, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Identification branch image: ------- 9441.1985(34) Ma.arice Golden 456 i1bourn ad Rochester, NY 14618 r Mr. Golden: I have been asked to respond to your letter of C t er 17, 1985, requestir information on proper handling of small quantities of laboratory wastes, ard on the aTended hazar us was to ‘ienagsent regulations in general. As you indicate in your letter, the Hasardous and Solid Waste Mendeents of 1984 (I ) cb set n requirsments for gth*rator5 of a sll quantities of waste (b.twaen 100 arid 1000 kilogiciuru. in a calendar i th), and small laboratories are those likely to be at fect.d by thee. change. in the l. . y may krx v, a r,.ater of interim r iuireu nta—primarily use of the Uniform K -ard .z . t• Manifest when shipping waste off-site for trsa nt or di *al—tecmm - effective k ust 5, 1985. Li IE1 &]so directs CPA to pr algate final requlatiare for g.rmrators of bstwaen 100 and 1000 kib of hazar ,us waste in a calendar naith by March 31, 1986. EPA’s Off ica of Solid Waste has developed a n rod iire to assist affected businesses in . lytng with the interim r uir ts that want into effect in Auqust. A py of this brodiire is enclosed. I have also included a Laboratories insert to the brocPiire which p ,ides inforitiatjcn that labs may find heloful in 1eting Itast 11 of the Manifest, the f part ent of Transportation proper shi ing description. If you feel that the brochure and insert will be helpful to your classes, you can tain additional ies fran CPA qional Offices, or by calling toll—free either the A Hotline (800—424-. 9346) or Snail Fksiress Hotlina (800—368—5888). CPA is oarrently rking to i .ue final rules for siTell quantity gererators by the March 31 deadline. Proçosed rules ware oublished for public nt in the August 1, 1985 PUdaral ister; a is enclosed. The nt period closed Sept. er 30, 11 3 d a f S r analyzing and addressing ccav nts reosived. So that you can stay abret of the changes made in R A and of regulations that may affect la ratcries generating small quantities of hasardcxas waste, I have added tax r to our mailing list of those interested in RO A image: ------- r thorizat icE ar 11 quantity r xator ia..ae.. Y J n ei r jv psrtodie dat ar other infocaatjcE it avajiabi.. I h s I -hm’ ycur qu ti ar the .nclc .c in1 tjc will be of eiata c.. Thar* ycu far ycur int.reust in ths m all antity qer*rat Siri rely ycuz , orah itherfard Off i of Solid Waet. Encl ure image: ------- 3441.1985(35) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY OCTOBER 85 1. Mining ste c1usion Reinterpretation Are wastes trait secordary slag si 1ting operations presently e li.ded trait regulation by S261.4(b)(7), the mining waste eclusion? EPA has re r interpreted the R A mining waste e clusion to apply to any secordary eielting wastes. See the attahed Jw 19, 1984, letter fran the Assistant Achinistrator for Solid ste ard ierger :y Response to Senator Long. In fect, the Agercy ctrrently lists t wastes trait secordary s 1ting operations as hazardous wastes. See 40 R 261.32, ste Nos. K069 ( jssion control dust/sluige) ard l00 (waste le hing solution trait ecid lem hirtg of enission control dust/sluigs). Significantly, these listings, which tare originally çranulgated as part of EPA’ s May 19, 1980, list of hazardous wastes, re retaired wt*n EPA tanporarily deleted other listings in response to t to r 21, 1980, eri tsent of the A mining waste e lusion. See the May 20, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 27473). 1 reinterpretation of the mining waste eclusion which EPA proposed in the ( to r 2, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 40292) u1d r t affect the status of wastes fran secordary slag ar lting operations. stes fran secordary slag erelting operations t uld renain st.bject to Sut itle C (if hazardous). Soirce: xter Nirckley (202) 382—3388 image: ------- UNI1EC ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIf 94 41. 1985 (38) NOV 20 g Mr. Jeffry Spear Quality Control Fountain Powerboat,, Inc. P.O. Drawer 457 Washinoton, North Carolina 27889 Dear Mr. Spear: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter to Mr. James Pop itj, dated October 24, 1985, regardjna a exclusion for the waste generated at your facility (listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F003). At the present time an exemption exists under 5 261.3(a)(2)(jjj) of the RCRA hazar- dous waste regulations that reads: ‘a solid vaste...jg a hazardou, waste if..,jt is a mixture of a solid waste and a hazardous waste that is listed in Subpart D sol.y because - it exhibits one or more of th. characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C, unless the resultant mixture no lonqer exhibits any characteristic of hazardous waste identif led in Subpart C.’ Fountain Powerboat, must determine whether this ezemDtion would anply to the generated waste (i.e., is it a mixture of hazardous waste and solid waste?). You supplied data to demonstrate that your waste does not meet any of the hazar- dous waste characteristics. Therefore, if this exemption does apply to your waste, then the waste is not defined as hazardous, and an exclusion under 55 260.20 and 260.22 of the regulations is not necessary. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call me, or Mr. Poppiti, at (202)382—4519. - Sincerely, Ann Burke Sarno Environmental Protection Specialist Waste Identification Branch (WR—5628) image: ------- UNITEL. SATES E IVIROHMENTAL PROTECTIOP, 94411985(39) NOV 25 t985 i S• G. tlaiioney Environmental Engineer iridy port 3rass Cor oratjon P.O. t3Ox 51519 Indiana ojis, Indiana 46251 Dear is. ( ahOn y: This letter is in response to your request for an Intcrpretatjon of the Jenuary 4, 1985 hazardous waste reyujatjons, Conc rnin the reçjulatory status of two characteristicaijy hazarcous sludges that are recycled. (Thespecific examples iou are inter st in are described in your letter dated Auc ust 14, 1985, and in our telephone Conversation,) In your letter, you indicate that both ot these materials are rt cyc1ed in such a manner that you believe they are not soli j wastes and thcretore not Subject to the hazarcous waste re uiatjons under RCRA. However, based on the January 4 rules, one of the materials——the zinc oxide dust——would be aetined as a solid waste and woulu be reyulatea under tne hazardous ‘waste regulations. The remainder of the letter will describe how these materials are covered under these rules, First, I woulii like to apoLogize to you for my delay in getting back to you. My schedule has been very busy and hope my delay has not caused you any problems, With respect to your specific examples: A zinc oxide dust (a characteristic hazardous sludje) is sold to a tacility where it is processed into zinc sulfate; the resulting zinc sultate is then sold to bulk tertliizer blenders who use the zinc sulfate as an ingredient in iertiljzegs, The fertilizer is then sold to smaller a istributors. Under the example, the zinc oxide is processed to produce zinc sulfate (as triis iS described in the attachment to your letter). Under the rules, such activities do not normally constitute solid waste flanag ment. However, when the material (that is, the zinc oxide dust) is to bejil rporated into a proauct that is placed on the land, we would detine the entire recvcljnq activity as Usecqj tituting dis osal.u image: ------- 2 Under the January 4 rules, all sludges that are haz4rdous -(whether or not they are listed) are oefined as wastes if they are placed directly on the land for bonefica]. use or incorporated into a product that is placed on the land tor bentical use. (See 40 CFR Part 261.2(c)(],) and Part 266 Subpart C; see also preamble discussion at 50 FR 627 and 646.) Therefore, the zinc oxide dust is subject to the hazardous waste regulations (i.e., the generator of the zinc oxioe dust is sub)ect tGE e requirements of Part 262, transportors of this dust are sub)ect to the requirements of Part 263, and the facility that processes the zinc sulfate would be sub)ect to the storage requirements of Parts 264 and 265). You should also be aware that if the zinc Sulf ate is hazardous (i.e., exhibits any of the charac- teristics of hazardous wastc), it would also be subject to the hazardous waste regulations. ° A characteristic hazardous sludge is generated from an air pollution control device. This sludge can be reclaimed to recover its copper content; in addition, any lead recovered can be produced into a low grade lead solder. Under this scenairo, the hazardous sludge would not be defined as a waste (and tnus not be subject to the hazardous waste rules) as you have correctly indicated in your letter. In particular, unoer the January 4 rules, sludges that are reclaimed are only detined as solid and hazardous wastes if they are specifically listed; since the sludge is not listed (but is hazardous solely because it exhibits the characteristic ot EP toxicity), the material is not detined as a solid waste. See 40 CFR Part 261.2(c)(3); see also preamble discussion at 50 FR 633. (This material may still be sub3ect to reçj Tation it it is accumulated speculatively.) I hope this letter responds to your request. Please teel tree to give me a call if you have any questions or comments. My telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Iderititication Branch image: ------- 9441. 1985 (41) December 12, 1985 Daniel R. Cookey Mobile Tank Care Services 8007 Asabottom Road Louisville, Kentucky 40213 Dear Mr. Cookey: This letter responds to your inquiry of November 15, 1985, regarding the applicability of 40 CFR 261.7 —- the exemption of residues of hazardous waste in empty containers —- to “empty” tank cars that contained commercial chemical products. As stated in your letter, the definition of “container” applies to tank cars in which hazardous wastes were stored, transported, treated, disposed, or otherwise handled. You are correct in stating that the residue in the tank cars you clean and the rinse waters are exempt from Federal regulations. The exemption applies in your case because the amount left in the tank cars is less than 0.3 percent of the tank volume. Since the residue is exempt, the rinse waters are like—wise exempt if they do not exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, EP Toxicity, reactivity or corrosivity). You may, however, still be regulated under state hazardous waste regulations. Since state regulations must be at least as protective of human health and the environment as the Federal regulations, in many cases these rules are more stringent. As stated in your letter, Ohio maintains a stricter interpretation of the rule. In such cases, the State rules pre—empt the Federal rules. I trust that this letter adequately responds to your inquiry. Sincerely, Marcia Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 94 41 . 198 5 (4 2) DEC 13 SO$JICTz Regulatory Iaterpretatj for Pesticid. Applicator Washing Rinse Wat.r Marcia I. Williase, Director Office of Solid Waste TO: Marry Serayd srtan, Director Tozics and Wait. Nanaqent Division SPA Region TX This is in response to your Borandu. dated $spta er 16, l 5, regarding the regulatory status of vashwat.rs that are guuierated by washing the estorier of a psticide aerial applicator’s airplane. Tos .zpr.se.d ousesra that the interpretation set forth La our July 22 usra s not consider the ultiset. dispesal and the hazard pres.ae.d by th.se washwat.r. and the eeforce..nt probloss that such an interpretation would cause. I r s particular, in th. study that was subuitt.d with your - , th. data appear to suggest that there is a potential for aigration of pesticiø. residues resulting in contaainatjon of ground wat.r. Therefore, you request that we re—visit this issue, In addition, you also r.quest that we •xp.dtt. the r.qulation. designed to close the current loop—hole concerning nixtures of spent solvents and other cc ...rcjal products. Although I understand your conc.rn. and generally agree with you that these rinse waters nay present a hazard if they ar. not properly .anaqsd, I oust agree with Dr. Skinner in his int.rpretatjos of the rules, any other r.ading of the rules would argue that any ohosical that is released into the •nviron- sent as a re lt of use would be disposed and regulat.d under * A. In paitioslar, the aixtut. rule states that if a solid waste and a Ia do waste are sized, the sntir. u iztur. is defined as hazardous. At issu. here is wheth.r the pesticide that adheree to the ezterior of the airplane is defined as a R A hazardous vaste , To be defined as a R A hazardous image: ------- •, tie pesticide would ha,. to be an unus.d discarde4 chemical, product. S.. 40 C.P.i, 2 l.33. Sine. p.sti*jde has bs sprayed fros/ a. sirplan., it technically been used and, thezef or., is riot d•fined as a 261.33 comeerejal chemical pr ct. (On the other hand, the pesticid. residu. that remains L a th. spray tanks after th. spraying opeVation has not technically been used and, thus, would be defin.d as a S261.33 comsrcjal chemical produce.) Any oth. inte .. pr.tatjon would go beyond the intent of RCRA and the impl.m j regulation.. Thea. pesticide washwat.rs, therefore, are not defined as hazardous because of the mixtur, rule. Nevertheless, it should be noted th at th. interpretatjo should not be taken to mean that we ha ,. evaluated these wastes and haie determined that they ars ton—hazardous. As I already indicated, these washvaeers may be hazardous (as evidenced by th. study YOU attached with your memo) and may present as much of a hazard as the rinsate from spray tanks (which are currently subject to regulation). In fact, we have begun a study to try to define the levels at which these washvaters may present a hazard if the.. washwat.rs are mismanaged (1.., placed in unlined surface impoundm.nts). The study is ezp.cted to be completed (at least as a draft) by th. end of this year and we will keep YOU apprised of th results. Based on the data, as well as any other information that is collect .d, we may take further action to control these washwaters. With respect to your other request to close the current loop—hole concerning solvent mixtures and other c rcjal products, the solvent mixture rul. is expected to be promulgated in December, while the commercial chemical product t tu e rule is expected to be proposed very shortly. Please feel free to call Matt Straus if you hav, any questions or colmeents; his telephone number is (8) 475—855j, cc: A WM Division Directors (Regions I—VIIx and X) S. Shatzow image: ------- 9 441. 19 85(43) DEC I 7 85 Mr. Gary H. Raise beverage and Diamond, P.C. 1333 New Hampshir. Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Robin Morse Baker and Botts One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Dear Gary and Robins This letter is in response to your request for a determination of the regulatory status of the vast.wat.r tr.atmant system at Dow’s Battleground Road Plant (LaPort., Texas) that was described in your letter (dat.d Reptember 26, 1985) to Messrs. Barry V. Dixon and Williem Rh.a. Ai you outline in your 1.tt.r, this plant uses mon hlerob.nsen . (MCB) in a number of processes. In none of the uses described in the letter is NCR used in a chemical reaction, or otherwise tunctjon as a chemical tsedstock, reactant, or process intermediate 7 rather NCR is used as a solvent as it is defined/interpreted under the hazardous vast, rules. The MCB used in these processes then undergo.. further processing, including the recovery of NCR in a recovery column. J The bottoms f roe the MCB recovery column ar. then sent to an on—siti thermal oxidizer where they are incinerated along with several other wastes, which ar. characteristically hazardous. The scrubber liquor from the incinerator (which contains MCB) is then sent to the vastewater tr.ata.nt system. (The vastewater treatment system consists of several interconnected basins and tanks,) In addition, as you indicated in your lstt.r, thS concentration of MC I at the h•adworks of the treatment system, is variabl., but .xc..d 25 pji.. - 1/ I attpt.d tO exclude all contid.ntial information from this lett.r. image: ------- 2 Based Oil this description, the wastewater entering the wastewater treatment system is not covered under the mixture rule exemptiOn of 5261.3(a)(2)(iv)(B) and thus, the wastewater treatment system is subject to the hazardous waste rules, unless specific units are otherwise exempted (i.e., tanks that are part of a wastewater treatment system are exempt from regulation). My basis for this is two—fold: The mixture rule exemption applies to solvents that are used as part of the manufacturing process that find their way into the wastewater treatment system via leaks from pumps, valves, from normal cleaning operation, etc. It does not include the discharge of still bottoms into the wastewater treatment system nor the discharge of spent solvents or still bottoms that are treated and then discharged into the wastewater treatment system. The monochlorobenzene still bottoms at the plant are treated in an on—site thermal oxidizer before being discharged into the wastewater treatment system; therefore the scrubber liquor is not covered under the mixture rule exemption. (This point was noted by Dow Chemical in their coenta to the Agency when the mixture rule was promulgated interim final on November 17, 1981, a copy of which is enclosed.) 0 The mixture rule exemption is to be applied at the heaciworks of the facilities wastewater treatment or pre—treatinent system. Since the concentration of I%CB at the headworks of the treatment system is above the specified level——namely 25 ppm——the mixture rule exemption does not apply. Consequently, as we have discussed previously, the impoundments that are part of the wastewater treatment system at Dow’s battleground Road Plant are currently subject to regulation under the hazardous waste regulations. Please feel free to give me a call it I can be of any further assistance; my telephone number (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours. Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch cc: Barry W. Dixon William Rhea image: ------- LW D Si S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC N i 34 4 1 . 198 5 (4 4) I Kr. Charles A. L.icht, P.E. President Charles Licht Engineering Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 315 Olyiitpia Fields, Illinois 60461 Dear Charles: Its nice hearing trom you again. I haven’t forgotten about you and expect to answer all your questions. However, as you may expect, I have been very busy and have not been able to anbwer the questions you raise in your letters. In this letter, I will answer the questions you raise in your November 27, 1985 - letter; I will answer the rest of your questions in the near tuture. The remainder ot this letter will respond to the four questions you ask: 1. You asked whether the Agency has any plans to expand the regulations as they apply to spent lead—acid batteries. At this point in time, there are no plans to amend th regulat ions as they apply to spent lead—acid batteries.!! However, as we discussed in the preamble to the January 4th rules, the Agency will be investigating intermediate collection sites to determine whether aGditional re9uiatlon is necessary to control the storage of spent lead—acid batteries at these sites. I will keep you informed when- such a study is begun. 2. You ask whether precious metal containing scrap metal is exempt from regulations, Yes. All scrap metal (as it is de1 ined in the regulations) is exempt from regulation. bee 40 CPR 261.6(3)(iv). 1/ Spent lead—acid batteries are defined as hazardous at the — point they are generazeo. However, generators, transporters, and persons who store these batteries (but do not reclaim them) are not sub)ec to the hazardous waste regulations. image: ------- 2 3. -you ask whether the gold that is recovered tram cyanide solutions is still considered hazardous? In addition, you request whether the cyanadc solution from which the gold has been reclaimed (and which the cyanide content has been so substantially reduced as to fall well below the criteria for cyanide in a reactivity test) must be d listea before they are considered non—hazardous. Gold, silver, or other precious metals that are reclaimed from a solia/hazardous waste and that are suitable tor direct use of that only have to be refined to be useable are products, not wastes. See 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2); see also 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985. Thus, reclaLmea, metals (as described above) are not sub)ect to the RCRA Subtitle C regulations. With respect to the remaininy solutions, they must be deleted (it they are listed wastes) before they can be handled as non—hazardous. (ot course, if the cyanide solution is not a listed waste, but is hazardous because it exhibits a ct aracteristic, the solution becomes non—hazardous when it no longer exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics). 4. You further request clarification of the reyuletory status of neutralized acid solutions that are genera.ted in the processing of reclaiming 9old. As indicated in NO. 3, the neutralized acid solutions would need to be delisted (before it could be considered non—hazardous) if the acid solutions were listed wastes. On the other hand, if the acid solutions are character- istically hazardous, these wastes become non—hazardous when they no longer exhibit any of the hazaraous waste characteristics. - Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely yours, Matthew A. Straus Chief Wate Identification branch image: ------- U EC ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE 94 41 . 198 6 (0 1) JAN 6 6 Mr. John Robbins Pro3ect Chemist Kohier Co. Kohier, W1sconsir 53044 Dear Mr. I ObDjn9: This is in response to your letter dated November 25, 1985, regarding the regulatory statue of foundry sands that are rerycled. In particular, you indicate that the molding and castinQ sar.dsl/that are generated from your foundry casting operations may potentially be recycled by runr.ing them through a foundry sand reclamation process. The reclamation process removes the deactivated clay binders and concentrates of metals, and results in a sand that is suitable for reuse as a foundry sand. As you may be aware, the Agency promulgated or. January 4, 1985, a set of rules which dealt with the question of which materials being recycled are solid and hazrdouswastes. See 50 FR 614, a copy of which is enclosed. Under those regulations, foundry sands that are generated fran your casting operation would be defined as a solid and hazardous waste and thus would be subject to regulatory control under RCRA.2/ See 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3). Therefore, the generator of the sands is subject to 40 CFR Part 262 while the transportation of these materials are subject to 40 CPR Part 26 3i in addition, any person that stores these sands prior to reclamation would be subject to the appropriate storage standards (i.e., ners or operators of facilities that store these materials would be regulated under all applicable provisions of Subparts A through I. of Parts 264 and 265 while generators of these materials would be subject to 40 CFR 262.34 provided these materials are stored in a tank or container for no longer than 90 daye). Th• actual reclamation process, hovever, 1/ These sands (a. generated) are hazardous due to the EP — toxictty characteristic of lead. 2/ Foundry sands are defined as a spent material——materials which have been used and are no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed. image: ------- 2 is exempt frcJn regulation. Moreover, tr e sands that axe regenerated fra i the reclamatior. process are no loncje considered solid wastes and thus are no longer subject to regulation, even if the sands are shipped off—site to a f andry sand coater for coating. Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely y .irg, Matthew A. Straus, Chief waste Identification branch (footnote 2 cont.) Spent materials that are hazardous (whether listed or exhibiting one or more of the characteristics) and reclaimed are defined as a solid and hazardus waste. See Table 1 at 50 FR 619; see also preamble to regulation at 50 FR 618, 624, 33, image: ------- 9441.1986(0: UNITED STATE! NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY JAJ 71986 Mr. John L. Cherill Corning Manufacturing & Engineering Division Corning Glass Works Corning, New york 11831 Dear Mr. Cherill: This letter confirms our discussion and your letter of late Uovember with regard to Corning’s use of a vacuum truck to filter the dust and the regulatory status of the ‘empty truck. While the RCRA regulations are not specific in this reaayd, you are correct in your assessment that the definition of er pty’, as apnlied to containers in 40 CPR 262.7, is also anplicable to other situations, such as your truck. C ,enera] ly, we ha ’e supplied the interpretation that the emnty container definition may be applied to tanker vehicles as well as to containers. Thus, if you have emptied your vacuum truck by means normally used for such vehicles, the vehicle is considered ‘empty if no more then one inch of material remains, or an et uivalent volume (as defined in 40 CPR 261.1). You should be aware that RCRA is intended to be implemented by the States. When a State has been authorized to conduct the hazardous waste manaQement program in that State, their rules prevail in lieu of the federal standards. You should check with the appropriate State office in the urisdictjons of concern to you for their interpretation of the regulatory status of your operations. The interpretation given above is only pertinent to those States where federal requlatiorts prevail. - If you have any further questions or need additional hem in the RCRA regulations please call our hotline at R0O 424—9346. I can be reached at 2O2/382 477o, Sincerely, Alan S. Corson qr n,.h f h4 $ image: ------- UP D$...TESEP4VIR0NMENTAL PROTEC ‘N Ic 9441.1986(03 JP’ 1 I9E Is. Elizabeth Rose (6K—CE) EPA Reçjion V I 1201 Elm Street Dallas. TX 75270 Dear Ms. Rose: This letter is in response to your recent telephone conversation with Mr. David Topping of my staff. Specifically, you requested information concerning the definition of hazardous waste contained in 40 CFR Part 261 and the delisting criteria related to leachate levels. C261.3(a)(2)(iij) the deals with wastes which are included in Subpart D solely because they meet the characteristics of hazardous waste described In Subpart C ( i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity). Thus, a mixture of D002 waste (included solely for corrosivity) and a solid waste would not be hazardous if the mixture no longer exhibits the characteristie of corrosivity, nor any other hazardous waste characteristics. However, waste which are listed in Subpart D because of the presenc2 of specific hazardous constituents ( e.g. , K048, (049, and (051, all of which are listed for hexavalent chromium and lead) remain hazardous unless thy are excluded from the list under ff260.20 and 260.22 (I.e., delisted). The delisting criteria include a eliding regulatory scale which dictates allowable leachate levels for specific volumes of wastes. For wastes which are typically disposed of in a landfill, this scale is described at 50 FR 7882, Pebruary 26, 1985 and 50 FR 4R886, November 27, 1985. In general, the allowed leachate levels for landfilled wastes range from 32x the drinking water standards for small volumes of wastes (< 475 yd 3 ) to approximately 6* the drinking water standards for large volumes of waste ( 5000 yd 3 ). Also, as required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Agency’s evaluation of petitioned wastes is riot restricted to the constituents for which the waste was orginally listed. Rather, the Agency evaluates all factors (including additional constituents) which could reasonably be expected to be present end would cause the waste to be hazardous. It should also be noted that the type of leachate test to be performed may vary, depending upon the nature of the waste being evaluated. For example, oily petroleum refinery wastes are typically subjected FP fo Oil. Ja3ta D ocLdu * , ithc tk-e e-tand3rd ..g.p 1IeQ JIaL t 1 c t . image: ------- Evaluation criteria for wastes that are sub)ect to disposal other tha&in landfills (e.g.. land treatment or management in surface impoundments) are currently being developed; in fact, the evaluation criteria for waste that are land treated was proposed on November 27, 1985 (50 FR 48943). While these models have not yet been made final, it is expected that the allowed leachate levels for these disposal scenarios will be more strigent than those described above for landfilled wastes, Should you have any further questions concerning the hazardous waste definitions or the delistirtg program. please contact me or r. David Topping of my staff at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch (WH—562B) image: ------- 9441.1986(04) UN lIED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY JAN T 86 Dale D. Parker, Ph.D. Executive Secretary Utah Solid and Hazardous Wastes Comm i t tee 3180 State Office Building P.O. Box 45500 Salt L.ake City, Utah 84145—0500 Dear Dr. Parker: This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1985, in which you inquire as to the regulatory status of hazardous wastes remaining in empty containers. Specifically, you ask whether burning of the residue in empty drums constitutes incineration (treatment) as defined in the RCRA regulations. The regulations, at 40 CFR 261.7(a)(1), cl.arly state that uCalny hazardous waste remaining in ... an empty container... is not subject to reaulation under •.. RCPA.’ Since the residue is not regulated, its management does not constitute hazardous waste management. In your referenced example, the burning of residue by a drum recycler would not be considered incineration of hazardous waste and would not require a permit. The management of the ash and waste from such burnina as hazardous is not required by the federal regulations the drum recycler is probably taking this aoproach as being environmentally preferable. I believe this confirms the answer given to you by the RCRA hotljne. Of course, State regulations, in authorized States, would prevail in lieu of federal regulatjon and may be more stringent. If you have further questions olease let me know. Sincerely, Alan S. Corson Rranch Chief Studies and Methods Branch Cc: Connie S. Nakahara image: ------- UN . LIES ENVIRONMENTAL PROrEC’ ‘ ENCy 9441.1986(05 rir. Johr. Sle!ni er Envirormer.tal Manager Solid Tek Systems, Ir.c. 5371 Cook Road P.O. Fsox 888 Morrow, Georgia 3O2 O—OR88 Dear Mr. Slemmer: This is ir. response to your letters dated November 27 and December 27, 1985, concerning the identification ot residues ger.erated from the treatment of hazardous wastes. In particular, you ask whether the ider.tifiction numbers that go or. the manifest that accompanies the treated waste should be based on the hazardous waste characteristics of the treated waste, the composition of the treated waste, or both. The answer to this question depends both or. which wastes are being treated srd the characteristics of the treatment residue. If the TSD facility is treating only characteristic hazardous wastes, the identification number that goes on the manifest for the treatment residue would be that number tnat is assigned to the characteristic for which the waste still exhibits (i.e., if the treated waste exhibits the characteristic of ignitability, the identification number would be DOOl). of course, if the treatment residue no longer exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste, the waste would no longer be hazardous and subject to Subtitle C control. It, on the other hand, the treatment facility treats both listed and characteristic hazardous wastes or just listed hazardous waste, the identification number that goes on the manifest for the treatment residue would be that of the untreated listed waste and that number that corresponds to the characteristic for which the waste exhibits, it any. ThuS, in the example provided in your letter, you are correct that the identification number for the treated residue is t3012. You are also correct that the TSD becomes a generator of the treated waste. 1. I. 19S —467.o5) image: ------- t hope this adequately responds to your request. It I car’ or any furt 4 ’ier assLstance. please teel free to give me a call at (21)2) 4 5—B55l. sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Identification Branch (WHS62B) image: ------- 9441.1986(06) J 4 2 I 1966 M r. D. p o.11sr ith r,. F. GoIQcr’1t1 Ch ical a .d Metal Corp. 9nq Pitne: Avenue Evar.stOr., Illir.ois 6020 flear ‘Ir. Go1dsrnith This letter is in response to your request of August 2, 19fl5 , cor.cerning the reyulatory status of the scrap mercury that is refined at you facility in Chicago. First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in responding to you, request; I hope this delay has not caused you any problems. With regard to your specific request, you indicate that scrap mercury, in the form of free—flowing mercury, is shipped to your facility in 76 pound flasks for refining. The scrap mercury purchased by your facility comes from a variety of sources, including the following: scrap dealers that accumulate small quantities of mercury; manufacturers or reclaimers of ir.strumer.ts and electric switches; private citizens who have accumulated mercury; and firms who dismantle chior—alkali facilities. The mercury, as received, is at least 99 percent pure mercury; this material is distilled to instrument quality (over qg,99 percent pure mercury). Based on your reading of the January 4, 1985 recycle/reuse regulations, the scrap mercury that is refined at your facilitiy is not a solid waste and, thus, would not be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste rules. in general. I agree with you that the free—flowing mercury that is received and refined at your faéility is not a solid waste (although I do not necessarily agree with all the arguments you preser.t in your Ietter).1/ In particular, we have stated (which you note in your letter) that metals that are suitable for direct use, or that only have to be refined to he usable are products, not wastes. see 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2); 1/ It should be noted that this regulatory interpretation — reflects the federal hazardous waste rules. The State of Illinois may take a different interpretation. image: ------- 2 see also preamble discussior. at 50 634, January 4. 1985. Thus, the scrap mercury——that is the 99 percent free—flowinj mercury——that you receive is not subject to any ot the hazardous waste regulations (i.e.. the material does not have to be manitested to your facility, you need not comply with the storage requirements, etc.,).2/ Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch 2/ It should be noted that if you receive electrical switches, — ir.strumerits, scrap batteries, or other forms of spent materials from which you recover/reclaim the mercury and these spent materials are hazardous (i.e., they exhibit one or i ore of the hazardous waste characteristics), these materials would be solid and hazardous wastes and would be regulated under 40 CFR 261.6(b) and (C). image: ------- 9441 .1986 (O 23 ‘ PMORANDUM STT JECT, Regulatory tntert’retatjon With Resr,ect to Leaks, Souls, and Tlleoal Discharges of Listel Wastes to turf ace Waters PROM: Marcia !. Wilitasis, Director Office of Solid Waste TO: flavid Stringham, Chief Solivi Waite Rranch, 5R -’13 Reqion V This is in response to your mmoranda, dated Aucust S and December 24, 1985, in which you rquest clarification of the miztur• rule as it anpli.s to leaks, spill., and illegal disehara.. of listed vast.. to surface waters, resulting in contamination of the sediment. Pit-it, i.e aoologi,. for takinq so long in q.ttina back to you. I hrne this delay Pi not caused you any oroblems. In your memoranda, you indicate that the Cot-ps of Pnqineern in cart-vine out their resoonsibtijes to maintain the navicability of Astabula Harbor found that the bottom sediments of the harbor were severlv contaminated, subsequent inveeti atjon .uqqest.d that the Bout-c. of the contaminants is orimarily from Pielti. Rrook, a tributary to the harbor. Ur nn further investiqation, it appears that some nf the contamination may have occured a. a result of souls or leaks from treatment, storage, and Itsoosal units. Therefore, you surmise by aoolication of the mixture rule, that the contaminated sediments would b. hazardous under PCP,A and subject to the spo t -opt-tate mana ei ent tant1ards. You believe such a r.sdina of th. rules was never intended, hut rather the contaminated slim.nts should only be Considered haxardoui if they exhibit one or mar. the characteristic, of hazardous waste. Unl.ss such an interpretation is taken, you beli.vs that all sediments contained in the industrialized harbors on the Great Lakes (a tot L of 109) should he manaaed as listed wastes. image: ------- 2 Th. regulation of contaminated materials dep.nds in laros oart upon th. regulation. being aDDlied and upon th. source of the contamination. As written, the mixture rul. would not cause ths sediments in the harbors on the Great Lakes (nor in any other harbors or rivers) to be considersd hazardous. More soecifically, the mixture rule states that any mixture of a hazardous waste with a solid waste causes the entire mixture to be hazardous, Th T e, n order for the mixture rule to be triggered, wastes must be mixed or somehow combined together. In the exaffiDle cited in your letter, however, wastes are not being mixed (i.e., we would not normally consider sediments in rivers as wastes). ather, a waste is being disposed of with a non—waste material. Therefore, the mixture rule is not causing these sediments to b• hazardous. Powever, application of the mixture rul. is not disi oeitive of eh issue of whether the mixture of a hazardous waste and another substance is regulated. A part fro. the mixture rule, the mixture of a hazardous waste and a non—waste material is still subject to Subtitle C control. Per example, ground water contaminated with a hazardous waste is currently subject to the appropriate reauirements In 40 CP Parts 264 and 265. In addition, if listed hazardous wastes are binq discharged into surface waters, this could constitute disposal requiring regulatory control under Subtitle C of *CRA. The major au.stion to answer is whether the discharge resulted from illegal discharges or from ooint source dtsch’irci.s subject to reoulation undsr the Clean Water Act. As you are aware, 40 CVR 261.4(a)(2) snecifically exemnts industrial wastewater discharaes that are point source discharges subject to reaulation under section 4fl2 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended. (This autPioritv covers the addition of any ootlutant to water of the tJnited States from any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, except dischar,ee of dredged and fill material re’ u1ate4 under Section 404.) Th. point of th. wastswater exclusion is to avoid potentially duplicative regulation of otnt source discharge. under PCPA and CWA. Thus, once wastewater flows from an NPDU discharge point into waters of the !Yntted - Stat•s, that wastewater is •x.mpt from P( PA regulation.1/ 1/ This is true even if the discharge could be requlated under 5402, but Is not.. k noint source discharge without an NPD! oermit would be a violation of the CWA, and should be subject to an enforcement action under the Act. image: ------- 3 Ther.fogs, it is imoortartt to know the source of the cont inat-ios. tf, for •za.ole, there is evidenc. to demonstrate that hazardous wastes hav, been dumy,.d into the surface water in a manner that das not tricj er Section 402 of th. CWA, this constitutes disposal under RCRA and would be subject to th. apOropriate requlatory controj . (It these hazardous wastes w.r. illegally disposed of, enforcement action should also he undertaken.) If this occurs, that sediment which is contaminated by these discharges would be subject to regulation. On the other hand, if the source of the oollutants is from a ooint source dtscharq., then you should assume that hazardous wastes have not been discharged into surface waters. Under this situation, th•s. sediments would be reoulated under Subtitle C of RCPA only when they are dredged from the surface waters and only if they e htbjt one or more of the hazardous west. characteristics. Thus. I cannot agree with your suggestion that contaminated sediment should not be categorized as listed wastes, no matter th. source of contamination. Such an interoretation could invite abuse by persons who illegally disoos. of hazardous wastes, Please feel free to contact Matthew A. Straus at 8 -475—8551 if you have any au.stions. image: ------- — UNI rAr 1VIRO Or c I j 4 : _______ •NAS. IirJ ‘d IR4 24 9441.1986(08) Mr. Earle F. Young, Jr. Vice President Energy and Environment American Iron and Steel Institute 1000 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Young: This is a follow up to our December 13, 1985 meeting when we discussed the information EPA would need in order to consider classifying the waste—derived fuels produced at iron and steel mills as products rather than exempt hazardous waste fuels. Our decision as to whether coke or coal tar produced from the recycling of a listed hazardous waste, coal tar decanter sludge, should be classified as a product rather than a waste— derived fuel turns on whether the recycling significantly affects the c nposition arid, thus, the risk that coke or coal tar may pose during transportation, storage, or use as a fuel. Specifically, we must determine whether hazardous constituents in the recycled decanter sludge significantly increase levels of those constituents in the coke or coal tar. To determine whether levels of toxic organics or toxic metals in the coke and coal tar are significantly increased by recycling the sludge, we need triplicate analyses of the levels of particular metals and orqanics (see the enclosed table) in the coke and coal tar materials produced with and without sludge recycling. The metals listed in the enclosed table were selected for evaluation because they are present in coal, and either cause carcinogenic or other nonthreshold health effects, or are fairly volatile, or both. The detection limits suggested are about an order of magnitude lower than the average levels of these metals in coals. Our concern with metals levels in the coke is that some of the more volatile metals may becom concentrated in the sludge and could conceivably be reintroduced into the coker in a less volatile form, thus increasing levels in the coke product. Sitnilarily, if volatile metals are concentrated in the sludge, mixing the sludge with the coal tar could increase metals levels. image: ------- 2 The organics were selected for evaluation because they are typically produced from thermal treatment of coal, they are less volatile than phenol and napthalene already shown not t be carried over into the coke at significant levels, and they are representative of polyaro atic molecules (POMs), many of which are considered to be carcinogens. Our concern with organics in the coke is that some of the less volatile, difficult to crack POMs that are likely to be found in the sludge could conceivable be carried over into the coke product. Similarily, if POMs con- centrate in the sludge, mixing the sludge with the coal tar could increase POM levels. If you have questions, please contact Matt Straus or Bob Holloway. Since rely, ‘ J5 ) Stev n Silverman Attorney Office of General Counsel Enclosure image: ------- ANALYTICAL INFORMATION - (See SW—846 for description of methods.) Metals Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury 6010, 601 0, 6010, 6010, 6010, Method* 7060, 7061 7130, 7131 7190, 7191 7420, 7421 7471 Detection Limit 1 ppm 0.1 ppm lppm lppm 0.1 ppm * Use acid degestion method 3050 for preparation of coal tar samples. Organics Anthracene/ Phenanthrene Benzo (a )anthracene/ chrysene Benzo(a)pyrene F]uoranthene Pyrene Napthalene+ Phenol + Method 8100 8100 8100 8100 8100 8100 8040 Detection Limit lppm lppm lppm lppm lppm lppm lppm + Napthalen. and phenol levels in the coke as well a. the coal tar should be determined for comparison with previous data. image: ------- a t, 9441.1986(09) CERCLA and RCIA Liability of Municipal Sponsor. of Household Hazardous st• Cellsetion Programs \Oj ! ‘i i Dir.ctor Waste Manaq.e.ent and Economic. Division (WH—565) Basil G. Constantelos, Dir.ctor Waits Management Division Region V I am rssponding to your October 29. 1985. memorandum r.qu.sting an Agency policy statement concerning the Liability under the Compr.hensiV s Environmental Response. Compensation. and Liability Act (CERCLA) of municipal sponsors of household hazardous waste coll.ctiOn programs. In addition, this m.morandum clarifies the issu. of potential liability under th. Resource Conservation and Rscovery Act (RcRA). m. following interpretations are based on discussions of these issues with the Of fics of General Counsel (OGC) and the Of fice of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (03CM). In a June 7, 1984, memorandum to the Deputy Administrator. Tee Thomas (then Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) clarified the issue of RCBA liability. This memorandum, which is attached, stated that househoLd hazardous waste. ar. by definition exempt from regulation under Subtitl• C of RCRA. Section 261.4(b)(l) unconditionally exempts household wastes from being designated as hazardous even when accumulated in quantities that would otherwise be regulated or when transported, stored, treated, disposed. recovered, or reused. However, when household wastes ar. mixed with hazardous wastes from small quantity generators, this resulting mixture is subject to the small. quantity generator rules (Section 261.5(h)). In addition. when household waste is mixed with other regulated hazardous wastes, the entire mixture becomes subject to full, hazardous waste regulation (Section 261.3(a)(2)). For this reason, sponsors of household hazardous waste collection programs should be careful to limit the participation in their programs to households to avoid the possibility of receiving r.gulated hazardous wastes from corcial or industrial sources. With regard to CERCLA, we cannot offer relief from long- ter. liability. CtR .A does not contain any type of exclusion for household waste or any type of exclusion based on the amount of waste generated. As a general aattsr. any waste that qualifies as a hazardous substance under C!RCLA is subject tO the liability provisions of Section 107. Hazardous substances ar. bath defined under Section 101(14) and designated under Section 102(a). Therefore, if a household waste contains a substance that is covered under either section (whether or not image: ------- 2 it is a RC*A hazardous waste), potential CZRCLA liability would apply regardless of wheth.r the material was picked ap as part OS a coiuity’s routine trash collection servic, or was gathss’ed as part of a special collection day program. With respect to household hazardous waste, such waste would cl.arly qualify as a hasardo as subtance if they contain any •ubtance Listed in Tabi. 302.4 of 40 CPR Part 302. S.. 50 ? .d.ral jf er 13474 (April 4, 1985). With regard to .nforc.a.nt und.r CERCLA. you noted that John Skinner, former Director of this office, recently cited a policy statement in a May 4, 1984, letter (attached) from Region I Administrator, Micha.l DeLand, to Dana Duxbury of the Massachusetts League of women Voters. This policy statement reli.d on enforcement discretion in indicating that !PA had no int.ntion of taking enforcement action against a Massachusetts town that sponsored a contracted collection day, if problems aros. in th. transportation or disposal of the household hazardous waste collected during the collection program. Further clarification wa, offered by Courtney Price (OECM) in a memorandum dated May 11, 1984 (attached), to Alvin Ala. former Deputy Administrator. For the specific eas, of that Masssachusetts town, the c any collecting and transporting the wastes and the disposal facility own.r or operator would be considered the responsible parties. Whil. you ar. correct in stating that the Agency’s general policy is to not giv. no action assurances in enforcement matters (see attached Courtney Price saorandum of November 16, 1984), Ms. Price addressed a specific household hazardous wasts collection program in the May 11, 1)84, memorandum and explained their position in the Rsgion I caáe in Massachusetts. The decision of no action in the Massachusetts case was based on the facts about that specific program. An i ortant feature was limiting collections to household hazardous wastes. No wastes from small comaircial businesses were accepted. Courtney Price indicated that OECM would have to look at the specific facts of any situation involving wastes from small businesses to det.rmin. whether an exercis, of enforcement discretion would be appropriate. In o ur recent discussions with OECM, we have considered the conoept of no action as a possible general policy for sponsors of household hazardous wasta collection programs. 01CM has not yet coupl.t.d their analysis of this issue. They expect to complete their analysis in the next several weeks and will supply their policy statement in a separate memorandum. If you have any questions regarding the issues addressed in this ‘ssmQrsndum, please contact Michael Flynn of my staff at 382—4489. image: ------- C . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 441 .1986(10) _____ WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460 pØ t ’ ,“ / orc’c o SOa.iO WASTE AP4O EMERGEP.CY ESPO,ISE Honorable Stewart 8. MckLnney Member, United States House of Representatives Federal Buiid ng 915 Lafayette Boulevard Bridgeport. CT 36604 Dear Mr. McKinney: This is written in response to your letter of January 21, 1986, requesting a reply to an inquiry from Mr. Vern Sielert. Mr. Sielert wishes to know whether there are federal regulations classifying wood treated with creosote as a hazardous waste. Creosote treated wood is not likely to be defined as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA and, thus, not subject to the hazardous waste regulations. Under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), wastes are defined as hazardous if they are listed or exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics ( i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure CE?) toxicity). EPA has issued regulations listing only the commercial product creosote, when discarded, and two manufacturing process wastes (i.e., bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewaters from wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachiorophenol (KOOl) and wastewater treatment sludges generated in the production of creosote (K035)) as hazardous under RCRA. Creosote treated wood is not covered by any of these listings. In addition, it is unlikely that creosote treated wood would exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics. It should be noted that wastes not defined as hazardous under EPA ’s regulations may still be hazardous under an authorized State program. The disposal of creosote treated wood, however, is subject to regulation under rules developed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In particular, on July 13, 1984, EPA issued its Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) for the three major wood preservatives—-namely creosote, pentachiorophenol, and inorganic arsenicals. Among other things, these rules require image: ------- 2 that wood which has been treated with creosote Should not be burned in an outdoor fire or in stoves or fireplaces; rather, this wood should be buried in a non—hazardous Waste landfill unless otherwise required by the State. This requirement was included to ensure that no toxic contaminants would be released as a result of the burning process. Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further assLstance. Sincerely, J. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator image: ------- 2 whatever actir is necessary to ensure that their products are floP 8u )j Ct t re’julation. I hope this addresses your concerns. Sincerely. - - - - Marcia Williams Director Office of Solid Waste bcc: Lehman Del linger Holloway Walker Silverman image: ------- 9441.1986(11) Mr. William F. O’Keef. FEB I I Vice President American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street. Northwest Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. O’Keefe: This is in response to your January 24, 1986, letter regardthg applicability of our November 29, 1985, burning and blending” regulations to petroleum refinery fuel products derived from recycled used oil. As Bob Holloway explained to you on January 28, the exe tptjon we provided for hazardous waste—derived refinery fuel products — — based en data you provided us —— also exempts refinery products when both hazardous waste and used oil are introduced into the process. Had we been aware that crude oil petroleum refineries typically recycle used oil as well as their hazardous wastes, we would have explicitly addressed the issue in the preamble. When both oil—bearing hazardous wastes and used oil are introduced into the crude oil refining process, the fuel products are •zempt from the November 29 rule. This is because mixtures of used oil and hazardous waste are subject to regulation as hazardous waste, and hazardous waste—derived refinery fuel pro- ducts are exempt fran the rule. Although we understand that virtually all, refineries rein+ro— duce their process—generated, oil—bearing hazardous waste into the refining process, if a refinery were to recycle used oil but not its hazardous waste, the November 29 rule would not explicitly exempt tho refinery fuel products fran regulation as used oil fuel. As you note, however. EPA did not intend for used oil- derived refinery products to be subject to regulation as used oil fuel. If in fact there are refineries that recycle used oil but not hazardous waste, please let me know so that we can take image: ------- Alt. I .NMCtIiA&. r.cu. ; 9441.1986 (14) FEB Z Mr. Christian Volz Esq. McKenr. . Conn r, and Cunco 1575 Cyc Str .eQt Washington. D.C. 20460 Deer Mr. Volz This in r. sponsc to your letter dated January 9. 19U6, in which you request an interpretation of the hazardous waste rules rec arding the regulatory status of tha Torpedo Propulsion Units that are shipped for recycling to the San Tan facility ot the Garr itt Pneumatic Syst. ms Division (GP iD). As we understand the process, CPSD designs. manufactures, and supplies to the Honc ywell Unoerseas Division the afterbody of the HK 50 Torpedo. Contained in the afterbody of the torpedo is a chemical energy - Propulsion system (referred to as the boilerN) that generates the thermal energy used to propel the torpedo. (Heat tor the process is caused by a chi-mical reaction between two reactive conpounds —— lithiu’, and sulphur hexafluorid..) After a torpedo has boon run and tested, it is disassenbied and the boiler (as well as other componots) is shipped back to GPSD’s San Tan facility for reuse. Betore the boiler can be reused, however, it must be cleaned to remove any unreacted chcmica.Ls and the residu’ s lett by those chemicals that did react. This cleaning operation appears to be carried out in two Steps: the boiler Is first flushed with a mixture ot water and ethylene g]ycol this mixture reacts with any unreacted lithiun metal to torni lithium hydroxide in an aqueous solution. These rinsewatera may be corrosive when it leaves the boiler. The rinsewater is collected in a sump, from which it is then pumped into a l0 UOU gallon holding tank. As the rinsewater is pumped out ot the sump, sulfuric acid is added in line through an educator and mixed to neutralize the excess alkalinity in the rinsowater as well as convert the lithium hydroxide in the rinsewater to lithium sulfide; at this point, the rinsewater no longer is corrosive nor does it exhibit any other hazardous waste characteristics. The’ lithiun sulfide settles.out in the holdinq tank. After a sutficjt’nt amount has settl d out, the material will be tiltertd and image: ------- sc nt to r’r n ry of lithiun ore tor use in its orocess. You indicatr that the lithiuri Sulfide does not cxl ihjt any of the hazardous waste characteristics. 0 any romalninc lithiui i salts (i.e., products ot the reacticn whcn thc torpedo is run) are then renov d with a high—vQloC , water jet. The lithium salts are collected and placed i drurs for eventual return to a refiner of lithium ore. You also indicate that the lithium salts also do not cxhiblt any 0: the hazardous waste characteristics. Based on this recycling process, you believe that the used boilers (and the used torpedoes and afterhodios ot which the boilers are apart) are not subject to thc hazardous waste regulations, either at the Federal or State level. As you arc aware, on January 4, 1985, EPA promul ated its final rules dealing with the question of which materials are solid and hazardous wastes when they are recycled. Arionc other thinos, these rules state that materials that are directly used! reused are not solid wastes. See 40 CFR 261.2(e). Although - the boilers are shipped to the San an tacility to be reusea, the boilers must be regen rated bet ore they can be reused (i.e., they must be decontaminated before being rcused). Since thfSc boilers would be cicfined as scrap r.ctal, thcso boilers would b° defined as solid and hazardous wastes when reclair eu.1/ See 40 C R 261.2 (c)(3). Lowevcr, hazardous scrap mc.tal that is recycled is currently exempt from regulation. See 4C CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iv). Theretore, th. transportation and storaqe of the boilers prior to processing is exempt from the hazardous waste requ]ations.a/ Jith regard to the cleaning operation, these activities oenerate materials that also need to be evaluated with rtciard to their reoulatory status. The lithium salts that are removed tron the boiler with the high—velocity water iot would not be sub i’ct to Subtitle C control since these salts arc not hazardous. The other rinsate (i.e., ethylene g]ycol/water mixture), howt .v r, is hazardous (or may be hazardous) when first generated and nay be subject to the hazardous waste rules. In particular, this rinsing solution is placed in a sump prior to neutralization. Ilhile we agree with you that the neutralization of this rinsewater is exempt from regulation and 1/ This assumes, of course. that the boilers exhibit c nc or ror of the hazardous waste characteristics. 2/ This intcrj retation represents thc regulatory status ot thcs’ boilt.r’ und r th€. Fc deral re: ulations ani. riot nccc’s riLv un cr St?tc law. !!o vr , since the S n Tan Lacilitv is on Incian lanc c , thc Federal r ç;ulations wouJ.C a I’ly in this image: ------- 3 the han Uing or this material after neutralization is also exempt trom rt qulation (since the rinsewater is rio longer hazardous), the regulatory status or the rinsewater in the sump is still at issue. ttor specifically, in t ovember, 1980, EPA exempted tram regulation those wastewaters that are Stored/treated in tanks; however, this exemption only applies if the tanks are part ot a wastewater treatment system that are subject to reou]atjon under either Section 402 or Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Therefore, it the sump (which I assur e Would be defined as a tank) is part of a wastewater treatment syster that is subject to regulation under the CWA, the storage ot the hazardous rinsewater would be exempt from regulation. If, however, the su p is not part of a wastewater treatment System that is subject to regulation under the CWA, the SUrip holding the hazardous rinsewater would be subject to the appropriate Standards Ci. , the sump would be subject to 40 CFR 262.34 or 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265). It should be noted that if the sump Is not a tank, but rather a 8urf ace impoundment, the sump would b subject to regulation no matter whether this unit is part at a wastewater treatment facility that is subject to regulation under the CWA. See 40 CFR Parts 260.10 (definition of wastewater treatment unit and tank) and 264.1(g)(6) for specific re iu1atory language. I hope this letter adequately responds to your request. Please teel free to contact fir. tiatth w A. Straus, of my starf 1 if you have any other questions; Mr. Straus can be reached at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Marcia Williams Director Ott ice ot Solid Waste image: ------- 9441.1986(16) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY FEBRUARY 86 4. Fossil Fuel Canbustion Waste Exclusion A coal canbustion pr ess pr uces a mixture of fly ash and ttQn ash, a waste that is deaied non-hazardous in 40 R S261.4(b)(4). en quench water cares in contact with ti* ash to l it, the water satetii s caies alkaline to the int of corrosivity. A pipeline transfers this mixture to a dewaterirç facility, and the dewatered ash is placed an a truck. Is this corrosive quench water a hazardous waste, even thoigh it is fran an excluded ash? Fly ash, ttan ash, slag and flue gas enission control wastes generated pri ari1y fran the burning of fossil fuels are exeupt frau hazardous waste regulation under RA according to 40 R 5261.4(b)(4) and Section 3001(b)(3) (A)(i) of RA. The quench water caies corrosivesolely as a result of contact with the ash. cause the hazardous wast, charac- teristic of the quench water is derived frau an exeupt waste, the resul- ting corrosive quench water retains the exeupt status of that waste. In other ords, whatever makes the water corrosive is alre y exenpt, so the water is also exeupt fran regulation as a hazardous waste. Souros: Ephaim ICing (202) 382—7709 image: ------- 94 41.1986(17) - RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY FEBRUARY 86 5. Definition of Solid and Hazardous Waste Section 261.2(e)(])(j) was pranulgated on January 4, 1985, (50 FR 664) as part of the new d€finiti n of solid waste. It states aL materials are nc solid wastes n they can be shown to be recycled by being used or reused as ingredients in an industrial process to make a product, provided the materials are not being reclai.red. This is significant because materials that are not solid wastes per S261.2(e)(l)ci) are not hazardous wastes, and therefore, are not subject to RA regulations. A chaiucal manufacturing plant generates spent sulfuric acid. The spent acid is rethtroduced into the production process, where it is dec x)sed into its constituents (e.g., SO 2 ). These constituents can then be used to produce ncre sulfuric acid. uld the process of reintroduction and decanposition constitute reclamation, thus precluding the plant fran the ex nption? Spent sulfuric acid is frequently used as a feedstock in the production of virgin sulfuric acid. cordingly, EPA has pranulgated a specific exclusion stating tr at spent suXfuric acia recycled in this way is not a solid waste (S261.4a(7)). The recycling process n re closely resernoles a manufacturing operation than a recl tiation process. bbte that: (1) spent sulfuric acid is sub)ect to the speculative accunu.latjon prvis o , as defined in S261.1 (C); and (2) the spent acid uld be a hazardous waste if disposed (assuning it is Corrosive or exhibits another hazardo&js waste characteristic) and could be a hazardous waste if recycled in sane other manner (see the January 4, 1985 Federal f gister (50 FR 642)). Source: Matt Straus (202) 475—855: image: ------- UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECrIC c 9441.1986(19) * . r. . ic ar 4 t eaver A, ro .Sr,rt, Inc. St. uqustin airport P.O. Drawer 198 t. Augustine, F1ori 1a 32085 Dear Mr. avers Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1986, concerning the regulatory classification of off—specification jet fuel, when it is burned a. kerosene. Under the Environp ental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rul.. (40 CPR 26l.2(c)(2)(ii)), an off—specifica- tion caitmercial ch.n ical product is not a solid waste as long as it is used for it. original purpose. In this cas, the product, jet fuel, although not used to propel j.ts, is still being used as a fu.l and, therefore, is neither a solid waste nor a hazardous waste. Sincerely, Marcia 2. Willia’,ts Director Office of Solid aste (tI’4—562) image: ------- 944 1.1986(21) March 13, 1986 Mr. George D. Culotta Vice President-Sales Progressive Recovery, Inc. 1020 North Main Street Columbia, Illinois 62236 Dear Mr. Culotta: This is in response to your letter of February 21, 1986, in which you requested that we review your interpretation of the applicable regulations for in—house liquid solvent recovery units. In addition, you asked for the Environmental Protection Agency’s position regarding recycling of spent solvents by generators. The spent solvents that you described in your example are RCRA hazardous wastes. FOOl through F005 are listed hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.3) and DOOl exhibits a hazardous characteristic (40 CFR 261.21). As a result, the storage, treatment, and disposal of these and other hazardous wastes are regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. However, exemptions from general permitting regulations are provided for certain types of tanks, small quantity generators and operational units reclaiming or recycling hazardous wastes. In your example, no Subtitle C treatment permit is required under Federal regulations for in— house solvent recovery equipment as long as the wastes meet the definition of a recyclable material, and owners or operators of treatment facilities are in compliance with 40 CFR 261.6 requirements. As part of 40 CFR 261.6 regulation, operational units are exempted from permitting regulations when those operations involve recycling of hazardous wastes. However, there is no exemption for certain recycling practices constituting disposal. Additionally, the storage, transport and generation that precedes this activity are regulated without any special considerations for recycling activities. In your spent solvents example the wastes meet the definition of a recyclable material. If the in- house solvent recovery equipment are in compliance with 40 CFR 261.6 requirements, no RCRA Subtitle C treatment permit is required for the activities of recycling these particular hazardous wastes. Although storage is subject to regulation as described in the previous paragraph some general exemptions from the storage This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— regulations exist. These exemptions apply when the wastes are either accumulated on-site less than 90 days as stated in the 40 CFR 262.34 requirements, or are accumulated on—site up to 180 days by small quantity hazardous waste generators (less than 1,000 kg per month) as stated in the 40 CFR 261.5 requirements. I also would like to emphasize that the proposed rule for small quantity hazardous waste generators is scheduled to be promulgated later this month. Although changes might occur in the final rule, the proposed rule for small quantity hazardous waste generators would exempt generators that store wastes for 180 days if they do not accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous wastes during that period. In addition, the August 1, 1985, proposal (50 FR 31304 and 31305) would allow accumulation for 270 days if the waste is being shipped 200 miles or more for off—site treatment, storage, and disposal. I would suggest that you also contact the State authorities of your clients because States may regulate recyclable materials in a different manner. I also am enclosing the January 4, 1985, final rule defining a solid waste (40 FR 14 through 668), as well as the August 20, 1985, technical corrections to this rule (50 FR 33541 through 33544). These notices provide detailed information on our rationale in defining a solid waste. If you have additional questions, please contact Matt Straus, Chief, Waste Identification Branch, at (202)475-8551. Finally, I would like to point out that the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 establish as national policy the minimization of hazardous wastes. It is EPA’S policy to encourage environmentally sound techniques that reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous wastes generated. The recycling of spent solvents is one of the most frequently used practices for volume reduction. We believe that properly designed and operated solvent recovery can provide effective reduction in the volumes of solvents requiring disposal as hazardous wastes. Sincerely, Marcia B. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste Enclosure This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441.1986(22) AR I 9 ‘?E Ms. oart Keenan 91 Harvard Avenue Rockville, N.Y. 11570 Dear Ms. Keenan: This is in response to your letter dated February 21, 1986. In your letter, you requested a declaratory rulina and advisory opinion on a number of questions concerning the regulatory status of a gasoline/water mixture and a fuel oil/water mixture that is recycled. Our response to these questions are as follows: First State of Facts 1. Where the separated gasoline is being legitimately recycled for use as a fuel, does EPA consider the gasoline and water mixture a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and it. attendant regulations? No. The gasoline/water mixture is considered a mixture which contains a commercial chertical product (CC?). CCPs that are reclaimed are not considered “solid wastes” ( i.e. , it’s not “discarded’ because it’s normally a fuel and not being abandoned). Since hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste, this mixture jS not defined as a hazardous waste ( i.e. , it must be a solid waste before it can be a hazardous waste). 2. Does the Agency consider the unused (virgin) gasoline a solid waste under RCRA and its attendant regulations? No. See explanation to previous question. 3. Does the Agency consider the unused gasoline an industrial commercial waste under RCRA and its attandant regulations? Ho. Since gasoline i. typically burned as a fuel, we would not consider it a waste when recycled in the manner described in your letter. 4. Has the gasoline ‘resulted from’ an industrial or commercial process to justify a determination of the virgin product as a waste? - image: ------- 2 Additional information is needed betore we can respond to thiR questLon. Please contact Matthew A. Straus at (202) 475—8551. 5. Does the Agency require that ABC Company obtain any permits or other letters of authorization of any kind from the Agency? No. Since the gasoline/water mixture is not a solid and hazardous waste, this mixture is not subject to the Federal regulations under RCRA. This mixture may still be subject to State law and to the transportation rules promulgated by the Department of Transportation. 6. If the virgin gasoline is incinerated to recovery energy, does the Aaency consider it to be a waste? No. Since gasoline is typically burned as a fuel, it is not considered a waste when burned to recover energy under Federal regulation (see 40 CFR 261.33). Second State of Facts 1. Where the senarated oil is being legitimately recycled for use as a fuel, does the Agency consider the oil and water mixture a hazardous waste under RCRA? No. The fuel oil/water mixture is considered a mixture which contains a CCP. CCPs that are reclaimed are not considered solid wastes” ( i.e. , it’s not Udiscardedø because it’s normally a fuel and not being abandoned). Since hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste, the ‘nixture is not defined as a hazardous waste. 2. Does the Agency consider the unused (virgin) oil a solid waste under RCRA? No. See explanation to previous question. 3. Does the Agency consider the unused oil an industrial— commercial waste under RCRA? No. Since fuel oil is typically burned -as a fuel, we would not consider it a waste when recycled in the manner described in your letter. 4. Has th oil “resulted from” an industrial or commercial nrocess as that term -is used in S27—0303 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law? image: ------- 3 Since you are requestinq for an interDretatjon of State law, you should contact tht’ N. w York D ’ artmcnt ot Environ.. mental Conservation for an answer to this question. 5. Do.’a the Aaency recuir” that ARC Company obtain any permits or other letters of authorization of any kind from the Der,artrnent? No. Since the fuel oil/water mixture is not a solid and hazardous waste, this mixture is not subject to Federal re ulation under RCRA. This mixture may still be subject to State law and to the transportation rules promulgatod by the Department of Transportation. 6. If the virgin oil is incinerated to energy recovery, does the Denartr nt consider it to be a waste? No. Since virgin fuel oil is typically burned as a fuel, it is not considered a waste when burned to recover enercy under Federal regulation (see 40 CFR 261.33). Please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew A. Straus if you have any further auestions. Sincerely, Wtjl ial signed by Marcia E. Wilkarns Marcia E. Williams Di rector Office of Solid Waste image: ------- UM 1 STATE .4VIRONMENTAL PRO rECr 9441.1986(23) ‘ 21 Mr. Thomas 3. Jackson Thorp, )(eed, and Armstrong One Rivertront Center ?ittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Dear Mr. Jackson: This i in response to your letter dated, February 28, 1986. In your letter, you requested an interpretation of the Federal hazardous waste rules concerning a mixture of methanol and a non-hazardous waste which does not exhibit the ignitabijity characteristic. Under the ieQeral hazardous waste rules, this mixture would not be defined as a hazardous waste, provided the waste does not exhibit any of the other hazardous - waste characteristics (i.cs., Corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (L1’) toxicity). In particular, a mixture of a characteristic hazardous waste, including wastes het are listed solely because they exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics and a solid waste is not hazardous if the mixture øoes not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics. In the example described in your 1/ letter, methanol (a hazardous waste due to its ignitabi lity) is mixed with a non—hazardous wastestree , the resulting mixture is no longer ignitable. Therefore, this mixture would not be considered hazardous (as long as the waste does not exhibit any ot the other hazardous waste characteristics) under the Federal hazardous waste rules ( i.e. , a deljating petition is not necessary). States, however. may have rules that are more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal rules. Therefore, this waste remains hazardous under Pennsylvania law, unless it is exempted in accordance with State law. 1/ If the methanol is being used as a solvent, the spent methanol would be defined as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F003. - image: ------- 2 Please feel tree to give me a call at (202) 475—8551 i.f you have any further questions. Si ncerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Identification Branch cc: Bob Allen, EPA Region III David Friedman, Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVI OP4MENTAL PROTECTION AC 94411986(24) MAR 2 I 1985 Pohert Winlow, nirector Pyrr ont lit) Serpentine Road Albany Western Australia 6330 AUSTRALIA Dear Mr. Wjnlow: In response to your inquiry of March 4, 19R6, the Environmental Protection Agency regulates wastes containing chromium, in Dart, by use of the Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic which does not differentiate between the tn— and hexavalent oxidation states, but rather regulates on the basis of total chro” iu”t. As you are aware, EPA had pronosed to change the regulation to clsssify only hexavalent chromiur wastes as hazardous. 9owever, preliminary studies by Dr. Clifford, of the University of Houston, indicated that, under conditions Drevalont durina drinking water disinfection using chlorine, oxidation of the trivalent cPtromjun might occur. Since chlorine disinfection is a Dooular method of ground water treatment in the United States, EPA decided not to finalize the change pending further study. Our research laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, has the resnongj— bility for determining the conditions under which trivalent chromjun will undergo conversion to the hexavalent forms Mr. Thomas Sorg leads this activity. I have sent him a copy of your letter an’! requested he contact you directly once he has co’ pleted his studies. Howev.r, with respect to regulation of tannery wastes, EP continues to exempt from reaulatfon as hazardous waste those tannery wastes which are hazardous solely by reason of trivalent chromium. fPA expects to continue this exemption until the chromium toxicity and •nvironmental behavior questions have been resolved. image: ------- One final point relative to the parar7ranh on nave 72031 in the Oc oher 30, 1980 Feder 1 Rec,igter , t ie F.xtractjon Procedure Toxicity Characteristic reaulatory thresholds are 100 times the corresDondjna drink inrj water staniarEl. Thus, since the drinkina water standard for chromium is 0.05 ma/i, the EP level is set at 5.0 mq/l. Sincerely, Eileen B. Claussen Director Characterjtatjon and Assessment Division cc: Marcia Williams Alan Corson Kenneth Shuster Thomas Sorg Environmental Research Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 West St. Clair Street Cincinnati, OH 45268 2 image: ------- 9441.1986(25) March 26, 1986 Kevin Bromberg Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy 1725 I Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20416 Dear Kevin: Enclosed for your information is a table (see Enclosure 1) that summarizes the dominant risk constituents associated with small quantity generator (SQG) waste streams in the hazardous waste tank risk analysis. This table, title Dominant Risk Constituents for SOG Waste Streams , presents the, constituent that dominates the risk for each SQG waste stream that is listed in Exhibit 4-14 (see Enclosure 2). For comparative purposes, this table presents a relative ranking of the magnitude of risk each constituent poses in relation to the other constituents. This summary table presents the information necessary to evaluate Exhibit 5—27 (see Enclosure 3), by providing the relative levels of risk associated with the SQG waste stream constituents. As explained in the risk analysis report, we summarize the risk associated with each waste stream by using the dominant risk constituent as the measure of relative risk. The computer printout that you specifically requested examining includes all the risk estimates for each of the constituents associated with all of the SQG waste streams. Because it is difficult to interpret these printouts straightforwardly, we have provided you with the enclosed summary table. However, if you would still prefer to examine the computer printout I will send you a copy immediately. In addition, I apologize for the confusion that resulted from Exhibit 4-15 (see Enclosure 4) regarding the number of SQG tanks represented in this analysis. Exhibit 4—15 is inadequately labeled, understandably leading to misconceptions of what we assume about the number of SQG tanks affected by the hazardous waste tank regulations. I hope to clarify this problem by making the following points. First, the purpose of Exhibit 4-15 is to present the SQG survey data results indicating the waste streams associated with SQG tank facilities. Thus, the data does not represent the This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— estimated number of SQG tanks, since SQC facilities may have more than one tank apiece. Second, this data is not weighted to represent the secondary standard industrial classification industries. Thus, the number of SQG facilities with tanks presented only represents the primary SIC industries. Finally, the waste streams listed in this exhibit are those that we chose to represent waste streams contained in SQG tanks. The enclosed computer printout (see Enclosure 5) provides the complete list of waste streams associated with SQG tank facilities according to the SQG Survey. As you can see form this printout, the representative SQG tank waste streams used in the risk analysis do not include all of the waste streams that the survey data associates with SQG tanks. The risk analysis has excluded such SQG tank waste streams as empty pesticide containers and heavy metal solutions due to their low frequency of occurrency. For the final draft of the risk analysis report, we will clarify the headings for exhibit 4-15 to ensure that readers understand that this data was used to choose representative SQG tank waste streams, not to determine the number of SQG tanks or SQG tank facilities. Sincerely, Betsy Tam Economic Analysis Branch (WH-565) Enclosures cc: Hazardous Waste Tank Risk Analysis Docket File This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- Enclosure 1 Dominant Risk Constituents for SQG Waste Streams Dominant Risk Contribution* Waste Stream Constituent to Risk Spent Solvents/Ignitable Paint Wastes/Ignitable Wastes - halogenated Carbontetrachloride High — non—halogenated Benzene High Strong Acid or Alkaline Lead Low Wastes Waste Ink with Solvents Toluene Low or Heavy Metals/Ink Sludge with Chromium or Lead Filtration Residues from Tetrachloroethylene Low Dry Cleaning Photographic Wastes/Sol- Methanol High utions or Sludges with Photo Silver Waste Pesticides/Pesticide Washing and Rinsing Sol- utions — persistent, hal— Lindane High ogenated low mobility pest- icides - non—persistent, Aldicarb High “modern” high mobility pest- icides Wood Preserving Waste- Acenapthene High waters Heavy Metal Wastewater Cadmium/ Mediuxn** Sludges/Spent Plating Nickel/ Wastes/Cyanide Wastes/ Chromium Other Reactive Wastes This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- * As illustrated in Exhibit 5-27, risks are either relatively high (lOt) or very low for this tank technology. Thus, waste stream contribution to risk is designated as “high” or ** This waste stream is not included in Exhibit 5-27, but for the above ground SQG tank, it presents moderate (i.e., “medium”) risk (on the order of 106). This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9 441.1936(26) t z 2 H MORANDUP1 SUBJECT: Carbon Regeneration Facilities FROM: Marcia Willians, Director Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) .i TO: St ohen R. Wassersug, Director Hazardous Waste Management Division (3RWOO) This is in response to your March 11, 1986, memorandum regarding the applicability of the RCRA hazardous waste rules to carbon regeneration facilities. In articu1ars 1) Is the spent carbon a solid waste? In general, yes. As you correctly state in your letter, soent carbon can be defined as a sPent material or a sludge (i.e., spent carbon would normally be considered a spent material, unless it results from pollution control in which case it is considered a sludge). Spent materials (whether or not they are listed or contain a listed hazardous waste) and listed sludges being reclaimed are solid waste. In addition, if the spent carbon contains a characteristic spent material (and the spent carbon itself exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic), it also is a solid waste. On the other hand, if the spent carbon contains a characteristic sludge or by—product, it is not defined as a solid waste (even if the spent carbon exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic). 2) Is the spent carbon a hazardous waste? Yes. That spent carbon defined as solid waste (as described above) is also hazardous if it contains a 1ist ’d hazardous waste or exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic. 3) Which Part 264 standards apply? If the spent carbon is a solid and hazardous waste, the owner or operator of the facility must coi p)y with the image: ------- 2 storac tacility requirc cnts . includinci receiving a permit. Trir. actual r ç€nc.’rat on taci.Lity. including th . afterburncr, is x’ q .t trom rer.uiation, however. In particular, rccyclabh c att rials other than thost used in a i anner constituting disposal are currently subject only to transportation and storage standards.!! The recycling facility itself, including ernissions trom the facility, are not currently sub)ect to regulation. (You should note that if the tacility did not (voluntarily) USC an afterburner to minimize orpariic emissions, the question ot RCRA applicability would not even have been raiscd.) In the ruture, w intend to look at other recycling or erations such as carbon regeneration to determine if standards are warranted. Your concern that a determination that the otf—gas is an unreçjulated emission would have adverse ra’ ifications tor incin- eration tacilitit s docs not appear to be a major problem. You xpressed concern that an incinerator operator could vaporize his waste in a nonLiame device prior to injection in an incinerator and claim that the unconfined gas is an unroCulated treatment e niss on. buch a claim is not likely to be successful b causo the operator would need to show that the vaporization constitutes bone tine recycling not integral to the incinerator. We don’t believe such a showiM can be made. It you hav  furth r questions or corimcnts, contact hatt Straus at 475—8551 or kobert Holloway at 3ô —7936. 1/ Recyclable materials burned for energy recover are only subject to the transportation and storage rules. The actual burning itself will be regulated in the futurc (i.e., we plan to propose this suimor standards that would control enissions trom builera and industrial Lurnac s burr ir. i hazurdous waste and ott—specification us cJ oil ut 1s). image: ------- UPJ 0 STATES ...I4VIRONMEP4TAC R0TEC- w 9441.1986(27) APR 2 196h Hr. Lean E. Latai]le Senior Environmental Scientist Mabb-tt, Capaccio, and Associates, Inc. 2 7 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusctts 02140 Dear Mr. Lataille; This is in response to your letter dated March 12, 1986, concerning the regulatory status of otf—spec and broken mercury thermometers that are reclaimed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste rules. In general, these otf—spec ana broken mercury thermometers are not subject to any of the hazardous waste regulations. In particular, the hazardous waste regulations indicate that corunercial chemical productsl/ that are reclaimed are not solid wastes. Since a material must be a solid waste in order that it be hazardous, they are not defined as a hazardous waste. The mcrcury thermometers (as I understand) are unused products that are either ott—spec or are broken during the manutacturing process; thus, these thermometer. are defined as commercial chemical products. Therefore, these mercury thermometers are not subject to the RCRA hazardous waste rules. You should be aware, however, that States may choose to regulate these materials when they are sent for reclamation. Therefore, you need to contact a representative in the State hazardous waste program to determine the regulatory status of these oft—spec and broken mercury thermcmeters under the State hazardous waste rules. Please teel free to give me a call at (202) 475—8551 if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus, Chjet Waste Identification Esranch eq. j. —- image: ------- — —— a • r sc 94 41.1986 (28) Dr. Torn Tsenc) RE: C31305 Conservation and Protection Ontario Region nvironi’ ent Canada 25 St. Claire Are. F:. Toronto. CA M4 TI 12 Dear Dr. Tsenc7: Current U.S. EPA regulations control environmental releases frort wood preservin and surface protection facilities under several Conoressjonal statutes, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Water Act (C 1A). In addition, exposures of workers and consumers to the preservative formulations durinc application and usage of the treated wood is controlled by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The current apolicability of the authorities to environmental releases is stwtnarized below. alonq with a d.scription of our pr.sent investigations under RCRA. Wastevater Effluents under the CWA Process wastewaters effluent discharge. from wood preservinq facilities which use arsenical/chromatos, creosote, and/or penta— chiorophenol are reaulated under the Cl.an Water Act (CWA). The final regulations wore promulgated in 1981 (46 PR 8260.8295) and vary according to whether a facility was in existence at the time of the renulation (pretreatment standards for existing sources, PSCS) or for new plants (new source perfori ance standards, NSPS). The release of p.ntachloroo enol and creosote in wood preserving wastewaters is controlled by the use of the indicator pollutant, oil and grease. The at flu.nt standard for arsenic, chromiui’e, and copper is based on specific concentration limits, tie discharge of any wa tewaters is mandated for Boulton processes and non—pressure processes. Process wastevaters for the wood preserving subeateaory of timber products is defined as all wastewater sources exceptina noncontect cooline water, material storage yard runoff (either raw Material or Drocsssed wood storage) and boiler blowdown (46 PR ____ e 4 4. Hen, v r. nr cthitstien fallinc, in the 1/4 to 112 ____ rernriri tb t.r rind cylinders and tiink *reas jq defined s a proct ss waste ater whicn must se coLiecled and tte ten. aybe”r un”twtwa” v r MWt C e t far !ft uent i tsai d ivUnea td. tanlazd.5.. .f.o p duc s image: ------- 2 Point Source Cateaory (EPA Publication No. EPA—440/l—81/023, p. 82), which-states: “Rainwater that falls on or in the immediate vicinity of the retorts and work tank area——an area of from about on—quarter to one—half of an acre for the average plant——becomes contaminated and can present a treatment and disposal problem at any plant. but especially at plants in areas of high rainfall. For exarinle, a plant located in an area that recieves 152 cm (60 in) of rain annually must be equipped to process an additional 1.5 to 3.0 million liters (400,000 to 800,000 gallons) per year of contaminated water.” Current Dioxin/Furan Chlorophenolic Regulations under RCRA Certain associated wastes from oil or water based chlorophenolic formulations used by wood preserving or surface protection facilities (either at sawmills or at wood treaters before air seasoning) may be subject to regulation as acutely hazardous wastes because of their contamination with polychiorinated dioxins and furans under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The hazardous waste listings which may apply are found in Part 261.31, Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as Hazardous Waste Nos. P020. P021, P026 or £027. If a facility mixes chlorophenolic formulations on—site, then it may be covered by either the P020 (tn— or tetrachloropheno].) or P021 (pentachioropheriol) listing if wastes are generated during the process. An example would be filtering the unused formulation before storage, thus generating a filter residual. If a facility discards an unused (not spent) formulation containing chiorophenolics the associated wastes and formulation itself are covered by Hazardous Waste No. P027. If a waste is generated from the use of equiprtent (tanks, etc.) that previously was used to mix chiorophenolic formulations, then these wastes would be covered by Hazardous Waste No. P026. An example would be mixing t—butyl tin oxide in the same tank that was used for chiorophenolics previously, and generating a filter waste when the TRO formulation was transfered to the process or storage tank. A container or sri inner liner removed from a container that that has held an acute hazardous waste such as P020, P02 1, or F027 must be either tniple rinsed” with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by another established scientific method or the inner liner must be removed and discarded (a. a hazardous waste). Otherwise, this container itself is considered to be the hazardous waste itself, either £020 or £021. This regulation may be fqund in the Code of Federal Regulations , Vol. 40, Part 261.7(a)(3). Examples would be a storage tank taken out of service that previously image: ------- 3 contained unused formulation, a formu1at on mixino tank, or empty chioroohenolic drums or kraft bags. Ihen a waste is listed as Acute1y Hazardoug• under Part 261.31 (Hazard Code (H)), then special manaqement standards apply under RCRA over those normally imposed for other hazardous wastes, For example, under Part 26 1.5(a), generators of less than 1000 kilo ravns of hazardous waste a month would normally be exempt from the management standards contained in Parts 262—265 and Parts 270 and 124 (surface impoundment Soecificatione, ground water monitoring, hazardous waste manifesting, etc.). Part 26 l.5(e) instead states that the generation of 1 kilogram of acutely waste generated a month or a total of 100 kilograms of contaminated soils subjects the generator to the full management standards of Parts 262—265, 270, and 124. (As described below, we are currently investigating the addition of other wood preserving wastes to the acutely hazardous waste categories because of their contamination with polych1 rjnatO dioxins and furans.) Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Creosote and Pentacpilorophenól under RCRA At the present time, wastewater treatment s1udgp from wood Preserving processes which use creosote and/or pentachiorophenol are regulated as Hazardous Waste No. KOOl under Part 261.31. This’ includes oil/water separator sludges, the sludges which form at the bottom of surface impoundments used to treat or dispose of wagt,water (percolation or evaporation ponds), filter media (carbon sand, soil), spray irrigation fields (considered land treatment units), sludge dewaterinq/dryjnq beds, etc. There has been a lot of activity over the past years in closjn n unlined lagoons, ponds, etc. used for process wastewaters. The issue of how clean is clean for removing the sludges and contaninat d subsojia (much less pumping and treating contaminated ground water) is decided on a case by case basis. The criteria to be used for Closure of waste management units such as surface impoundments, land treatment units, waste piles are given in Parts 265-and 267. tk all contaminated materials cannot be removed, then poet Closure care as specified under Part 265.310 is required. This woulr4 include maintaining a cover for the unit, leachate collection, etc The RCRA management standards would not aoply to wastewat( r ! reatment sludges (or wastewaters if they are listed as hazardous wastes in the future) while they are managed on—site in tanks which meet certain design -requjremen a (Part 264 .1(n)(6) and Part 26 5.1(c)(1O)). However, as soon as the sludp s are rermued from these units, the full RCRA permitting re uirenen annly. any facilities have therefore chosen tn install wastewater treatment trains In structures that meet our tank s’ ocifjcatigns, rather than surface impoundments, to avoid around water and other RCRA permitting reaujrerlpnts. image: ------- Creosote or Pôntachlorophanol Wastewaters under RCRA In 1980, we proposed to add wastewaters ther se1ves from creosote and/or pentachiorophenol facilities to the list of hazardous wastes under Part 261.31 (45 FR 33137). In 1984, we started obtained the necessary analytical data by site sampling missions to support this proposed hazardous waste listing. We have been obtaining analyses of the wastewaters themselves as well as documenting ground and surface water contamination with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs), chiorophenols, and polychiorinated dioxins/furans. Since wastewaters are typically managed in the same units that manage the currently regulated wastewater treatment sludoes (Hazardous Waste No. KOOl), few additionaL controls of wastewater units under RCRA would occur. However, if waqtewaters were listed, we would have the authority of controlling such waste i,anag ment practices as their ‘treatment’ by evaporation in the treating cylinder or the plant boiler. Any RCRA authority over wastewaters would be limited to their management on—site at a facility (Part 263.4(a)(2)tConmentj). When released to the navigable waterways or sent to a publically owned treatment work (POTW), the statuatory authority become, the Clean Water Act (C JA). This means that it is oossible to have different toxic substances of concern or ‘action levels’ .for a wastewater while it is managed on—site under RCRA than after release off—site under the C%JA. For example, under RCRA we may be considering wastewater contamination with polychlorinated dioxins and furans, yet the C%JA standards currently only consider the indicator pollutant, oil and grease. Inorganic Arsenical and Chromate Wastes (Wastewaters, Sludges, Contaminated Soils) under RCRA At the current time, any wastes generated by a wood preserving facility that fails the ‘Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test’ (EP Toxic) is a regulated waste. This test Drocedure (described in Appendix II of Part 261) involves extracting the waste with 20 times its weight with water, adjusted to a pH of 5 with acetic acid. The extract Is analyzed, thus yeildinq the ‘EP Toxicity’ value. If the sample is an aqueous liquid, then the aam 1e itself is analyzed, giving the ‘EP Toxicity’. The maximum allowable concentration for metallic, in the ‘EP’ extract is compared to the values given in Table 1 of Part 261.24. If either the total arsenic or chromium in the ‘EP’ extract exceeds 5.0 parts per million, then the waste is classified as either EPA Hazardous No. D004 or 0007, respectively. Thus many inorganic salt wood preserving wastes are controlled by the RCRA management standards of Parts 262—265, 270, and 124. This would include contaminated soils in the treated wood drir at e area, process wastewaters, sludges, snilled formulations. etc. image: ------- 5 We are currently investiaatinq whether or not to srecifically list inorganic salt wood preserving wastes under Part 261.32. This would give the Ac,ency the additional advantage of oversjr ht of treatment of all the wastes generated throunh its delistjn rrocess under Part 260.22. Currently, for ‘EP Toxic’ wastes, the facility has the ability to determine on its own whether or not a waste is hazardous and whether or not treatment is adequate. Corrective Action under RC As t) e result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSUA) (Congressional Records of Oct. 3 and 11, 1984), the authority of RCRA has been extended to other solid waste manacement units (SMUs) at facilities, even if these units do not not rnanaae a waste that is listed in Part 261. This is the corrective action requirement for continuing releases at permitted facilities under Section 3004(u) and (v) of HS 1A. This requirement for permitting all solid waste management units applies only to facilities that current have hazardous waste management units subject to the permitting standards of RCRA. Since few facilities, if any, have final permits, any plants with surface impoundments managirm KOOl wasteweter treatment sludges must also obtain a permit for the treated wood drippage/Btorage area, process areas, and any landfill.. - If there is any contamination in these areas (release) corrective action must be undertaken. A release from a solid waste management unit is defined in terms of whether or not the unit is designed for adequate containment. For example, treated wood drir paqe (currently a ‘solid waste’ but not a ‘listed hazardous waste’) is typically managed by land disposal (dripDage to the around). This ground usually does not have a clay liner, runoff containment, etc. Therefore, disposing of this drippage on the onen ground constitutes a release for the purposes of corrective action. Leakage from a tank would also be a release. Current Efforts under RCRA to List Additional wastes At the present time, our branch is involved in inve tIgatjnq whether or not to add additional wastes from wood preser inn and surface protection facilities to the list of hazardous wastes under Parts 261.31 and 261.32. Hew wastes which are being considered are listed below, and apply to either wood preservation or surface protection facilities and to any of the preservative formulation types, whether creosote, chiorophenolics, or arsenjcal—cpiromateg: Storaqe tank, treatina tank, retort, dip tank, spray booth sludges ‘Treated wood drippa e/storage residuals ‘Fugitive emissions, drinnage in the process and tank area 1aintenance area, shop area wastes image: ------- 6 Wast-ewaterg (includt,v storrn wat r runoff) wastewater treati ent sludges frot’t arsenical—chromate processes or chiorophenolics frov surface protection processes All of these wastes, where a plicable, are being studied to deter ,ine whether or not they should be listed as acutely hazardous waste because of conta” inatjon with polychlorjnated dioxins and furans. This includes any wastes that can be cross contaminated with chiorophenolics, such as wastes generated from a creosote process where a conmon oil/water separator is used for both creosote and pentachlorophenol, sludges from an arsenical process that uses pentachlorophenol make—up water, wastes from a non—chloropheno ljc dip tank that previously held chloropheno1j g, etc. As described in previous sections, all of these wastes are covered under the RCRA authority at some wood preserving facilities, especially because of the corrective action provisions under HSWA. Very little coverage under RCRA currently exists for sawr ills practicing aapstain control, however. Adding new waste streapis to the list of hazardous wastes would make hazardou, waste managemcnt standards uniform at all facilities, and ease the burden.to State and Regional enforcerient personel in formulating a regulatory authority rationale. If you have any questions, pleasedo not hesitate to call me at (202)382—4786. Sincerely, Cate Jenkins, Ph.D. Project Officer, Wood Preservina and Surface Protection Waste Identification Branch Mail Code WH—562 B image: ------- 9441.1986(29) I _k l • C ’s 1 i .JFCT: Deter’ninatton of Status of Waste Produced by Wells Aluriinum Corporation, worth Liberty, Indiana 1atthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification ranch TO: 1 illiam H. Miner, Chief Hazardous Waste Enforcement Branch CP Region V Rased upon your description of the Alinecolor process used P y Iells A1u inum, it has been determined that the resulting wastewater treatment sludge is exemDt from the P006 listing, as ncr exemotion •i —— sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum. As you noted in your “ emo, the background document exoands this excluded nrocess to soecifically encompass coloring and sealing stens whereby unsealed anodic coatings on aluminum are colored by i”u’ ersion in a solution of organic or inorganic dyes, after which sealing is acco”,plish.d by i”uiiersjon in a hot solution of nickel or cobalt acetate. The Almecolor process you described a p.ars to meet this description and is, therefore, excluded from the listing and would be regulated only if the resultant sludge meets the characteristic, of a hazardous waste described in Subpart C. !ven though this specific process nay not have been evaluated when the exclusion was developed, the exclusion is still applicable, just as other electroplating nrocesses which may have been developed after the listing was nade final ar. included in the listing. Should you have any questions re’jarding this interpretation, r,lease contact me or David Tooping of my staff at (202) 475—8551. image: ------- 2 — Federal requirements do not apply, Currently, to actual reclamation activities. Federal requirements apply only to transportation and storage associated with recycljn not to actual recycling units. I hope that these answers will be of some value to you. Respectfully, Bernard J. Stoll Program Manaqer Financial Responsibility and Assessment Branch cc: Georce Lord (A—149C) image: ------- 3441.1986 (30) PRI6 8ö Mr. Jack A. Russell 501 East 7 th-Street, Apt. 8F New York, New York 10021 Dear Mr. Russell: I am responding to your letter, dated March 1]., 1986, to GeorQe Lord of the EPA’s Office of the Small Business Ombudsman. In that letter you asked a number of questions reqardjn the regulatory status, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCR.A), of a planned business for reDrocessinq waste solvents. Your service would involve the use of a truck— mounted distillation unit which would be operated at your customer’s site, that is, at the site of hazardous waste aenerat ion. You also stated that both recovered solvent and any aenerated solvent still bottoms would be left at the customer’s site. Under this arrangement your “vehicle will enter and depart from (yourJ customer’s sites containina no hazardous wastes.” You asked three specific questions reaardjna: use of hazardous waste manifests: the need for a federal permit; and insurance requirements. Since the States you orooose to oPerate in. that is, “the New York metropolitan area”, are each authorized to implement a RCRA hazardous waste prOaratn in lieu of the U.S. EPA, you must comply with those States’ rules and reaulations, not U.S. EPA’s. I am sorry that I am unable to tell you what those States’ requirements are, except that they must be at least as stringent as federal requirements. As a means of providing you with some information, however, I can offer you the following: — If your vehicles do not transport hazardous waste over public roads you would not, under federal requirements, be required to register as a hazardous waste transporter or use the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. image: ------- 9441. 1986(31) PR2 1 t9 G.U. Weinretch. PE. Cnvirorunerital Manager At’IG Coal Gasittcation Co. P.O. Box 1149 Beulah, ND 58523 Dear Mr. Weirireichi I am responding to your letter of March 18 1986, in which you request a clarification of whether precipitation which contacts coal qasitication ash waste resulting from the processing at coal and becomes corrosive is subject to the hazardous waste provisions of RCRA. As you state in your letter, th. ash is currently exempt from regulation under RCRA pursuant to 40 CF 261.4(b)(4). See also Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(L) at RCRA. The precipitation becomes corrosive solely as a result of contact with the ash. Since the. hazardous- waste characteristic of th. precipitation is derived tr an exempt waste, the resulting corrosive water retains the exeapt status of that waste (i.e.. the water is also exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste). I hope the above clarifies your concerns regarding the proper classitication of this aqueous waste. It you have zurther questions, pleas. contact Mr. Edwin F. Abrams of my staff at (202) 382—4737. Sincerely. I d. •.•, MarcLe E. Williams Director attic. of Solid Waste image: ------- 9441.1986(32) APR 2 I ‘r. ThomaS 3. ‘ronanfel. D waste Manaaement Section ‘ tvL iofl of Environmental Protect ion at of 1evafJa ‘enartme’ t C3nservattofl ani ‘:atural esource’ Ca ,ttOl Comolex Carson City, ‘eva a 97jfl ar Mr. Ffl nfel To follow u on our recent con .ervatiOn, an in reanonse to your letter of Anril 2, l93 , this confirms that wastes f,.o. iry—clear’in services and maintenance servtc.s at hotels and motels are not exclu1 d as household wastes und.r the exclusions r f 40 CVR 261.4. The exclusion cited sbove was int rl i to remove normal houe hold 5 from reaulatorv control uneiCr ‘he Pesoutce Convervat tar’ an . ‘ ecoverV Act (PCPA). Thi’ was exten’el to normal hou ehOl 1— ty ’e waste fro r hotels, motelq, etc. Fo qxa ole, emoty containers n! tr e li’ e resulttnO from normal rno!’ leanin’i or esttet’1e nt viflfl of the room could he exrluAe, 4 . :Iowevar, irv—cl.ant r 4 vehicle fleet or e ui ment aintenanCP are not routine iouseholl o!,eretiOflss wastes resuttin ftr’M such activities at hotels ani motels, (f hazarlOus, are *uPject to F A rer ut tOrV control. This tnternretatiofl is for tha 1eial ro ta . t ce Mavala has final authortzatt0n for the r.t i ’, it je rh ir rules which will apply in thia esse; in .t c’ v1anC0 with t’ e atat’jP . , your r.gulattOn$ or stanlaris nay ,e rnore strir’,ent. Phan .d.ral rules. If you have any cithet 7uesttOnfl, niasse call our ‘otlins at SOO/424”QS4 or call ‘ e direct at ‘O2/ ?—477”. ctnc r lv, Alan Cot son “enutV ntr.ctclr ‘Par. cP 5tt2!It on ri ççe c T’ivtq ayt (T’!—6 2”) image: ------- 9441.1986(3 3) A &3 I9( L ’ MENORAN DUN SUBJECT. AnoUcation o RCRA to Calgon Carbon Regeneration Facility FROM. Marcia illiams. Director t Otftce ot Solid Waste (WH—562) To. Thomas U. Devine, Director Wast. Management Division, Region IV In response to your memorandum of March 11, we have reviewed the intormation relating tn the Cal’ on facility. Based on that review and additional discussions with Calgon personnel, we have concluded that the August 23 memorandum from John Skinner i.s not dircctly applicable to the Calgon case. Nevertheless, Ca]gon does believe they can demonstrate that no rtzinj has occurreo in the solids transport system. A. a resuit . some ot the principles underlying the August 23 nemoran ium may apply to their case. In the following r aragraphs, wr will elucidate our position on the Calgon case ‘and then suqçest what data is rrobably needed ror the demonstration. rh Calcjon system of interest Is a solide handling system that is used to transport hazardous wastes (spent carbon contaminated with various listed wastes) and solid wastes (spent carbon applied to streams other than those currently r guiated) from tank trucks to a storage suap. The transport medium is 3ither the treated solids handling water that is recycled tron a storage tank, or make—up water from the river. From the carbon storage sump (hereafter referred to as the sump), sDen.t carbon is litted by a screw feeder to the regenerator tor reclamation. The water ezits the suap from a weir and ther is subjected to treatment (clarification and activated carbon contacting) prior to discharge or recycle to the storage tank tor reuse in solids handling. Calgon maintains that current practice is to use the water only once and to then discharge it to the Bi’ Sandy hiver. Under this scenario, the water does not become e solid waste until discharged rrom the sump (i. . , wh n used to image: ------- transport the spent carbon, the water is not defined as a solid waste). It is at that point where Calgon ‘nust establish th. stream is not a mixture of a solid and hazardous waste. Calgon’s position is that they should be allowed to make the demonstration after treatment of the water in the clarifier and carbon columns based on an extrapolation ot the interpretation or.sented in the August 23rd memorandum. We can not agree with the Calgon position. First of all, the Auqu t 23rd memorandum is strictly confined to additional, on-site dewatering to remove non—regulated wastewater unintentionally commingled with the waste at the point of waste generation. Key to the exemPtion is the return of the wastewater to the system from whence it came and a clear demonstration that the hazardous waste is not present in the returned stream. The exemption applies only for a waste c7enerator who is continuing to remove the non—listed material at the site of generation. The Calgon case, on the other hand, is related to treatment of a mixture after the addition of a large volume of material to a hazardous waste. The sole question in the Ca]gon case is whether or not mixing has occurred. Mixinci may not hays occurred if Appendix V III constituents are kept on the carbon and th. spent carbon solids containing the hazardous constituents do not escape the sump. Under those condition., the river water will not hay, become mixed with the hazardous constituents, and would not contain hazardous waste. If Calgon can demonstrate two points, they may have a basis for application of the August 23 guidelines. First, they must analyze any solids escaping the sump during the unloading and feeding of the Spent carbon to show that they are not the regulated waste. Secondly, Calaon must show that the hazardous constituents have not desorbed from the carbon tnto the water. This demonstration may be made by providing mass flows and constituent concentrations for th. carbon, the influ.nt water, and the sump effluent. Do not hesitate to contact Ben Smith of my staff at (202) 382—4791 if you have questions relating to our response or other questions relatin to the August 23rd memorandum. image: ------- 2 Please foc l free to give m c a call, if you have any additional questions, my telephone number is 8—475—8551. image: ------- UNIicD ST*.cS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC1I....’ 94 4 1 . 1986 (3 4) ADp ‘ MEMORAN DUN 5UBJECT Regulatory Interpretation Concerning the MCI/MCI. Material Generated by FMC at its Middleport Facility Fi(OM: Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch (WH—5628) TO Richard P1. Walka, Chief Solid Waste Branch (2AWM—SW) This is in response to your memorandum dated March 18, 1986, concening the regulatory status (under the Federal hazardous waste rules) of a mixture of methyl isocyanate (MCI) and methylene chloride (MCL) that is to be shipped to another facility for recycling. Based on the information provided in the attachments to your memo!! and as I have discussed previously with Mr. Paul Ingrisano, of your staff, this material would not be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. In particular, as described in the letters from Mr. Kennedy, the MCI/MCL is a mixture of unused commercial chemical products that FMC intends (or at least would like) to ship to its Institute, West Virginia facility for recycling into the carbofuran manufacturing process. In order to determine whether this mixture is a hazardous waste, one must first determine whether the material is a solid waste. Pursuant to 40 CFR 261.2(c), when a commercial chemical product (or a mixture of commercial chemical products) is reclaimed or used for its originally intended purpose, it is not a solid waste and, therefore, cannot be a hazardous waste. This material can thus be shipped to its carbofuran manufacturing facility in Institute, West Virginia without a manifest; in addition, the plant in West Virginia does not need a storage permit. This material would be subject, however, to all state regulations. 1/ See letters dated March 5 and 10, 1986, from Rick W. Kennedy of Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, and Goodyear. image: ------- 9441.1986(37) May 1, 1986 Mr. Mike Rinehart Operations Analyst Continental Pipe Line Company P.O. Drawer 1267 Ponca City, Oklahoma 74603 Dear Mr. Rinehart: Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1986, concerning the status of crude oil tank bottoms. In your letter (question “1(a)”), you used the term “recyclable material.” This is the term the Environmental Protection Agency uses to describe hazardous wastes that are recycled (i.e., used, reused, or reclaimed) in some manner. In order to determine whether you have a hazardous waste, however, you must first determine whether the material is a solid waste. Crude oil tank bottoms are considered a by—product. When a non—listed by—product is reclaimed, or used as an ingredient or a substitute for a commercial product, it is not a solid waste and, therefore, cannot be a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR §261.2). If, however, the non-listed by-product is used to produce a fuel or disposed of, then it would be a solid waste; if it also exhibits a characteristic of 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, it is a hazardous waste. If the crude tank bottoms are used to produce a fuel at a petroleum refinery, the fuel would be exempt from regulation; if the tank bottoms are disposed of, you would be required to comply with all applicable hazardous waste rules in 40 CFR Parts 262— 266, Part 270, and the notification requirements of RCRA Section 3010. In all cases, you are subject to all applicable state regulations. With respect to your second question, if the crude oil bottoms are not a solid waste, as described above, then their transportation is not regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. If, however, the tank bottoms are used to produce a fuel at a refinery, the transportation and storage of these bottoms would be regulated (as long as the bottoms are hazardous). The generator must determine whether the material he produces is a solid waste (and if so whether it is a hazardous waste) and this determination depends on how the material is to be managed. That is, if the crude oil bottoms are to be reclaimed or used or reused as described above, then it is neither solid nor hazardous waste. If it is used to produce a fuel or disposed, it is a solid waste and it may be a hazardous waste. In any case, This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— however, you would remain subject to any applicable U.S. Department of Transportation and state regulations. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact Matt Straus of my office. Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste (WH—562) This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC 9441.1986( 38) ‘ir. . eor)d . L4arc1iri )ros ident o1y—Jor n Enterpria s Corporation l.s45 i2 treet binitin.J, lndLana 4(1394 ar tr. Hardings In response to your recent letter to Dr. John Skinner, t ie recent cr arLJes tnat nave been nade in the RCRA re uiations wO 11 r t have any impact on trio use ot fnrmaldehyde—ba ed t il’ t deodorants. Use of tornaldehvde—c nt. ininr toilet deod nt cnnstt— tutes the intorid d use of the product. The nor’ial use of these product3 require s that they be poured into toi1et i, ultimately enteriny sowers and cesspools. This action d,es not co’i’ctitute dis osai, as defined by the hazardous waste rec;ulaeioru, nor i tno product considered a solid waste. Under t .e ha’.ar ous waste regulations, a product beca ea a waste only i discarded att’!r serving its intended purpose, or discarded without beinq uses. since using the product ror its intenied purpose destroys the roUuct (i.e., it ceases to retain its original identity but rather just becomes part ot the nixed sowa e), a toilet deo r nt would only b considered as a solid Waste, Oubject to potential ro ulatLon under 1(CKA, if it was to be discarded unused. Only under suc & conditions would a toilet deodorant consistin of torrnaldeaij ie as it. sole active ingredient be identified D tne re. lations as a hazardous waste, and, at thist point, the provi— siont ‘jt the 1(JU kg/month sn’all Qonerator exclusion c ie into v1 y. ou should also keep in mind the fact that RCIt is a State ad.ainistared program in those States which have ST)DliocI -for and rec.eived outhorization. In such States, it is the State pro ra ’i that must be adhered to; some States have more etrinvient reriula— tions than those of the Feøeral program. Thus, while disposal or a specific toilet deodorant may not be retjulated under the ederal program, it may under a State pro ra! s. However, I an not aware or any State which currently regulates such Drolucts. . S wV image: ------- For irifor 1 nation on any future renulatory chan es t? at ‘ ay attect yotir industry, I rec’ in iend that you contact the RC A/ . upurfun’ iot1ine at (8 )tJ) 424— 34 . Sincerely yours, Lileeri S. Clau se’ Di rector Characterization & Assess nent Division (WK—562 ) bcc: M. Williams A. Corson Hotline K. Conners M. Straus U. Friedman image: ------- 3441 .1986(39) UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTIC C MLY I Mr. i.’il]iam R. Blackburn Travenol Laboratories, Inc Deertielo, Illinois 60015 Uear Mr. Blackburns This is in response to the letters you nave submitted to the Agency in which you raise a number of questions for our consideration. First, let me apologize for the time it has taken to respond to your letters; I hope this has not created any problems for you. Xou first request that we confirm that the deionization (DI) acid that is generated at Travenol’s plant in Cleveland, Mississiçpj is not a waste. Based on the information provided,. / we agree with you that the DI acid is not a waste and, therefore, is -not subject to the Ieoeral hazardous waste rules. In particuj r, before a material can be a hazardous waste, one must tirst determine whether the material is a solid waste. In general, corrosive materials that are neutralized are normally Considere wastes. However, where such corrosive materjajs can be shown to: (1) meet relevant specs with regard to contamination levels, (2) be as effective as the virgin material for which they substitute, and (3) be used under controlled Conditions, we believe such materials may not be wastes. The information provided in your letters clearly indicate that the DI acid generated at your Cleveland plant is benefically reused and, therefore, is not a waste. As a result, this material is not subject to the Federal hazardous waste rules. This material would be Subject, however, to any State regulations. With respect to your request regarding the ezclusjoi and whether it applies retroactively under the old regulations, we believe that since the DI acid has always been benefical].y 1/ See letters dated; Novemøer 14, 1985, from William R. Blackburn to Jack Lehman Llecember 5, l9 5, from Michael Si. jth to Robert Tonetti; Jai uary 13, l9 6, tram flichael Smjtfl o Uatthew Straus; February a, l9 5, troja Willja, 1 t R. BlackDurn to Latthew Straus; and April 17, 19d6, tram Michael rutn to llatthew A. Straus. P image: ------- recycled and since this acid is neither listcd nor a sludge, this matérial is not now (and has never been) subject to requlations. Therefore, Travenol does not need to go through closure for this impoundment; we have discussed this inter- pretation with our Oftice of General Counsel and they agree. Finally, you requested written explanation as to why no hazardous waste permit is required to dispose ot the alcohol to the drain; a verbal response was provided to you by ‘Is. Irene Homer. A written response, however, has been prepared and should be sent to you shortly. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further questions. Sincerely, . Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste image: ------- 9441.1986(40) ru ‘ I_ . - MkMORAN OWl SU&IECTI U..d Oil Regulations FROMs Marcia E. William., Director Of fic . of Solid Waste ?Os David Wagoner. Director Waste Managem.nt Division Region V I I This is in rsspons. to your July 11, 1986. m.morandum regarding the used oil regulation. published on November 29. 1985. We are considering a range of options regarding the regulation of used oil, and it i. possible that the final r.gulation. will differ substantially fron t.hs proposed listing. V. are aware that the used oil recycling industry is undirgoing major changes snd •har• your concerns about impact. tth. industry and th. ultimat• disposition of used oil. We have received a number of calls and letters • primarily fro. used oil processors, expressing the concern that many industrial burners are no longer willing to burn used oil if it exceeds the November 29 sp.cificatien. In addition. vs are now developing a respons. to three rulemaking petitions r.questing that we delay th. effective data of tbe lead specification. Attached for your information is an interi, response from Win Porter to on. of the p.titionsrs. the National Oil Pacyclers Association. As you may not. from Win’s letter. vs blieve a larg. part of the probi.. is that th.r. is a serious misunderstanding of the ?ed.ral r.quisants. It appears that many burners are .quating the accepta.no of off-specification used oil. fuels (and th. re- quirement to notify EPA to obtain an identification number) with b.coming subject to the RCRA hazardous wast. management rules. This confusion was probably caus.d by our proposing to list used oil a. a hazardous yalta on November 29, 1985, and our suggestion that marketers and burners of of f-specification used oil fuel notify EPA using the standard form entitled, Notification of image: ------- 2 Hazardous daste Activities. Actually, the iOV moer 2 r al rule simply re4uires a ourner of off—specification used oil iue]. to notify .PA and Comply with two other ninor ,aper.iork r uire. enta. Further, on March 10, 1986, £PA requested comments on the option of regulating uaed oil recycling without a listin (50 FR 06) , so ourners of off—specification fuel way never have to cone hazardous waste facilities. Another factor having a major impact on th. industry is the dramatic drop in fuel oil prices since our rules were published. The drop in virgin fuel oil prices has apparently led many burners to the decision not to contend with any EPA r.gulation for a fuel that is only mildly discounted (S to 10 cents per gallon less than virgin fuel oil according to one processor), especially when their total fia.l bill i. substantially lower than in previous years because of the drop in virgin oil prices. To get burners to continue burning off-specification aced oil fuel • it appears that. (1) they need to understand that they are sot handling a hazardous wastes end (2) in light of the depressed virgin fuel oil prices and EPA’s paperwork requirements. used oil fuel mast be discounted sore heavily than in the past. To get the messag. to the public. we are sending copies of Win Porter’s letter to the a.giona. $tats, and thos. used oil marketers that have expressed concern. We also have developed an information bulletin (copy attached) for general distribution that sqwtrtzes the points covered in Win’s letter. Finally. we will also discuss these issues in a Federal ! 4 . er notice responding to the rulemaking petitions. We do realise, however, that th. drop in virgin oil prices coupled with the paperwork requirement. of the Novesber 29 ruLe are causing painful chang.s in the industry. To enabl, processors to offer burners a eater discount to accept off-specification used oil fuel, th. processors (and independent collectors) may have to charge generators a fee to pick up their used oil. This La nou appere 1y a w—on practice, while a year ago, generators could have their oil picked up at so charge or were even paid for their oil. sot ezpct major problems with generators dumping theta c l i because. (1) they can increase their fees for an oil change to c .r the costs: aM (2) there was an active used oil recycling industry prier to the increase in virgin oil prices in the early 1970. when generators either received nothing or paid to have their used oil picked up. Of greater concern, however, is the disposition of used oil generated by do..it yourselfers who take their oil to a service station for ultimate recycling. Obviously, we can expect service station. and other generators to stop accepting do—it.yourself oil if the generator esast pay to have the oil picked up. We image: ------- 3 nave a good answer to thie rou1e . ..e would .ict , that onl’f a portion of do—it—yourself oil nas historically recovered Ly the recycling syst : . We dre 3t1ll tryi to dffecti.ve solution5 to that problert. £‘he ourning of nstal—beariny used oils and used oils tni ,xed with hazardous waste can cause serious health effects. Clearly, we must strike balance between the recucti n in adverse .mealth and environmental, impacts froi burning used oil. achieved by the rule and the adverse impacts resuitiaj ro i any ua ping of used oil, caused by th. rule. For the reasons discussed above, however, we do not believe th. rule will result in a substantial increase in used oil dumping. I do not want to imply that we hav, all of the answers. We are f..ling our way along this process of r.gulating th. used oil r.cycling industry and are attempting to ensure that th. rule. are structured and timed in a nner that does more good than harm. Co nts fr the Rgions ar. always welcome and appreciated. Severa.l Regional personnel participated in the work group that d.velopsd this ruls. If you or your staff have oth.r’ cc ents, suggestions, or questions, please contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 382—7936. Attachnts image: ------- p toS71, 9441.1986(41) j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION I WASHINGTON, D.C 20460 t OPc’CE OP SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Honorable Frederick Boucher U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Boucher: Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1986 regarding your constituent’s concern about fees assessed on the gen ratjo of hazardous waste. There is currently no such fee assessed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). My staff checked with officials in the State of Virginia, which is fully authorized to run its own RCRA program. The State indicated that it, too, does not impose a fee such as the one described by your constituent. Your constituent r ay be referring to the waste management tax approved by the House as part of its CERCLA reauthorization bill. See the Decev’ b•? 10, 1985 Congressional Record, p. 911666; se, also H.Reo. No. 99—253, Part 2, Pp. 9—16. The proposed waste manaqi r’ ent t x actually includes two different taxes: a ta< on hazardous waste received at RCRA Subtitle C facilities, and a backup tax on RCRA generators if their waste is not received at a Subtitle C facility within 270 days. As explained below, it appears that your constituent would not be subject to the first tax, i.e., the tax on RCRA Subtitle C facilities. However, your constituent may be subject to the second tax, i.e., the backup tax. We agree that such a tax may serve as a disincentive for recycling. The Administration did not include a backup tax in its CERCLA reauthorization proposal. Given your description of your constituent’s waste, it appears that these used solvents are a hazardous waste under RCRA; see 40 CFR S261.31. The solvents are then sent to a second company where they are stored prior to recovery. Presumably the storage unit would meet the House bill’s definition of a “qualified hazardous waste management unit”, which is provided in proposed S4675(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (IRC). If so, the waste would be subject to the first tax at a rate of $4.15 per wet weight ton. However, the second company would receive a credit or refund for any tax paid for such waste. The credit for certain qualified solvents is outlined in proposed S4673(c) of the IRC. This credit .was specifically designed to avoid creating a disincentive for solvent recycling. image: ------- 2 Your_ letter states that after cleaning the used solvents, the second Company returns the recovered solvents to your constituent for future use. Presumably this “cleaning” of the wastes is actually reclamation. If so, then these recovered solvents are not Wastes. See 40 CFR S261.3(c)(2). This issue Ls speci.ftcally discussed in the pr3amble of our January 4, 1985 revised definition of solid waste (50 Fed. Req. 614, 634). Since these solvents are not wastes under RCRA, they would not be subject to the first tax, which is imposed only on certain RCRA hazardous waste. See proposed IRC SS4671(a)(l) and 467 5(a)( l). The second company must properly manage the spent solvents that were not reclaimed. Such spent solvents are typically blended with oil and then sold as fuel. Such waste—derived fuel is still considered a hazardous waste under RCRA. See 40 CFR S26l.2(c)(2). The fuel may be burned in an industrial boiler or furnace, or a RCRA Subtitle C incinerator. If so, then the second comPany may receive a credit or refund under the incineration provision. See proposed IRC 54673(b). As noted above, your constituent may be subject to the proposed backup tax. That tax is imposed on hazardous waste which is not received at a qualified hazardous waste management unit within 270 days of its generation. See proposed IRC §46 7 4(a). Thus, your constituent’s potential liability u nder this tax would depend n whether one f the second company’s RCRA units fits the House bLil’s d finitjort of a “cualifjed hazardous waste nanagemer t unit.” If not, then your constituent would be liable for the backup tax. Until the Treasury Department promulgates regulations, the waste would be taxed at the disposal rate. Let me reiterate that the Administration did not include a backup tax on generators in its proposal, to reauthorize CERCLA. In designing a waste—end tax, we decided that the tax ought to be on the management of the waste, not the generation. Finally, I agree with you that EPA should encourage recycling as a means of reducing the amount of hazardous waste requiring land disposal. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendmenta of 1984 established as national policy the reduction of hazardous waste. In particular, Section 224 of the 1984 RCRA amendments requires EPA to submit a report to Congress by October 1, 1986, on the desirability and feasibility of establishing waste minimization regulations to implement this national policy. As part of this effort, the Agency has identified incentives and disincentives currently affecting the utilization of waste minimization practices such as recycling. The report to Congress will discuss possible actions to alleviate some of the disincentives associated with recycling.and to promote further use of recycling and other waste minimization practices. image: ------- 3 Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, J. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator cc: Robert L. Allen, Branch Chief Waste Management Branch Hazardous Waste Management Division U.S. EPA, Region III William F. Gilley, Director Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Virginia Department of Health image: ------- 9441 .1986(42) 2. ‘ Mr. Paul B. Guptill Missouri Hospital Association P.O. Box 60 4733 Highway 50 West Jetterson City. Missouri 65102 Dear Mr. Guptill: This is in response to your letter dated April 14. 1986, regarding the regulatory status of used x—ray file being sent to refiners tor silver reclamation. In order to answer this question, one must first determine whether the used x—ray file is considered a solid waste. Under the hazardous waste rules, all spent materials, and listed sludges and listed by—products that ar. sent for r.c]aeation are defined as solid wastes, (see 40 C?R 26l.2(c) used x—ray tile would be defined as a spent aaterial4/ Therefore, used x—ray file would be defined as a solid and hazardous waste if it is listed or exhibits one or more of th. hazardous waste ëEaracterietics ( i.e. , ignltabiltty, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure CE?) toxicity).2/ Since these films are not specifically listed, they would only be defined as hazardous it they exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristic.. Based on test data provided by the National Association of Photographic Marifacturers (NAPM), 1/ A spent material is any material that has been used and — as a result of such use can no longer serve the purpose for which it was produced without processing. / In your’ letter, you argue that used x—ray riLe going to a refiner should not be considered hazardous, regardless of their hazardous Levels. However, the Agency has always defined the hazardousness ot the waste based upon the characteristics of the waste and not how it is managed. image: ------- 2 these films, In and of themselves, o not appear to be hazardous under RCRAI Theretore. used x—ray turns are probabLy not subject to the Federal hazardous waste management regulations (see encLosure.). You sho lJ be aware, however, that although the data provided by NAPM appears to sugg . st that th se turns are non—hazardous. each generator is still responsible tot making trus cietermination. It the generator determines that their used x—ray films are hazardous, they would be subject to the hazardous waste rules. However, the only requirements under the Federal regulations that would be imposed upon the generator would be to get an identiticatlon number and to comply with the unitorm hazardous waste manitest. 1, theretore, question the cost tigures estimated by th Missouri Department ot Natural Resources (DNR) tor hospitals to comply with the hazardous waste rules. Pl ase tee.L tree to give me a call It I can be ot any turther assistance my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, f4atthev A. traus Ch i e r Waste IdentLtication Branch Enclosures image: ------- UNITED ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A 9441.1986(43) Mr. Bruce J. Lawrence President e6 Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc. Hellertown, Pennsylvania 18055 Dear Mr. Lawrence: This is in response to your February 26, 1986, letter in which you request confirmation that the mercury that is sent to your facility to be triple distilled is not a waste. First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in responding to your request; I hope this delay has not caused you any problems. With respect to your specific request, I agree with you that mercury (which is at least 99 percent pure) that is received and refined at your facility is not a solid waste.]/ In particular, we have stated that metals that are suitable for direct use, or that only have to be refined to be usable are products, not wastes. See 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2); see also preamble discussion at 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985. Thus, the mercury——that is 99 percent free— flowing mercury——that you receive at your facility is not subject to any of the hazardous waste regulations (i.e.,’the material does not have to be manifested to your facility, you need not comply with the storage requirements, etc.). Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Identification 1/ It should be noted that this regulatory interpretation — reflects the Federal hazardous waste rules. The State of Pennsylvania may take a different interpretation; you, therefore, need to contact the state for further information on the status of this material. MS860133 . ..3. J LVU)4 ’ ..J image: ------- Uriii is bI YIR0P4MEP4TAL. PROTECTION 9441. 1936(44) Air Air 4A 1 ( 3O Georr)e L . Rambo, Ph.D.. RP.E, Dircctor, R searcn, £ducation, and Tecr-.nicaj flesources National Pest Control Association, Inc. 8luu Oak 3tre t Dunn Lorincj, VA 22027 Dear Dr. RamDo: Thank you for your letter of May 16, 1986, requestinq an interpretation ot the applicability ot the hazardous waste reCulations to washwaters generated from washing the exterior of trucks and service vehicles. As you are aware, in a July 22, 1985 memorandum to our Region VI office, we indicated that washwaters generateg by washing the exterior of an aerial Pesticide applicator’s airplane would not be considered hazardous via the mixture rub. (See enclosure.) Since the Agency sees no dirference between washwaters trom aerial versus ground application equipment, it is logical that the interpretation issued in July 1985 should also extend to the washwaterg from ground equipment. Consequently, this rinsewater would not be considered a hazardous waste under the mixture rule and would only be considered hazardous if the rinsewater exhibited one of the characteristics or a hazardous waste identified in Subpart C or Part 261 (i.e., ignitabi]ity, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity). I you have any further questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Matt Straus at (202) 475—8S51. Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams Director Ott ice of Solid Waste 1SS -467-I j image: ------- 2 cc: Air end .ater Management Division Dir ctorq (I—V and VII—X) Air and Waste Manaçement Branch Chiefs (I—X) S. Scatzow P. Gray B. Weddle J. Lehman O.R. Ehart (State of Wisconsin) image: ------- - - - - _. I’IL f IiflJ...X U1I} ARY MAY 86 944 l.l 9 B6(45a) 3. Treatnent Without A Permit A facility generates a waste that is in po er form and which exhibits the characteristic of EP toxicity. The waste is stored in a tank pursuant to the standards specified in 40 CFR 262.34. When the tank is partially full, the generator pours in sand, and mixes the contents of the tank until a haicgeneous mixture is formed. The sand dilutes the original waste. The resulting mixture no longer exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste. How is the generator regulated under RA? Can the State in which the facility is located require the facility to get a permit? Under federal law, if the facility did not accumulate the waste for longer than the applicable tune period specified in S262.34 (90 days), then the facility would only have to can ly with the applicable provisions of S262.34. Rendering a characteristic hazardous waste non—hazardous by dilution is treatment; h ver, such treatecnent does not require a permit if S262.34 is followed. The EPA clarified this interpretation in the Plarch 24, 1986 Federal Register which states, “Of course, no permitting would be required if a generator chooses to treat their hazardous waste in the generator’s accumulation tanks or containers in conformance with the requirements of S262.34 and Subparts 3 or I of Part 265. Nothing in S262.34 precludes a generator fran treating waste when it is in an accumulation tank or container covered by that provision. Under the existing Subtitle C system, EPA has established standards for tanks and containers which apply to both the storage and treatnent of hazardous waste...the Agency believes that treatment in accumulation tanks or containers is permissible under the existing rules, provided the tanks or containers are operated strictly in canpliance with all applicable standards.” (51 FR 10168) States with existing standards may a ninister and enforce them as a matter of State law. Further, a State with the appropriate authorization could require a generator that treats hazardous waste in a tank to operate under a RCRA permit or interim status if the requireTent was incorporated in the State’s approved progran. Of course, a non—listed characteristic hazardous waste that is treated so that it no longer exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste need not be disposed of at a RC A Subtitle C facility, instead, the waste could be disposed of at an approved State or local facility according to applicable Subtitle D standards. Source: Mark Greenwood (202) 382—7703 Research: Kevin iss arlotte Mooney image: ------- 9441.1986(45) RCRA/SUPERFTJ 4D HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMA y MAY 86 1, anal 1 Quantity Generators/parts Washers/Waste Count ing An owner/operator (o/o) of a service station leases a parts washer containing mineral spirits fran the Safety—Kleen Corporation. The 0/0 uses the mineral spirits on a daily basis to degrease parts on—site. The spent mineral spirits exhibit a flash—point less than 1400 F. The 0/0’s written contract with Safety—Kleen reauires Safety—Kleen to collect the mineral spirits for recl nation and to deposit regenerated or new mineral spirits at the service station every eight weeks. The 0/0 is a “100—1000 kg/ tx generator” of hazardous wastes. When, if ever, do the 0/0’S mineral spirits becane regulated as a hazardous waste? ccording to the revised small quantity generator regulations which appeared in the March 24, 1986 Federal Register , are the mineral spirits counted in etermining the an unt of hazardous waste generated? Section 261.4(c) exempts “Cal hazardous waste which is generated...in a manufacturing process unit or an associated nonwaste-treabnent—manufacturing unit” fran regulation under Parts 262 through 265 and the notification reauiremants of 3ect ion 3010 of RCRP. The material is only subject to regulation when it is reu ved fran the unit in which it was generated or if the material remains in the unit for more than 90 days after the unit ceases to be operated for marLifacturing purposes. In this specific case, the parts washer leased fran Safety—K1een is functioning as a manufacturing process unit. The parts washer is a containerized unit used in degreasing operations. Therefore, the mineral spirits will not be subject to regulations under Parts 262—265, 270, 271, 124, and Section 3010 until they are ØT tied fran the parts washer container or until they remain within a nonoperational parts washer for more than 90 days, whichever occurs first. Under the March 24, 1986 rules, waste exempt fran sane regulations under 5261.4(c) are not counted. As long as the waste is exempt under 5261.4(c), it need not be counted. H ver, the mineral spirits uld be counted in determining the anø nt of hazardous waste generated on—site as soon as the mineral spirits are i ved fran the parts washer unit or after they remain in the non-operating unit for more than 90 days. If the mineral spirits remain within the parts washer unit for 90 days or less after the unit ceases operation, then they will not be counted towards the quantity determination of the service station 0/0. Source: Maureen nith (202) 382—7703 Matthew Stra (202) 475.8551 Research: Margaret Kneller image: ------- 9441.1986(46) f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION, \ J WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 JUN 21986 SOL.ID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Definition of Byproduct Material FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste TO: Thomas W. Devine, Director Waste Management Division Region IV In response to your memorandum of March 12, 1986, we have outlined below how you and the State of South Carolina can proceed with permitting and/or enforcement actions leading to issuance of a RCRA permit at the Savannah River Plant (SRP). Universe of Mixed Waste EPA has seen and reviewed some of the waste stream booklets prepared by DOE facilities. We reviewed the one for $RP several years ago, but we understand that it was since revised. The booklets do not provide definitive lists of wastes that are and are not regulated under RCRA. They merely provide a starting point for negotiating with the facility to determine which wastes are regulated under RCRA. Th. definition of ‘byproduct material” in th• Atomic Energy Act (AEA) does not explicitly resolve th. question of which wastes are, in their .ntir.ty, byproduct material, and ar. thus exempt from RCRA, and which ax. mixtures of byproduct and haxardous waste and ars thus r.gulat.d under RCRA. The definition of byproduct in 10 CFR 20.3 which you referenced in your memorandum is merely a restatement of the statutory definition and, thus, does not provid. definitive guidance to determine which byproduct wastes are -regulated and which are excluded. DOE recently proposed a revised definition of byproduct material (November 1. 1985, 50 FR 45736). The proposal did not meet with favorable public. co nents and it is unlikely that they will finalize the rule in the near future. The only way States will be able to judge which waste stream, at any DOE facility should be regulated is to work directly with the facility to make case—by—case decisions based on the AEA definition. image: ------- —2— However, EPA considers all mixed waste streams to be Subject to Federal regulation under RCRA. We would expect that-States with the same radioactive waste exemption as EPA would also include all mixed wastes in their regulatory universe. However, until the States are authorized for mixed wastes, it is Possible that their interpretations of their statutes may differ from EPA’s interpretation of RCRAS Use of RCRA Authorities The Savannah River Plant should provide to the State of South Carolina a permit application for all waste units regulated under State law. Based on that information, the State should proceed to process and issue a RCRA permit covering all RCRA-regu— lated units at the facility. Units containing mixed wastes (or suspected of containing mixed wastes) are currently not covered under the authorized RCRA program in South Carolina. However, if the State regulates mixed wastes under State law, units containing such wastes may also be addressed within the State permit. The State should obtain security clearances, where necessary, and use its full range of enforcement authorities to gain access to the site and to require sampling and analysis by the facility to determine whether units should be regulated. Headquarters DOE has assured full cooperation in obtaining security clearances for State personnel. EPA can also use its HSWA authorities to supplement an auth- orized State’s authority over RCRA—regulated units. Under S3004(u), EPA can jointly issue a permit with the State and impose corrective action requirements on hazardous waste management units and solid waste management units (SWMU’s) at facilities that contain RCRA- regulated units. Although mixed waste units are not RCRA—regulated under authorized State RCRA programs, mixed waste will be considered to be a ‘solid waste’ for purposes of corrective action at solid waste management units. The Federal definition of ‘solid waste’ is to be used in determining what units are SWPIU’s, because State definitions were not scrutinized in evaluating applications for State authorization (except as was necessary to assess the adequacy of the State’s universe of hazardous waste).* Because mixed waste is considered a solid waste under the Federal RCRA program, units containing mixed wastes are SWMU’s and are subject to corrective action if there is another unit requiring a RCRA permit at the facility. * Therefore, in order to obtain authorization for corrective action, States must obtain authorization for their definition of solid waste, which may not exclude mixed waste. image: ------- —3- As noted earlier, a mixed waste unit is not a RCRA—regulated unit in an- authorized State. Therefore, there must be t least one non—mixed, hazardous waste unit at a facility in order for EPA to subject mixed waste unite to corrective action requirements under c3004(u). similarly, EPA may issue an order under c3008(h) requiring monitoring, investigation of releases and corrective action, but the order can apply to mixed waste units only if there is one or more unit subject to interim status requirements at the site. Response to Specific Questions In response to the three bullets and the three numbered items on page 2 of your memorandum, we have the following answers: If you suspect that Part B’s have not been submitted for all RCRA units, EPA and/or the State should take immediate enforcement action. You and the State should determine who should appropriately take enforcement aàtion. If there are mixed waste units in question, EPA cannot enforce submission of the Part B’s in an authorized State. While EPA cannot issue penalties to another Federal agency, the dispute resolution process described in the revised Federal Facility Compliance Strategy may be used. • Review of the Part B submitted by SRP may provide you and/or the State with sufficient information to make such a determination. However, if it does not then EPA and/or the State should require SEP. through enforce- - ment action, to make such a determination through sampling and analysis or whatever other method (e.g., application of knowledge of waste generation process) may be appropriate. • As stated earlier, ths booklets only provide a starting point for n.gotiations. EPA HQ will not be reviewing or approving th. individual facility booklets. 1. The May 10 l.tt.r to DOE did not delegate any authority. Therefore, it need not be withdrawn. 2. Ths AEA definition of byproduct is the only appropriate and l.gally •nforceable definition that can b. used. You should us. that definition to make case—by—case decisions, as described on page 1 of this memorandum. 3. There is no documentation available of the EPA review of the SEP waste -stream booklet. image: ------- —4— I hope this sufficiently clarifies your and the State’s current authorities with respect to permitting and enforcemen.t actions you might take at SRP. We will continue to work with you to resolve any remaining issues, and would appreciate being kept informed about the progress you and the State of South Carolina are making in resolving these issues with SRP. cc: Jim Scarbrough, Region IV Richard Campbell, Region IV Joe Freedman, OGC Tony Baney, OWPE Peter Guerrero, OSW RCRA Division Directors, Regions I—Ill, V—X (with incoming) RCR.A Branch Chiefs, Regions I—Ill, V—X (with incoming) image: ------- 9441.1986(47) ____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460 / • 501.10 e STE EPGE c ESP .3 Honorable Robert S. Walker House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your letter of May 1, 1986, on behalf of your constituent, concerning his questions pertaining to three chemicals which he uses in his trade as a painting contractor. Specifically, he requests information on any federal regulations relating to the disposal, sewage treatment, and neutralization of methylene chloride, muriatic acid, and isocyanates, as well - as information on any health hazards associated with their use. We are reading the first two chemicals in your letter to be methylene chloride and muriatic acid. Methylene chloride is used as a solvent and is a listed hazardous waste —— EPA Hazardous Waste No. P002. The listing includes the following spent halogenated solvents: tetrachioroethylene, methylene chloride , trichioroethylene, 1, 1,1—trichiorothene, 1,1,2—tn— chloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1, 1,2—tnichloro—1, 2,2—tnifluoroethane, ortho—dich].orobenzene, and trichiorofluoromethafle. Unused methylene chloride that is discarded is also defined as a hazardous waste. Muriatic acid is also likely classified as a hazardous waste based on its.corrosivity (i.e., it likely has a pH less than 2). The third chemical, isocyanates, is a class of chemicals; thus, before we can respond to your request, we would need to know specifically which compound or compounds your constituent is using in order to address his concerns. If your constituent generates more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of methylene chloride, muniatic acid, or any other hazardous waste in a calendar month at his place of work or at individual work sites, he is classified as a hazardous waste generator and thereby subject to the hazardous waste regulations. New regulations were just promulgated for generators of between 100 kilograms and 1000 kilograms per calendar month of hazardous waste. (See enclosed brochure and Federal Register notice. These requirements become effective on September 22, 1986.) If your constituent generates less than 100 kilograms of waste in a calendar month, good disposal practice would dictate that he use an off—site hazardous waste storage, treatment, or image: ------- 2 disposal -facility for his waste, although he may legally dispose of such waste at any state approved solid waste facility. Your constituent should contact the organization at the address listed below for additional information pertaining to small. quantity generators. Ms. Eleanor W. Winsor, Executive Vice—president Pennsylvania Environmental Research Foundation Mezzanine——Lewis Tower Building 225 South 15th Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 (215) 735—0966 With respect to the question relating to neutralization of these chemicals, it is our opinion that it is not possible for your constituent to neutralize methylene chloride at his place of business. Muriatic acid, however, can be neutralized. With respect to the potential health hazards associated with methylerie chloride and inuriatic acid, he should be aware that methylene chloride is a potential carcinogen. Muriatic acid, on the -other hand, while a corrosive chemical is not highly toxic. For further information on the proper use and storage of these chemicals in the workplace, he should contact the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) at the address given below. Dr. James Melius N IOSH/DSHEFSS - Mail Stop R12 Rm 40A Ridge Bldg. 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati Ohio 45226 (513) 841—4428 I also strongly recommend that your constituent contact the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources at the address listed below to discuss these issues in greater detail. Depending on the specific nature of his business activities, he may be subject to more stringent state regulations pertaining to hazardous waste disposal. .Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Solid Waste Management P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787—6239 image: ------- 3 Please feel free to write me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, J. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator Enclosure image: ------- 9441.1986(48) June 10, 1986 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RCRA Regulatory Interpretation Assistance Request-Application of Mining Waste Exclusion to a Ferroalloy Facility FROM: Marcia Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) TO: David Wagoner, Director Waste Management Division Region VII In your memorandum of May 13, 1986, you sought guidance on the regulatory status of a ferroalloy facility and the wastes it generates in the production of ferrosilicon (silvery iron). The ferrosilicon alloy is produced by mixing quartzite ore, metallurgical coal, and steel scrap in submerged arc electric furnaces. Based on telephone conversations between our respective staffs, I understand that steel scrap is the predominant input. Wastes generated by this process are kish reclaim system rejects, venturi scrubber sludge, and baghouse dust. The scrubber sludge has been identified as being EP toxic for lead. The ferroalloy sector was included in the studies supporting the reinterpretation of the mining waste exclusion. Most ferroalloys are produced from various combinations of ores, metal oxides, lime, and coke or other reducing agents. However, ferrosilicon is made from scrap steel and quartzite in the presence of metallurgical coal as the reducing agent. As you know, the Bevill exclusion for mining waste only applies to wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals. The Agency has consistently held that metal scrap is neither an ore nor a mineral. Therefore, if the predominant input to the process is steel scrap, the waste from the ferroalloy facility does not qualify for the mining waste exclusion. This ferroalloy facility would be in the same category as a secondary lead smelter, reclaiming lead from old batteries, or other secondary processes; their wastes are not excluded from regulation either. (In fact, there This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— are two listed hazardous wastes (K069 and K100) generated by secondary lead smelters.) As you also know, last October the Agency proposed to reinterpret the mining waste exclusion as it applies to processing wastes so only large—volume wastes would qualify for the exclusion. Under this rulemaking, all ferroal].oy facilities using ore (rather than scrap) and generating hazardous waste would become subject to the Subtitle C regulations because none would qualify individually or collectively as generators of large—volume processing wastes. Altogether, the 10 plants producing ferrosilicon in 1984 generated about 18,000 metric tons of slag; 36,000 metric tons of furnace emission control dust; 3,000 metric tons of product crushing and sizing emission control dust; and unknown quantities of emission control sludge. The sludge quantities are believed to be in the 3,000 — 36,000 tons/year range. It should be noted that the emission control dust tested EP toxic for selenium at one ferrosilicon facility (not at Keokuk). In summary, it would appear that the facility in question is currently subject to RCRA requirements. Its status will be further clarified by promulgation of the final rule on the reinterpretation of the mining waste exclusion. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- UNITEr ArES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3441.1986(49) JUN I 6 1985 Mr. C. N. Weinrejch, P.C. Environmental Manager ANG Coal Gasification Co. P.O. Box 1149 Beulah, North Dakota 58524 Dear Mr. Weinreich: This is in response to your May 13, 1986, letter requesting further clarification on the proper classitication of residual water that acquires a high pH from a waste that is exempt from regulation. Like the precipitation run—ott discussed in my letter of April 21, 1986, the residual water (which becomes corrosive due to its contact with coal ash) is also exempt trout reçiulation pursuant to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) ( i.e. , since the residual water is deriv’ d trout an exempt waste, the resulting corrosive water retains the exempt status of the waste). Please feel free to write me if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, 9 Oi,L al Stprec “. L ‘i’ . Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste- WH—562B/MSTRAUS/pes/475—8551/5—30—86/Congressjonal 0419 OSW—209 DUE TE: 6/6/86 image: ------- 94 4 1 . 198 6 C 51) JUL 2 1986 Honorable John Paul Hammersch’nidt House of Reoresentatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Hainmerschmidt: Thank you for your May 27, 1986, inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. flean Dunaqan of Cove, Arkansas. The Agency is unaware of any order issued in August of 1985 reaarding the hazards of used batteries. We can apprise you, however, of the current Federal renulations affecting Mr. flunagan’s business of rebuilding batteries for resale. Used batteries are not specifically listed as hazardous wastes. The Agency, however, considers them hazardous because of the corrosive nature of the battery acid and their ability to leak the toxic metal, lead. H•vertheless, the Agency also has exempted used batteries that are recenerated from regulation under the Federal hazardous waste rules. (See 40 CFR 261.6 (a) (3)(ii)) Regeneration includes those activities where the electro- lyte is drained and replaced or one or more bad cells are replaced. Batteries that cannot be rebuilt and are sent to junk dealers and battery manufacturers are considered hazardous but are also exempted from reaulatiori. The Agency has exempted these activities front regulation since they present minimal environmental risks. with respect to the reference regarding the hazard of used motor oil, the Agency did propose to list used oil as a hazardous waste on November 29, 1985. However, the Agency has received well over 600 comments, most of which ooposed the listing of used oil because it was too broad and would seriously impact the recycling of used oil. Thus, until such tim. that the Agency is able to fully evaluate all of the comments received, we will not be in a position to make any final determinations on regulating used oil. If you have need of further assistance, nlease contact this office. Sincerely, .e, tkr%StOfl Porter ci t nt “ Wni tr jr image: ------- UNITED S •S ENVIROPIM . TAL PROTECTION A .y 9441.1986(52) Mr. Richard T. Boulware A’ . 2 l9 Vipont Botanical Laboratories 2403 E. givett Drive High Point, North Caroline 27260 Dear Mr. Boulware: This is in response to your May 27, 1986 letter, requesting an interpretation of the Federal hazardous waste rules as they apply to the wastes to be generated in your extraction process. As you state in your letter, this process uses the solvent rnethylene chloride to recover alkaloids from plant matter. The two wastes for which you request specific information on are: (1) the solid cake remaining in the basket centrifuge, and (2) the wastewater stream discharged to a POTW. Solid Cake — I agree with your understanding that the solid cake in the basket is not a listed hazardous waste, namely, a spent solvent——and would only be hazardous it it exhibits any ot the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure CE?) toxicity); in addition, when the TCLP is promulgated, you will also need to determine whether the solid cake exhibits this characteristic. Wastewater — This wastestream, as you state in your letter and as we discussed on June 27, comes of f the centrifuge as a wastewater that contains methylene chloride; the methylene chloride is then stripped oft to be reclaimed while the wastewater is discharged to a POTW. Under this scheme, the wastowater also is not considered a listed waste (nor does it contain a listed waste). Therefore, this stream also would only be hazardous if it exhibits any of the existing or future hazardous waste characteristics. Final-ly, although you did not request an interpretation of the status of the spent methylene chloride under the federal hazardous waste rules, you should be aware that the spent methylene chloride that comes ott the liquid extractor is considered a listed hazardous waste and may be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. (See the Final Definition image: ------- 2 0: ,olidWastc.. Ru1en kinc 50 FR 614, January 4, 1 85 and t’ ‘ nal Tank Ru1 s that were signed by the Aoniinistrator cn Juno 30, 1986, to determine the actual regulatory status o the solvont spent inethylene chloride.) Please feel tree to give me a call if I can be of any Lurth r assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chiet Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCy 9441.1986(53) JI 3 986 ‘ r. 1ichoJ s J. L.ardi ri Start Vice President Envtronm ntal Resources scott Paoer Company ScoPt riaza Phitath 1r hia. PA 19113 Dear Mr. Lardiori: Thank you for your letter of ?4ay 30, 1 ’36, rectuesting an internretation of th aoplication of the hazardous waste r13rIu1 tory proeira under the Resource Conservation and RecovAry Act (RCRA) to rc cye1able cloth wipers and disposable industrial ‘dinPrs, re nectively. As inted in your letter, the Aacincy ak’ s no r iu1atory distinction between wipers which are di. osed of and wipers which are recycled. Under the existincj rul’s. both disposable industrial wthcrs and cloth toweis which are recyclad are requlated as hazardous waste i the generator of thø vipers or cloth tow 1s prodtjce ‘ uantities of hazardous waste that exceed the small auantity nenerator levels cited in 40 C!R 261.5 and if the wir ers or towels are lther: (1) U3ed to clean up a listed hazardous west’ or (2) used to clean—up a ch ractertstic hazardoua wsst and th3 mixture of the wiper and the waste exhibit that characteristic. In both case., ultinat. resoonsibility for nroper management of the waste remains with the generator and, in that respect, both disposable and recyclable wipers are troat d tho same way under RCRA. Under the current regulatory scheme, whether or not the resultant hazardous waste is shipped off—site for disposal, as in the case of disposable wipers, or whether it is shipped to an inlustrial laundry. both uat be accumulated on—site orior to shtp’tent in canpliance with Section 262.34 of the hazardous wa3te r’jles and must be rtantfested when shipped off—site. At ain, the obiivitions of . enerators manaqina hazardous wastes ar, the same. regardless of the way in which the waste is ultimately ‘managed. image: ------- -2— Despite the accuracy of your interpretation of the RCRA rules, however, it should he noted that the manner in which the waste is ultimately managed may greatly affect a hazardous waste rienerator’s potential lone? term liabilities under Superfund. For oxar ple, disposal of hazardous waste contaminated wipers in a landfill may create sore significant potential liabilities as a practical matter than would incineration or recycling. Finally, you may be interested to know that we are currently exar ining the laraer issue of the appropriate regulatory status of wipers, whether disposable or recyclable, which are broucht into the hazardous waste regulatory system as a result of being used to clean uo a hazardous waste. Specifically, we are considering whether the existing regulations, as they apply to industrial wipers, result in the most effective and aopropriate regulatory outcome. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Matt Straus, of my staff, who may he reached at 475—8551. Sincerely, Marcia Williams D l rector Office of Solid Waste image: ------- UNITED S S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AL ‘ 9441.1986(54) JUL I5ig Mr. Greaory J. Harvey Inilustria.L Hygenist Occu ationaj Mejical Services Ni wark Air orce Station, OH 43057—5000 Dear Mr. Harvey: This letter is written in response to your request that E A determine whether certain activated carbon canisters that are saturated with spent solvents should be managed as hazardous wastes under RCRA. More sDecitically, these cantsters ar used to collect vapors of the solvents Freon 113, l ,l,l—trichloroethane and methylene chloride that are generated during their use as c:. reasing agents in paint spray booth8. As you are aware, the Agency has listed these compounds as hazardous wastes when they are used as solvents and have become contaminated with physical or chemical impurities and are no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise re—processed. Use as a solvent is detined as being used tor their solvent properties, that is, to solubiljze (dissolve) or mobilize other const1tuents this includes use as a degreasinq agent. (See 51 FR 6538, February 25, 1986.) However, solvent vapor is not a solid waste (see Section 1004(27) ot the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, where the term solid waste is defined to include, among other things, contained gaseous material). Since these solvent vapors are not contained, they are not defined as a solid or hazardous waste. Furthermore, when the solvent vapor is adsorbed onto activated carbon, it would not be covered by the listing or by the mixture rule. Rather, these wastes would only be hazardous if they exhtbit any of the hazardous waste characteristics. At this time, we do not know whether these cannisters would be cletined as hazardous. However, you should be aware that on June 13, 1986, the Agency proposed a new extraction procedure (TCLP) to be used in the toxicity characteristic and also proposed to expand the toxicity characteristic to include, among other constituents, 1,1,1— trichioroethane and methylene chloride. (See enclosure.) Should thi. rule become final in its present form, your image: ------- chlcrjle. (see enclosure.) Should thiR rule become final 1n it re ønt forr, your R ert cttvated c rhor. zray exhibit the c iaracteristic of toxicity, if the canister, are not already h zardouz for come other reason. In eurtr ary, the subject waste is not currently a listed hazardous waste under RCRA anA would only be hazardous if it exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste; however, this waste may soon be subject to the regulation as hazardous, if it. is not already hazardous, due to the toxicity characteristic. rince you recoanize that these canisters ray pose a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the environment, I urcie you to r anaae then appropriately. Sincerely, Matthew Straiis, Chief Waste Characterization Branch Enclosure image: ------- (J 4ITED STATES ENVIRONM NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1986(55) JUL 1 6 1986 ra p I r- Clayton Yeutter The United States Trade Renresentatjve :ashin ton, D.C. 20506 Dear Mr. Yeutter: Thank you very much for your June 20, l9862 etter exDressinc, concern about the impacts of potential mining waste requlatjons under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Sneej— fically, you requested that the Aaencv very carefully examine the effects such reciulations mir7ht have on the competitivenegq of the U.S. mining industry. As you nay know, I have determined that reiulation of mining waste under the Subtitle C (hazarcious waste n nar emønt) provisions of RCR is not warranted at this time. The deter— riination of June 30, 1986, Dublished July 3, l986fr’(co y enclosed) inooses no immediate requirenents on industry. The Agency plans to develon criteria for mine waste sites through a State—administered nroqram under Subtitle T) (solid waste management) of PCRA. The Agency will work closely with mining States, mining associations, and other interested arouos in the development of these criteria. EPA will avoid dunljcatjng existina regulations and will analyze costs, i’loacts, and benefit., complying fully with Executive Orders 12291 and 12498 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I can assure you that the Agency is aware of the - economic conditions prevailing in many sectors of the U.S. mining industry and will strive to develop the least burden- some program nossible that will adequately protect human health and the environment. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, Lo , Xho image: ------- UNITED ST . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC v 9441.1986(56) JUL 28 986 Mr. Robert 0. Westbrook Westbrook and Williar s, Inc. 402 N. 3rd Street Sterling, Colorado 80751 Dear Mr. Westbrook: This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1986, in which you request that I confirm that your recycling business (i.e., the purchasing of used junk lead—acid batteries tor recharge and resale as a reconditioned battery) is currently exer pt from the federal hazardous waste rules. First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in responding to your request; I hope this delay has not caused you any problems. With respect to your specific request, I agree that the way you regenerate used batteries is exempt from the federal hazardous waste rules (see S261.6(a)(3)(ii)).1/ The Agency believes that this practice presents minimal environmental risk and is very similar to the reclamation of commercial chemical products, an activity not currently regulated. Please teel free to give me a call if I can be of any turther assistance; my tolephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus - Chief Waste Characterization Branch cc: Regional Branch Chiefs (Regions 1X) 1/ It should -be noted that this regulatory interpretation — reflects the federal hazardous waste rules. The State of Colorado may take a different interpretation under their regulations. EPA P.i . t12C4 (1 2-70) image: ------- 9441.1986(57) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY MAY 86 6. Spent Solvents A canpany uses methylene chloride to rei ve varnish fran pieces of equi xnent. The varnish is stripped off in clunps arid is collected in a container with the n thylene chloride. The clunçs of varnish are rencved fran the TTethylene chloride, arid the nethylene chloride is used again for nore strippir . buld the clunps of varnish be a hazardous waste v*ien disposed? en methylene chloride is used as a solvent/stripper and becanes spent through use, then It is a listed hazardous waste, P002 (S261.3l). *eri the clunps are rei ved fran the methylen. chloride (!002), they becane a new solid waste. If intended for disposal, the clunps uld be considered P002 because of the “derived fran rule” in S26l.3(c)(2)(i), ‘thidi states that any solid waste generated fran the treatment of a hazardous waste is still a hazardous waste. ice the cl ips are reioved, the once—spent inethylene chloride would then be reclaimed and would no longer be regulated as F002. Source: Matt Straus (202) 475—8551 T search: Jim Giriley image: ------- 3441.1986( 58) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY JlflIE 86 1. Trea Ient Studies and Permits A generator of hazardous waste would like to send hazardous waste samples to a facility that will perform innovative treatment studies on the samples. These treatability studies involve investigatir new r thods or techniques to change the physical, chenical, or biological character or c. iu O6jtiOfl of the waste and render the waste less hazardous, or non—hazardous. iat regulations 1 ist a facility canply with if the facility accepts hazardous waste samples for treatability studies and the facility uses technology for which Parts 264, 265 and 266 standards have not been pranulgated to date? On Septeitber 25, 1981 (46 FR 47426), EPA excluded samples of hazardous waste fran 1 R regulations in Parts 26 2—270 when stored, translxxted and tested for hazardous waste characteristics or cctRposition. This lab sample exclusion is codified as 5261.4(d). S ,les of hazardous waste 1lected for treatability studies are not included in the S261.4(d) lab s le exclusion. Therefore, treatability studies are subject to RCRA interim status or permit standards in Parts 264, 265, 266 and 270. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Mer ents of 1984 (H ) ded Section 3005(g) to provide EPA the authority to issue research, development and dew nstraticn (RD&D) permits for trea nt activities. The purpose of RD&D permits is to authorize experimental test ing of new hazardous waste treatnent technologies or prooesses. This r authority has been codified in 40 CFR 5270.65 (50 FR 28752, July 15, 1985). The statute and S270.65(a) authorize EPA to issue permits for innovative and experimental hazardous waste treatment technology or process act ivi ties, including those which are not yet subject to A Parts 264. The EPA is developing Part 264 permit standards for miscellaneous units (Subpart X) and experimental facilities (Subpart Y). The Subpart X regulations will provide permit authority for units that are currently not regulated in 40 CPR Parts 146 and 264. These units include deep mines, silos, salt mines, thermal treatnent units and open detonation units. The Subpart Y regulations may replace 5270.65 authority and will provide permit standards for experimental facilities. Proposed regulations for Subpart X are scheduled for publication in the Federal by the Fall of 1986 Subpart Y is expected to be proposed at a later date. Source: Ken Gray, Office of General Counsel (202) 382—7700 Research: Caroline .nek image: ------- 94 41.1986 (59) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY JUNE 86 5. Regulation of Sludges ien Reclaimed ?a y are sane RCRA sludges considered solid wastes and others are not solid wastes when reclaimed? To be subject to R Subtitle C jurisdiction, a material must meet the regulatory definition of a solid waste. Sludges are defined in RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 260.10 as residues fran treating air or wastewater, or other residues fran l1ution control devices. 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3) defines sludges which are listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or 261.32 as solid wastes when reclaimed, and states that unlisted sludges that are reclaimed are not solid wastes even if they exhibit a characteristic of a hazardois waste, provided they are not being accunulated speculatively. The EPA has structured the regulations so that the EPA mist evaluate sludges individually before determining whether they are subject to RCRA jurisdiction when reclaimed (see 50 FR 619, January 4, 1985). 11 definition of solid waste is limited to listed sludges to avoid including sludges that are roitinely processed to recover useable products as part of ongoing production operations. The October 2, 1985 Federal (50 FR 40297) states that: Nevertheless, sludges can be listed and us be solid wastes if they are n re waste—like than product-like. EPA will make this determination on a material—by-material basis considering: 1) Hov frequently the material is recycled on an industry— wide basis, 2) thether the material is replacing a raw material and the degree to which it is similar in ca’position to the raw material, 3) The relation of the recovery practice to the principle activity of the facility, and 4) I ether the secondary material is managed in a way designed to minimize loss.’ Swroe: Matt Straus (202) 475—8551 Research: Kevin miss image: ------- . .s . - P O t. 9441. 1986 (61) AUG 181986 Mr. Randall F. Andrews Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. Route 2 Box 521-C Red Springs, North Carolina 28377 Dear Mr. Andrews: This is in response to your letter of May 27, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of the spent pickle liquor that your comnany picks up and processes at your facility. First, I would like to apologize for my delay in getting back to you; I hope this has not caused you any problems. With respect to your eDecific request, I agree with Ms. Kneller and Brock of the RCR /Superfund Hotline that the spent pickle liquor that is processed at your facility is not a solid-and hazardous waste. In particular, the processirt of the spent pickle liquor that occurs at your facility does not constitute reclamation, as that term is defined in the hazardous waste regulations. Rather, the spent pickle liquor is being used/reused (as defined in 40 CFR 26l.1(c)(5)) and, therefore, is not a solid waste (provided it is not speculatively accumulated) and is not subject to the hazardous waste rule.1/ Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Characterization Branch 1/ It should be noted that this regulatory internretatjon reflects the Federal hazardous waste rules. The State k , th az jlj iia may Interpreta jpn; i l g i.untaq t Lhc far f rth r 1n forrnat1onI . image: ------- UNITEr ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOP •ENCY 94 41. 1986 (6 2) kE 191986 Mr i1tja R. fllackbijrr, Cour se 1 Traveno]. Laboratories Inc. Deerfield, Illinois 60015 Dear Mr. Blackburn: This letter is in response to your letters dated July 19, and August 26, 1985, and your August 28, 1985, t•l.phon , conversation with Alfred W. Linds.y, then th. Deputy Director of the Waste Management and economics Division, and additional conversations with members of my staff. Your questions concsrned the treatment of characteristic hazardous waste in pipelines that lead to a privat .ly —o,, ed wastewater treatment plant. In a lett .r dated July 27, 1981, Mr. Lindsey r.spond.d to related inquiries made by Mr. Ronald E. Meiss.n of your comDany. This response included a copy of a seven—page regulatory clarif i— cation etat.ment on th definition of Totally Enclosed Treatment Facility,’ A copy of this etatem.nt is •nc losed for referenc ,. In your letter dat.d July 19, 1985, you stated that ..,jf these characteristic hazardous wastes are poured to the sever from a laboratory, such disposal would be permissible so long as the ons—p .rcent rule of 40 CFR 2 61.3(a)(2)(j,)(E) is met,’ This is an inaccurate interpretation of th• rule. Th. rule do•s not refer to the PCEIIisSibility of disposal but rath.r to wheth ,r the wastevater containing listed vast•s is a hazardous vast or not. Th. provision doss not apply where characteristic wastes are involv.d, even if th. vast. is fro. a laboratory. Mixtures con- taining only characteristic and nonhazardous wastes are hazardous only it the mixtur. exhibits th. characteristic according to 5261.3(b)(3), In sum, 40 CPR 26 1.3(a)(2)(jv)(E) is not relevant to th. issusg you rita.. At this tims, there is no on—gojna ef fort to cr.at. a 6. minimjs mixtur, rule for characteristic hazardous waste, From your description of the process, small parts are dipped into a 50% alcohol/50% water mixture in small trays. This is a batch operation that occasionally reauir.s the opera o to carry the trays with spent dip solution to the drain. About 12 gallons per day of the waste are poured down the drain that image: ------- 2 leads toan industrial wastowater treatment plant that handle. 1.8 million gallons a day. You have stated that your biological treatment plant biodegrades the alcohol prior to discharge. The following are Specific response, to the questions in your letters: Issues from the July 19, 1985 letter (A) .s the dilution of noncorrosive, unlisted, characteristic hazardous vast, to a florthazardous Condition Constitute hazardous waste treatment if the dilution occur, in a sewr line leading to an industrial wastewater treatment plant after the waste is poured to the drain from a container? Treatment is defined in 5260.10 as ...desig ed to change the physical, chemical, or biological charact.r or Composition of any hazardous waste...to render such waste flonhazardous, or less hazardous, safer to transport, store, or dispose of.,..’ Pouring,.. the 50% watsr/50% alcohol ignitable VSSt• down the drain renders the waste nonhazardous by the time it reaches the treatment plant. In this case, pipes are designed and used to Convey, not treat, wastes to the biological treatment plant that degrades the alcohol. Thus, the dilution is incidental to the transport of the vast, to the vastewater treatment plant where treatment takes place. Therefore, in this case the dilution is not treatment; and, if Properly handled, this practice can be environmentally more acceptabl, than storing drums of the ignitabis waste for Off—site treatment or recycling. (8) If the answer to (A) is ‘yes’ (dilution is treatment), does the sever line in which the vast, is treated serv, as (1) a ‘wastevater treatment unit;’ (2) a ‘totally •nclos.d treatment facility,’ or (3) any other type of exempt hazardous waste treatment facility? Since dilution is not considered to be treatment when the characteristic vast, is diluted while being conveyed to acceptable treatment, these questions are not applicable. Furthermore, once the waste stream is so dilute as to be rendered nonhazardous, treatment of the nonhazardous waste stream that occurs in the wastewater treatment plant is not subject to RCRA regulation,. (C) It the answer to (A) is ‘yes’ (diluting characteristic waste in a sewer line is treatrient), and there is no exe nption for tne tre.jtnent in (s), what provisions of 43 CFR 264 and 26 govern t ie ,ipoline treatr,ent? Th t estion is not a -.;IijcaDle ror th reasons explalne’j o r,ve. image: ------- 3 CD) If the waste is diluted in the sink prior to discharge down the drain, is the sink a wastewater treatment unit? If hazardous waste is diluted in the sink, it is hazardous waste treatment, since the dilution is intentional, rather than merely incidental to conveyance to the treatment plant. Inten- tional dilution of waste prior to discharg. to decrease its incompatibility. ignitability, reactivity, etc., in the pipelines constitutes treatment. Since your 50% water/50% alcohol waste is not a wastewater by our guidance of a few percent contaminants (see the February 2, 1982, notice, 47 FR 4707), the sink is not a wastewater treatment un i t. Issues from the August 26,. 1985, letter (A) If corrosive hazardous waste fro. water deionization units travels through an open channel within the building to the - sewer leading to an industrial vastewatsr treatment plant, does the neutralization of that waste in the sewer mean that the sewer is: (1) a totally enclosed treatment facility, (2) an elementary neutralization unit; or (3) a wastewater treatment unit? (4) es the answer change if th• channel is enclosed? (1) No. An open sewer Is not totally •nclosed on all sides in accordance with Agency guidance. The issue you raise is whether or not an open sewer in a building can be a totally •nclos.d treatment facility. Spills within th. building can relsase hazardous constituents into the air or cause a release that leaves th. confines of the building. Therefor,, systems that can release hazardous constituents within buildings are not considered totally enclosed. (2) Tanks are defined in S260.l0 asa a stationary device designed to contain an accumulation of hazardous waste which is constructed primarily of non—earthen materia1s...whic? provide structural support. According to the preamble of the proposed oerriit—by—rule in the November 17, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 76078), the elementary neutralization unit M ...is intended to include...tanks as well as devices such as f1um s, quttors, throuahs Isici and oipes which are not commonly considered to h tanks, r ut whicPi nv rthel ss neet the expansive etinition o tank in ;?6( .1”.” Aitflouih this preamble l ’iuage was only inc uie’ in th nrc nns .’J r c’r!1it—bv—ru1e requlattons, the Aaencv LE apDlyin) t 1 is intAr r tat1on of tank to th exclusions in c.1(c)(13), 264.JV)(C), . 1 -ri 27U.1(c)(2)(v) as well. image: ------- 4 Fromthe information you Drovided, the sewer qualifies for the elementary neutraiization unit exclusion. The in—line neu- tralizatior% SyStem adds caustic to wastes that are only hazardous on the basis ot corrosivity, and it meets the definition of an elementary neutra]izatior ut (as defined in $260.10) for the reasons described above. n this case, neutralization is treat- ment rather than dilution incidental to the transport of waste as described in the July 19, 1985 letter. Althouqh the open channel is upstream of the neutralization. the channel is not subject to RCRA regulation as a tank, because it is part of the neutralization system. Elementary neutraliza- tion units may consist of a series of tanks, just as wastewater treatments may involve a series of connected tanks. (3) The sewer is possibly a wastewater treatment unit if it meets the three criteria outlined in 40 CFR $260.10. First, the waste is a wastewater for RCRA purposes (i.e., contains at most a few percent materials other than water. 47 FR 4707). You said that the corrosive waste is 95% water and 5% total dissolved solids, so the corrosive waste appears to meet the Federal cri- teria of a wastewater for the RCRA wastewater treatment exclusion. Second, the facility is subject to control under Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act. And third, the units meet the definition of tank in S260.10. For the purposes of the exclusion, the pipes are tank like for the same reason that pipes can be part of an elementary neutralization unit. Since Mississippi has jurisdiction over your facility, you must ask the State if your facility is eligible for a wastewater treatment exclusion. (4) Enclosing the channel would possibly change the answer to (1). i.e., whether or not it is a totally enclosed treatment facility. However, enclosing the channel may not be sufficient to create a totally enclosed treatment facility unless you comply with the enclosed guidance and any additional guidelines from the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources. (B) If the corrosive hazardous waste in (A) is piped directly from the deionization units to an enclosed tank where it is pretreated to hrinc the pH near, but not to, the non— hazardous ran’7e and tnen discharqed via pipe to the sewer for final neutralization by dilution with wastewater, does the pipiria, tank, anc sewer constitute a totally enclosed treatment facility? Possi ’ly. The ississip [ i1 Departrnent of atura1 Resourcos wouju ha ’e to r vicW tfle d zails or e]es1 n and operation ot tfle S tt.r to coiti.iu j ti t it 1ot s ie t tr 1 cir criteria tor totally i LOS J treat: r t. image: ------- S According to further discussions you had with my staff, the corrosive waste from the deionization units will. for the short tezTu be managed according to scenario aA* in your August 26, 1985, letter, which meets the EPA criteria for •ithr elementary neutralization or wastewater treatment. (However, th. facility is subject to State regulation.) For the purposes of determining the applicability of the small quantity generator exclusion of 5261.5. our regulatory approach does not count waste until it is subject to regulation. The waste is not subject to regulation in the deionization unit in which it was generat.d according to 5261.4(c) nor in the exempted neutralization process. Sine. there is no hazardous waste leaving the sewer, the corrosive waste from the deionization unit is not counted towards the waste exceeding 1,000 Kg a month. This policy is explicitly outlined in the S261.5(c) small quantity generator regulations promulgated March 24. 1986 (56 FR 10174). The additional Information you provid.d by telephone leaves serious questions about whether you can design s totally enclosed systme and still meet your Food and Drug Administration require— m,nts. However, scenario B still qualifies as an elementary neutralization unit and, as explained above, the corrosive waste does not count towards the small quantity g.nerator limits, because the waste nas not yet become subj.ct to regulation. In- other words, you do not have to be a totally enclosed treatment facility in order to qualify for small quantity generator status. I appreciate your patience for the length of time it took EPA to address the policy issues raised by your request. Please address any quest ions on this response to Irene 5orner of my staff at (202) 382.7917. Sincerely, iohn P. Lehman Di rector Waste Management and Economics Division Ertc losure cc: 4fneS Scarbrouqh, Region IV Jack Mc’4lllan, Mississippi D U( image: ------- 9441.1986(64) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLII4E MONTHLY SUMMARY AUGUST 86 6. SOG Ouaritity Deteaninations The n ’ small quantity generator (SOG) regulations, effective Sept rber 22, 1996, establish standards er 40 ‘R 261.5(c) and Cd) for .u tir hazardais ste generated on a TTa thly basis. 40 CP 261.5(d)(3) states that an $00 need not i.nclude spent materials that have been reclaimed and subseguent y reused on-site in the quantity detexminatjon, ovided they have already been x ited once. The regulation does not specify, h ver, Etether this allo nce applies only within a nø th or applies to all ste r tixig. Fbr exafple, if an SOG zits and reclaime a solvent on-site in October and uses it again in Novether, must the SOG incltx e the spent solvent in the quantity detexrninatjai for bveiter? Yes; the $00 rti.ist include the reused material in the quantity dete mjr tjon for the subeequent IT th, assuning that it beca s a spent material, and hence, a haza icxie ste again in bvenber. All c u rir g occurs on a n ath-to-naitJ basis, so the “multiple coir tixig” ex t.ion only applies Within one n th. Therefore, a $00 uld only co rit a material once if the $00 reclaiim and reuses it nore than once within one ncnth. In addition, the SOG should note the all nce in 40 CFR 261.5(c) (51 R 10174) ,thid’ excludes fran ncnthly *tir stes that are suE3 ect only to ste identification, c3010 notification, reocrdkeeping and biennial rsport requirenents. The $00 must ca.wit stes that are subject to the rest of Part 262 (manifesting, on-site accunulatia.i, ex rts) , c261.6(b) or Cc), or Part 266 Sukparts C, D, or F. Source: ,b Axelrad (202) 382-4769 Researd : Jennifer Brock image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441. 1986(6 5) WASHINGTON. DC. 20460 5 31986 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Ernest 3. Corrado Vice President American Institute of Merchant Shipping 1000 16th Street, N.W., Suite 511 Washington, D.C., 20036 Dear Mr. Corrado: Thank you for your August 6, 1986, letter in which you set forth the maritime industry legal analysis on the aoplication of the Resource Conservation and Reovery Act (RCRA) regulations to vessel wastes. While I do not agree with a number of the conclu- sions you have drawn regarding Congress’ intent to limit RCR.A jurisdiction to land disposal, I do agree that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did in fact promulgate an exemption from RCRA regulation for raw material and product transport vessels. In my February 5, 1986 letter to Vice Admiral Rots of the Coast Guard, we concluded that different types f wastes generated in vessels were regulated differently under the hazardous waste rules. This conclusion was based on the intent underlying EPA’s exemption of hazardous waste generated in product or raw material transport vessels until the waste is ourposely removed from the vessel. 40 CFR S 261.4(c). we believe that the exemption was intended to cover only those hazardous sediments and residues produced in the units containing valuable product or raw material. As articulated in the preamble to the rule, EPA judged that: [ Tjhese hazardous wastes are contained against release into the environment . . . and the risks they pose to human health or the environment are very low and are only incidental to the risks posed by the valuable oroduct or raw material with which they are associated (emphasis dd). 45 Fed. Req. 72024,72025 (Oct. 30, 1980). Sinc• stes generated on other parts of the ship, including engine room wastes, are not directly associated with the storage or transport of valuable product, we did not deem any other hazardous wastes generated aboard the ship to be covered by the S 261.4 exemption. However, as a result of the points that you raised in the June 6, 1986 meeting with members of my staff, we have taken another look at this issue. image: ------- The language of S 2 6 l.4(c) refers to hazardous waste Qenerated in a product or raw material transport vessel as beinq exempted, rather than the Product—containing Unit itself. EPA defined the term uvesseiN in S 260.10 to include every descriotjo of watercraft...,” which describes the whole vessel rather than any particular tank or unit in the vessel. Thus, we believe that there is a regulatory basis for considering all waste generated in the vessel to be exempt from regulation until it is purposely removed. In addition, we understand that the regulated community has relied on this broader view of the exemption since 1980. Given the fact that there has been substantial reliance for some time on a legitimate, although unintended, reading of the regulatory language, we have become convinced that it is reasonable to view the exemption as extending to all hazardous waste management activity on the product or raw material transport vessel. However, as specified in S 261.4(c), all hazardous wastes generated in the vessel become subject to RCRA regulation as soon as the waste is removed from the vessel (anywhere within U.S. waters) or within 90 days after the vessel is rio longer operated as a product or raw material storage or transport vessel. Therefore, when any hazardous waste is removed from the vessel, the owner of the product or raw material, the operator of the vessel, and the person purposefully removing the hazardous waste from the vessel would all be considered ugenerators_, as defined in S 260.10 of the regulations. Any of those partteg deemed to be a ugenerator of the waste, therefore, could perform any or all of the duties of the generator. As EPA pointed out in the October 30, 1980 preamble to the rule, the Agency would look initially to the operator of a central facility operated to remove sediments and residues from the vessel to perform the generator duties, which includes obtaining an EPA identification number. Of course, this should not be construed as requiring a central facility or terminal to remove hazardous waste from a vessel. In situations where hazardous wastes generated in the vessel are not removed at a central facility, the Agency would look to the vessel operator to perform the generator duties. See 45 Fed. Reg. at 72027. While we have some concern that the literal reading of 5 261.4(c) exempts from regulation some hazardous wastes that were not intended to be exempt when EPA promulgated the regulatory amendment (i.e., waste generated aboard vessels in other than product orraw material cargo tanks), we believe that such a literal re ing of S 261.4(c) poses low risk to human health and the erwironment for several reasons. First, as Indicated in the February 5 letter, we do not believe that generation of hazardous wastes in units not related to product or raw material storage or transportation, such as bilges, to be a serious problem while aboard the vessel since the ship itself is designed to prevent leaks. Second,- to the extent that oily residues from propulsion systems are not contaminated with listed wastes, such as spent solvents, the oily wastewater now required to be discharged image: ------- — — to shoreside reception facilities under MARPOL would not meet the definition of hazardous waste. / Finally, as noted above, any hazardous wastes generated in oroduct or raw material transport vessels are subject to RCRA when they are discharged from or otherwise exit the vessel. Thus releases to the environment would still be regulated under RCRA. I hooe that this has been responsive to your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste */ As you correctly point out, EPA has proposed to list used il as a hazardous waste; however, EPA is reconsidering the entire used oil issue. Should the Agency move forward in finalizing rules In this area, those rules would take into consideration the soecial problems of shipboard wastes. image: ------- 441.1986(67) Ut I D S ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 SEP 8 g OPFICE O $O IDwaJrt ANQ M GmNCY AESPONSE Honorable Frank H. Hurkowskj Re: File #15579 United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Murkoweki: Thank YOU for your August 8, 1986, letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. George Kelly, regarding the potential impact of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regu- lations on the dry—cleaning industry. Unfortunately, the article which Mr. Kelly enclosed provided an incorrect explanation of our Small Quantity Generator (SQG) rule issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA rules actually require dry cleaning hazardous wastes to be counted for purposes of determining a dry cleaner’s regulatory statue only when they are physically removed from the dry cleaning process as wastes. The two types of hazardous wastes typically generated by dry cleaners are filter cartridges containing listed spent sQlvents and still bottoms from solvent reclamation. Under our counting rules, these wastes are only counted as hazardous waste when they an, removed from the dry cleaning process for subsequent management, including accumulation, transportation, treatment, or disposal. Under no circumstances are these materials regulated under the hazardous waste rules while they an. in the dry cleaning machine. The.so—cafled single counting system referred to in the article actually simplified the counting of hazardous waste by eliminating the need to count the same waste more than once in a calendar month. It is intended to apply to regulated materials which are used and reused over and o.ver during a calendar month. However, this rule only comes into play if the hazardous waste is subject to counting. Since the solvents in th. dry cleaning machine are not considered to be solid or hazardous wastes while part of a closed loop reclamation process (a.. 51 Federal Register 25422, 3uly 14, 1986), they are not subject tocounting while in the dry cleaning machine. However, when the spent a image: ------- —2— solvents contained in filter cartridges are removed from the dry—cleaning machine, they are no longer exempt from regulation. The still bottoms from solvent reclamation, while solid and hazardous wastes, are not required to be counted until they exit the unit and become subject to substantive regulation (see 51 Federal ReQister 10152, March 24, 1986 and 40 CFR 2 6 1.5(c)). I trust that this explanation will clarify the Confusion that exists over the article that Mr. Kelly attached. For additional information, have enclosed a copy of a handbook we have developed for small businesses to help them comply with the new statutorily mandated regulations for small quantity generators. Should Mr. Kelly have any additional questions on the hazardous waste regulations, he should feel free to contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, at (202) 382—476]. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, 7. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator Enclosure image: ------- 9441.1986 (68) Mr. Carl E. c aubl xt cutiv Vjc -Prestdent ‘rit In ustri.s, Inc. P.O. Box 850 Ozark, Alabama 363—085U Dear Mr. SchaubLe. Thank you for your letter of May 12, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of commercial f.rtiliz.rs that contain emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces (EPA Mazardous Waste No. X016l) under th. Federal hazardous waste rules. As you are aware, the Agency received a similar request from The Vertilizer Institute (Tn). In response to that request, a letter was sent to Mr. Gary Meyer (a copy of which is enclosed) which indicates that zinc aicronutrient fertilizers (i.e., those in which th. zinc flu. dust has been reacted with sulfuric acid, granulated, and siz.d) are exempt from regulation under the Federal hazardous waste provided they are being produced for the general public’s use and provided this material is handled in a nns.r cc.onsurate with’ the management of zinc fertilizers (see enclosure for specifics). Therefore, it the t.rtilizer you produce is reacted with the sulfuric acid, granulat.d, and sized, and it it is produced for th. general public’s us., it is exempt from the federal hazardous wast, regulations. Pl.as• feel tree to call Matt Straus, ot my staff, if you have any further questions; Mr. Straus can be reached at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, /3, Marcia k. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste Encloaur• image: ------- 9441.1986(69) .10 ( UNITED STATES • IRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. 0 C Z04e0 1 P I 2:986 SOLID WASTI *p.O E.lE OE’.C. ES O’.S€ 1EMORANDL’M SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Wood Trea ent Cyli.rider Creosote Sur s FROM: arcia Williams, Director Office of Sol.i.d Waste TO: Patrick M. Tobin, Director Waste Manage ent Division, Region IV Your memorandur of July 9 requests a determination of the RCRA regulatory status of underground surrps which collect waste creosote fran production pipelines and treatnent cylin- ders at wood treati ent facilities. Based on our understanding of the case presented, and after discussions with your staff. we offer the following guidance. As we understand the sump described in your r mo, it is routinely used to collect drippage, leakage, or other spillage of creosote fran wood treatnent cylinders and associated piping, and the r terial is not collected for recycling. The creosote appears to qualify as a solid waste as defined in sec- tion 261.2(a)(2) as. among other things, any material t%ich is discarded by being abandoned. Section 261.2(b) (3) defines abandoned material, as that being accumulated, stored, or treated (but not recycled) before or in Lieu of being disposed of, burned or incinerated. Since the creosote is not a hazardous ste, the s.inp would not be a it requiring interim status or a permit. From th description provided in your ma orandum, it appears that th. su p in question is a discernible .g it (presumably a tank) in which solid wastes have been managed. As such, the su would be considered a solid ste management unit (SWMU) for purposes of implementing corrective action under RCRA §3004(u) or §3008(h). (See the of SvJMUs at 50 FR 28712, July 15, 1985.) image: ------- —2— Please be aware, if you are not already, that the Agency is currently developing a proposed regulation (expected to e published in tne Federal Re ±ster ir. the spring of 1987) WhiCh ay list as hazardous *astes certain wood preservation and treatment wastes. S ..ch a listing may affect the regulatory Status of the sump in question. (For additional information contact Dr. Cate Jenkins at FTS 382—4786.) In addition, you may also wish to review a draft memorandum entitled “RCRA Regulatory Interpretation Assistance Request — Cleanup of Residues of Commercial Chemical Products Within a Warehouse Storage Area,” which was circulated to the Regions for review on June 3, and which deals with issues related to those posed in your memorandum. The recent decision by Judge Yost in In re Brown Wood Preserving Co., Inc . (RCRA—84-16—R) does not require EPA publish this memorandum. That decision takes the Position that the Administrative Procedure Act requires the Agency to publish policy memoranda and interpretive statements that set out new rules or substantially modify existing rules. This memorandum merely offers an opinion as to whether the facts you have outlined for this facility fit the existing definitions of “solid waste,” “hazardous waste,” and “solid waste management units.” It does not establish a general policy of treating all process sumps at wood preserving facilities as “solid waste management units.” Nor does it create or change any other rule or policy. I appreciate that we need to be careful, to go through notice and comment on decisions that might be interpreted as expanding regulatory controls beyond what Is evident from existing rules or statutory language. For example, if we list certain wood preservation wastes we may want to discuss in the Federal Register the regulatory status of areas in which en- vironmental releases from treated wood are routine and expected. However, publishing statements of general policy would not solve the •ntire problem presented in the Brown case. The Regions also need to ensure that the facts of each case show a violation of th. statute or regulations. Complicated Scientific or technical Issues may require you to use experts to present or explain the evidence. Applying these ideas to the facility described in your memo- randum, to regulate the sump as a SWMU you would have to collect facts demonstrating, for example, that the creosote in the sumps image: ------- —3— s ir fact discarded,’ a d that the su s a ‘ iscre e un . This re ora bstitute f r fi factuaj ev e ca ccer iig the spec f c facility at issue. f you have additi r aj questions, please contact 1iche].e An ers at FTS 33 —4534. cc: Gene Lucero, OWPE Attachr ent image: ------- 9441.1986(72) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 SEP I 6 (986 OFFICE OF SOL .iO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Honorable Ed Herschjer Governor State of Wyoming Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Dear Mr. Herschler: Lee Thomas has asked me to respond to your letter of August 14, 1986, in which you welcomed our decision to regulate mine waste as non—hazardous but expressed concern that a Federal program for mine waste would not recognize and encourage State programs. I can assure you that EPA is strongly Committed to the development of a Federal program that will reinforce and support State programs where necessary, not duplicate them. I plan to work closely with representatives of all major mining States to draw upon their experience with the regulation of mine waste. EPA may also be able to help transfer information on successful State approaches from one State to another. Thadk you very much for sharing your views with us. I look forward to close cooperation with the States in the development of a reasonable and efficient program for non—coal, mine waste that protects public health and the environment. Sin erel.y, 3. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator image: ------- v 9441.1986(73) I ____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY ( 1J WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 ?4 — OFFICE OF p 2 5 J Lc SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPOP,.SE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Truck or Rail. Shipment of Hazardous Wastes to A POTW FROM: Marcia Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste TO: David A. Stringham, Chief Solid Waste branch, Region V This memo is in response to your September 8, 1986 request for clarification of the POTW exemption in 40 CFR S26l.4(a)(1)(ij). As you correctly note in your memo, materials which are directly mixed with domestic sewage that pasees through a sever system to a publicly owned treatment system for treatment is neither a solid waste nor a hazardous waste. Whether or not the material would otherwise be a ‘listed or ‘characteristic ’ hazardous waste under other circumstances, however, makes no practical difference. In addition, the POTW exemption has no bearing on whether or not the POTW treatment residues are considered hazardous waste by virtue of exhibiting a characteristic. The POTW exemption is, in fact, limited to the specific conditions of 26l.4(a)(l)(jj). Therefore, the exemption only applies to the actual mixture of domestic sewage and other materials while they are in the sever system. Consequently, any activities occurring prior to the actual introduction of the material to the sever system is not covered by the exemption. In particular, any material that is either listed in Part 261, Subpart D or which exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste and which is accumulated, transported, or managed via any other regulated activity prior to introduction into the sewer - system, would still be subject to regulation as a solid and hazardous waste. As you know, the accumulation of hazardous waste on—site in tanks or containers is regulated under 5262.34. Accumulation in other types of units is considered storage subject to permitting. To the extent that any hazardous waste is accumulated or otherwise stored prior to transportation to a pow, it would be regulated exactly as if it was eventually to be, for example, landfilled or incinerated. Similarly, the transportation of any hazardous waste is regulated under Part 63, regardless of the destination. Therefore, a facility image: ------- which generates a hazardous waste and Which Subsequently ships the waste to a POTW for treatment must comply with all appropriate accumulation and transportation requirements, including appropriate use of the manifest system. Since under S270.60(c), a POTW is deemed to have a RCRA permit provided they comply with a limited set of requirements, including notification and compliance with the manifest system, we see no regulatory obstacle to a facility shipping its waste to a POTW for subsequent management. I hope this interpretation is responsive to your concerns. If you have any further questions on the issue, please feel free to contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, on FTS 382—4769. cc: Regional Branch Chiefs Regions I—IV and VI—X image: ------- )441.1986(74) RCRA/SUPER?UND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARi SEPTEMBER 86 1. Hazardous Wastes Listed Solely for Sub rt C Characteristics Certain listed hazardous wastes (e.g., F003, 1(044, 1(045. and 1(047) are listed solely because they exhibit a characteristic sçecifjed in 40 CFR Part 261, Sub mrt C. The Sub rt C hazardous waste characteristics are ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and EP toxicity. (a) If analysis indicates that a mixture of one or i re of these listed wastes with a non-hazardous solid waste does not exhibit a Sub rt C characteristic, can the mixture be managed as a non-hazardous, solid waste based on language in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)? 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) states that a mixture of a solid waste and a hazardous waste that is listed in Subpart 0 solely because it exhibits a Subprt C characteristic is a hazardous waste unless the resultant mixture of a solid waste and a hazardous waste no lcr er exhibits any characteristic of hazardous waste identified in Sub art C. (b) Is the resultant mixture subject to the delisting require ents of 40 CFR 260.22(c)? 40 CFR 260.22(c)(2) requires that the EPA determine whether additional factors (including additional hazardous constituents listed in Part 261 Apçendix VIII) other than those for which the waste was listed ld cause the waste to be a hazardous waste. (c) If a waste which is listed solely because of a characteristic dilute when generated that it does not exhibit a sub srt C characteristic, can it be managed as a r —hazardous waste based on 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) or is it subject to the delisting requir nts of 40 CFR 260.22(c). (a) Yes; the mixture of a non-hazardous solid waste with a listed hazar is waste, listed solely tor a Subrart C characteristic, is not regulated as a hazardous waste if the resultant mixture doss not exhibit any Sub rt C characteristic. (b) No; the sore stringent delisting criteria of 40 CFR 260.22(c)(2) do not spp].y to mixtures of solid and hazardous wastes where 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) aprLies. (c) Th. dilute waste is subject to the delisting requir nents of 40 CFR 260.22(c). Source: Steve Hirsch (202) 382—7706 Besearch: Betty Wilson image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1986(76) 2CT 9 lonorable John (lenn United tate Senate ‘lashington, D.C. 20510 near Senator r,lenn: Thank you for your September 8, 1996, letter enclosing correscondence from Mr. Coodman ‘. Liber. Mr. Liber raised several r,oints concernina the Enviror ental protection Agency’s (EPA) reaulatlon of hazardous wastes that are recycled. The Agency is aware that recycling of hazardous waste is increasing and encourages this oractice when it orovides environmental benefits and protects human health. are attemf)tinq to investigate what ii”pediments exist to further recycling and are trying to identify alternatives to alleviate these imoediments. The EPA and the States could have Dotential roles in assisting organizations, individuals, and, specifically, small businesses interested in recycling. In addition to evaluating various methods of recycling, EPA encourages the recycling of hazardous waste for those oractices that minimize risk relative to other methods of managing hazardous waste. For your information, persons transporting and storing hazardous wastes before recycling are similar to persons transoortina and storing hazardous wastes before disposal: there is nothing about the waste that makes it so valuable that safe handling is assured absent regulation. A comoany’s decision on how car.fully wastes are handled before recycling activates a rai e of factors — — nrincinally the value of the wastes beini recycled and the value of the end products of recvclinq v.vs the cost of purchasing additional raw mater- ials, the profit margin of the facility, and the cost of improving th integrity of th. facility. Unless th. wastes are extremely valuable, there is no incentive to prooerlv manage the waste. In fact, there have been a large number of mismanagement incidents relating to hazardous waste being recycled: nany of these sites are on the Suoerfund ‘4ational Priorties List. Therefore, we believe such r.gulation is necessary. image: ------- it should be noted, however, that such reoulation only applies to those wastes that are defined as hazardous under RCRA. Tomake this point clear, we included a DrOv [ jon in the regulations to ensure that the regulatory definition is not used in unintended contexts, for example to justify regulation of non—hazardous wastes. In addition, we snecificallv determined not to regulate scrap metal that is reclaimed, whether or not such scrao metal is defined as hazardous under RCRA. Thus, any scrap metal that is reclaimed is exempt from the hazardous waste regulations. In 1984, as a result of the passage of the Razsrd s and Solid Waste Amendments (RSWA), Congress established a riatiortal policy regarding the minimization of hazardous waste. Specifically, Congress states that the incineration of hazardous waste is to be reduced or •liminated as expeditjou lv as possible. The EPA believes that recycling can he a major component in fulfilling this national policy. Recycling as part of an overall waste minimization strategy is one way to eliminate the amount of waste requiring management at hazardous waste facilities. F PA is currently preparing a report to Congress on waste minimization in which the Agency will evaluate options to further promote recycling. One ootion being evaluated is financial assistance for waste management activities. The report will be submitted to Congress on October 1, 1Q86. In addition, I am enclosing a folder containing information compiled by EPA’s Small Business Ombudsman office descrjhjn assistance programs for long—term financing of pollution control eguinment. The information is intended primarily to halo small businesses identify potential sources of financing for eauip’nent. Several federal, state and orivate financing programs are available and are briefly described in the folder. I hope this information will be useful to Mr. Liher. Mr. Liber suvjqests the formation of a financial pool, funded largely by wealthy generators, to help recyclerg comply with RCRA regulations. As you may be aware, EPA does not currently have the statutory authority to establish such a ,,oc)1. Mr. Liber’s suggestion does have certain parallels with the HazardouB Substance Resoonee Trust Fund better known as the Sunerfund. Congress intended that Sw,erfund’s resources he used to •fund certain resoonse actions, not provide assistance to businesses in reaulatory compliance. image: ------- I hope that this information clarifies EPA ’s regulation of recvcl!d hazardous waste. If I can be of further assistance, T lease let e know. Sincerely, I ,,I3. Winston Porter I Assistant Administrator Enclosure image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTtCTIO,4 ACENCY 9441.1986(7 8) ctr 26 r. ?. . Gilezan anaqer !lanufacturinq Enjineerinrj and Envi:onmental Plannlnri Chrysler Corporation P.O. ox 1919 i)etroit, Michigan 48288 ‘ear tIr . Gilezan: This is in response to your letter of September 10, 1986 regarding the Agency’s interpretation of the hazardous waste listing for P006 wastes. You recuested confirmation concernina coverage of the P006 listing and the implications of this coverane for Chrysler Corporation. The Agency has re—evaluated the scoDe of the £006 listina and determined that chemical conversion coating, 1 ’ electrolesii plating, and printed circuit hoard manufacturino 2 / are not includer !. t:astes resulting from common and precious netal electroplating, anoaizing, chemical etching and milling, and cleaning and stripping processes associated with these roceeses are included in the £006 listing. Thus, the fourth bullet in the list on page 2 of your letter is in error. Wastewater treatment sludges from anodizing and etching processes are still covered by the P006 listing, and are, therefore, hazardous wastes and must be managed as such In compliance with the RCRA regulations. 1/ Chemical. conversion coating includ.s chromatina, phosphatina, — im ieruion platina, and coloring. Wastewater treatment sludge from the conversion coating of aluminum, however, is listed a EPA Hazardous Waste No. £019. 2/ tiastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board r anu— facturing operations that include processes which are within the scope of the listing ( e.g. , chemical etching) are regulated p ‘Pj Il *i,i#iii Pib _ Pflfl _ OPPICIAt. FILE COPY image: ------- —2— To c. ress your tir t concern, the c ’ : eraj irot,ltcatio . L t / ‘ ncy’s decision upon the r’ aulated comntunitv are as tollc s. ‘ t&’ r .iltinc from tne xc1uded F0fl 1 roc ss s menttone ’ atove ar c t erined as hazardous, arid are corisicerer to have never ‘i r lu e&1 in tn OC,6 1istin . Facilitj s wbicr cen ’cate, treat, tor’, nr “ist ose or these waste•s exclusively are not ancIi:ic ez3rCOuS wastes, anc. have ne r bancl 1 - I za ous wastes. These facilities cjeneratinc a waste solely from che! iical cc- v r!. ion coatirg, eJectro ess plating, Or print -d circuit o td anuracturing (with no listed P006 processes) do not have, nor th’jv reet, interim status under PCkA. They wouj not t:e r cuj ec to submit Part retmits nor would they he subject to corrective actIon reouirements under RCRA. 3 ’ It these wastes, howevez, ate ( r have been) mixed with listed P006 wastes or other listwh astt.s, then the resulting waste mixture would b considered rtazarc. ous. Likewise, if r ese wastes, or a mixture containing these wast s, exhitit one or more of the characteristics or hazardous waste, tr ey would t.e considered hazardous. Your second concern was the specific i lications or the re—interrreted P006 listinq ucon Chrysler Corporation tacilities. AE a result ot the review of the 1006 listing, the delistjnc til’-s ror the Belviieve, ILlinois (*501) and Fenton, Missouri (eSOO and t502) facilities have been closed. The wastes generat r 1 tv these two tacilities are no longer regulated by the federal hazaroous waste management system, as lonq as no listed wost s are cor 1ned with the wastes ana it the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes. Letters e c’1aininj the Agency’s re—evaluation of the F006 listino, and indicating that these facilities are not ceneratina hazardous wastes, will he sent to each of these facilities very shortly. The Part B Permit for the St. Louis riant and Part A closure olan r r the Belvidere, Illinois facility are no longer necessary it no listed or characteristic hazardous wastes are present at those tacilities. Wastes generated solely trom chromatina, phos- ,hatinc , or coloring processes at other ChrysLe facilities are a1 o considegod non—hazardous, but, as mentioned above, wastes generated by anodizing or etching processes or any other process ‘ neratinQ a listed or characteristic waste it any facility remain nazardous wastes and must be managed as such in compliance with the PCRA reaflations. 3/ xcept, it the facility has a hazardous waste manaoement unit seeking a ,ermtt, any unit at the facility that contains solid waste could be subject to corrective action under section 3004(u) of the Resource Cons&rvation and R co eey ct, as amendeo by the 1984 Hazartious and Solid Waste imeridments. image: ------- —3— If you have any auestjr)ns :er7ardinc7 the Aaency’s interpretatjc,n of the F006 lfetlnq as it relates to dellstjnc netitions, please cal]. Ir. tlylee Morse at (202) 3132—4733. Sincerely, Ia 1 lllljar,s Di rector Office of Solid Waste cc: Alan Debus, Region V Williar Muno, Region V Fave Sandburg, Region Vu Michael Sanderson, Reqion Vu image: ------- 9441. 1986(79) October 20, 1986 Mr. J. Mark Morford Stoel, Rives, Boley, Fraser, and Wyse 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue Suite 2300 Portland, Oregon 97204-1268 Dear Mr. Morford: This is in response to your letters of August 14 and September 26, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of the materials——namely, zinc bar, nickel plate, cadmium plate, and steel scrap that are removed from spent alkaline batteries. In particular, you request confirmation that the materials removed from these batteries are scrap metal, and that they are exempt from the hazardous waste regulations. As we discussed, scrap metal (as defined in S261. 1(c) (6) )1/ is currently exempt from the Federal hazardous waste regulations whether or not the scrap metal exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics. See 40 CFR §261.6(a)(3)(iv). In looking at the samples you sent me, I agree with you that these materials are scrap metal, and if recycled, would be exempt from regulation under the Federal hazardous waste rules. 1 I must make you aware, however, that if these materials (i.e., zinc bar, nickel plate, cadmium plate, steel scrap) when removed from the battery are mixed with non—scrap metal type material, the mixture would not be considered a scrap metal, and would be subject to regulation if the mixture itself exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics. (This would not be the case if the scarp metal only contained as oily film.) “Scarp metal” is bits and pieces of metal parts (e.g., bars, turnings, rods, sheets, wire) or metal pieces that may be combined together with bolts or soldering (e.g., radiators, scrap automobiles, railroad box cars), which when worn or superfluous can be recycled) V As you are aware, the State of Oregon’s hazardous waste regulations may be more stringent than the Federal program. Therefore, you need to check with the State regarding the regulation of these materials. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— For example, when spend lead—acid batteries are cracked to recover the lead, the material removed from the battery is a mixture of scrap plate and a lead oxide sludge type material. The mixture, we have determined, is not scrap metal; in addition, we have also determined that this mixture is hazardous since it exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics. Therefore, the lead material recovered from spent lead—acid batteries is subject to the hazardous waste rules. If, however, the material removed from spent alkaline batteries is just “scrap metal,” this material (if recycled) would be exempt from the Federal hazardous waste rule. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551. Sincerely, Matt Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch cc: Jan Whitworth (Oregon DBC) Ken Feigner (EPA Region X) This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- UNITED STATES L ¶RONMEPITAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1986(80) 0C1 20 I9 Mr A L. Horn ’r Environmental Specialist Alhriqht 6 Wilson. Inc. P 0. Box 26229 Richmond. VA 23260—6229 Dear Mr. Homer: I am writing in responsr to your request tot a written determination as to the regulatory status or 36% phosphoric acid that is geni rated as part of the chemical polish]ncl of aluminum.1/ In your letter. you state that this material is an eti ctive suhstitute for 75% technical grade phosphoric acid and a variety of other potential nutrient materials used in wastewater treatment plants. In addition, you also state that it can be a substitute tot 54% P 2 0 5 wet acid used in specialty fertilizer producers. As you know 40 CFR 261.2Ce) specifics which materials are not solid wastcs when they are recycled. Among other thin’is, materials that are used or reused as effective substitutes tot commercial products. or materials that are us ’d or reused as ingredients in an industrial process are not solid wastes provided: Cl) that these materials ar . not used in a manner constituting disposal (or used to produce products that are applied to the land), (2) they are not burned tot energy recovery (or used to produce a ruel or contained in fuels), or (3) they are not accumulated speculatively. Thus, 36% phosphoric acid used as wastewater conditioners are not solid waste. (See 50 FR 628. FN 15, January 4. 1985.) 1/ As described in your letter, the process which generates the — 36% phosphoric acid involves the submerging ot aluminum parti in phosphoric acid to increase the brightness of aluminum. Atter the phosphoric acid bath, the parts are rinsed with water; a specifically designed rinse opcration is utilized to produce 36% phosphoric acid. image: ------- This is aiso th C3SC (as provided below) for 36% phosphoric acid used to produce t rtiliztrs however, we think this i a more difficult call. In particular. the qeneral principle in the Aqency’s regulations is that hazardous s’ condary materials ultimety applied to the land are hazardous wast s. as are the waste—derived products in which they are contalr.?d (See 40 CFR S261.2(c)C1).) However, if the anodizing phosphoric acid is purer in acid content. and no more contaminated than vLrqin phosphoric acid (as it has been described to us) we do not believe 36% phosphoric acid generated as part of the ch.mica) polishing of aluminum that is used to produce tertilizers can be viewed as a secondary material. Thus. such acid would not be considered a solid or hazardous waste under RCRA when used in the same manner as virgin phosphoric acid. It should be noted that there is a provision in 40 CFR s261.2(t) associated with this exclusion more specifically. you must be able to demonstrate that the 36% phosphoric acid is being used as cited above, and not merely capable ot such use or that it has been used tot such purposes in the past. I suggest that you keep documentation to support your claim that the 36% phosphoric acid is being used in a manner that is within the scope of this exclusion. Please feel free to call me if you have any further questions my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. S Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- 9441.1986(81, ov3 98B Mr. Robert E. Schlemmer President United States Ceramic Tile Company 10233 Sandyville Road, S.E. East Sparta, Ohio 44626 Dear Mr. Schleminer: In your letter of October 14, 1986 you asked whether the exclusion from hazardous waste regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) embodied in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) applies to your operations. As you noted, this exclusion, also known as the Devill Amendment, covers solid waste from the extraction, benefjcjatjon, and processing of ores and minerals (including coal) including phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of uranium oreN. Since 1980, EPA has consistently maintained that the Bevill exclusion applies only to mining, beneficiation, and primary processing of ores or minerals, not to subsequent shaping, alloying, or fabrication of materials derived fror ores and minerals. See 50 Federal Register 40293 (October 2, 1985). The minerals you use in the production of tiles undergo varying degrees of primary processing before being shipped to your facility. For example, ball clay is processed by shredding, drying, pulverizing, and air separation or slurrying. Pyraphyllite and talc are processed by crushing, screening, and air or water classification. The wastes generated by these primary processing stages are covered by the exclusion. Your operation uses materials produced by the primary processing of various minerals, including talc, pyrophyllite, ball clay, and wollastonite. As you indicated in your letter, the tile production sequence includes alloying (blending), fabrication (pressing), coating, and firing stages. As stated earlier these steps are not considered proceesing of ores and mineral. as the phrase is used in RCRA and the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, wastes generated by your tile production operation are not within the scope of the exclusion. image: ------- —2— it also should be noted that the industrial waste water exclusion (40 CFR 261.4(a)(2)) “does not exclude industrial waste waters while they are being collected, stored or treated before discharge.” If you have further questions, please contact Dan Derkics (202) 382—3608, in the Special Wastes Branch. Sincerely. 2P Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste bcc Bill Constantelos , Region V image: ------- 9441. 1986 (8 2) Mr. H. Ezura Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc. Old Waterwork, Road P.O. Box 19 Old Bridge, NJ 08e57 Dear Mr. Bzura: mis is in response to your letter. of October 15 and 16, 1986, regarding the regulator 7 status of the •tchanta 1/ that are used by Old Bridge to manufacture various copper — salts. Since I wrote you in August 1983, the regulations defining which material, are solid and h*S Fd . wastes when th•y are are recycl.d have been amended. See 50 PR 61k, January , 1985. A. w. v. discussed previously , the amended definition adopt. the approach that for materials being recycled, one must know both what the material is and how it is being recycled before determining whether rr not it is a Subtitle C waste. Thu., under the regulations, any material that is used in a manner Coflstituti g disposal (or used to produce a product that is placed on the land); used as a fuel. (or used to produce a fuel); or speculatively accumulated, 2/ is defined as a solid waste, and If hazardous, a hazardous eate; in addition, certain materials when reclaimed would also be defined as solid and hazardous wastes. At the same tine, materials that are used/reused (either as an ingredient or feedatocic in a rlanufacturjng operation where recli’ matjon does not occur, or as a substitute for ccrvmercjal roducte) are not defined as solid wastes. / The etohants include copper chloride and co per anr’onjur — chloride. 2/ Speculative accunwslatjon means accumulating wastes that — are potentially recyclable, but for which no reciclin 6 market (or no feasible recycling market) exists, or accumulating wastes before recycling, unless 7 of the accumulated material is recycled during a one— /ear period. 3/ Commercial chemical products are not solid wastes jf speculatively accumulated. image: ------- —2— In applying the definition to your situation, I agree with you that when etchants are used/reused as raw r atertals in the i anutacture of various copper salts (and where reclaerntion does not occur), these naterials would not be defined as solid wastes, and theretnre, not be subject to the hazardous waste rules. In reviewing your May 31, 19R3 letter, the use of etchants to produce basic copper sulfate (the first process described in your letter) would not constitute solid waste nanagement; that is, these materials are not subject to the Subtitle C rules. However, the process to produce a copper sulfate solution (the second process described in your letter) would constitute reclaisatton, and therefore, if the etchant is hazardous (i.e., is listed in Subpart D of Part 261 or exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics identified in Subpart C of Part 261), the transportation and storage of these etchants would be subject to the hazardous waste rules. 3 ’ With respect to the use of the other uoopper by—producte”*fld their regulatory status, I would need to have more intor ation before making a deter’-ination. Please feel free to give is a call if ou have any further questions; my telephone nunber is (202) *75—8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Charaterization ranch 3/ Etchants would be defined as spent materials (i.e., materials that have been used are no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise re- processed). Spent materials being r.clatried are defined as solid wastes. See *0 CPR 261.2(c)(3). image: ------- 9441.1986(83) November 13, 1986 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RCRA Regulatory Status of Contaminated Ground Water FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director Office of Solid waste TO: Patrick Tobin, Director Waste Management Division, Region IV This is in response to your memorandum of September 18, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of ground water contaminated with hazardous waste leachate. To answer this question, one first has to determine the status of ground water Under the regulations, ground water contained in the aquifer is not considered a solid waste, since it is not “discarded” in the sense of being abandoned, recycled, or inherently waste—like as those terms are defined in the regulations. See 40 CFR 262.2(a)- (d). Therefore, contaminated ground water cannot be considered a hazardous waste via the mixture rule (i.e., to have a hazardous waste mixture, a hazardous waste must be mixed with a solid waste (see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)). Nevertheless, ground water contaminated with hazardous waste leachate is still subject to regulation since it contains a hazardous waste. Therefore, the treatment, storage, or disposal of ground water contaminated with hazardous waste leachate must be handled as if the ground water itself were hazardous since hazardous waste leachate is subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA)’ However, if the ground water is treated such that it no longer contains a hazardous waste, the ground water would no longer be subject to regulation under Subtitle C or RCRA. This memo more precisely explains the position on ground water contamination presented in John Skinner’s memo dated December 26, 1984. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— Taking this interpretation and applying it to the example in your memorandum, the ground water containing a listed hazardous waste, once collected, is subject to regulation under the hazardous waste regulations. However, if as a result of treatment, the ground water no longer contains the hazardous waste leachate, the ground water would no longer be subject to the hazardous waste rules. Your letter also raises the question of treatment of ground water within the context of corrective action. If the corrective action is taken at an interim status facility in compliance with a §3008(h) order, treatment can take place. We are considering the possibility of amending the regulations to clarify the relationship between corrective action and the reconstruction ban ( 270.72(e)). More broadly, the Agency is currently examining the issue of whether permits should be required for any corrective actions. We are also developing rules for corrective action under RCRA §3004(u). Until this analysis is completed, if the corrective action takes place at a permitted facility, it can be handled as a permit modification. Please feel free to call Matt Straus, of my staff, if you have any further questions; his telephone number is 475-8551 (FTS). cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions 1-Ill and V-X Gene Lucero, OWPE Lloyd Guerci, OWPE Mark Greenwood, OGC Steve Silverman, OGC This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 944:L. 1986( 84 ) f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 2O4 O NOV I 3 986 OF’ICIO SOLIC *ASTE £ O IMERGENCY RESPON 5 5 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT RCRA Regulatory Status of Contaminated Ground Water FROM: . Marcia E. Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste TO; Patrick Tobin, Director Waste Management Division, Region IV This is in response to your memorandum of September 18, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of ground water contaminated with hazardous waste leachate. To answer this question. one first has to determine the status of ground water. Under the regulations. ground water contained in the aquifer is not considered a solid waste, since it is not “discarded” in the sense of being aband,ned , recycled. or inherently waste-like as those terms are defined in the regulations. See 40 CFR 261.2(a)—Cd). Therefore, contami- nated ground water cannot be considered a hazardous waste via the mixture rule ( i.e. . to have a hazardous waste mixture, a hazardous waste must be mixed with a solid waste ; see 40 CFR 2613(a)(2)(iv)). Nevertheless, ground water contaminated with hazardous waste leachate is still subject to regulation since it contains a hazardous waste. Therefore, the treatment, storage, or disposal of ground water contaminated with hazardous waste leachate must be ha d1ed as if the ground water itself were hazardous since hazar u waste 1/ leachate is subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. However, if the ground water is treated such that it no longer contains a hazardous waste, the ground water would no longer be subject to regulation under SubtLtle C of RCRA. 1/ This memo more precisely explains the position on ground — water contamination presented in John Skinner’s memo dated December 26 1984. image: ------- 2 Taking this interpretation and applying it to the example in your memorandum, the ground water containing a listed hazardous waste, once collected, is subject to regulation tinder the hazardous waste regulations. However, if as a result of treatrient, the ground water no longer contains the hazardous waste leachate, the ground water would no longer be subject to the hazardous waste rules. Your letter alao raises the question of treatment of ground water within the context of corrective action. It the corrective action is taken at an interim status facility in compliance with a §3008(h) order, treatment can take place. We are considering the possibility of amending the regulations to clarify the relationship between corrective action and the reconstruction ban (S270.72(e)). More broadly, the Agency is currently examining the issue of whether permits should be required for any corrective actions. We are also developing rules for corrective action under RCRA §3004(u). Until this analysis is completed, if’ the corrective action takes place at a permitted facility, it can be handled as a permit modification. Please feel free to call Matt Straus, of my staff, it you have any further questions; his telephone number is 175- 8551 (FTS). cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions 1—111 and V—X Gene Lucero, OWPE Lloyd Guerci, OWPE Mark Greenwood, OGC Steve Silverman, OGC image: ------- 9441. 1986(85) November 19, 1986 Markus K. Straume Colonel, USAF Director, Directorate of Environmental Protection Defense Logistics Agency Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service Federal Center 74 N. Washington Battle Creek, MI 49017-3902 Dear Colonel Straume: This is in response to your letters of April 23, June 20, and September 30, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of certain precious metals that are recycled through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service. First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in responding to your request; I hope this delay has not caused you any problems. With respect to your specific requests, I will respond to them in the same order that they are presented in your April 23 letter. • Manaaement of solid items such as buttons. evealass frames, insignia from uniforms, and electronic scrap . To the extent that these materials are not hazardous ( i.e. , do not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics—-ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity), I agree with you that these materials are not solid wastes and, therefore, are not subject to the Federal hazardous waste rules. If, however, these materials are hazardous, and they do not meet the definition of scrap metal, they would be subject to regulation under Subpart F of Part 266 of RCRA, since they would be defined as spent materials. • Management of silver recovery cartridges Although the silver recovery cartridges are used to recover silver, the reclamation operation is not yet completed (as I understand the operation); rather the cartridges are further processed to recover the silver. Therefore, I do not agree with your assessment. As we stated in the preamble to the final rules, “The Agency proposed a clarifying amendment to S261.3(c) (2) (the This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— “derived from” rule) to indicate that commercial products reclaimed from hazardous wastes are products, not wastes, and so are not subject to the RCRA Subtitle C regulations....The principle also does not apply to wastes that have been processed minimally, or to materials that have been partially reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is completed.” See 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985; see also 40 CFR 261.3(c) (2) where it says “...materials that are reclaimed from solid waste and that are used beneficially are not solid wastes...” Therefore, the silver recovery cartridges are solid wastes and subject to regulation under Subpart F of Part 266 if they exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics . You should be aware that some preliminary data provided to the Agency by the National Photographic Manufacturers Association indicates that silver recovery cartridges may not be EP toxic. Therefore, I suggest you test these cartridges to determine their hazardousness. Manaaement of batteries containing silver For the same reasons described in the previous paragraph, the residues from the burning operation are defined as solid wastes and are subject to regulation under Subpart F of Part 266, provided they exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics ( i.e. , the burning operation only partially reclaims the silver; the burning residue must be further processed for silver recovery). In addition, you also should be aware that if the batteries are hazardous and if the unit they are burned in is an incinerator ( i.e. , it is neither a boiler (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10) nor an industrial furnace (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10), the burning device is subject to regulation under Subpart 0 of Parts 264 and 265. As we stated in the preamble to the proposed rule,tI...lnaterials being burned in incinerators or other thermal treatment devices, other than boilers and industrial furnaces, are considered to be “abandoned” by being burned or incinerated...whether or not energy or material recovery also occurs...In our view, any such burning (other than in boilers and industrial furnaces) is waste destruction subject to regulation either under Subpart 0 of Part 264 or Subpart 0 of Part 265. If energy or material recovery occurs, it is ancillary to the purpose of the unit —- to destroy wastes by means of thermal treatment —- and so does not alter the regulatory status of the device or the activity.” See 48 FR 14484, April 4, 1983. Finally as you stated in your letter, States may choose to regulate these materials differently under their State hazardous This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —3— waste programs. Therefore, you need to contact representatives in the various States to determine the regulatory status of these materials under the State hazardous waste rules. Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475—8551 if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Characterization Branch This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441.1986(86) November 20, 1986 SUBJECT: RCRA Status for Treatment of Contaminated Ground Water and Volatiles from Air Stripping FROM: Bruce Weddle, Director Permits and State Programs Division Jack Lehman, Director Waste Management Division TO: Lloyd Guerci Office of Waste Program Enforcement This memorandum is in response to the questions you received from Region III concerning treatment of contaminated ground water at RCRA sites. The first part of the memo deals with the general issues raised in the inquiry; the second with specific facts of the Uniform Tube Facility situation. The Characterization and Assessment Division of OSW, the Office of General Counsel, and Ginny Steiner, of your office, were consulted during the preparation of this response. Issue 1 : Is ground water contaminated with hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents considered hazardous waste, and are air stripping units and holding basin surface impoundments used during treatment of contaminated ground water RCRA units? Ground water is not a hazardous waste, since it does not fit the criteria for being either an “abandoned” or “discarded” material which would define it as a solid waste (see 40 CFR §261.2). However, when ground water contains hazardous wastes, treatment, storage, or disposal of it must be handled exactly as if the ground water itself were hazardous waste since the contaminants are subject to regulation under Subtitle C. Ground water no longer containing the hazardous waste would no longer be subject to Subtitle C regulation. The air stripper may fit the definition of a tank (see 40 CFR §260.10). If so, it is subject to the hazardous waste tank standards, including the secondary containment provisions recently promulgated (July 14, 1986, 51 FR 25422—25488). Unless the unit is eligible for the 90-day accumulation exemption available to generators (see 40 CFR §262.34), is a wastewater treatment unit ( 260.10), or is otherwise exempt from regulation, it requires a permit or interim status. The holding basin This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— surface impoundment would be subject to standards for storage under Subpart K of Part 265 or Part 264, and the land treatment unit would be subject to Subpart N standards. Note that neither of these units is eligible for the ninety day accumulation exemption, which applies only to tanks or containers. Units such as the ones described in the Region’s inquiry may, in some cases, operate without a permit under provisions of 40 CFR §270.72 (changes during interim status). This would be the case where the construction and/or operation of such units is necessary to prevent threats to human health and the environment because of an emergency situation (see §270.72(c) (1)), or it is necessary to comply with Federal, state, or local regulations (40 CFR 270.72(c)(2)). In general, units added t comply with a §3008(h) order or an approved closure plan would be considered necessary to comply with Federal regulations and therefore could be constructed and operated as a change in interim status, without triggering a RCRA permit requirement. However, in any case, the cost of the unit should not exceed the limit established in §270.72(e). At this time, we are considering proposing an exemption to the fifty percent of reconstruction cost limitation established in §270.72(e) for actions taken to comply with corrective action orders at interim status facilities. Issue 2 : Are the volatile organic contaminants released to the atmosphere via air stripping considered hazardous waste under RCRA? Should a risk analysis be made to consider the trade-off between removal of a hazardous constituent from ground water and its release to air? Volatile organics released to the air are not hazardous waste because they are not solid wastes. (They do not fit the definition established in §1004(27) of RCRA as “contained gaseous materials.”) Nevertheless, releases of hazardous constituents to the air from hazardous waste management or solid waste management units at facilities with interim status are subject to corrective action under the authority of §3008(h). No policy has been set concerning tradeoffs of releases of hazardous constituents from one medium to another. The statute requires that contamination of either or both the ground water and the air resulting from waste management at the facility be addressed to protect human health and the environment. Future proposals under §3004(n) will address air emissions for TSDFs. Use of a carbon unit on top of the air stripper would significantly reduce or eliminate the release to air. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —3— Issues Specific to the Uniform Tube Facility : Turning to the facts of the specific case, several issues caine up during our discussions which need to be brought to the attention of the Region. 1. If the organics spill which occurred in 1977 was from a leaking underground storage tank containing a regulated substance (as defined in §9001(2)), and if that spill is subject to corrective action under §9003, RCRA §3008(h) is not applicable. 2. Spray irrigation of land with waste materials which have been treated through air stripping and/or stored in the holding basin impoundment constitutes land disposal. Land disposal of the wastes described will be restricted under the land disposal restrictions regulation in the future. How soon disposal at this facility will be affected depends on whether the spill is of spent solvents (F001-F005) or of a discarded commercial chemical product. Restrictions will be imposed for F00l-F005 this November; other solvent disposal will come later. 3. How will the corrective action order address the chromium release? As the clean up progresses, the Region should follow development of land disposal restriction regulations for the California list, since chromium is included on that list. 4. The Superfund program has had several experiences with successfully applying carbon units to the top of air strippers to eliminate air releases of VOCs. If you are concerned about these releases, you may want to contact Nancy Willis at FTS 475-6707 for further information. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441. 1986(87) RCRA/SLJPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY StThO(ARY NOVEMBER 86 1. Hazardous Waste Fuel in Incinerators tn general, according to 40 CFR 261.2(c)(2), off—specification comnercial chemical products listed under 40 CFR 26133 are hazardous wastes when burned for energy recovery. One exception to this rule is if the corn- merc3 .al chemical product is itself a fuel or norn lly a co rportent of fuel (5261.2(c)(2)(ii)). For example, benzerte, listed as U019, is normally a conponent of gasoline, and may be burned for energy recovery without being considered a hazardous waste (see 50 491.68, footnote 8 and 50 FR 629, footnote 16). Would off—specification product berizene, therefore, be an acceptable start—up fuel for use in an incinerator if it is not regulated as a hazardous waste? No, the off—specification benzene would not be acceptable as a start—up fuel in an incinerator because in that situation it is a hazardous waste. By the definitions in 40 CFR 260.10, industrial furnaces and boilers burn materials for energy recovery. The primary purpose of art incinerator, h vever, is to burn for destruction (see 50 FR 625). Therefore, hazardous materials burned in incinerators are always considered to be hazardous wastes per 40 CFR 261.2(b)(2), EPA holds that burning in an incinerator cannot constitute burning for energy recovery. Additional policy on the nature of incinerators and use of wastes as auxiliary fuels appears in a n orandum from Karen Walker to Michael Sandersort (Region VII) dated June 27, 1986. Therefore, an off—specification product listed under 40 CFR 261.33 that is burned in an incinerator is regulated as a hazardous waste even if it is used as a start-up fuel. 40 CFR 264.345(c) and 265.345 state that hazardous wastes liust not be fed to an incinerator during start—up or shut-d in unless the incinerator is erating within steady—state conditions or conditions specified in the pernat. Therefore, it would not be possible to use hazardous waste as a start—up fuel. Non—hazardous wastes or virgin fossil fuels are normally used instead. Source: Bob Holl ay (202) 382—7938 Research: Jennifer Brock image: ------- 9441.1986(88) c C0 iC° ! OR A ¶DU M !! J2c’r Truck or flail 5hi ment of R ardoue W& t e to a POTY Marcia Villiams, irector j \ Office of !oli4 4aste ) vj4 A. trinaha , Chief solid W et ranch, R ion V This memo is a follow—up response to your September 8, 19 6, request for clarification of the POTW exclusion in 40 CPR 261 . (a)(1 )(ii). As noted in memorandum to you of 3ept.mb.r 25. 1986, the PO!V exclusion is lieit.d to the circuasta.ne.s and eonditiorts of 261.4(a)(1)(1i). Thus, a material is not a solid vast. If It is Any vtiztur. of domestic seva e and other wastes that aes.e throuRh a eevsr system to a publicly—owned treatment vorka for treatment (emphasis added). If th. matinal does not throuah a sewer system prior to arriving at a POTW, it is deemed to be a solid waste sni, if ar.oropntate, a h’isardoue waste. Consequently, POTWs that ‘rnnage wastes which have not passed throu h the sever system snd mixed with donestic eewa€e would be subject to all applicable hazardous waste reaulationa. ‘lnder 270.6O(c), the POTW would be ee’ ed to have a RCRA ver tt, provided they co ,ly with the ‘ RA requirements identified in that Cectior.. In additiort, the PC ’W wouli be required to manage the residues of the trest ent vrocees as hazardou. waste if the slud;e either: 1) exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, or 2) was the result of treatment ot a listed hazardous waste. We are aware of the dichoto which reçalattng a material on the baste of its mode of conveyance (i.e., by truck or !Jever) appears topresent. This situation was discussed in the A eney’e February 1q86 .port to Conarese on the Discharge of azardoue Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (Domestic image: ------- -2— Seva e ¶tudv; P • ‘S—P5). o..v.r, at prssent thu i 11ee that ?P& øould exempt trucked or railed va5te without a etatutory chavt è ht h1y lubloe l.slly. WiatIS which ire ehip .d to p( ”4g b true c, rail, or dedicated ptv would not be covere! by the 261.4(a)(1)(Ii) ezelueiofl nor would the r.eidue !ro the treat’ ent of a Uet.4 hn.zardouu vaete at that P’DTW be ecclu ied fron reculatton. cc: ‘eRtoflal ra eh Chtefn egiOTte I -tV and Vt -X image: ------- JI iI_ # . I C.J Yl Ur Mt(lIA . 9441. 1986(89) ‘r. David Haves Eo an ani Hartson 815 Connecticut Avenue WaehinRton, DC 20006—4072 Dear UT. Hayes: ThIB is in response to your letter of October 6, 1986, rerardirt the regulatory status under the federal hazardous waste rules of solvent reclamation operations conducted at ee iconductor firi’ s. Based on the discussions we had on September 10, 1986, and based on your letter, I agree with your interpretation of the ?eleral hazardous waste rules as it applies to solvent reclamation. In particular, the actual reclamation operation, which qualifies as treatment, is exem ,t from regulation. See 40 CFR 261.6(c)(1); see also 50 CFR 643, January 4, 1985 where it states “We usually do not regulate the recyclinq process itself, except when the recycling is analopuos to land disposal or incineration.” In addition, the spent solvents would be subject to the standards for generators (Part 262) and transporters (Part 263); ereons who “store” spent solvents prior to recycling are also subject to the atora e facility requirements. However, If the spent solvent is accumulated in a tank or container for lese than 90 days (or 180 or 270 days for generators who generate between 100 and 1000 kg/calendar month of hazardous waste), a RCRA permit is not required, provided the generator fully conplies with 40 CFR c262.34. You should he aware that States may choose to regulate the i ’aterials differently under their State procram. Therefore, you will need to contact States representatives in the various States to determin, the r. iilatory statue of the spent solvents under the State hazardous waste rules. - Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475—8551) if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Matthew Str ua - Ch 1..t “; p _ p. ’, “.3. __ image: ------- —2- °Are the per j_Ie ractorZ hricke considered a s ent material € : t $ inee the refractory bricks are not solid wastes (i.e., they are used/reused), the answer to this question is not girmine. ‘!heref ore, it’s not necessary to deal with this particular issue. ° ow a representative sftn le should be obtained? 0nC a e ee a_a__a ace flea... 0 a.. easoac fi a Cee aaea As is stated in your memo, the spent refractory bricks are stored in a waste pile prior to recycling. Cuidance has been provided on how to collect representative samples from waste piles in the guidance manual, •?etitjons to Delist Hazardous Wastes.” 2 .’ tn summary, the pile should be divided into qustiranes, and each quadrant sampled using a two—dtnenejonal grid and random vertical core sample collected. You should refer to this document for further information in collecting representative samples. °Whether the seeondart material is aetuallZ reclaimed rior a flea. efi Coca. aaefl a a a a a a eeaaonn .0000 C —a a . a a sees a a a sea to “ ‘ ise? a flee a. a s indieat’d earlier, based on our understanding of the processing of the refractory bricks, these materials are not reclatrie 2, but rather are used/reused. As we discussed in the preii°’ble to the January b, 10R5 flefinition of Solid Waste rulemaking, processing steps that do not themselves regenerate or recover material values are not reclamation. Examples of operations thst 40 not constitute reclamation that are provided in the preamble efeF 5 to briquetting or sintering operations which are a loi’ erating type processes; crushing/grinding are ei ilsr types of processes. Therefore, we do not see the proceseinç operations conducted by Universal P ateriala, Tnc. as constitutinC reclamation. 000000000000 2/ This manual is available through the Department of Commerce, — National ?echntcal Information Service C?? 5 l91Ui R) , c2P5 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. image: ------- —3— ‘ L tt tt .tJit . t tz t tt tW Whether or not the refractory bricka are Secur u] ated speculatively will depend on the hazardousness of these bricks *nd the percentage of the refractory bricks that are recycled within the calendar year. These questions can only be addressed based on the facts in this case. Ple ee feel free to contact Matt Straus at R—*75 —8551 it you have any further questions. Ce: Solid Waste ranch Chiefs (EPA Regions I—IV & VI—!) image: ------- 441. 1986(9 2) c 5 Dr. Gerald 9piegelz n ?,flv roim.ntaj Controls Manager l,c.rwast,a S.rv c.s Co. west larket Street Catupbs.Lltown, P.nnay1v nia 17010 J ar L)r. Spiag.lrians r . is in respons. to your letter of S.pte ber 17. 1986, regarding the applicability of the hazardous wa.t. regulations, specifically 40 CVs( 261 and 40 CPK 268, to still bottoms generated from distillation of spent zyl.n. from the manufacture of sodium zyLenesulfonat.. I zpologia. for the d.]ay in responding to your letter. Durin. the r.c.nt months we have been using .11 availabi* resources to develop the land di . osa1 restrictions final, rule (S I p 4u 572 . Iovsmbr 7, 1986). A process wast. containing solvents whet. the solvent is a reactant in the formulation of c ’ rcial chemical product. are not covered by tne spent solvent listing. :zasardaus Waste los. 0u1. r002, 1003, 1004, and 1005). Accordjnj to the information pr vided in your letter. zylens is used as a reactant i i the manufactur, of sodium zy1e& ssu1fonate, therefore, you are correct in noting that ezaso. xyl.ne frx this rocesa oul l not be covered un sr the 1003 solvent listing. Still bottc s gsnerat.d f rum trt. distillation of the excess zylene would not 5. a r azardous waste unless th.y • IiDit on. or mor, of the characteristics of zar ous waste (i.e., aorr jvjty, iJnitabjljty, EP toxicity, or reactivity). as you correctly stated, s nt. xyLens and still øottoms fxom the recovery 1 zyl.n. used in juur process does not mast the listing description for EPA hazardous waste nuuber LJ239 , since it is not a discarded co .w.i.rcja l ch.nical product, off-specification species, or other mat.ria.t identified under 40 CP a 261.33. The fixst class of wastes subject to th land lisposal r.— strictions •Sfectiv. Nov•mbsr d, 1986. incLud, the F00l-fr’005 solvents and c.rtaiá Ltoxin-conta.ining waites. Therefore, the zylen. still bottoms generated from your process wou I4 not be subject to these rules. If these wastes exhibit on. or sore of the cnstactarist.ics of hasardous wast•, they will be subject to the Land lisposal restrictions ien the Agency promulgate. treatment standard. foe charact.ristic wastes oy th• Iay 1990, statutory deadline. image: ------- thi. jnfo a tj .d.q at.ty *ddr..... your conc.r . fr.. to co tsct Bill of y staff at (202) 475—67]5, it j a have f th.r qu.st .ons. Sincerely, Jacqueline II. Sales, Chief Regulation Development Section image: ------- UP4!TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1986(94) ;ir. i c. ert z 1ack cn JQ C1..IJ Str t Wc Uuc t&i, r ntuc.cy 42JtJ1 )e r 1r. i. ck. non: i nis ietter res onc1s to your i u .ry r(. gar in#3 t r u1atcrv status o r Uio ctive and c cnica1 wastes fror o pit 1 1abor t,rje t:i t. are jcn r eu to tt 83w c system. L h .io 3 not rucjulate radioactive w3stes, per ne. Thece wastea rc rayuiatei b tne uc1oar kegulatory Coxw is iion ( rc). Julfev1 r, certain low level. 3ixed radic,active wastes that are lan 1 r incinez ted (e.g., scintillation cocktails oor taiuincj - z rdou3 che .nicals such as x ’1.ene or toluene) are ro;ulated under ..ie i h na ar1oue waste re’ u1atio ae (see Title 4fl of tr e Cole of r’eUer. l k guiations, Part 261). You uay contact P RC dir octlv at (2 ) 4’ 2—1 O. for Uet i1ei infor aticn o. the djs;os l of r jo— jve w te . .Uso, ii so cages, radioactive waqtcs fr o pi .t Ls are regulated L y tne tatc or local •3cu rt ent of h 1ti. You ma/ contact these agencie3 for re specific inforistion. S ver 1 of t .lo cher i als yc.iu listed are regulate i un’lcr t: e ‘eUeral £ azardous waste regulations (i.e., the kesource Conservation ari itecovery Act of 1976, as arneia 1eJ (RCRA)). There i3, o,ever, a i ezen tion from RC re u1ation for any mixture of ot estic . cw i je and other wastes t. 1t S3Cb through a sewer systert to a puoii.ciy—owned treat.nent. works (PO ) for treatment, althouqh t. o e waet s *‘iay still i e regulatoi on a State or local level. Z 3 .’a’a are regulated under tne Clean .iater Act, which 82t0 the e.ieral crite ia for wastes tnat nay be dischcLrged to a P3T :. To gain a better understanding of the Foleral. regulation; cover .ng ti4zardou wastes, I suggest t t you co . su1t part 2Gl of Title 40 of trie Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) w iich can be outaiae 1 from the Gover: ae’at Printi g office (at 2O2—275—3 4 ) or jerha s your school Library. I have enclosed tne lists of che ijca1s i. at ars r g U.ated under the Federal azardous waste regulations (i.e., 40 Ck’l( 261.31, 261.32, and 261.33). image: ------- ., j j bu iatcr t J i i rec t iblic ti 21titlc-J rt ( n;ress on t e i)ischdrle o azar ous ste to Pu ljc1 Wor ,u (reoruary. l9 ). It v *ilat. l tr r3u t. c : ti. n 1. Tec &nicdl Iti orr utjon iervice ( rrIS) for $34.95. (r.. order, call LflIS at (733) 4 7—46 U an1 3ive the title a i oroer nui r —— P k36—l840l7/As). Fur j ci.fic questiona c nceriing che: ical wastes, you : y call t RCR_\/Su 1 erfund Uotline (toll—free) at CR00) 424—934 . I you vc 3. 1rther 4uest o s, contact :litch Kidwell of my staff at (2 2) 382—4305. Sincerely, Jac ucline Sales, Chief Re. ulation Development Sectior Enclosures image: ------- • ,• • ,i1 (jI SM $TAL PROTECTI AGENCY 944.1.1986(95) DEC 2 3 98 Mr. Prancis L. Cord.n Technical Consultant Enviropact of Tampa Bay Environmental Consulting and Malysi. 11181 43 Street North Clearwater, Florida 33520 Dear Mr. Cordens This is in response to your November 6, 1986, letter requesting confirmation that waste petroleum products with a flash point below 100P that are burned for energy recovery are not solid (or hazardous) wastes. As Mike Petruska has indicated to you, off-specification or contaminated coiiwsrcial chemical products that are burned for energy recovery are not solid wastes (and, thus, not haiazdou. wastes) if th.y are themselves fuels • For c .rcial chemical products listed in 261.33, th. rules stat, explicitly that they ar. not wastes if they are themselves fuels and if the off-specification or contaminated product is burned for •nergy recovery. See 40 CFR 26l.2(c”)(2)(ii). The same principle applies to off-specification co. m.rcial products that exhibit one of th. hazardous waste characteristics (see the April 11, 1985, Federal p. 14219, aol. 1). You mention that your client will mix the waits petroleum products with used oil prior to marketing to incinerators for use a. a fuel. You should be aware that, under RCM regulations, materials are burned for anergy recovery in either boilers or industrial furnaces. S.• 40 C?R 260.10 for definition.. Materials burned in incinerators are considered to be burned for destruction rather than energy recovery Cs.. the January 4, 1985, Federal Register , p. 627, aol. 3). Incinerators are defined i i 5io as any snc losed device using controlled flam, combustion that neither meets th• definition of a boiler nor is d.signat.d as an industrial furnac.. Thus, if your fuel mix is burned in an incinerator, it would not be burned for energy recovery and would be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste assuming the fuel still ha. a flash point low.r than 140’? (the characteristic of an ignitable hazardous waste). The hazardous waste t.zanspor— tation and storag. standards would apply. IU—4 1—S 3 image: ------- 2 If. however, by mixing the waste petroleum products with used oil, the mixture no longer exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste (e.g., th. flash point is higher then 140F) , the fuel mix would no longer be subject to regulation as hazardous waste. Nonetheless, the waste petrol.um prociucts would be r.gu1et. as hazardoui’i waste prior to such tr•atment to make them nonhagardoum. Finally, if, in fact, your client mark.ts the fuel mix to boilers or industrial furnaces for energy recovery and if the fuel mix has a flash point below 100’?, the fuel would be regulated as off—specification used oil fuel under the November 29, 198S, rule. In this situation, you would be subject to reaulation as a ,narketer of off—specification used oil fuel an would have to cor ply with the notification and recordkeeping requirements of that rule. Further, the off—specification used oil fuel could not he burned in nonindustrial boilers (e.g., residential, commercial, or institutional boilers). I hope this addressee your concerns. If you have other questions, please contact Bob Holloway at (202) 382—7917. Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste image: ------- 9441.1986(96) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY DECEMBER 86 1. stes Generated in Prccesa .its When, if ever, is waste whid is generated in a Safety-Kleen parts washer regulated er Rk? In a May 1986 i rand!X% “ nthly 1 port_R A/SUPerftU1d Industry 1i ssistar1Ce } tline P rt for May 1986”, EPA addressed the regulatory status of parts washers Leased frait the Safety-40.een Corporati . At that tth , the Agency vi d these parts washers as r enufacturing p ocesS units. consequently . the wastes generated in the parts washers lc1 be subject to the exclusi in 261 .4(c) and thus ld r t be regulated unless rencived f n the imit or until they had resained in the unit e than 90 days after the mit ceased to be operated. Since that tiz a • the Agency has 3 “fled this issue furt ter arid has determined that Safety-Kleefl parts washers casinct be viewed as anu.facturing p ocesa units. It is the Agency’ s understanding that Safety- .een parts washers usually consist of sata sort of c].ean.irtg apparatus attadted to the top of a drtrn of solvent nateriLl. Solvent is drawn up into the cleaning apparatus for use and is dis arged badc into the drsn afterward. pollcu .ithg a period of use, the solvent in the drtsu be s too itariinated to clean effectively. Periodically. sa cte frat Sa.fety-Kleen exchanges a fresh cleaning i it for the spent unit. bfr idi he will then transport to a Safety- C .een facility for recycling. In other situations, the cleaning apparatus is renoved at the operator’s site and placed atop a fresh drun of solvent. reuent1y. an operator will acctmulate several dr,me of spent solvent in this namer before the Safety- leeri rker arrives to rspl.ace the spent solvent dr .rta with fresh dr a. %*ien the solvent n r longer be used effectively, it is 01 eified as spent naterial. A spent naterial sent for reclanation is regulated as a solid waste 1er A. 261.2(c). FurtherTicre. if the waste is listed in 9E art D of Pert 261 or iibits any of the dlaracteristice identified in *art C of Part 261, then the waste is also regulated as hazardous waste t ider A. Cat5eq 3ent1Y. then the operator decides the solvent has be ue too ntazsinate1 for further use, it be ’ue3 regulated as hazazr %cu5 waste. The operator will. thus be a generator of hazardous waste en the cleaning a aratus is rauioved £ the drus. Source: Bob Axelrad (202) 475—8551 Matt Straus (202) 475—8551 Maureen Soith (202) 382—7703 Researd ria Andersen image: ------- 9441.1986 (97) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLy SU)O4Aj y DECEMBER 86 L6. D J .ut .ai of F003 Wastes May hastes ciesi ated as F O3 in §261.31 be treated by dilution? Yes, although §268.3 of the final rule (See 51 FR 40572) specifically prthibits the dilution of a restrj ed ste as a subetitute for adequate treatnent as specified in Subpart D of Part 268. E’003 bastes which are Listed solely for ignitability ri y be r xed with solid stes ard subsequentj.y avoid regulation d_er RP via the “ ‘txture Rule.” This is a 1.ished pursuant to 40 ‘R 261.3(a)(2)(j.i .j) which states that “a nt .xture of a solid ‘ ste and a b rd us ste that is Listed in Subpart D soi.ey because it e thibits one or zTcre of the diaracteristica of hazardous ste identified in Subpart C, alese the resultant mixture no longer e thibits any characterjgtj of hazardous ste identified in Subpart C” is a hazardous . ste. Thus, if an F003 ste which is listed solely for the characteristic of ignitability is mixed with a solid ste such that it no longer e,ththits any characteristic of a hazardous it is no longer regulated by RA and is, therefore, not subject to the larxi dispriusal restrictions. It should be noted, h ver, that er § 261.31 a ste nay be listed as F003 because it is to d .c as ll as ignitable. .lution Will riot render such stes non-hazardous. image: ------- 9441.1986(98) T RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE DECEMBER MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION 1986 7. ! rpty Containers Is an “eipty container” -whith held M hazardous wastes FO01-F005 subject to the land disposal restrictions? N07 according to 40 CFR 261.7(a) (1) as anended E51 FR 40637], “Any hazardous waste re inthg in either Ci) an ty container (ii) an inner liner ranoved fran an 1 Ly container, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, is not subject to regulation mder Parts 261 thrcu 265, 268 (added in this rule) • and Parts 270 and 124 of this thapter or to the notification requirenents of Section 3010 of . Thus, if the container has been Lied in accordance with the applicable provisicxis of §261.7(b), it is not subject to land disposal restrictions.” image: ------- 9441.1987 (02) , ,p4, . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON 0 C 20460 . L .me’ JAN 6 1987 SOt,. O *ASTE A 4O EMEqGENCV RESP SE Mr. Thor as Dufficy Executive Vice President National Association of Photographic Manufacturers. Inc 600 Mamaroneck Avenue Harrison, NY 10528 Dear Mr. Dufficy: This is in response to your letters of September 15, October 24. and November 4. 1986, regarding the regulatory status of properly washed chemical recovery catridges (also referred to in your letters as steel wool cartridges), flake silver from electrolytic recovery cells, and silver—containing ion—exchange resins, under the federal hazardous waste rules. These units ( i.e. . chemical recovery cartridges, electrolytic recovery cells. and ion—exchange resins) are used to recover silver in a number of operations in the photographic industry. Based on the data and information provided in your letters ( i.e. , analytical test data and discussions regarding the representativeness of the data), it appears that when these units are properly washed (in accordance with the instructions provided in your letters), they do not exhibit the characteristic of EP toxicity for silver. You also state that these recovery units do not exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corro- sivity. and reactivity, and I presume that these recovery units are not EP toxic for any of the other toxic contaminants. Thus, those recovery units that are properly washed appear not to be hazardous wastes and, therefore, are not subject to the federal hazardous waste regulations. However, each generator is still responsibl. for determining whether or not the wastes contained in the recovery units are hazardous. See 40 FR 262.1l. In addition, as we’ve discussed previously, to the extent that these recovery units would b defined as a sludge ( i.e. , a pollution control residual), they would not be subject to the federal hazardous waste rules when they were sent for reclamation, since they would not be considered a solid waste. Thus, if any of these devices was used to treat wastewater (for example, to comply with the new BAT/PSES rules), the residues contained in the units would be considered a sludge: if the sludge is sent for reclamation, it would not be considered a solid waste. See 40 CFR 26].2(c)(3). image: ------- inally. as you are aware. States Tt ay choose to regulate these recovery units under the .r State hazardous waste program differently than under the federal program. Therefore, representatives in the various States will need to be contacted to deterrnine the regulatory status of these recovery units under the State hazardous waste rules. Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475—8551 if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- January 7, 1987 9441.1987(03) M. J. Carricato, CAPT. CPC, USN Acting Director Environmental Policy Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Department of Defense Washington, DC 20301—8000 Dear Captain Carricato: We have reviewed the final draft DOD Instruction on the Applicability of RCRA to demilitarization of munitions. Agreement between EPA and DOD on this issue is being achieved at a critical time. Review of RCRA Part B permit applications for the proposed incinerators to destroy munitions containing chemical agents would have been delayed if the demilitarization issue had been left pending. As you know, due to recent developments at Camp Edwards, Maine, open detonation of discarded munitions on training grounds and impact ranges continues to be a subject of discussion between DOD and EPA. Until issues posed by some of the military’s open detonation activities are analyzed and resolved to our mutual satisfaction, we recommend deleting paragraphs 6 and 7 from the final Instruction. Deletion of these two sections does not appear to jeopardize the value of the rest of this Instruction. If you consider it advisable to modify the references to open burning or detonation made elsewhere in the Instruction, we would be happy to review any revisions DOD proposes. Paul Connor (475-7066) is available to assist your staff, as necessary, in this regard. We have noted a minor inaccuracy regarding RCRA coverage in the draft Instruction. The exclusion referred to in paragraph 8 is only for off-specification small arms ball ammunition. There are other ammunition types of similar caliber that are subject to RCRA. We also want to offer some comments that would ease implementation of this Instruction, both by DOD personnel and by EPA and State RCRA staffs: - There should be a clear identification of munitions that have already been declared a waste by the various DOD branches. For example, EPA understands the M55 rockets are not affected by this Instruction. For administrative ease, a list of all such munitions already designated as wastes (not only those containing chemical agents) should be attached to the final Instruction. — An indication of how the Instruction applies to “leakers” should also be included in the final version. The text This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— (or, alternatively, accompanying guidance) should clarify whether leakers——which are not commonly thought of as being amenable to further use——are covered by this instruction to the same extent as all other munitions. - All DOD field personnel must clearly understand that as soon as munitions are declared to be hazardous wastes, it is important to clearly distinguish them from other items also scheduled for demilitarization. The RCRA requirements apply to the hazardous wastes even when they are co—mingled with other munitions. The designated wastes must, for instance, be accompanied by the Uniform National Manifest if shipped to a demilitarization site together with other munitions. My staff is willing to assist DOD to prepare guidance on interpretation of the final Instruction, especially concerning “leakers” and situations where hazardous wastes and other munitions are co—located or mixed in the same shipment. Please contact Paul Connor to arrange for prompt review of any DOD implementation guidance. I hope our comments are useful in finalizing the DOD Instruction. Sincerely, Marcia Williams Director This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- — —— —. _•‘•••‘_• 9441.1987 (3!.) a s i Mr. James E. (Jim) Nugent, Chairman Railroad Commission of Texas Capitol Station, P.O. Drawer 12967 Austin. Texas 78711 Dear Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your letter dated October 21, 1986. As discussed below, the Agency has made some decisions concerning issues you raised in your letter. Because these tentative determinations are preliminary, however, we invite further discussion on them. The legislative history of Section 3001(b)(2)(A) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sheds some light on the identity of oil and gas and geothermal energy wastes subject to •xemptioru 1 the term uother wastes associated is specifically included to designate waste materials intrinsically derived from the primary field operations associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy 0 it would cover such substances as hydrocarbon—bearing soil in and around facilities; drill cuttings; materials (such as hydrocarbon, water, sand and emulsion) produced from a well in conjunction with crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy; and the accumulated material (such as hydrocarbon, water, sand, and emulsion) from production separators, fluid treating vessels, storage vessels, and production in?oundm.nts. The phrase uintrinsica lly derived from the primary field operation ... is intended to differentiate exploration, development, and production operations from transportation.(from the point of custody transfer or of production separation and dehydra- tion) and manufacturing operations. image: ------- — Given the above background, EPA intends to employ four criteria to assist in determining whether a waste is exempt, pending completion of our Report to Congress next years 1. Only waste streams intrinsic to the exploration for, or development and production of, crude oil. natural gas, or geothermal energy are subject to exemption. Waste streams generated at oil, gas, and geothermal energy facilities that are not uniquely associated with exploration, development. or production activities are not exempt (one example would be spent solvents from equipment cleanup). 2. Exempt waste must be associated with extraction 2 processes. which include measures (1) to remove oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy from the ground or (2) to remove impurities from such substances, provided that the purification process is an integral part of normal field operations. 3 3. The proximity of waste streams to primary field operations is another factor in determining the scope of the exemption. Process operations that are distant from the exploration, development, or production operations may not be subject to exemption. 4. Wastes associated with transportation are not exempt. The point of custody transfer, or of production separation and dehydration, may be used as evidence in making this determination. As shown on the enclosed table, EPA has used these criteria to tentatively designate various wastes a. exempt or not exempt. This table was taken from our October 31, 1986 Technical Report on wastes from the extraction of oil, gas and geothermal energy (copy enclosed). The Agency is aware that this list does not include all waste streams found at oil, gas, or geothermal energy extraction facilities. Therefore, EPA invites comsentere to specifically describe other pertinent waste streams and to artic- ulate, in terms of the above criteria, whether they believe these additional streams are exempted by Section 3001(b)(2)(A). EPA also invites conunent on the criteria themselves and on the appropriateness of the tentative classification shown on 2 The term extraction is defined to include exploration, development, and production activities for oil, gas, and geothermal energy. 3 Thus, wastes associated with such processes as oil refining. petrochemical’retated manufacturing, or electricity generation from geothermal energy are not exempt. image: ------- —3— the table. However, we believe this interpretation is consia.. tent with th. final Small Quantity Generator regulation promulgat.d on March 24. 1986 (51 PR 10146, copy enc lOsed7 see especially page 10162 for a discusaj of the applicability of that rule to offshore oil rigs). Consistent with the Small Quantity Generator regulation, EPA’s Region 6 office in Dallas has distributed Nnotices of hazardous waste registration requiremente. They are being distributed only as a result of inquiries or requests in order to aid parties in fulfilling responsibilities which they consider to be theirs under the law. Because EPA did not seek data from these facilities requesting information on our Small Quantity rule, we are unable to determine whether their waste streams meet the four criteria discussed above. I trust this clarifies the Agency’s current assessment of the scope of the exemption. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, /5/ Jack W. McGraw J. Winiton Porter I Assistant Administrator Enclosures (3) image: ------- UNITED S. ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION At.. .CY 9441.1987(06) JAN 2 98T Pai. ]. P. ir’i.’r, [ irc ctcr ?,.r u of 3o1i.. -25 t • .Lscon ir T ) r artrent of Taturai. P°sourcea Box 7921 ‘adison , ‘qisconsin 53707 Dear Paul: Thank you for your letter of December , 19e6. requesting an interpretation of 40 CFR §261.3(a)(2)(iii), regarding the regulatory status of listed wastes which were Listed solely because they exhibit a characteristic and whether they must go through the delisting procedures of 26O.22 in order to becone non—hazardous. Your interpretation of this provision is larg.ly correct. The •xisting regulations do allow wastes which are listed in Subpart D solely because they exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C to be mixed with solid wast. and b.com. unregulated, provided that th. resultant mixtur. no longer exhibit . any characteristic of hazardous wast•. The provision, of 260.22 notwithstanding, §261.3(a)(2) (iii) is, in essence, a form of self—implementing delisting. In the case of still bottoms produced from the distillation of waste acetone (P003). those still bottoms would remain hazardous waste unless mixed with another solid waste such that the resultant mixture no longer exhibited a characteristic. Such a mixtur. would not currently be required to go through the delisting procedures. Despit. the apparent contradiction. however, this provision only applies to mixtures of solid wastes and hazardous wastes. Thus, these still bottoms would technically r ain hazardous until formally delisted unless they were mixed with a solid waste, even if the stillE t ms did not exhibit a characteristic on their own. image: ------- —2— Vhile th. mixing of a solid waste and a hazardou, waste would technically ireet the definition of treatment, you should be aware that generators may perform trsatmsnt in their accumulation tanks or containers without a permit provided that it is performed strictly in accordance with 1262.34. Th. enclosed memorandum provides additional detail on this policy interpretation. It is also worth noting that we perc.iv. a number of problems with th. mixture ru l. provision and are considering proposing a chana. to the regulations. However, no such proposal is likely in th. near future du. to other priorities. I hop. that this has b..n r.sponsiv. to your request. If we can be of any additional help en this issu., pleas. do not h.sitat. to contact Matt Straus, of my staff, on (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Marcia Williams Dir.ctor Office of Solid Waste c losur. cc: Dave Stringham, P.giori V image: ------- ( UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C 20460 1987 9441.1987(08) januarY 28, oP Ict 0 SOLID WASTE AND EME GIP4CY RESPONSE Mr. David M. Friedman Environmental Chemist Bureau of Waste Management Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dear Dave: This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1986, regarding the scope of the final rule exempting Lima—etabjljzed waste liquor sludge (LSWPLS) from the presumption of haLardousness in 40 CFR 261.3.. As we discussed on the telephone, the exemption applies to LSWPLS generated by plants in the iron and steel industry (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Cod 33I and 332), whether or not th. spent pickl. liquor ha bean mixed with other non-liste4 process wastes generated by the iron and steel industry. / In reaching this conclusion, the Agency evaluated both the residus generated by the lima—st4ubilization of spent pickle liquor as well as the lime—stabilar.atiou of spent pickle liquor that has been mixed with other proc.ss wastes generated by the iron and steel industry. In both instances, w• determined that the LSWPLS was not hazardous after considering the original basis for the listing ( i.e. , corrosivity and the presence of lead and h.xaval.nt chromium) as well as considering other toxicants that may reasonably be .xp.ct.d to present in the waste. Thus, th. LSWPLS generated by Bethlehem Wire Rope at their facility in Williamaport. Pennsylvania is covered by the exemption in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii). Pleas. f..l fre. to give me a call at (202) 475—8551 if you have any questions. 1/ As you ar . aware, LSWPLS would be consid.r.d hazardous if — it exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics ( i.e. . ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedures (EP) toxicity). Sincerely, A Y C O- Matthew A. Straus, Branch ChJef Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- FEB 9 B7 9441.1987(09) Mr. Gregory A. Memker Vice President, Environmental Engineering QSource Engineering, Inc. Suite 300 228 Byers Road Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 near Mr. Hemker: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1987, requesting clarification on the proper hazardous classification of discarded inks, paints, and adhesives that contain certain solvents. These waste inks, paints, and adhesives are process wastes that are not currently listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261, and therefore, not subject to Subtitle C regulations unless the waste exhibits any of the four hazardous waste characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21-261.24 (ignitabiljty, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity). In the event that fresh or commercial grade solvents are present in the product or added to these products as an ingredient in the formulation, the resulting product (or discarded product) is not within the scope of the spent solvent listings. This point is stated in the preamble to the so!vent rules as well as the listing background documents. However, should .a spent solvent (one that can no longer used for its original purpose without reclamation) be added to the discarded product, then the resulting mixture is a hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.3(a) (2) (iv). In your case, you claim the discarded products fail the iqnitabj ljey teat and, therefore, are listed as 0001 ignitable hazardous waste. I agree with your interpretation of the hazardous classification of this waste. Also, I agree with your interpretation of the hazardous classification of the wastes in the two scenarios enclosed in your letter. If you have further questions regarding the proper classification of solid wastes, please contact Mr. Ed Abrams of my staff at (202) 382—4787. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief, Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- 9441.1987(10) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU1 .Q4ARY FEBRUARY 87 1. nall c).lantity Generator termination A recycler regenerates listed spent solvent (F005) that he receives fran off—site. The recycler burns the still Dottoma and a portion of the reclaimad solvent on—site in an industrial furnace. He sells the remaining reclained solvent to t conpanles: one that will burn it as fuel and one that will use the solvent for its solvent properties. H does the recycler count the still botton and reclai.rt d solvent for the purpose of small quantity generator r onthly quantity determinations? The recycler rtiist include the still botton in his quantity determinations because they are hazardous waste generated on- site and burned for energy recovery. As a hazardous waste fuel, they are subject to 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart D. According to §261.5(c), a generator ra st count wastes subject to Part 266 subpart D in his nonthly quantity determination. The reclauted solvent fuels that are burned on—site and marketed off—site are subject to Part 266 Subpart D and the counting requiremants. The only waste quantity that the recycler does not include in his quantity determinations is the reclained solvent that will be used for its solvent properties. 40 CFR 261.3(C)(2)(i) exenpt.s reclained materials that will be used beneficially fran regulation as wastes as long as they are not burned for energy recovery or used in a manner constituting disposal. Because the reclained solvent will be used as a solvent and not a fuel or product applied to the land, it uld not be included in the nl3nthly quantity determinations. Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475—8551 Specialist: Jennifer Brock (202) 382—3112 —2— image: ------- 9441.1987 (1 .) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY FEBRUARY 87 2. P006 P006 is specificalLy electroplating wastewater treatment sludge. If a corrosive electroplating wastewater 1.5 d .r TTned up and shipped of f—site without treatment it i.5 classified as D002. This waste goes to an acid waste treatment facility where it is mixed with other various types of acid wastes. Is the sludge fran this treatment. process going to be classified as P006? Yes, since sane of the waste is electroplating wastewater, the sludge is partly derived fran the wastewater arid will meet the definition of P006. SOL. :e: Steve Rirsch (202) 382—7706 Specialist: Randy Eicher (202) 382—3112 image: ------- UNITED 4TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION !NCY ) 4 4 1. 198 7 (13) Mr. Michael Piznar Neptune Water Met.r Company Route 229 South Tallahassee, AL 36078—1 .799 Dear Mr. Pisnart Thank you for your letter of January 19, 1987, confirming our telephone conversation. A s I explained by telephone, PAs hasardous waste regulations have special requirents for wastes that are recycl.d. You should review Part 261.2 and 261.6. Based on th. information you provided in our conversation the treat nt process necessary to recycle your foundry sands back into your foundry would appear to be exempt fros th. need for a RCRA tr.atnt permit. However, you should be aware that you will n.ed to cc.ply with the generator storage requir nts if the wastes are stored in a tank or container for les. than 90 day. (40 C?R 262.34) or will need a storage permit if the wastes are stored on site for greater than 90 days. I am en- closing a c y of Parts 261.2, 261.6, 262.34 and the regulation for hazardous waste storage in tanks for your infor tion. Sincerely, James a. Berlow, Chief Tr.at nt Technology Section Office of Solid Waste c losures ccs Matthew Straus, Chief Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- —2— Please feel free to call Mr. Mike Petruska at 8-382—7737 if you have any further questions. cc: Regional Branch Chiefs (EPA Regions I-IV and VII-X) This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- March 6, 1987 9441.1987(14) MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Status of Automotive Fluids FROM: Marcia E. Williams Director, OSW TO: Michael J. Sanderson Chief, RCRA Branch EPA Region VII This is to provide guidance on the questions raised in your February 19, 1987 memo. First, no automotive fluids have been listed as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA; therefore, the question of whether these fluids are subject to the hazardous waste regulations depends on whether the fluid in question exhibits one or more of the RCRA hazardous waste characteristics. Although we do not have studies in this area, we have been informed that some brake fluids and automatic transmission fluids are ignitable under 40 CFR §261.21. Used crankcase oils may also be ignitable (because small amounts of gasoline are added during or after use), and may exhibit E.P. toxicity for lead. However, for those automotive fluids that are used oils and are recycled, the hazardous waste regulations would not currently apply, even if the fluid exhibits a characteristic; rather all used oils that are recycled are subject to 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart E (See 40 CFR S261. 6 (a) (2) (iii).) Currently, Part 266, Subpart E only regulates the recycling of used oil as fuel. All other recycling methods are exempt from regulation. Those automotive fluids that are either not a used oil, or are used oil that is disposed of, are subject to the hazardous waste regulations if they exhibit one or more of the characteristics. Currently, we define “used oil” in §266.40(b) very broadly. Brake fluid, power steering fluid, and automatic transmission fluid would all be considered used oils. On the other hand, antifreeze and windshield washer fluid, because they are not “oils” as the term is commonly used, would not be used oils. As a practical matter, our understanding is that brake, steering, and transmission fluids are typically mixed with crankcase oils and recycled. Therefore, the hazardous waste characteristics are not relevant and Part 266, Subpart E applies if the oils are recycled as fuel. Used anti-freeze is not a used oil and is not likely to exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics; consequently, it may be disposed of as a solid waste in Subtitle D facilities. Similarly, windshield washer fluid is not used oil, and is not likely to exhibit a characteristic; thus, it may also be disposed of as solid waste. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441.1967( 5) iAR L Geor e T.7 ‘ bo, Ph.fl., P.P.E. r)irector, Pesearch, Education and Technical Pesources ‘T t.ional Pest Control Association, Inc. 1OO Oak Street flunn Lorina, VA 22027 Dear Dr. Pambo: I am writing in response to your letter of February 9, 1987, recuestina an interpretation of the hazardous waste rules as they apoly to the practice of treating homes and apartment complexes for termites with the pesticides, Chlordane and Heptachior. You also specifically request that we discuss the relationship of the June 13, l9R6 Federal Register notice, proposed to çicity charac- teristic, to the practice of termite treatment. As you are aware, Subtitle C of RCRA controls the management of hazardous wastes. The soils described in your let-t.er are not considered hazardous wastes under the Federal hazardous waste rules since contamination which results from normal pesticide use is not covered by the hazardous waste regulatiou . This interpretation would not change under the proposed toxicity characteristic. 9 owever, you should be aware that States may have differing regulations which may affect this interpretation. In particular, state regulation may be more stringent than the Federal hazardous waste rules. (See section 3009 of RCRA.) Therefore, you will still need to discuss your concern with the Arizona Department of i4ealth Services as it relates to their regulations. Please do not hesitate to contact my office, if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste image: ------- March 17, 1987 9441.1987(16) Dr. Wiadimir Gulevich, Ph.D., P.E., Director Bureau of Hazardous Waste Management Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Waste Management 11th Floor, Monroe Building 101 N. 14th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Dr. Gulevich: This letter is in response to the various conversations we have had and your letter of January 15, 1987, in reference to the U.S. Navy salvage fuel boiler plant in Norfolk. I have also received from you EP tox data which indicate some ash from this plant exceeds EP concentration levels for lead and cadmium. I understand the U.S. Navy has proposed that the residues from this plant be exempted from hazardous waste regulation by way of two regulatory exclusions. The exclusion at 40 CFR, Section 261.4(b) (4) applies to residue primarily from combustion of coal or other fossil fuels. There is insufficient information to determine whether residue from the Norfolk facility qualifies for this exclusion. On January 13, 1981, the Agency offered an interpretation (copy enclosed) on the question of whether this exclusion extends to combustion wastes that result from the burning of mixtures of fossil and other fuels. In that interpretation, the exclusion was defined to include all wastes generated in the combustion of coal—waste mixtures where coal makes up more than 50% of the fuel mixture. This interpretation is still operative. The “household waste exclusion” of 40 CFR 261.4(b) (1) turns not on the composition of the waste, but on whether the particular source of the waste can properly be characterized as a household. Based on the information you have provided, we see no basis for a conclusion that the Navy salvage fuel boiler plant is a household. In addition Section 223 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 modified RCRA to provide an exemption for wastes at certain resource recovery facilities handling municipal solid waste. Based on the information available at this time, we do not believe there is a basis for excluding these boiler plant wastes under this provision. The Agency is vigorously investigating the issue of disposal of residues from municipal waste combustion. We are aware of the growing concerns involved, and we are moving as rapidly as is prudent to acquire the data necessary for regulatory strategy development. I would be happy to meet with you, per your request, to discuss this issue. We can arrange a mutually convenient time following your receipt of this letter. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- -2-- Thank you for your continued communication and cooperation. I look forward to seeing you soon. With kindest regards, I am, Sincerely, Gerry Dorian Environmental Scientist cc: Truett DeGeare Mark Greenwood Pat Pesacreta This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441.1937(17) 4 Ø I j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 8 I 41 / WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 pu 1 o tc. MAR 3 I 87 OFFICE O SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEMORANDUM SUSJECr: Reuse of Spent Pickle Liquor FROM: Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Characterization Branch, OSW (WH—562B) TO: William H. Miner, EWEB Chief EPA Region V This is in response to your memorandum of January 14, 1987, in which you request a regulatory interpretation regarding the “reuse” of spent pickle liquc .r for purposes of neutralization. In particular, you ask: (1) whether the treatment (reuse) process conducted at a specific facility would be considered “Use constituting disposal” and (2) whether the recycling of spent pickle liquor for purposes of neutralization would be considered re—use as an effective substitute. The answer to these two questions is as follows: (1) Is the treatment (reuse) process conducted and described in your memorandum considered to be used in a manner consti- tuting disposal? No. The “Us. Constituting Disposal” regulalions applies to those wastes or waste—derived products 1i that are applied to or placed on the land for benefTcial use ( i.e. , those materials that are recycled by being placed on the land). Wastes that are stored or treated in units ( i.e. , surface impoundments) that are on the land are not considered within this provision (i.e., they are not being applied to the land for bene!T Tal use). Rather, the.. units and the wastes they contain would be evaluated based on other aspects of the Subtitle C regulations to determine their regulatory status. LI A waste—derived product is defined as those products which contain hazardous waste that are applied to the land that are themselves hazardous. image: ------- —2— (2) Is the recycling of spent pickle liquor for purposes of neutralization considered to be reuse? The answer to this question depends on a number of factors. Aa we state in the preamble to the final rules, corrosive materials that are neutralized are normally considered wastes. However, where such corrosive materials can be shown to: (1) meet relavent specifica- tions with regard to contamination levels; (2) be as effective as the virgin material for which they substitute ( i.e. , the same amount of waste acid would generally be needed as the virgin acid for which it replaces); (3) be used under controlled conditions ( i.e. . stored in a manner commensurate with its alleged status as a new material, which storage in an impoundment rarely or ever would be; 50 FR 652 n. 44 (January 4, 1985)); and (4) that in a two party transaction, there be considera- tion (usually monetary) for use of the material, we believe such materials may not be wastes. See 50 FR 638, January 4, 1985. Based on the information provided in your memorandum. I would question whether the neutra- lization process is a reuse process; rather it appears to constitute waste management. However, whether or not the use of spent pickle liquor as a neutralizing agent ii excluded from regulation in the particular situation decribed in your memorandum will need to be evaluated based on the particular facts. (See attached letters for successful demonstration with respect to this provision.) Pickle liquor stored without being used for neutralization is indisputably a solid waste. 48 FR 14488 n. 32 (April 4, 1983). With respect to the argument made by the company (who I assume is Dundee Cement) that the language of the preamble cannot change the effect of the regulatory language, we belive that both the rule and the preamble are consistent. In particular, the rule specifically excludes fro. being solid wastes those materials that are reused a. effective substitute..’ The question therefore, is what is meant as an effective substitute ; the preamble discussion lays out what the Agency considers to be an effective substitute where neutralization is occuring. As the Agency’s contemporaneous interpretation image: ------- —3— and explanation of its n regulation——in fact dealing with the precise point at issue——the preamble is entitled to, and would receive great deference from any reviewing court (see, e.g.. Ford Motor Credit Co . v. Milhol].jn , 444 u.s. 555, 566 (1980); Genera]. Electric Co. , v. Gilbert , 429 U.S. 125. 129 (1976)). In addition, the preamble language is detailed and well—reasoned, draws on the Agency’s technical expertise, and is in accord with the general statutory scheme, all further factors which would lead a court to consider the interpretation with great deference. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944); Ford Motor Co. , supri7T44 U.s. at 568-69. Therefore, we do not agree with the company that the preamble is inapplicable to this situation. You also ask, to what degree does the preamble influence the interpretation of the regulations from an enforcement stand- point and to what extent can it be used to support an adminis- trative or other enforcement action. As we’ve indicated previously, your primary argument in any administrative or enforcement action must be based on the language of the rule.2/ H ever, the language of the preamble or any other document can and should be used where it supports the language of the rule; in this case, the language in the preamble can be used as explanation and interpretation of the term “effective susbtitute. ” Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further questions. Attachments cc : Solid Waste Branch Chiefs (EPA Regions I—X) Gary Geunther (Mich. DNR) Larry Aubuchan (Mich. DNR) 2 In addition to the language in 40 CFR 26l.2(e), you can also refer to 40 CFR 260.lO (definition of treatment and elementary neutralization unit); 40 CFR 264.l(g)(6); and 40 CFR 265.1(c)(lO). image: ------- 944l.1937(!8 RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONThLY SU)O ARY MARCH 87 2. Solvent Mixture R .i1e t will the oLLowing m.ixtures be classified under RP.? The concentra cns of the various xir nentS before use are indicated bel . 1) Solvent containing 1.5% xyle.ne (P003). 15% toluene (P005) arid 70% water. 2) SoLvent containing 80% xylene (P003), 5% rrethylene thioride (P001) arid 15% water. * - — 3) Solvent containing 80% xylene (P003) arid 20% water. The prea le of the ‘Solvent Mixture I i1e’ piblished in the Federal on c rber 31 1985 (50 FR 53315) states that since the qency has rvt evaluated the P003 solvents for their toxicity, and r determination could be nede as to the ignitability of an P003 mixture, the 10% threshold a lies to the i in a ricdified form. According to the Solvent Mixture Ru.Le, mixtures onta.ining P003 solvents are covered under the listings only under ti conditions: 1) the mixture conr.ai .ns onLy P003 constituents, or 2) the mixture conta.z.ris one or n re P003 constituents arid 10% or rtore of the other listed solvents prior to use. Therefore, the first mixture k en spent uld be a listed hazardous waste under . For the p.2rposes of r tification and rr nifesting, the generator uld designate this waste as F005/F003. The second mixture is r t a Listed waste because the rr thy Lens thioride (P001) concentration prior to use is Less than 10% and it itaine constituents other than P003. This mixture, ho. ever. will probably be ignitable and therefore classified as DOOL. The last mixture is r t a listed waste unless it is considered to be a tuiercial or te inical grade xylene solution. If it is rct ted nical or u r erciaL grade, the mixture should be tested for the diaracteristic of i iitability. Source: Jacqueline Sales (202) 382-4770 R rch: yn Neaville image: ------- 9441. 1987 (19) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY MARCH 87 3. So 1. vent Dri inqs for Deoreasj q A ball-bearing meriufacturer dips metal parts in a degreasing tank of pure 1.1, l-t üoroethane. Once the parts have been dipped, they are grc .u d. ‘ e cooling systen (e .ther oil or ter is used as the fluid) picks up the grinding sand, metal flakes, and traces of solvent left on the part. The fluid is then filtered fop- reuse, and the sand-metal -solvent mixture is discarded. Are the traces of solvent left on the parts after degreasing class .fied as FOOL? Is the sand-metal-solvent mixture regulated as a )i rdcu.j ste tien discarded? The snail ancunt of solvent rena.in.ing on the part after it has been dipped will not be regulated as EVO 1 • The solvent is not spent. If the sar 1-metal-solvent mixture ethibits any of the d aracteristics of hazardous ste as defined in & bpart C of 40 R Part 261, then the mixture ild be regulated as a hA trdOuS ste. Source: Steve Si Iverynan 382—7706 Beeearch: Becky Cuthbertson image: ------- 9441.1987(20) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION MARCH 1987 4. Generat.ion and Recycling A generator (100-1000 kg/rn,) uses a solvent cleaning unit similar to a Safe-T-I .een parts washer at his plant. Then the solvents (mineral spirits) beo too contaminated for further use, an wpioyee retoves the drtrn of spent solvent to the plant’s 180-day acc suLation area At sara point, the drim is placed in a snail distillation unit on—site to reclaim the solvents • After reclamation, the solvent is reused and the distillation bottai are placed in a 55 gallon dnun. is the accuiulation of the still bott1 regulated? The Agency interprets recycling as a form of treatn nt, although as §261.6(c)(1) states, Nthe recycling process itself is ex L f regulation.” Accordingly, a recycling facility is viewad nu&* the sane as other types of hazardous waste treabiient, storage or disposal facilities, in that wastes generated by the facility nhlst be managed in liance with the Part 262 generator standards • As e q1ained in the Ceceiber 31, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 86969) • “ ,ners and qerators of hazardous waste nmnaget nt fa 1ities- may generate hazardous waste (i.e • residues oreated by treatmant processes). With respect to the hazardous waste that these persons generate, they, like other generators, mist c iy with the a çliaab1e provisions of Part 262.” C rrying this logic one step further, a generator o treats his waste on .site - nay consider the treatmant activity ancther distinct point of generation. Applying this to the scenario under d cussion, the generator nay accwtulate his spent mineral spirit before reclamation without need of a pexTnit, in accordance with §262’34. Since the spent mineral spirits are accusilated prior to reclamation, the volua of rcn-reclaimed solvents is counted in the generator’s n* ithly b rdcus waste generation rate (see 51 FR 10153, §261.5(c)). As was explained earlier, the solvent reclamation unit is regarded as a separate point of generation. O seguently, the generator may accizmilate the recycling residues (still bottam) in accordance with §262.34. The still bott may be acctntiilated in a quantity r t to exceed 55 gallons in a container at or near the distillat.ion unit without beco ing sub edt to regulation, parsuant to the §262.34(c) (1) satellite acc rTulaticr1 standards. After acctatLllating over 55 gallons of the still bottata at the’ “satellite acc ji ilaticn area” the generator Will have 3 days to rei ve any ancunt over 55 gallons to a generator accumalation area, there the waste nay be stored without a permit (per 264.1(g)(3)) for 180 days before he mist ship the waste off-site. In addition, the generator need nct include the voltzt of still bottare produced in his nonthly generation rate determination, so long as the original spent mineral spirits have already been minted once, per §26].5(d)(2). image: ------- 9441.1987(2) APR 8 87 K. Seiler State of Washington Department of Ecology 7272 Cleanwater Lane, LU-il Olympia, Washington 98504—6811 Dear Ms. Seiler: I recently received your letter of February 26, 1987, in which you requested clarification as to whether excavated soils, contaminated with 2,4,5-T, Simazine, 2,4—D, Dicambia, and Bromacil, are F027 wastes. The site in question was a county public works yard where a pesticide product was mixed with water as a carrier, prior to application on the county roadsides. Contamination occurred from spillage of both unused and used pesticide solutions. The F027 listing designates, as acute hazardoun waste (H), formulations containing tn-, tetra-, or pentachiorphenol or discarded unused formulations containing compounds derived from these chiorophenols. Whether the contaminated soil contains a listed hazardous waste is dependent on: (a) whether the 2,4,5-T got onto the soil through the use of the chemical or by being discarded, and (b) whether the 24,5-T was in fact a discarded formulation as stated in Sec.261.3l. Soil, which is contaminated with unused 2,4,5—T, that had been discarded, would contain a listed hazardous waste, namely F027. This contaminated soil, which contains a hazardous waste, is therefore subject to the Subtitle C regulations. Soils, which are contaminated with 2,4,5—T, as a function of its use, would not be considered to contain a hazardous waste. These - contaminated soils may, however, be hazardous if they are excavated to be discarded, and if they meet the hazardous waste characteristics, i.e. , if the EP leachat. concentration exceeds the levels specified in Sec.261.24(b). image: ------- To my knowledge, there are currently no commercial treatment or disposal facilities permitted to accept listed dioxin wastes. You also questioned whether any treatment standards have been established for dioxin Wastes. According to 40 CFR 264.343, incinerators burning hazardous wastes F020-F023, F026, and F027 must achieve a destruction and removal efficiency of 99.9999% for each principal organic hazardous constituent specified in its permit. Effective Nov. 8, 1988, these same wastes are restricted from land disposal if an extract of the waste or the treatment residual of the waste (using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)) is equal to or greater than 1 ppb of dioxin. Please feel free to call Doreen Sterling, of my staff, at 202-475-6775, if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Matthew Straus, Chief Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- 9441.1987(24) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG WASHINGTON D C 20460 4 0 t. APR I 5 1987 OFFICE OF SOLPO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RE Mr. Ronald D. Conte Opera tions Coordinator Petrogvjj.1. Chemicals, Inc. 2523 Mogadore Road Akron, OR 44313 Dear Mr. Conte: Thank you for your letter of March 27, 1987, concerning the regulatory status of virgin and recycled chemicals being placed in and removed from storage tanks. Prom the facts you provided, the only material that appears to be a solid Waite at all and so potentially subject to the hazardous waste regula- tions, is the recycled xylene. My understanding is that your normal operation involves blending of reclaimed xylene to produce a marketable solvent. In this situation, EPA only regulates storage and transportation of the spent solvent, not the reclamation or blending process or the recl imed material. (See 40 CFR *261.6(c)). liowever, you indicated thet you produced a batch of material not suitable for solvent use, and that you sent this for fuel use. EPA does regulate a reclaimed solvent that is used to produce a fuel. (See 40 CFR *261 .6(a)(2)(ij), and Part 266, Subpart D.) Therefore, it was cut -rect for you to manifest the blended solvent/chemical mixture that you were sending for fuel use. Because your operation normally produces reclaimed solvent, the mixture actually became a hazardous waste at the time you determined that it was not suitable for solvent use (and that it therefore had to be marketed as fuel). As referenced above, EPA does regulate the storage of hazardous waste fuel as well. as fuel blending tanks. In your case, however, it appears that the tank was really a product (solvent) blending tank, and so not subject to regulation. This determination is based on your assurance that the fuel production was an isolated incident, and that your original intent in placing reclaimed xylene in the tank was to produce solvent, not fuel. The fact that you normally produce solvent and that you actually did market some of the material from the tank as a solvent (as well as fuel) image: ------- —2— supports such a conclusion regarding your intent. Let e reiterate however, that EPA does normally regulate tanks used to store or blend hazardous waste fuel, and your tank was not subject to regula- tion only due to the special circumstances described above. If you have questions concerning the deter jnatioa 5 Outlined above, contact Mike Petruska of y staff at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, hlct LC4.4. Marcia Wil1j i Director of Solid Waste cc: Regional Waste Management Division Directors image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTF rio ! :ENCY 9441.1987(26) APR 1 7 19!T ‘s. Sue Vedantham Fnvironinental !naineer Solvent Service, inc l( 2 Rerryessa Load San Jose, California 95133 Dear Ms. Vedantham: This letter responds to your March 1Q. j9Q7 , corresrc’ndpnce requestina a written statement addressing the re u1atory status of clean” solvent from recycled solvent—contajnjna wastes that are subject to the land disposal, restrictions. According to the provisions in 40 CFP 2 1.1(c)( )fj), “materials that are reclaimed from solid wastes and that are used beneficially are not solid wastes and hence are not.hazerd us wastes under this provision unless the reclaimed wat rial i burned for energy recovery or used in a manner constitutinr, disposal.” Therefore, the clean solvent from your recovery process is not a solid waste, and as such, is not a hazardous waste which is subject to the land disoosal restrictions. Fowever, the still bottoms from the recovery of spent solvents are hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFP 7 1.31. For example, the recv linq of spent car) on tetrachioride from a metal cleanina operation results in “clean” carbon tetreebloride solvent that r ay t e sold as a product or otherwise reused and still bottoms which remain listed hazardous wastes and subject to the land disposal re- strict ions. If you have additional questions, you may call me at (202)3R7—477o. Sincerely, ,Jacaueline W. Fales, Chief Regulation l evelopmont Section image: ------- (t . 9441.1987(28) i ED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 ei, APR 3O 87 O ICE oc LOUD WASTE AND EME OENCY s. Mr. Terry Gray, Chief Plan Review and Permit Section Hazardous Waste Management Branch Solid and Hazardous Waste Management State of Indiana Department of Environmental Management 105 South Merdian Street P.O. Box 6015 Indianapolis, IN 46206—6015 Dear Mr. Gray: This is in response to your letter of March 13. 1987, in which you request written confirmation concerning a specific aspect of the mixture rule exemption that was prom ’1gated on November 17. 1981. In particular, you ask if solvent that is lost via volatilization once it is discharged to the plant sewer is excluded from the mixture rule calculation in *261.3(a)(2) (iv)(A) and (B). As I discussed with Ms. Jayne Browning of your staff, the regulation and the preamble to the November 17, 1981 Federal Register makes is clear that once a waste ( i.e. , spent solvent) is discharged to the wastewater, it must be included in the calculations to determine whether or not a facility exceeds the mixture rule exemption levels. See, for example, 40 CFR c26l.3(a)(2)(lv)(A) where it states N... provided that the maximum total weekly usage of these solvents (other than the amounts that can be demonstrated not to be discharged to wastewat.r)... 7 sea also footnote 24 at 46 FR 56585 where it statess image: ------- —2— However, if a facility can demonstrate by means of appropriate records that any portion of solvents used at the facility are not disposed to wastewater, that portion is to be excluded from the calculation. That portion of solvents which is volatilized may not be excluded from the calculation of solvent usage.” Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475—8551 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, m4 & a. Matthew A. Straus, Chief - Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- 94 4 1. 198 7 (2 9) tO ST ., j . , UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENLY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 ‘) ‘U— APR 3 0 OF PCE OF SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPOp, Mr. Gordon Davidson Project Manager for Environmental - Affairs IT Corporation 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024 Dear Mr. Davidson: This is in response to your April 9, 1987, letter in which YOU request authorization to transport laboratory samples and associated laboratory wastes contaminated with 2, 3, 7, 8—tetrachlorodibenzo—p—djoxjn from your Knoxville laboratory back to the Diamond Shamrock Lister Avenue site. You state that the samples originated from the clean—up associated with this site. It is my understanding, from a telephone conversation between you and Doreen Sterling of my staff, that you ar unsure if the waste in question is actually covered by the Dioxin Listings. You are, however, handling your waste as if it were hazardous. Our r.sponse, therefore, assumes that the waste in question is a “hazardous waste”. According to 40 CFR 261.4(d), a laboratory may transport a sample, which is collected for the sole purpose of testing to determjg e its characteristics or composition, back to the sample collector. No approval from the Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) is required for this action. However, once the sample is received at the Lister Avenue site, it must be managed as a hazardous waits. You also stated in your telephone conversation with Doreen Sterling that the associated wastes in question include lab solvents, protective gear, etc. which were used during analysis. These wastes are not covered by the provisions of Section 261.4(d). Rather, these materials either are listed hazardous waste (i.e., spent solvents) or contain a listed hazardous waste (i.e., protective gear) an i irbe managed image: ------- as if it were an acute hazardous waste. However, if the materials that contain listed hazardous waste are decontaminated such that they no longer contain the listed waste, they are no longer subject to Subtitle C regulations. Any rinsate, generated during cleaning would, however, be an acute hazardous waste via application of the mixture rule (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2). If you have any further questions, please contact Doreen Sterling of my staff at (202) 475—6775. Sincerely, f4 44 Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste image: ------- 9441 . 193’ (30) jp iTED STATES ENVIROP MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY R 3 0 L CCTs ScoFe of Ter pOrarY CxclUeiOn for onroe Autc ui -ent. Cozaci. 1ebraska : arcia wj1liaxr S t..irectOr, Office of Solid iaate ( fl!—5G2) Cavid A. Wagoner Director, Waste ana eR Pflt Division PeciOfl VIZ f ank you for your April ]C, 1937 r eworandum concerning the Gcope oe 1onroe Auto Equipment’s [ sc.r her 27, 1982 temporary exclusion. SpecificallY. you asked if the temporary exclusion issued Decerber 27, 1982 covered (1) the P006 sludges disposed of at the Sandhill$ Landfill during 1981 and 1982 and (2) the FOC6 sl. Uges generated at Monroe Auto EquiplT’•flt prior to the tesr;orary exclusiOn. The Agency believes that Monroe’s temporary exclusion i1d not ar ly to any of the wastes disposed at their Sandhills disposal site. First, .xcluiiOfli are granted to a facility for specific iastsl. If th. waste will be managed on—site. sampling data for the waits contained in each on ite man g.msnt unit must be provi’ ed. :cnro.’s initial petitiOn (subtaittei 9/20/83) was limited to tie inpoundsd waste at the Second Street facility. It did not mention the Sandhills site. nor was analytical data haracteriZiflg the sludge at the SandhillS disposal site .ubmitt.d untiL August 1985, nearly three y..ri after the date of the temporary exclusion. The Aug M 1985 •ub.tS$iOfl provided incomplete information for the landflhled sludg. at Sandhilli. Subsequently, P4onroe discon- tinued uss of the two impoundments at the Second Street facilitY 3nd Isgea ..iitg a vacuum filter pr.sS to generate dewatered ai udgs fr th.ir productiOn process. Due to tricl!tlOrOethYlS” ccntaLaiflatiom found in ground water at the Second Street site. and trichlOroethyl 5fl found in the sludge contained in the inactive surface impoundments. at the Second Street sits. Monroe attempted to re—treat th• irapoundd wastes by aeration. On October 18, 190!. image: ------- tt.d a second ,etiti0fl seekifl to exclude their (aerated) surface irpoundi eflt sluclc:TeS, the Sanrihills e1udge. and tnelr actively cenerated roces9 vacuutl , 1 jter cake. This f..irther eroflStrate9 that ‘onro ’5 first was only for t!’e sludcje ccntained in their two on—site 4 urface jrcoundr eflt8 at their Second Stre !t acjlity, anc 1 thL’t their teirpOrarY exclU5iOI did not aprly to the waste disposed t ti e Sandhille Laz dfill site. Therefore, since no ter ,orary € xclUSiOfl applied to the an1hillS landfill, and it contains ur characteriz listed baste generated prior to t e issuance of tne teS pOrarY exclUsiOfl, it i nd has been hazardous waste ir.ce 1960. ecau Se the waste disposed at the SancThills disposal sitP was never covered by 1 ’onrOe’S ecenber 27, 1982 temporarY exclusiCn, onrOe does not have the six “onth period (norreally given to petitioners having had a ter pOrarY exclusion revok•d) in which to bring the Sandhille disposal site into compliance with all of the applicable £ CRA regulations. This area has contained haxardCUs waste since l9 3O and, as a result, Monroe must comply with all appropriate requireiteflts under 40 CFR Parts 262 through 265 and 40 CFP. Part 270. Je are going to publish a final denial decision in the FedersA Thi. notice will both explain the Agency’s eitiOfl regarding the scope of ‘onroe’I previous temporary exclusion and how the Agency inadvertantlY omitted reference to onroe’s Sandhill disposal site sludge in our final decision to deny i onrOe’S surface irtpounduteflt sludge and vacuum filter cake published November 14, 1986 in the Fecieral Reaieter (see 51 !‘ 41320). I hope that ws have responded tO your auegtiOVtS. Should you require more information or further clarification, please call 4r. Myles More., of my staff, at (202) 382—4782. image: ------- RCR /SUp ptjND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY ) 4 4lj 67(31) APRIL 87 4. Waste Derived fran Treating Ex t or Excluded Wastes Residues fran treating, storing, or diposing of hazardous waste are included in the definition of hazardous waste (S 261 .3(c)(i)). Can residues resulting fran incinerating the foll ing wastes wruch are exençt or excluded fran regulation r eet the definition f hazardous waste? (a) Ash produced by incinerating hazardous waste generated by less than 100 kg/no srMll quantity generators whose waste is ex tpt fran full regulation by S261.5(b). (b) Ash produced f ran incinerating only household waste which is excluded fran the definition of hazardous waste per §261.4(b) (1). Cc) Ash produced f ran incinerating EP toxic arsenical treated wood whic is excluded fran the definition of hazardous waste und § 6l.4(b)(9). (a) Yes, Although S261 .5(b) exempts wastes fran sn 11 generatot-s producing (100 kilogran per nonth fran regulation under Parts 262—266 and Parts 270 and 124, it does not exenpt the waste f ran being classified as hazardous, nor does it iii ply that the waste is not hazardous. A discussion in the preamble f the August 1, 1985 Federal Register Trentioned that any hazardous waste, regardless of its point of origin, is hazardous waste. This logic could only apply to ( 100 kg/no generators’, waste, as wall as to > 100 kg/rio generators’ waste (50 FR 31299). The incinerator would not be required to have a RCRA permit in order to reoe ive hazardous waste fran < 100 kg/no generators per S 2 65.l(c)(5)artd S264.l(g)(1), but the incinerator could itself generate a hazardous waste ash that would be subject to regulations under Parts 262—266. (b) No. Section 261.4(b)(1) excluded household waste that has been recovered (e.g., refuse—derived fuel) fran regulation as a hazardous waste. The preair le of the May 19, 1980 Federal Register stipulated that residues r inLrVJ after treatnent (e.g. incineration) of household waste are not subject to regulation as hazardous waste (45 £! 33099). (c) Yes. The exclusion for arsenical treated wood, as discussed in the preamble of the November 25, 1980 Federal Register , pertains to arsenical—treated wood that is land disposed by saieone who uses the wood for its intended end use, (45 FR 78531). This exclusion doe not extend to EP toxic waste generated by the incineration of the wood. The incineration of the wood may be subject to regulation if the wood exhibits the characteristic of EP toxicity. Source: Matt Straus (202) 475—8551 Research: Kim Gotwals image: ------- 9441.1987(32) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION APRIL 1987 3. Multiple Generator Location and Consolidation A caipany ns several small factories in different counties. Each factory generates less than 100 kilogran of hazardous waste per nonth, and is subject to reduced regulation under §261.5. Options for disposal of waste fra n conditionally exen t generators are provided in §261.5(f)(3). (a) May the conditionally exenpt generators transport waste to one of the caupany’s facilities for consolidation and subsequent shiprrent to a RCRA disposal facility? (b) I es the facility of the generator who is consolidating the waste qualify as a sutransfer facility”? Cc) D es the generator who consolidates the waste becate a full quantity generator if he ships nore than 1000 kg of hazardous waste fran his site per nonth? (or a 100—1000 kg/no generator if he ships between 100 and 1000 kg of waste per nonth?) (a) Under §261.5(f)(3) in order to remain exenpt fran certain regulations, a conditionally exempt nall quantity generator may ensure delivery of his hazardous waste to a storage, treatnent, or disposal faclity that is one the fol1 iing types of facilities: Ci.) permitted under Part 270 of 40 CFR; or (ii.) in interim status under Parts 265 and 270 of 40 CFR; or (iii.) authorized to manage hazardous waste by a state with a hazardous waste managen nt progr n approved under Part 271 of 40 CFR; or (iv.) licensed, registered or permitted by the state to manage municipal or industrial solid waste; or (v.) benefically uses, reuses or reclainE the waste. In order for one of the generators to serve as a central collection point for the other generators. he would have to qualify as one of the above itentioned facilities. Realistically, the easiest approach would be for the generator to receive state approval to manage the consolidated waste shipnents. image: ------- RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST APRIL HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION 1987 (Continued) (b) If the generator does not receive authorization fran his State, he may still receive and store the waste for a period of tima if he qualifies as a transfer facility. Under §263.12, waste may be stored at a transfer facility for ten days or less withcxit requiring interim status or a permit. The December 31, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 86966) defines the term transfer facility to refer to transportation terminals (including vehicle parking areas, loading docks and other similar areas), break-bulk facilities or any other facility ccrT1TOfll used by transporters to temporarily hold shi zients of hazardous waste during transportation. It is possible that this generator facility may qualify as a transfer facility, as long as the waste is not stored on—site for n re than 10 days. Cc) If the waste is not sent to a facility specified under §261.5(g)(3)(1)(V), it is no longer nditionally exenpt waste, and each generator n ist catply with applicable regulations, Thus, if the generator cannot receive state approval nor qualify as a transfer facility, he nust obtain a permit for storage of hazardous waste. 58 image: ------- 9441.1987(36) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 OFcICE O SO .iO WASTE AND EMERGENCY PE Barbara .1. Zellmer Hazardous Waste Regulatory Unit Department of Natural Resource. Box 7921 Madison, VI 53707 Dear Ms. Zelimer: This is in response to your April 22, 1987 letter in which you request clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations governing the management of waste containing dioxin. ( 2 , 3 ,l,8—tetracblorodjbenzo...p..djo j (TCDD)). In particular your question relates to a notification received from the University of Wisconsin regarding research projects involving injection of dilute solutions of TCDD into birds and bird eggs. The University has inquired about the proper disposal of these carcasses containing small quantities of TCDD. The waste which you described is not listed under 40 CFR S261.31, nor is its disposal currently regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Rather, these wastes would more appropriately be characterized as infectious waste, “... laboratory wastes, such as pathological specimens all tissues, specimens of blood elements, excreta, and secretions obtained from patients or laboratory animals) and disposable fomites (any substance that may harbor or transmit pathogenic organisms) attendant thereto.,. “see 4 CFR 241.101(h). To date, EPA has not promulgated criteria for identifying waste as infectious under S261 Subpart C. The Agency has, however, developed a manual to provide guidance on the managment of infectious waste. A copy Jr enclosed for your reference. You should be aware that typical infectious waste incinerators are probably not satisfactory devices for disposal of materials highly contaminated with TCDD. TCDD decomposes above 800° Therefor., if th. waste is to be incinerated, the wastes which you describe should be managed by high temperature incineration. image: ------- —2— I hope this adequately answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Doreen Sterling of y staff at 202— 475—6775. Sincerely, Enclosure tic. of Solid Waste image: ------- May 18, 1987 9441.1987(37) Mr. Dennis M. Burchett V.P. Regulatory Affairs Clean Crop 419 18th Street P.O. Box 1286 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Mr. Burchett: This is in response to your inquiry of April 21, 1987. From information in your letter and from your phone conversation of May 8, 1987, with Mike Petruska of my staff, we have concluded that your spent carbon contains the listed hazardous waste Phorate (P094). Therefore, the contaminated carbon is subject to the hazardous waste regulations. In particular, your company must comply with the hazardous waste generator requirements, including compliance with the manifest. See 40 CFR 261.6(b). In addition, the facility that regenerates the carbon must also comply with the appropriate hazardous waste rules. See 40 CFR 261.6(c) The reasoning behind this determination is as follows: The packaging of the finished Phorate product releases Phorate to the air. In effect, Phorate is being “discarded;” EPA regulations at 40 CFR §261.33 identify certain commercial chemical products (among them Phorate) as hazardous waste when they are discarded; EPA continues to regulate a listed waste even when it is contained in another material, i.e., in this case the spent carbon. The first point above, concerning the Phorate being discarded, is critical to your situation. Even though you capture the Phorate released to the air in carbon scrubbers and send the spent carbon for regeneration, the Phorate contained in the carbon is not recovered but rather is destroyed during carbon regeneration. This leads us to conclude that you are discarding Phorate. You should note, however, that if you were reclaiming or reusing the Phorate, your regulatory situation would be different. In this case, the Phorate would not be solid waste, and so would not be hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR §261.2.) This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 382—4765. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Characterization Branch Regional Hazardous Waste Division Directors This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441.1987(39) v r 4 j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 4’ qL puicS1tc < MAY 20 l 37 BOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPON Dr. Peter Russell. President Russell Resources Inc. 25 Oak View Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 Dear Dr. Russell: I am responding to your letter of May 8, 1987, requesting the regulatory interpretation of used pickle liquor generated at the USS-Posco Project in Pittsburg, CA. Specifically, you requested responses to three questions concerning the regulatory interpretation of the pickle liquor. Your first question asks when the pickle liquor becomes a hazardous waste. The pickl. liquor becomes EPA Hazardous Waste No. 1 (062 as soon as it exits the pickling line baths and is sent to the regeneration operations; at this point it is considered to be a spent material (see 40 CFR 261.1(c)(1)). Thus, the spent pickle liquor is subject to the appropriate requirements in 40 C ’R 261.6(b) and Cc). Your second question asks whether the regulatory interpretation for question 1 above is affected by the hydrochl*ric acid concentration in the waste. The answer to this question is no. Whether or not the pickle liquor can continue to be used does not affect the regulatory status of the pickl. liquor at the subject facility; the fact that the pickle liquor is being regenerated ( i.e. , reclaimed) before reuse makes it a spent material. Therefore, pickle liquor is a spent material (cannot be reused without being regenerated) when it is taken from the pickling process for regeneration and its status would not change bal6ed on the concentration of the acid. Your last question asks if the regulatory status of the spent pickle liquor ii dependent upon whether it ii used again in the same pickle line after on-site processing in a high temperature “reactor/separator” to rsmove iron as ferric oxide. Reuse on site after regeneration does not affect th. regulatory status; however, reuse without the pickle liquor first being regenerated or use as an effective substitute for a commercial product would change the regulatory status because th. spent pickle liquor would no longer be considered a solid waste (see 40 CFR 261.2(e)). image: ------- If you have further questions, please call Ed Abrams at (202) 382—4787. ‘Matt ew A. Straus Chief, Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- 9441.1987(40) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION MAY 1987 4. Definition of Solid Waste A generator generates a 5% solution of sodium hydroxide fran his natal cleaning cçeration. Another facility can use the ene waste as a substitute for a canmercial product in their process of cleaning alt tanks, except the waste is too dilute to be conpietely effective. If the generator adds 5% sodium hydroxide to his waste to be made of 10% a solution, wa.ild this material be a solid waste? Acoording to Section 26l.2(e)(l)(ii), materials are not solid waste en they can be sha .’n to be recycled hy being used or reused as effective substitutes for conanercial products. The waste is enployed in a particular function or application as an effective substitute for a ccriinercial product (40 CFR 261.1(c)(5)(ii). Since it would function as a product in a normal cc*muercial use, it would not be a solid waste and is not subject to PCRA Subtitle C regulations en generated, transported or used (unless accunulated speculatively). image: ------- 9441.1987(41) a 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC WA5N P4GTON D.C. 20460 •4L US OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSI — 1 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Determination on Issues Pertinent to Mixed Waste Regulation in Colorado FROM: J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator TO: James J. Schecec Regional Administrator This is in response to Alexandra Smith’s March 25, 1987, memorandum in which a number of issues were raised regarding the applicability of RCRA to high—level, transucanic and low—level mixed waste. Th Agency published a Federal Re ister notice on July 3, 1986 which clarified the applicability of RCRA to radioactive mixed waste. The notice stated that “radioactive mixed wastes are wastes that contain hazardous wastes subject to RCRA and radioactive wastes subject to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), ” and that the hazardous component of such wastes ace subject to RCRA regulation. The scope of radioactive materials defined by the AEA includes source, special nuclear, and by—product materials. Radioactive mixed waste may include any AZA radionuclide, regardless of further subclassification of the radioactive waste as highievel, tcansuranic or low—level waste. Although the Mixed Energy Waste Study (MEws) was commis- sioned by Lee Thomas to examine the viability of a DOE proposal for exempting high—level and transuranic mixed wastes from RCRA jurisdiction, a final determination on this option has not been made. However, the July 3, 1986 Federal Register notice provides for States to receive authorization to regulate mixed wastes, regardless whether it is high—level, transucanic, or low—level. Therefore, even though the Rocky Flats Compliance Agreement does not specifically include high—level or tcansuranjc mixed wastes, Colorado’s authorization for radio- active mixed waste gives the State the authority to regulate those wastes. You should note, however, that based on inf or- mation given to EPA’s MEWS task force, no high—level wastes are generated or managed at Rocky Flat.. I have enclosed a copy of the final MEWS report as requested by Mr. Smith for further information. image: ------- —2— Furthermore, I will keep you and the other Regional Admiri- istrators apprised of any developments that could potentially affect the administration of the mixed waste program. For example, DOE finalized its rulemaking on the definition of “byproduct material” on May 1. 1987 (52 FR 15937). DOE’s final rule which defines byproduct materT 1 as interpreted by EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, stipulates that the nonradioactive “hazardous component” of wastes which heretofore may have been construed as byproduct material is now subject to RCRA regulation. The implications of that notice are quite far reaching since waste streams which may have been excluded from RCRA jurisdiction under the proposed rule are now clearly included in the RCRA system. Staff are currently preparing an interpretative memorandum addressing the potential implications of DOE’. byproduct rule which will be available to you in the near future. If I can be of further assistance in clarifying issues pertinent to mixed waste regulation, do not hesitate to contact me. Enclosure image: ------- June 9, 1987 9441.1987(42) ____________ Hubbard Colonel, General Staff Deputy Chief of Staff for Engineering, Housing and Installation Logistics Department of the Army Headquarters, U.S. Army Material Command 5001 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22333—001 Dear Colonel Hubbard: This letter is in response to your letter (dated May 4, 1987), the letter from David Eaton (dated March 3, 1987) and my discussion with Major Cabellon on May 12, 1987, regarding the applicability of the use/reuse exclusion (40 CFR 261.2(e) (1)) to red water (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K047) that is recycled. As I explained to Major Cabellon, the use/reuse exclusion does not apply to the red water that is generated at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RAAP) and sold to the Champion Paper Company located in Canton, North Carolina, since it is not directly used; rather, as I understand the process, sodium sulfite that is contained in the red water is first recovered before it is used/reused. In addition, as it is stated in Mr. Eaton’s letter, the red water is also used for its calorific properties (i.e., as a fuel). Under the hazardous waste regulations, any spent material, sludge, or by-product that is listed and reclaimed and/or used as a fuel is considered a solid and hazardous waste. See 40 CFR §261.2(c) (2) and (c) (3). Thus, the example described on page 2-152 to 2-153 of the EPA “Guidance Manual on the RCRA Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Wastes” appears to be incorrect. Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8851 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Branch Chief Waste Characterization Branch cc: Solid Waste Management Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X) This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441. 1987 (45) J, 16 Par. Fred Kainienny Vice President PP.N Service, Inc. 1210 Morse Royal Oak, Hichioan 4Pfl67 Dear Mr. Kamienny: This responds to your letter of April 13, 1 P7, recyartljna the reaulatory status of chemotherany drugs and related sun lies. In particular, you questioned whether the weight of the °emntv” vial should be included in determining the amount of drucr residues to be disposed. As you pointed out, several chemotherapy drugs are listed in 40 CFR 261.33(f) (commonly known as the U—list). A such, these wastes are regulated under the FPA hazardous waste reaulatj,ns (unless subject to the small auantity aenerator exclusion). Inclu e’! in the listing are the following discarded commercial chemical products, off-specification species, container residues, and srjjl residues: 1) chiorambucil (p035) 2) cyclophoaphamjde (U059) 3) daunomycin (U059) 4) ineiphalan (Tfl50) 5) initol’Iycin C (t7fl1C ) 6) streptozotocin (U206) 7) uracil mustard (U237) Under EPA regulations governing the management of hazardous wastes, any container used to hold these chemicals (such as vials) are considered hazardous wastes unless these containers meet the criteria of an “empty container. Under the enDty container provision such vials are excluded from regulation if the material has been r noved by pouring. pumping, and aspiratina, and no more than 1 inch of residue remains in the bottom of the vial or no more than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the container. (See 40 CFP 261.7) The Agency is aware, however, that prudent nractjce dictat.s that materials contanu.nated with these chemicals (such as syrinces, vi 1 , g” ” , ) n’ t bs aa44.4 a trr wio. s mir it i k ... toxie een c - . thc image: ------- P aency recor mends that the entire volume ‘ waste b, wejahe4 that there he no atter ,t to remove any residue from the vial before disposal. Chemotherapy drugs that are not listed hazardous wastes are not reaulated by !P .. Uowever, you should contact your state o local aoverr ment reaardjna the manaaement of these chemicals. Also, the National Institutes of f ealth (i i ) provjd.is aujdance on handling and maneae’ ’ent of antineoplastics. Contact !‘l’Irv y Rogers, at NIH for further information. Mr. Rogers may be reached at (301) 496—7775. If you should have any further eyuestions reaardina realllatorv reauirementc for s eefic wastes, you may call the RCRA Hotline at (8.00) 424—9346. or contact Mitch idwell, of my staff, at (2r ?) 382—4805. Sincerely, .Iacaueline 7. Sales, Chief R.aulatjon Development Sction image: ------- JNIT D S’ ’ NV)RONMEN7AL PIWTECT,3N AcEri’ W SHIN TON C 4 .. J14 I71 7 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONS MEMORANDUM SUBJECT : Methanol Recovery System; Clarification of Waste Status FROM : Matthew A. Straus Chief, Waste Characterization Branch IQ: Clifford Ng, Engineer, Region II, AWM-HWF This is in response to your memo of February 18, 1987, in which you request our interpretation of the waste streams associated with a specific methanol recovery process. First, I apologize for taking so long in responding to your request. I hope this delay has not caused you any problems. With respect to your specific questions, the following is our interpretation of how this process is regulated under tiTe hazardous waste rules: 1. Stream A, the methanol-laden air from the drying and granulation step of the process, does not meet the definition of a solid waste under RCRA because it is in vapor form and not confined in a container. 2. The carbon beds that both condense and adsorb the methanol from the air contains an F003 waste when the condensation of methanol occurs. Therefore, stream B, the carbon/methanol mixture is to be handled as a listed hazardous waste. 3. The solvent stripper is used to recover the spent carbon. Therefore, this process is not subject to regulation. See 40 CFR 261.6(c)(1). However, any residues (stream C) derived from it is considered an F003 waste. The spent carbon, which is the recovered product, is not a solid waste. 4. Stream C, the condensed steam/methanol mixture is a hazardous waste because it was derived from treating a hazardous waste (see 40 CP’R 261.3(c)(2)(i)) and stream C would remain a hazardous waste, unless it is delisted under the provisions of 40 CFR Sections 260.20 and 260.22 or is mixed with another solid waste (see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(jjj ). image: ------- 5. Since stream C is hazardous (unless it is delisted or has been mixed with a solid waste), then downstream tank 4 would be subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Stream F is also derived from the treatment of a hazardous waste and, therefore, would be a hazardous waste. As you are aware, if stream F were sent to a POTW or discharged under an NPDES permit, then it would not be subject to RCRA regulations. I hope this clarifies your concerns about the waste streams from this process. If you require additional information, please feel free to call Ed Abrams at rrS—382-4787. 2 image: ------- June 26, 1987 9441.1987(52) Mr. Terry Husseman Chair, Northwest Interstate Compact Committee Washington Department of Ecology pv— 11 Olympia, Washington 98504 Dear Mr. Husseman: Thank you for your letter of May 28 in which you requested guidance on treatment and disposal methods for low—level waste that contains uncontaminated lead used as shielding, surface contaminated lead and activated lead. First, I would like to address activated or radioactive lead. As you know, lead is not a naturally occurring radionuclide. Lead may become radioactive or activated as a result of neutron bombardment while being used as shielding in nuclear power plants, for example. Such activated lead, if short—lived, may be stored to allow radioactive decay prior to disposal. The resultant non—activated or elemental lead may be disposed of as hazardous waste in a hazardous waste disposal facility. If storage for decay is impractical, the activated lead must be managed as mixed waste. You should note, however, that in States authorized to administer the Federal mixed waste program or in States with Federally administered hazardous waste programs, any storage of mixed waste in excess of ninety days for generators and ten days for transfer facilities would require a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit. Similarly, designated storage facilities must obtain a RCRA permit. Lead which is contaminated on the surface may be decontaminated by a number of commercially available processes. However, because lead is malleable and easily gouged or pitted, radioactive contamination is often not limited to the surface and may be imbedded in the lead itself. Where decontamination is incomplete or contraindicated because of occupational health considerations, the lead must be managed as a mixed waste. Also, EPA’s Office of Radiation Programs is developing a standard which will delineate levels of radiation which are below regulatory concern (BRC). Once BRC levels have been established, it may be possible to dispose of lead which exhibits BRC levels of radioactive contamination as a hazardous waste. Lead containers or container liners which are used as shielding in low-level waste disposal operations pose a unique problem. Containers or container liners are not regulated by the Agency (See 40 CFR 261.7) nor would they be a waste because they are fulfilling intended uses. ((CF 40 CFR 261.2(c)(])(ii)). In this instance, containers or liners may be analogous to commercial chemical products (e.g., pesticides) where as a This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— product, their normal use is placement on the land. Therefore, lead whose primary use is shielding in low—level waste disposal operations is not subject to Federal hazardous waste regulations when placed on the land as part of its normal commercial use. Encapsulation represents a viable mechanism for mitigating the hazardous waste characteristic lead may exhibit upon EP toxicity testing only in specific circumstances. The EP toxicity test procedure requires grinding the waste into pieces not greater than one square centimeter in size prior to extraction. Therefore, encapsulation would result in a non—hazardous waste only in those instances where it could be demonstrated that the encapsulation process results in a product that would not degrade after disposal, (i.e., is resistant to degradation or fracturing when placed in the land disposal environment). In such instances, you could petition the Agency to waive the EP toxicity test requirement. Additionally, the Agency is revising existing EP toxicity test procedures. Work is underway to develop procedures for evaluating a waste’s long term physical stability. These procedures may then be used to demonstrate that the encapsulated material will not degrade and allow testing of an intact lead brick or the like, for example. The Agency has not evaluated specific technologies for encapsulation of lead or other wastes, nor has the Agency performed specific laboratory analyses of materials to determine their resistance to the EP toxicity test. However, a polymer or some other material which maintains its integrity under environmental stress would seem to be suitable. In view of the urgency of the lead issue, it may be prudent to explore the feasibility of obtaining both a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license and an EPA permit to provide for the disposal of mixed waste. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, Marcia E. Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste cc: Alan Corson Floyd Galpin Ken Shuster bcc: Jim Michael Betty Shackleford This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1987(53) JJN 29 f987 “r. Curtis J. 3a’i’ er Safety FnvirOnr enta1. Specialist Moore Business Forms & Systems Division 3100 north Husband Stiliwater, 1ahoma 74075—2199 Dear Mr. Baker: In your Letter of May 27. 19R7, you requested Aaency guidance on whether the provisions in 40 CFP 261.4(c) pertain to wastes subject to Part 268 (i.e., the Land Disposal Restrictions). According to the provisions in 40 C’R 261.4(c), hazardous wastes that are generated in a manufacturing process unit or an associated non-waste—treatment—manufacturing unit, are not subject to reaujatlon under Part 262 through 265, 270, 773. and 124 or the notification requirements of section 3010 of PCRA until it exits the unit in which it was generated. In the t 7ovember 7, 1986, solvents and dioxin. final rule, the Agency revised 40 CFR Part 261.4(c) to include a reference to Part 26R. ThQrefora, wastes generated within a manucacturing process unit likewise are not subject to Part 268 until they exit the manufacturina process. T! e Agency has stated in it. June 11, 1987, )Totjce of L ta Availability (52 FR 22356) that for purposes of determining colTpiiance with land disposal restrictions, the initial generator of the waste (i.e.. before the waste is treated) determines whether the waste is subject to the 2—year national capacity extension. Therefore, a hazardous waste which meets the recPuirements in 40 CFR 261.4(c) are subject to the 2-year national variance if it meets one or i re of the following criteria (in 268.30): 1) The generator of the solvent waste is a small quantity generator of 100—1000 kilograms of hazardous waste per monthi or 2) The solvent is from a response action under the Comr re— hensive Environmental Response, Con ensation and LiabiLity Act of 1980 (CEPCLA) or any corrective action taken under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RC1 .A ) •.tL or image: ------- 3) The solvent waste is a solvent—water 7 iXtUTe, solvent- containing sludee. or solvent—contai’tinated soil (non— CERCLA or RCPA corrective action) containjna less than 1 percent totaL 0O1—!’OO5 solvent constituents 1istev in Table CCW!. of 268.41. I hope this information adeauately addresses your concerns. If you have additional questions, you may call ins at (202) 382- 4770. Sincerely. Stei,hen R. rieil, Chief Land Disposal Restrictions I ranch cc: Region VI image: ------- 9441.1987(54) ____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 Jj 131987 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EP.IERGENCY RESPO Mr. Wayne E. McCoy Pfizer, Inc. Minerals, Pigments and Metals Division 640 North 13th Street Easton, PA 08042—1497 Dear Mr. McCoy: This letter responds to a request from Pfizer to provide an interpretation on the regulatory statue of the lime—ammonia stabilized iron oxide sludge that is generated at Pfizer’s Valparaiso, Indiana facility. In particular, it was asked hether this sludge is exempted from the hazardous waste regulations under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(jj) ( i.e. , exemption for lime—stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge). Based on my understanding of the process, spent pickle liquor (K062) is the only waste that is received at the Valparaiso facility; in the course of recycling the spent pickle liquor 1 !, solids are generated which are treated with ammonia ar ’ iTme to produce a stabilized sludge. Undat’ this set of coñditijns, the iron oxide sludge that Pfizer generates at its Valparaiso plant is covered under the lime—stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge exemption. Thus, I agree with the State of Indiana in their interpretation of the hazardous waste rules. However, you should be aware that this waste may still be hazardous if it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics, and Pfizer is still responsible for making this determination. Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475—8551 if you have any further questions. 1/ The spent pickle liquor is first neutralized with scrap iL ’on. — Waste from the liquor consists of tramp dirt and foreign mate- rials fro. the scrap iron and the steel mill liquor. The liq- uor is clarified prior to using for iron oxide manufacturing by settling out the solids. The solids are then treated to generate the lime—ammonia stabilized iron oxide sludge. Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- 9441. 1987(57) ,, 1O t P4pp UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 J131 I 7 MEMORANDUM OFFICE O SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESP StJ JECT: Regulatory Status of Facilities Previously Granted Temporary Exclusions’( / — l. FROM: Marcia Williams, Directo ’k4/’ 4 ’ fr Office of Solid Waste / TO: Regional Division Direckox a, Hazardous Waste Management Divisions Between 1980 and 1982 the Environmental Protection Agency issued 150 temporary and informal exclusions for delisting petitions. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) est ablished a November 9, 1986 statutory deadline for taking final action on these petitions. If a final decision was not promulgated by the November deadline, the exclusions were automatically revoked effective November 9, 1986. This memorandum summarizes, by Region, the status of all previous temporary exclusions in light of the November 8, 1986 statutory deadline. Only three (Lederle Laboratories, NI; Faultless Hardware, KI; and Rock Island Refining, IN) of the 150 temporary exclusions were not issued flnal decisions by the HSWA statutory deadline of November 8, ic 8G. these three facilities automatically lost their exclusions as of November 9, 1986 and should be handling their petitioned wastes as hazardous until a final delisting decision is promulgated. It should also be noted that the effective date of the final denial decisions for all temporarily excluded wastes has now passed and, therefore, all facilities that had temporary exclusions for their wastes and that were denied final exclusion, should be handling the petitioned wastes as hazardous unless the unit closed prior to the effective date of the final decision. The attached status list indicates whether petitions with temporary or informal exclusions were issued fin 1 grant or denial decisions or whether the petition was withdrawn, moot, or is still being processed. The list also provides the effective date for each final decision. These dates vary depending on: the type of decision made, the basis for the decision ( i.e. , failure to submit necessary information or results of the technical evaluation), and the date that the final decision was published in the Federal Register . The Federal Register citations for proposed and final decisions are also given. image: ------- —2- The Agency notes that all final decisions that have been promulgated pertain only to the waste(s) cited in the promulgation notice. Any Other waste management activities not included in the delisting decision are still subject to RCRA Subtitle C or authorized State requirements. As a general rule, the petitioned wastes generated before the granting of a temporary exclusion were considered hazardous and, therefore, subjected the units handling the wastes to Subtitle C control. The granting of a temporary exclusion for the waste only temporarily removed the waste unit from Subtitle C regulation. it should also be noted that the petitioned wastes (that had been granted a temporary exclusion, but then denied final exclusion), that were generated during the time the temporary exclusion was in effect, are now considered hazardous wastes. However, if these wastes remain in the disposal unit identified in the petition, the wastes are not subject to Subtitle C management requirements unless they are disturbed in such a way so as to trigger Subtitle C regulation ( e.g. , removed, excavated, or mixed with other wastes). The following discussion, clarify the regulatory status of wastes that were previously granted temporary exclusions. Final Exclusion Granted o The facility may continue to handle the petitioned waste as non—hazardous within the constraint, of the granting notice arid any other applicable requirements. Final Exclusion Denied Based on the Results of the Technical Evaluation ( i.e. , the petitioner failed to show the waste to be non—hazardous) If the waste is disposed off—site: o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary exclusion is six months after publication of the Agency’s final decision in the Federal o Starting on the effective date, new waste that is generated, as d•scribed in the petition and that would have previously been included under the temporary exclusion, is subject to all applicable RCRA Subtitle C or authorized State program requirements ( e.g. , the facility must insure that the waste is shipped to a RCRA hazardous waste management facility). o While a temporary exclusion was in effect, the petitioner was not liable for compliance with hazardous waste regula- tions. Petitioned wastes generated while the temporary exclusion was in effect could have been disposed of off-site as non—hazardous. All wastes in the off—site unit must image: ------- —3— be handled in accordance w ith Subtitle C requirements if, at a later date, they are managed in such a way as to — trigger Subtitle C regulation ( e.g. , removed from the unit or considered to be “stored” rather than “disposed”). If the waste is managed on—site: o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary exclusion is six months after publication of the Agency’s final decision in the Federal Register . o Starting on the effective date, n waste that is generated, as described in the petition and that would have been included under the temporary exclusion, is subject to all applicable RCRA Subtitle C or authorized State program requirements. o Between 1980 and the granting of a temporary exclusion, there was some period of time that the waste was considered to be hazardous. Therefore, all units covered by temporary exclusions have or should have interim status. o If an on-site land disposal unit that received wastes covered by a temporary exclusion, continues to receive hazardous waste after the effective date of the final decision, Attachment 1 provides guidance on compliance requirements for those units. o If an on—site land disposal unit that received wastes covered under a temporary exclusion stops receiving all wastes prior to the effective date of the final decision, (and receives no other hazardous wastes), Part 265 closure must be initiated within 90 days of the revocation of the temporary exclusion. o If an On—site land disposal unit that received wastes covered under a temporary exclusion stops receiving hazardous waste prior to the effective date of the final decision but continues to receive solid waste, Part 265 closure must be initiated within 90 days, and completed within 180 days, of th. revocation of the temporary exclusion. However, the Agency intends to propose, in the near future, a rule which may chang. these requirements. O If prior to the effective date of the final decision, waste covered under a temporary exclusion is disposed in an on-site solid wastell unit, th. solid waste unit is not subject to hazardous waste regulations other than would typically apply to a solid waste management unit. All 1/ “Solid waste” is defined in 40 CFR 261.2(a)(l). image: ------- —4— wastes in that unit. are considered hazardous arid must be handled in accordance with Subtitle C requirements if they are managed in such a way as to trigger Subtitle C ? gulation at a later date ( e.g. , they are removed arid are shipped off—site or receive further on—site treatment). o If a unit containing only a waste covered under a temporary exclusion closed prior to the effective date of the final decision, the unit is not subject to hazardous waste regulation unless later disturbed ( e.g. , removed, excavated). Final Exclusion Denied Based on the Failure to Provide Information Needed to Evaluate the Petition o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary exclusion was November 9, 1986. As of this date, the waste must be managed in accordance with applicable RCRA Subtitle C or authorized State program requirements. o Attachment 1 provides guidance regarding LOIS compliance requirements for petitioners with on—site land disposal units that contain wastes once covered by a temporary exclusion. o Starting on the effective date, n wastes that are generated, as described in the petition and that would have previously been included under the temporary exclusion, that are disposed off—site must be shipped to a RCRA hazardous waste management facility. The status list also shows petitions that have been withdrawn or are considered moot. o Petitioners that have withdrawn ( i.e. , the facility has submitted a letter to the Agency requesting that its petition be withdrawn) have lost their temporary exclusions and should have handled their waste(s) as hazardous as of the date the petition was withdrawn. o Petitions that are considered moot may be moot for a variety of reasons, including: disposal of a specific volume of waste under a previously granted “one—time” exclusion; cessation of production activities that generated the waste being petitioned for delisting; or reclassification of a particular listing. The status list identifies the reasons a petition is considered “moot” and the date that the petition was determined to be moot by the Agency. image: ------- —5— I hope that the attached status list and regulatory compliance guidance is useful in coordinating the ongoing efforts of both the Regional and State programs. Should you have any questions regarding the attached material or require more information on the Federal delisting program activities, please feel free to contact Suzanne Rudzinski of the Office of Solid Waste at FTS 382—4206. If guidance is needed in determining appropriate compliance actions, please contact Steve Heare of the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement at FTS 382—2207. Attachments cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X Enforcement Section Chiefs, Regions I—X Permit Section Chiefs, Regions I—X Jack McGraw (OSWER) Gene Lucero (OWPE) Suzanne Rudzinski (PSPD) Steve Heare (OWPE) Jeff Denit (OSW) Bruce Wedd].e (PSPD) Susan Bromm (PSPD) Steve Hirsch (OGC) Ed Reich (SSCD) Myles Morse (PSPD) Delisting Staff (PSPD) image: ------- • ATTACHMENT 1 Guidance On Compliance Requirements For Facilities That Lost Their Temporary Exclusion But Continue To Manage The Waste On—sit image: ------- Guidance on Compliance Requirements For Facilities That Lost Their Temporary Exclusion But Continue To Manage The Waste On—site I. Requirements for facilities that had interim status, and had other units that handled hazardous waste during the time that the temporarily excluded waste was handled: — If the facility filed a Part A permit application, and did not modify it to exclude the unit handling the temporarily excluded waste, and the facility has not filed a Part B permit application, and no decision on its permit has been made, no further action is required by the facility. — If the facility revised its Part A permit application to exclude the unit handling temporarily excluded waste (which should mean that that unit handled no other hazardous waste then the facility must make the necessary change during int’ status to include this unit, under Section 270.72 or its st anal 0g. — If the facility has filed a Part B permit application, but decision on its permit has yet been made, no further action required. The facility may need to revise its Part B permit application, however, if the units containing the petitionec waste were not included as part of their permit application. It must also request a change in interim status as descibed above. — If the facility received its permit, it must file for a maj permit modification for the unit handling the temporarily excluded waste under Section 270.41 or its state analog. Under the existing regulations, the facility may not handle that waste until the permit is modified. However, the Agency intends to propose, in the near future, a rule that will simplify the procedures for obtaining approval to handi. nsv hazardous wastes. If th. petitioned waste is disposed of in an on—site surf ac impoundment, and that impoundment continues to receive the petitioned waste four (4) years after the date of promulgat of th. final denial decision, the petitioner must comply with Section 3005(j)(6) of RCRA which requires that the impoundment be retrofitted to meet minimum technological requirements of Section 3004(o)(l)(A) of RCRA. Accordingly the deadline for complying with the minimum technological requirements for surface impoundments is four (4) years after the date of promulgation of the final denial decision image: ------- —2— 11. Requirements for facilities that may have lost interim status because of failure to certify compliance: — If other units handling hazardous waste at the facility required certification on November 8, 1985, but did not certify, those units lost interim status. However, if a unit handled only temporarily excluded wastes, that unit did not lose interim status. (See 50 FR 38946, September 25, 1985.) We recommend that you inspect these units to verify that they are in compliance with all applicable regulations. Ill. Requirements for facilities that handled only temporarily excluded wastes : — If the facility had interim status and has filed a Part A permit application, and did not modify its Part A to exclude the unit handling the temporarily excluded waste, no further action is required by the facility. — If the facility withdrew its Part A permit application, the facility still has interim status, however, the facility must reinstate its Part A under Section 27 0.10(a) and Ce) or their state analogs. — If the facility has filed a Part B permit application, but no decision on its permit has yet been made, no further action is required by the facility. The facility may need to revise its Part B permit application, however, if the units containing the petitioned waste were not part of their permit application ( i.e. , if the permit application addresses only new units that are yet to be constructed). We do not believe that any facilities which handled only temporarily excluded wastes have rec.ived a permit. — If U i. facility handled only temporarily excluded waste, it was not required to do anything to retain interim status under Section 3005(e)(2) of RCRA. (See 50 FR 38946, Sep- tember 25, 1985.) The facility is not subject to Section 3005(e)(3) of RCRA. image: ------- 9441.1987 (58) UNI (Er ‘.TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 .JLJL 3 I 1987 OPPICEOP SOLID WAITE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Regarding Briquetting of Flue Dust FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Direct ; Office of Solid Waste (WH 6 ; TO: Judith Kertcher, Acting Chief Solid Waite Branch, Region V (5BS—13) This is in response to your June 25, 1987, memorandum in which you asked for a regulatory interpretation regarding flue dust (K061) that is mixed with sodium silicate binder and pressed into brique tes for use in steel production by the original waste generators. The regulatory pLovision that covers this situation is 40 CFR 4261.2(e)(l)(i) , which provides that a material is not a solid waste whet it. is u*ed or reused as an ingredienP i.n &n in ust.ria1 process to make a product, without first beli’ g reclL.i ’ e (See 50 CFR 638 *i Janu r y 4, 1985.) X th4 Dehli ).n ustrial Products, Inc. case, you have indic ated that; the briquett ads from the flue bust are returned to the original gc nerators (under batch tolling agreements) who use them in tee1 production. As exptained below our conclusion is that the flue dust is not a solid wasteji Th. answers to your specific questions are as follows: 1. The fact that the flue dust is generated, removed from the sit. of generation, and later returned to the generator does not alter the regulatory status of h. recycled material. The storage of the flue dust is not regulated either at the generators or the recycler’s site provided that the flue dust is not speculatively accumulated. if In taking this position, we assume that the flue dust is — actually providing materials useful to steel production. See the discussion at 50 FR 638—639. January 4, 1985, for guidance on identifying “Eam recycling operations. image: ------- —2— 2. The fact that batch tolling agreements are in place also does not affec the regulatory status of the recycled inateriai.a’ Such agreements would probably help a generator satisfy the burden of proof ( 26l.2(f)) to document that the generator’s material is not solid waste. 3. The addition of sodium silicate binder to the flue dust does not change the regulatory status of the recycled material. EPA has said that briquettirig of dry wastes to facilitate resmelting (and this would include the addition of a binding material) is not reclamation. (See 50 FR 639; January 4, 1985.) 4. The process in question is probably not a closed loop system. The issue here is not whether the waste is recycled on or off site, because nothing in §261.2(e)(l)(iii) limits the closed—loop exemption to on—site recycling. Rather, information available to EPA indicates that facilities such as Dehli ( i.e. , electric arc furnaces) typically use scrap steel as feedstock. As such, the operation does not meet the condition in 4261.2(e) (1) (iii) that the recycled material be returned as a substitute for raw material feedstoCk, and that the process must use raw materials as princi- pal feedstocke. In this case (scrap steel) the flue dust substitutes for a secondary material, not a raw material. U On April 4, 1983, EPA proposed a conditional exemption for hazardous waste recycled under batch tolling agreements. (See 48 FR 14494—14495.) EPA rejected this exemption in the ft al rule. (See 50 FR 643; January 4, 1985.) image: ------- 9441.1987(59) QJG 1987 SC .ID WASTE AN EVE E\: sp. Mr. William S. Rarer CHEM-CLEAR 992 Old Eagle School Road Suite 915 Wayne, PA 19087 Dear Mr. Rarer: This is response to your letter of May 12, 1987, in which you requested an interpretation regarding the regulatory status of a waste generated by one of your clients. Specifically, the waste in question is generated by caustic rinsing metal parts that have been cleaned with a solvent containing over 10%, by volume, trichloroethyl.n.. The Agency does not consider small amounts of solvent carried over on the metal parts from solvent d.greasin4 to meet the listing description of a spent solvent. Ther fcare, if any solvent is carried over into th. caustic rinse w t :, th mixture rule would not be applicable. Thus, the caustic rinse water would only be a hazardous waste if it exhibits one of the hazardous waste characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity]. Since your caustic rinse water does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics, as was demonstrated by your cli tnt’s ant’ytical results, the caustic rinse water would not appe t be a hazardous waste under the Federal hazardous waste regulations. However, you should be aware that the State’s h& rdous waste regulations may be mor. stringent than the federal hazardous waste rules. Therefore, you should contact a representative from the State to determine the waste’s regulatory status under the Stat.’ s hazardous waste program. If you require additional information, please contact Ed Abram. at (202) 382-4787. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief, Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- it O lid 9441.1937M1) ___ UNITED STATES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN _____ WASHINGTON. D C. 20460 P JG I 2 1987 OFPICE OP SOL O WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Roy Lee Tate 804 Suaarloaf Lane Annistori, Alabama 36201 Dear Mr. Tate: This is in response to your letter of 7uly 17, in which you requested an interpretation of whether and how the RCRA hazardous waste regulations apply to a zinc oxide dust being recycled. The dust is considered a sludge under 40 CFR S261.2. The status of the sludge is as follows: 1. If any material recovered from the sludge is sent for fertilizer use, the sludge is subject to 40 CFR S261.6(b) and (c), the requirements for recyclable materials. (When a sludge is used as fertilizer, it is a solid waste. See S261.2(3).) ./ 2. The leach residues that are sent for meta1 recoveryF once completely reclaimed, are not solid waste. (See S261.2(e).) In the case where a given quantity of sludge is reclaimed both for metals recovery and for fertilizer use, the sludge would be subject tO S261.6(b) and Cc) prior to reclamation because some of the sludge was used in a manner constituting disposal. Finally, YOU should note that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reached a decision on July 31, 1987, that calls into question EPA’s authority to regulate certain waste recycling activities. EPA is studying the opinion to determine its scope. Because the Court has not yet issued its mandate, the regulations currently in the Code of Federal Regulations defining what is “solid waste,” and establishing regulations for recycled hazardous waste, remain in effect. 1/ In contrast, if the reclaimed zinc oxide is sent to produce zinc sulfate (and not for fertilizer), then the sludge is not solid waste and is not subject to the hazardous waste regula- tions. See S261.2(c)(3). image: ------- —2— If you have further questions in this area, please contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475—6676. Since rely, c. — - . - — Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- 9441.1987(64) .10 5r , UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE: ri .•, WASHINGTON 0 C 20460 s, AUG I 3 1987 Mr. Lawrence H. Harmon 10804 Longmaadow Drive Damascus, Maryland 20872 Dear Mr. Harmon: This letter is in response to your July 24, 1987 inquiry regarding the regulation and management of used crankcase oil. The EPA does not regulate disposal of used oil by “do—jt—youraej er n In fact, in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Congress exempted all household wastes from th. hazardous waste regulations. We do, however, have minimal regulations in place, and are considering others, that will regulate the waste oil industry. We believe these regulatjo s will encourage recycling options. We are keenly aware of the problems of disposal by the do-it-yourself community, and are developing a program to address these problems. An important component of this program will be public education. Some States already have regulatory and informational programs in place. In the meantime, do —it-yoursejf 5 do have alternatives to throwing their wast, oil in the trash. Many service stations do accept waste oil from the public (sometimes charging a small fee), while others do not. We believe this situation is the result of market forces, and not the result of EPA regulation of the industry. The Agency strongly encourages service stations to provide collection facilities, and for do-it-youzs,]f,rs to use those facilities (enclosure). In rsspons• to your specific regulatory questions, we are also enclosing copies of our current used oil regulations. These regulations provide for controls on used oil fuel and hazardous vests fu.l (including contaminated waste oil) burned for energy recovery. There are different regulatory requirement, for different categories of used oil. For example, “clean” used oil meeting specifications would be relatively fre. from regulation, while off -specification used oil and hazardous waste fuels (including used oil that has been mixed with a hazardous waste) would be subject to increasingly greater degrees of regulation. No federal permits are presently required for used oil collection, transportation, recycling, or disposal activities. image: ------- If we can be of any further assistance, please contact David To ten of my staff at (202) 382-3298. Sincerely, Marcia S 1Williams Direttor, Office of Solid Waste ‘p Enc 1 osures image: ------- 3441. 1987(55) i) S S VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY M$ Ii i t t Mr. E.H. Phillippe ?kanageE, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Virginia Chenicals. Inc. 801 Water Street Portsmouth. VA 23704 Dear Mr. Phillippe; The Permits and State Program. Division (PSPD) has c p1et.d a review of your petitions requesting exclusions under 40 CFR 26O.2O and 26O.22 of the still bottoms fran the r overy of methanol (EPA Hazardous Waste No. P003) generated t Virginia Chemicals’ Leeds, South Carolina ($066e) and Bucks, Alabama (*0669) facilities. We understand that these still bottoms are ultimately sold as a co—product to users in the pulp and paper industry. According to your letter of M y 8. 1957, it is cle .r that the delisting criteria are not applicable to your co’product at t)* time of sale as a result of mixture with a solid waste. Based on 40 C?R 26l.3(a)(2)(iii). a mixture of a solid waste (!. . •• off -specification sodium hydrosulfite) with a 1u ardous waste listed solely becaus. it exhibits a characteristic specified in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C ( e.g. , your petitioned P003 t,astes) is not a hazardous waste if it no longer exhibits any hazardous waste characteristic identified in Subpart C. The dalisting criteria of 40 CFR 260.22(C)(2) do not apply to mixtures of wastes where 40 CFR ç261.3(a)(2)(iii) applies. In such a case, it is th. responsibility of the generator to demonstrate tO themselves and to r.sponsible state (or other) authorities that the resultant mixture do.. not exhibit the hazardous waste characteristics. Although the co—product a. sold is subject to 40 erR ç261.3(a)(2)(iii). the still bottoms generated from the recovery of m.thanol are still considered hazardous at the source of generation. These still bottoms, thersfore, are subject to all applicable hazardous waste management regulations. unless delisted. image: ------- — — We understand that you still wish to pursue a delistinc of the still bottoms. Additional information, however, is necessary before we can complete our review of your petitions. . We have evaluated the analytical data of your’ petitions using the vertical ar 1 horixontal spread (VHS) model (see 5C FR 48686—489c7, November 27, 1985). We use this model to predict constituent concentrations in the ground wat.r at a hypothetical compliance point located 500 feet downgradj.nt, from the site. The VHS model uses the maximum annual waste generation rate and the rieximum leachate concentrations as inputs to determine the amount of dilution that nay occur in an underlying aquifer. Th. results of the mood (i.e., the calculated c pliance point Concentrations) are compared with the Agency’s level of regulatory concern for each constituent. The maximwt allowable EP l.v.ls that could be exhibited by the wastes without failing the VHS model evaluation would be C.3l5 ppr for arsenic, chromium, lead, and silver; 0.063 ppm for cadmium and seleniwn; and 0.0126 ppm for mercury. Any extract levels above these concentrations would generate levels (at the cor p1i n e point) greater than the National Interim Primary Drinking hater Standards of 0.05 ppm for arsenic, thromium, lead, and silver; of 0.01 ppm for cadmium and selenium; and of 0.002 p r for mercury. These constituents were not reported as detected in any of the still bottom samples, however, th. analytic..1 detection liz3its exceeded the maximum allowable levels and were higher than detection limits typically achieved for similar waste matrices. Therefore, before we can complete our evaluation. new test results (using detection limits which do not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations) must be provided on a minimum of four represent.ativ. samples from each facility. The new sample, should be grab samples collected on a weekly basis. Based on the analyses conductsd as a result of th. spot check sampling visit at your Leeds, South Carolina, facility on March 9, 1967, the sanpi. from th. distillation column contained less than 0.5% filterable solids. The spot check analysis for the EP metals and nickel, therefore, did not include EP toxicity testing and instead included direct or total constituent analysis, as directed by 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II. We reccr end, there- fore, that you collect two samples on each saii’pling occasion for analysis of the EP metals and nickel levels, one of which is not preserved for the EP toxicity testing, and one of which is preserved for the total constituent analysis. If your analyses of the unpreserved samples also indicate that the saznpl.s contain less than 0.5% filterable solids, then total constituent analysis should be conducted on the preserved samples. When results are eub tted for these analyses, please indicat, whether or not each sample contained less than 0.5% filterable solids ( i.e. , whether or not the samples were subjected to extraction or diiict analysis). If the samples contained less than 0.5% filterable solids, then the total constituent data generated by the analyses will be evaluated using the VHS r del. image: ------- I 4 j.S ag known to cause substantial interferences When analyzed by ICP or AA furnace spectroscopy. based on previous analyses, your waste way contain high concentrations of sodiu, salts and, therefore, analysis should involve an approach to alleviate this problit. A possible alternative approach would include haridlin the $a plea as ‘seawat.rs and preparing the samples by EPA—approved s.avat.r techniques to •l1, inate th. high sodtwi interference. (Method 9.2 in EPA M.thods for Chemical Analysis of hater and Wast,s , 1983). A full description of analytical methods used should accompany your submittal. In addition, our review of your latest submittal. of Octob.r 22 and 24, 1986 and of April 7, 1987 indtcat.s that the following additional inforution Is also n•c.ssarys 1) For each facility, results of total constituent and EP leachate analysis for cyanide on a mini of tour representative samples from each facility. Samrles collect•d for EP toxicity analysis shoi. id not be preserved. ist1lled water instead of acetic acid should be used during the analysis. The detection limit should riot exceed the maximum allowable level of 1.26 ppm for cyanide. P’ethod 9012 found in Chapter 7 of Test ethods for Evaluating Solid Waste, hovembet 1986, EPA Publication Sw-846, Third Edition, should be follo ,ed for the deter- mination of total cyanide. The appropriate approach for alleviating interferences caused by sultides should be followed because your waste contains these compounds. 2) The names and professional qualification. of tho.# personnel conducting any sempling at each facility and any analyses conducted in support of your petition (a brief resume Will suffice). 3) For each facility, a statement of certification sioned by an authorixed r.pres.nt.ejv. arid word•d as indicated in 40 CFK S260.22(i)(12). 4) Pot each facility, at least one CA/OC test run for the EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide using the method of standard additions. 5) Per each facility, a description of upset conditions and th. frequency of the s• occurrences. ‘) Pot •ach facility, a description of column overhead storag. practices. image: ------- .— - .•e’ yè ’ l .,ej - .1 ö , is still nec.ssarys 1) For each fecili ,, •z icit •tate .nt ex! laininq w) y all sasple. co1lecte t an 1 •nalyz•I &r• thowiht to b. representative of any process or west. ..ribillty. In the •valu*tiun of a petition, we n.ed to 4ster jn. whether data reflect the tsrporal and spatial variation of waste constituents and fully cbaracteriz. the .tition.d vast.. 2) For each facility, a description of how th. still bottoms sa p1.a were collected for analysis Performed in 1910. (This iftformation is also required for any new saapl.s collected in r.apons. to this letter.) In order for us to coepl.t. the evaluation of your petitions, you fully respond to this additional information request within six months of the dat. of r .c.ipt of today’s corr.spond.nc.. If we do not receive a r.sponae within six months, a pro oaed denial decision on the basis of lack of information will be published in the Fe 1ersl Recliter . Additionally, the if fecti,e date of the revocation for the temporary exclusions granted on I .a.mber 31, 1980 for the still bottom. generated at your facilities was May 17, 1987. As of that date, waste man.çement activities associated with the unmixed still bottom waste must be in cur pliance with th. applicable RCRA hazardous waste manaq. ent system requirements. If you have any questions, please contact either myself at (202) 382 - 478U or Jennif.r Elramlett of our contracter, Science Applications international Corporation (SAIC), at (7u3) 734-2501. Sincerely, /5/ Nyles Rorse, Chi.f Va janc s Section Office of Solid Wasts cc. Jennifer raml.tt, SAIC Tricia .rb.rt, U.S. EPA, Region IV Allan Antley, U.S. EPA, Seqion IV uq cCurry, U.S. EPA, R•gien IV image: ------- 94 41.1987 (66) RCRA/SUPERFtJND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY JUNE 87 6. Solid Waste Classification An electrorucs manufacturer uses a wave soldering operation to u rint circuit ooa.rds. A “hot tin pot” contai.rung a large mass of rTolten tin- lead solder is used as the source for the in rinting procedu_re. Solder fran the pot is fed into the wave operation via a gulley or channel, nd residual or excess solder is fed directly back into the pot for reuse. The solder 3ecanes contaminated over time with copper and gold fr n the circuit boards and is no longer usable. The contents of the pot are then solidified in a large block and sent for gold recovery and solder reclamation. buld the b] .ock of solder be classified as a spent material, scrap metal, by—product or of f speci. ficatiorj c m rcial ch ical product? The contents of the “hot tin pot” culd be classified as a spent material. Spent materials, per 50 FR 618, are materials that have been used and are no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed or otherwise reprocessed. The material culd rot meet the scrap metal classification because it is not a metal product discarded after conswi r use or metal. turmng or fine. It culd also be excluded fran the off specification c m rcial chen.tcal product category due to its prior use. Source: Steve Silverrr (202) 382—7706 Research: Andy O’Hare -6- image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE...... 9441.1987(68) WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 August 19, 1987 OFF ICEOF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. C. Thomas Manthey Executive Vice President SW Incorporation P.O. Box B Saukville, WI 53080 Dear Mr. Manthey: This is in response to your letter of July 22, 1987, regarding classification of mixtures of listed and characteristic hazardous wastes. First, you asked how to classify two waste streams in the “optional” block of the manifest. There are no EPA or other fed- eral regulations mandating what viastes are to be placed in the optional boxes of the manifest. These boxes were purposely left blank so that each State could decide what should be in:luded there. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) does require the EPA waste codes to be placed in the “U.S. DOT Shipping Descrip- tion” box, along with the waste’s proper shipping name, hazard class, and ID number. (See 49 CFR Parts 171 and 172, and the discussion at 52 FR 4824; February 17, 1987.) Each waste in a waste mixture must be described, i.e. , in your examples, you have: (1) F003 and DOOl; and (2) U239 and DOD ].. Your second question concerned whether you are conducting treatment. From the information you provided, I do not think you are conducting treatment. Merely placing different wastes into the same tank truck is not treatment. Under RCRA Section 1004(34), “treatment” means: “... any method, technique, or process, including neutralization, designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste or so as to render such waste nonhazardous, safer for transport, amenable for recovery ...“ image: ------- —2— In your example, the different wastes that are blended together each appears to be a fuel in its own right. The blending does not appear to accomplish any of the purposes set out in the Statute, and therefore does not appear to be treatment. If you have further questions in this area, please contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, 1 LCA rv ç Marcia Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste image: ------- 9441. 1987(71) RCRA/supERF D HOTLINE MONTHLY SUPO( y AUGTJST 87 7. ManufacturjnR Process T .’nits A artufacturing process unit that holds methylene chloride is located within a building that is slated for demolition. tf the owner/operator (0/0) of the unit closes the building and ceases to operate the unit, how long does the 0/0 have before the methylene chloride must be shipped off—site’ Fr’st, the owner/operator of the unit should determine if the ‘nethylene chloride would be regulated as a hazardous waste. tf the methvlene chloride is a spent material, it would be regulated as a solid waste if disposed of, used in a manner constituting disposal, burned for energy recover , reclaimed, or accumulated speculatively (Section 261 .2(c)(I), (2), (3), and (s)). If thespent .methylene chloride solitjon contained, before use, ten percent (1O ) or more methvlene chloride, Lt would meet either the FOOl or F002 liStLngs ii Section 261.31 and subsequently wotild 3lSo be regulated as a hazardous waste, Sssurniig .he methylene chloride regulated was utilized for its solvent ropertjes. If the methylene chloride is a ‘ommer-,al chemical produt and not a spent material, it would be regulated as a solid waste if used in a manner Constituting disposa’, disDose j of, or burned for energy recovery (Section 26 l. 2 (c)(1) and (2)). If the product is reclaimed or accumulated sPeculatively it would not be regulated as a solid waste (Section 25 1 .2(c)(3) and (4)). If the solvent is disposed of, used in a manner constituting disposal., or burned for energy recovery it is a solid waste and, due to the fact that it would meet the IJOSO listing in Section 261.33(f) it would also be regulated as a hazardous waste. image: ------- 9441.1987(73) J sJ3J Cr: eau1aLorv Status of Spent kcids Used as a Floccularit in trrig3tion Water FROM: Robert Scarberry, Acting Chief Waste Characterization ranch TO: Bill Taylor, Chief Enforcement Section (6H—CE) Region VI This Is in response to your memo of August 14, 1987, re- questing guidance on the regulatory status of spent acids used as a flocculant in irrigation water. Spent acids used in this manner are essentially a type of water conditioner, and as such, are not solid waste. (See 50 ff 619 and 628, January 4, 1985: and 48 FR 14485, April 4, 1983.) If you have additional questions in this area, please contact Michael Petruska of my staff at FTS 475—6676. image: ------- 3441.1987(74) S 2 1987 John J. McDonnell, P.E. District Engineer Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. P.O. Box 1309 Calumet City, IL 60409 Dear Mr. McDonnell: This letter responds to a request from Waste Management of Illinois to provide an interpretation on the regulatory status of lime-stabilized sludge generated during the treatment of waste pickle liquor from the iron and steel industry. In particular, it w s asked whether this sludge is exempted from the hazardous waste regulations under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii) ( i.e. , exemption for lime—stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge). Based on my understanding of th process, spent pickle liquor (1(062) is received from the iron and steel industry at the CID-Calumet City facility au ” is stored and treated separately from other wastes. The treat ient consists of neutralizing the spent pickle liquor with lime and landfilling the stabilized sludge generated. As you are aware, the treatment (a described above) of 1(062 waste requires a RCRA permit. Under these conditions, the stabilized sludge generated by the treatment of spent pickle liquor at the CID-CaluzAet City faciJity is covered under the lime-stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge exemption. However, you should be aware that this waste may ti11 be hazardous if it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics, and Waste Management of Illinois is still responsible for making this determination. Please feel free to give Ed Abram. of my staff a call at (202) 382—4787 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste characterization Branch image: ------- ATES ENVIRONMEN L OT C ON . GENC 9441.1987(75) ILáe WAS- C.ZN D C SEP ii9 r MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Regarding Status of Coal Tar Decanter Sludge Waste Pile at Toledo Coke Corp., Toledo, OH FROM: Marcia Williams, Director (WH—562) Office of Solid Waste TO: Judy KertCher, Acting Chief (5HS-13) Solid Waste Branch This memo is in response to your request for assistance in interpreting 40 CFR 261.6(a) (3) (Vii), as it applies to the storago of coal tar decanter sludge in a waste pile prior to recycling at the Toledo Coke plant in Toledo, Ohio. Toledo Coke is claiming that the waste pile, which once existed on site, qualifies for exemptioli w er 40 CFR 261.6(a) (3) (vii). Region V does not concur with the claiii. for exemption. 40 CFR 261.6(a) (3) (vii) exempts the products coke and coal tar made from recycled decanter tank tar sludge (EPA II zardous Wast.t K087) from subtitle C regulation. This exemption does not pert wi to the decanter tank tar sludge stored for recycle Furthermore, tJae exemption under 40 CFR 261.2(e) (1) (iii) “ReturflM to the origthal process from which they are generated, without ti st being recLaimed •....“, also does not pertain to this waste pile because the. manufacture of coke is producing a fuel. This f e1 is used as a reducing agent during the production of iron. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 261.2(e) (2) (ii) the waste pile (EPA Hazardous Waste’K087) at Toldo Coke’s plant is subject to the federal hazardous waste regulations. If you require additional information, please feel free to contact Ed Abrams of my staff at (202) 382—4787. image: ------- 9441. 1987 (76) __4_ I t MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Applicability of Bevill Amendment to the American Natural Gas Coal Gasification Facility FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste Christina Kaneen Assistant General Counsel for RCRA 10: Robert I .. Duprey, Director Region VIII, Waste Management Division We have reviewed your memorandum of May 1, 1987, your undated memorandum received June 17, 1987, and the Planning Research Consultants (PRC) report, regarding the applicability of the RCRA mining waste and the combustion ash waste (‘utility waster) exclu- sions (which are both part of the ‘Bevill Amendment’) to the American Natural Gas (ANG) coal gasification facility. W have also reviewed ANG’s May 13, 1987, letter on this subject and our staff met with Larry Wapensky of your staff. Regarding the applicability of the combustion ash waste exclusion (Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i)) to the ANG operation, ANG’s operations include controlled oxygen—starvec combustion of coal. Coal ash produced in the gasifiers from this combustion is eauiva— lent to coal ash (from the same coal type) rodi cod in utility operations. In Gary Dietrich’s letter to Paul Emle , dated January 13, 1981, he stated that combustion wastes were excluded from Subtitle C regulation by the Bevill Amendi ent providing fossil fuel constituted at least 50 percent of Ite fuel mix. As uming that coal constitutes at least 50% of ANG’S fuel mix, the combustion ash waste exclusion would apply tc• the ash from the ANG operation. Regarding the applicability of the mining waste exclusion to ANG’s operations, we agree with you that the exclusion for ‘solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, nd processin image: ------- —2— of ores or minerals’ (the mining waste exclusion’) in RCRA Section 300l(b)(3)(A)(ii), applies to the coal gasification process. This is consistent with the position taken in the January 21, 1981, memoranoum from Alfred Lindsey to Terry Thoem in which Mr. Lindsey stated that the mining waste exclusion clearly extends to retortinc of shale and ‘to direct gasification and liauefaction of coal or the wastes produced by those operations.’ Analyzing ANG’S wastes under the mining waste exclusion, we agree with your conclusion that wastes from the following units are generated from the primary beneficiation or processina of mineral (i.e., coal), and are, therefore, excluded from reau latjon under RCRA Subtitle C by the mining waste exclusion: The Gasification Units The Raw Gas Cooling and Shift Conversion Units The Rectisol Unit The Methanation Unit bowever, we disagree with your analysis of the regulatory status of wastes resulting from operations that are not in the direct line of producing synthetic natural gas. We believe that the ANG operations that treat the gas liquor, the waste gases, and the cooling tower blowdown are also exempt from Subtitle C. We note that EPA has previously recognized that residues axe ex ed fro regulation if they derive from treatment of wastes Qenerate rom mining waste . For instance, EP suspended the listings of several such wastes when Congress enacted the mining waste exclusion. See 46 !. 4614 (January 16, 1981) and 46 FR 27473 (May 20, 1981). See also the attached letter from James Scarbrough, EPA Region IV, to John Stubbs. we do not believe the wastes from these units become sub)ect to RCRA Subtitle C if the treatment yields a useful by—product. CertaJn units at ANG’s plant produce, from the liauid waste streams, materials which are to varying extents reused in the plant or sold. These include sulfur, tar oils, phenol and ammonia. In hi May 16, 1985, memorandum to Harry Seraydarian, John Skinner stated that leachate generated from slag and clinker wastes was exempt under the mining waste exclusion because the leachate was derived from an exempt waste. He stated further that ‘the situation would be different if the slag or clinker were used as a raw material for some extractive process and a listed or hazardous waste resulted. Under this scenario, the hazardous waste would fall outside the mining waste exclusion.’ We feel that this position is contrary to waste reduction goals. It is not environmentally beneficial to create a situation in which treating a waste for recovery of useful materials is subject to Subtitle C regulations whereas disposal of the untreated wastes image: ------- —3— would be exempt from RCRA. We believe that wastes from the :ollowing units are exempt from Subtitle C because these opera- tions constitUte treatment of mininq wastes: The Stretford Unit The Gas Liquor Separation Unit The Pheno8olVan Unit The Phosa W Unit Similarly, we celieve the cooling tower blowdown nd related wastes ar. also exempt as wastes from or. orocessing. The 3 nuary 2]., 19e1. memorandum from Alfred W. Lindsey re’ ardin t e i CRA status of wastes from synfuels processes, includir.c ccal aalftcacion, states that the rnining waste exclusion extends to wastes proauced from the process ... provided they are unt ue to the ore’ rocessing operation. [ 9owever the) ... exei’ptton does not extend to wastes... which are not unique to synfuels operations like spent cleaning solvents, cooling tower blowdown, ano ion .zcnange regeneration waetee. c believe Mr. Linasey’s statement regarding cooling tower ølowdown is best interpreted as only applyina to blowdown f ro industrial cooliny apparatus which is incidental to , akina synfuele. The composition of the blowdown from such cooling towers is not dictated by (i.e., is not uniquely associated with) the extraction, beneficiation, and proc.ssinq of ore. and minerals. ANG’S cooling tower receives the liquid treated waste stream from a mining process. The blowdo procedure is used to remove from the cooling tower contaminants contributed by this liouid waste stream. In the case of the G operation, the NG cooling tower olowoown is a pollution control residue which is øerived from waste produced in the coal aa ification process ( n’i is thus ‘unic uely as3ociated with the coal. gasification r.rccess). kS such, it is excluded frorn regulation. This is consistent with our oosition on cther larr!e vol ”e wastes. For example, cooling tower bloutiown fro” fossil—fuel fired electric utility cooling towers is currently exempt nd is under study in a forthcoming Report to Conaress. Thus, the units listed below treat an excluded waste, i.e., cColifl? tt’wer olowdown, so the wastes from these units are also excluded fro’ regulatios s The Cooling Tower Unit The Mult2.Ole Effect &vaporator Unit The Liquid waste Incineration Dnit The Gasifier Ash Handling System prom this analysis, we conclude that two of the ten wastes you list on pege 2 of your ay 1, 1987, .emorandu ’ attachr ent as potentially regulated are not excluded froi’ potential rec ulatio under RCRA Subtitle C: image: ------- j. wastes from cleaning ooerations, vehicle maintenance ooerations, container atorace areas and laboratory areas, and wastes frol the oily water separation system. 2. Spent methanol catalyst from the methanol plant. Recarding the flue gas and ash wastes from the steam generation system, insufficient data are available fron the PDC report to deter ine the status of these wastes. Finally, you re’ uested our view on the reinjection of the Multiple £ffect Evaporator Licuid waits concentrate into the iasifiers. Since the vast ‘ a ority of the inout to the sifier is an ore or mineral (i.e. coal), the waste from this unit would renaan excluded from regulation even if the MU waste as were nct exe pt from Subtitle C. This is consistent with our positior in previous corres .ondence regarding the status of ore crocessin- ’ witn nixed feedatocks Ce. , r emoranduf from rnarcia Wtllis’ s to Davic f4a oner, dated June ]C, l9 6 meeorandu from John t.h’.an to ?nhl Bobel, dated April 4, 1984,i and letter from John Leht an to D.M. Friedman, dated Aw uat 22, 1.9 3 (.1], attached)). Zn conclusion, we recognize the AUG facility is essentially a evill operation producing Bevill wastes which are currently excluded from RCRA Subtitle C reaulatione. The two exceptions listed aoove a ge still potentially subject to Subtitle C regulation. we do want to stress that the exet oti n fro, Subtitle C may be temporary. The eze rpttofl of any w tes from processinc an ore or mineral can e lifted ty PA aft r orovidtnq a Reoort to Conc,ress that addresses the factors identified under Section àO )2(f) of PCRA. Purtner, we ave serious reservations as to whether the operations at the t4C facility would re atn exempt, were the facility to be reconfi ured to conduct qi nifieant or’ anic chemical syntn.sis with the synthetic natural as or e as li ucr as 3 feedatock. while we hope the aoove discussion clarifies our review of tne leqal status of the various units at the facility, we reco’ — r*ize that •xe pt wastes can be of environnental conceri. there are other auti oritiei under RCPA for ootaintnr information and for taking corrective actions as soorooriate. ‘ e encourale you to use these authorities to investicate and address health or enviCoflmlflt&l impacts. If you have any 3uestione, please contact: Ben !4eynee (PTS/475-7242) of 0 5W or Meg Silver (PTS/382-l7 ) of CCC. Attachments CC: Regional AdministratOr, Reçion s t X 3. Winston Porter Jack McGraw aen Haynes Me Silver image: ------- 944:. :93 RCRA/SUpERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 87 3. Waste Identificati A company generates aerosol paint and solvent cans from painting and cleaning operations. The cans are empty as per common industry practices used to empty such devices to less than 3% by weight of the total capacity of the container (40 CFR 261.7(b)cj( 1 ) & (iii). The cans nay still contain propellant, making the cans reactive if put in contact with a strong initiating force (i.e., intense pressure or heat). Since for all practicable purposes the cans are free of contents that might have been hazardous wastes, would this be regulation of the aerosol cans themselves? RET.. *43 specifical Iv excluded the regulation of the cans, and solely addressed only the Potentially hazardous contents. Therefore, would aerosol cans free of hazardous waste, but still Potentially reactive because of contained propellant be regulated as hazardous waste’ Irrespective of the lack of contained waste, the aerosol cans would be a RCRA hazardous waste because they demonstrate the hazardous characteristic of reactivity (40 CFR 261 . 2 3(a) (6) Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475—66’6 Research: Andy O’Hare image: ------- 9441. 1987(77a) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION SEPTEMBER 1987 3. Waste Identification A company generates aerosol paint and solvent cans from painting and cleaning operations. The cans are empty as per common industry practices used to empty such devices to less than 3% by weight of the total capacity of the container (40 CFR 261.7(b)(1(i) & (iii)). The cans may still contain propellant, making the cans reactive if put in contact with a strong initiating force (i.e., intense pressure or heat). Since for all practicable purposes the cans are free of contents that might have been hazardous wastes, would this be regulation of the aerosol cans themselves? RIL *43 specifically excluded the regulation of the cans, and solely addressed only the potentially hazardous contents. Therefore, would aerosol cans free of hazardous waste, but still potentially reactive because of contained propellant be regulated as hazardous waste? Irrespective of the lack of contained waste, the aerosol cans would be a RCRA hazardous waste because they demonstrate the hazardous characteristic of reactivity (40 CFR 261.23(a)(6)). image: ------- 9441. 1987(78) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 7 8 OPPICE OF 501.10 WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. J. Patrick NjChol Director National Kiln Dust Manageijient Association P.O. Box 68106 Toledo, Ohio 43636 Dear Mr. Nicholson: Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1987, concerning cement kiln dust. The Environnieiitai Protection Agency (EPA) Ii not conducted the study on cement kiln dust as described in th 1980 anlenc]Jnents to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We are aware, however o the u.s. Bureau of MiAles Finding that dust poses a relatively low hazard. In response to your question regar j g the enviroI 1eiitaj problems attributed to t e burning of hazardous waste in cement kilns, I would like to describe the following studies we have conducted. In a June 3, 1987, report, “Hazardous Wc ste Combustion in Industriaj Proce zes: Cement and Limc Ki1n ;,” L1 A studied the burning ot hazarçjo j waste tuel (HWF) in ct IQent kiliis. Results show that as the metal content of IIWF and tue amount of HWF increase, the metal levels in J iln dust increcice. The principal metal that exhibits this increase 1 loaci. However, the highly Oxidiziiig enviruz tiejit ox cezue kiln convert most metals to the oxide form, including lead to lezid oxide (PbO). The very low SOlUbIl ty 0± PbO, coupled with the high concentrations Of calcj Coinpowids result in a mini ,ia1 leaching of lead from the kiln dust. Tests have Shou that ki1z dust generated during the use of HWF Contains elevatecj lead levels, but the lead is not extracted to levels above the maxjzn permissible concentrations specjfje by the Extract.ion Procedure test. (See 40 CFR 261.24.) EPA has also Studied the impact on air quality by lead emissions when HWF is used in cement kilns. From the above-referenced report, EPA concluded the fOllowing: “Lead emissions and the lead Content Of process dust increase when hazardous waste, contaminated with signifjca quantjtj of lead, are burned. However, baseline emissions (no waste being burned) of lead are very low to begin with and, although emissions do increase with waste burning, more than 99 percejit of the lead emissions entering the process is captured by the process materials, and the resulting emission rates are not Significa s. image: ------- Moreover, on May 6, 1987, EPA proposed a regulation to control emissions of toxic metals, organic compounds, and hydrogen chloride from cement kilns and other industrial furnaces arid boilers that burn hazardous waste. The final rule is scheduled to be promulgated in Fall, 1988. With respect to issuing guidance on cement kiln dust, we do not plan on issuing specific guidance because we still consider this substance as non-hazardous and, therefore, out of the purview of EPA hazardous waste regulations. However, we will refer your letter to the Bureau of Mines for possible assistance. Thank you for your interest in cement kiln dust. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. -Sincerely ‘I ,1 L/—’ ) - ‘- - (.J. Wirtston Porter Assistant Administrator image: ------- 441. 1987(8 3) J3 B7 Mr. Michael Mclaughlin Vice President SCS Engineers 11260 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, VA 22090—5282 Dear Mr. Mclaughlin: This is in response to your letter of Septembi 1, 1987, to Matt Straus, concerning regulation of supernatant liquid resulting from treatment of spent pickle liquor (EPA waste X062). In the situation you have described, the impoundment would be a regulated unit under RCRA if it stores any superiiatant liquid from the lime-stabilization of waste pickle liquor. The super- natant forms during clarification of the lime—stabilized mixture. The preamble to the June 5, 1984 Register (49 FR 23284) states that “. . . sludge from the treatment of spent pickle liquor (K062) is generated by a well Jalown technique involVing lime neutralization, flocculation, clarification, and in most cases, dewatering of the resultant sludge. According to Agency policy (see OSWER Directive number 9441.12184) attached), the exclusion under 40 CFR 261.3(C)(2)(ii) applies to the sludge generated from the treatment process, but not the supernatant liquid. Because Section 261.3(c)(2)(ii) does not address the supernatant portion arising from lime stabilization of waste pickle liquor, that liquid portion would be derived from K062, and thus a hazardous waste, per Section 26l.3(c)(2)(i). A surface impoundment holding this supernatant portion would be sub)ect to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. image: ------- If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 382—7729. Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste Enclosure image: ------- 9441.1987(84) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION OCTOBER 1987 5. Applicability of the Section 261.4(a)(2) Exclusions Hazardous industrial wastewaters that are regulated by the Clean Water Act under a NPDES permit are excluded from regulation under RCRA. Periodically, wastewater is diverted from the outfall to a surface impoundment. The diverted wastewater is used in firefighting training exercises. What is the status of the surface impoundment? Because the wastewater is not being “discharged” per the definition in the Clean Water Act, the wastewater does not fall within the RCRA exclusion. Section 122.2 defines “discharge of pollutant” as the combination or addition of a pollutant to “waters of the United States.” Waters of the United States are defined as, “... all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide... all interstate waters...lakes, rivers, streams... .“ •The definition specifically excludes ponds or lagoons used for treatment and manmade bodies of water. While the diversion to the surface impoundment takes place after the water exits the pipe, the discharge must be mixed with “waters” in order to remain within the NPDES permit and thus excluded from RCRA. Discharge to the surface impoundment would constitute illegal operation of a hazardous aste storage unit. image: ------- : you iave furt:,er questions in this area, please Con:,ac: 1ic aej Petruska at 9202) 475—8551. Sincerely, 2 Ma cja E. Willja.ms Director, Office of Solid ‘Jaste image: ------- 9441.1987(96) 1 tg I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC WASHINGTON 0 C 20460 D CE D DEC I 0 87 SOLID WASTE 4P’. 3 ESP’ Eric J. Dougtierty 8409 H. Morven Road Parkvjlie, tW 21234 Dear Mr. Dougherty: This is in response to your Novein er 13, 1987 letter to Robert Scarberry Concerning land disposal of solvents. The answers to your questions are as fO1L w . First, you are correct that industrial wastewater discharges subject to the Clean Water Act (CW ) are excluded from th hazard- ous waste regu1atjo 5 , and t does not matter how the wast ater was generate You should note, however, that only the disCharge is excluded. If hazardous wastewaters are collected, stored, treated, or disposed of prior to discharge, this prior manage is Subject to the hazardous waste regulatj 5 (including thE land disposal restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268). Second, EPA does not have groufldwa discharge guide1j 5 per Se. Facilities that have RCRA interim status or that seek a RCRA hazardous waste facility permjt are subject to a number of requireme 5 designed to protect groundwa in 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266 and 268, as well as the corrective action provisions of RCRA Sections 3 004(u) and 3008(h). Facilities that generate hazardous waste but which are exempt from interim status and Permitting requjr 5 under the accumulation provisions of 40 CFR Section 262.34 (this 1$ likely the case for the automotive mairiten- aitce facilities you asked about) are subject to container and tank manageme standards designed to prevent releases to groundwat When releases do Occur, EPA or the appropriate State agency can take enforc ent action under RCRA Sections 30 08(a) and 7003 to require the facility owner or operator to stop the discharge and to clean-up COflt jnated soil and groundwat I image: ------- 9441.1987(98) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE WASHINGTON. D C. 20460 O CCE OC :EO 2 4 - -— SOLID WASTE AND E IE GE?4C’V RESPO , S MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Regarding Status of Coal Tar Decanter Sludge Waste Pile at Toledo Coke Corp., Toledo, Ohio FROM: Marcia Williams, Director (WH-562) Office of Solid Waste TO: William H. Miner, Acting Chief (SHS-13) Solid Waste Branch This memo is in response to your request for an interpre- tation of the status of Toledo Coke’s coal tar decanter sludge waste pile based upon the April 13, 1987 Reaist. r notice which clarified 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii), and the July 31, 1987 court decision ( P .n!erican. Mining Conaress v. EPA). Our understanding of the sitnation at Toledo Coke (formerly Koppers Corp.) is that at one time, they stored Ha ardou Waste NO. K087, decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations, in a waste pile. The material in question would be a solid waste per 40 CFR 261.2(c)(2), and would meet the listing for K087 found in section 261.32. Thus, it is a hazardous waste. The exemption for hazardous wastes which are recycled, found in section 26].6(a)(3)(vii), extends to coke and coal Droducts derived from K087, when burned enerav r.s Qze. x. It does not extend to storage of the K087 prior to recycling. See 50 49171. The April 13, 1987 gLaJ. E gja.tg merely clarifies that section 261.6(a)(3)(vii) applies to coke and coal tar produced from K087 and not from other hazardous waste. The clarification there- fore, does not have any impact on the situation at Toledo Coke. With respect to the 7 merican Mining Congress Court case, as you are probably aware, we have been preparing a gjatg notice which will provide the Agency’s interpretation of the court’s opinion; this notice will describe those portions of the rules that are unaffected by the opinion and will propose to amend those portions of the rules that we believe are requir- ed by the court’s opinion. Based on this notice, the ANC deci- sion also does not appear to have any impact on this situation. image: ------- (We expect this notice to be issued in the near future.) However, until this notice is signed by the Administrator, you cannot tell representatives from Toledo Coke of this position. Therefore, you should just inform them that the Agency is preparing a notice that will provide the Agency’s interpretation of the court’s opinion and that it will be published in the Federal Reaister in the near future. I hope this clarifies the additional questions raised. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Michael Petruska (202) 475—8551. image: ------- 9441.1987(99) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION DECEMBER 1987 1. Waste Classification A hotel generates 100 to 1000 kg of perchioroethylene per month dry cleaning the clothes of its customers. The waste is stored in a tank on-site which is emptied periodically when full. Would the hotel be regulated as a small quantity generator? Or, because of the definition of household waste, which includes wastes “derived from households (e.g., single and multiple residences, hotels and motels , bunkhouses, ranger stations, etc.). would it not be a hazardous waste due to the exemption in S261.4(b)(1)? If the hotel or motel is generating the waste solely in the process of cleaning the clothing of its customers (i.e.. it is not a commercial dry cleaning operation) the resulting waste would be a household waste and exempt from being a hazardous waste by the provisions of S261.4(b)(1). image: ------- 9441. 1987 (102) July 30 1987 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: State Program Advisory #2 - RCRA Authorization to Regulate Mixed Wastes FROM: Bruce Weddle, Director Permits and State Programs Division Office of Solid Waste TO: RCRA Branch Chiefs Regions I- X The purpose of State Program Advisory (SPA) #2 is fourfold. One, it delineates timeframes by which States must obtain mixed waste authorization. Two, it provides a synopsis of the informa- tion needed to demonstrate equivalence with the Federal program in order to obtain mixed waste authorization. Three, it presents information about the availability of interim status for handlers of mixed waste. And four, the SPA presents the Agency’s position on inconsistencies as defined by Section 1006 of RCRA. BACKGROUND On July 3, 1986, EPA published a notice in the Federal Reaister (see Attachment 1) announcing that in order to obtain and maintain authorization to administer and enforce a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program, States must apply for authorization to regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste as hazardous waste. Mixes waste is defined as waste that satisfies the definition of radioactive waste subject to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and contains hazardous waste that either (1) is listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 or (2) causes the waste to exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. The hazardous component of mixed waste is regulated by RCRA. Conversely, the radioactive component of mixed waste is regulated by either the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the Department of Energy (DOE). This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— In addition, DOE issued an interpretative rule on MaY 1. 1987 to clarify the definition of “byproduct material” as it applied to actual DOE—owned wastes. The final notice stipulated “that only the actual radionuclides in DOE waste streams will be considered byproduct material.” Thus, a hazardous waste will always be subject to RCRA regulation even if it is contained in a mixture that includes radionuclides subject to the AEA. Clarification of the implications of the byproduct rule was previously transmitted to the Regions (see Attachment 2). MIXED WASTE AUTHORIZATION DEADLINES States which received final authorization prior to publica- tion of the July 3, 1986 notice must revise their programs by July 1, 1988 (or July 1, 1989 if a State statutory amendment is required) to regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste. This schedule is established in the “Cluster Rule” (51 FR 33712). Extensions to these dates may be approved by the Regional Administrator (see 40 CFR 271.21(e) (3)). States initially applying for final authorization after July 3, 1987 must include mixed waste authority in their application for final authorization (see 40 CFR 271.3(f)). In addition, no State can receive HSWA authorization for corrective action (S3004(u)) unless the State can demonstrate that its definition of solid waste does not exclude the hazardous components of mixed waste. This is because the State must be able to apply its corrective action authorities at mixed waste units. PROGRAN REVISION REQUIREMENTS Applying for mixed waste authorization is a simple, straight-forward process. The application package should include an Attorney General’s Statement, the applicable statutes and rules, and a Program Description. 1. Attorney General Statement The Attorney General will need to certify in the statement that the State has the necessary authority to regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste as hazardous waste. Copies of the cited statute(s) and rules should be included in the State’s application. See Item I.G., “ Identification and Listing ” in the Model AG Statement in Chapter 3.3 of the State Consolidated RCRA Authorization Manual (SCRAM) for additional guidance. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —3— 2. Program Description The Program Description should address how the RCRA portion of the mixed waste program will be implemented and enforced, and describe available resources and costs (see 40 CFR §271.6). The State must also demonstrate that staff has necessary health physics and other radiological training and has appropriate security clearances, if needed, or that the State agency has access to such people. If an agency other than the authorized State agency is implementing the RCRA portion of the mixed waste program, then the application should include a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between that agency and the authorized hazardous waste agency describing the roles and responsibilities of each (see 40 CFR §271.6(b)). Lastly, the Program Description should include a brief description of the types and an estimate of the number of mixed waste activities to be regulated by the State (see 40 CFR §271.6(g) and (h)). Chapter 3.2 Program Description, in the SCRAN provides additional guidance. INTERIM STATUS In authorized states, mixed waste handlers are not subject to RCRA regulation until the State’s program is revised and approved by EPA to include this authority. In the interim, however, any applicable State law applies. Treatment, storage and disposal facilities “in existence” on the date of the State’s authorization to regulate mixed waste may qualify for interim status under Section 3005(e)(l)(A)(ii) (providing interim status for newly regulated facilities), if they submit a Part A permit application within 6 months of that date. In addition, any such facilities which are land disposal facilities will be subject to loss of interim status, under Section 3005(e) (3), unless these facilities submit their Part B permit application and two required certifications (i.e., groundwater monitoring and financial assurance) within twelve months of the effective date of the State’s authorization (i.e., within twelve months of the date facilities are first subject to regulation under RCRA). Note: Federal facilities that handle mixed waste are not required to demonstrate financial assurance. With respect to facilities treating, storing or disposing of mixed waste in unauthorized States, Headquarters is currently developing a Federal Register notice that will clarify interim This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —4— status qualification requirements under Section 3005(e) as they apply to affected facilities that have not notified in accordance with Section 3010(a) or submitted Part A and/or B permit applications. We anticipate issuing the notice early this Fall. INCONSISTENCIES Section 1006 of RCRA precludes any solid or hazardous waste regulation by EPA or a State that is “inconsistent” with the requirements of the AEA. If an inconsistency is identified, the inconsistent RCRA requirement would be inapplicable. For example, an inconsistency might occur where compliance with a specific RCRA requirement would violate national security interests. In such instances, the AEA would take precedence and the RCRA requirement would be waived. The EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducted a comparison of existing regulations for hazardous waste management and low—level radioactive waste management under 40 CFR Parts 260-266, 268 and 270 and 10 CFR Part 61, respectively, to ascertain the extent of potential inconsistencies. None were identified as a result of that effort. The comparison did indicate that there were differences in regulatory stringency, however. Thus, in issuing permits or otherwise implementing its mixed waste program, States must make every effort to avoid inconsistencies. If you have any questions please contact Jim Michael, Chief, Implementation Section, State Programs Branch (WH-563B) at FTS/(202) 382-2231 or Betty Shackleford, Mixed Waste Project Manager, State Programs Branch at FTS/(202) 475—9656. Attachments cc: Elaine Stanley, OWPE Federal Facilities Coordinators Regions I - X Chris Crundler, Federal Facilities Task Force This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441 .1988(03) Mr. Gary D. Strassel]. Environmental Manager The Sheppard Color Company 4539 Oves Drive P.O. Box 465627 Cincinatti, ESV. ) 1 1 w4 “r••I’4 &GEP ’ Dear Mr. Strassell: This is in response to your November 2O 1987, letter tu Michael Petruska of my staff concerning the regulatory clas if i- cation of your chromium wastes. The remainder of this letter explains the exclusions in 40 CFR Section 261.4(b)(6) for c. tain chromium wastes, and answers the questions you raised. The exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste ur er 40 CFR 26l.4(b)(6) presently applies only to those wastes specif i- cally listed in Section 261.4(b)(6)(ii). Those wastes identified in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of Section 261.4(b)(6)(ii) are excluded because members of the leather tanning and titani t dioxide production industries submitted evidence to EPA t1 . successfully demonstrated that their wastes were not haza:-&,us. The October 30, 1980 Federal Reaister (45 7203 ) desc riL*s this exclusion in greater detail (see Enclosure). The criteria for excluding a waste under Section 261.4(b)(6) requires that the chromium in the waste must be trivalent or nearly exclusively trivalent, that the industrial process producing the waste use trivalent chromium exclusively or nearly Lxclusively, and that the waste be typically and frequently managed n a non-oxicljz- ing environment. See Section 261.4(b)(6)(l). Presently, the only wastes that are included in the Section 261.4(b) (6) exclusion are those listed in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of p&ragraph (ii). The only pigment manufacturing waste exclusion is in subparagraph (H). This exclusion applies to vastewater treatment sludges from the production of Ti0 2 pigment using chromium—bearing ores by the chloride process. The chromium in this waste originates from the entirely trivalent chromium in the rutile or ilmenite ores used as 3 image: ------- a raw material in the process (45 72036). If your customer generates a waste meeting the description in (H), then that waste would be excluded under Section 261.4(b)(6) provided the waste does not fail the EP toxicity characteristic for any constituent other then chromium or does not fail any other hazardous waste character- istic. Any individual or group of generators whose waat meet the criteria under Section 261.4(b)(6)(i), but are not ap ifically designated under paragraph (ii)(Pi)-(H) may submit a rulemaking petition to EPA in accordance with Section 260.20(a) to demonstrate that their waste is not hazardous. tf EPA agrees with the peti- tion, it will amend Section 261.4(b) (6) to exclude those wastes from regulation as well. (As already indicated, wastes meeting- the existing descriptions in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of Section 261.4(b)(6) is only non-hazardous if it exhibits no other hazardous characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261.) If you choose to submit a rulemaking petition, you will have to submit data showing that the waste or wastes in question is exclusively (or nearly exclusi- vely) trivalent chromium, that the industrial process producing the waste use trivalent chromium exclusively or nearly exclusively, and that the waste is typically managed in a non—oxidizing environment. If you have additional questions in this area, please continue to communicate with Mike Petruska at (202) 475-8551. Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste Enclosures a • .fl. .S... image: ------- 94 41.1988(04) UHF, STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT AGENCY JAPfl4 1988 Mr. Paul D. Sylvestri Versar Inc. 6850 Versar Center P.O. Box 1549 Springfield, VA 22151 Dear Mr. Sylvestri: This letter is a response to your letter of October 8, 1987 to Robert Scarberry. In it YOU request clarification of the regulatory status of the waste generated by an incinerator trial burn of sand spiked with reagent grade trichlorob.nzene and hexachloroethane. Specifically, YOU were concerned about the hazardous waste status of the incinerator residue, since hexachloroethane is a commercial chemical product that b.com.s a hazardous waste when it is disposed (13131). In determining whether the incinerator residue is a hazardous waste, the threshold question is vbethei the sand, which was spiked with a commercial chemical product that is listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (as 13131), as part of the trial burn, was a solid waste within the meaning of 40 CFR 2612 at the time it was spiked with the chemicals. When the sand was mixed with the chemicals, the sand becomes a solid vast. and th. chemical becomes a hazardous waste (13131) because the intent is to incinerate the mixture. 40 CFR 261.2 clearly indicates these naterials are solid wastes, unless excluded by 40 ( ‘FR 261.4(a) or by a variance under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, or 260.31. Accordingly, the mixture of 13131 with sand is a hazardous waste by virtue of the “mixture rule”, which provides that th. mixture of a listed hazardous waste with a solid waste constitutes a hazardous vastt. 40 CFR 261.3(a) (2) (iv)). As a result, the residue from the trial burn also would be a hazardous waste (via the “derived—from” rule, 40 CFR 261.3(c) (2) (i)) because thsresidue is derived from a listed waste. If you requir. additional information, please call Edwin F. Abrams at (202) 382—4787. Sincerely, ! Iarcia E. Williams ector, arr ce or sol .iU waste I I I image: ------- ‘“ ‘ 3 ’u.fl’ I IAL 9441.1983(3 ) FEB 22 1988 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Classification of Wastes Containing F0Ol-F005 Constituents FROM: Jeffery D. Denit Actiftg Director Office of Solid Waste (WH—562) TO: Phillip L. Bobel Chief, Waste Programs Branch EPA Region IX (RT2) This is in response to your memo of December 30, 1987, on waste classification, as per Mr. Sandoval’s request. I think the confusion Mr. Sandoval is experiencing is due to imprecise use of terms. A person should not classify a waste that contains an F00l-F005 hazardous constituent as an “F” waste for land ban purposes, or on the manifest. However, if a person generates one or more of the specifically listed “F” spent solv. nts ea. , spent trichioroethylene (FOOl) and then mixes the spent solvent with another waste, the mixture does in fact contain FOOl and therefore is subject to the land disposal restrictions. When an FOOl waste is mixed with another hazardous waste, the proper description of the mixture would include all applicable waste codes. For example, FOOl mixed with an ignitable waste (DOOl) should be described as FOOl, DOOl, and the mixture would be subject to the .treatntent standard in 40 CFR Section 268.41. There is no g miniius amount below which a listed waste need not be identified (Of course, if the FOOl/DOOl mixture does not exhibit ignitability, the classification for the mixture would not have to include the “DOOl” descriptor. Further, you should note that when a waste listed only because it exhibits a characteristic, e.g. , F003, is mixed with a solid waste and the resultant mixture does not exhibit a characteristic, the mixture is not hazardous waste. See 40 CFR Section 261.3(a)(iii).) image: ------- 9 4 4 1. 198 8 (06) ‘1 UNITED STATES EN iRONMEN1AL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D C 20460 ‘ Rc. I 1i/ R g iggg __________________ OFFIL OF t 1ET 1ORA1JDtJN SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUBJECT: Proposed Best Demorlst;ated Available Technology (BDAT) for K061 FROM: Jeffery D. De , cting Director Office of Soup W3te TO: Robert’ E áeaves, Chief Waste Ma agement Branch U.S. EPA, Region III This memorandum is in response to the concerns YOU raised with respect to the determinetion of BDAT for K061 for the Lend Disposal Restrictions Rule (LDRR) and its possible implications for Region III. There seemE to be 5everal points that have been appare tly misunderstood by ‘cur s:..iff. EPA is not approving the. Waelz Xiln as BDAT. The propos. d T.and ;isposal Restrictions for K061 are performance standards th at : 2present a level of performance achievable by High Temperature Metals Recovery (HT’IR). We have identified several classes of HTMR systems; they include: rotary kilns (which includes the Waelz Kiln as well as other types Currently being marketed), flame reactors, eleccric furnaces, plasma arc furnaces, slag reactors, and rotary hearth kiln/electric furnace combinations. Many of these systems produce metallic zinc, metallic lead, both for direct sale, metallic iron to be recycled back to the electric arc furnace, and slags requiring land disposal. The restrictions ar? Concentrations of constituents in the waste tha: must be achieved prior to lanu disposal of K06l in a Subtitle C facility. EPA is not requirinq any specific class of HTMR, ncr are we recommending any specific class. The data used for the development of the proposed Land - Disposal Restrictions for K051 were generated by the EPA samplir.g of the Waelz Kiln p:ocess because it was convenient afld appeared to provide effective treatment. Your with Bill r”yers, our Contractor’s Saz- 1 oling crew chief, failed to reveal the full extent of o c ar3].ysis in determining BDAT for K06l. Mr. Myers was not invDlved i the BDAT analysis for KOGi. As the sampling crew chief or that trip, his image: ------- responsibilities and knowledge were limited to taking representative samples of the materials generated by the Waelz Kiln process. The flow diagran of the process considered by EPA, which was not developed by Mr. Myers, is a complete diagram of the K061 treatment system. The calcining process was considered in our ar alySis of the treatment system prior to the sampling visit, but was rejected because the crude zinc oxide product that is collected in the baghouse is sold as a product. We are aware that the crude zinc oxide product is frequently refined further to remove the lead and cadmium to produce a saleable American grade zinc. However, it also is sold for direct use in product formulation by such industries as fertilizer manufacturing. Therefore, the calcining process was not included as part of the K06l treatment system, since at the point the crude zinc oxide iE collected in the baghouse it becomes a product, and ceases to be considered derived from K061 based on the “product rule” (40 CFR 261.3 (c)(2)(i)). Furthermore, the calcining process historically has been applied tO other crude zinc oxides, including those produced by the primary smelting of zinc bearing ores in the Waelz Kiln. If K061 were not used as a feedstock, zinc bearing ores or other scrap material would be necessary. Although calcinirig residuals from refining of ores are exempted currently by the Bevill Amendments, the calcining residuals from K061 wastes, under certain circumstances, would be regulated as D006 (EP Toxic for Cadmium) and/or D008 (EP Toxic for Lead). Treatment standards for the “D” wastes are expected to be final by May 8, 1990, three months before the effective date of the Land Disposal Restrictions for K061. In response to your concerns regarding the interpretation of the waste as an “indigenous” waste, we have not interpreted K06l to be indigenous tO that type of furnace. Instead, we have determined treatment standards that the residual material must meet prior to land disposal. We will be soliciting additional comment on that subject in the proposal of the LDRR. The current use of the K06l treatment residual from the Waelz Kiln as roadbed and anti-skid material, however, is considered to be “use in a manner constituting land disposal” and is not exempt from regulation based on 40 CFR 261.2 (c)(l)(A). We have discussed this issue with the Region III RCRA Enforcement Office. However, we do not think this issue is germane to whether BDAT baSed on recovery is effective, since placement of the residuals in a subtitle C landfill will eliminate any compliance problems. It is my hope that this additional information will eliminate any concern about the BDAT we intend to propose for K061. If your staff has any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. John Keenan of my staff, at FTS 755—0356. image: ------- 9 441.1988(07) S? 4 5 S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 <1 QQ 0 1t ’ OFFICE OF MAR I 0 scuD WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPON5 Miche]. Bouchard, ing. Industry Information Centre de Recherche Industrje].1e du Quebec 333, rue Franquet Case postale 9038 Sainte-Foy (Quebec) CANADA G1V 4C7 Dear Mr. Bouchard: This is in response to your letter to Jon Greenberg dated January 4, 1988 and your telephone conversations with Ron Josephson on January 22 and 29, 1988. In particular, we are providing a regulatory interpretation concerning the management of stainless steel production residues as they would be controlled under the U.S. Federal hazardous waste regulatior,s. The regulations we are citing below can be found in the U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 260 and 26]. (abbreviated as 40 CFR 260 or 40 CFR 261). Dusts or sludges from the emission control systems of electric arc furnaces used in the primary production of steel, where the furnace is not used solely for casting, are considered listed hazardous wastes with the EPA code K061 under 40 CFIt 261.32. Should this waste be processed through the chromium and nickel extraction process that you describe in youk letter, the remaining residues are still considered hazardous ‘astes because they are derived from a hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(j).) Other wastes from electric arc furnaces that do not exhibit hazardous characteristics (see 40 CFR 261 Subpart C) are not considered hazardous as long as they are not mixed with dust or sludge from the emission control system. If the generator feels that the residue from the chromium and nickel extraction is not hazardous (i.e. does not exhibit the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity described in 40 CFR 261.20-261.24), then he may apply for an exemption, or “delisting petition.” (See 40 CFR 260.20—260.22.) Should such a petition be granted, the residue from these facilities would no longer be considered hazardous. image: ------- —2— If you have any further questions, please contact Ed Abrains on my staff at (202)382—4787. Sincerely, ctin Director Office of Solid Waste image: ------- 9441. 1993(j UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI AGENCY MAR 22 1988 Mr. Hyman Bzura, President Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc. P.O. Box 194 Old Bridge, NJ 08857 Dear Mr. Bzura: This letter is in response to your February 3, 1988, request for a determination of the regulatory status of the copper chloride and copper ammoniuin chloride which you purchase as by- products from circuit board manufacturers. Under EPA’s hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR Section 261.2(e)(j) promulgated on January 4, 1985), secondary materials used directly as an ingredient or feedstock are not so!id waste. This is distinguished from reclamation, where distinct components of the secondary material are recovered as end products; certain types of secondary materials are solid waste when reclaimed. Id. (See 40 CFR Section 261.2(c).) From the information you provided in your February 3 letter, it appears that the Copper-bearing secondary materials you ust in the production of copper sulfate and copper hydroxide are being used directly, and so would not be solid waste. The Office of Solid Waste cannot provide you a definitive response, however, because solid waste determinations involve considera- tion of a number of facility-specific factors. For example, besides the question of whether the secondary materials are used directly, i.e. , without prior processing, important questions are whether the activity in question is bonafide recycling and whether the materials you purchase are speculatively accumulat See the discussion in the January 4, 1985 preamble. sarily, these questions are best addressed by EPA’s Reg 4 - offices or by authorized states. (Please note that under cYR Section 261.2(f) you are required to provide all documez ion necessary to support any claim for a recycling exclusion or exemption.) Also, under RCRA Section 3009, States are free to adopt regulations more stringent than EPA’s. Consequently, a facility owner or operator’s primary contact on RCRA matters should be the State agency with RCRA responsibilities. image: ------- —2 Accordingly, we have forwarded your letter to New Jersey Department of Environjnentaj Protection. The contact person in New Jersey for questions of this kind is Ms. Shirlee Schiffman, Chief, Bureau of Classification and Technjcai Assistance If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you may contact Michael Petrusica at (202) 475-9888. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste CC: Shirlee Schiffman, New Jersey DEP Barry Tornick, Region 11 tily Roth bc / 3/il / 88 bc / 3 / 16 / 88 bc / 3 / 18 / 88 !!!!!!!I!I!!I!II!I1I1III!III!,,IIIII!Ii iiiiii image: ------- UNITE I 1ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION’ E CY 9441.1988(09) APR 61988 R. Todd Grant President Tomar Services, Inc. P.O. Box 233 Wexford, PA 15090 Dear Mr. Grant: This is in response to your letter of March 14, 1988, to Michael Petruska, concerning the recycling of nickel, copper, and chromium-containing electroplating sludges. This is a complex area of regulation, and you may have misunderstood some of what Mr. Petruska explained in your March 2 meeting. My understanding of your operition is that you plan to recycle electroplating sludges by recovering certain metal values from dried material produced from sludge dryers. The two key questions in determining RCRA applicability are: (1) whether the sludge is listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, and (2) whether the material is processed before use, i.e. , “reclaimed”. Although the material will be fed to a metal smelting furnace, please note that such smelters are considered reclamation devices, and therefore the exclusions for direct use or reuse at 40 CFR Section 26l.2(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) do not apply. (See 50 633; January 4, 1985.) Listed sludges that are reclaimed are solid waste, while sludges that are hazardous only because they exhibit a characteristic are not solid waste when reclaimed. Since electroplating sludges are specifically listed wastes, these wastes when reclaimed (i.e., processed in a metal smelting furnace) are subject to the hazardous waste rules. In particular, the generator and transporter rules apply when the material is shipped (40 CFR Parts 262 and 263) and the reclamation facility is subject to 40 CFR Section 261.6(c). Also, EPA has proposed rules for industrial furnaces in 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart D. (See 52 FR 16982; May 6, 1987.) image: ------- —2— The dried material you plan to market to smelters would be considered a partially-reclaimed material, because further processing is required before the metal can actually be used. If you believe the material is commodity—like after drying, you may petition the Agency for a variance. (See 40 CFR Sections 260.30(c), and 260.31(c).) Under these provisions, the EPA Regional Administrator (or, in an authorized State, the Director of the State’s RCRA program) with jurisdiction over the facility producing the material may grant a variance from classification of the material as solid waste.AI The factors that are relevant in granting the variance are in Section 260.31(c), and are discussed at 50 R 655 (January 4, 1985). In summary, the process you describe would be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations if listed sludges are reclaimed. If you seek a variance for the partially-reclaimed material, you should contact the appropriate EPA Region or State agency. Finally, I suggest you modify your certificate because the material would be, as EPA defines the term, “reclaimed”. If you have further questions in this area, please continue to deal with Mr. Petruska at (202) 475—9888. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director Office of Solid Waste ,/ The variance is only necessary for listed sludges. As noted above, characteristic-only sludges are not solid waste when reclaimed. H 562 B/MPetruska/tle/rms242/3/2l/88/4759888, ,etruska_S 7 Ol image: ------- 9441.1938(1 U ST S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 I ‘ L p1101t APR ‘ I I98 OFFICE OF — SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Anthony R. Sinibaldi Senior Vice President Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc. Governor Lea Road P.O. Box 319 Delaware City, Delaware 19706 Dear Mr. Sinibaldi: This is in response to your December 21, 1987, letter to Marcia Williams, the subsequent meeting here at EPA on January 13, 1988, and your March 16, 1988 letter to Michael Petruska concerning the regulatory status of your distillation or fractionation column bottoms from the production of chlorobenzene. This letter is also to correct certain errors that were made in an October 16, 1987, letter from Marcia Williams to Phil Retallick, Director of Delaware’s Division of Air and Waste Management, on the same subject. K085 Listing Description First, let me reiterate that we view the bottom stream from chlorobenzene production as a secondary material, i.e. , a by-product, not a co—product. The bottoms, although they may have some economic value, must be processed before use. See the discussion in the g a.1 Reaister of January 4, 1985, in which EPA stated that: fl• .by—products are materials, generally of a residual character, that are not produced intentionally or separately, and that are unfit for end use without substantial processing. Examples are still bottoms...” (50 625.) The determination that the bottoms are a by-product, however, does not automatically mean that they are the EPA listed waste K085. To meet the listing description, the bottoms must first be a solid waste, defined by 40 CFR Section 261.2. image: ------- —2— As explained below, the determination of a material being a solid waste depends on the disposition, or intended disposition, of the material. Any material that is abandoned by being disposed of, burned, or incinerated (or accumulated, stored, or treated in lieu of being abandoned) is a solid waste. (See Section 261.2(b).) Additionally, secondary materials are also solid wastes if they are recycled, or accumulated or treated before recycling, as specified in Section 261.2(c). Further, materials may be designated as “inherently waste-like” by EPA under Section 261.2(d). The remainder of this letter provides EPA’s determinations regarding the processes you have described to us. Please note, however, that these determinations are only accurate to the extent we have all relevant facts. If the State needs further information or documentation on these processes, you are required to provide the information under 40 CFR Section 261.2(f), even for processes that we say here are exempt from regulation. Thermal Oxidation Process The first question to be answered is whether the gas-fired thermal oxidizer, which we understand uses controlled flame combustion, is an incinerator, a boiler, or an industrial furnace. (See the discussions at 50 625—627, January 4, 1985, for the Agency’s basic approach to classifying combustion devices.) The classification of your oxidizer unit into one of these three categories is central to determining its regulatory status. If your unit is an incinerator, Table 1 in 40 CFR Section 261.2(c) is not relevant, and the unit is not eligible for any exclusions in Section 26l.2(e)(1). This is because any burning in an incinerator is waste destruction, subject to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart 0, even if material or energy recovery also occurs. (See the discussion at 48 ER 14484, April 1983. “If material or energy recovery occurs, it is ancilliary to the purpose of the unit — to destroy wastes by means of thermal treatment - and so does not alter the regulatory status of the device or activity.” An example involving recovery of hydrochloric acid is then presented. Id.) image: ------- —3— Our determinations regarding your thermal oxidation unit are as follows: o The unit does not meet the definition of a boiler cited in Section 260.10 (e.g., it does not export thermal energy); o Based on the information that has been provided to EPA, we believe the unit is not an industrial furnace. To be an industrial furnace, the unit must be specifically listed in Section 260.10 (cement kilns; lime ki].ns; aggregate kilns; phosphate kilns; coke ovens; blast furnaces; smelting, melting, and refining furnaces; Ti0 2 chloride process oxidation reactors; methane reforming furnaces; and combustion devices used in the recovery of sulfur values from spent R 2 S0 4 ]; o Therefore, since the gas-fired thermal oxidixer is neither a boiler nor an industrial furnace, the unit is classified as an incinerator. Thus, it would be si.tbject to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart 0. EPA considers adding units to the Section 260.10 definition of industrial furnace on a case—by—case basis. Persons may petition the Agency under Section 260.20 to add units to the definition. Dow Chemical, Inc., submitted such a petition in July 1986 for their halogen acid furnaces (HAYs), and EPA proposed to grant the petition on May 6, 1987. (See 52 17018-17019.) Under the May 6 proposal, an HAY would be considered an industrial furnace provided that the unit is used for: “ ...production of acid from halogenated secondary materials generated at chemical production facilities where the furnace is located on-site and the acid product has a halogen acid content of at least 6%.” (See proposed Section 260.10, id., at 17033.) Your thermal oxidation unit appears to meet these conditions. Therefore, at such time as EPA finalizes this proposal, the classification of your unit would change from an incinerator to industrial furnace. The result of this change would be that the unit would be subject to the Part 266, Subpart D, standards for boilers and industrial furnaces, in lieu of the Part 264 and image: ------- —4— 265, Subpart 0, incinerator standards. (See id., at 17019.) In either case, the Chlorinated by-product introduced to the unit is the EPA listed waste K085. Hvdrodechlorination Process Based on the information you provided, your hydrodechlo- rination process does not appear to involve Controlled flame combustion; therefore, the above discussion Concerning boilers, furnaces, and incinerators is not relevant. Since you are using the chlorinated by-product as an ingredient in production of lower chlorinated feedstocks and muriatic acid, and since no burning, reclamation, or use Constituting disposal is involved, the by-product appears to meet the terms of the exclusion in 40 CFR Section 261.2(e)(l)(i), and therefore it is not a solid waste ( i.e. , it is not K085.) Please note, however, that if the by-product is accumulated speculatively as defined in Section 26l.l(c)(8), it would then become solid waste (see Section 261.2(e) (2) (iii)) and would be K085. Further, your unit may be affected by changes EPA is considering to the definition of industrial furnace, discussed in the last section of this letter. Use in Titanium Dioxide Production Your December 21, 1987, and March 16, 1988, letters state that Standard Chlorine plans to sell a blend of the two higher chlorinated benzene process streams to another company for use in titanium dioxide manufacture. The process streams will be introduced to an oxidation reactor where titanium tetrachioride is converted to titanium dioxide, and will, your letters state, substitute for toluene in the production process. The oxidation reactor would appear to meet the definition of an industrial furnace in 40 CFR Section 260.10, i.e. , see paragraph (8) in the definition. From the information you provided, the chlorinated benzene stream will provide not only chlorinated material but also energy value. The regulatory status of material sent for this use currently depends on its energy value. If the chlorinated benzene stream has significant energy value, e.g., equal to or greater than materials used commercially as fuel——generally around 5000 Btu per pound--and the energy is used in the production process, then the material image: ------- —5 is considered to be burned at least partially for energy recovery. Thus, the material is considered to be the listed waste 1 (085 and the standards of 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart D, for hazardous waste burned for energy recovery would apply to the furnace and the material sent to the furnace. The oxidation reactor would also be subject to the standards for industrial furnaces proposed on May 6, 1987. (See 52 16982.) If the chlorinated material is burned without significant energy recovery, however, then the material may not be a solid waste because it is used as an ingredient to make a product. (See 40 CFR Section 26 1.2(e)(2)(i) and (e)(2)(ii).) Chanaes Beina Considered for Certain Units As the above discussion indicates, EPA’s current rules defining solid waste and the applicability of standards depend on, first, the classification of the unit, and then whether the material is burned (partially) for energy recovery. EPA is considering modifications to this approach in the near future that could affect your processes. First, we are concerned about secondary materials that could be hazardous waste if burned for energy recovery or destruction but that are excluded from regulation when burned as an ingredient in a production process. To deal with the potential health risk from burning such materials as an ingredient, we are considering proposing to designate materials introduced to HAF5, and perhaps other furnaces (possibly including oxidation reactors used in titanium dioxide production) as “inherently waste—like materials” under 40 CFR Section 26l.2 d). This would mean that, if your proposed thermal oxidation unit meets EPA’S definition of an industrial furnace, the standards proposed on May 6, 1987 would apply to the unit whether or not any energy is recovered from the K085 chlorinated stream. The material sent for titanium dioxide production could also be brought under regulation as 1(085 if we promulgate such a designation. Second, EPA is considering proposing to amend the definition of industrial furnace to remove the condition that furnaces must use “controlled flame devices” to accomplish recovery of materials or energy. The impact of this change could be that your non-flame hydrodechiorination unit could be designated as an industrial furnace, and then would be subject to the standards proposed on May 6, 1987. image: ------- —6— If you have general questions about this letter, please contact Michael Petruska at (202) 475—9888. If you have questions about the classification scheme for combustion devices, please contact Robert Holloway at (202) 382-7917. Finally, as stated above, your primary contact on RCRA matters should continue to be Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). We will be providing copies of this letter to Delaware DNREC as well as EPA Region III. Sin reiy, of Solid Waste image: ------- 9441.1988(13) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY StflO4ARY APRIL 88 1. Notification Requirements for Recyclable Materials A gold plating operation generates a spent cyanide solution. The solution is sent to a redaimer so that the gold content can be recovered. The recyclable material, because of its free cyanide content, is a California listed waste. Does the generator have to send a notification to the reclaimer per Section 268.7? The requirements for recyclable materials from which precious metals are reclaimed in Section 261 .6(a)(2)(IV) subject the generator to regulation under Subpart F of Part 266. However, Section 261 .6(a)(2) does not specifically free the generator of Part 268 regulations. Only those recyclable materials specifically listed in Section 261 .6(a)(3) are not subject to Part 268 regulations. Since this waste is a California listed waste, the generator must provide proper notifi- cation to the reclaimer. Contact Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4805 Research: Cheryl McNabb image: ------- 9441.1988(14) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION APRIL 1988 5. Hazardous Waste LD . Ground-water, contaminated by FOO1-F005 listed hazardous wastes, is removed from an aquifer during corrective action measures performed at an interim status ba, rdous waste disposal facility. After on-site steam stripping, the treated ground-water is transported, via trucks, to a local Publicly Owned Treatent Work (POTW) for discharge. Prior to steam stripping, would the contaminated ground-water be classified as FOOl- F005 listed hazardous wastes? If so, what treatment concentration levels must be achieved in order for the ground-water not to be classified as FOO1-F005 listed wastes; thereby eliminating the requirements of having a manifest accompany each ground-. water shipment to the POTW? The ground-water itself, is not listed FOOl-F005 hazardous waste, but is subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulations because it contains FOO1-F005 listed hazardous wastes. if the ground-water is treated such that it no longer contains a havirdous waste, the ground- water would no longer be under RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction (see EPA Memorandum from Marcia Williams of the Office of Solid Waste to Patrick Tobin of Region N Waste Management Division, dated November 13, 1986). If the FOOl-F005 wastes contained in the ground-water are delisted, the ground-water would no longer be subject to Subtitle C arid may be transported without a manifest to the POTW. image: ------- 9441.1988(17) MAy 1 8 1988 Mr. Mahinood Kapadia Manager Ceramic Engineering The Haeger Potteries, Inc. Seven Maiden Lane Dundee, Illinois 60118—9989 Dear Mr. Kapadia: This correspondence is in response to your request for information on the proper classification of waste colored glazes collected as part of your pottery manufacturing operation. Specifically, you referred to a mixture of different glaze colors that are collected and treated by a “rotary vacuum” filter. The resultant solid waste produced, which exhibits the characteristic of EP Toxicity for lead (and possibly for cadmium and chromium), is then disposed of at a high cost. I apologize for the long delay in responding to your correspondence. The Agency is under a very tight schedule to meet the statutory deadlines applicable to the land disposal restrictions program. As you stated in your letter (and have further described during telephone conversations with my staff), it is your desire to place the colored glaze solids into broken or good pottery, fire it in your tunnel kiln, and sell this fired piece at- your retail sales outlet. In accordance with the definition of solid waste (40 CFR 261.2), if the colored glaze solids are used in the manner described, they would not constitute a solid waste, and thus would not meet the definition of a hazardous waste. The solid mater.ials would not be a solid waste since the material would be recycled by being “used or reused as ingredients in an industrial process to make a product”. 40 CFR 26l.2(e)(l)(i). The colored glaze solids in this case would not be considered reclaimed, since you would be using the entire material, and not reclaiming certain constituents from the material. image: ------- The information provided above reflects hazardous waste management System regulations covered by Federal rules. Note, however, that compliance with applicable Federal regulations does not relieve an individual from compliance with applicable State environmentai, requirements. I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Wanda LeBleu-Biswas, of the Waste Characterization Branch, at (202) 382—7392. Sincerely, Stephen R. Well, Chief Land Disposal Restrictions Branch 2 image: ------- 9441.1983(19) iO Sr 1 . “I ‘: S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 MAY26 8B OFFICE OF Gary L. Ford SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Assistant Director of Law Stauffer Chemical Company P.O. Box 0852 Westport, CT 06881—0852 Dear Mr. Ford: This letter is in response to your April 5, 1988, letter requesting clarification of the RCRA Subtitle c regulations. These are Federal regulations. The States where your facilities are located may have more stringent regulations which would apply. Consequently, a facility owner or operator’s primary contact on RCRA matters should be the State Agency with RCRA responsibilities. As you note in your letter, spent sulfuric acid which is accumulated speculatively does not qualify for the exclusion in Section 261.4(a)(7). If the person accumulating the material can show that it can feasibly be recycled, and that at least 75% (by weight or volume) is recycled or transferred for recycling in a calendar year, the material is not accumulated speculatively. Once removed for recycling, materials are no longer Considered to be accumulated speculatively. The definition of speculative accumulation is found in Section 261.l(c)(8). Translating the regulations to cover your situation, spent sulfuric acid which is accumulated speculatively is a solid waste per Section 261.2(c)(4). If the acid is a listed hazardous waste, or if it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, it must be handled as a hazardous waste. If it is removed from accumulation for recycling, it ceases to be accumulated speculatively, and the exclusion in Section 261.4(a)(7) may become available. If it is actually recycled by being used to produc vtrgin sulfuric acid, the Section 261.4(a)(7) exclusion may •rcised in States which recognize the exclusion. Howevet’ jf it is removed from accumulation for recycling, but the recycling is not the production of virgin sulfuric acid, the Section 2 6l.4(a)(7)-excj.ugion is not exercised, and the regulations in Section 261.2 govern the material’s status. image: ------- —2— It should also be noted that materials accumulated in land-based storage units may leach into the ground, and thus would be considered to be disposed. Storage of spent Sulfuric acid in a surface impoundment, for instance, may result in some portion of the spent acid being disposed. lthough the material stored in the surface impoundment might qualify for the exclusion in Section 26l.4(a)(7), the portion which leaches into the ground, if not recovered, has been disposed. If the acid is a listed or characteristic hazardous waste, the disposal/storage unit is a hazardous waste management unit. Please feel free to contact Mike Petruska at (202) 475-9888 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Devereawc Barnes, Director Characterization and Assessment Division image: ------- 9441.1988(20) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY MAY 88 1. Hazardous Waste Identification - Kill Listing During the production of TNT (trinitrotoulene), DNT (dinitrotoulene) is generated as art intermediate chemical via niti ation of toulene. Does the Kill listing (i.e., product washwater from the production of dinitrotoulene via the nitration of toulene) cover the product washwaters generated from this intermediate step or does the listing only cover those product washwaters generated from final product DNT? Product washwaters produced from the intermediate DNT chemical are included in the Kill listing. The October 23, 1985 Federal Registt ( (. E 42937) states that the Kill listing indudes “any wastes which meet the waste description and are generated by the processes described in the background document, regardless of the end product or industry in which it takes place.” In fact, 50 EZ. 42937 specifically states “product washwaters from the production of DNT by nitration of toluene, as an intermediate to TNT production, also are covered by this listing.” Source: Bob Scarberry (202) 382-4769 Research: Sue Brugler image: ------- UNITED ....ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. .NCY 9441.1985(23) JI1 6 88 Ms. Margaret R. Tribble Legal Department American Cyanainid Company One Cyanamid Plaza Wayne, NJ 07470 Dear Ms. Tribble: This letter is in response to your March 30, and May 3, 1988 request for clarification regarding the regulatory status of used sulfuric acid. Specifically, you requested a clarification of the applicability of the RCRA Subtitle C regulations to certain recycling practices. Examples given in your letter are secondary uses as a fertilizer, a metal oxide removal agent, a scrap iron digester, an ingredient in the production of aluminum suif ate, and using the acid to acidulate phosphate rock. Below is an explanation of the regulations found in 40 CFR 261.2 and 261.4, which determine the regulatory status of a secondary material. Please keep in mind that the discussion below is only a general review of the existing regulations and preamble discussions. Each generator must make his own determination as to whether he has a solid and hazardous waste and must have adequate documentation to support any exemption claims. (See 40 CFR Sections 262.11 and 261.2(f).) In each of the recycling situations presented in your letter, it is necessary to determine what the material is (spent material, by-product, co-product) and how it is being recycled to determine its regulatory status. The special case of spent sulfuric acid which is recycled to make virgin Sulfuric acid was explained in the January 4, 1985 Federal Reaister (50 642). The exempt4on found in ‘261.4(a)(7) refers to the special case where spent sulfuric acid is not a solid waste unless accumulated speculatively. The Agency never intended for the regulated community to infer that because there is such an exemption, all other spent sulfuric acid is always a solid waste. Indeed, a careful reading of the regulations would lead the reader from 261.2(a) to 11 26l.4(a) and then to 26l.2(b) (if 261.4(a)(7) does not apply to the reader’s situation]. image: ------- Section 26 l.2(a) states that materials which are abandoned or which are irtherently waste-like are always Solid wastes. Secondary materials which are recycled must be classified according to the type of secondary material and the maimer of recycling. it is impossible to make an all-inclusive statement concerning the regulatory status of used sulfuric acid; in addition, insufficient information was provided in your letters to provide a more detailed response. In some cases, used acid is a spent material; in other cases, such as the Sulfonation, alkylation, and dehydration reactions described in your letter, used acid is a by-product or a co-product. The regulatory status of used acid will depend on whether the acid is a spent material, a by-product, or a co-product, and the maimer in which the used acid is recycled. In general, hazardous secondary materials used as ingredients in production of new products, or as substitutes for commerjcaj. products, are not solid wastes. (See 40 CFR Section 2 61.2(e)(]).) Please note however, that under certain conditions, materials used in this manner are still solid and hazardous waste, e.g., when the product being produced is a fuel or a fertilizer. (See 40 CFR Section 261.2(e) (2).) Each generator of used or spent aéid should evaluate the material in light of the Federal regulatjon as well as any applicable State laws or regulatjo If a generator needs assistance in making a determination, or wishes an officjai confirmation of his own determination, he Should contact the appropriate EPA regional office, or in authorized States, the appropriate State regulatory agency. Please feel free to contact Michael Petruska at (202)475-9888 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Devereaux Barnes Director, Characterization and Assessment Division image: ------- 9441. 1988(2 5) Mr. Fred Tidwell U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Safety Office, D—160 P.O. Box 25007 Denver, Colorado 80226 Dear Mr. Tidwell: This letter is in response to Mr. William C. Klostermeyer’s request of May 20, 1988, to replace methylene chloride in EPA Method 3510 with “. . . substitute chemicals, procedures, and methods to perform the requested laboratory work”. At the present time, the Agency does not have any other solvent system available for the extraction of semivolatile organic compounds with the powerful solvating properties of methylene chloride. Methylene chloride is sufficiently polar to extract polar organics from a wide variety of matrices as well as having the capability to extract relatively non-polar compounds from these matrices. Research into alternative solvent systems to replace inethylene chloride as a general solvent for semivo]ati].e organics is being conducted by our research laboratory in Cincinnati. To date, no equivalent alternative solvent system has been developed to satisfactorily replace methylene chloride in removing hazardous substances from difficult matrices and converting them to an analyzable form. For specific compounds, however, it is possible to substitute other extraction solvents for the methylene chloride. An example would be the use of toluene as an extraction solvent for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. We would be happy to discuss, with you, potential solvents for specific situations. image: ------- The Agency will continue to strive to find a replacement solvent system for methylene chloride as the general extraction medium for semivolatj].e organic compounds. In the meantime, one must continue to use this solvent following all proper safety precautions in order to generate valid data. We will keep you informed as to progress in this area of alternative extraction media and method validation. If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact Barry Lesnik of my staff at FTS 382-4761. Sincerely yours, David Friedman, Chief Methods Section (WR-5 62B) image: ------- 9441.1988(27) ,,to tp 4 ,, I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 4 JJN I 5 988 3 ’CE c SOLID WASTE AND EMERGEp Cv ESPON5 Mr. M. Yaori, Product Manager Ferrous Raw Materials Sumitomo Corporation of America 2750 U.S. Steel Building 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Dear Mr. Yaori: This is in response to your March 15, 1988 letter to Matthew Hale concerning the recycling of electric arc furnace dust, the EPA listed waste K06l. EPA cannot provide a definitive response as to your recycling system at this time. As referenced in your letter, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in v. that EPA had exceeded its jurisdiction by regulating, or claiming to regulate, certain in-process recycling streams. EPA proposed regulatory changes on January 8, 1988 to Comply with the court opinion. (See 52 519.) The comment period on the proposal closed March 23. we have entered your letter as a comment on the proposal. The remainder of this letter describes how EPA’ s rules, and the January 8 proposal, apply to your situation. Please note, however, that the following is based only on t limited information provided in your letter. If YOU actually implement your plans, you should deal with the pproprtate P PA Region (or authorized State) to determine your eacility’s regulatory status. Please also be aware that this letter only addresses potential RCRA regulation of the K061. recycling; air emissions from the cyclone and bag filter may be subject to State or Federal air pollution regulatio . Our Understanding of the K061 recycling process outlined in your letter is that Z061 would be Collected from electric arc furnace isaions in a bag filter. The collected dust would be conveyed ta-a hopper, mixed with coal or coke, pelletized, mixed with a modifier, and dried in a rotary dryer. After drying, it would be stored, then processed in a load cell reactor with oxygen blown into the bottom. The exhaust from the reactor would be filtered in a bag filter, where the zinc rich metal oxide would be recovered. In the load cell reactor, the process wastes from the electric arc furnace would be combined with the image: ------- —2— coal/coke/modifier/K061 mixture; the resulting slag from the load cell reactor would be further processed, and finally would be granulated. If the above described process is normally associated with primary production of steel, it is possible that the electric arc furnace dust would not be a solid waste. To successfully claim the material, is not a solid waste under 40 CFR the material must be returned to the original primary production process without prior reclamation; it must not be accumulated speculatively, and it must not be used to produce something which is applied to the land or burned for energy recovery. See the conditions specified in Section 261.2(e)(2) and Section 261.2(f). Under the current regulatory system, K061 that is reclaimed is a solid waste (Section 261.2(c)(3)], and, because it is listed in Section 261.32, it is also a hazardous waste (Section 261.3(a)(2)(ji)]. Until the point where the coal/coke/modjfjer/ K063. mixture enters the load cell reactor, the storage of K06l would be regulated under RCRA (Sections 262.34 or 264.1]. The reclamation processing steps are not regulated, per Section 261.6(c)(l) (see 50 643]. However, if the facility is located in a State which is authorized to implement RCRA, more stringent State regulations may apply. t the point where the coal/coke/mocljfjer/X06l mixture is introduced to the load cell reactor, it might cease to be a solid waste under the current EP rules. The information provided in your letter does not allow a definitive interpretation. However, the principle is explained in the preamble to the January 4, 1985 Federal Realater (50 ra 630) and in the preaflible to the November 29, 1985 Federal Reaister (50 Z 49167). Briefly, if the load cell reactor qualifies as an industrial furnace, the X061 mixture may cease to be a solid waste at the point where the material is introduc into the load cell reactor, depending on its similari- ty to mats*iala ordinarily burned in the unit. It should be noted that the Agency has proposed to amend this interpretation to exc1ud from RCRA jurisdiction secondary materials generated and subsequently recycled in a process using the same type of industrial furnace (52 16990 and 17034, May 6, 1987). image: ------- — 3— If the 1 (06 ], mixture does not qualify for exclusion from RCRA jurisdiction u.nder the above-mentioned interpretation then the status of the materials recovered from the load cell, reactor is dependent On several factors. The recovered zinc rich metal oxide, if processed completely enough to be Considered a product, may no longer be a solid waste. See 40 CFR261.3(C)( 2 ); however, note that if the zinc rich metal oxide is burned for energy recovery or is used in a Iltanner Constituting disposal, it would remain a listed hazardous waste until delisted (Section 2 6 1.3(C) and Cd)). The slag mixture likewise may cease to be a solid waste (and also a hazardous waste) once it has been processed to be considered a product. Some information contained in your letter implies that the slag may be used as base or sub—base course or Sand material. If a material is applied to the land, or is used to produce a product which is applied to the land, it is a solid waste by Section 26l.2(c)(l). As a solid waste derived from the treatment of a listed hazardous waste, it remains a listed hazardous waste until delisted (Section 2 6l.3(c) and (d)). If our understanding that process wastes from the electric arc furnace are mixed with the K06l mixture in the load cell furnace is correct, all of the slag removed from the load cell reactor, if a solid waste, is a listed hazardous waste by Section 26 l.3(a)(2)(jv). Please note that under 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart C, hazardous wastes recycled by placement on the land are subject to extensive regulatjon , unless the recyclable material has undergone a chemical reaction in the course of producing the waste-derived product so as to become inseparable by physical means. Finally, the January 8, 1988 proposal to modify the regu1atjon in Section 2 61.2(c)(3) may apply to your recycling situation. The docket materials in support of that rulemaking contain an Item *6 which s” srjzeg the factors the Agency used for deciding wheth.r to list certain wasteetre in Section 261.32. Z061 was listed because it is typically disposed, or rec lajm.d in an unrelated process, and is frequently stored in open piles The prOposed rule would allow case-by-case demonstr j by the generator that the material does not meet the condjtfona for listing, depending on several factors. It is not possible to aak• a general statement regarding the status of the electric arc furnace dust being recycled with your system. The preamble to the proposed rule discusses the Possibility that the material is not discarded (53 526 and 527, January 8, 1988). From the information in your letter, it does not appear image: ------- —4— that the load cell reactor is closely related to the primary production of steel. Again, if you plan to implement your plan you may wish to discuss the process as proposed With EPA Region or State personnel with regulatory authority in the proposed location for the plant. If you have further questions regarding this letter, please contact Michael Petruska at (202) 475-9888. Sincerely, j L Devereaux Barnes, Director Characterization and Assessment Division image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAl. PROTECTION AGENCY 9441. 1988(28 JUN 2 4 L988 ? 4ORANDVX SUBJECT: USPCI Drum Shredder FROM: Jim Michael, Chief Disposal and Renediatien Section (WH-563) TO: Lawrence A. Wapeneky. Chief Utah/North Dakota Section This is in response to your May 12, 1988 memorandum addressing questions regarding a drum shredder at the UsPCI, dive, Utah, site. I would like to address your questions in the sam. order a. discussed in your memorandum. Is th. drum shreddina oo.ration. a. described in the suDniled information. reaulatad under RCRA ? Yes, the drum shredding unit is prpc g.1 g containers f ii. led with hazardous waste in a manner that constitutes trsatssnt of hazardous waste. Sinc, the dr m shredder was not designed to contain an accumulation of hazardous waste, it does net meet the regulatory definition of a tank (40 CYR 260.10): this activity will require a RCRA permit as a miscellaneous unit under 40 dR 264.600 (Subpart X). Since the operation of the drum shredder poses risk, of hazardous waste releases that are similiar to releases from tank. (Subpart 3) , certain requirements for tank. may be appropriat. for inclusion in the Subpart X permit. vs also recommend that other requirements be imposed to mitigate potential safety and environmental hazards from this unit. Specific controls ar. suggested, where possible, to control the potential for the following problem.: * Explosions and fire. within the unit from the accumulation of ignitable or reactive gases: * Generation of hazardous air emissions from the mixing of • incompatible hazardous waste during th. shredding operation: image: ------- —2— * Releases to the air, including contaminated dust or hazardous gases; * Releases of liquid hazardous waste from an increase in pressure on the hazardous waste being shredded. Hazardous waste liquids absorbed by a material might pass the paint filter test for free liquids under atmospheric pressure, but release the liquid under pressurized Conditions inside the unit. This result material separation) is neither intentional nor desirable and, therefore, should be minimized. Measures should be planned and implemented to collect potential releases from the unit; and, * Releases from precipitation events Since the unit is not entirely covered with a roof and hazardous waste will remain in the mechanism after each use. The unit is not designed to trap and control this type of release. Therefore, we suggest channelling releases resulting from precipitation to a sump or other containment device. The water should be analyzed before discharge or disposed of as a hazardous waste. If it is regu1ate , does it come under the Dermittin authority of the State de1 ,c ated Droarpm. or under SubDprt X ? As a Subpart x unit, the Region will be the permitting authority. This authority is provided by 40 CFR 2 64.](f)(2). However, since the unit is a miscellaneous unit similar to a tank, the Region may want to check with the State for more stringent requirements under Subpart 3 that may be appropriate. If the facility constructed or oDerpted this unit without having it on its Part A application. should EPA or the State Droceed with enforcement actip Given the abov, determination (i.e., the shredder is a Subpart x treatment unit), the Region was correct to instruct the facility to ceas, operation of the unit. Operation of a hazardo vast, unit without a permit or approval as a change in interim status under 40 CFR 270.72 is not authorized. The Region should call in the Part B application on this unit. The unit can legally begin operation when the forthcoming permit for the other units at the facility is modified to include the shredder, Since this is a Subpart x unit, Region v i ii will maintain enforcement authority after the RCRA permit modification is issued, We recommend that the Region and State discuss their enforcement priorities in order to make a final determination on any enforcement action against the facility. image: ------- —3-. If you have any questions regarding this information or would like to discuss the issues further, please contact Nestor Avjjes at FTS 382—2218. cc: Bruce R. Weddle, OSW Elizabeth Cotsworth, OSW Sonya Stelmack, OSw Chester Oszman, OSW Kent Anderson, OSW Frank McAlister, OSW Fred Chanania, OGC Nestor J. Aviles, OSW Terry Brown, Region v ii i image: ------- 9441.1933(30) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARy J1JNE 88 3. Household Hazardous Waste As a part of a consent dec ee, a firm which caused a plume of ground-water contaminated with RCRA listed waste, is required to install carbon filters in all affected homes with water wells. When the firm returns to change these filters, they wish to collect and ship them for regeneration. Will these filters be covered by the household hazardous waste exclusion in Section 261.4(b (1)? Yes, Section 261.4(b)(1) defines “household waste” as any material derived from households. Since the carbon filter was installed in a home, it is household waste when removed. There is no significant difference between filters installed by the firm and ones installed by a homeowner on his own initiative. The household hazardous waste exdusion would apply to the filters when they are sent for regeneration. Source: Carrie Wehling (202) 382-7706 Research: Randall Either image: ------- 9441. 1988 (31) MEMORANDUM #24 : DATE: July 1988 SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities FROM: David Friedman, Chief Methods Section (WH-562B) TO: Addresses This memo will address the following topics: o Method 3500- Clarification on Surrogate Standard o Extraction System for PCB5 in Soil o Good Laboratory Practices Work Group o Results on the recent Laboratory Proficiency Evaluation Samples o Test Method for Total Halogens in Used Oil o Contract Laboratory Program — Participation as a Surrogate for Laboratory Certification o Methods Section Staff Responsibilities o Call for Reviewers Method 3500-Clarification on Surroaate Standard We made an error in Method 3500 and a clarification is needed of the direction given on preparing the terphenyl-d14 surrogate standard described on page 2 of Memorandum No. 23. The methanol specified as the dilution solvent is not appropriate. The revised directions are as follows: A. Weight out 10 mg terphenly-d14 into a small beaker (20—5oinl) using an analytical balance. B. Add 5 to 10 ml of pure carbon disulfide until the terphenly-dl4 completely dissolves. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 2 C. Transfer this carbon disulfide solution to a 100 ml volumetric flask. D. Quantitatively, transfer the residual carbon disulfide solution from the beaker to the volumetric flask by washing several times with methanol. E. Dilute to the line with methanol. Mix well. Extraction System for PCB5 in Soil We have reviewed the data package submitted by Joseph Stewart of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in support of his request for use of SOXTEC extraction system, in place of the conventional Soxhlet extraction system (Method 3540), for preparation of PCB samples for Method 8080 at ORNL. The PCB data generated from split samples, run concurrently, using the conventional Soxhlet and the SOXTEC extraction techniques for sample preparation, shows that these preparative techniques are equivalent, within allowable standard deviation limits. These data also demonstrate that Method 8080, utilizing either extraction technique, is appropriate for the analysis of PCB’s in soil and clay matrices at the low ppm level. The SOXTEC system actually proved to be the superior technique when time constraints were considered, taking only 2 hours for sample preparation vs. 17 hours for Soxhiet. From the submitted information, OSW believes that the SOXTEC extraction procedure is suitable for determining the PCB5 in soil matrices. We recommend that where use of SW—846 methods is not mandated by the RCRA regulations, permit writers approve use of the SOXTEC extraction system for RCRA PCB soil analyses. OSWER is in the process of using the ORNL data to develop a general extraction procedure using the SOXTEC apparatus and after the method has received formal review it will be added to SW-846. GLP Workarou Meetings The RCRA Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) taskgroup, (part of the QA Workgroup), has begun the process of developing GLP5 for the program. These practices are designed to apply to all laboratories developing data in support of the RCRA program. The second draft has been distributed to both the taskgroup and the full Workgroup for their review prior to the July 11th general workgroup meeting. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 3 Test Methods for Total Halogens in Used Oil The Federal Register Notice of November 29, 1985 (page 49189) recommended that ASTM D808-81 be used for total halogens (as chlorine) in used oil until a method is developed for inclusion in SW—846. On March 10, 1986 (page 8207) information in a Federal Register Notice confirmed that the ASTM method, cited previously, is inappropriate for measuring total halogens at levels of regulatory concern. The Agency is working to address this problem and a package of proposed test methods for total halogens in used oil will be submitted for workgroup review next month. Until these new methods have been reviewed and formally adopted, the Agency cannot give general approval for their use. Pending such approval, however, the Agency will accept, on a case—by—case basis, data using any technique, as long as adequate QA/QC data has been gathered to validate the results. We believe, based on the data that has been collected so far, that several techniques will be suitable for determining total halogens in used oil at levels of regulatory concern. These include microcoulometry (using Dohrman instrument); Paar bomb combustion with any of the following finishes: mercuric nitrate titration, titrimetric silver nitrate, or ion chromatography; x—ray fluorescence for samples not containing water; and Dexsil’s Clor-D-Tect 1000 test kit for pass/fail determinations only. For additional information, contact Barry Lesnik at 382—7459. Use of Contract Laboratory Program ParticiDation as a Surroaate for Laboratory Certification The Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) provides standardized and specialized analytical services to support OSWER activities. Firm, fixed—price contracts are awarded competitively to the lowest responsible bidders through the Government’s Invitation for BID (IFB) process. Laboratories selected as contractors are monitored for adherence to quality control and administrative procedures and, as long as they receive a satisfactory rating, continue to receive analytical work according to EPA needs and the size of their contract. Laboratories not performing satisfactorily, while they still remain in the program, are cut of f from further work. Concerns have been raised by non—CLP laboratories that a number of EPA Regions and States are requiring that facilities conducting corrective action testing employ laboratories that are participating in OERR’s CLP program in the erroneous belief This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 4 that CLP participation constitutes EPA certification. OSW frowns on this practice since CLP participation does not constitute certification and, more importantly, that for financial or other reasons, many of the nation’s best testing laboratories have elected not to be CLP contractors. Methods Section Staff Responsibilities Many times questions come up dealing with specific methods or testing problems and people do not know who to call for assistance. While calls can always be directed to our general number (202/382—4671), I suggest contacting the subject matter specialists directly for fastest service. You will find the specialists responsible for the major testing and quality assurance subject areas listed below. Subject Name Phone SW—846 Charles Sellers 382—3282 Quality Assurance Florence Richardson 382—4778 Inorganic Analysis Charles Sellers 382—3282 Organic Analysis Barry Lesnik 382—7459 Mobility Prediction Gail Hansen 475-6722 (leachability volatility) Sampling Florence Richardson 382—4778 Reactivity - Toxic Gas Generation Gail Hansen 475—6722 - Explosivity Florence Richardson 382—4778 Ignitability Florence Richardson 382—4778 Corrosivity Charles Sellers 382-3282 Bioassay Methods Gail Hansen 475—6722 I want to emphasize that not only do we want to help answer your questions, but also to hear your ideas for new methods and testing ideas, problems that we need to work on, and any other suggestions or comments you may have to help us improve the program. Call for Reviewers ASTM and EPA’s Office of Solid Waste have a need for qualified individuals to review papers presented at the OSWER Annual Solid Waste Testing and Quality Assurance Symposium and the D34 Symposia prior to publication in ASTM STPs. In order to assist us in this effort, we have established a data base of potential reviewers. If you would be willing to contribute a This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 5 few hours annually to this review process, please complete the attached form and return it to me at the address below. David Friedman Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste (SW-331) Washington, DC 20460 A short list of general topics is given. Please indicate those topics for which you have special expertise or interest. Additional information concerning your specific areas of expertise is also requested. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 9441.1983(32) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460 .) CE Mr. Marshall R. Turner - - . Vice President, Manufacturing Racon Refrigerants 6040 South Ridge Road P.O. Box 198 Wichita, KS 67201 Dear Mr. Turner: This letter is in response to your February 1, )988 petition to change 40 CFR Part 261 to encourage chlorof luorocai-bon recycling. It is based on information contaiueU in your petition and in telephone conversations with Michael Petruska of the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) and with our contractor, Becky Cuthbertson of Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. This response is based on the Federal RCR regulations; individual states implementing RCRA may have more stringent requirements, or regulations which are broader in scope. The tentative conclusion we have reached is that under Federal rules, the refrigerants you are concerned about are probably not hazardous waste. Therefore, your rulemaking petition may be mool. Our conclusion is explained in detail below. The 7 gency understands that the refrigerants manufactured hy your company may become Contaminated during customers’ use. ‘mc contamination may occur because atmospheric moisture condense ;, because lubricating oil from the compressor is released into the refrigerant, or because the compressor’s high temperature may cause small amounts of hydrochloric acid to form, We understand that when servicing the refrigeration system, the service person may either vent the used refrigerant to the atmosphere, or collect the used refrigerant in cylinders to transfer it for rec lamat ion. Refrigerant that has been used and has become contaminated through use fits the definition of a spent material (40 CFR Section 261.l(c)(l)) if it must be reclaimed prior to its reuse. Spent materia]s that are reclaimed are solid wastes per Section 261.2(c). Your environmental engineer, Denise Pope, indicated that the used refrigerant is collected from customers in cylinders and transferred to your facility for reclamation, and is not tested to determine whether it can be reused directly image: ------- —2— i.e., without processing. Thus, it would fall under the definition of a spent material going for reclamation, which is a solid waste. The used refrigerant would not be considered a listed spent solvent. The spent solvent listings in Section 261.31 apply to certain materials that have been used for their solvent properties and have become spent. See the December 31, 1985 Federal Register notice (50 ER 53315) which clarifies the scope of the spent solvent listings. The used refrigerant would not meet the listing description in Section 261.33(e) for trichiorofluoromethane (U121) or dichiorodifluoromethane (tJO75) because it has been used. The listings in Section 261.33(e) and (f) apply to the comn’iercially pure grades of the listed chemicals, technical grades, and formulations in which the listed chemical is the sole active ingredient, but not to used chemicals. If the solid waste is not identified as a listed hazardous waste, the generator’s responsibility is to test the waste or apply knowledge to determine if the waste exhibits a characteristic. See Sections 261.5(f)(l), 26l.5(g)(l) and 262.11(c). “Generator” includes the person whose act or process produces hazardous waste, or whose act first causes the waste to become subject to regulation. In most cases, the generators would be the owner of the refrigeration equipment, as well as the service person who may be involved in determining whether the refrigerant is still useful, or who may be collecting the material for reclamation, i.e., there would be a co-generator situation. Based on the information available at this time, it seems unlikely that the used refrigerant would exhibit any of the four characteristics of hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity - see Sections 261.20 - 261.24). Corrosivity may be a characteristic of concern, if hydrochloric acid is present due to breakdown of the chlorofluorocarbons at high compressor temperatures. However, the characteristic in Section 261.22 refers to aqueous wastes with a pH less than or equal to 2, or liquid wastes that corrode steel at a rate greater than one—quarter inch per year. The Paint Filter image: ------- —3— Liquids test (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Method 9095) is the method that is recommended for generators to isolate the liquid portion of their waste. See 50 18372, pri1 30, 1985. If the hydrochloric acid is present in the liquid phase, and the waste does exhibit the corrosivity characteristic, it is a hazardous waste. The generator’s responsibility includes determining whether a waste is hazardous using the steps outlined in Section 262.11. If the waste is not listed, the generator has the option of testing or applying knowledge to determine whether the waste exhibits a characteristic. Enclosed is a portion of the background document for the hazardous waste generator regulations. The enclosed portion details the generator’s option to apply knowledge “in light of the materials or processes used.” Pages 1-2.11 and 1-2.12 explain that. “If operations at different facilities are sufficiently similar as to provide the requisite basis, then nothing in the regulation prevents the use of such information. Persons are cautioned, however, that data from one facility are not necessarily transferrable to another; that subtle differences in the facilities or raw materials may significantly alter the character of the resulting waste.” If your company is interested in testing the used refrigerant that you would normally be reclaiming to see if it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, the data obtained may be quite useful in that equipment owners or service personnel could use the data to make their hazardous waste determinations. If testing shows that these refrigerants never exhibit any of the characteristics, they may be reclaimed without complying with the EPA hazardous waste rules. Finally, states authorized to implement RCRA are required to have programs that are consistent with the Federal RCRA program. These states’ requirements may be more stringent or more extensive than the Federal regulations (Section 270.1(i)(l)), as long as they are consistent according to the criteria in Section 271.4. States may have requirements more stringent than EPA’S. image: ------- —4— If you have further questions in this area, please contact Michael Petruska at (202) 475—9888. Enclosure Sincerely, . Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director Office of SoliU WasLe image: ------- 9441.1988(33) Ms. Paige Murphy-Young Assistant Attorney General 1275 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Ms. Murphy-Young: This is in response to your letter of March 22, 1988, to Mary Cunningham of my staff, requesting clarification as to how the §261.2(c)(2)(ii) exemption for commercial chemical products burned for energy recovery might apply to waste-derived fuel products of a solvent regeneration facility operated by Bud’s Oil Service (BOS). We have also reviewed two other letters on this subject sent to my staff--the February 19, 1988, letter from Charles A. Peterson of BOS to Mike Petruska, and the June 21, 1988, letter from David Kimball, an attorney representing BOS, to Bob Holloway. We have conferred with our Regional Office in San Francisco, and they asked that we respond to you directly. We are responding to both Mr. Peterson’s and Mr. Kimball’s lett&!rs by copy of this letter. BOS Solvent Reclamation We understand that BOS regenerates spent solvents to produce commercial gun wash solvent. We understand that SOS also markets the regenerated solvent as a fuel. BOS asserts that the commercial gun wash product is exempt under §261.3(c)(2)(i), and that the waste-derived fuel is exempt under §261.2(c)(2)(ii). These issues are addressed below. Is the Reclaimed Solvent Excluded Under 261.3(c (2)(i ? The reclaimed solvent would be excluded under §261.3(c) (2) (i) if the solvent is reclaimed from solid wastes and is used beneficially and the reclaimed solvent is not reclaimed further, burned for energy recovery, or used in a manner constituting disposal. Thus, the solvent that is reclaimed by BOS and used as a commercial gun wash solvent is not a solid waste. image: ------- —2— Are Products Produced by the Reclamation Process Exempt When Used as Fuel ? Reclaimed materials burned for energy recovery are solid waste, and, if hazardous by listing or characteristic, are hazardous waste. See §261.3(c)(2)(i). See also 50 FR 634 (January 4, 1985). Thus, the exclusion at §261.2(c)(2)(ii) would not apply to the solvents BOS reclaims for fuel use. Further, the waste-derived fuel product that is produced by BOS is subject to regulation under Subpart D, Part 266. Subpart D subjects hazardous waste fuels to RCRA storage and transportation standards and places administrative controls on marketers and burners. Although the exclusion provided by §26l.2(c)(2)(ii) would not apply to the waste-derived fuel, the exclusion could apply to solvent product that was off-specification and, in lieu of its intended purpose, burned for energy recovery. To be exempt under this provision, the off-spec solvent would also have to be a fuel itself. The use of acetone-derived solvents, for example, would be precluded by the fuel requirement. We note that the statement that is quoted on page 2 of the June 21 letter from Mr. Kimball to Mr. Holloway taken from the “Guidance Manual on the RCRA Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Wastes” is incorrect. That statement is an incorrect summary of preamble discussion provided at 50 FR 634 (January 4, 1985) regarding the regulatory status of reclaimed products. The preamble states that the exclusion for commercial products reclaimed from hazardous waste does not apply when the output of the reclamation process is burned for energy recovery or placed on the land. As discussed above, §261.2(c)(2)(ii) does not provide an exclusion for the waste-derived fuel. Finally, we think it is important to emphasize the underlying policy of the Agency’s rules. If a person could simply purify a waste (by settling, regeneration or blending) and then burn it without being subject to RCRA, then the Agency’s rules and Congressional command to control burning of hazardous waste- derived fuels would have little meaning. It was for this reason that EPA explicitly stated that the exclusion in §261.3(c) (2) does not apply to materials ultimately burned for energy recovery. image: ------- —3— I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to call Mary Cunningham of my staff at (202) 382—7935. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste cc: Charles A. Peterson, Bud’s Oil Service David P. Kimball, Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, P.C. Frances Schultz, Region IX Steve Silverman, 0CC Bob Holloway, OSW Mary Cunningham, OSW Mike Petruska, OSW Matt Straus, OSW bcc: Joe Carra, OSW Dev Barnes, OSW Jim Berlow, OSW image: ------- IM1TE ATES ENV1R0KM 4TAL PR0TECT Pi - ENCY 9441. 938 36) ji2Y Mr. Sol L. Colon Environmental Quality Official Western Flier Laboratories, Inc. P.O. Box 7468 Ponce, P.R. 00732 Dear Mr. Colon: 1 am writing in response to your letter dated June 13, 1988, in which you req .st.d our interpretation of the hazardousness of a waste generated and treated at your facility in Ponce, P.R. Also, you requested confirmation that your treatment process does not require a RCRA permit. specifically, you treat a liquid waste containing about 18% acid and 1% organic material by evaporating some of the water (which is condensed and sent to the facility’ s vastewater treatment plant) and transferring the concentrated acid solution to a concrete mixer where it is mixed with kiln dust to form a dry solid for disposal. On July 8, 1988, Ed Abrams, a member of my staff, telephoned you to determine the composition of the 1% organic component of your waste and the.*y e of kiln dust. Your response identified the organic materials s organic acids such as oxolic and tartaric acids, and not o anic solvents. Also, you identified the kiln dust as cement kiln dust, a solid waste which is not a hazardous waste (see 40 FR 261.4(b) (8)). Assuming that your liquid waste being treated is only characteristically hazardous because of corrosivity, the dry waste generated f m the treatment would not be considered hazardous if it does not 7 exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste (see 40 ‘R 261.20 24), but your operation would be considered treatment of a hazardous waste. Rovever, since it is being done at the sits of waste generation in tanks, a R A permit would be required only if you stored your waste for periods exceeding 90 days prior to treatment. If treatment was being done of f site, a RCRA storage pemit would be required in any case. image: ------- If you require additional information, please contact either Mr. Angel Chang in EPA Region II, or Mr. Ed Abrains of my staff at (202) 382—4787. Sincerely, Devereaux Barnes Director, Characterization and Assessment Division cc: Mr. Angel Chang, (2AWM-SW Rn 1000) EPA Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278 image: ------- 9441.1988(39) S7 4 , UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 oi OFFICE OF 501.10 WASTE AND EMERGENCY E5PON5 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Regulation and Permitting of Laboratories FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director ./( Office of Solid Waste (OS-3 Ob TO: Waste Management Division Directors Regions I-X On July 19, 1988, EPA promulgated an exemption for samples used in treatability studies (53 E 27290). To help increase awareness of the new exemption, and to clarify the regulatory and permitting requirements for laboratories in general, we have prepared the attached decision tree and a summary of the treatability sample rule. This is intended to help lab managers and enforcement personnel understand the regulations. Questions in this area may be addressed to Stephen Cochran at FTS-475—9715. Attachments image: ------- 1 DETAILED FACT SHEET SMALL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDIES SAMPLE EXEMPTION Status: Final Rule, effective July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27290) OSW Contact: Paul Mushovic 1. Effect of the Rule The final rule conditionally exempts small auantities of hazardous waste being utilized in small—scale treatability studies from the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Such testing requires rio prior EPA approval. Quantity limitations for treatability studies are set per waste stream per treatment process. Limitations are also being set for quantities shipped, and for treatment rates and storage limitations per facility. New paragraphs (e) and (f) to 40 CFR 261.4 accomplish the following. First, persons who generate samples are exempted from the generator and transporter requirements when samples are shipped by the generator, or any other person who collects the sample (the ‘sample collector”), to a laboratory or testing facility for the purpose of conducting a treatabi]ity analysis, or when shipped from the facility back to the sample collector, provided that certain packaging and labeling requirements are met. Second, any laboratory or testing facility that conducts treatability studies may store these waste samples and residues generated from the treatability study within the quantity and time limits specified and not be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR, Parts 264, 265, and 270. Third, the actual testing of the samples does not require a permit, provided the laboratory or testing facility complies with the notification requirements in the rule and meets the quantity and time limitations specified in the rule. Definition and Examples . A treatability study (newly—defined) subjects a relatively small amount of hazardous waste to a treatment process. Its purpose is to determine: — whether the waste is amenable to a treatment process; — what pretreatment (if any) is required; - the optimal process conditions; — the efficiency of the treatment process; or, — the characteristics and volume of residuals from a particular treatment process. A treatability study is not to be used for commercial treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. Examples of the types of treatability studies included in the exemption are: — physical/chemical/biological treatment; — thermal treatment (incineration, pyroi.ysis, oxidation, combustion); — solidification: - sludge dewatering; — volume reduction; - toxicity reduction; and, - recycling feasibility. image: ------- —2— The rule also allows the following types of waste testing studies: — liner compatibility studies; — corrosion studies; - toxicological and health effects studies; and, — other material compatibility studies (e.g., relating to leachate collection systems, geotextile materials, other land disposal unit requirements, pumps and personal protective equipment). 2. Purpose and Rationale of the Rule A. Need for Simplified Procedures . The hazardous waste regulations, when applied to waste samples used in small-scale treatability studies, are more comprehensive than is necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment. The Agency needs to promote research and the development of innovative technologies to manage hazardous wastes. B. Factors Limiting Risk . The Agency believes that the following factors combine to ensure that the risks to human health and the environment are de minimis : — the various quantity and time restrictions contained in the rule; - the high cost of collecting and shipping the sample and conducting legitimate treatability studies; — certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements that will enable the Agency to conduct inspections and bring enforcement actions against persons who abuse this exemption; and, - Department of Transportation (DOT), US. Postal Service CUSPS), or other regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials. The Agency also believes that sufficient professional and financial incentives are in place to provide for the safe shipment of samples to and from, and proper handling of samples at, laboratories and testing facilities conducting treatability studies. 3. Limitations Contained in the Rule Specific limitations in the final rule ensure de minimis risk to human health and the environment. image: ------- —3— A. Waste Quantity Exempted per Waste Stream . There are limits on the amount of waste that can be subject to a treatabi].ity study evaluation per generated waste stream. The rule exempts (per waste stream per treatment process): - 1000 ko of non—acute hazardous waste; or, - 1. kg of acute hazardous waste; or, — 250 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated by acute hazardous waste. The rule also allows the Regional Administrator to grant requests for waste stream quantity limits in excess of those specified above, up to an additional 500 kg of non—acute hazardous waste, 1 kg of acute hazardous waste, and 250 kg of soils, water, and debris contaminated with acute hazardous waste when it can be demonstrated that an additional quantity of hazardous waste is needed to complete a treatability study when: — there has been an equipment or mechanical failure: — there is a need to verify previous results; — there is a need to study and analyze alternative techniques within a previously evaluated treatment process: or, - there is a need to determine final specifications for treatment. B. Transportation Shipment Limits . The Agency has set a single shipment limitation as follows: — 1000 kg of non—acute hazardous waste; or, — 1 kg of acute hazardous waste; or, — 250 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated with acute hazardous waste. These shipment limitations, covering the exemption from the RCRA hazardous waste transporter regulations and manifesting requirements, will apply when the materials are being shipped to a laboratory or testing facility or returned to the generator or sample collector. C. Facility Treatment Rate Limit . The Agency has adopted a treatment rate limit of 250 kg per day of as received waste for the entire laboratory or testing facility. “As received” refers to the waste shipped by the generator or sample collector as it arrives at the laboratory or testing facility. D. Facility Storage Quantity Limits . The Agency has also adopted an overall storage limitation of 1000 kg of “as received” waste per testing facility. This limitation can include up to 500 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated with acute hazardous waste or 1 kg of acute hazardous waste. The Agency is making it clear in this rule that the storage exemption only applies to laboratories or testing facilities conducting image: ------- —4-. treatability studies. The rule does not allow for intermediate storage. E. Facility Storace Time Limits . Any untreated sample and any residue generated during the treatability study must be returned to the generator within 90 days of study completion or within 1 year from the date of shipment by the generator to the laboratory or testing facility, whichever is earlier. Otherwise, these materials must be managed, by the laboratory or testing facility conducting the treatability study, as a RCRA hazardous waste (unless the waste is no longer hazardous). MTUs conducting treatability studies may qualify for this exeTnption. The requirements of the exemption apply to each location where an MTU will conduct treatability studies. When more than one MTU is operating at one location they will be treated as one MTU facility for purposes of applying the limitat ions. 4. Procedures for Compliance with the Rule Facilities conducting small—scale treatability studies would not be required to obtain the permit; and the shipment of samples to and from facilities would no longer need to be manifested. There are still certain procedures required to qualify for the exemption. A. General Reportina and Recordkeeping Requirements . Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are being imposed to facilitate inspector review, and if necessary, to take enforcement action. The generator of the sample (who may also be the shipper or sample collector) and the laboratory or testing facility conducting the treatability study must keep copies of contracts and shipping documents for a minimum of 3 years after the completion of the study. B. Generator—Specific Requirements . Generators and sample collectors must also maintain records indicating the following: - the amount of waste (per waste stream and treatment process) shipped under the exemption; — the name, address, and EPA identification number of the study facility; — shipment dates; and, — whether or not any unused sample or any residue generated from the treatability study was returned. Beginning in 1989, generators must report this information in their biennial reports. In addition, generators and/or sample collectors who seek a variance to submit supplemental sample material from a particular waste stream must indicate the reason image: ------- —5-. for the request, support the additional cuantity requested, account for all sample material previously submitted from the waste stream, and describe any technical or equipment modifications and the corrected results. C. Facility—Specific Requirements . Owners or operators of a study facility must: - notify the Regional Administrator or authorized State, by letter, of the intent to conduct treatability studies at least 45 days prior to conducting any such studies; — obtain an EPA identification number if it does not have one; — maintain records documenting compliance with the specified time and quantity limits for treatment and storage for 3 years from the completion of each treatability study. Specific minimum information, by treatability study, that must be maintained includes: - the name, address, and EPA identification number of the generator or sample collector; — information on the quantities of and dates that waste materials were received, stored, and tested; and, — the date the unused sample and residue were returned to the generator or, if sent to a designated facility, the name of the facility and its EPA identification number. By March 15 of each year, each facility must submit a comprehensive report to the authorized State or Regional Administrator that includes the above information for all studies of the previous calendar year and an estimate of the number of studies and the amount of waste expected to be used in treatability studies during the current year. Additionally, laboratories or testing facilities that do not return the unused sample or the residues to the generator or sample collector within the specified time limits are subject to appropriate regulation. Facilities must determine if they meet the SQG requirements of Subject 261.5 or the accumulation requirements of Subject 262.34. 5. Impact of the Rule This exemption will reduce the overall costs and economic impact of EPA’S hazardous waste management regulations by eliminating permitting requirements for laboratories and testing facilities intending to conduct treatability studies. Facilities and laboratories will be spared the time (as much as 2 years) and the costs (estimated to be between $100,000 and $200,000) otherwise necessary to obtain a RCRA permit. The Agency image: ------- —6— anticipates that most of the estimated 400 facilities which will be conducting treatabii.ity studies will include testing laboratories, research organizat on 5 , colleges, universities, technical institutes, and those facilities involved in solid and hazardous waste management. 6. Effective Date of the Rule The need for more effective hazardous waste treatment alternatives and the fact that this amendment reduces, rather than increases, the existing requirements for facilities that handle waste samples provide good cause to make this rule effective immediately upon publication notwithstanding Section 4(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 553(d). This amendment takes effect immediately upon publication in the federal Reaister . The regulations will be applicable only in those States that do not have final authorization. Because these changes are less stringent or reduce the Scope of the Federal program, States are not required to adopt this rulemaking, although EPA strongly encourages States to do so as quickly as Possible. EPA will expedite review of authorized State program revision applications. 7. Agency Contact For further information regarding the Treatability Studies-Sample Exemption, contact Stephen Cochran at EPA Headquarters telephone No. 202—475—9715 or FTS No. 475—9715. image: ------- , 4j- c & j- 1 Tye of Testing _____ or composition tasting Is it solid waste per §261 2 jYES jYES Is the activity something other than a oeatebihty study (defined in §260 10) YES Is the acOvity something other than exempt recyding spealled in §261 6(a)(3)? YES Is the a v,ty something other than the speaal form of recycling in YES Is the activity something other than §261.6(c) recycling? YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Permit is required §270.1(c) Check Part 268] unless exempt under §270.1(cfl2)• tease if placement oniaridislegal §261 4(d) govems I Activity mwilves regulated I recycling under Part 266 — I permitfors maybe [ _ required Storage perrixi may be — required, but the recycling operation is aJrrentiy not — subject to regulatton Permit is required §270.1(c); diedi Part 268 for storage stiictions on certain wastes A vity all’eney may not be subject to eguiatlon;’ cenwit with Regional EPA for mae -by-ce.. evaluation Check to as. II state requlr. L meets ire mere stringent Office of Solid Waste Laboratory Decision Tree RCRA Subatie C regulaOons do not apply Is the waste hated in § 261 31-33 or does it exhibit a charactens c of a hazardous waste (Sf261 20-24)? — RCRA Subtitie C regulations do not apply §261 4(e) arid (I) (treatobdity exemption) governs’ SlEpt D.tsrmln. the type of testing STEP 2. Det.rmln. if material Is a wasts STEP 3. Determine It soltd waste is a hazardous waste STEP 4. Trsatabllity study exemption STEP 5. Determin, It exempt recycling occurs STEP 6. Determine If special recycling occurs STEP 7. Determine If oth recycling occurs STEP 8. DstsrmIn. If storage occurs STEP 8. Detwnjn. It treat. meat or disposal occurs STEP 10. Verify that activity rsqulrss a permit Activity is en exempt ,Bcyding and is exempt from regulation’ Is tita activity something other than storage? I— NO YES YES image: ------- Guidance on Laboratory Testing and RCRA Permitting This guidance addresses only the issue of whether materials received by a laboratory must be handled as a hazardous waste under the federal permit or interim status hazardous waste management standards. It does not address the issue of the laboratory which generates hazardous wastes and whether permitting is required for the laboratory-as-generator. Individual states (whether authorized under RCRA or not) may also have requirements that are more strict than the federal requirements. Thus, although this guidance may indicate that a particular activity may be conducted without requiring a permit, in all cases the laboratory director must confirm with the appropriate state agency whether a permit is required. Additional assistance on all aspects of the determination process outlined in this guidance may be obtained by calling the RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance Hotline ((800)424-9346, commercial (202)382—3000; FTS—382-3000). image: ------- st!p_1. Determine the type of testing that will occur. It the testing is solely to determine a waste, soil, water, or air sample’s characteristics or composition, the sample 1 s handling may be subject to reduced regulations under 40 CFR S261.4(d). Step_2. Determine whether the material is a solid waste per S261.2 (or, in the case of contaminated Boil or water, contains a solid waste). U4ote: The term “solid waste” does not refer to a material’s physical form, but to its legal status as a waste vs. commodity. I This step requires looking at both the status of the material as it is handled in the “outside world” and aB it is handled in the laboratory. For instance, an EP toxic wastewater treatment sludge which is landfilled in the “outside world” is a solid waste and a hazardous waste; however, if it is being tested for reclamation possibilities, it would be neither a solid waste nor a hazardous waste until the experimental residues are discarded. Another example would be an off-specification commercial chemical product listed in S261.33. If, in the “outside world”, it is sent for reclamation, it is neither a solid waste nor a hazardous waste. However, if the laboratory intends to incinerate it, it is both a solid waste and a hazardous waste. Assistance in this step may be found by referring to the Guidance Manual on the RCRA Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Wastes (EPA 530-SW-86-015), or by calling the RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance Hotline with details about the specific situation. Step 3 . Determine whether the solid waste is a hazardous waste. Refer to S261.4(b) to see if it is a “solid waste which is not a hazardous waste.” If it is not excluded by S261.4(b), refer to SS261.3]-261.33, to determine if it is a listed hazardous waste; if it is not listed, refer to SS261.20—261.24 to determine if it is a characteristic hazardous waste. For assistance, call (800)424—9346. Step 4 . Determine whether the laboratory’s activity qualifies for the treatability study exemption at S261.4(e) and (f). See the July 19, 1988 Federal Register (53 FR 27290). Individual states may not recognize this exemption. Step 5 . Determine whether the laboratory will be performing any of the recycling operations on wastes which are described in S261.6(a)(3). If so, the activity is not subject to federal RCRA regulation. image: ------- —2— Step 6 . Determine whether the laboratory will be recycling wastes in the manner described in S261.6(a)(2). (Note: Burning for energy recovery must be legitimate recycling. Current enforcement guidance uses 5000—8000 BTU/lb as generated (not as blended for burning) as the dividing point between legitimate energy recovery and incineration.] If so, the regulations in S261.6(a)(2) refer the reader to the appropriate sections of Part 266. In some cases, these activities will require permits. Step 7 . Determine whether the laboratory’s activity is recycling which may be (currently) exempt from regulation under S261.6(c). A storage permit may be required. Step 8 . Determine whether storage of hazardous waste received from off-site occurs. If so, a storage permit is required (S270.1(c)) unless the activity is specifically excluded from the permit requirement by S270.1(c)(2) and (3). Check Part 268 for additional regulation of storage of certain hazardous wastes. Continue to step 9. Step 9 . Determine whether treatment or disposal (as defined in S260.10) occur. If so, a permit covering these activities may be required (S270.1(c)). Research, Development, and Demonstration activities may be covered by a special type of permit (see S270.65. In addition, the laboratory must refer to Part 268 for restrictions on placement of hazardous wastes on land (if land placement is proposed). Step 10 . Verify that the activity requires a permit. Certain activities are exempt from the permit requirement (see S270.1(c)(2) and (3)). In addition, Part 268 contains the restrictions on land placement of certain haazardoug wastes. image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PP dI I IUN A y WASHINGTON D.C. 2O4 O ( 9441.1988(40) OFFICE OF SOUDW*3 AND EMEmGENCY EspO, MEMORANDUM SUBJkCT: Regulatory Interpretation Marcia E. Williams. Director (WH—5b2) 1 ’ C’fficeof Solió Waste T3: Judy .j(ertcher, Acting Director (5H5—B) Solid waste branch. Region V O r office has revie ea tne information yo pro ’ic n yo r July 29tn memo. in which you re ueste an inter:re io o ‘iu Ci 61. as it applies to a still bottom waste generatec o rir.: the proauction of polystyrene at the Chevron Chemical Comrany, Marietta. OrL. e have decioed tnat toluene is used as a solvent ir the process; tnerefore. tne tower 201 still Dotto 1 n are a F00 hazarcous waste that is generatea oaring the recovery of spent toluene. The following information was used to make our decision and to aodress the concerns outlined in your memo. 1. In a document submitted by Squire. Sanders. and Dempsey on behalf of Chevron, it was stated that the toluene is “added as a diluent” in the process. Tne toluene is also useo as a carr2er. or diluent. for the adoitives which are use in the process, The property of a RCj A solvent is the ability to solubilize. or to act as a ailuent. 2. Both styrene and toluene are recovereo in Tower 201; they are separated from the tars in this column. There— foree the waste generated at this point in the process are still bottoms from the recovery of spent toluene, an F005 waste. 3. The closed loop recycling process exemption does not apply to this process. (See attacned Qiscussion) SEP I image: ------- —2— 4. Chevron made several arguments ( e.g. , the waste is not ignitable and, consequently. not hazardous; the waste does not contain toluene) that have not been adaressed by this decision. We feel that the three determinations above resolve the issue of. whether the material in question is hazardous waste. Additional discussion on items 1—4 : 1. Peter pxenbol of Chevron Chemical Company commentea tnat the term Isdiluentlm had been used by them before they realized that it has carried with it such a weighty connotation (that use as a diluent constitutes use as a solvent.) e suggested that a different word or description coulo be used wnich woula not be as sensitive as the woro “diluent”. ‘me aefinition of the ord “c :”. however. is quite ciear. anc it was chosen pi . ously as an accurate oes;rlptiorl of the role that toluene plays in tne reaction. Chevron wishes to use a different word now, but toluene’s functi on will not. be changea by coing so. 2. Of the feed that enters Tower 201. roughly 83% is unreacted styrene and 4% is toluene. They are both separated. together, from the tars in the column. Toluene may not be the major component in the feed stream to the column. ut it is nonetheless being recovered at this point in the separation from the styrene. 3. The Feoeral Register excerpt on the closed loop recycl- ing process reads as follows: “It should be notea that. under today’s rule, although secondary materials stored in closeô—loop reclamation processes that fit within the exclusion of S261.4(a)(b) are not solia waste wastes from their management are solid wastes. TflUS. still bottoms from solvent reclamation, if an exclusion applies for another reason, can be hazaraous wastes if they are identified or listed. In this regard. the Agency notes that many still bottoms from solvent reclamation are listed wastes, as are the residual spent solvents themselves (Hazardous Jastes P001—005).” (FR Vol. 51. No. 134. 25443). image: ------- —3— 4. Cnevron’s otner arguments, tnat toiuene is present in tne waste in only ce minimis quantities, ana tnat toluene “is an essentiaj. ingreaient in tne process rom a kinetic stanopoint , etc., Decame moot points oecause it was aeciaea tnat tne waste was me Lismea waste, fUCJ . If you wish to discuss tne aDove in turtner oetail, please call Yvonne Garoe on FIS 47 —bb7 . image: ------- 9441. 198 N -- :: :s . . E SEP 61988 s. ar e Magee Ass sta t Corn iss:oner for 5o d and Hazardous waste Management Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management P.O. Box 6015 :ndianapolis, ndiana 46206—6015 Dear Jane: This is .n response to your letter on the applicability of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations to shooting ranges. In your letter you indicated that the Indiana University in Bloomington has received a preliminary notice of intent to sue under RCRA, alleging that the university shooting ranges are hazardous waste landfills, fully sub ect to the requirement for an operating permit and all applicable fac iity standards. The discharge of ball and sport ammunition at shooting ranges does not, in our opinion, constitute hazardous waste disposal. This is because we do not consider the rounds to be discarded, which is a necessary criterion to be met before a material can be considered a solid waste and, subsequently, a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.3(a)). Rather, the shooting of bullets is within the normal and expected use pattern of the manufactured product. This interpretation extends to the expended cartridges and unexploded bullets that fall to the ground during the shooting exercise. The situation, in our mind, is analogous to the use of pesticides whereby the expected, normal use of a pesticide may result in some discharge to the soils. This is a discharge incident to normal product use and is not considered a hazardous or solid waste activity falling under the jurisdiction of RCRA. ,-‘ -- image: ------- r. e . es c-s req rd:.—.: e : c: : . s be 3s e f rtner, ease C::swor: (202; 3S2—3: 2 or het Oszrnan 2O2; 332—4499. S flcere.’ ’, ‘ % SYlvia K. Lowra ce D rector OffIce of So d waste cc: zabeth Cotsworth Matt Hae, OS Fred C ar ania, 0G Karl Brerner, Region 5 Chet Oszrnan, OSW image: ------- 94 41 . 1988 (4 2) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 88 2. Oil and Gas Exclusion Applicability A cavern beneath the earth’s surface is used to store natural gas that is later consumed for home heating during winter months. Several compression stations that require movement of the natural gas are operated at ground level. A RCRA hazardous waste is generated at each compression station. Is this waste exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste? Wastes associated with and unique to the exploration, development, or production of natural gas are exduded from regulation as a hazardous waste as per 40 CFR Section 261 .4(b)(5). The natural gas stored in this specific instance must be retrieved from storage in much the same manner as when it was originally produced prior to storage, and the wastes generated in both cases will be nearly identical. in EPA’s “Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes,” 53 EE 25446 (July 6, 1988), the Agency determined that wastes from subsurface gas storage and retrieval are exempt from hazardous waste regulation under RCRA, except for such of those wastes which are not intrinsically associated with the removal of the gas; the Regulatory Determination also lists some of these wastes. See 53 FR at 25454. In addition, wastes associated with manufacturing or transportation, including movement by pipeline off-site, are riot exempt from hazardous waste regulation, nor are wastes generated at the gas storage facility that are not uniquely associated with the gas retrieval process. Source: Mike Fitzpatrick (202) 475-6783 Research: George Kleevic image: ------- October 27, 1988 9441.1988(44) Mr. Jon Greenberg, Manager Environmental Policy Browning—Ferris Industries 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Greenberg: This is in response to your August 11, 1988, inquiry about the status of hazardous wastes that are generated at one site and treated at another. Specifically, we are responding to the question of whether treatment residuals of a characteristic hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.20—261.24 can be a listed hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.30—261.33. Determination of the proper EPA Waste Code may be made by a careful examination of the generator’s production processes. It is the generator t s responsibility to determine if his waste meets the listing descriptions for hazardous wastes listed at 40 CFR 261.30-261.33 or if they exhibit a hazardous characteristic. (See 40 CFR 261.20-261.24.) If the owner/operator of a transportation firm or waste treatment facility determine that a listed waste had been improperly labeled as a characteristic waste by a generator, then the generator should be advised to correct the error (a) on the manifest or receipt of wastes from the generator should be refused. Giving the requirements of the Land Disposal Restrictions regulations (40 CFR 268) both the generator and the treatment facility could face penalties for improperly analyzing and managing a listed hazardous waste. (See 51 40572). This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —2— According to the requirements in the derived-from rule (40 CFR 261.3 (C) (2) (i)), a residual generated from the treatment, storage or disposal of a listed hazardous waste is itself a listed hazardous waste. A residual generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a characteristic hazardous waste (or a waste that has been listed only because it exhibits a characteristic, such as F003) is a hazardous waste only if it exhibits a characteristic. However, if a listed spent solvent, such as F005, is mixed with the characteristic spent solvent before or during treatment ( e.g. , solvent recovery), the mixture “becomes” a listed waste when the listed waste is first added to the characteristic waste. (See 40 CFR 261.3(a) (2) (iv) and 40 CFR 261.3(b) (2).) Any residual generated from the treatment of this mixture would be the listed hazardous waste F005. In some cases, characteristic or nonhazardous wastes, when treated, will have treatment residues that are listed hazardous wastes. This will depend in each case on the scope of the listing. An example is rinsewater from electroplating operations. These rinsewaters are not listed and may or may not exhibit the hazardous characteristic of extraction procedure (EP) toxicity. However, once the wastewater treatment sludge precipitates, it meets the listing description for F006 (with the exception of precipitates from rinsewaters from certain excluded electroplating processes). The listing applies whether the sludge is generated at the electroplating facility or a commercial waste treatment facility. Thus, a commercial waste treatment facility must know the electroplating processes to identify the wastewater treatment sludge correctly as F006. This may require the treatment facility to obtain information from the waste generator regarding processes that produced the waste to be treated. As pointed out in your letter, there is no specific requirement for a generator to identify the processes that lead to the generation of their waste. However, there is nothing to prevent the treatment, storage, or disposal facility from requiring such information before accepting the waste. Once a treatment, storage, or disposal facility accepts the waste, it is their responsibility to accurately characterize any residual resulting from treatment. The Agency has no plans at this time to change the regulations as they relate to this requirement. This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- —3— If you have any further questions, please contact David Topping at (202) 382-7737, or the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (202) 382—3000. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste This document has been retyped from the original. image: ------- 94 41. 1988 4 5) s? 4 p ., ,J UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \ 77 WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 ‘ NOV 2J988 0S’CE O Mr. Donald E. Stone SOLID WASTE AND EME GENCV E5 O 5 Manacer, Environmental Compliance GSX Chemical Services, Inc. P. 0. Box 210799 Columbia, SC 29221 Dear Mr. Stone: This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of October 19, 1988 and your follow—up letter dated October 20, 1988, both dealing with waste listings for commercial chemical products. When defining a material as a hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C, the material must first be defined as a solid waste in accordance with 40 CFR Section 261.3(a). A discarded material that is recycled by being reclaimed may be defined as a solid waste, depending on the type of secondary material (see Table 1, Section 26l.2(c)(3)). Since you did not specify in the examples in your letter the disposition of the mercury and mercury—containing material, i am assuming that it is going tot reclamation. In your first example, the mercury is contaminated before being placed in the product (thermometer). If the contaminated mercury is shipped off—site for disposal, it would be a solid and hazardous waste identified as an off—specification commercial chemical product (listed waste 0151) in 40 CFR Section 261.33. If, however, the mercury was sent for reclamation, it would not be defined as a solid waste (see 40 CFR Section 261.2(c)(3)(’rable 1)). Therefore, the mercury would not be identified as listed waste 0151 and a manifest would not be required in this case because Subtitle C of RCRA is not applicable to materials that are not defined as a solid waste (see 40 CPR Section 261.2). In your second example, the broken thermometer has been used and meets the definition of a spent material in 40 CFR Section 261.1(c)(]). Spent material sent for reclamation is defined as a solid waste in 40 CFR Section 26 l.2(c)(3)(’rable 1). The broken thermometer (mercury and glassware) could then image: ------- —2— be further defined as a hazardous waste if it exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste (i.e., EP toxic, in which case it is hazardous waste D009). This determination is made either through the generator’s knowledge of the characteristics of the waste or by subjecting the waste to the EP toxicity leaching procedure (refer to 40 CFR Section 26 2.ll(c)). Finally, in your third example, if the mercury—containing batteries and switches can be defined as spent materials as specified in 40 CFR Section 2 61.l(c)(1), the waste identification process used in example two above would apply. As is always the case, a RCRA authorized State might have more stringent reauirements so you should contact the appropriate state agency to determine what their regulations r ecu i r e. If you have any additional Questions, please contact Steve Cochran at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Robert W. Dellnger Chief, Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- T!O STATES !NVIRc wi lTA PROTICTIOW AGENCY 9441.1988(47) NOV 7 88 Mr. Glen Maling Mid-Atlantic Regional Manager Sun Environmental, Inc. Building hA Industrial Highway Eddystone, PA 19013 Dear Mr. Maling: Thank you for your letter dated June 22, 1988, requesting the Agency to justify its reasoning of why your PCB dechlorination treatment process does not qualify for the totally enclosed treatment exemption. In our Junc 14, 1988, correspondence to you, the Agency stated that you,: treatment system would not meet the exemption because it was not connected to an industrial process. In your letter, you stated that you consider Phase I and Phase III of the PCBX treatment system and transformers as industrial production processes. Also, you have requested from the Agency: (1) Original documents submitted by Grede Foundry which shows a flow diagram of producing reusable metal from scrap material; and (2) Technical justification to differentiate between scrap metal material versus the reclamation of mineral oil. After further reviewing your letter and reviewing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, the Agency beliew.s that your treatment system would not be regulated under RCRA because of section 261.6 (a)(3)(iij). This section statas that used oil that exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste but is recycled in some other manner than being burned for energy recovery is not presently subject to regulation under RCRA. Therefore, the question of whether your treatment system could qualify for the totally enclosed treatment exemption is a moot point. image: ------- —2— Also, you requested process flow diagrams of the Grede Foundry’s production of reusable metals. The Agency did not receive any process flow diagrams from the Grede Foundry, only the correspondence between Region V and headquarters that I believe you have already received. In summary, the Agency believes that the treatment system is not subject to RCRA requirements and, therefore, the totally enclosed treatment exemption would not be applicable for your treatment system. I apologize if there was any inconvenience due to our response to your first letter. Sincerely, 6I Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste image: ------- UNIT TAlES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO ENCY 9441.1988(48) t11V2 1 1988 I 1ORANDtJM SUBJECT: Possible Applicability of RCRA Regulations to Fluff FROM: Mitch Kidwell, Environmental Protection Specialist Waste Characterization Branch Office of Solid Waste (OS—332) THRU: Robert W. Dellinger, Chief Waste Characterization Branch Office of Solid Waste (OS-332) TO: Richard La Shier and Janis Johnson Chemical Regulation Branch Off ice of Toxic Substances This memorandum is written to present the possible applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulations to contaminated “fluff” residuals from ferrous metals recycling activities (in particular, automobile shredding). As stated in the background document that was discussed at the October 28th workgroup meeting, the key constituents of concern in the fluff are PCB5 and lead. PCB5 are normally regulated under TSCA, and lead (and other hazardous metals which may also be found in the fluff) is potentially regulated under RCRA. Assuming the lead is in concentrations equal to or greater than the extraction procedure (EP) Toxicity value of 5.0 mg/i (see 40 CFR 261.24), the waste is a characteristic hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C provisions. The waste may also be characteristically hazardous for other heavy metals at varying concentrations (e.g., cadmium (1.0 mg/i) and chromium (5.0 mg/i)). Once the waste has been determined to be hazardous, it must either be treated until it no longer exhibits the characteristic (at which time it may be disposed in a Subtitle D facility), or it must-be disposed in a RCRA Subtitle C facility. There are no exemptions applicable to shredder fluff. image: ------- — 2— 1e have been advised by Alec McBride, Chief of the Technical Assessment Branch, OSW, that for certain waste streams, a samp1 ng and analysis method that, accounts for the variability of constituents in the waste stream may be appropriate. One such method is presented in the attached draft guidance document for Municipal Refuse Incinerator Ash. This method, if adopted, may be used to determine the average property of the waste to assess whether the waste is hazardous by characteristic, we may want to consider using such a method to characterize shredder fluff because of the high variability of the constituent concentrations, depending on the feed material for any particular batch of fluff. Also, should the fluff be determined to be hazardous, it may be subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions under 4Q CFR 268.32 if it were to contain halogenated organic compounds (HOCs). Appendix III of Part 268 lists the HOCs (including PCBs) subject to the California list prohibitions, provided that the total HOCs are in concentrations of 1000 mg/kg or greater. Should the fluff be determined to be a hazardous waste and contain HOC5 in concentrations equal to or greater than 1000 mg/kg, the fluff would have to meet the applicable treatment standard prior to placement on the land. The treatment standard applicable to HOCs is incineration in accordance with the requirements of Part 264 Subpart 0 or Part 265 Subpart 0 (or 40 CFR 761.70). Finally, it should be noted that the so-called “hard hammer” for all hazardous wastes (listed and identified by characteristic as of November 8, 1984) falls on May 8, 1990. Under RCRA Section 3004 (g)(6)(C), unless EPA sets treatment standards that are protective of human health and the environment for a hazardous waste listed or identified (as of November 8, 1984) by May 8, 1990, the waste is prohibited from land disposal. Should the fluff be identified as a hazardous aste, it would have to meet the applicable treatment standard prior to placement on the land. (The treatment standard for lead is expected to be proposed in the Fall of 1989, for the last set of wastes Subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions.) Should you need further information, please contact me at 382—4805. Attachment image: ------- 9441. 1988(48a) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 N 2I ee OFFICE OF Mr. Robert H. Lloyd SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Lloyd, Gosselink, Ryan & Fouler, P.C. P.O. Box 1725 Austin, Texas 78767 Dear Mr. Lloyd: Thank you for your October 13, 1988, letter concerning the status of certain oil and gas wastes generated by The Western Company of North America. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that none of the wastes in question is exempt from hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Congress intended to exempt the large volumes of wastes that are intrinsic to exploration, develop- ment, or production processes and are generated at exploration or production facilities. Based on the scope of the RCRA exemption as identified in the regulatory determination published July 6, 1988, EPA believes that the acidic waste- water, field waste liquids, and waste cement identified in your letter are clearly not exempt. Acidic wastewatet is not exempt because it is not intrinsically derived from the exploration, development, or production of oil or gas within the meaning of the statute. It was never used in such operations, regardless of the intent in preparing the mixture. This type of waste fits the non-exempt category listed in the regulatory determination as “oil and gas service company wastes, such as ... spilled chemicals, and waste acids.” Field waste liquids are included in the non-exempt category of “unused fracturing fluids or acids.” There is no distinction made between pre—mixed fluids or wastes composed of the unmixed raw ingredients. Here again, the unused portions are not intrinsically derived from oil and gas exploration, development, or production operations as this term is used in the statute, regardless of the intent in preparing the mixture. Your third item, waste cement, is also an unused product and, as such, is not exempt. As you indicated, the waste lubricants, hydraulic fluids, motor oil and paint, waste solvents from equipment maintenance, and waste from truck cleaning operations that you listed in your letter as items four, five and six are also not exempt. image: ------- —2— We understand the confusion that can arise when the different states in which Western operates interpret the exemption differently. However, we believe that the regulatory determination has provided substantial clarif i— cation regarding the scope of the exemption. We hope that this letter will help Western to plan and implement proper waste management programs in all the states in which it operates. Sincerely, 7. Wins on Porter Assistant Administrator image: ------- LLOYD, GOSSELINK, RYAN & FOWLER, P.C. Attorneys at Law Post Office Box 1725 Austin, Texas 78767 CEORCE V BASHAM w Office (512) 472-4551 I N Th RAMIREZ ANN R BIoRX Telecopier (512) 472-0532 S RHETT ROBINSON CHF.5LEY N BLEVL’ S MARTIN C ROCHELLE ROBERT D FOWLER ELIZABETH V ROOD PALL C COSSEU K BRENT W RYAN RORFRT H LLOYD CAROL VAUGHAN JIM MATHEWS GEORGE C BALDWIN October 13, 1988 occw i ael Licensed in the State of Virginia and the District of Columbia CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. J. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator for Solid Wastes OS-l00 United States Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW Washington, D.C. 20460 Re: The Western Company of North America — 79703 Dear Mr. Porter: As a multi-state provider of services to the oil and gas industry, The Western Company of North America (Western) is directly impacted by the acts of the United States Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to the management of oil and gas wastes. Western must necessarily manage the oil and gas wastes generated from its well servicing operations pursuant to all applicable federal laws and regulations, as well as those of the various states within which it conducts business. Western, therefore, is justifiably interested in the portion of the 1980 mendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery ct (RCRA) which exempts from Subtitle C regulations “drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exoloration, development, or production of crude oil or natural gas.” 1 In order to plan and implement proper waste management programs, Western must have a clear understanding and. hopefully, an official determination of whether particular wastes it generates are covered within the scope of this exemption. 142 USC §6921(B)(2)(A). image: ------- ir. 3. Winston Porter October 13, 1988 Paae 2 In this regard, Western has studied the EPA’s “Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes.” 2 While this determination provides the most detailed description to date of exactly which oil and gas wastes are exempt from Subtitle C regulations, Western still needs additional clarification. This need stems not only from Western’s commitment to comply with RCRA regulations but from the fact that the different states in which Western operates are interpreting this exemption differently. For example, the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act confers to the Texas Water Commission (TWC) jurisdiction over “hazardous waste t ’ identified pursuant to RCRA. 3 At present, the TWC regulates wastes generated by Western’s well servicing activities as hazardous waste under RCRA if such wastes are either listed or are characteristically hazardous. On the other hand, in 1981, Oklahoma’s Director of the Industrial gaste Division of the Oklahoma State Department of Health .ndicated that the Western service facilities were exempt from RCRA regulation pursuant to 40 CFR §261.4(b)(5), the federal reaulatory provision setting forth the exemption for oil and gas wastes. 4 Thus, while both Texas and Oklahoma determined which oil and gas wastes to requlate based on respective interpretations of RCRA, and not on a more stringent state law, their determinations are different for essentially identical wastes generated by essentially identical ooeratioflS. For Western, this means that identical wastes must be managed differently depending on which state is involved. This problem is complicated by the fact that Western operates a total of 57 facilities in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas, Wyoming and South Dakota. Western, of course, will manage its wastes pursuant to RCRA if it is determined that the wastes are not covered by the exclusion. 53 Fed. Reg. 25446. 3 TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 4477—7, §S1(13), 3(b) (Vernon Supo. 1988). copy of this determination is attached. image: ------- Mr. 3. Winston Porter October 13, 1988 Page 3 In some states it is already doing so based on individual state determinations that the wastes are not exempt. It is apparent, however, that a consistent interpretation of the RCRA exemption is needed. In this regard, Western has relied on two primary sources to formulate its own preliminary interpretation of the scope of the exemption: the legislative history related to the original RCRA exemption and the EPA’S recent Regulatory Determination related to oil and gas wastes. First, as stated previously, the 1980 RCRA Amendments exempted from Subtitle C regulations “drilling fluids, produced waters and other wastes associated with the exoloration, development, or pSoduction of crude oil or natural__gas.” (Emphasis added). Regarding these “other wastes,” RCRA’s legislative history indicates that: The term “other wastes associated” is specifically included to designate waste materials tntrinsically derived from primary field operations associated with the exoloration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy. It would cover such substances as: hydrocarbon bearing soil in and around related facilities; drill cuttings; and materials (such as hydrocarbons, water, sand, and emulsion) produced from a well in conjunction with crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy; and the accumulated material (such as hydrocarbons, water, sand and emul- sion) from production separators, fluid treating vessels, storage vessels, and production impoundments. The phrase “intrinsically derived from the primary field operations” is intended to differentiate exploration, development, and production operations from transporta- tion (from the point of custody transfer or of produc- tion separation and dehydration) and manufacturing operations. (Emphasis added.) 6 42 USC §6921(B)(2)(A). 6 EPA “Report to Congress, Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Development and Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy,” December, 1987, p. 6. image: ------- Mr. 3. Winston Porter October 13, 1988 Page 4 Clearly, Western is involved in the exploration, develooment and production components of the oil and gas industry. The services Western provides consist primarily of well stimulation and comoletion through hydraulic fracturing and acidizing, and well cementing. In fact, the respective Western facilities are located near well fields to facilitate the efficient transportation of people, equipment and supolies from the facility to the well head. Next, with respect to the EPA’s recent Regulatory Determination, Western has carefully scrutinized the lists setting forth which wastes are included in the exemption and which are not. 7 Using these lists, Western as tentatively determined whether the following wastes are subject to, or exempt from Subtitle C regulations. In addition to the type of waste, Western has included a description of how each waste is generated, and its determination and rationale as to whether the waste is exempt or ‘ on-exempt. 1. Acidic Wastewater Well stimulation is the process of either acidizing or fracturing an oil or gas well to enhance production. Stimulation is performed by pumping specially prepared solutions of acid, water, chemicals and sand into a well to stimulate production by eliminating obstacles to the flow of oil and gas. These solutions are partially prepared at the Western facility by combining the respective ingredients in the 5,000 gallon tank of a tank truck. These solutions are further augmented by adding additional materials (such as chemicals, gels and sand) at the well site prior to pumping the solution into the well. Back at the Western facility, acid is stored in a large, overhead tank before it is added to the water and chemical solution in the tank truck. The acid is transferred to the tank truck by gravity flow through a flexible hose, four inches in diameter. During transfer, small quantities of acid can spill from the hose or overflow from the tank truck. These spills do not result from carelessness or inattention but are a natural result of transferring large quantities of 753 Fed. Req. 25453—54. image: ------- Mr. 3. Winston Porter - October 13, 1988 Page 5 liauid into a tank truck. Any spilled solution is rinsed with fresh water onto a concrete containment slab which drains into a wastewater holding tank. This method is used throuahout the industry. Western classifies the wastewater in the holding tank, mentioned above, as “well stimulation fluids” because the sole purpose of preoaring the solution is to stimulate or otherwise enhance the production of oil and aas. Thus, they would be exempt. Even though the wastes will not reach the well head, they are wastes strictly related to production operations not wastes related to transportation and manufacturing ooerations. Western recognizes that the EPA has indicated that “oil and gas service company wastes, such as...spilled chemicals, and waste acid” are not included in the oil and gas exemption. 8 Western would assert that “soilled chemicals and waste acids” not included in the exemption would pertain to spilled raw products and materials while spilled solutions contained in the wastewater holding tank would be exempt because once mixed, the well completion, stimulation and treatment process has begun. Further, RCRA waste classification is generally based on a wastes composition, characteristic, or the process by which it is generated, not on the geographic location where it is generated. Thus, the most sensible and rneaninqful interpretation of the category of “well comoletion, treatment and stimulation fluids” would include the wastes from this wastewater holding tank. 2. Field Waste Liquids tank truck carries the treatment and stimulation fluid solutions, prepared at the Western service facility, to the well site. Depending uoon the stimulation function (either acidizing or fracturing) and particular service needs of the well, the stimulation fluid solution is then mixed in a blender truck with varying combinations of briny water (from other tanks at the well head or produced from the well), crude oil pumped from the well, sand, gel, and chemicals as part of the final solution being pumped into the well. For example, when a well’s oil flow is inhibited by paraffin and 853 Fed. Req. 25454. image: ------- .4r. 7. Winston Porter October 13, 1988 Page 6 wax buildup within the oil itself, chemicals are added to the stimulation fluid to dissolve these materials, thus enhancing flow. A pump truck is used to transfer the final stimulation fluid solution from the blender truck into the well. After well stimulation is accomplished, some fluids remain in the tank, blender and pump trucks because it is technically impossible to purge all fluids from them. The trucks then return to the facility where these residual fluids are flushed from the interior •ortions of the trucks. The resulting field waste is a mixture of flush water and the treatment or stimulation fluids used at the well head. Western classifies this field waste as well treatment or stimulation fluids. The waste would, thus, be exempt. Whether these wastes are handled at the well head or the facility does not affect their composition or intended purpose and, therefore, should not affect their exempt status. In reaching this conclusion, Western has considered and rejected the notion that these field wastes are included in the category of “unused fracturing fluids or acids.” 9 Western would interpret this category to include those raw products and materials (fluids, acids, chemical powders, chemical liquids) which, for whatever reason, were never prepared for transportation to or use at the well head. 3. Waste Cement After a well hole is drilled, a casing pipe is inserted into the hold. Because the casing is smaller in diameter than the hole, there is a space between the hole and the casing throughout the length of the hole. This “annular space” must be filled and sealed with cement to prevent groundwater contamination. The well is “cemented” using a mixture of dry cement, water, and special additives which are mixed at the well site and will vary in type and prooortion for each well. Because the 953 Fed. Reg. 25454. image: ------- Ar. J. Winston Porter October 13, 1988 Page 7 well operator can only estimate how much cement will be needed to fill the annular space, Western must mix and transport excess cement to well head to insure that no shortages occur. Since the cement is specially blended for each well, the excess cannot be reused and is taken back to the facility for disposal. Western classifies these wastes as exempt because they are (1) associated with measures to remove oil or natural gas from the ground; (2) intrinsic to the exploration for, or the development of, crude oil or natural gas; and (3) are substances which are iniected into the ground to facilitate the drilling operation or maintenance of a well. ’ 0 4. Waste Lubricants, Hydraulic Fluids, Motor Oil and Paint These wastes are generated as part of routine vehicle maintenance and repair of equipment failures. Western classifies these wastes as “used hydraulic fuels,” “painting wastes,” and “used equipment lubrication oils.” The wastes would, thus, be non—exempt. 5. Waste Solvents from Eguioment Maintenance These wastes are generated as a result of equipment Darts cleaning. Western would classify these wastes as “spent solvents” and, therefore, they are non-exemot. 6. Waste from Truck Cleaning Operations Following each assignment, the truck exteriors are cleaned resulting in wastewater, oily wastes and solids. Western would characterize these wastes as wastes from exterior truck cleaning operations and believes the wastes are nonexempt. - 0 See EPA “Reoort to Congress, Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Develooment, and Production of Crude Oil, Natura,. Gas, and Geothermal Enerqy,” December, 1987, p. 7. image: ------- v1r. 3. Winston Porter October 13, 1988 Page 8 Western believes the interpretation of exempt and nonexempt as applied to the above waste streams to be consistent with the meaning and intent of the oil and as waste exemption contained in the 1980 Amendments to RCRA.” In order to plan and implement proper waste management programs, it is important that Western know whether the EPA agrees. Western respectfully requests, therefore, that the EPA render an opinion in this regard. RHL: -ih Enclosure cc w/enc: Mr. Lawrence Jensen U.S. EPA, Region IV U.S. EPA, Region VI U.S. EPA, Region VII U.S. EPA, Region VIII Ms. Michelle McFaddin Mr. Graham Adelman Mr. Ron McKeel Mr. Robert S. Kier 3W5: 79703.61/65 79703.FOOT yours, 1142 USC §6921(B)(2)(A). image: ------- __ I) T D. Vc L 4• JOAN K. L.EAVITT. M.D. WW N. Fill. JL. M 0.. - ,Az. slcT ! r 0M0. * . COz. JA.. V. 0. (‘iuI&ZC)7l a . ,.isc.s. ito. W*LY SCOT? M*SSON. III w A. TATI tA A 9,’ C&2 1’ J0 iI&CAAMCMA 00S 1000 NonL!.s,t 10th St,osi Post Otfucs Sos 53551 OkI&ioms Cily. OkIsI%oms 73152 September 28, 1981 Mr. Vernon Sorgee The Western Company of North America P.O. Box 186 Fort Worth, Texas 76101 Dear Mr. Sorgee: The purpose of this letter is to confirm the interpretation by the Okahoma Corporation Commission of the State and Federal regulations regarding oil field service facilities (Tim Baker to Vernon Sorgee, September 22, 1981). The interpretation at this me is that such facilities are regulated by the Corporation nmission and are exempted from the requirements of the Resource .. nservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR part 261.4, paragraph b5, May 19, 1980) and the Oklahoma Controlled Industrial Waste Disposal Act (63 O.S.Supp. 1979, Sec. 2756, paragraph 2). This interpretation is based upon on-site inspection and the regulatory history of the Western Company Yukon facility. Although each Western Company facility will be evaluated separately, it appears at this time that similar jurisdictional interpretation will be applied to all Oklahoma sites. Thank you for your attention to regulatory compliance. If you have further questions, please contact me at (405) 271-533S. Very truly yours, Donald A. Hensch, P.E. Director, Industrial Waste Division DAH:RJ:amc image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1986 (49) DEC 6 988 ! ORANDUM SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Solvent-Contaminated Wastestreams from a Pharmaceutical Manufacturer FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director Characterization and Assessment Division (05-330) TO: Arthur Moretta, UIC Control Program Water Division, Region V (5WD-TUB-9) This memorandum is in response to your request for determination of the regulatory status of aqueous wastestreams generated at an Upjohn Company pharmaceutical facility in Kalamazoo, MI. All answers are based on our best understanding of the process flowsheets which you sent and the information which you provided over the telephone to my staff. The spent solvent listings cover those streams that are used to solubj].jze or mobilize other constituents (e.g., for degreasing or fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants, reaction and synthesis media, and similar uses) and through such use, have become contaminated to the extent that they must be reclaimed prior to further use or reuse. See 50 53315, December 31, 1985. Use as a reactant or an ingredient in the manufacture or formulation of a conmtercial chemical product is not classified as a solvent use for the purpose of the RCRA hazardous waste listings 7001 — 7005. Therefore, spent materials from these “non-solvent” uses do not meet the listing descriptions for spent solvents. Also, process wastes that become contaminated with small amounts of solvents during processing are not within the scope .Qf the spent solvent listings. An example of this is an aqueous effluent from a liquid—liquid extraction step, in which a solvent has been used to extract a product from the water and the water becomes contaminated with small amounts of solvent. In this example, the solvent is removed with the product and the solvent-contaminated water is not a spent image: ------- —2— Based on our review of the data submitted, we have made the following determinations: o All streams being sent to disposal wells from the acetone, methanol, and methylene chloride recovery processes (pp. A, B, C, and D) either meet the listing description for spent solvents or are residuals derived from the treatment of spent solvents and therefore should be designated as an EPA hazardous waste (FOOl - F005). o Those aqueous streams which result from liquid-liquid extraction steps involving solvents are considered process wastestreains and as such, do not meet the listing description for spent solvent streams (see above). o Filter press effluents such as the one exiting the unit designated “ST-llO” (p. 2-1) are considered spent solvent streams because they consist of a solvent that was used as - a carrier for the product in the filtration step. However, filter press effluents, such as the one exiting the filter designated “VF-” (p. 4-2) are process wastewater streams, not spent solvent streams, because water was introduced into the production process as the carrier for the product in filtration. In this configuration, the solvent was removed prior to filtration; the small quantity of solvent remaining in the system does not render the wastewater filter press effluent a spent solvent. o Rinse wastewaters, such as those from product or equipment rinsing steps (pp. 1-3, 2-1) are not considered spent solvents because they are process streams which may have become contaminated with organic solvents. Although a particular waste stream may not meet the listing description for spent solvents, it may be hazardous if exhibits one or more of the hazardous characteristics described in 40 CFR 261.20-261.24. Certain states may also have special restrictions on the disposal of solvent-contaminated wastestreajns. Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Ron Josephson at FTS 475-6715. Attachments cc: Eric Callisto, OW/ODW (WH—550) image: ------- 9441.19 88(50) itO 3P4 I 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( WASHINGTON. D.C. 20480 4 QØ1t ’ UEC OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY ESPc Mr. Phillip D. Stapleton Stapleton Company 1350 West 12th Street Long Beach, California 90813 Dear Mr. Stapleton: This letter is in response to your letter dated September 26, 1988 in which you asked several ouestions pertaining to your OMEGA EN Process. In general, industrial plating operations vary greatly in layout and processes utilized. Identifyino wastes generated from plating operations requires specific details on the individual process steps, which usually include pretreatment of the metal, application of the coating, and post treatment. Identifying applicable RCRA regulations for materials generated from reclamation of plating wastes is directly dependent upon waste identification at the point of generation, as well as specific information about further processing and the end use of the reclaimed material. Determining the RCRA status of units and facilities receiving the material is largely dependent on similar information. Your letter did not provide sufficient information to specifically answer your questions. Even if you had provided the requisite information, the Agency could only give you hypothetical answers as to the general application of RCRA regulations. For each individual facility, the appropriate Region or RCRA authorized State will have to make the final determination as to the applicability of RCRA regulations based on an analysis of the actual facilities and processes. Regardless of their RCRA authorization status, States may impose regulations more stringent or broader-in—scope than those in 40 C?R Parts 260—270 as a matter of State law. The following discussion outlines RCRA regulations that might apply to the OMEGA EN process. Where crucial information was not provided, I have made certain assumptions, which may not properly characterize your process, and discuss the applicable RCRA regulations for each assumption. image: ------- —2— Whether the filter cake from the APU33O Unit meets the F006 listing depends upon the particular plating process or processes at a generator’s facility. Assuming that the APU330 device receives only wastes (such as bath Solutions and/or rinse waters) from an electrojes plating operation, the filter cake will not meet the listing for F006 or any other waste currently listed in 40 CFR Section 261.31 (51 FR 43351, December 2, 1986). However, if the APU33O device also receives bath solutions and/or rinse waters from an eletroplating process, the filter cake.may meet the F006 listing description, and its subsequent management is regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. Further, the filter cake may be a listed hazardous waste if the cake meets other listing descriptions or is derived—from listed hazardous waste per 40 CFR Section 261.3(c)(2)(i) (e.g., F008 plating bath residues). The generator of these hazardous wastes must comply with Part 262 for each shipment of waste to Unit 2, and the Unit 2 facility is subject to a RCRA storage permit for hazardous waste storage prior to reclamation in Unit 2 as specified in Section 26 1.6(c)(]). Solid Waste Identification In order to determine whether or not the filter cake is a solid waste under Section 261.2, I have assumed that the filter cake is either a sludge or a spent material. Each of these assumptions is discussed below. Additional details are needed to address the regulatory status of the filter cake. a. Assume the filter cake is a sludge . If the APU33O unit treats “ dragout tank” wastewater, the filter cake may be a wastewater treatment sludge. Sludge is defined in Section 260.10. If the sludge meets a listing description or is derived from a listed waste, it is classified as both a solid waste and a listed hazardous waste. Listed sludges are solid wastes even when reclaimed, per Section 26 l.2(c)(3). Assuming that the sludge (filter cake) exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic but is not listed, it is classified as a solid waste and is subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulation except when it is being reclaimed (Section 261.2(c)(3), Table 1). No information was provided as to whether the filter cake exhibits a RCRA characteristic. If the filter cake exhibits no characteristic of a hazardous waste and is not listed, RCRA Subtitle C is not applicable, Nore stringent and broader—in—scope State laws and applicable Subtitle D regulations, however, will apply to the waste. Reclamation of image: ------- —3— the filter cake in Unit 2 will generate new materials (other than products) that may need to be tested to determine whether Subtitle C applies. b. Assume that the filter cake is a spent material . If the APt7330 unit filters the plating bath and not the rinse waters, the filter cake may more properly be classified as a spent material than a sludge. The bath solutions being filtered are spent materials and the filter cake is derived from the spent materials. If the solutions were listed hazardous wastes, the cake would also be a listed hazardous waste (50 FR 619, Note 7, January 4, 1985). Again, if no RCRA characteristic is exhibited and no listing applies, RCRA Subtitle C regulations are not applicable. If the spent material does exhibit a characteristic, or is listed, and is sent for reclamation, it is identified and regulated as a hazardous waste (Table 1, Section 261.2(c)(3)), Regulation of Unit 2 If Unit 2 is a legitimate recycling unit, it will not be regulated under Subtitlö C when reclaiming sludges or spent materials, unless the reclamation process is analogous to land disposal or incineration (see 40 CFR 264.l(g)(2), 265.1(c)(6), and 50 FR 643, January 4, 1985). If Unit 2 is an incinerator and material is being recovered from a destruction process, Unit 2 is subject to the incinerator standards in Subpart 0 of Part 264 or 265 and to the requirement to obtain a RCRA permit, Part 270. Generators and transporters of recycable materials are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 261.6(b). Assuming that Unit 2 is a recycling unit, Section 261.6(c) specifies the RCRA requirements for the owner/operator. Status of Calcium Phoaphite/calcium Sulfate The regulatory status of the calcium phosphite/caicium sulfate reclaimed from Unit 2 will depend upon whether further processing of the calcium phosphite/ca]ciuin sulfate must be provided and whether it is a product (40 CFR Section 261.2(e)(ij)). Assuming that a fertilizer market exists, a calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate fertilizer product generated from Unit 2 would result in classifying the recycled materials as solid waste by Section 261.2(c)(l) (use constituting disposal). If Unit 2 were reclaiming a hazardous waste, the waste—derived commercial fertilizer produced for the general public’s use out of Unit 2 would not presently be regulated per 40 CFR 266.23(a), provided they met the conditions of Section 266.20(b) (including any applicable treatment standards under 40 CFR Part 268). image: ------- —4— If the calcium phosphjte/calcjum sulfate from Unit 2 were converted to a cooling/heating system corrosion inhibitor, the status of the calcium phosphite/ca lcjum sulfate would depend on whether the material reQuires further processing. (On the distinction between a product and a waste see 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985.) If the calcium phosphite/ca]cjum sulfate has only been partially reclaimed and must be reclaimed further, the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate may still be considered a solid waste and a recyclable material. The recyclable materials reclaimed (or partially reclaimed) to form the caleium phosphite/calcjum sulfate should be analyzed as described above for the filter cake. Status of Nickel Hydrate Based on the data provided, the nickel hydrate is partially reclaimed material that may or may not be a waste. If it has been reclaimed and only needs to be refined in the cook unit to form a commerical product, it may be more like a product than a waste (see 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985) and, thus, may not be subject to Subtitle C reQuirements unless used in a manner constituting disposal or incinerated. If the nickel hydrate is a waste, you may be able to aDply for a variance from the definition of a solid waste under Section 260.30. The above discussion was intended to provide the context in which the RCRA regulations may effect the operation of the OMEGA EN process. Because insufficient information was provided to make accurate determinations, a number of different assumptions had to be made to address each of the relevant issues. In addition, you asked that I respond to the following specific Questions: 1) Can EPA issue a document stating that the material is a solid waste? I have answered this auestion as best I can based on the information provided. 2) will each generator of this filter cake reauire a delisting from each State with more stringent regulations than EPA? The answer to this auestion depends on the individual State’s reauirements and their RCRA authorization status. image: ------- —5— Questions about the delisting process can best be answered by referring to an EPA publication entitled Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes——A Guidance Manual (EPA 530/Sw—85— 0 03). Fijs publication can be obtained by calling the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at (703) 487—4650 and asking for publication number PB85—194488. Specific cuestions can be answered by contacting Terry Grogan, Chief, Delisting Section at EPA Headauarters, at (202) 382—4206. 3) What are the provisions for the filter cake to be shipped as a hazardous waste to our facility in Illinois, which is not required to have a hazardous waste treatment permit? If the filter cake is identified as a hazardous waste, shipment of a hazardous waste off—site for recycling will subject the generator to 40 CFR Part 262 requirements (40 CFR Section 261.6(b)) The Illinois facility (Unit 2) will not be required to have a treatment permit if Unit 2 is a recycling facility (and not an incinerator or an industrial furnace). However, if there is any storage of the hazardous waste received from off—site prior to entering Unit 2, the facility will have to obtain a RCRA storage permit under Section 261.6(c). 4) Will Stapleton be recuired to become a hazardous waste treatment facility if it only processes its electroless nickel material and returns all the nickel back to the process? Again, facilities that recycle recyclable materials are not subject to RCRA treatment permit requirements. The storage of hazardous waste prior to recycling, however, subjects the facility to the requirement to obtain a RCRA permit (40 CFR Section 261.6(c)). If storage does not occur, then the general rule is that reclamation is regulated while recycling (without reclamation) is not. Return of all nickel back to the process is a significant effort in waste minimization/reduction but does not affect the application of RCRA regulations in this instance. State regulations that are more stringent or broader—in—scope than the Federal regulations discussed herein should be addressed by the implementing State agency. image: ------- —6— In closing, I would like to reiterate that the final determination as to the applicability of RCRA regulations for any specific facility must be made by the appropriate State and/or EPA Regional Office. If you have any further cuestions or need additional information, please contact Steve Cochran at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Director Office of Solid Waste image: ------- 9441.1939(01) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FEB 7 93G Mr. Robert A. Gallaher President Allied Aircraft Sates, Inc. P.C. Box 11816 Tucson, Arizona 85734—1816 Dear Mr. Gallaher: This letter is in response to your letter dated October 27, 1988, in which you recuest confirmation that dross from secondary aluminum smelting operations is not a so)id waste when used as a feedseock in the manufacture of cement. r want to apolocize for taking so lonc to respond. The questions you asked are difficult ones to answer without fairly extensive discuss ion. As I understand your letter, you are interested in selling aluminum dross, a by—product of secondary aluminum smelting, for use in the manufacture of cement. The dross would be a surrogate source of Al,O . , which is aPparently a necessary constituent in the forffw!atjon of cement. The normal source of this is alumina—bearing clays. As such, your oOsjtjo? !s that the dross is not a soiLd waste, according to 40 CFR Section 261.2(e)(j) and (ii), because the dross is used or reused as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a product and is not being reclaimed and/or is used or reused as an effective substitute for commercial oroducts. As you accurately state in your letter, if the dross is not a solid waste, it is not regulated as a hazardous waste. There are several factual considerations that must be addressed before a determination can be made as to whether the dross is a solid waste when recycled in this manner. They include: - — the status of the secondary material (i.e., is the dross a listed or characteristic by—product); image: ------- —2— — factors in Section 261.2(e)(i) and (ii) that must be COnsidered, includina whether reclamation occurs befor use/reuse, whether the dross functions effectively as raw materia], and other factors indicative of legitimate recycling; and - the end use of the cement (i.e., is the cement used in a manner constituting disposal by being placed on the land) Each of these Ouestjor,s/facto will be discussed in the following paragraphs. Please be advised, however, that the discussion is theoretical in the sense that a final determination as to the regulatory status of the dross and whether it is subject to RCRA regulation, must be made by the aporopriate EPA Regional Office or State based on the circumstances associated with the specific site(s) where the activities occur. It may also be the case that an individual State may have more stringent or broader-in_scope regulatory reoui rements. The aluminum dross is a by—product as stated in your letter. There are no hazardous waste listings in 40 CFR Part 261 that would apply to aluminum dross, including the recently promulcated process mining waste listings (see 53 FR 35412, September 13, 1988). The assumption made herein is that the dross exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, orobably EP toxicity for metals. If this assumption is not made, the dross is not regulated under Subtitle c of RCRA and further interpretation is not needed. Regarding the existing mining waste exclusion in Section 26l.4(b)(7) (i.e., solid wastes which are not hazardous wastes), Allied Aircraft Sales, Tnc. describes the dross as being from secondary aluminum smelting. The existing exclusion covers certain wastes from the Processing of ores and minerals, but only covers situations where the feedstock to the smelter is at least 50% ore or mineral (see 53 FR 41290, October 20, 1988). It is assumed that most of the feedstock is scrap aluminum (greater than 50% scrap); therefore, the mining waste exclusion would not apply to the dross. In order for Allied Aircraft Sales, Inc. to claim that the dross is not a solid waste per Section 261.2(e)(j) or (ii), the dross must be directly used as an ingredient or substitute Without being reclaimed (see 50 FR 619, January 4, 1985). Since you state that the cement manufacturer will “introduce aluminum dross directly into the raw kiln feed”, I assume no prior reclamation will occur. Assuming that the dross is being image: ------- —3— directly used as a feedstock, it must be determined if the aluminum dross functions as an inoredient in the cement and if use of the dross to produce cement yields distinct components as separate end products, and thus constitutes reclamation. You have indicated that the dross is used to replace Al 0 used in the clay, but have not indicated whether distin t 3 :‘ ponents are formed. Another consideration in determining whether Section 261.2(e) applies is how contaminated the dross is relative to the clay for which it substitutes. An example of sham use may be using sludges containina hich concentrations of heavy metals to form cement (see 50 FR 638). You provided no data on the hazardous constituents in the aluminum dross. It would also be important to know how much variability there might be in different batches of dross and whether the dross is used only in amounts necessary for the production process. Assumina that the dross does not contain high levels of hazardous constituents relative to the clays normally used, and is used only in necessary amounts, I would likely conclude that Section 261.2(e)(i) or (ii) applies (as claimed in your letter), and that the dross is not a solid waste when so used. However, EPA makes it clear that hazardous secondary materials (e.a., spent materials, sludoes, by—products, and scrap metal) used as •inaredients in waste—derived products that will be placed on the land are solid wastes (Section 26l.2(c)(1) and 50 FR 619). It is conceivable that Portland cement might be used in situations where it is applied directly to the land (e.g., building foundation materials, see 50 FR 628). A characteristically hazardous secondary material would be regu1 ted as a solid and hazardous waste up until the formation of product (50 FR 647). It may be difficult to ascertain t’ e end uses of the cement each time a hazardous secondary material is used as an ingredient. The preamble to the january 4, 1985 Federal Reaister states clearly, however, that if a secondary material is to be ultimately used in formulating a product to be placed on the land, then it is a solid waste from the point of generation, throuch transportation, and including any storage prior to being used In formulatina a product. The Agency has temporarily deferred regulation of these waste-derived products applied to the land (SO . 646), provided the product used in a manner constituting disposal meets applicable land disposal restriction standards (Section 266.20(b)). Although the product is not regulated, the use as disposal on land continues to subject the secondary material used to form the product to regulation as a solid and hazardous waste, notwithstanding the fact that Section 261.2(e)(i) or (II) would otherwise classify qualifying dross as not being solid waste. image: ------- —4— s a f .nal note, in your letter you rererred to “fly ash as a constituent in cement t ’ (from 50 FR 619) as an example given by FPA of usinc or reusing secondary materials as feedstocks in production processes. According to the descripti o’ given in the May 6, 1987 Federal Recister (52 FR 16987), cement kilns produce larce amounts of particulate emissions (fly ash) which are often returned to the kiln. Not only is this ash probably very similar to what is already in the kiln, it is specifically exempt from RCRA as well (Section 261..4(b)(8H. ‘ hus, the fly ash example may not be directly applicable to the use/reuse of aluminum dross. In summary, Section 2 1.2(e) is likely to be applicable to the dross if it is not reclaimed, if it is an effective substitute, and if the product formed is not applied to the land. No data is provided on the amount or type of hazardou.s constituents in the dross. If toxic metals are involved, you should determine how the levels of toxic metals in the dross differ from those found in the clays normally used. In closina, I would like to reiterate that the final determination as to the regulatory classification of the dross and the extent of reaulation under RCRA, if any, for a particular site or operation must be made by the appropriate EPA Regional Office or State. If you have any additiQn cuestions or need further clarification, please call Steve Cochran at (202) 475—9715. Sincerely, Sylvia . Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste image: ------- UNITED STATES Ekvijuu.mME,4TA . PWOTICTION AGENCY JAN3 1989 9441.1989(02) SUBJECT: Status of Personnel Protective Equipment as a RCRA Waste FROM: Sylvia K. Lowra.nce, Director Office of Solid Waste TO: Timothy Fields, Jr., Director Emergency Response Division This memo is in responce to your i quirv about our planned “de minimjs” :‘ii.e a.d about the status of personnel protective clothing and other debris in the interim. The ‘de minimisw rule is intended to define levels of contamination below which wastes are not hazardous. In concept, this could apply to any type of material, including Clothing and debris. However, there could be some difficulty in applying this approach to all of the materials of concern to you since test methods needed to determine the level of contamination may not be appropriate for all of the materials encountered. i have asked the staff responsible for developing the rule to consider this aspect of the de minimia ’ determination as they proceed. Until the time that a Ude minimis ’ approach is available, there are several options for dealing with contaminated clothing and other similar debris. Since clothing and the other materials of concern are not considered solid wastes, they can be dealt with through the “contained in’ policy. That is, if the hazardous contaminant can be removed, the underlying material is no longer considered to be a hazardous waste and its disposal is not restricted. s you noted in your memo, this may not be appropriate in all situations, since it may generate large volumes of contaminated rinsate which must be treated before disposal. UNITED STATIS EN ’T! fj4yAL PROTICyp AGINCY image: ------- where it is impossible or impractical to remove the conta ninatiOfl, the materials must be treated in accordance with the appliCa.ble land disposal restriction LDR) standards and other applicable requirements of Subtitle C. If the waste is one for which treatment standards have been set, the material must be treated to the applicable LDR levels, or a treatability variance must be granted. The determination of which option is more appropriate will depend on the nature of the underlying material and on the treatment methods available. If the method of treatment necessary to meet the LDR treatment standards is inappropriate for the material in question, another method of treatment can be proposed through a treatabilitY variance. Since the underlying materials vary greatly, it is not possible to give general guidance on what methods of treatment are appropriate in these circumstances. This decision must be made on a case by case basis. If the waste in question is a soft hammer waste, as is the case in the situation described in the Region V memo which you attached, then the soft hammer provisions described in the August 17, 1988 Federal Register Notice on the First Third Final Rule should be followed. You should note that, although cost uay be used to sone :.: ent in detemni ng the practicability treatment for soft hammer wastes, it is not a consideration i determining treatment for wastes which have standards in effect. Finally, you cite the empty container rule as relevant here. While it is possible that the amount of hazardous waste remaining in a container could exceed that contained in clothing or other materials there is no “empty’ rule for anything but containers, and that concept vould not apply to the situations you have described. 2 image: ------- ,I p,J. I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9441.1989(03) O cICE OF SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY P JAN 24 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Status of Contaminated Groundwater and Limitations on Disposal and Reuse FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Directo “?<‘ Office of Solid Waste - TO: Jeff Zelikson, Director Toxic. and Waste Management Division Region XX tn your memo of December 16, 1988 and the attached materials, you stated your understanding of the current policy on the classification of contaminated groundwat.r and desc:ibed issues which have arisen in California regarding reuse of contaminated groundwater from a Superfund sit.. Yen have accurately stated the effects of th. contained in policy which governs situations such as th. one you have described. Briefly, a contaminated greundwat.r which has been treated such that it no long.r contains hazardous constituents, need not be considered to be a hazardous waste, arid beneficial reus. of th. water is permissible. w. have not yet issued definitive guidancs on levels below which the groundwater is no longer considered to contain hazardous wastes. Until such definitive guidanc . is issued, the Regions may determine these levels on a case—specific basis. It is our •zp.ctation that ultimately the guidance on levels of hasardous wastes which may r.main will mirror the levels in the D c I4inimis rul. which is now und.r development by OSW. I know that R.gion IX has been participating in the work Group discussions and reviews of this proposal and I urge you to continue this involvement. In its pres.nt form, the De Minimis approach contemplates levels based on h.alth —based standards (wher. available), assuming direct exposure. With respect to the constituentS of concern at the Fairchild Superfund site — — trichloroethafle image: ------- —2— and dLch1o oetby1.n. —— the hy de r. 1n1ng fl the t:..t.4 groui dwet.c ax. veil b.low the MCt.a and Would th.r.fog. be con.i.t.nt vLtb tbe Os Ilinisig approach. U you have add1tion j. questions, pie... centa avid rag. at TS 382—4741. Questions on the D c Ninial. rule should be addressed to løbart barberry st ?Ti 3$2 -477e. CCI Tins Kan ., -Henry &ong.st image: ------- 9441. 1989(04) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU)Q4ARy FEBRAURY 89 1. Coke and Coal Tar Recydable Material Requirements A facility owner/operator “blends” decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations (1(087) with purchased creosote (a diluent) to use as a fuel in an open hearth furnace to produce steel. Since creosote Is derived from coal tar, would this 1(087/creosote fuel meet the exclusion in 40 CFR Section 261.6(a)(3)(,ii) for coke and coal tar from the iron and steel industry that contains 1(087? No. The exclusion in Section 26l.6(a)(3)(vil) applies only to the coke and coal tar fuels that are derived from K087 waste. Coke is the residue from the destructive distillation of coal. The coke serves as both a fuel and a reducing agent in Iron and steel production processes. Some coke plants recover by- products given off or created during the coke production process. The recovery of the by-products generates the tar decanter sludge, 1(087. During the recovery of the volatile organics in the by-product coke production process, tar separates by condensation from coke oven gas and drains into a decanter tank. The tar sludge settles to the bottom of the tank image: ------- 9441.1989 (05) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMJ j y FEBRUARy 89 2. Drip Gas Exdusicm Drip gas is collected from a natural gas line located at the production site. Is this condensate exempt from being a hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5)? According to 40 CFR 26 1.4(b)(5), “Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy...” are not subject to regulation as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, if the drip gas is collected from lines that are associated with movement of the natural gas on- site (i.e. the exploration, development, or production site) then the drip gas is exempt from being a hazardous waste. An example is drip gas from gathering lines on the production site that lead to an on-site central storage tank. On the other hand, if the drip gas is collected from lines that are used for the off-site movement of natural gas, the drip gas is not excluded under 40 CFR 261 .4(b)(5). For example, drip gas collected from lines used to transport natural gas from the production site to an off-site distribution center would not be excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5). The rationale behind this on-site/off-site distinction arises from the legislative history of RCRA Section 3001 (b)(2)(A) which is directed to .drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil or iatural gas....” The legislative history discusses “other wastes” as follows: The term “other wastes associated” is specifically included to designate waste materials intrinsically derived fr.)zn primary field operations associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy. It would cover such substances as: hydrocarbon bearing soil in and around related facilities; drill cuttings; and materials (such as hydrocarbons, water, sand, and emulsion) produced from a well in conjunction with crude oil, natural gas or geothermal eI gy; and the accumulated material (such as hydrocarbons, water, sand and emulsion) from production separators, fluid treating vessels, storage vessels, and production Impoundments. The phrase “intrinsically derived from the primary field operations” is intended to differentiate exploration, development, and production operations from transportation (from the point of custody transfer or of production separation and dehydration) and manufacturing operations. 4 image: ------- RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU?O(ARY FEBRUARY 89 2. Drip Gas Exdusjp (Contdj EPA has outlined 3 criteria as a test of whether a particular waste qualifies for the exe mp t io n. I The criterion that addresses the on-site/off -site issue is as follows: Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes intrinsically derived from primary field operations associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy are subject to exemption. Primary field operations encompass production-related activities but not transportation or manufacturing activities. With respect to oil production, primary field operations encompass those activities usually occurring at or near the welihead, but prior to the transfer of oil from an individual field facility or a centrally located facility to a carrier (i.e., pipeline or trucking concern) for transport to a refinery or to a refiner. With respect to natural gas production, primary field operations are those activities occurring at or near the welihead or at the gas plant but prior to the point at which the gas is transferred from an individual field facility, a centrally located facility, or a gas plant to a carrier for transport to market. Primary field operations encompass the primary, secondary, and tertiary production of oil or gas. Wastes generated by the transportation process itself are not exempt because they are not intrinsically associated with primary field operations. An example would be pigging waste from pipeline pumping stations. Transportation (for the oil and gas industry) may be for short or long distances.... - Thus, drip gas collected from lines associated with transport of natural gas from the production site to an off-site distribution center would not be covered by the exemption. 1 See “Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude Oil. Natural Cu, and Ceod rmal Ene r; Report to Congress, December 1987, pp.74 A listing of wastes veeJ by the empdon appears in EPA ’, “Regulatory Det mdnation foT 011 and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes , ” 53 25446 (July 6, 1988). Source: Mike Fitzpatrick (202) 4756783 Research: Kenneth Leigh Mitchell, Ph.D. (202) 382-3000 S image: ------- RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY FEBRUARY 89 I. Coke and Coal Tar Recyclable Material Requirements (Cont’d ) and is eugulated as 1(087 (see Figure 1). K087 is considered hazardous because of the high levels of phenol and naphthalene which are toxic to humans and aquatic life (see Listing Background Document for K087). Some coke plants use the decanter tank tar sludge (1(087) as a raw material in either the sintering process or open hearth furnace operations. The sludge can be recycled by mixing it with coal before it is charged to a coke oven to produce coke (Figure 1). The coke product is then used as a fuel in steel blast furnaces. Additionally, the sludge is sometimes mixed back into the coal tar by-product which is also frequently used as a fuel. In the January 11, 1985 Federal &iL (50 E 1684), the EPA proposed to exempt coke and coal tar fuel derived from K087 if sufficient data was provided to EPA to demonstrate that contaminants in the recycled waste did not add significant concentrations of contaminants to the coke fuel product (50 1689-1690). The exemption was proposed to be applied narrowly and only to fuel products containing hazardous waste that was generated by the production process itself. The exemption would only apply to the coke and coal tar hazardous waste fuel. It would not apply to fuels containing other wastes and would not apply to wastes before they are reintroduced into the production process._Thus, generators would have to comply with the storage requirements of 40 CFR 262.34 or the facility standards per 40 CFR 264/265 (50 1689-1690). In the November 29, 1985 Federal Eigi .t r, the EPA finalized the exemption for K087 waste derived coke (a hazardous waste fuel) and the exemption of coal tar produced from coal tar decanter sludge (see Figure 1). Coke and coal tar fuels derived from 1(087 are excluded from regulation when used to produce coke because the contaminants levels in the coke do not appreciably increase by recycling the tar sludge (K087). Both of these waste derived fuels are exempt per 40 CFR 261(a)(3)(vii) (see 50 f 49170- 49171). Therefore, in this situation, where the decanter tank tar sludge (K087) is mixed or blended with purchased creosote, the exemption would not apply because coal tar is not being recycled and no coke fuel Is derived (see Figure 2). The owner or operator of the process in question is mixing hazardous waste (1(087) with creosote. The burning of this hazardous waste would be subject to the incinerator regulations under 40 CFR Part 264/265 Subpart 0. Source: Dwight Hlustick (202) 382-7926 Research: Renee Pannebaker (202) 382-3000 2 image: ------- 9441.1989(10) iO S? 4 P :p I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 M4R2TI g - - Q I D SOL’D W SE EM€ GENCv ES .s: Ronald B. L. Jones Environmental Consulting 15 Hollow Road Watertown, Connecticut 06795 Dear Mr. Jones: This letter responds to your February 13, 1989 letter (and subsequent phone call) regarding the regulatory status of flue dust and metal hydroxide sludge under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Specifically, you request a clarification concerning the regulatory status of flue dust and metal hydroxide sludge being recycled by two different methods: 1) reclamation for metal content, and 2) use as a micronutrjent in fertilizer. It is my understanding that your client, a brass mill, generates two EP toxic characteristic waste sludges. These are: 1) a flue dust generated by an air pollution control device (defined as a “sludge” in 40 CFR 260.10), and 2) a metal hydroxide sludge generated by an on—site wastewater treatment unit. Neither waste is a RCRA listed hazardous waste and your client has concerns about the proper management for the characteristic hazardous wastes. As the table at 40 CFR 261.2(c) states, a characteristic sludge is not a solid waste (and thus, not a hazardous waste) when reclaimed. This status applies at the point of generation (i.e., if the sludge is to be reclaimed, it is not a solid waste and, therefore, not regulated under RCRA Subtitle C, unless it is accumulated speculatively). You should note that section 261.2(f) requires the generator to document his/her claims that a certain material is not a solid waste. On the other hand, the same table states that both listed and characteristic sludges that are placed on the land or incorporated into a product that is applied to the land (i.e., used in a manner constituting disposal) are solid wastes (and thus are hazardous wastes). As section 261.2(e) (2) states, even materials that are recycled by use or reuse as ingredients to make a product are solid wastes (and if applicable, hazardous wastes) when such recycling involves use constituting disposal. This status applies at the point of generation (and, thus, storage of the wastes prior to such use or reuse is subject to image: ------- —2— regulation under RCRA Subtitle C). (NOTE: For characteristic sludges, if the product placed on the land no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic, the product would not be a hazardous waste (a solid waste derived from the treatment of charac- teristic hazardous waste, such that it no longer exhibits a characteristic, ceases to be a hazardous waste).] You should also be aware that State and local regulations are also applicable, and may differ from Federal,regulations. You should contact the State regulatory a9ency, as well as the appropriate EPA Regional office to determine the applicable regulations. Should you require further information, you may call the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Robert W. Del anger Chief Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- UNITED? TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOt4/ NC? 9441.1989(11) t4 2Ti James E. Johnson President SAFCO Environmental 1255 South 188th Seattle, Washington 98148 Dear Mr. Johnson: This letter responds to your February 13, 1989 letter concernjn 9 the regulatory requirement for a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) storage permit for facilities engaged in hazardous waste recycling activities. In particular, you ask whether a storage permit is required for your recycling of hazardous wastes by blending, mixing, physical separation, or distillation without prior storage of the hazardous wastes. The Agency does not require a storage permit for activities where no storage occurs. For example, if a hazardous waste is received at the recycling facility and immediately fed directly into the recycling process (i.e., no storage occurs), then a RCRA storage permit would not be required. In your letter, you state that you have heard that a holding time of 24 hours is allowed prior to the waste being directly fed into the recycling process. Federal regulations do not specify an allowable “holding time” prior to the waste being introduced to the recycling process; however, the appropriate EPA Regional office or authorized State regulatory agency may specify such a holding time on a site-specific basis, defining a time at which storage begins. As you stated, some States and Regions do allow up to 24 hours for the off-loading of a hazardous waste into the recycling process before the waste is considered to be stored, thus requiring a storage permit. I should also point out to you that hazardous waste fuel blending ta are subject to storage regulations. As the April 13, 1987 Fsd a1 Register notice specifically states, tanks used for bl ing hazardous waste fuels or for settling out impurities . s subject to regulation as storage tanks, and are not exempt recycling units (see 52 FR 11820). In your letter, you also raised a question on the possibility of case—by—case regulation of recycling activities under 40 CFR 261.6(c). As you noted, case-by-case regulation of image: ------- —2— certain recycling activities is already provided for under 40 CFR 260.40. The Agency is not currently planning to modify these regulations; however, EPA is reevaluating the regulations applicable to recycling acti.vities and may determine that regulatory amendments are necessary to encourage environmentally protective recycling. Finally, you should be aware that local and State governments may have applicable regulations that differ from Federal regulations. You should contact your State regulatory agency, as well as the appropriate EPA Re9ional office for specific answers about your recycling acti .vities. Sincerely, -.1 c’4tr1c... / j b atthew A. Strau ‘, Deputy Director . Characterization and Assessment Division image: ------- 9441.1989(12) Dr. Peter Landrum Research Chemist Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 2205 Commonwealth Boulevard Ann Arbor, MI 46105—1593 Dear Dr. Landrum: This letter is in response to your letter of January 4, 1989 to Dr. Souther]and regarding the disposal of sediment samples. As I understand, most samples are only tested with a bioassay, and the chemical composition is often unknown. According to 40 CFR 261.4(d) (1), samples collected for the sole purpose of testing are not subject to any requirements under the regulations for hazardous waste management. In addition, under 40 CPR 261.5(a ), if the waste generated is less than 100 kg per month, the generator is conditionally exempt as a small quantity generator and may accumulate up to 1000 kg of waste on the property without being subject to the requirements of the hazardous waste regulations. These two exclusions are for the Federal regulations; state regulations may be more stringent. In those cases, state requirements must also be met. I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have any questions on this issue, please call Ossi Meyn at 202/382-6977. Sincerely, Devereaux Barnes, Director Characterization & Assessment Division image: ------- 9441.1989(14) _____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 at oq 0 ltC. ffi 2 1989 CE : SOLO F A5TE NO EME GE CV - Wm. Roger Truitt Schmeltzer, Aptaker and She ,pard, P.C. 2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20037—1905 Dear Mr. Truitt: This letter responds to your April 4, 1989 re9uest for clarification of the regulatory status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of your client’s metal galvanizing process residues. As I understand your client’s process, metals parts are placed in a kettle of molten zinc (the first step in the galvanizing process) and then placed in a chromic acid quenching bath for chrome passivation. During this process, zinc and charcoal residues are carried over from the molten zinc bath into the chromic acid bath (the paasivatjon solution). As a result of this continuous process, fine particles of chrome—coated zinc and charcoal accumulate in the passivation solution. These particles settle out of the passivation solution and are then partially dewatered and reintroduced to the molten zinc kettle as a substitute for raw material feedstock for the process. These chrome—coated zinc and charcoal particles would otherwise be considered hazardous wastes because they exhibit a hazardous characteristic (chromium). You presented three different regulatory interpretations that would exclude these secondary materials from regulation as a hazardous waste. Based on the information you supplied in your letter, I concur that these secondary materials are not solid wastes; however, I will only respond with the most strai hforward regulatory provision that excludes these materials from regulation as a solid waste, namely, 40 CFR 261.2(c) (3), which states that a by-product exhibitin 9 a characteristic of hazardous waste that is being reclaimed is not a solid vast.. Bas.d upon the information in your letter, the particles of chrome—coated zinc and charcoal meet the definition of a by-product found at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(3). The devatering process of the accumulated by—product is defined a. reclamation (see 40 CFR 261.1(c)(4)). Thus, the chrome-coated particles are reclaimed from the liquid portion of the by-product to make those particles available for use in the zinc ksttle (or, as image: ------- —2— stated in your letter, more amenable for reintroduction into the process). As 40 CFR 261.2(c) (3) states, a by—product, hazardous solely because it exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste, that is reclaimed, is not defined as a solid waste and, therefore, is not a hazardous waste. You should be aware that State and local regulatory agencies may have applicable regulations that differ from the Federal regulations. Also, you should contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office or State regulatory agency for a more specific determination regarding your client’s facility. Should you have further questions, please contact the RCRA Hotline at (202) 382—3000, or Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Robert W. Del’iinger Chief Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- cNVIkQ$MEKTAL. PROTECTIOP’ GEI(CY 9441.1989(15) A 5 Adrienne J. Bzura Corporate Counsel Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc. P.O. Box 194 Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857 Dear Ms. Bzura: This letter responds to your March 21, 1989 correspOndence requesting a written determination on the regulatory status of material known as “drove” by the brass industry. Specifically, you requested a statement that drove is Considered a “scrap metal” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RcR ). Based on the description of drove provided in the National Association of Recycling Industries CNARI) Circular, I cannot Conclusively state that drove, in the generic sense, is a scrap metal as defined in 40 CFR 2 61.l(C)(6), although some components of drove may meet the regulatory definition of scrap metal. Similarly, based on the N7’RI description and information gathered in phone conversations, drove would not be Considered a “spent material” under RCRA. And, provided that the drove is not derived from a pollution control device (e.g., the drove is not mixed with bag house dust), it would also not be a “sludge.” Drove most clearly fits the description of either a Co-product or a by-product. Because the distinction between e’ the two classifications •is not always clearly defined, i will only address the scenario of drove being classified as a by-product. As stated at 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3), a non—listed by-product (i.e., a by-product that exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste defined at 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C) that is reclaimed is not a solid waste under RCRA. As you stated in our phone conversation 1 all of the drove is reclaime4 and, therefore is not defined as eo1id waste (and, thus, not a hazardous waste). (NOTE: Bece the regulatory status is the same whether a material i I’ reclaimed non-listed by-product or a Co-product, the distinction is moot.J image: ------- —2— You should note that State and local regulatory agencies may have applicable regulations that differ from Federal regulations. You should also contact your State regulatory agency, as well as the appropriate EPA Regional office for further information on the regulatory status of the drove. For more information, please contact the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or the EPA Region II office. You may also call me at (202) 382—4805. Sincerely, Mitch Kidwel]. Environmental Protection Specialist Review Section image: ------- 9441. 195 17 Sr I , UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ______ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 - I 4 L it OFFICE 3F 4 i 4 SOLD WASTE AND EMERGENCy a p Elizabeth w. Rovers Project Engineer C.T. Male Associates, P.C. 50 Century Hill. Drive P.O. Box 727 Lathazn, New York 12110 Dear Ms. Rovers: This letter responds to your March 15, 1989 request for clarification of the regulatory status of your client’s plastic packing media removed from an air stripping tower that is treating groundwater contaminated with the FOOl solvent trichloroethylene (TCE). In particular, you asked how the “derived from” rule applies to the plastic media (i.e., is the media a hazardous waste?) and whether the media, even when treated to non-detectable levels, would have to be delisted to lose its status as a hazardous waste. The plastic packing media, when removed from the air stripping tower for disposal, is considered a spent material that is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste because it contains a hazardous waste (i.e., FOOl). The “derived from” rule (40 CFR 26l.3(c)(2)) is not directly applicable because the plastic packing media is considered to be an integral part of the treatment process, not a solid waste residue derived from the treatment of a hazardous waste. Therefore, when the media no longer contains the hazardous waste, it no longer is Considered to be a hazardous waste and may be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. The plastic packing media does not need to be delisted; however, the burden of demonstrating that the media no longer contains a hazardous waste remains. You also stated that your client intends to treat the TCE-contamjnated plastic packing media to non-detectable levels by volatilization. You did not provide enough information on this aspect of the process for me to determine whether a permit is required; however, I can state that volatilization does constitute treatment, as defined at 40 CFR 260.10. I urge you to contact the appropriate EPA Regional office, as well as the State image: ------- —2— regulatory agency to determine whether a permit is required. Also, YOU Should be aware that State and local governments may have applicable regulations that differ from Federal regulations. You should contact the State regulatory agency to determine whether other regulations are also applicable. Should you need further general information, you may contact the RCRA Hotline at 1-800—464-9346, or Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 382—4805. For questions specific to your client’s facility, you should contact the appropriate EPA Regional office and the State regulatory agency. Sincerely, J Robert W. Dellinger, Chief /4 v Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- 9441.1989(19 u\ TE ST. .TES ENVIRONME\T L PROTECTION AGENCY ______ . SHINGTOr . DC 20460 APR 26 1989 s’ 4ORANDUN If SUBJECT: F006 Recycling , ‘ )l • FROM: Sylvia K. Lowranc’e-r-b eè T”’ Office of Solid Waste (OS-300) TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors Regions I-X - It has come to the attention of EPA Headquarters that many of the Regions and authorized States are being requested to make determinations on the regulatory status of various recycling schemes for F006 electroplating sludges. In particular, companies have claimed that F006 waste is being recycled by being used as: (1) an ingredient in the manufacture of aggregate, (2) an ingredient in the manufacture of cement, and (3) feedstock for a metals recovery smelter. The same company may make such requests of more than one Region and/or State. Given the complexities of the regulations governing recycling vs. treatment and the definition of solid waste, and the possible ramifications of determinations made in one Region affecting another Region’s determination, it is extremely important that such determinations are consistent and, where possible, coordinated. Two issues are presented. The first issue is whether these activities are legitimate recycling, or rather just some form of treatment called “recycling” in an attempt to evade regulation. Second, assuming the activity is not sham recycling, the issue is whether the activity is a type of recycling that is subject to regulation under sections 261.2 and 261.6 or is it excluded from our authority. With respect to the issue of whether the activity is sham recycling, this question involves assessing the intent of the owner or operator by evaluating circumstantial evidence, always image: ------- a diffic ft. BaSi:ally, the determination rests on whether the secondary material is “commodity-like.” The main en.7irorunental considerations are (1) whether the secondary nateria]. truly has value as a raw material/product (i.e., is it likely to be abandoned or mismanaged prior to reclamation rather than being reclaimed?) and (2) whether the recycling process (including ancillary storage) is likely to release hazardous constituents (or otherwise pose risks to human health and the environment) that are different from or greater than the processing of an analogous raw material/product. The attachment to this memorandum sets out relevant factors in more detail. If the activity is not a sham, then the question is whether it is regulated. If F006 waste is used as an ingredient to produce aggregate, then such aggregate would remain a solid waste if used in a manner constituting disposal (e.g., road-base material) under sections 261.2(c)(l) and 261.2(e)(2)(i) or if it is accumulated speculatively under section 26l.2(e)(2)(iii). Likewise, the F006 “ingredient” is subject to regulation from the point of generation to the point of recycling. The aggregate product is, however, entitled to the exemption under 40 CFR 266.20(b), as amended by the August 17, 1988, Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third Scheduled Wastes final rule (see 53 FR 31197 for further discussion). However, if the aggregate is not used on the land, then the materials used to produce it would not be solid wastes at all, and therefore neither those materials nor the aggregate would be regulated (see section 261.2(e) (1) Ci)). Likewise, cement manufacturing using F006 waste as an ingredient would yield a product that remains a solid waste if it is used in a manner constituting disposal, also subject to section 266.20(b). There is an additional question of whether the cement kiln dust remains subject to the Bevill exclusion. In order for the cement kiln dust to remain excluded from regulation, the owner or operator must demonstrate that the use •of F006 waste has not significantly affected the character of the cement kiln dust (e.g., demonstrate that the use of F006 waste has not significantly increased the levels of Appendix VIII constituents in the cement kiln dust leachate). (NOTE: This issue will be addressed more fully in the upcoming supplemental proposal of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule, which is pending Z ex3J 1 Es ist publication. 3 For F006 waste used as a feedstock in a metals recovery smelter, the Agency views this as a recovery process rather than use as an ingredient in an industrial process and, therefore, considers this to be a form of treatment that is not currently regulated (see sections 261.2(c) and 261.6(c)(1)). Furthermore, because this is a recovery process rather than a production process, the F006 waste remains a hazardous waste (and must be image: ------- a aged as such prior to rtroductior. to tne process), and t e slag from this process would normally be considered a “derived from” F006 waste. However, for primary smelters, the slag be considered subject to the Bevill exclusion provided that the owner or operator can demonstrate that the use of F006 waste has not sign f cantly affected the hazardous constituent content of the slag (i.e. , make a demonstration similar to the one discussed above for the cement kiln dust). (NOTE: In the supplemental proposal of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule noted above, the Agency will be proposing a definition of “indigenous waste” based on a comparison of the constituents found in the waste to the constituents found in an analogous raw material. Should the F006 waste meet the definition of an “indigenous waste,” the waste would cease to be a waste when introduced to the process and the slag would not be derived from a hazardous waste.) Also, you should be aware that OSW is currently reevaluating the regulations concerning recycling activities, in conjunction with finalizing the January 8, 1988 proposal to amend the Definition of Solid Waste. While any major changes may depend on RCRA reauthorization, we are considering regulatory amendments or changes in regulatory interpretations that will encourage on—site recycling, while ensuring the protection of human health and the environment. Headquarters is able to serve as a clearinghouse to help coordinate determinations Ofl whether a specific case is “recycling” or “treatment” and will provide additional guidance and information, as requested. Ultimately, however, these determinations are made by the Regions and authorized States. Attached tO this inemorandwn is a list of criteria that should be considered in evaluating the recycling scheme. Should you receive a request for such a determination, or should you have questions regarding the criteria used to evaluate a specific case, please contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at FTS 475—8551. Attachment image: ------- CR1 TLR e\ J OR E ’r L ’JAT [ NC; wHLmI:R I\ WASTL 1%). NC RI.CYCL n The d ffer r.ce tw n e y lir C and tr a ’ s d ff cut :c dist1ngu1 :. :n sc e cases, one :s try rig to terpre. :ntent from circumstantial e :idence sho inq mixed —ot vatioTL always a diff Cu1t propositiOn. The potential for abuse is such that great care must be used when mak rtg a determlnatiofl that a particular recycling activity is to go unregulated (i.e., it is one of those activities which is beyond the scope of our jurisdiction). In certain cases, there may be few clear-cut answers to the question of whether a specifiC activity is this type of excluded recycling (and, by extension, that a secondary material is not a waste, but rather a raw material or effective substitute) ; however, the following list of criteria may be useful in focusing the consideration of a specific activity. Here tOO, there may be no clear-cut answers but, taken as a whole, the answers to these questiOnS should help draw the distinction between recycling and sham recycling or treatner t. (1) Is the secondary material similar to an analogous raw material or product? o Does t. contain Appendix viii constituents not lounci in the analogous raw material/product (or at higher levels)? o Does it exhibit hazardous characteristics that tile analogous raw material/product would not? o Does it contain levels of recoverable material similar tO the analogous raw material/product? o Is much more of the secondary material used as compared with the analogous raw material/Product it replaces? Is only a nominal amount of it used? o Is the seondarY material as effective as the raw material or product it replaces? (2) What degree of processing is required to produce a finished product? o Can the secondary material be fed directly into t.he procesS (i.e., direct use) or is reclamation (or pretreatment) required? o How much value does final reclamation add? image: ------- J i What i the value of the secondary material? ‘ :s t ::sted :n :ndustry ne s letters, trade Journals, etc.? o Does the secondary material have econom c value comparable to the raw material that norrraliy enters the process? (4) Is there a guaranteed market for the end product? o Is there a contract in place to purchase the “product” ostensibly produced from the hazardous secondary materials? o f the type of recycling is reclamat:or.. i the product t.sed by the recla mer ’ TJ e cenera or :c there a batch tolling agreement? (fete that si reclaimers are normally TSDF5, asswrlng they store before reclaiming, reclamation facilities present fewer possibilities of systemic abuse). o Is the reclaimed product a recognized commodity? Are there industry-recognized quality specifications for the product? (5) Is the secondary material handled in a manner consistent with the raw material/product it replaces? o Is the secondary material stored on the land? o Is the secondary material stored in a similar manner as the analogous raw material (i.e., to prevent loss)? o Are adequate records regarding the recycling transactions kept? o Do the companies involved have a history of mismanagement of hazardous wastes? (6) Other relevant factors. o What are the economics of the recycling process? Does most of the revenue come from charging generators for managing their wastes or from the sale of the product? o Are the toxic constituents actually necessary (or of sufficient use) to the product or are they just “along for the ride.” These criteria are drawn from 53 FR at 522 (January 8, 1988); 52 FR at 17013 (May 6. 1987); and 50 FR at 638 (January 4, 1985). image: ------- UNITED STATES !)IV1RCNMEKTAL PlOT ECEbU$ !NCY 9441.1989(20 2T Mr. Gene Rideout Systems Manager Dangerous Goods Consultants P.O. Box C.P. 283 Roxboro, Quebec H8Y 3E9 Dear Mr. Rideout: This response addresses your letters dated August 30, 1988, February 7, 1989, and March 15, 1989, regarding the lab sample exclusion found in 40 CFR Section 261.4(d). It is our understanding that you wish to transport via private or company vehicle samples of hazardous waste from Canada into the United States for analysis. You question whether the samples that you are shipping must be managed as hazardous waste in the United States. You would also like to know if it is acceptable to use a personal or company automobile to transport the sample material in the United States. Based upon the information that you have provided, it appears that the samples are being handled and shipped in a manner that is outlined in the lab sample exclusion (40 CFR 261.4(d)). Therefore, these samples are exempt from the federal hazardous waste regulations including the hazardous waste import requirements as outlined in 40 CFR 262, Subpart E and 40 CFR 264.12. In addition, as long as each shipment is in compliance with the lab sample exclusion, including the documentation and packaging requirements of 261.4(d)(2)(ii), as well as U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, that may apply, and any other applicable regulations, the mode of transportation used is at your discretion. Please be aware that the applicability of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in a particular State may be different; therefore, you should contact any RCRA authorized State through which you may travel. —— . ._ U Wf image: ------- —2— If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Emily Roth of my staff at (202) 382—4777. Sincerely, Matthew Straus, Deputy Director Characterization and Assessment Division OSW-3 32-ED-RSCC-8801-LM-4/12/89-RIDEOUT LM-4/14/89 RIDEOUT LM-4/24/89 RIDEOUT image: ------- UNITED ST. ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC CT 9441.1989(22) w ii Mrs. Phyllis A. Shay 3700 Petre Road Springfield, OH 45502 Dear Mrs. Shay: - Thank you for your letter of April 7, 1989 to the Administrator. We understand your concerns about the disposal of scrap amalgam fillings from dentists in the United States and the health effects of amalgam on dental patients. We appreciate your bringing to our attention your personal experience with amalgam. The Agency defines as hazardous any solid waste which has been listed as a hazardous waste or meets any of four hazardous characteristics; jgnitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity. Dental amalgam contains mercury and silver. If discarded, dental amalgam can be a hazardous waste if mercury and silver are extracted by the EP test, and are present above certain concentrations. The maximum permitted concentration of mercury i ,th. extract is 0.2 milligrams per liter (Mercury has been igned EPA hazardous waste number D009.). The maximum permitted concentration of silver in the extract is 5.0 milligrams per liter (Silver has been assigned EPA hazardous waste number DOll.). image: ------- UNITED ST. ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC CT —2— The hàtardous waste regulations (promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)) also provided special, reduced regulations for generators of small quantities of hazardous waste. The regulations define “small quantity generator” as one generating less than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in a month and “conditionally exempt small quantity generator” as one generating less than 100 kg of hazardous waste in a month. Most dentists would probably generate much less than 100 kg (about 220 pounds) of dental amalgam a month and be classified as a Conditionally exempt small quantity generator. Thus, your concerns are about generators who are most likely exempt from the hazardous waste regulations. Some dentists presently send their unused and waste dental amalgam to scrap metal dealers for recycling. I suggest that you contact your local health department to see if they could Coordinate with dentists to send amalgam to a central location or locations for recycling. Sincerely, Robert W. Dellinger Chief Waste Characterization Branch Office of Solid Waste (OS—332) cc: (AX) Administrator’s correspondence office disk:f chau BeO1:”amalgamsu:5/j5/ 9 image: ------- WIlTED S. (ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A tIC’ 9441.1989(23) MAY31 1989 John R. Sims, Jr. Sims, Walker & Steinfe]d, P.C. Suite 875 1275 K Street, N.W. Washingtc , D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. Sims: This is in response to your letter of May 2. 1989, in which yøu ask for a determination of the regulatory status of the absorbent rags that have been used to wipe up the crude oil resulting from the spill of crude oil from the Exxon tanker Valdez. We cannot conclude that the rags are not a hazardous waste from the information provided. We can advise you on the process whereby you determine the status of your waste. Furthermore, our Region X office in Seattle, Washington, may be able to provide assistance in confirming your determination should that be necessary. As you mention in your letter, you discussed the contaminated rags with Ms. Roth of this office via telephone on several occasions. Ms. Roth referred you to the Code Reaulatjons (CFR) governing the determination and regulation of hazardous waste, specifically, 40 CFR Part 261 — Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste. The crude oil contaminated rags are not listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, as a hazardous waste; therefore, you must determine whether they meet any of the characteristics of hazardous waste as presented in Part 261, Subpart C. Ms. Roth indicated that the characteristic that the rags would likely exhibit is that of ignitability as defined in Section 261.21; however, you must determine if the rags meet any of the characteristics as defined in Part 261, Subpart C. If they do not exhibit any of the characteristics, then the absorbent rags would not be considered a hazardous waste under federal regulation. You also indicate that you have discussed the reVulatory status of th. rags with the appropriate authorities in each of the three states involved in the transport of the contaminated rags. If the waste is determined not to meet the definition of hazardous waste according to the Federal regulations as described above and is managed in accordance with all state regulations, then the method of containment and transportation is at your discretion. image: ------- • If you wish to receive a written confirmation of your determination from EPA you should present your findings to the Waste Nanagement Division of EPA’s Region X office at 1200 6th venue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Hr. Gearbeard, who zs the Waste Management Branch Chief, may be reached at (206) 442—2782. Mr. Gearbeard will be able to assist you if necessary in making your determination. If you have any further questions regarding this letter, please contact Emily Roth of my staff at (Z02). 382—4777. Sincerely, 27W ib Matt Straus, Deputy Director ciiaracterfzation & ssessment Divi SiQfl cc: Michael Gearheard, EPA Region X - Stan Hungerford, State of Alas)ca Earl Tower, State of Washington Miice Downs, State of Oregon image: ------- 9441.1989f 24) ‘ , ____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!ON AGENCY WASI.IINGTON 0 c z o .. s. .•t AUG I 6 :;: MEMORAxD SUBJECT: Final Monthly Report—RC / Superfund Industry Assistance Hotlirte and Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Information Hotline Report for May 1989 FROM: Thea McManus, Project Offic Office of Solid Waste TO: See List of Addressees This report is prepared and submitted in support of Contract #68-01-7371 1. SIGNTFTCANT OL T ESTIO S AND RESOLVED ISSUE MAY 1989 A. RCRA 1. Medical Waste-Household Medical Waste According to Section 259.30(b)(1)(jj) of the Medical Waste Tracking regulat:ors (54 FR 12374), household waste is not regulated as medical waste. Would th:s exemption apply to household waste generated by health care providers in private homes? Household waste, as defined in Subtitle C regulations (40 CPR Section 261.4(b)), is excluded from the definition of medical waste in RCRA Section 1004(40), and is not subject to the requirements of the demonstration program. The Novómber 13, 1984 Federal gj jt (49 44978) stated that the exclusion is limited to waste generated by individuals on the prerni 4es or a residence,.for individuals and composed primarily of materials found ;n waste generated by consumers in their homes. Thus, if domestic waste :s generated by individuals at a residence, it is “household waste” and thus excluded from this program. Medical waste generated in homes by horrie health care providers thus is “household waste.” Because the household wastestream is excluded, the waste generated by a health care provider :n private homes would not be subject to the tracking or managemer t requirements even when the waste is removed from the home .ird transported to the physician’s place of business. Source: Becky Cuthbertson (202) 475.6713 Research: Kim Jennings (202) 382-3112 image: ------- • IO S’.,, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 ?4( .mci1t 9441.1989(27) JUN 6 ; gg rc.c: —‘ 3 r- Julie Wanslow Hazardous Waste Section NMEID 1190 Saint Francis Street Santa Fe, N.M. 87503 Dear Ms. Wanslow: in response to your phone conversation of March 22, 1989, with Mike Fitzpatrick of my staff, we have prepared the following explanations to clarify the boundaries of the oil field RCRA exemption as discussed in the December 1987 EPA Report to Congress (RTC) and given final definition in the July 1988 regulatory determination. The scope of the exemption as defined in the RTC and regulatory determination is based on the legislative history and Sections 3001(b) (2) (A) and 8002(m) of RCRA. Using these sources the Agency has identified three separate criteria to be used when defining specific waste streams that are exempt. These criteria are listed on pages 11—18 and 11—19 of the RTC (enclosed.) In regard to pipeline or gathering line—related wastes, the following excerpts from the criteria in the RTC may prove helpful: “Primary field operations encompass those activities occurring at or near the well head, but prior to the transport of oil from an individual field facility or a centrally located facility to a carrier (i.e., pipelne or trucking concern) for transport to a refinery or to a refiner.... Waste generated by the transportation rocesa itself are not exempt because they are not intrinsically associated with primary field operations.... Transportation for the oil and gas industry may be for short or long distances.” [ emphasis added). According to the Manual of Oil and Gas Terms (sixth edition) there are many terms in common usage within the industry and applied to the various pipelines associated with oil and gas production and transportation (see enclosed definition of “pipeline”). Feeder lines may or may not be exempt depending on the point of custody transfer or other image: ------- —2— site—specific factors relating.to transportation from the primary field-operation as defined in the RTC. Although the Agency used the term “gathering line” in the RTC in reference to a generally small diameter pipe within a primary field operation, the term “gathering Line” itself should not be used as the determining factor in defining the scope of tne exemption. Rather, the applicability of the criteria in the RTC to the particular line in question should be used in determining the scope of the exemption. As for gas plant cooling tower wastes, the July 6, 1988, regulatory determination identifies “cooling tower blowdown 1 ’ as exempt and “gas plant cooling tower cleaning wastes” as non—exempt. The difference between the two is that blowdown is comprised only of water, scale or other wastes generated by the actual operation of the cooling tower; whereas cleaning wastes include any solvents, scrubbing agents or other cleaning materials introduced into the process solely to remove buildup or otherwise clean the equipment and are not included as part of the functional operation of the cooling tower. Since these cleaning wastes can come from any cooling tower, they are not intrinsically derived from primary field operations for natural gas production. The determining factor for defining the exemption is not the frequency with which the cooling tower is blown down, either with or without cleaning agents, but whether the resulting waste is solely derived from the normal operation of the tower for natural gas production or from any added. cleaning materials. I trust these explanations will enable you to better determine the scope of the RCRA exemption as applied to the specific waste streams within your jurisdiction. If you have any further questions please contact Mike Fitzpatrick at (2 2) 475—6783. Sincerely, Dan Derkics Chief t arge Volume Waste Section Enclosure cc: Mike Fitzpatrick Ivy Main, Office of General Counsel image: ------- 1. Exempt wastes must be associated with measures (1) to locate oil or gas deposIts, (2) to remove oil or natura’ gas from the ground, or (3) to remove impurities -from Such substances, provided that the pufiftcation process is an integral part of primary field operations. 2. Only waste streams intrinsic to the exploration for, or the development and production of, crude oil and natural gas are subject to exemption. Waste streams generated at oil and gas facilities that are not uniquely associated with the exploration, development, or production activities are exempt. (Examples would include spent solvents from equipment cleanup or air emissions from diesel engines used to operate drilling rigs.) Clearly those substances that are extracted from the ground or injected into the ground to facilitate the drilling, operation, or maintenance of a well or to enhance the recovery of oil and gas are considered to be uniquely associated with primary field operations. Additionally, the injection of materials into the pipeline at the wellhead which keep the lines from freezing or which serve as solvents to prevent paraffin accumulation is intrinsically associated with primary field operations. With regard to injection for enhanced recovery, the injected materials must function primarily to enhance recovery of oil and gas and must be recognized by the Agency as being appropriate for enhanced recovery. An example would be produced water. In this context, “primarily functions” means that the main reason for injecting the materials is to enhance recovery of oil and gas rather than to serve as a means for disposing of those materials. 3. Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes intrinsically derived from primary field operations associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy are subject to exemption. Primary field operations encompass production-related activities but not transportation or manufacturing activities. With respect to oil production, primary field operations encompass those activities occurring at or near the wellhead, but prior to the transport of oil from an individual field facility or a centrally located facility to a carrier (i.e., pipeline or trucking concern) for transport to a refinery or to a refiner. With respect to natural gas production, primary field operations are those activities occurring at or near the wellhead or at the gas plant but prior to that point at which the gas is transferred from an individual field facility, a centrally located facility, or a gas plant to a carrier for transport to market. S Tpa,s. asies associated .ith $ Gh procg .ses as oil refining. petroct.em lca)-related - manufacturing, or electricity generat on a—c not exempt becau:e those processes do not occur at e primary fielø operations. 11-18 image: ------- Primary field operations may encompass the primary, secondary, and tertiary production of oil or gas. Wastes generated Dy the transportation process itself are not exempt because they are not intrii ie lly associated with primary field operations. An example would be pigging waste from pipeline pumping stations. Transportation for the oil and gas indus’-y may be for short or long distances. Wastes associated with nufacturing are not exempt because they are not associated with exploration, development, or production and hence are not intrinsically associated with primary field operations. Manufacturing (for the oil and gas industry) is defined as any acti ty occurring with• a refinery or other manufacturing facility tr 1 e purpose of which is to render the product cor ’Jnercially saleable. Using these definitions, Table II•1 presents definitions of exempted wastes as defined by EPA for the purposes of this study. Note that this is a partial list only. Altt....gh ft includes all the major streams that EPA has considered in the preparation of this report, others may exist. In that case, the definitions listed above would be applied to determine their status under RCRA. Waste Volume Estimation Methodology Information concerning volumes of wastes from oil and gas exploration, development, and production operations is not routinely collected nationwide, making it necessary to develop methods for estimating these volumes by indirect methods in order to comply with the Section 8002(m) requirement to present such estimates to Congress. For this study, estimates were compiled independently by EPA and by the American Petroleum Institute (API) using different methods. Bot i are discussed below. Estimating Volumes of Drillina Fluids and Cuttings EPA considered several different methodologies for determining volume estimates for produced water and drilling fluid. 11-19 image: ------- OIL AND GAS TERMS Sixth Edition Annotated Manual of Legal Engineering Tax Words and Phrases by HOWARD R. WILLIAMS Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural Resourcos Law, Stanford University Stella W. and Ira S. Lillick Professor of Law, Stanford University and CHARLES J. MEYERS Formerly Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Dean. Stanford University I 984 4 1 AA1TH EW BENDER 235 E. 45TH STREET. NEW YORK. N. Y. 10017 450 SANSOME STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. image: ------- 228 MANUAL OF OIL & GAS TERMS ANNOTA TED 229 Displaced gas TRANSPORTATiON GAS (q. R) which has been displaced by the car- rier in order 10 deliver CONSUMER GAS (q.v.) and which is dehvercd at a later time when capacity becomes available. Disposal well A well employed for the reir.jection of salt water produced with oil into an underground formation. Disqualified transferor For purposes of the CRUDE OIL WINDFALL PROFIT TAX Acr OF 1980 (q.v.), this term means, with respect to any quarter, any person who: (1) had qualified production for such quarter which exceeded such person’s independent producer amount for such quarter, or (2) was not an independent producer for such quarter. Internal Revenue Code § 4992. Disrepute clause A clause said to be included in all Petromin contracts with foreign government oil purchasers which enables the Saudi government en- tity to terminate the contract if the Saudis conclude that the other government acts in a manner which brings discredit to the Saudi government. Conant, “Government-to-Government Agreements.” Energy Law 1981. Seminar of the International Bar Association Committee on Energy and Natural Resources at p. 8(1981). See also, CoNcEssioN. Dissolved gas drive The energy, derived from expansion of solution gas, used in the production of oil. Syn.: Solution-gas expansion. Gas escapes from solution within t6e oil upo’i reduction of pressure and dnves the oil from the reservoi into the well. This form of drive is charactenzed by rapidly declining pressure and an increasing amount of gas neces- sary to produce a barrel of oil, with rapidly increasing gas-oil ratios. See also, REsERvoIR ENERGY. Distillate Liquid hydrocarbons, usually colorless and of high API gravity (above 60 degrees), recovered from wçt gas by a separator that con- denses th’ d out of the gas. This is the older name for the sub- stance; generally at present the term NATURAl c,ASO IIN1 (q v.1 or CONDFNSA1F (q v ) is used Any product separated. or punfied. or udentitiril h I,%IuiI..’ See Asiatic l’etrokum Corp v United States. I )U I Sii1’p .‘ • I O.&G R. 841 (Customs Court 1959) Distillate fuel oil A term subject to a variety of definitions. Sometimes the definition is based on the method of production (distillation), but other delini- lions are based on boiling range, viscosity, or use. See RESIDUAL FUEL OIL. Most commonly the term is used in connection with diesel oil and the light fuel oils used for residential heating. See Hammond, Meta, and Maugh. Energy and the Future 159 (1973). Distillates are classified in grades, called Number I, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 fuels. The spe- cific gravity of fuel oils range from 0.92 to 0.99. As distinguished from residual fuel oils which are leftovers of re- fining processes distillate fuel oils are products of distillation and are lighter. They are used for a variety of purposes. including diesel fuel and for space heating. Residual fuel oils are used under boilers in ships and in power plants. See Zimmermann, Conservation in the Production of Petroleum 85 (1957). Distribution line A pipeline other than a GATHERING LINE (q. v ) 01 TRANSMISSION LINE (q.v.). 49 C.F.R. § 192.3 (1982). See Hamman v Southwestern Gas Pipeline, Inc., 721 F.2d 140. 78 O.&G.R. 552 (5th Cii. 1983) (concerned with classification of pipeline in order to determine whether it was subject to regulation under the NATURAL GAS PIPE. LINE SAFETY Acr (NGPSA)(q.v.). Distribution system [ T]he mains which are provided primanly for distributing gas within a distribution area, together with land. structures, valves. regulators, services and measuring devices, including the mains for transportation of gas from production plants or points of receipt lo- cated within such distribution area to other points therein The dis- tnbution system owned by companies having no transmission facili- ties connected to such distnbution system begins at the inlet side of the disinbution system equipment which meters or regulates the en- try of gas into the distribution system and ends with and includes property on the customer’s premises. For companies’ -h own both U image: ------- V66 MANUAL OF OIL & GAS TERMS ANNOTA TED 367 ate station A location at which gas changes ownership. from one party to an- other. neither of which is the ultimate consumer. Also referred to as Cuir GATE (q.v.) station, town border station. American Gas Asso- ciat ‘on Bureau of Statistics. Glossary/or the Gas Industry 26. athering facilities Pipe lines and other facilities used to collect gas from various wells and bring it by separate and individual lines to a central point where ii is delivered into a single line. In the Matter of Barnes Transporta- tion Co.. 18 F.P.C. 369, 7 O.&G.R. 1527 (1957). athering gas The first taking or the first retaining of possession of gas for trans- mission through a pipe line, after the severance of such gas, and after the passage of such gas through any separator. drip, trap or meter that may be located at or near the well. In the case of gas containing gasoline or liquid hydrocarbons that are removed or extracted in commercial quantities at a plant by scrubbing. absorption, compres- sion. or any similar process. the term means the first taking or the first retaining of possession of such gas for transmission through a pipe line after such gas has passed through the outlet of such plant. The act of collecting gas after it has been brought from the eau iii. Saturn Oil & Gas Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 250 F.2d 61, 8 Q&G.R. 365 (10th Cir. 1957), cers. denied. 355 U.S. 956, 8 O.&G.R. 843 (1958). 3athering line Pipes used to transport oil or gas from the lease to the main pipe- line in the area. In tbe case of oil, the lines run from lease tanks to a central pump statioji at the beginning of the main pipeline. In the case of gas, the flow’is continuous from the well head to the ultimate consumer, since gas cannot be stored. Gathering lines collect gas under fluctuating pressures which are then regulated by regulating stations before the gas is introduced into trunk or transmission lines. Smith v. Inland Gas & Oil Co., 14 W.W. R. 558, 4 O.&G.R. 937 (Sup. C i. of Alberta 1955). For purposes of regulation of a pipeline under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, classification of the line as a gathering line, Dis. i iaimoN i ‘i. v.) or TRANSMISSION LINE (q. v.) may be of signifi- cance. See Hamman v. Southwestern Gas Pipeline. Inc.. 721 F 2d 140 (5th Cir. 1983) (holding that the gathcnng line exception in the Act must be resincted to those pipelines that connect a transmission line to a gas well) See also. PIPELINE Gathering station A compressor station at which gas is gathered from wells by means of suction because pressure is not sufficient to produce the desired rate of flow into a transmission or disinbution system Americ Gas Association Bureau of Statistics, Glossary for the Gas Indusirj 26 Gathering system The GATHERING LINES (q.v.). pumps, auxiliary tanks (in the case of oil), and other equipment used to move oil or gas from the well site to the main pipeline for eventual delivery to the refinery or con- sumer, as the case may be. In the case of gas. the gathering system includes the processing plant (if any) in which the gas is prepared for the market. See also, COLLECTING SYSTEM; DIsTRIBuTioN SYSTEM Gathering tax A tax laid on the process of gathering gas. The Gas Gathenng Tax of the State of Texas was declared unconstitutional in Michigan- Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Calvert, 347 U.S. 157 (1954). as a tax on interstate commerce. Gauge pressure See PSIG. Gauger A person who measures the quantity and quality of oil and/or gas produced. Gauging a well Measurement of such characteristics of a well as potential for pur. poses of prorationing. image: ------- 142 MANUAL OF OIL & GAS TERMS ANNOTA TED 643 phase-in crude The share of PARTICIPATION CRUDE (q.v.) which the host nation may sell and which the operating oil company must accept. “This provision, in effect, offers the governments an assured dump market while they develop their own crude outlets.” See “The Economics of Energy and Natural Resource Pricing,” Committee Pnnt. A Compi- lation of Reports and Hearings of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Domestic and International Monetary Effect of Energy and Other Natural Resource Pricing. House Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. March 1975, at p. 100. See also, BRIDGING CRUDE; BUYBACK OIL; CoNcEssioN. hilippines National Oil Company (PNOC) A state owned oil company. See Chandler, “Current Developents in Oil and Gas Law: The ASEAN Countries.” International Bar Ass’n, I EnetgyLawl98latp.2l7. hysical depletion See DEPLETION. ‘hysical waste Operational losses in the production of oil and gas. There are two main divisions of loss of oil and gas. namely, surface loss and under- ground loss. Surface loss of oil is due principally to evaporation and surface loss of gas is due principally to burning at field flares or blowing into the atmosphere. Underground loss is due to failure to recover the maximum quantity which theoretically could be pro- duced, as by dissipation of reservoir pressure. “(TJhe loss or destruction of oil or gas after recovery thereof such as to prevent propet utilization and beneficial use thereof, and the loss of oil or gas prior to recovery thereof by isolation or entrap- ment, by migration; by premature release of natural gas from solut- ion in oil, or in any other manner such as to render impracticable the recovery of such oil or gas.” 30 C.F.R. § 22l.2(n)(l) (1980). See also, WASTE. lAP The PEIR0’ ‘IM IMPORT ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM (q.v.) I Pick-up oil Oil which has escaped from a well or storage tank by twcrl1o or seepage recovered by a PICK-UP 5IA1 1ON (q v.) Pick-up station A surface pit or other type of trap utilized to gather oil which has escaped from a well or storage tank by overflow or seepage. Pig A scraping device for cleaning and testing petroleum and natural gas pipelines. Piled steel platform A conventional drilling and production platform for offshore dril- ling and production operations. A steel jacket enclosing conductor pipet pinned to the sea bed by long steel piles and is surmounted by a e1 ck on which is located housing, a drilling rig. and other installations. Pincher Creek Decision The decision of the Public Utilities Board of Alberta, pursuant to an application under Section 9 of The Gas Utilities Act, relating to charges and deductions to be allowed for processing costs in deter- mining the value of gas for royalty purposes. See Rae, “Royalty Clauses in Oil and Gas Leases,” 4 Alberta L Rev. 323 at 346 (1965); Muir, “Utilization of Alberta Gas,” 13 Alberta L. Rev. 64 (1975). Pinch out A trap formed by the disappearance or wedging out of a porous, permeable rock between two layers of impervious rock. PIP PETROLEUM INCENTIvES PROGRAM (q. v.). Pipeline A tube or system of tubes used for the transportation of oil or gas Types of oil pipelines include: lead lines, from pumping well to a storage tank; flow lines, from flowing well to a storage tank, lease lines, extending from the wells to lease tanks; gather- - t ines, extend- image: ------- MANUAL OF OIL & GAS TERMS ANNOTA TED 645 644 ing from lease tanks to a central accumulation point; feeder lines, extending from leases to trunk lines; and trunk lines, extending from a producing area to refineries or terminals. In the case of gas. the GATHFRING SV’.IIM (q.v.)delivers the gas to the main pipeline which takes the gas directly to the distributor at the place of consumption. Static capacity of a pipeline is calculated by multiplying the square of the pipe diameter (in inches) by .0009714 to give barrels of oil per lineal loot or by multiplying the square of pipe diameter (in inches) by .005454 to give cubic feet of gas per lineal foot. The quantity passing through the line in a given period will depend on initial pres- sure, flow characteristics, ground elevation, density, delivery pres- sure. and the booster stations employed. For a detailed analysis of the pipeline industry see Wolbert. U. S Oil Pipe Lines (1979). “Today there are over 227,000 miles of operat- ing crude and products lines (including gathering lines) in the United States, exceeding by nearly 40 percent the total miles of mainline railroad right-of-way.” Id. at 26. For a detailed examination of the history of pipeline regulation and an order prescribing new criteria (or the derivation of maximum permissible rates of return, see Williams Pipe Line Co.. 23 F.P.S. 5.685 (F.E.R.C. Opinion No. 154, Nov. 30, 1982). See also the following: Pierce, “Reconsidering the Roles of Regulation and Competition in the Natural Gas industry,” 97 Harv. L. Rev. 345 (1983) (arguing that the natural gas market would function more efficiently if Con- gress deregulated gas pipeline companies and required them to com- pete against one another); Malet, “Oil Pipelines as Common Carriers: issues of Form and Substance,” 20 Houston L Rev. 801 (1983); Fisher, “Access to Submarine Pipelines and Tariffs: The Legal Framework,” (19821 I OGLTR 9; Adams and B4ck. “Deregulation or Divestiture: The Case of Pe- troleum Pipeline ,” 19 Wake Forest L. Rev. 705 (1983) (a detailed argument for requiring divestiture of pipeline ownership by inte- grated oil companies); Mitchell (ed). Oil Pipelines and Public Policy (American Enter- prise Institute, 1979), discussing proposals for industry reform and reorganization. See also, AGREEMENT ON PRINCIPLES; ALASKA NATURAL GAS PIPF.. LINE FINANCING Acr; ANGTA; ANOTS; BIG INCH PIPELINE; Dis. TRIBUTION LINE; FLOW LINE; GATHERING LINE; HEPBURN Acr; Ili tiK- VOLUME M; HINSHAW PIPELINE; INDEPENDENT PIPELINE; INTER- MEDIATE-VOLUME SYSTEM; LINE Loss; LINE PACK GAS; LIfl 1 F Bit; INcil PIPELINE; LooP; LOOPING; Loop LINES; LOW-VOLUME S cii M. MANDATORY CONTRACT CARRIAGE; MOTIIFR HUBBARD C MI. MI’.I MUM TENDER; NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY Act (NGPSA). NORTHERN TIER PIPELINE Co.; PARTIAL LOOPING; PIPELINE CON5ENI DECREE oi 1941; PRUDENT PIPELINE STANDARD; QUALITY BANK; SER. VICE LINE; TAPLINE; TAPS AGREEMENT; THROUGHPUT AND DEFt. CIENCY AGREEMENT; TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE AUTHORIZATION Act; TRANSIT PIPELINE TREATY; TRANSMISSION LINE; TRANSMISSION Svs. TEM; TRUNK LINE; TURNED INTO ThE LINE; UNCONNECTED WELL; UNDIVIDED INTEREST PIPELINE; YAMBURG-URENGOI PIPELINE. Pipeline consent decree of 1941 The agreement entered into by the Department of Justice. 20 ma- jor oil companies. and 59 pipeline companies stipulating that dim dends paid by the pipeline companies to their shipper-owners would not be unlawful rebates if they did not exceed 7 percent of the Inter- state Commerce Commission’s valuation of the pipelines’ properties Since the dividend limit was based on valuation rather than on eq- uity in the pipelines, debt capital has been resorted to for much of the cost of constructing pipelines, thus leading to a high rate ol re- turn on equity capital. See Report to the Congress by the Comptrol- ler General, Petroleum Pipeline Rates and Competition 14 (July 13, 1979). Debt financing of construction costs has been facilitated by THROUGHPUT AND DEFICiENCY AGREEMENTS (q.v.). The result has been debt-equity of 90:10 or higher. For a discussion of this decree see Adams and Brock. “Deregula- tion or Divestiture: The Casc of Petroleum Pipelines.” 19 Wake For- est L Rev. 705 at 729 (1983). Pipeline gas A term used to describe gas which has sufficient pressure to enter the high pressure lines of the purchaser for distnbutton to its cus- tomers without further compression and which is sufficiently dry so that the liquid hydrocarbons therefrom will not drop out in the transmission lines. Greenshields v. Warren Petroleum Corp. 248 F.2d 61, 8 O.&G.R. 937 (10th Cir. 1957). ce’t. denied. 355 U S. 907 (1957). I image: ------- ANNOTA TED 921 920 MANUAL OF OIL & GAS TERMS and for shutting in wells producing from a gas cap. called GAS CAP ALLOWABLE (q.v.). It was hdd in Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States. 339 F.2d 633, 21 0.1G. R. 695 (C i. Cl. 1964), that the transferor did not have an economic interest in the oil produced by the transferee of a salt- water shut-in allowable and hence the transferee and not the trans- (eror was entitled to the depletion allowance on the oil produced. See “Depletion on Transferred Allowables,” 14 0.1G. Tax Q. 133 (1965). Marlin Oil Corp. v. Corporation Comm’n, 562 P.2d 851. 58 0.&G.R. 225 (OkIa. 1977), sustained the power of the Commission to protect correlative rights by ordering the transfer to a new well drilled on a spacing unit the accumulated underages of a prior well on the unit which were due partly to the failure of the purchaser to take sufficient gas from the well but due largdy to the inability of the prior well to produce its lull allowable. See “Transferred Allowables and Substitute Royalties.” 5 0. .1G. Tax Q. 59 (1956). For discussion of subject with reference to Louisiana law, see Hussey. “Conservation Devdopments of the Year,” 4 LS U. Mm. L Inst. 148 at 161—165 (1956). See also, FLUID INJECTION WELL; OBSERVATION WELL; SUBSTITUTE ROYALTY; UNIT SURPLUS WELL Transfer rule The rule designed to prevent proliferation of the so-called indepen- dent producers exemption in Section 61 3A of the Internal Revenue Code. Under this exemption, independent producers continued to be entitled to percentage depletion on a limited quantity of oil. The transfer rule provides that (with limited exceptions) when an interest in oil and gas in, proved oil and gas property is transferred, the inde- pendent producers exemption will not apply to the transferee with respect to oil oij gas produced from that property. See Linden, “An Analysis of the ‘Transfer Rule’ of the Proposed Regs. on Oil and Gas Depletion.” 45 1 Taxation 112 (1976). See also. DEPLETION. PERCENTAGE Transition zone An area where the wells produce both free oil and free gas. Union Texas Pe” Ieum v. Corporation Comm’n, 651 P.2d 652 at 665 (OkIa. I ‘issenting opinion). Transit Pipeline Treaty The Agreement Between the Government of the United SIales ul America and the Government of Canada Concerning 1 ranch PipeS lines. 28 U.S.T. 7449. T.1.A.S. N o. 8720. See also. AGREEMENT ON PRINCIPLES PIPELINE. Transmission line A pipe line extending from a producing area to a refinerY or termi- nal. Syn.:TRuNI’ LINE See also. DIsrRIBUTION LINE; GATHERING LINE; PIPELINE. Transmission system the land. structures, mains, valves. meters. boosters, regula- tors. tanks, compressors. and thcir driving units and appurtenances. and other equipment used primarily for transmitting gas from a pro- duction plant. delivery point of purchased gas, gathering system. storage area. or other wholesale source of gas so one or more distri- bution areas. The transmission system begins at the outlet side of the valve at the connection to the last equipment in a manufactured gas plant. the connection to gathering Lines or delivery point of pur- chased gas. and includes the equipment at such conneCtIOn thai is used to bring the gas to transmission pressure. and ends at the outlet side of the equipment which meters or regulates the entry of gas into the distribution system or into a storage area. It does not include storage land or structures.” 18 C.F.R. Part 201. DefinitionS 26B (1980). Transportation costs The costs of transporting oil or gas to a market. The operator of a lease upon gaining production will seek to secure a pipe line connec- tion at the well or lease and to make delivery of the oil or gas at such pipeline connection to the purchaser of the oil or gas. Pnor to the extension of pipe lines to the lease by a purchaser. the operator of the well or lease may find it necessary to transport the product to a distant pipe line connection or to a railroad or refinery by truck or by his own pipe line. The lessor is entitled to a royalty free and clear of costs at the wellhead; if the product cannot be disposed of at the wellhead to a purchaser. then the lessor must normally share in the expenses of transporting the product to market. Molter v. Lewis. 156 Kan 544. 134 P.2d 404 (1943); TREATISE § 645— 5.3. / •casional Lease I image: ------- ANNOTA TED 925 924 MANUAL OF OIL & GAS TERMS Trespass See BAD FAITH TRESPASSER; GEOPHYSICAL TRESPASS; Gooo FAITH TRESPASSER; SuBsuRFACE TRESIASS Tribal lands Sec INDIAN LANDS Trip tank A small calibrated tank used to measure the volume of drilling fluid required to fill the hole while pulling pipe from a well. Aiberta Energy Resources Conservation Board. Inquiry Report 78—8, page 9 (June 9, 1978). Truman proclamation The Proclamation of September 1945 by President Truman claim- ing for the United States the natural resources of the subsoil and sea- bed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and control. United States Department of State Bulletin. No. 327 (Sept. 30, 1945), p. 485. See alsO. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF. Trunk line A pipe line for the transportation of oil or gas from producing ar- eas to refineries or terminals. Syn.:TRANsMISSiON LINE Trust See LANDOWPjERS’ ROYALTY POOL; ROYALTY TRUST. Tubing A string of pipe set into a well through which oil is produced. Syn.:OIL STRING Tubing a well Setting and sealing into the well a siring of pipe, called tubing. af- ter perforations have been made in the casing or the well has been drilled to the desired total depth. The oil or gas is produced through the tub ’ ‘ iich may have screens at the level of the producing stra- tum to ut sand and other foreign matter. Tubing pressure See StIll IN PRI c c l RI Tubular goods Well casing and tubing. drill pipe. standard pipe. line pipe. etc Turbodrilling A method of drilling wdls in which “the bit is turned not by rota- tion of the drill string, as in rotary drilling, but by a downhole tur- bine, driven by the fluid pumped down through the dnll stem. The turbodrill can thus be thought of as using a hydraulic transmiSsIon system that gets power to the bottom of the hole in contrast to the rotary drilling system’s dependence on mechanical transmisSiOn.” Campbell, The Economics of Soviet Oil and Gas 108 (1968). For a discussion of the development and use of this method of drilling see Id.at 108—120. See also. CABLE TOOL DRILLING; RoTARY DRILLING Turkish National Petroleum Co. (TPAO) For a discussion of this company see Shwadran. The Middle East. Oil and the Great Powers49l (3d ed revised and enlarged. 1973). Turned into the line A pipeline has begun to run oil from field tanks into which a well’s production first goes. so that the well’s production is being marketed. Ball, Ball, and Turner. This Fascinating Oil Business 109 (2d ed. 1965). Turning to the right A colloquialism for actual drilling of a well. Peterson. “Extensions and Suspensions of Federal Oil and Gas Leases,” Rocky Mt Mm. L. Fdn Inst. on The Overthriist Belt—Oil and Gas Legal and Land Is- sues 12-1 0112-7 (1980). Turnkey contract A contract in which an independent drilling contractor undertakes to furnish all materials and labor and to do all the work required to complete a well in a workmanlike manner, plac ’ ii production I image: ------- DISCLAIMER The compilation of documents in this Compendium, as well as the policies, procedures and interpretations outlined in the documents themselves, is intended solely for the guidance of employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This compilation may not include all documents discussing Agency views on particular subjects. In addition, these documents are not intended and cannot be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. The views expressed in these documents do not necessarily reflect the current position of the Agency, and EPA reserves the right to act at variance with these views or to change them at any time without public notice. U.S. Envlronrnent&i Pr’y;•’ t1cn At ncy R3g-ion 5, LIbrary (-. :. 230 S. Dearborn StLoet, it om 1670 Obicago, IL 60604 image: ------- UNITED “ATES BIVIR 4MEHTAL PRUTICTION EICY 9441.1989(29) June 15, 1989 Michael Lodick President North Coast Associates, Inc. 361 Delaware Avenue, Suite 405 Buffalo, New York 14202 Dear Mr. Lodick: This letter responds to your March 20, 1989 letter to Ms. Wendy Grieder in the Office of International Activities. In your letter, you requested confirmation from U.S. EPA that the export of a secondary material not deemed to be a waste is not subject to notice requirements under the U.S.—Canadian Bilateral Treaty. The secondary materials of concern in this case are spent abrasives from sandblaSting which may or may not exhibit the hazardous characteristic for lead (D008) as found at 40 CFR 261.24. You claim that these secondary materials are used, without prior reclamation, as a substitute for silica, aluminum and iron in the manufacture of Portland cement and that these materials contain only contaminants that are similar to and no greater than those found in the analogous raw materials. The regulatory status of these secondary materials depends upon several factors. If indeed these secondary materials are legitimate substitutes for an analogous raw material, the next consideration is how these materials are being recycled. In this case, the secondary materials most likely are being used in a manner constituting disposal (i.e., the Portland cement manufactured from these secondary materials will be, or is likely to be, placed on the land). As stated at 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2)(i), materials used in a manner constituting disposal are solid wastes (and thus, if hazardous, hazardous wastes). Therefore, if these secondary materials do, in fact, exhibit a hazardous characteristic, they must be managed as a hazardous waste, including manifest requirements. As a- dous waste requiring a manifest, such secondary materiali subject to the export notification requirements under th .-Canadian Bilateral Treaty, even though such materials may not be considered a waste in Canada. Were such materials to be recycled in the same manner in this country, the recycling facility (i.e., the cement manufacturer) would be image: ------- —2— required rs a RCRA storage permit. However, assuming the cement na. exhibited a characteristic, the cement would not be a haza waste. If the cement did exhibit a hazardous characteristic, it would be subject to 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart C. On the subject of the responses you received from Michigan and Pennsylvania, States are required to provide equivalent (i.e., at least as stringent) regulations as the Federal program to obtain authorization. Therefore, authorized State requirements must cover, at a minimum, all hazardous wastes covered by the Federal proqram. If the appropriate personnel in the State regulatory agencies wish to discuss the conclusions presented in this letter, I would be happy to accommodate them. Also, should you have any further questions regarding the Federal regulatory status of the spent abrasive material, you may contact me at (202) 382—4637. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Deputy Director characterization and V%1..1 1 image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460 JJ 9 9441. 1989( 30) Mr. Thomas C. 3orling Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation Stats of New York Albany, New York 12233—1010 Dear Mr. Jorling: I am writing in response to your letter of May 5, 1989, which you ask numerous questions concerning the regulatory status, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), of environmental media (ground water, soil, and sediment) contaminated with RCRA-listed hazardous waste. As you point out in your letter, it is correct that the Agency’s contained -in’ interpretation is that contaminated environmental media must be managed is j they were hazardous wastes until they no longer contain the listed waste, or are delisted. This l.ads to the critical question of when an environmental medium contaminated by listed hazardous waste ceases to be a listed hazardous waste. In your letter, you discuss three possible answers (based on previous EPA positions and documents) which you believe address this question, and request the Agency to clarify iti interpretation. Each of these is discussed below. The first possibl, answer you cite would be that the contaminated media would be a hazardous waste unless and until it is delisted, based on the ‘mixture and derived_fromu rules. As you correctly state in your letter, a waste that meets a listing description due to the application of either of these rules remains a listed hazardous waste until it is delisted. However, these two rules do not pertain to contaminated environmental media. Under our regulations, contaminated media are not considered solid wastes in the sense of being abandoned, recycled, or inherently waste-like as those terms are defined in the regulations. Therefore, contaainatsd environmental media cannot be considered a hazardous waste via the umixtureu rule (i.e., to have a hazardous waste mixture, a hazardous waste must be mixed with a u id waste per 40 CYR 261.3(a) (2) (iv)). Similarly, the derived-from rule does not apply to contaminated media. Our basis for stating that contaminated environmental media must be managed as hazardous wastes is that they contain” image: ------- —2— listed hazardous waste. These environmental media must be managed as hazardous waits because, and only as long a., they “contain” a listed hazardous waste, (i.e., until decontaminated). The second possibility you mention is that environmental media contaminated with a RCPA listed waste no longer have to be managed as a hazardous waste if the hazardous constituents are completely removed by trsatment. This is consistent with the Agency’s “contained-in interpretation and represents the Agency’s current policy. Th• third possibility you discuss comes from Sylvia Lowrarice’s January 24, 1989, memorandum that you cited in your letter. This memorandum indicates that OSW has not issued any definitive guidance as to when, or at what levels, environmental media contaminated with listed hazardous waste are no longer considered to contain that hazardous waste. It also states that until such definitive guidance is issued, the Regions may determine these levvls on a case—specific basis. Where this: determination involves an authorized Stats, such as New York, our policy is that the State may also make such a determination. Related to such a determination, you ask whether a risk assessment approach that addressed the public health and environmental impacts of hazardous constituents remaining in treatment residuals would be acceptable. This approach would be acceptable for contaminated media provided you assumed a direct exposure scenario, but would not be acc.ptable for ‘derived-from” wastes under our current rules. Additionally, consistent with the statute, you could substitute more stringent standards or criteria for contaminated environmental media than those recommended by the Federal EPA if you determined it to be appropriate. The Agency is currently involved in a rulemaking effort directed at setting de iiniaf.i levels for hazardous constituents below which eligible listed wastes, treatment residuals from those wastes, and environmental media contaminated with those listed wastes would no longer have to bs managed as hazardous wastes. The approach being contemplated in the % Kinimj,i program would be similar to that used in the proposed RCRA Clean Closure Guidance in terms of the exposure scenario (direct ingestion), the management scenario (net in S waste management unit), arid the levels (primarily health—based). Your final question related to whether tha ‘remove and decontaminate’ procedure set forth in the March 19, 1987 ZgLr.L1 Rui&tiz preamble to the conforming regulations on closing surface impoundments applies when making complete removal determinations for soil. The.. procedures do apply when one image: ------- —3— chooses to clean close a hazardous waste surface i peundm.nt by removing the waste. The pr.asble language states that the Agency interprets the t.r re eve and Udecontasinatsu to sean reseval of all waste., liners, and/or leachats (including ground water) that pose a substantial present or potential threat t3 husan health or the environment (52 13 8706). Further discussion of thesi requiresents is provided in a clarification notice published on March 28, 1988, (53 13 1144) and in OSWER Policy Directive * 9476.00-18 Ofl desoristriting •quivalenc. of Part 265 clean closure with Part 264 r.quiresertti (Copy enclosed). I hop . that this response will be helpful to you in establishing and isples.ntiriq Hew York’s hazardous waits policies on related issues. Should you have additional questions, please contact Bob D.llinger, chief of the Waste Characterization Branch at (202) 475 855l. Sincerely yours, /7 nathan Z. cting Assistant Ad3inistrator image: ------- UNITED .TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - 944 1. 1989(30a) JUN I 9 1989 Mr. Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation State of New York Albany, New York 12233—1010 Dear Mr. Jorling: I am writing in response to your letter of May 5, 1989, in which you ask numerous questions concerning the regulatory status, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), of environmental media (ground water, soil, and sediment) contaminated with RCP.A-listed hazardous waste. As you point out in your letter, it is correct that the Agency’s “contained—in” interpretation is that contaminated environmental media must be managed j j. they were hazardous wastes until they no longer contain the listed waste, or are delisted. This leads to the critical question of when an environmental medium contaminated by listed hazardous waste ceases to be a listed hazardous waste. In your letter, you discuss three possible answers (based on previous EPA positions and documents) which you believe address this question, and request the Agency to clarify its interpretation. Each of these is discussed below. The first possible answer you cite would be that the contaminated media would be a hazardous waste unless and until it is delisted, based on the “mixture” and “derived-from” rules. As you correctly state in your letter, a waste that meets a listing description due to the application of either of these rules remains a listed hazardous waste until it is delisted. However, these two rules do not pertain to contaminated environmental media. Under our regulations, contaminated media are not considered solid wastes in the sense of being abandoned, recycled, or inherently waste-like as those terms are defined in the regulations. Therefore, contaminated environmental media cannot be considered a hazardous waste via the “mixture” rule (i.e., to have a hazardous waste mixture, a hazadous waste must be mixed with a solid waste per 40 CFR 261.3(a) (2) (iv)). Similarly, the “deriv i—fr ii1 Iv i me 3a. Our basis 1 . I — Li(7/ rfltAtIfl . *s\c P j c(i - . (.#c1 t_______L_ _ raM. FILE tpa p — U20.4 (12.70) 2.. -. 1• image: ------- —‘— listed hazardous waste. These environmental media must be managed as hazardous waste because, and only as long as, they “contain” a listed hazardous waste, (i.e., until decontaminated). The second possibility you mention is that environmental media contaminated with a RCRA listed waste no longer have to be managed as a hazardous waste if the hazardous constituents are completely removed by treatment. This is consistent with the Agency’s “contained—in” interpretation and represents the Agency’s current policy. The third possibility you discuss comes from Sylvia Lowrance’s January 24, 1989, memorandUm that you cited in your letter. This memorandum indicates that OSW has not issued any fthjtiVegui ance as to when, or at what levels, environmental media contaminated with listed hazardous waste are no longer considered to contain that hazardous waste. it also statesthat üntil such definitive guidance is issued, the Regions may determine these levels on a case-specific basis. Where this determination involves an authorized State, such as New York, our policy is that the State may also make such a determination. Related to such a determination, you ask whether a risk assessment approach that addressed the public health and environmental impacts of hazardous constituents remaining in treatment residuals would be acceptable. This approach would be acceptable for contaminated media, but would not be acceptable for “derived-from” wastes under our current rules. Additionally, consistent with the statute, you could substitute more stringent standards or criteria for contaminated environmental media than those recommended by the Federal EPA if you determined it to be appropriate. The Agency is currently involved in a rulemaking effort directed at setting de minimis levels for hazardous constituents below which eligible listed wastes, treatment residuals from those wastes, and environmental media contaminated with those listed wastes would no longer have to be managed as hazardous wastes. Tba approach being contemplated in the De Minimis program would be similar to that used in the proposed RCRA Clean Closure Guidance in terms of the exposure scenario (direct ingestion), the management scenario (not in a waste management unit), and the levels (primarily health-based). Your final question related to whether the “remove and decontaminate” procedure set forth in the March 19, 1987 Register preamble to the conforming regulations on closing surface impoundments applies when making complete removal determinations for soil. These procedures do apply when one image: ------- —3— C 52S to clean close a hazardous waste surface irnpc d ent v : ovingthe waste. The preamble language states that the Agen:y interprets the term “remove” and “decontaminates’ to mean removal of all wastes, liners, and/or leachate (including ground water) that pose a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the environment (52 8706). Further discussion of these requirements is provided in a clarification notice published on March 28, 1988, (53 LB 1144) and in OSWER Policy Directive # 9476.00-18 on demonstrating equivalence of Part 265 clean closure with Part 264 requirements (copy enclosed). I hope that this response will be helpful to you in establishing and implementing New York’s hazardous waste policies on related issues. Should you have additional questions, please contact Bob Dellinger, Chief of the Waste Characterization Branch at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Jonathan Z. Cannon Acting Assistant Administrator OS-305/DELLINGER/D. BARTOSH - 38 2—4646/SLD/6 —2-89/CO ROL NO: AX891796/DtJE DATE: 6-5-89/CONTROL #26(WORDPERpEcT)/NA : JORLI NG image: ------- UNITED ‘ T!5 EIlVIR0N E$TAL PROTEC-flos ? 44:. : e It%J 3 ./ . . Dr. William H. McBeath Executive Director American Public Health Association 1015 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Dr. McBeath: Thank you for your letter of Jun. 7, 1989, in which you requested information regarding the disposal of dental amalgam. More specifically, you request.d that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) send you information on: 1. “a recent EPA ruling concerning dental amalgam”; 2. hov EPA determined that amalgam is a hazardous substance; 3. the extent of improper recycling of amalgam; and 4. any plans EPA may be making to develop rules for the disposal of amalgam and to educate dentists about “the environmental technology that is applicabl, and effective in the recycling and disposal of dental amalgam.” First, we believ, that your referenc, to a recent EPA ruling concerning dental malgam may be explained by the enclosed letter of May 17, 1989, from Robert V. Dellinger of EPA to Phyllis A. Shay. As a wondary material that is being disposed of, amalgam is defined as a solid vast, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA defines as hazardous any solid vast. that has been listed as a hazardous waste or that meets any of th. four hazardous characteristics: ignitability, corz’osivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity. Dental amalgam is not specifically listed as a hazardous vaste under image: ------- Federal regulations. Therefore, the generator of waste dental amalgam is responsib].e for determining whether it exhibits any of the four hazardous characteristics. Since dental amalgam contains m.rcury and silver, it may exhibit EP toxicity. Please bear in mind that many State and local regulatory agencies have their own hazardous waste regulations, which may di.ffer from Federal regulations. We strongly encourage generators of waste to contact their State regulatory agencies to determine what, if any, State regulations are applicable. we have neither received information on nor examined the extent of improper recycling of dental amalgam that may be occurring. At this time, we do not plan to develop specific rules for the disposal of dental amalgam. We believe that the past enclosed guidance on the hazardous waste regulatory requirements provides sufficient information to enable small quantity generators to comply with the requirements. Thank you for your interest in hazardous waste management. If you have further questions about the identification of waste, you may call the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, Edwin Abrams, of my staff, at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Jonathan Z. Cannon Acting Assistant Administrator Enclosures OS-3O5/DELLINGER/J.O G}, ( - NO: AX892155/DTJE DATE: 6-23—89/DISK #29/NAI : MCBEATH FOLLOW-tip RESPONSE image: ------- 9441.1989(32) , )rF” ) C 204u0 ii ,.Jsji. . fl chael $5. Giannotto Shea & Gardner 1200 flassachusetts venue, Uorthwest washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Giannotto: This is in response to Magma Copper Company’s r’et ’ on cL December 16, 1988, requesting a clarification of ‘ 4 hazardous waste listing, acid plant b1owdo .in s1urry,’ 1ud’ o resulting from the thickening of blowdown slurry from primary copper production. You contend that the 1 (064 listing does not apply to Magma’s waste which is generated during primary smelting operations. In your petition you •state that Magma’s acid pla! t blowdown (APB) is a wastestreazn that results from the processing of off—gases from the flash furnaces and converters used to smelt copper. The APB is piped to a totally enclosed tank called a “tailings agitator” where it is mixed and neutralized with large volumes of alkaline tailings from Magma’s beneficiation process. The tailings/blowdown mixture is then piped to on-site tailings ponds. You state that there is no stage or operation at Magma where acid plant blowdown is thickened. Also, you state that the blowdown is never sent to dedicated lagoons for settling and no portion of Magma’s blowdown becomes a slurry/sludge which is recycled back to the smelter for processing. You further state that the APB does not undergo any process that concentrates potentially hazardous constituents in a sludge or slurry. Finally, although this fact does not effect whether the waste in question meets the listing description, you provided information on the concentration of hazardous constituents in the APB and APB/tailings mixture which indicate that these wastes do not fail the EP toxicity test. Based on the information provided in your petition as described above, and assuring its accuracy the Agency does not believe that Magma’s APB or APB/tailings mixture meets the 1(064 listing description. Therefore, the Agency does not formally need to rule on your petition. It is our understanding that image: ------- : : : • .: . p -.: ic’n cr re:ie 8E—..85 ) :he SLat.es Co -. o ppeais for i e D:s r:c of C1rc i2. . : hope this letter has address your co! cerns. Sincerely, Jonathan Z. Cannon Acting Assistant Administrator CC: Eldon D. Helmer, Magma Copper Company .kndrew A. Brodkey, Magma Copper Company 2 image: ------- 9441.1989(34) - . .:. ,rd):L:u., -. ... .L _ ML _ L . C 2O 6O JUL 61989 - Mr. Kenneth . Rubin Morgan, Lewis, and Bocklius 1800 N Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Rubin: This is in response to your letter dated M3y 22. 1989, regarding Tn-State Mint, Inc. and whether the spenL cyanide solution they disposed of onto C 7\venue in an industrial park area of Sioux Falls, South Dakota is EP7 , Hazardous Waste No. P007 (Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating operations). In making this determination, it is first necessary to determine whether the process used by Tn-State Mint in generating this waste is an electroplating operation. n a previous memorandum to the Denver Regional Office, it was indicated that the process used by Tn-State Mint was an electroplating process. How ever, upon further evaluation, we believe that the process is not an electroplating operation within the scope of the F007 listing, but a metals recovery operation. While the operation appears similar and the residues contain similar constituents, it is materially quite different. In particular, electroplating includes those operations where the metal is plated or coated with a thin surface onto a base material by electrode decomposition to provide protection against corrosion, to increase wear or erosion resistance, or for decorative purposes. The solutions that are used generally contain low concentrations of the metal ions. t Tn-State Mint, the operation is not designed to coat or plate a base material er , but to recover silver ions selectively from other impurities in the cyanide bath. These solutions are usually more concentrated with metal ions than those used in an electroplating process. In your letter, you compare the process used at Tn-State Mint to electrowinning which is a metal refining process defined as the recovery of rather pure forms of metal from a solution by means of electrolysis. To the extent that Tn-State in fact uses a process for recovering silver, we agree that the operation used by Tn-State Mint that generated the waste in question is not electroplating within the scope of the F007 listing. s a result, the waste that was disposed of by Tn-State Mint would not be EPA Hazardous Waste No. F007. image: ------- r m k nc h r1. t rni na 101’ , I chou ld he no cr1 ‘1 • ste in ques .ion may Stiti be zarrious f it ex bits az ’. ot tbie hazardous aste character1st cs; lf this ls the case, t.he s osal of the cyanide solution onto C A ienue ou d have to comply with the interim status or permit requirements of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). It should also be noted that the determination made today is solely an interpretation of an existing listing reculation; EPA is not providing Tn-State with an exemption from any liability under RCRA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability ACt (CERCLA), or the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. Finally, you should also be aware that States may impose regulations that are more stringent than the Federal regulations. Thus, the State of South Dakota may consider Tn-State Mint Inc’s cyanide solution to be listed hazardous waste. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call Mr. Matthew A. Straus at (202) 382—4637. Sincerely, _? I’, / • ,, -c’ ‘- - Jeffery ‘flenit,, Deputy ‘Director Off ±ce of Solid Waste I ‘ 2 image: ------- 9441.1989(39 jl 1Io sP .P, JL 3 I I9E UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 Joe Haake Hazardous Waste Coordinator Dept. 441C, Mail Code 0801800 McDonnell Douglas P.O. Box 516 Saint Louis, Missouri 63166—0516 Dear Mr. Haake: O ’CE O SOLID WAS7E ANO EMERGENCY AESPONSE This responds to your May 9, 1989 request for a regulatory interpretation regarding the “recycling” of unused off-specification jet fuels into new jet fuel. You state in your letter that the waste fuel is not a spent material because it has never been used, resulting instead from the overf low during fueling and from fuel drained from tanks/lines following testin 9 . However, because of the stringent military fuel specifications, it cannot be used as jet fuel without reclamation or reprocessing. Although you currently manage the off-spec fuel as a hazardous waste (DOOl), you intend to sell the fuel to a refining company as a feedstock to produce jet fuel. You therefore believe that as an ingredient in an industrial process, the off-spec fuel would not be a solid waste. However, as I understand from your letter, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) believes that as a material used to produce a fuel, the off-spec fuel would remain a solid waste. EPA Headquarters does not agree with either interpretation. In particular, we believe that the “recycling” activity described in your letter is not “use as an ingredient in an industrial process.” Although the off—spec fuel may go through a manufacturing process, the activity is best characterized as reclamation (i.e., the jet fuel that does not meet the purity specifications is reprocessed into jet fuel meeting the required purity specifications). Also, MDNR’s regulatory interpretation, as stated in your letter, differs from the Federal interpretation. While MDNR states that bcause the material is being used to produce a fuel (i.e., burning for energy recovery) it remains a solid waste, the Agency considers the material’ s original intended purpose when commerjca l chemical products ar. involved. Under the existing regulations, commercial chemical products (or off-spec commercial chemical products) that are reclaimed are not solid waste even if the material is used to produce a fuel if that is the materials intended purpose. Thus, this off—spec j.t fuel, if used to produce jet fuel, is not a solid waste (i.e., an off-spec fuel is being reclaimed to be used as a fuel — — its intended purpose). Although th• regulatory language found at image: ------- —2— 40 CFR 26 1.2(c)(2)(jj), which states that in such cases a commercial chemical product is not a solid waste if it itself is a fuel, only addresses commercial. chemical products listed in section 261.33, it is implicit in the rules that the same reasoning applies to commercial chemical. products that are not listed. A clarifying discussion of this is found in the April 11, 1986 Federal Register notice (50 FR at 14219), the technical correction notice to the January 4, 1985 Definition of Solid Waste final rule (50 FR 614). The Agency’s interpretation is that you are reclaiming an off-specification commercial chemical product (which would otherwise be a hazardous waste because it exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste) for its intended purpose and, therefore, is not a solid waste. Although the reclaimed commercial chemical product is burned for energy recovery, it is not a solid waste because this was its intended purpose. The State of Missouri is authorized to implement the hazardous waste program under RCRA and may promulgate State regulations or make regulatory interpretations that are more stringent than Federal regulations or interpretations. You must also comply with MDNR’s regulations. Should you have further questions of a more general nature, you may contact the RCRA Hotljne at 1—800—424—9346, or Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475—8551. For questions of a more site—specific nature, you should contact the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the EPA Region V I I office. Sincerely, Devereaux Barnes Director characterization and Assessment Division • cc: Kenneth J. Davis Missouri Department of Natural Resources Lynn Barrington, Chief Permits Branch Rsgion VII image: ------- 9441.1969(40) J.lto UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 4LIG 21989 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE James T. Allen, Ph.D. Chief Alternative Technology Section Toxic Substances Control Division Department of Health Services 714/744 P Street P.O. Box 942732 Sacramento, California 94234-7320 Dear Mr. Allen: This letter responds to 1 our February 6, 1989, correspondence requesting written confirmation of the regulatory status of chlorofluorocarbons (CPCs) used as refrigerants under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As a spent material being reclaimed for reuse, the spent CFCs meet the definition of solid waste under Federal regulations (see 40 CFR 261.2). However, to meet the definition of hazardous waste and, thus, be subject to Subtitle C of RCRA, the spent CFCs must either be specifically listed as a hazardous waste, or must exhibit one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste. Certain CFCs that are used for their solvent properties are listed as hazardous wastes when spent (see EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FOOl and P002 at 40 CPR 261.31). Also, certain CFC5 that are unused commercial chemical products are listed hazardous wastes when discarded (see 40 CFR 261.33). However, CFCs used as refrigerants, do not meet any of the hazardous waste listings. Thus, a used CFC refrigerant is a hazardous waste only if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste. On July 28, 1989, published a Federal Register notice (54 FR 31335) that clarified the applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulations to CFC refrigerants (see enclosure). This notice also announced th. availability of data relating to whether CFC refrigerants exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous waste. In determining whether the CFC refrigerant to be recycled is a hazardous waste becaus. it exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste, a generator may cit. the Federal Register notice to demonstrat, that such materials do not exhibit a hazardous characteristic under normal operating conditions. image: ------- —2— Should you have any further questions regarding the applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulation to the recycling of CFC refrigerants, you may contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475—8551. Enclosure Sincerely, Michael 7. Petruska Acting Chief Waste Characterization Branch image: ------- UNITE TATES EMVIRCNMEMTAL PROTECTIO GENCY 9441.1989(42) .4tJG 4 1989 Donald G. Everist, P.E. Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C. 1015 15th Street, N.W. Suite 703 Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. Everist: Thank you for your letter of June 5, 1989, requesting a finding on whether depleted mixtures of ethylene glycol and water from heat exchangers are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If these mixtures are intended for disposal, they are regulated as “solid waste” by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RcRA). Per authority provided by RCRA, EPA has developed a Federal regulatory scheme for the proper treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste, a subset of solid waste. We have enclosed a copy of the Federal hazardous waste regulations as found in the Code of Federal Reaulatians (CFR). The waste coolant you hav, described is not listed as a hazardous waste under EPA’S hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR 261.30). However, as a generator of a solid waste, you are still obligated to determine either from knowledg, of the waste coolant or by appropriat, testing of the waste (40 CFR 261.20) whether your waste exhibits sufficient properties of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity to render them characteristically hazardous and thus subject to control under the Feder bazardous waste regulations. If J vuats coolant fails to exhibit one or more of the hazardoutacteristjcs, then your waste is deemed to be a nonhazard . solid waste. There are no Federal regulations for northazardous waste generators. You should, however, inquire about State and local regulation.e that may apply to your waste coolant. -_ flee.- image: ------- We appreciate your efforts to dispose of these wastes responsibly. If you have any further questions about Federal regulations applicable to the coolant mixture, please contact Robert Dellinger of my staff at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Jonathan Z. Cannon Acting Assistant Administrator Enclosure OS-3O5/DELLINGER/J.OCAL G - 382 — 4 646/SLD/7-1O-89/CONTROL NO:SWER-89—0810/DUE DATE: 7-10—89/DISK #27/NAME: EVERIST image: ------- UMTED ST&TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 94411939(43) AUG I 7 I98 Joseph E. Micucci, D.D.S. Bellevue Medical Building 660 Lincoln Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15202 Dear Dr. Micucci: This letter responds to your July 30, 1989, request for information regarding the regulatory status of scrap dental amalgam under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and potential liability under section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). These issues will be addressed separately. Dental amalgam is not specifically listed as a hazardous waste under RCRA. The burden on the generator is to then determine whether the amalgam exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste. You indicated in your letter that the American Dental Association (ADA) has conducted research that indicates that amalgam does not exhibit the characteristic of EP toxicity. If true, the amalgam would not be a hazardous waste. However, the responsibility for determining the regulatory status of a waste is borne by the individual generator (who may cite the ADA research as applying knowledge of his waste in determining the regulatory status). You also state that your collections of amalgam for recycling or refining are not expected to exceed 100 kg per month. A generator (in this case, the dentist or dental supply house) of less than 100 kg per month of total hazardous waste (not any one particular hazardous waste) or 1 kg per month of acute hazardous waste is considered a conditionally exempt small quantity generator. The wastes generated by such a generator is exempt from regulation provided the generator complies with the provisions found at 40 CFR 261.5. If, however, the amalgam is not a hazardous waste, this exempt status would not apply since there would be no need for the exemption. Rega your potential liability under section 107 of CERCL , - liability is not dependent upon a material’s RCRA regulatory status. Rather, section 107 states that in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person shall be liable for the costs of response. This liability is based upon a person’s image: ------- UNITED S?I 1 TES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY —2— contributi .to the release or threatened release of hazardous substanc necessarily “wastes” although hazardous wastes are certa. -&ncluded) as defined under section 101(14) of the CERCLA st . Should your dental amalgam be composed of any constituen that meet the definition of CERCLA hazardous substances, and there is a release from the reclamation facility (or disposal facility) that received your amalgam, you may be subject to joint and several liability in an enforcement action. However, each enforcement action is case-specific and liability would be determined by the implementing agency in coordination with the principle responsible parties. The regulatory status of amalgam provided in this letter applies to Federal regulations. State regulations may be more stringent, and I encourage you to contact your State regulatory agency for an interpretation of the applicable State regulations. Should you have any further questions regarding the status or CERCLA liability of your scrap amalgam, you may contact the RCRA/CERCLA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or may contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Michael J. Petruska Acting Chief Waste Characterization Branch ,,,,uI,II,I 1IIIIIIIIII III 1111111 liii,,,,, IllillIll IIIIiI t uI OS-3 32—MITCH-PDISK-MK—8/16/89-WCBO23 image: ------- UNITED STATES ENVIV)NMENTAL PROTECT!(iH AGENCY 9441.1989(47) AUG 25jg Mr. Jack H. Go1d1T an Manager, Environmecal .- rvices The Aluminum Assoeiati’ n, Inc. 900 19th Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Goldman: This is in response to your letter of August 4, 1989 concerning your request that the Agency: (1) adopt your November 9, 1988 proposed exclusion for spent potliner in place of the Agency’s definition in the March 3, 1989 letter to Kaiser Aluminum; and (2) adopt the characteristic test per your November 1988 petition for those portions of spent potliner that are not excluded from Subtitle C regulation by your proposal. In your letter you state that you partially agree with the Agency’s March 3, 1989 letter to Kaiser in which EPA determined that only the carbon portion of the material contained inside the electrolytic reduction cell constituted the “potliner” and that the K088 listing did not include the six other materials identified by Kaiser Aluminum as contained in the “pot” (i.e., the ce1l’s stee]. shell, steel collector bars, cast iron used to place steel collector bars in pre—baked carbon blocks, thermal insulation composed of insulating brick or alumina, the silicon carbide brick side walls and end walls of the pot, and frozen aluminum metal pad and electrolytic bath). However, you indicated that by excluding the insulation from the scope of the potliner listing, this material would “thereby not be regulated as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA”. It appears that you have misinterpreted the March 3, 1989 letter to Kaiser Aluminum. The purpose of the March 3, 1989 letter was to clarify the scope of the K088 listing only and provided no interpretation regarding the regulatory status of these other materials under Subtitle C. In fact, these wastes would be considered hazardous if they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes as defined in 40 CFR 261. Specifically, the Agency’s clarification of the K088 listing would not .. -. 4 , c . — .- ,+. 4 , ,, ii 4 ,,, 4 - - — — ---..- ---- r fr r.y c!4w . IYMOOk characte istic fo reac I’ ••••• JRNAM b( ‘€? i ...a. .. .a.. .._. •aa . . . DATE__)1 si g 13 9 COMCtE U1* — S ‘ p lie hibj th iv .. . tv.C(i -D P S• p .s..s.S.su, ................ SSSS SSSSSSSUI •.........•..• — ...........— ......••• • . . OFFICIAL FII.E COP IPA P.s. 13204 (12.70) / image: ------- Your request for adoption of the Association’s proposed exclusion under §261.4 and a characteristic test for materials not covered by the exclusion was made in your comments to the September 13, 1988 final rule tO list six smelting wastes as hazardous. This request will be addressed in the near future in a Federal Register notice in which we will respond to all of the issues raised in petitions submitted on the smelting waste listing rule. To address these issues, however, the Agency must propose to grant or deny the petitions and take public comment on our proposed response before a final action can be taken. I hope this letter has clarified our earlier determination on the scope of K088 and the status of materials not covered by the listing. Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to call Denise Wright at 245—3519. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste 2 image: ------- 9441.1989(48 , U I ’ED ST ’ES E JVIRONME’JT L PROTECT!ON AGENCY WASHINGTON, 0 C 20460 sc .. :. 3’ : ‘ \ MEMORANDUM SE ’ 12 i - SUBJECT: Laclede Steel Company, Alton, Il1i j (ILD 006 280 606) FROM: C ,Matthew Straus, Deputy Director Characterization and Assessment Division TO: David A. Ulirich, Associate Director Office of RCRA Waste Management Division This memorandum is in response to your memorandum dated ‘July 25, 1989 in which you request our review and determination of the regulatory status of waste produced by Laclede Steel Company, which manufactures specialty carbon and alloy steel from scrap iron. Based on the information provided, the characterizations of the particulates generated in the furnaces during the melt down process, which are collected in a baghouse, as electric arc furnace dust (Hazardous Waste No. K061) and the spent pickle liquor as Hazardous Waste No. K062 are correct. There appears to be little question in this regard. The issues in ques t ion and on which this memorandum focuses relate to the exclusions claimed by Laclede Steel Company with respect to their K062 waste. Lac]ede Steel has claimed three separate exclusions from the definition of solid waste for its K062 waste. The Agency believes each of these claims to an exclusion are unfounded, at least under Federal regulations. Each of the exclusions is discussed below. The first exclusion claimed is the “Closed-loop recycling” exclusion found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(8). This exclusion, promulgated in the July 14, 1986 Federal Reaiste notice (51 FR 25422) • states that a material is not a solid waste if it is recycled and returned to the original process from which it was generated provided that: 1) only tank storage is involved; 2) the entire process is closed by being entirely connected by pipes; 3) the reclamation does not involve Combustion; 4) there is no speculative accumulation of the material; 5) the image: ------- reclaimed material is not used to produce a fuel; and 6) the reclaimed material is not Used to produce a product that will. be placed Ofl the land. Laclede is not eligible for this exemption. The reason is that the K062 is trucked (not piped) to the recycling site. While the Closed-loop exclusion does allow for the use of “other comparable enclosed means of conveyance,” the Agency would not deem trucks to be comparable. The preamble discussion found at 51 FR 25443 clearly states EPA’S intent that the closed nature of the process is a decisive factor and further defines that “closed” refers to “hard connections from point of generation to point of return to the original process.” Trucks do not meet this definition. In addition, if the recycled materials are used to produce a product (such as fertilizer) that is applied to the land (i.e , used in a manner constituting disposal per Section 2 6l.4(a)(8)(jv)) the solid waste exemption would not apply. There may also be some question as to whether the storage unit Laclede uses meets the definition of a tank or a surface impoundment. There was not enough information provided to make that determination; the Region or State must define the storage unit. The second exclusion that Laclede is claiming is found at section 72 l.104(a)(7) of the State regulation (which is assumed to be equivalent to 40 CFR 261.2(e)(jj), involving use/reuse of a material as a substitute for a commercial product). While this exclusion may apply to the iron sulfate by-product from the reclamation activity, it would definitely not apply to the K062 waste. This exclusion applies to materials which are used or reused without reclamation (see the January 4, 1985 Feder j Register notice, 50 FR 637, 638). The K062 is clearly being reclaimed and, therefore, is flOt eligible for this exclusion. Again, the exemption would not apply if use COnstituting disposal is involved (see Section 261.2(e)(2)(j)). The third exclusion Laclede claims is under section 72 l.l02(e)(])(B) of the State regulation (which is assumed to be equivalent to 40 CFR 261.4(a)(7), involving the exemption of spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid from the definition of solid waste). Apparently, Laclede is confusing reclamation of a spent material with the production of virgin material. The K062 is definitely being reclaimed (i.e., contaminants are being removed to make t reusable). The preamble diSCu i found at 50 FR 642 (January 4, 1985) clearly describes the process of using spent sulfuric acid as an ingredient in the production of virgin Sulfuric acid. Nothing in the reclamation process indicates that virgin sulfuric acid is being produced with 1 (062 used as an ingredient. Therefore, this exclusion is also not applicable to Laclede. 2 image: ------- The regulatory determination of concern associated wLth the Laclede facility is that K062 is a hazardous waste being reclaimed. The residues of the reclamation process (which itself is not regulated) are also hazardous waste K062 (although the sulfuric acid that is recovered is an effective substitute for a commercial chemical product) and must meet the treatment Standards (and notification requirements) under the land disposal restrictions program (40 CFR Part 268) prior to placement on the land (i.e., before a fertilizer produced from the iron sulfate can be applied to the land). Also, the iron sulfate (after reclamation) may be demonstrated to be an effective substitute for a commercial chemical product for uses other than those constituting disposal and, if so, would cease to be a K062-derived hazardous waste. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mitch Kidwell at FTS 475-8551. 3 image: ------- — 9441.1989(49) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY / WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 L I U 1 SEP 28 89 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Waste Identification for a Bottling Facility FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director Characterization and Assessment Division TO: Conrad Simon, Director Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch (2AWM-HWC) This memorandum is in response to your memorandum dated September ii, 1989, in which YOU requested waste identification, clarification on two issues concerning Fisher Scientific, Inc. The first issue revolves around the containerizing of commercial chemical products. The facility takes product. in bulk form and containerjzes it in smaller vessels via a process line. During the process, some residual material from commercial chemical product number one (e.g., toluene) remains in the process line after purging with pressurized nitrogert gas. When the next bulk order is processed, which involves a chemically different product (e.g., trichioroethylene) commercial chemical product number one contaminates the first few vessels of commercial chemical product number two. This impure product is emptied into a common holding tank (i.e., becomes waste). You ask for the regulatory status of this waste. This waste is an off—specification commercial chemical product and as such is a listed hazardous waste. In the above example, commercial Chemical product number two clearly is not used for its solvent properties and, because it is mixed with commercial chemical product number one, the resulting mixture would . correctly designated as an off-specification commercj cheIzjca1 product. The second issue concerns characteristic waste (nitric acid). The characterization of solid waste as hazardous is dictated by the regulations under RCRA and appropriate State regulations. The Department of Transportation regulations do not overlap in this particular instance; thus it is correct to state that 49 CFR Section 172.101 has no correlation to. and does not supersede, 40 CFR Section 261.21. If the waste meets the description under Section 261.21, then the waste is classified as Hazardous Waste No. DOOl; if the waste meets the image: ------- description Under Section 261.22, then it is classified as Hazardous Waste No. D002. If you have any additional questions on these issues, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Cochran of my staff at FTS 382—4769. 2 image: ------- urnTr SmT ERWRWER111 PkbT t 1 ’ AGtkCY 9441 • 1989 (50) Oct 2OL Mr. Kevin Anthony Environmental Assistant MagneTek Ohio Transformer 1776 Constitution Avenue Louisville, OH 44641 Dear Mr. Anthony: Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1989, in which you requested information concerning the handling of “F” series solid wastes. More specifically, you requested that we send you information on handlers and alternate disposal or reclamation processes for rags and similar materials, which have absorbed various volatiles and “F” wastes through wipe down and cleaning processes. In gener l, the EPA Regional Offices are responsible for this type of inquiry. However, because you have indicated that Region 5 referred you to my office, my staff has coordinated with them to prepare the following response for you. Rags and similar materials may be incinerated and the residue landfil led. Laundering these rags is an alternative to incineration, for those rags which can be laundered. Dan Patulski of Region 5 did not have any additional information on handlers and alternate disposal or reclamation processes for rags and similar materials. If you have any further questions, you can contact Mr. Patulsici at (312) 886—0656. He has your letter and will be given a copy of this reply. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director Office of Solid Waste image: ------- UN!TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C ‘ 4i ImIIO t/ 9441.1989(51) o r 51989 OFFICE 01 SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Travis P. Wagner Labat-Anderson Incorporated 2200 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22201 Dear Mr. Wagner: I am writing in response to your letter requesting written clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (R RA) definition of a liquid as it applies to ignitable and corrosive wastes. There are three RCRA definitions which include the term “liquid”. The definitions vary depending on the specific regulatory application. For hazardous waste identification by means of the three relevant characteristics (Ignitability, Corrosivity or Extraction Procedure Toxicity), the general term liquid applies. “Liquid” is defined as the material (liquid phase) that is expressed from the waste in Step 2 of Method 1310 (the Extraction Procedure). As Mr. Friedman indicated, only those wastes that contain a liquid component are subject to testing against the flash point criteria of Section 261.21. Therefore, if a waste does not yield a liquid phase when subjected to Method 1310, it cannot be an ignitable waste under the criteria of Section 261.21(a) (1). Similarly, Section 261.22(a) (2) states that a liquid waste is a corrosive waste if it exhibits a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5. If a waste does not yield a liquid when subjected to Method 1310, it is not evaluated against this criteria and is not a corrosive waste. A second definition of liquids which is applied to determine whether a drummed waste is prohibited from land disposal because it contains “free liquid”, is found in Method 9095 (the Paint Filter Test). If any material drips from the filter during the test, the waste is deemed to contain “free liquid” and is banned from land disposal. image: ------- Many people have used the Paint Filter Test to evaluate wastes for ignitability or corrosivity. This is done to save time and effort. Since liquids that separate out of the waste using Method 9095 are generally also liquids using Method 1310 wastes that contain ignitable or corrosive liquids using Method 9095 can generally be considered to be ignitable or corrosive wastes. - The third definition of liquids was developed when the 1984 amendments to RCRA prohibited the use of adsorbents to solidify liquid wastes if the adsorbents would release the contained liquids under landfill pressures. Prohibited adsorbents are those that contain “releasable liquids”. While the Agency has not yet promulgated a specific test procedure for defining when a waste contains “releasable liquid”, a draft procedure has been developed and proposed - Method 9096 (the Liquid Release Test). I trust that this explanation clarifies the RCRA definitions. Please contact us if you need further assistance. Office of Solid Waste image: ------- 9441.1989(52) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY O 6 1 d? Mr. Daniel Threlfall Chemviron, Inc. P.O. Box 15598 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15224 Dear Mr. Threlfall: This letter is in response to your letter of September 19, 1989 Concerning the wastewater treatment sludges generated at Witco’s Petrolia, Pennsylvania facility. As I understand the situation, these sludges are considered hazardous by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), because the sludges may Contain small amounts of methanol. i also understand that you are currently awaiting a decision from PADER on a petition requesting the exclusion of these sludges from consideration as hazardous waste. As part of their decision-making process, PADER has requested that EPA document its regulatory Classification of these sludge wastes. Our classjfcation of these wastes, which assumes that the information provided in your letter is correct, is discussed below. EPA’s listed hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources are presented in 40 CFR Part 261.31 and 261.32, respectively. The wastewater treatment sludges generated at Witco’s facility are not described in either of those lists. Furthermore, the analyses YOU Conducted on samples of the waste indicate that the waste is not hazardous with respect to the hazardous waste Characteristics listed in 40 CFR Part 261.20. Thus, EPA does not Consider the wastewater treatment sludges you describe to be listed hazardous wastes or characteristjcaiiy hazardous wastes. Please note, however, that a Change. in the kind or concentration of hazardous Constituents present in the sludge could effect the determination as to whether the sludge would fail one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste. As you are probably aware, however, the State of Pennsylv j has been authorized by EPA to conduct its own azardous waste program. Any state authorized by EPA must rnduct a program which is at least equivajen to the Federal ‘rograin; states may, however, choose to operate a hazardous waste program which is more stringent or broader_in_scope than the Federal program. With respect to the sludges discussed herein, it appears to be the case that State regu1atjo classify these sludges as hazardous waste. image: ------- RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMA” OCTOBER 1989 9441.1989(53) 6. aariflcafion of P019 Usting and Applicability to Other Wastewater Treatment Sludges A manufacturing process involves the chemical conversion coating of aluminum. Wastewaters from this process are treated and a sludge results that meets the F019 listing in 40 CFR Section 261.31. Treatment of the wastewaters generates a less dense liquid supernatant overlying the listed sludge. Will this supernatant carry the P019 waste code as well? The resulting supernatant will not be considered F019 because it is the wastewater from which the sludge was formed, and because the wastewater is not itself listed. The P019 listing applies to the sludge produced from treating wastewaters from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum. The hazardous constituents present in the influerit wastewater settle out and concentrate in the sludge. Therefore, it is this sludge which the Agency regulates as listed hazardous waste P019. The treatment of any wastewaters may preserve an aqueous supernatant from the wastewater The supernatant will be considered a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of ba ardous waste set forth in 40 C}1 Part 261 Subpart C, or if some relevant act of mixing of the wastewater with the listed sludge occurs. A discussion of P006 sludge and supernatant in the August 17, 1988, Federal Register (53 31153) has direct applicability to this situation. The discussion states that “filtrate from P006 sludges could be hazardous under the derived-from rule” as could be the case with filtrate from P019 sludges, and any other listed wastewater treatment sludges. There may be cases during wastewater treatment in which hazardous constituents that have settled out of wastewaters into a listed sludge become recombined and resuspended in the supernatant, resulting in a derived-from hazardous waste. This uncommon situation will generally occur due to improper design or malfunction of a wastewater treatment system. In these cases, the burden of proof will be on the Agency to prove that hazardous constituents in the sludge have become commingled with the supernatant. The preamble goes on to say that if the filtrate is similar in identity and constituent concentration to the influent wastewater to the wastewater treatment process, it is not considered to be a derived-from hazardous waste. Rather, it will be viewed as the original influent wastewater. These situations will be addressed by the Agency on a case-by-case basis. Source: Bob Scarberry (202) 382-4770 Denise Wright (202) 245-3519 Research: Jenny Peters image: ------- RC /SUP F D HOTLINE SUMNARy OCTOBER 1989 9441.1989(54) 2. Manufacturing Process Unit An owner/operator of a military facility manufacturing explosives is in the process of cleaning out his manufacturing units (tanks). They are cleaned by rinsing and then by flashing or torching the inside of the unit. Is this tank required to be permitted under RCR.A as a beatment tank, i.e., is this activity dassified as open burning/open detonation? This tank is &csifled as a manufacturing process unit and therefore is not subject to RCR.A regulation. Because it is not a hazardous waste storage tank, it will not be regulated under the Subpart J standards of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. The waste inside a manufacturing process unit is not regulated until It exits the unit or until it remains in the unit (which has ceased operation) longer than 90 days, per 40 CFK Section 261.4(c). In this case, once the waste is removed by rinsing, it should be handled according to RCRA Subtitle C regulations, if it is hazardous waste. The subsequent activity of cleaning out the manufacturing process unit by torching is not regulated under RCRA, if it takes place promptly. Once the unit ceases operation, the removal of residues must occur before 90 days are up; otherwise, removal could be regulated. Also, regardless of timing, if the operator removes any residues from the tank after burning, the residues may be subject to regulation if they are hazardous per RCRA Subtitle C. Source: Ed Abrants (202) 382-4787 Research: Mary Stevens image: ------- RCRA/SUPERFtJND HOTLINE SUMMARY OCTOBER 1989 9441.1989(55) 7. Clarification of Spent Solvent Listing A foam manufacturer uses 100% CFC - 11 (trichiorofluoromethane) in the production of flexible foam. The trichiorofluoromethane acts as a blowing agent by physically opening the foam cell. It is then released into the ambient environment and is captured by a vapor recovery system. Once collected, the spent trichiorofluoromethane is sent off-site for recycling. Should this material be managed as P002? The spent trichlorofluoromethane is a solid waste because it is a spent material being reclaimed. In order for the spent trichiorofluoro- methane to be considered F002, the trichiorofluoromethane must have been used as a solvent. The December 31, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 53316) clarifies that “only solvents that are used for their ‘solvent’ properties — that is, to solublize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents” would be covered by the FOOl - F005 spent solvent listings. Specific examples include “solvents used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants and reaction and synthesis media.” In the case of foam production, the trichioro- fluoromethane is not being used to solublize or mobilize, rather, it is simply opening the form cell by a physical mechanism. Therefore, the spent trichiorofluoromethane would not meet the F002 listing. Since the use of trichlorofluoromethane in this manner does not meet a hazardous waste listing, this spent material would be a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA only if it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic under 40 CI 1 26121 - 261.24. Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475-6715 Research: Mary Beth Clary image: ------- RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY 94411989(56) NOVEMBER 1989 I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—NOVEMBER 1989 A. RCRA 1. Treatability Studies Sample Exemption The treatability studies sample exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(e) and (f) conditionally exempts generators of waste samples and owners or operators of laboratories or testing facilities conducting certain defined treatability studies from Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements. Is it within the scope of 40 CFR 261.4(e) and (f) for the testing facility to return the samples to the geneTators of the samples after the treatability study is completed? Yes; 40 CFR 261.4 (0(10) states, as one of the conditions of the test facility exemption, as follows: “The facility determines whether any unused sample or residues generated by the treatability study are ha2ardous waste under Section 261.3 and, if so, are subject to Parts 261 through 268, and Part 270 of this Chapter, unless the residues and unused samples are returned to the sample originator under the Section 261.4(e) exemption.” 40 CFR 261.4(e) is analogous to the sample exclusion in 261.4(d) in that its intent is to exclude samples from all Tegulations under Subtitle C as long as all provisions in the exclusion are complied with. This is restated in the preamble to Sections 261.4(e) and (f), July 19, 1988 Federal Register (53 27292, 27295), which states that, upon completion of the treatability study, the owner or operator of the laboratory can return the unused samples and residue to the generator or le collector w!’ .taining .exclujed from Subt C hazardous waste regulations. Source: Michael Petruska, OSW (202) 475-8551 Research: Renee T. LaValle image: -------