OSW#: EPA 530-R-93-007
NTIS#: PB 93-169 365
PETITIONS TO DELIST HAZARDOUS WASTES
A GUIDANCE MANUAL
SECOND EDITION
March 1993
Prepared for:
Delisting Section
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.c. 20460
Prepared by:
Science Applications International Corporation
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22043
-------
FOREWORD
In April 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency published
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) technical
guidance document "Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes - A
Guidance Manual" in order to assist facilities in preparing
delisting petitions for the exclusion of listed hazardous wastes.
The manual provides general guidance on hazardous waste
delisting, discusses sampling strategies and testing protocols in
detail, and presents a step-by-step approach to compiling a
complete delisting petition.
The Agency has since developed this second edition update to
the 1985 Guidance Manual that incorporates recent changes in
relevant RCRA regulations, Agency policies, and delisting
criteria. The updated manual also reflects the current emphasis
on ground-water monitoring data and new concepts such as upfront
delistings.
The Agency believes that delisting remains a viable means of
excluding a specific waste from RCRA Subtitle C control, if the
generator or facility can show that the waste is not hazardous.
The purpose of this manual is to assist petitioners in
understanding the current delisting process, and to help them in
submitting a complete petition. Currently, the Agency is
reexamining both exit and entry to the hazardous waste management
system. Over the next several years, the exit from and entry to
this system may change. Petitioners are encouraged to keep
current on this potential regulatory activity.
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
NOTICE
This document was developed to provide guidance to
interested individuals in submitting a credible and complete
petition to exclude (delist) a waste from the lists of hazardous
wastes in 40 CFR Part 261. While specific regulatory
requirements are cited in the document, the guidance provided
herein should not be regarded as a mandatory requirement.
Interested individuals should exercise their discretion in using
this document.
The document presents information regarding hazardous waste
regulations and Agency policies that existed at the time of its
development. We therefore urge all potential petitioners to
check the current version of the Code of Federal Regulations and
recent exclusion notices in the Federal Register for changes.
Petitioners should be aware that steps in the delisting petition
review process may have been modified as a result of amended
regulations and changes in Agency policy.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Purpose of Guidance Manual 1-1
1.2 How to Use This Guidance Manual 1-1
1.3 Availability of Additional Guidance 1-2
1.4 Guidance Manual Organization 1-2
2.0 DELISTING PROGRAM OVERVIEW 2-1
2.1 Regulatory Basis and Intent of Delisting 2-1
2.2 Regulatory Impact of a Delisting Decision 2-3
2.3 Elements of the Agency's Delisting
Evaluation Process 2-6
2.4 Petition Information 2-13
3.0 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION 3-1
4.0 WASTE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT HISTORY INFORMATION 4-1
4.1 Basis for Waste Listing 4-1
4.2 History of Waste Generation 4-2
4.3 Waste Volume 4-3
4.4 Waste Management History 4-3
5.0 PROCESS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 5-1
5.1 General Information 5-1
5.2 Special Information 5-5
6.0 ANALYTICAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT 6-1
6.1 Identifying Constituents of Concern and
Hazardous Waste Characteristics (Step l) 6-2
6.2 Identifying Constituents of Concern for Special
Waste Categories (Step 2) 6-5
6.3 Conducting an Engineering Analysis to Complete
Your List of Constituents of Concern (Step 3) 6-7
6.4 Identifying Analytes (Step 4) 6-8
6.5 Demonstrating Without Laboratory Analyses that
Certain Constituents Are Not Present in Your
Waste at Hazardous Levels (Steps 5 and 6) 6-8
6.6 Selecting Appropriate Waste Analytical Methods
(Step 7) 6-10
6.7 Identifying Quality Control (QC) Protocols
(Step 8) 6-12
6.8 Summary of Appropriate Analytical Plan
Information 6-14
-------
Pace
7.0 SAMPLING PLAN DEVELOPMENT* 7-1
7.1 Defining Sampling Objectives 7-2
7.2 Selection of an Appropriate Sampling Strategy 7-2
7.3 Sampling Plan Considerations 7-5
7.4 Examples of Sampling Strategies for Delisting
Demonstrations 7-8
7.5 Recommended Elements of a Written Sampling
Plan 7-14
8.0 WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS INFORMATION 8-1
8.1 Waste Sampling Information 8-1
8.2 Waste Analysis Information 8-4
9.0 GROUND-WATER MONITORING INFORMATION 9-1
9.1 Who Should Submit Ground-water Monitoring
Information with a Delisting Petition? 9-2
9.2 Where Can a Petitioner Obtain Ground-water
Monitoring Information? 9-3
9.3 What Information Is Requested? 9-4
9.4 Special Case Information - Unsaturated
(Vadose) Zone Monitoring Data 9-5
9.5 What Happens if Submitted Ground-water
Monitoring Information is Incomplete or
Inadequate? 9-6
9.6 How Does the EPA Evaluate Ground-water
Monitoring Data? 9-6
APPENDICES
A. OUTLINE FOR DELISTING PETITIONS
B. RELEVANT HAZARDOUS WASTE DELISTING RULES ^
C. LIST OF STATE AND EPA REGIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE OFFICES AND
TELEPHONE NUMBERS
D. NOTICE OF DELISTING STRATEGIES AND PROCEDURES
E. CHECKLIST OF REQUESTED PETITION INFORMATION
F. USE OF RANDOM NUMBER TABLE
G. AMENDMENT TO SUBPART C - RULEMAKING PETITIONS; USE OF
GROUND-WATER DATA IN DELISTING DECISIONS
H. HOW DELISTING LEVELS MAY BE CALCULATED
I. EVALUATION FORM
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
2-1 PETITION REVIEW PROCESS 2-7
6-1 STEPS TO IDENTIFY CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND
DEVELOP AN ANALYTICAL PLAN 6-3
6-2 ANALYSES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND HAZARDOUS
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 6-4
6-3 CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN FOR WASTES FROM PETROLEUM
PROCESSES 6-6
7-1 SCHEMATIC OF SAMPLING GRID FOR A SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT 7-12
-------
\
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Guidance Manual
This publication provides guidance to individuals who nay be
interested in submitting a petition to exclude or "delist" a
listed hazardous waste produced at a particular facility from the
lists of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D. The
Environmental Protection Agency recognizes that a specific listed
waste produced at a particular facility may not meet the criteria
for which the waste was originally listed. This situation could
occur, for example, when a facility uses raw materials different
from those that were assumed to be used by facilities generating
the listed waste. Therefore, 40 CFR §§260.20 and 260.22 contain
procedures whereby any individual can petition the Agency for a
regulatory amendment to exclude a listed waste produced at a
particular facility. In general, the effect of an exclusion is
to allow the management of the excluded waste as a non-hazardous
solid waste.
1.2 How to Use This Guidance Manual
This guidance manual contains information that will help you
decide whether to submit a delisting petition and, if you choose
to submit a petition, will help you prepare the document.
Section 2.0 provides information regarding the regulatory basis
and intent of delisting, which wastes may be eligible for a
delisting, and the elements of the delisting process. Subsequent
sections provide guidance in meeting the specific information
needs for delisting petitions. We recommend that you read the
entire manual and become fully familiar with the petition review
•process and information needs before proceeding with petition
preparation.
Some of the delisting petition information needs,
particularly those involving sampling and analysis, are complex
and require the use of qualified personnel. Some petitioners may
need assistance from outside organizations, such as consultants
or commercial analytical laboratories. If you use outside help,
you should confirm that these organizations are also familiar
with the information discussed in this guidance manual.
Within this guidance manual, we often recommend other
EPA-published documents for more detailed information or
guidance. The review of additional documents particularly
applies to identifying appropriate analytical methods for waste
testing. Waste testing information can be found in the EPA
publication "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste:
Physical/Chemical Methods," SW-846. If you choose to use a
commercial laboratory experienced in analyzing waste matrices,
1-1
-------
the laboratory must be familiar with SW-846 protocols (including
all updates). You may order SW-846 and other EPA publications
from the Government Printing Office by calling (202) 783-3238.
Appendix A to this manual contains an "Outline for Delisting
Petitions" which you may use while preparing a petition. The
format of the Outline follows the order of information needs
addressed within the main body of the guidance manual. For the
most part, this Outline addresses all of the petition information
needs, although exceptions may occur due to special information
requirements.
1.3 Availability of Additional Guidance
While we have tried to address the guidance needs of
petitioners in a clear and concise manner, you may still need
additional or more specific guidance or have questions regarding
a particular information requirement. Should this happen, we
encourage you to contact us directly for further guidance before
proceeding with petition preparation and submittal. To obtain
further guidance, you may write to the Chief of the Delisting
Section, Office of Solid Waste (OS-333), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
For general information regarding the hazardous waste
regulations, you may contact the RCRA Hotline, toll-free at (800)
424-9346 or at (703) 920-9810.
1.4 Guidance Manual Organization
The remaining sections and content of this manual are
summarized below.
Section 2.0 - DELISTING PROGRAM OVERVIEW
This section discusses the regulatory basis and intent
of delisting, the impact of a delisting decision, and
the elements of the delisting process.
Section 3.0 - ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
This section presents guidance in providing
administrative information (e.g.. name and address of
• the petitioner and names of contacts).
Section 4.0 - WASTE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT HISTORY
INFORMATION
This section presents guidance in describing the
petitioned waste and past, present, and future waste
management practices.
1-2
-------
Section 5.0 - PROCESS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
This section presents guidance in describing facility
operations, processes and materials contributing to the
petitioned waste, and current waste management
operations.
Section 6.0 - ANALYTICAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT
This section provides guidance in identifying the
constituents of concern for the petitioned waste and
developing a plan for waste testing.
Section 7.0 - SAMPLING PLAN DEVELOPMENT
This section provides guidance in developing a plan for
collecting representative samples of the petitioned
waste.
Section 8.0 - WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS INFORMATION
This sectipn provides guidance in supplying appropriate
waste sampling and analysis information.
Section 9.0 - GROUND-WATER MONITORING INFORMATION
This section provides guidance in identifying
ground-water monitoring information requirements and
determining when such information should be submitted
with a delisting petition.
Appendix A - OUTLINE FOR DELISTING PETITIONS
This appendix contains an outline that may be used
while preparing a petition.
Appendix B - RELEVANT HAZARDOUS WASTE DELISTING RULES
This appendix contains copies of hazardous waste rules
found in 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) that are
most relevant to the delisting process.
Appendix C - LIST OF STATE AND EPA REGIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
OFFICES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS
This appendix contains addresses and phone numbers for
State and EPA Regional offices that can provide needed
information on State delisting programs and hazardous
waste regulations.
1-3
-------
Appendix D --NOTICE OF DELISTING STRATEGIES AND PROCEDURES
This appendix contains a copy of a Federal Register
notice (53 IE 6822, March 3, 1988), that clarifies
certain delisting policies, including the policy of
petition dismissal.
Appendix E - CHECKLIST OF REQUESTED PETITION INFORMATION
This appendix contains a checklist that summarizes the
information requested for most delisting petitions.
Appendix F - USE OF RANDOM NUMBER TABLE
This appendix contains guidance in using a random
number table to select waste sampling points.
Appendix G - AMENDMENT TO SUBPART C - RULEMAKING PETITIONS;
USE OF GROUND-WATER DATA IN DELISTING DECISIONS
This appendix contains a copy of a Federal Register
notice (54 £R 41930. October 12, 1989) to amend the
regulations and clarify Agency authority to consider
ground-water monitoring data in the evaluation of
delisting petitions.
Appendix H - HOW DELISTING LEVELS MAY BE CALCULATED
This appendix provides a description of some of the
modeling tools that have been used by EPA, and how
delisting levels may be calculated.
Appendix I - EVALUATION FORM
This Appendix contains an evaluation form for users of
this manual to complete so that EPA may improve future
guidance documents.
1-4
-------
2.0 DELISTING PROGRAM OVERVIEW
We believe that each delisting petitioner should understand
the regulatory basis and intent of the delisting process. Each
petitioner should also understand our delisting program and the
steps followed during the petition review and decision-making
process. This understanding will facilitate the delisting
process for both the petitioner and the Agency.
Thus, this section presents an overview of the delisting
program. We begin by discussing the regulatory framework - the
basis and intent of the regulations establishing the delisting
process and the regulatory impact of a waste exclusion.
[Appendix B contains copies of relevant Agency regulations.] We
then provide instructions on how to submit a delisting petition
and a description of how petitions are processed - from petition
receipt to final rulemaking.
2.1 Regulatory Basis and Intent of Delistina
Under the regulations implementing Subtitle C of RCRA,
wastes are designated as hazardous in two ways: (1) solid wastes
that exhibit certain characteristics (those listed in 40 CFR Part
261, Subpart C) and (2) solid wastes that are specifically listed
as hazardous (those listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D). As
set forth in Subpart C, wastes that are characteristically
hazardous remain so until they no longer exhibit the
characteristic. It is the responsibility of the generator to
determine whether a solid waste exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic.
The Agency determined that a number of wastes should be
broadly listed in Subpart D as hazardous for various reasons.
Reasons for listing wastes as hazardous include: (1) the wastes
may contain significant levels of toxic and/or carcinogenic
constituents, (2) the wastes exhibit one or more of the hazardous
waste characteristics., and/or (3) the wastes may cause specific
detrimental effects on the environment. Using these criteria,
Subpart D identifies wastes as hazardous according to the
following categories:
• Wastes generated from non-specific sources (40 CFR
§261.31). The respective EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers for
such wastes are preceded by an "F" (e.g.. F019 -
Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum).
• Wastes generated from specific sources (40 CFR §261.32).
The respective EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers for such
wastes are preceded by a "K" (e.g.. K061 - Emission
2-1
-------
control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel
in electric furnaces).
• Discarded commercial chemical products, off-
specification species, container residues, and spill
residues thereof (40 CFR §261.33). The respective EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers for such wastes are preceded by a
"P" (e.g.. P056 - Fluorine) or a "U" fe.a.. U019 -
Benzene).
The three-digit number following the "F", "K", "P", or "U" code
has no special significance, other than that it identifies a
particular listed waste within the respective hazardous waste
category.
There are two other ways in which a solid waste can be
designated as a listed hazardous waste: (1) any mixture of
listed hazardous waste and solid waste is also a listed hazardous
waste (40 CFR §261.3(a)(2)(iv), the "mixture rule"); and (2) any
solid waste generated from the storage, treatment, or disposal of
a listed hazardous waste is itself a listed hazardous waste (40
CFR §261.3(c)(2)(i), the "derived-from rule"). These wastes are
also eligible for exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until
excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia vacated the "mixture/derived from" rules and
remanded them to the Agency on procedural grounds (Shell Oil Co.
v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). On March 3, 1992, EPA
reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited
comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues
(57 FR 7628) . The Agency may address issues related to waste
mixtures and residues in a future rulemaking.
We recognize that a listed waste generated at a particular
facility may not be hazardous. Individual wastes may vary
depending on raw materials, industrial processes, and other
factors. Therefore, 40 CFR §§260.20 and 260.22 contain a
procedure whereby anyone can petition EPA to exclude or "delist"
such a listed waste.
Originally, the overall intent of the delisting process was
to ease the regulatory burden on handlers of listed waste
improperly captured by the broad listing definitions. Delisting
has since evolved to also include listed wastes that are
sufficiently treated such that they no longer pose a health
threat.
To be eligible for an exclusion, a listed waste must not;
• Meet the criteria for which it was listed.
• Exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
2-2
-------
In addition, a listed waste must not exhibit any other factors
(including additional constituents) that could cause the waste to
be a hazardous waste, unless we determine that such factors do
not warrant characterizing the waste as hazardous.
A listed waste may also exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic. For example, a wastewater treatment sludge from
electroplating operations that is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste
Number F006 may exhibit the characteristic of toxicity for lead.
Because it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic, this waste
(and any characteristic hazardous waste) is not eligible for
delisting (40 CFR §260.22(d)(3)).
2.2 Regulatory Impact of a Delistinq Decision
The submittal of a delisting petition does not automatically
relieve you from any of the hazardous waste management
requirements. Until a delisting decision becomes effective
(i.e.. on the effective date of the Final Exclusion Rule), your
petitioned waste is still considered a listed hazardous waste and
subject to regulation under 40 CFR Parts 260 through 268 and the
permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270. If we deny your
petition, your waste remains hazardous. If we grant your
petition, you will receive one of the three types of exclusions
— a standard exclusion, a conditional exclusion, or an upfront
exclusion.
Standard Exclusions - We grant standard exclusions when a
petition adequately demonstrates that the candidate waste meets
the delisting criteria. A waste that receives a standard
exclusion is no longer subject to regulation as a listed
hazardous waste. Depending on the waste characteristics, the
exclusion may require no (or very limited) further testing of the
waste. Standard exclusions generally fall into one of two
categories, depending on the type of petitioned waste. These
categories are:
Standard exclusions for "source wastes" - A "source
waste" is a waste that is currently generate'd (typically,
as a discharge from a specific point in a process) and
will be generated in the future. These exclusions
typically apply only to wastes generated after the
effective date of the exclusion.
"One-time" standard exclusions - "One-time" exclusions
are granted for discrete volumes of wastes, typically
generated in the past, such as the waste contained in a
surface impoundment.
For example, an electroplating facility that treats process
wastewaters in an on-site wastewater treatment system submits a
petition to delist a wastewater treatment sludge, which is listed
2-3
-------
as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. The petitioner claims that the
manufacturing and treatment processes operate continuously and
the raw materials do not change and are not expected to change in
the future. If our evaluation of the petition shows that the
waste meets the delisting criteria, the petitioner would likely
receive a standard waste exclusion.
Conditional Exclusions - We grant conditional exclusions when the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for delisting, yet we believe
the waste may exhibit future variability that may be of concern.
Under a conditional exclusion, we establish post-exclusion
testing requirements that the petitioner must meet prior to waste
disposal.
For example, a pharmaceutical manufacturer produces many
products from different processes at its facility. All process
wastewaters, some of which are listed wastes, are combined and
incinerated on site. The manufacturer submits a petition to
delist the bottom ash generated by the incinerator. The petition
indicates that the composition of the influent to the incinerator
is variable although the petitioner believes the petition data
sufficiently characterize this variability. Because of the many
different contributing processes, however, we are concerned that
the waste composition may exhibit future variability that was not
sufficiently characterized. Therefore, if our evaluation shows
that the waste meets the delisting criteria, the petitioner would
likely receive a conditional waste exclusion, which includes
testing and data verification on batches of the bottom ash prior
to disposal. Only those batches that meet the conditions
provided in the final exclusion could be managed as non-hazardous
waste; the remainder must either be re-treated or managed as
hazardous.
Upfront Exclusions - We grant upfront exclusions for wastes
and/or waste residues that have not yet been generated, but will
be generated in the future, based on available information (e.g..
pilot-scale system data) that demonstrates that the petitioned
waste will most likely meet the delisting criteria. For example,
if you are considering installing a new waste treatment system,
you may submit a petition for an upfront exclusion of the waste
that will be generated. Our decision on your upfront petition
will be based on an evaluation of the characteristics of your
untreated waste, process descriptions, and data from a bench- or
pilot-scale waste treatment process. If you meet the criteria
for a delisting, your upfront exclusion would require testing
from the full-scale treatment system to verify that, once on-
line, the full-scale system is operating as described in your
petition.
For example, a monofill received an F006 waste and generates
a hazardous leachate. The operator would like to construct and
operate a leachate treatment system to render the leachate
2-4
-------
non-hazardous. However, he does not want to initiate
construction of the full-scale treatment system until he is
confident that the treated leachate can be delisted. Therefore,
he performs pilot-scale studies on the treatment system and
submits a petition for an upfront delisting. If we decide to
grant an exclusion, the treated leachate would receive an upfront
delisting with verification testing requirements, which must be
met when the full-scale system becomes operational. The full-
scale verification testing requirements may involve more than one
round of waste characterization (e.g.. testing every batch before
disposal) to address any concerns regarding waste variability.
Should the full-scale process become operational and
generate the petitioned waste during the review of your petition,
you must also submit the full-scale process information and waste
analysis data.
What an Exclusion Will Do
Once delisted, your petitioned waste is no longer
considered a listed hazardous waste and, thus, you may
manage it as a non-hazardous solid waste (under Subtitle
D).
Please note:
You remain obligated to determine whether your waste
remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste
characteristics.
• You must treat, store, or dispose your excluded waste in
an cm-site facility; or ensure that the waste is
delivered to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal
facility; either of which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial
solid waste.
Alternatively, you may deliver the waste to a facility
that beneficially uses or reuses, legitimately recycles
or reclaims the waste, or treats your waste prior to such
beneficial use, reuse, recycling or reclamation.
We urge you to contact your State regulatory authority to
determine the status of your excluded waste under State
law.
2-5
-------
A reminder:
Your exclusion only applies to the waste covered by your
original demonstration.
• A process change to any aspect of your manufacturing or
treatment processes generating the petitioned waste may
change the composition of your waste and thus your waste
may not be covered by the exclusion.
When processes are altered such that a significant change
in waste composition or waste volume occurs, the new
waste must be managed as hazardous until a new exclusion
is granted, and you must file a new petition for the
altered waste.
2.3 Elements of the Agency's Delistina Evaluation Process
Exhibit 2-1 provides an overview of the steps in the
delisting process - from petition submittal to publication of a
final decision in the Federal Register. Each of these steps are
described in the paragraphs to follow under these subheadings:
Submitting the Petition, Petition Completeness Review by the
Agency, Petition Technical Review, and Promulgation of Decisions.
You should realize that, because delisting is a rulemaking
process, a final decision on your petition typically takes about
two years. Our evaluations and decisions are subject to review
within the Agency and, once published as a proposed rule, public
comments are requested prior to finalization of a decision. You
may contact us if you have questions or need more information
about the review process. Additionally, you may submit a
sampling and analysis plan to us for review before committing
resources to actual sampling and analysis and formal petition
preparation.
Submitting the Petition
As stated in 40 CFR §260.22(a), anyone seeking to exclude
(delist) a waste generated at a particular facility from the
lists in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 may submit a petition to
the Administrator. Only a waste identified as a listed waste in
Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 can be considered for delisting.
You must submit a separate petition for each distinct waste
generator. In particular, separate petitions must be submitted
for wastes generated at different facility locations, even if the
contributing processes and raw materials are similar. This
requirement is necessary because an amendment to 40 CFR Part
261for an exclusion only applies to a waste produced at a
particular facility.
You also should consider whether your petition should be
2-6
-------
Exhibit 2-1
PETITION REVIEW PROCESS
Notify Rftoion of
Petition Receipt
Petition Receipt/
Reviewer Assigned
letter Acknowledging
Petition Receipt Sent
Petition Completeness
Review
Seriously
Deficient?
Petition Dismissed
Denial/Withdrawal
Option Offered
reliminary Technical
sessment: Con Petition
Be Denied?
Six Month
Time Limit
To Respond
dditiono
Information
squired?
Petition
Withdrawn?
(.•Her Sent Requesting
Additional Information
Recommendation Mode to Grant or
Deny Petition and Preparation of
Proposed Decision for Federal Register
Internal Agency
Review
Preparation of final
Notice and Associated
Documentation
Federal Register
Notice Publication
Public Comment
Evaluation
2-7
-------
submitted to the State in which the petitioned waste is
generated/managed, to the Federal government (i.e.. the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency), or to both the State and
Federal authorities. Some States are authorized to make
delisting decisions without any review by the Federal government.
Alternatively, a petitioner may need to obtain a State delisting
in addition to the Federal delisting in order to legally manage
the waste as a non-hazardous waste. In all cases, however, if
the waste is transported to another state, a delisting granted by
an authorized State does not exempt the waste from regulation as
hazardous. Therefore, we recommend that you contact either your
State's hazardous waste office or your U.S. EPA Regional Office
to determine whether your petition should be submitted to your
State or the Federal government. Appendix C contains a list of
addresses and telephone numbers for all State and EPA Regional
hazardous waste offices.
You may assert a business confidentiality claim covering
information submitted as part of your petition. Confidentiality
claims may be asserted at any time, but should be applied only to
the specific portions of your submittal which need to remain
confidential. If you choose to assert a confidential business
information (CBI) claim for certain petition information, you
should specify this intent in the letter transmitting your
petition. In the letter, you should clearly identify which
information should be treated as CBI and specify the pages of
your petition containing that information. The CBI claim should
be identified in red on each page containing CBI. Disclosure and
treatment of information declared as CBI will be in strict
accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2,
Subpart B (42 FR 36902-36924, September 1, 1976, as amended by 43
FR 39997, September 8, 1978, and 44 £E 17673, March 23, 1979).
All pages marked as containing CBI information are logged in with
our CBI Document Control Officer, who is responsible for the
security of the information.
If you are submitting your petition to the Federal
government, an original of the petition should be forwarded by
certified mail to the following:
Office of the Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W., Suite W1200 (A-100)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Two copies of the petition should also be submitted to:
Chief of the Delisting Section
Office of Solid Waste (OS-333)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
2-8
-------
You must include a certification statement signed by an
authorized representative with your petition and with each
petition addendum, including the submission of any additional
information we request. [This certification statement can be
found in 40 CFR §260.22(i)(12).] If, at any time during the
delisting petition process, any petition information becomes
inaccurate, you must notify us of the new information (e.g..
changes in names of contacts, facility ownership, waste
management practices, waste generation rates, raw materials, the
process operating cycle).
Upon Agency receipt, each delisting petition is assigned a
four-digit petition log number (e.g.. Petition No. 0765) for
administrative and tracking purposes. These tracking numbers are
chronologically assigned in the order of petition receipt. Our
intent is to review petitions in chronological order of receipt.
For example, a petition received in May of 1990 will typically
have higher priority in the review process than a petition
submitted in January of 1991.
You will be notified by a letter acknowledging receipt of
your petition. This letter will also identify the petition log
number and the individual assigned to review your petition. You
may contact this person regarding petition status. All future
correspondence from you following receipt of the acknowledgement
letter should reference the petition log number.
The appropriate EPA Regional Office will be notified that we
have received a delisting petition from a facility located in
their region. The Region will be periodically updated on
petition review efforts.
Petition Completeness Review by the Agency
During the review of a delisting petition:
• The Agency first confirms whether the petitioned waste is
listed as hazardous in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D and,
therefore, eligible for an exclusion.
If the waste is a listed waste, then we conduct a
completeness review to determine whether the petition is
seriously deficient. (As stated in the March 3, 1988
Federal Register notice 53 FR 6822 (see Appendix D of
this manual), a seriously deficient delisting petition
generally lacks necessary information that requires more
than six months to collect and submit.)
If our review indicates that your petition is seriously
deficient, we will notify you by letter of EPA's intent
to dismiss your petition and provide an opportunity for
you to respond.
2-9
-------
If your petition is not seriously deficient:
• We will determine whether any additional information is
necessary to conduct a complete technical review.
In cases where available information supports petition
denial, information needed to complete the petition will
not be requested.
• If additional information is needed to complete our
evaluation, we will send you a letter outlining the
requested information. You will have up to six months to
submit all of the requested information; we may establish
a shorter time period if we believe that the information
can be obtained and submitted in less than six months.
If we do not receive a complete response to our
additional information request within the designated time
period, we will dismiss your petition.
We urge you to submit the requested information as soon as
it is available. We recommend this because early submittal will
(1) allow us to identify any remaining deficiencies related to
the additional information submittal, and (2) provide you with
the opportunity to address the remaining deficiencies. The
additional information request letter will also offer you the
option to withdraw your petition and resubmit a complete petition
at a later date. When your petition is complete, we will perform
a technical evaluation of all submitted information.
If your petition is found to be seriously deficient,
or if you have not provided a complete response to our
request for further information within the designated time
period, you will be notified by letter that we intend to
dismiss your petition. A dismissal will remove your
petition from the review process and close your petition
file. In the event of petition dismissal, you may submit a
new petition after you collect all the necessary
information. Resubmitted petitions receive a new petition
log number and will be reviewed in chronological order.
2-10
-------
Petition Technical Review
In order for your waste to be excluded, as stated in
40 CFR §260.22, your petition must demonstrate that the
waste:
Does not meet the criteria for which it was listed.
Does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics (i.e.. ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, and toxicity).
Does not exhibit any additional factors, including
additional constituents, which may cause the waste to
be a hazardous waste (unless we determine that such
factors do not warrant characterizing the waste as
hazardous).
We evaluate delisting petitions on a waste-specific basis.
Because a delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste
control and we are unable to control how a waste will be managed
after the waste is delisted, we believe that it generally is
inappropriate to consider extensive factors pertaining to how a
delisted waste will be managed or disposed.
In our technical evaluation, we often use appropriate fate
and transport models that rely on waste-specific information
(e.g.. waste volume, constituent concentration data) to predict
the potential environmental impact of the petitioned waste. In
selecting appropriate models, we choose a reasonable worst-case
management scenario and consider plausible exposure routes for
the hazardous constituents found to be present in the petitioned
waste. Appendix H provides a description of a modeling approach
that has been recently used by EPA, and describes how delisting
levels may be estimated.
In some cases, we also consider ground-water monitoring data
during.the technical evaluation. In cases where the petitioned
waste is managed in a land-based waste management unit, we assess
relevant information to determine whether the petitioned waste
has adversely impacted the underlying ground water.
Once we have completed the technical evaluation, we will
decide whether to grant or deny your petition. If we believe the
waste is hazardous and thus decide to deny your petition, we will
first send you a letter notifying you of our intent. In this
denial letter, we will offer you the option to withdraw the
petition to avoid publication of a negative finding in the
Federal Register.
2-11
-------
If a petition recommended for denial is not withdrawn or if
we believe that a petitioned waste is non-hazardous and should be
granted an exclusion, a draft Federal Register notice is
prepared. The review process then moves on to promulgation of
the delisting decision.
Promulgation of Decisions
In accordance with 40 CFR §260.20(c), Agency-proposed
decisions on delisting petitions are published in the Federal
Register. Upon completion of the technical evaluation (as long
as a petition is not withdrawn before then), we draft a Federal
Register notice that presents information about the petitioned
waste, our evaluation of the petitioned waste, and our proposed
decision to grant or deny the petition. Once drafted, the
delisting Federal Register notice is reviewed by a Work Group
consisting of representatives from the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) and other Agency offices. After evaluating Work Group
comments and revising the notice as necessary, the OSW then sends
the notice to the Office of General Counsel (OGC). If OGC agrees
with the decision, the notice is forwarded through various EPA
management levels for review and approval. Final approval for
waste exclusions must be received from the Director (or delegated
representative) of the Office of Solid Waste. Final approval for
petition denials must be received from the Assistant
Administrator (or delegated representative) of the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Upon publication of a proposed rule, a complete copy of the
delisting petition and all supporting data are provided to the
RCRA docket office. We provide the public with an opportunity to
comment before a decision is finalized, in accordance with 40 CFR
§260.20(c) as mandated by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The public comment period for
proposed notices on delisting decisions is usually 45 days.
During this time, interested persons may submit written comments
on the proposed regulation.
A final notice is published in the Federal Register once all
public comments on the proposed notice are addressed. Final
delisting rules typically become effective as of the date of
publication in the Federal Register. HSWA amended Section 3010
of RCRA to allow rules to become effective-in less than six
months when the regulated community does not need the six-month
period to come into compliance. In the case of a final delisting
petition denial, the petitioner is required to continue managing
the waste as hazardous and thus a period of compliance is not
necessary. In the case of a final exclusion, a six-month period
generally is not necessary to come into compliance because the
final rule reduces the existing waste management requirements. A
final decision that excludes a petitioned waste also amends 40
CFR Part 261, Appendix IX, to include the excluded waste.
2-12
-------
2.4 Petition Information
The requirements for delisting petitions as set forth in 40
CFR §§260.20 and 260.22 state that each petition must include
certain information. Furthermore, as stated in 40 CFR
§260.22(j), we may request any additional information reasonably
required to evaluate a submitted petition.
Appendix E contains a checklist which summarizes the
information that should be submitted for most delistina
petitions. You may use this checklist, in conjunction with
the remaining sections of this manual, as a guide during
petition development. However, delisting petition
information requirements depend on the petitioned waste
type and, therefore, this list is not meant to be
comprehensive. Thus, all petitioners should follow the
detailed guidance found in each referenced section of this
manual to identify all information needs. Prior to
submitting a formal petition, you are encouraged to discuss
with our staff the nature and extent of information that
should be included in your petition. Also, if you are
submitting your petition to a State authorized to grant
delistings, you should recognize that a State delisting
program may request additional information. You should
contact your State hazardous waste office for its specific
delisting requirements. Appendix C of this manual contains
the addresses and telephone numbers of all State (and EPA
Regional) hazardous waste offices.
2-13
-------
-------
3.0 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
This section tells you how to provide administrative
information in your petition. We need this information to
identify the petitioner, the location of the petitioned waste,
sources for additional information, and the requested delisting
action for the petitioned waste, as well as to obtain an overview
of the need and basis for the delisting action. We also ask that
you sign a statement certifying that information contained in the
petition is not false.
The regulatory basis for most of the administrative
information that should be provided is found in 40 CFR §260.20
and §260.22; and is identified within parentheses, when
applicable. The information requested in this section
corresponds with Section A of the "Outline for Delisting
Petitions" found in Appendix A.
You should include the following administrative information
in your petition:
* The name and mailing address of the individual or firm
submitting the petition (40 CFR §260.20(b)(1)).
• The names, titles, addresses, and telephone numbers of
people to contact for additional information pertaining
to the petition. (You should notify us if these
designated contacts change after petition submission.)
• The name and location of the facility responsible for
generating the waste covered by the petition (40 CFR
§260.22(1)(4)), and the facility RCRA identification
number. This information should also be provided for the
location of the petitioned waste, if different from the
generating facility.
• A description of the proposed delisting action which is
supported by the remainder of the petition (40 CFR
§260.20(b)(3)). For example, a company may petition to
exclude a hazardous waste from a non-specific or specific
source from the lists of hazardous wastes or to amend a
previously granted exclusion.
• A statement of your interest in the proposed delisting
action (40 CFR §260.20(b)(2)) and a statement of the need
and justification for the proposed action (40 CFR
§260.20(b)(4)). The latter statement should explain why
you need the waste delisted and why you believe it should
be delisted.
3-1
-------
The following certification statement signed by the
generator or an authorized representative (40 CFR
§260.22(i)(12)):
"I certify under penalty of law that I have personally
examined and am familiar with the information
submitted in this demonstration and all attached
documents, and that, based on my inquiry of those
individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the
information, I believe that the submitted information
is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment."
An "authorized representative" is a person responsible
for the overall operation of a facility or an operational
unit (for example, a plant manager, superintendent, or
person of equivalent responsibility). (See 40 CFR
§260.10.) Consultants or other outside parties should
not sign the certification statement. The name and title
of the authorized representative should be typed under
the signature.
3-2
-------
4.0 WASTE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT HISTORY INFORMATION
This section tells you how to provide information that
describes the waste and waste quantity that you are petitioning
to delist. The regulatory basis for this information is found in
40 CFR §260.22(1)(6). We need the information to fully
understand the specific type and amount of waste for which a
delisting is requested. The information should be complete and
accurate because a delisting, if granted, applies only to that
waste described in the petition.
This section also tells you how to provide information about
the past, present, and future management of the waste. We
request this information to evaluate historical waste management
practices and to identify the most likely management scenario for
the waste if the petition is granted.
This section is organized as follows:
4.1 Basis for Waste Listing
4.2 History of Waste Generation
4.3 Waste Volume
4.4 Waste Management History
The information requested in this section corresponds with
Section B of the "Outline for Delisting Petitions" found in
Appendix A.
4.1 Basis for Waste Listing
You should clearly and completely describe why your waste is
classified as a listed hazardous waste. The basis for listing
hazardous wastes is found in 40 CFR Part 261. The lists of
hazardous wastes are presented in 40 CFR §261.31 (hazardous
wastes from non-specific sources), §261.32 (hazardous wastes from
specific sources), and §261.33 (discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification species, container residues, and
spill residues thereof).
You should provide the following information, as
appropriate, regarding the petitioned waste:
The EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s), the appropriate
hazardous waste description(s) for the petitioned waste
(i.e.. the appropriate waste listing description(s) found
in 40 CFR Part 261) and the common name(s), if any, that
may be used for the waste at the facility (e.g.. Tank
4-1
-------
No. 2 sludge). If the petitioned waste is:
- A mixture of two or more listed hazardous wastes,
provide the EPA Hazardous Waste Number and appropriate
hazardous waste description for each listed waste.
Also identify the common name(s) of each waste, if
any.
- A mixture of one or more solid waste(s) and one or
more listed hazardous wastes, as described in 40 CFR
§261.3(a)(2)(iii-iv); provide the EPA Hazardous Waste
Number(s), the appropriate hazardous waste description
for each listed hazardous waste, and a description of
the solid waste(s) that are mixed with the listed
waste(s). Also identify the common name(s), as
appropriate.
- Generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
one or more listed hazardous wastes (or solid and
listed hazardous waste mixture), as described in 40
CFR §26l.3(c)(2)(i); provide the Hazardous Waste
Number and appropriate hazardous waste description for
each listed hazardous waste, a description of each
solid waste (if applicable), and a description of the
petitioned waste (e.g.. if the petition is for an ash
generated from the incineration of listed Hazardous
Waste Nos. F002, F004, and F005, present the requested
information on all three hazardous waste numbers and
then describe the ash). Also identify the common
name(s), as appropriate.
• The physical form of the petitioned waste fe.a.. sludge,
liquid, solid, ash). If the waste is considered a sludge
or a liquid, provide an estimate (e.g.f a range) of the
percentage of solids in the waste (through analysis of
the waste).
4.2 History of Waste Generation
You should indicate in your petition which of the following
applies to your waste (one or more may apply):
The waste has been generated in the past.
The waste is presently being generated.
The waste will be generated in the future.
If the waste is presently being generated or was generated
in the past, we also request that you provide the year when waste
generation began (and ended, if applicable) at your facility.
4-2
-------
4.3 Waste Volume v
You should provide an estimate of the waste volume that you
are petitioning to delist. [Reminder: A waste exclusion, if
finalized, typically will only apply to that waste volume
documented in the delisting petition.]
If the petitioned waste is a fixed quantity (or will be when
generated in the future), simply estimate that volume. This
quantity may be obtained from information such as unit dimensions
or operating records.
If the waste is (or will be) generated on a routine or
continuous basis (e.g.. from a process point discharge), based on
your operating records (pilot- or full-scale, as appropriate)
estimate the following generation rates:
Average volume generated monthly.
Average volume generated annually.
• Maximum volume generated monthly.
• Maximum volume generated annually.
You should also describe the method of calculation used to
estimate the fixed quantity or generation rates. If volume is
not a convenient measurement, you may instead provide the weight
of the waste (clearly indicate the units) and a representative
value for the density of the waste.
4.4 Waste Management History
We need a description of your past, present, and future
disposal methods to evaluate historical waste management
practices. We also need this information to identify the most
likely waste management scenario should your petition be granted.
Therefore, you should provide the following information:
How the waste is managed at the present and the names,
locations, and waste management methods of any off-site
waste management facilities used.
How the waste was managed in the past, if different from
the present, and the names, locations, and waste
management methods of any off-site waste management
facilities used.
• How the waste will be managed if your delisting petition
is granted; and, if known, the names, locations, and
waste management methods of any off-site waste management
facilities you may use.
4-3
-------
-------
5.0 PROCESS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
This section tells you how to provide information on all
processes and raw materials contributing to your petitioned
waste. The regulatory basis for this information is found in 40
CFR §260.22(i)(5). We need this information to determine whether
the petitioned waste was characterized with respect to all
delisting constituents of concern potentially present due to the
contributing processes.
We also need information on waste management operations if
the petitioned waste is (or was) managed in land-based units or
derived from waste management operations (e.g.. excavated soils
remaining from unit closure). We need sufficient detail to
understand all processes generating and contributing to the
petitioned waste, how and where in the processes the waste is (or
was) formed, and how hazardous constituents may enter the waste.
From this information, we will verify the waste listing and also
determine whether there are likely to be any hazardous
constituents in the waste other than those identified in your
petition, and whether other hazardous constituents are likely to
be formed in the production and/or treatment processes or during
waste management. The information requested in this section
corresponds with Section C of the "Outline for Delisting
Petitions" found in Appendix A.
This section is divided into two major subsections: 5.1,
"General Information" and 5.2, "Special Information." Section
5.1 explains how to provide information on processes and
materials that may contribute to your waste. Section 5.2
identifies the additional information that should be provided in
a petition for the delisting of a waste that is not currently
generated ("upfront exclusion") and for a waste generated by a
multiple waste treatment facility (MWTF).
If you wish, you may assert a confidential business
information (CBI) claim for any of the information submitted.
Section 2.3 of this guidance manual describes how to assert a CBI
claim.
5.1 General Information
You should provide the information noted below to fully
describe general operations, manufacturing and waste treatment
processes, process materials, waste management operations, and
any other facility operations that might contribute to the
petitioned waste. If your petition is for an upfront exclusion
or for a waste generated by an MWTF, you should provide all the
information requested below, as appropriate, and also provide the
information described in Section 5.2, "Special Information."
5-1
-------
General Operations
You should provide the following information regarding
general operations at the generating facility:
• General descriptions of facility business area(s) and
operations, including all appropriate Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes.
• A listing and description of products manufactured and
wastes (including all hazardous wastes) generated at the
facility.
A description of the manufacturing and waste treatment
areas and waste management units along with schematics
showing the general layout at the facility.
• A description of the regulatory status of all on-site
waste treatment, storage and disposal units, including a
listing of all hazardous waste permits and other permits
(e.g.. NPDES) issued under Federal and State
environmental statutes. Provide the permit numbers in
this listing.
Manufacturing Processes
You should provide the following appropriate information on
all manufacturing processes that may contribute to the petitioned
waste:
A description and a schematic of all "pre-process" steps
used to prepare materials for processing prior to the
primary manufacturing operations, including descriptions
of such operations as surface and equipment preparation
(e.g.. machining, degreasing, cleaning, coating).
Identify all pre-process material inputs and outputs in
your descriptions and schematics.
A description and schematic of each step of each
manufacturing process contributing to the petitioned
waste. The description and schematic should include each
process step, reactions occurring, and material inputs
and outputs. Identify any reaction intermediates and
byproducts formed during the manufacturing process. Also
describe and indicate on the schematic each waste
produced and how each waste is managed.
• An indication in the process description and schematic of
exactly where the petitioned waste is generated, if
applicable.
5-2
-------
• A description of all manufacturing process equipment,
equipment functions, and the ranges of the operating
parameters.
• A description of all operating cycles (e.g.. batch cycles
versus continuous operation; start-up, shut-down, and
other process transients; and maintenance and cleaning
operations) on a daily, weekly, or other period basis, as
appropriate. Identify periods when process wastes are
not generated (e.g.. plant shutdowns or routine equipment
maintenance).
• An assessment of the extent that all contributing
manufacturing processes, operations, process materials,
or generated wastes have varied in the past and may vary
in the future.
• A description of how the composition and generation rate
of the petitioned waste may periodically vary due to any
aspect of manufacturing process variability (e.g..
seasonal variations in numbers or types of products).
Waste Treatment Processes
If your waste is not generated directly from a manufacturing
process, then you should provide the following information:
A description and schematic of each step of each waste
treatment process contributing to the petitioned waste.
The description and schematic should include each process
step, reactions occurring, flow rates, material inputs,
and waste inputs and outputs. Also describe and indicate
on the schematic each waste produced and how each waste
is managed.
A description of the composition, rate of input
(including periodic inputs), and source of all
non-process wastes (e.g.. sanitary wastes) entering the
waste treatment processes.
•. An indication in the process description and schematic of
exactly where the petitioned waste is generated, if
applicable.
• A description of all treatment process equipment,
equipment functions, and the ranges of operating
parameters.
• A description of all operating cycles (e.g.. batch cycles
versus continuous operation; start-up, shut-down, and
other process transients; and maintenance and cleaning
operations) on a daily, weekly, or other period basis as
5-3
-------
appropriate. Identify periods when treatment wastes are
not generated (e.g.. plant shutdowns or routine equipment
maintenance).
• An assessment of the extent that all contributing
treatment processes, operations, process materials, or
generated wastes have varied in the past and may vary in
the future.
• A description of how the composition and generation rate
of the petitioned waste may periodically vary due to any
aspect of treatment process variability.
Process Materials
The following information should be provided by all
petitioners:
A listing of all materials used in the manufacturing and
treatment processes and waste management operations (as
appropriate) contributing to the petitioned waste.
Examples of materials to be included are: raw materials,
feed chemicals (including catalysts), treatment
chemicals, oils and hydraulic fluids, and surface
preparation materials (e.g.. solvents, acids, cleaners).
For each material listed, describe its function in the
processes.
For each process material, specify the approximate
quantities used annually.
Provide Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all
non-elemental and tradename materials, or other
descriptive information that identifies the composition
of the material (e.g.. a listing of hazardous
constituents in a material). MSDSs alone may not
completely identify the delisting hazardous constituents
of concern present in a material. Section 6.0 of this
manual identifies the delisting constituents of concern
which include those listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix
VIII, and others. MSDSs required by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) only list those
constituents considered hazardous by OSHA. Therefore,
you should also provide the composition for each material
and list any other delisting constituents of concern
which are present in the material yet not listed on the
MSDS.
Specify the source, quality (i.e.. recycled or virgin),
and quantity of oil, grease, and hydraulic fluids
entering the processes.
5-4
-------
Waste Management Operations
If your petitioned waste is or has been managed in on-site
land-based units (or in dedicated off-site land-based units), you
should provide the following information:
• A description of each waste management unit including
unit construction; history; purpose and descriptions of
any unit design and operating modifications; estimated
surface area; estimated unit capacity volume; and all
waste and material inputs which have occurred throughout
the life of each unit, if known.
• A detailed schematic of each waste unit showing (as
appropriate) unit dimensions (e.g.. surface impoundment
depth, length, and width), influent point(s), and
effluent point(s), and sludge thickness.
If your petition is for an upfront waste exclusion or a
waste that is generated by an MWTF, then you also should provide
the information discussed below in Section 5.2, "Special
Information." Otherwise, if your petition is for a waste that
currently exists, then you may proceed to Section 6.0,
"Analytical Plan Development."
5.2 Special Information
This section provides process information guidance for those
petitioners requesting an upfront exclusion for a waste that is
not currently generated, yet will be in the future, or for the
exclusion of a waste that is generated by a multiple waste
treatment facility (MWTF).
Petitioning for an upfront exclusion has the advantage of
allowing the applicant to know what treatment levels for
constituents should be sufficient to render specific wastes
non-hazardous, before investing in new or modified waste
treatment systems. Petitions for such wastes should include all
of the process and raw material information requested above, as
applicable, for the bench-scale or pilot-scale process, as well
as for all operating full-scale processes that will contribute to
the petitioned waste. In addition, the petitioner should provide
sufficient information to show that the bench-scale or
pilot-scale process is producing a waste that is similar to the
waste that will be produced by the full-scale process. If the
full-scale process becomes operational during the review of your
petition, you should also submit full-scale process information
and analytical data.
5-5
-------
If your petition is for an upfront exclusion, vou should
provide the following information;
• A discussion explaining why you believe that the
bench-scale or pilot-scale process demonstration
adequately models the proposed full-scale process.
• A detailed description of any real or potential
differences between the two processes (e.g.. flow rates).
• A description of the impact of these differences on the
character of the petitioned waste.
Multiple waste treatment facilities (MWTFs) typically
receive large numbers of individual waste shipments having a wide
variety of compositions. If your petitioned waste is generated
bv an MWTF. you should submit the following information;
A procedure for prescreening clients and wastes and a
detailed description of how this procedure will be
implemented, should your waste be excluded.
• A description of procedures by which you will ensure
that: (1) treatment levels required by an exclusion are
maintained and (2) a hazardous waste is not disposed
improperly as non-hazardous.
5-6
-------
6.0 ANALYTICAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT
This section tells you how to identify the delisting
constituents of concern for your particular waste and how to
develop an analytical plan for the testing of waste samples.
Analytical plan development should precede sampling plan
development (addressed in Section 7.0) because sampling protocols
(e.g.. number and type of sample containers) will depend on the
analytes evaluated.
In preparing an analytical plan, you should develop a
complete list of the hazardous constituents of concern in your
waste. For this list, you should address the full universe of
delisting constituents of concern found in 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix VIII and the following constituents not found in
Appendix VIII: acetone, ethylbenzene, isophorone, 4-methyl-2-
pentanone, styrene, and xylenes (total). You should demonstrate
that these delisting constituents of concern are not present in
your waste at hazardous levels based on analytical data, mass
balance demonstrations, or other appropriate information.
As discussed below, your analytical plan should include the
test methods generally applicable to all delisting demonstrations
(see Section 6.1), any special test methods applicable to your
particular type of waste, and any other constituents of concern
identified by an engineering analysis (see Section 6.3).
This section is organized as follows so that each step in
analytical plan development is sequentially discussed:
6.1 Identifying Constituents of Concern and Hazardous Waste
Characteristics (Step 1)
6.2 Identifying Constituents of Concern for Special Waste
Categories (Step 2)
6.3 Conducting an Engineering Analysis to Complete Your
List of Constituents of Concern (Step 3)
6.4 Identifying Analytes (Step 4)
6.5 Demonstrating Without Laboratory Analyses that Certain
Constituents Are Not Present in Your Waste at Hazardous
Levels (Steps 5 and 6)
6.6 Selecting Appropriate Waste Analytical Methods (Step 7)
6.7 Identifying Quality Control (QC) Protocols (Step 8)
6.8 Summary of Appropriate Analytical Plan Information
6-1 .
-------
Exhibit 6-1 summarizes the above steps in analytical plan
development. We recommend that you review Exhibit 6-1 before
proceeding.
The EPA publication "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods," SW-846, is an
appropriate reference for the analysis and characterization
of solid wastes under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Program. This publication (and any
updates or new editions) is referred to in this guidance
manual as "SW-846." You may order a copy of SW-846 from
the Government Printing Office by calling (202) 783-3238
and requesting Order No. 955-001-00000-1.
6.1 Identifying Constituents of Concern and Hazardous Waste
Characteristics (Step 1)
You should first identify the constituents of concern and
hazardous waste characteristics that in general should be
addressed by all delisting petitions. Specifically, information
should be provided for the hazardous constituents used as the
criteria for listing your petitioned waste and all of the
hazardous waste characteristics defined in 40 CFR §§261.21
through 261.24. The regulatory basis for these requirements may
be found in 40 CFR §§260.22(c), 260.22(d), and 260.22(e). In
addition, we generally request analyses for total oil and grease,
total cyanide, total sulfide, and total constituent levels of all
inorganic and organic constituents of concern.
Exhibit 6-2 lists the analyses concerning waste constituents
and characteristics that we typically request petitioners to
provide. Section 6.6 ("Selecting Appropriate Waste Analytical
Methods") provides additional information regarding the
appropriate SW-846 test methods.
As noted in Exhibit 6-2, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) analyses are currently requested for delisting
demonstrations. The Toxicity Characteristic Rule (55 f_E 11798,
March 29, 1990) replaced the Extraction Procedure (EP) with the
TCLP as the required procedure for testing wastes for the
toxicity characteristic. The TCLP also is used for other Agency
programs, and the procedure is found in SW-846 as Method 1311.
6-2
-------
Exhibit 6-1
STEPS TO IDENTIFY CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND
DEVELOP AN ANALYTICAL PLAN
1. Develop a list of constituents of concern and hazardous
waste characteristics that in general should be
addressed by all delisting petitions (see Section 6.1).
2. Identify whether your particular waste may require any
special analyses and add the appropriate additional
analyses to your list (see Section 6.2). For example:
If your waste is generated from petroleum refining
operations, add the constituents of concern for
petroleum refining wastes (listed in Exhibit 6-3).
If your waste is generated from stabilization
processes, add the Multiple Extraction Procedure
(MEP).
If your waste may contain dioxins, add dioxin/furan
analysis using SW-846 Method 8290.
3. Conduct an engineering analysis to identify whether any
other delisting constituents of concern may be present
in your waste (see Section 6.3). Add these constituents
to your list.
4. Based on the list developed during Steps 1, 2, and 3,
identify those constituents for which testing will be
conducted (see Section 6.4).
5. Develop, for petition inclusion, mass balance
• demonstrations to estimate levels in your waste of all
constituents of concern on your list for which testing
will not be conducted (see Section 6.5).
6. Develop, for petition inclusion, an explanation for why
any remaining delisting constituent of concern will not
appear in your waste (see Section 6.5).
7. Select appropriate analytical methods for constituents
to be tested (see Section 6.6).
8. Identify quality control (QC) protocols for waste
testing (see Section 6.7).
6-3
-------
Exhibit 6-2
ANALYSES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Total oil and grease analysis.
Total constituent analyses for the toxicity characteristic
(TC) metals currently listed under 40 CFR §261.24, nickel,
cyanide, and sulfide.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analyses for
the TC metals, nickel, and cyanide. For cyanide analyses,
deionized water should be used in place of the acid leaching
medium. If the petitioned waste contains at or above one
percent total oil and grease, we prefer that you conduct the
Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP; SW-846 Method
1330) analysis and use the TCLP in place of the EP.
Total constituent and TCLP (or OWEP if appropriate) analyses
for any other inorganic that was used as a criterion for
listing yet is not included in the above, or that is a
potential constituent of concern. If the levels of total
chromium in your waste exceed one percent, we recommend that
you also attempt to analyze for the level of hexavalent
chromium present.
Analyses for the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity,
or reactivity; or provide a detailed explanation regarding why
the waste does not exhibit a given characteristic. You
should, however, submit results from reactive sulfide and
reactive cyanide testing if total sulfide and total cyanide
levels exceed 500 and 250 parts per million, respectively.
Total constituent and TCLP analyses for the organic
constituents listed under 40 CFR §261.24.
Total constituent and TCLP analyses for any other organic
constituent of concern that could potentially be present in
the waste. You do not need to conduct TCLP analyses if the
constituent is not detected in the total constituent analysis
using an appropriate SW-846 method with an adequate
quantitation limit.
6-4
-------
In subsequent steps, you should complete your list of
constituent of concern by adding all other hazardous constituents
which may be present in your petitioned waste based on: (1) the
special analytical methodologies discussed below, and (2) the
results of an engineering analysis of all process and materials
contributing to your waste.
6.2 Identifying Constituents of Concern for Special Waste
Categories (Step 2)
You should determine whether your waste may require special
analytical methodologies because it falls into one of the
following categories.
Petroleum Industry Wastes
If petroleum industry processes have contributed to your
petitioned waste, then the constituents of concern identified in
Exhibit 6-3 should be included on your list. We identified these
constituents of concern based on our knowledge of the processes
and raw materials typical to the petroleum industry. You may
have already included some of these constituents (e.g.. toxicity
characteristic constituents).
Stabilized Wastes
If your petitioned waste is generated from the chemical
stabilization of a listed waste, then you should quantify
leachable metal concentrations using the Multiple Extraction
Procedure (MEP), SW-846 Method 1320, as well as by TCLP analyses.
We require MEP test results for stabilized wastes in order to
assess the long term stability of the waste. You should modify
the MEP by using the TCLP in place of the EP in Method 1320.
Dioxin Wastes
If your petitioned waste may contain dioxins, either because
the chemicals may be contained in the waste before treatment or
may be formed during treatment (e.g.. incineration or other
thermal treatment of chlorinated phenols), you should perform
dioxin/furan analysis using SW-846 Method 8290. Method 8290 uses
high-resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass
spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) and has lower detection limits than
SW-846 Method 8280. This method is currently in a draft form and
may not be finalized and available in SW-846. Until then, if you
need to conduct dioxin/furan analysis, please contact us for a
copy of Method 8290 and any newly available guidance.
6-5
-------
Exhibit 6-3
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN FOR WASTES FROM PETROLEUM PROCESSES
Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Orqanics
Acenaphthene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Buthyl benzyl phthalate
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chrysene
Cresols
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Di-n-buthyl phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,l-Dichloroethylene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Pyrene
Pyridine
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes (total)
6-6
-------
6.3 Conducting an Engineering Analysis to Complete Your List of
Constituents of Concern (Step 3)
A complete engineering analysis of all processes and
materials contributing to your waste should be conducted to
identify other delisting constituents of concern potentially
present in your waste. During the engineering analysis, you
should consider all available information on contributing
processes and raw materials, including (but not limited to)
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), production data, and process
rates. You should identify the constituents of all raw
materials, intermediate products, by-products, and final products
of contributing processes. If the petitioned waste is or was
contained in a land-based waste management unit, you should
identify all past waste disposal practices and information
regarding all of the processes and raw materials contributing to
the disposed wastes.
As stated previously, the list of delisting
constituents of concern includes those presented in 40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix VIII, as well as acetone, ethylbenzene,
isophorone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, styrene, and xylenes
(total). Any of these constituents that may be present in
your waste based on your engineering analysis should be
considered a constituent of concern for your waste.
You may not be able to identify with certainty all of the
constituents of concern for a petitioned waste because complete
process and raw material information is not available. For
example, this situation often applies to leachates collected from
landfills which have accepted numerous different hazardous wastes
over a long period of time and for which the waste types and
waste sources are not fully documented. This situation may also
apply if your facility is a multiple waste treatment facility
(MWTF) and receives wastes of varying compositions from numerous
off-site sources. In such cases, you should assume that all or
most of the delisting constituents of concern may be present in
your waste.
Once the engineering analysis is conducted, your list of
constituents of concern is complete. This list can be submitted
to EPA (e.g.. in conjunction with your sampling plan) for a
completeness evaluation prior to investing in sampling and
analysis and final petition preparation. If you choose this
option, please also provide process, raw material composition and
MSDS information and as much detail as possible from your
engineering analysis so that we may better evaluate your
preliminary submittal. For example, if a reactant is simply
6-7
-------
described as "technical benzene" and you do not include the MSDS,
we will not. be able to confirm or refute the presence of toluene
and other aromatics (and their by-products) in the waste stream.
On the other hand, an MSDS describing the reactant as "90 percent
benzene, 9 percent toluene, 1 percent xylenes and less than 10
parts per million (ppm) sulfur" clarifies that these constituents
may be present in your waste stream.
6.4 Identifying Analytes (Step 4)
The next step is the identification of those constituents
for which testing will be conducted. This step initiates
development of your analytical plan. For analytical testing
purposes, you should include: (1) the analyses discussed in
Exhibit 6-2, and (2) the analyses for other constituents of
concern which can be quantitated using appropriate SW-846 test
methods.
If any constituent that may be present does not have an
appropriate analytical method, as is the case for some 40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix VIII constituents, a mass balance
demonstration may be conducted to estimate constituent levels in
the waste. Levels of all constituents potentially present in the
waste should be quantitated, either by analytical testing or by
mass balance demonstrations. The next section provides guidance
in conducting mass balance demonstrations.
6.5 Demonstrating Without Laboratory Analyses that Certain
Constituents Are Not Present in Your Waste at Hazardous
Levels (Steps 5 and 6)
In lieu of analytical testing (and for those constituents
without appropriate SW-846 test methods), your demonstration may
be based on mass balance demonstrations (Step 5), as long as you
have performed the testing outlined in Exhibit 6-2. This
demonstration also may be made through another adequate
explanation (e.g.. by showing that the constituent is not used in
processes at your facility and cannot appear in your waste). If
a mass balance demonstration is used in lieu of analytical
testing to quantitate a constituent of concern, the demonstration
should describe the raw materials used, the quantities used in
the process(es), and the expected constituent levels in the
waste.
For example, consider a wastewater generated by a process
involving the production of aniline by the reduction of
nitrobenzene. Based on facility data, for each 100 pounds of
nitrobenzene used in the process, 72 pounds of aniline are
formed. Based on the chemical reactions known to occur,
therefore, 95 pounds of nitrobenzene are reacted per 100 pounds
of nitrobenzene used. Furthermore, 200 gallons of wastewater
result from the production of each 72 pounds of aniline.
6-8
-------
Therefore, assuming that all of the unreacted nitrobenzene ends
up in the wastewater, the maximum concentration of nitrobenzene
in the wastewater will be about 3,000 ppm. The following
equation demonstrates how this is estimated:
5 Ibs
gal
8.345 Ibs
200 gal 1,669
1 « 3,000 ppm
i n-6
10
Chemical reactions occurring in contributing processes
should also be included in mass balance equations to predict the
types and relative amounts of by-products resulting from a
reaction. Unfortunately, demonstrating that a chemical reaction
does not actually produce traces of hazardous substances can
sometimes be difficult. For example, reactions involving
chlorinated phenols might produce some chlorinated
dibenzodioxins, which are considered hazardous at trace levels,
although it is not a very probable reaction in most
circumstances. For cases where a constituent is hazardous at
trace levels, a mass balance equation may not be sufficient to
demonstrate that the constituent is not present at levels of
concern. For these situations, analytical data should be
submitted instead of a mass balance demonstration.
In some instances, constructing a mass balance equation for
particular substances may be difficult based on the manner in
which the substances are used in the process. For example,
chemicals present in mixtures used in maintenance, cleanup, and
other non-process applications may be difficult to quantitate.
In such cases, you should list the known constituents in each
mixture and estimate the amounts entering contributing processes
based on usage rates. Additionally, constructing a mass balance
equation for the fate of constituents from wastes contained in a
land-based waste management unit may also be very difficult.
When mass balance equations are difficult or not practical, you
should instead rely on laboratory analyses using appropriate
methods to quantitate constituent levels in your waste.
As noted in Exhibit 6-2, you may also submit an explanation
in lieu of analytical test results to show that the petitioned
waste cannot exhibit a particular hazardous waste characteristic.
For example, consider a petition for a sludge generated from
treating electroplating process wastewaters with a liquid content
of approximately 75 percent. An explanation discussing the high
water content may be sufficient to demonstrate that the waste is
not ignitable. However, if information on the manufacturing
processes indicates that flammable organic solvents may appear in
the waste due to solvent cleaning operations, then actual testing
for ignitability may be appropriate. Similarly, if the waste pH
is neutral, more extensive testing for the corrosivity
characteristic (i.e.. to determine if the waste corrodes steel)
may not be necessary.
6-9
-------
Once you have addressed constituents of concern identified
for your particular waste, you should also address why any
remaining delisting constituents of concern will not appear in
your waste (Step 6). If the constituent was not included in your
list of constituents of concern because amounts used are expected
only to appear in media that are not the subject of your petition
(e.g.. process effluent), you may support your hypothesis with a
mass balance demonstration.
6.6 Selecting Appropriate Waste Analytical Methods (Step 7)
In this section, we review appropriate analyses and provide
guidance in choosing appropriate test methods. Most of the test
methods for the delisting constituents of concern may be found in
SW-846, third edition, and its updates. The associated quality
control procedures for analyzing a waste in support of a
delisting petition are presented in Chapter One of SW-846 and in
the specific SW-846 method. If you have technical questions
regarding the use or application of any SW-846 method, you may
contact the EPA's Methods Section of the Technical Assessment
Branch at (202) 260-4761.
Choosing the Appropriate Test Method
There are three main variables to consider when making this
choice, namely, (1) the constituent or parameter to be
quantitated, (2) the waste matrix, and (3) the minimum level at
which the constituent should be quantitated. You should consider
the test methods discussed above in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, and
review Chapter Two in SW-846, entitled "Choosing the Correct
Procedure."
The above references will help you identify the appropriate
analysis for a given constituent and waste matrix. Some tests
will have only one appropriate method for the given constituent
or matrix, whereas other tests will have more than one
appropriate method. The selected method should be appropriate
for the waste matrix. For example, SW-846 Method 7470, "Mercury
in Liquid Waste" and Method 7471, "Mercury in Solid or Semisolid
Waste" should each be used only when analyzing a waste with the
specified matrix (liquid or solid).
Detection limits vary with analytical methods. Although
method detection limits (MDLs) are important, in general, we
request that petitioners use estimated quantitation limits (EQLs)
in lieu of MDLs.
If you think that an analytical method other than that found
in SW-846 is more appropriate for quantitating a particular
constituent, approval to use such a method should be sought
before conducting the sampling and analysis.
6-10
-------
Summary of the Analyses Appropriate for Delistina Petitions
In summary, testing methodologies appropriate for all
petitions generally include:
Total oil and grease analysis.
Total constituent analyses for the TC metals, nickel,
cyanide, sulfide, any other inorganic constituent of
concern for your waste.
• TCLP analyses (or OWEP analyses if appropriate) for the
TC metals, nickel, cyanide (using deionized water as the
leaching medium), and any other inorganic constituent of
concern for your waste.
Total constituent and TCLP analyses for the TC organic
constituents and any other organic constituent of concern
for your waste.
You also should address all of the other hazardous waste
characteristics through laboratory analyses or, for some
properties in particular matrices, through some other
demonstration.
Total oil and grease analysis determines the percent of
total sample mass that is oil and grease. Either SW-846 Method
9070 or 9071 may be appropriate; each method involves drying the
waste and then extracting oil and grease with an organic solvent
(e.g.. freon).
If the total oil and grease content of your waste is one
percent or more, you should use the Extraction Procedure for Oily
Wastes (OWEP), SW-846 Method 1330, to quantitate the leachable
levels of all metals of concern. You should also use the TCLP in
place of the EP in Method 1330. If the total oil and grease.
content is less than one percent, you should use TCLP analyses.
You should submit results from TCLP (or OWEP) and total
constituent analyses for the TC metals listed in Table 1 of 40
CFR §261.24, as well as for nickel and any other inorganic of
concern for your waste. Chapter Three of SW-846 provides
guidance on total constituent analyses for various metals.
You should analyze for total cyanide content in your waste,
as described in Chapter Five of SW-846 using Method 9010 or 9012.
If the cyanide analysis indicates the presence of an interference
in the waste and produces poor precision on replicate analyses,
you should note and explain the interference in your petition.
You also should analyze for total sulfide content in your waste,
as described in Chapter Five of SW-846 using Method 9030.
6-11
-------
Total levels and TCLP leachate concentrations of the TC
organic constituents should also be quantitated, as well as
analyses for any other organic constituent of concern for your
waste, if appropriate methods are available. Applicable methods
can be found in Chapter Four of SW-846. Typically, if an organic
constituent is not found in the waste using appropriate
analytical methods for total concentrations, you may not need to
conduct the TCLP analysis. We will evaluate the applicability of
the TCLP for organics in problem matrices (such as oily wastes)
on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, you are required to demonstrate that your waste
does not exhibit any of the four hazardous waste characteristics
of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. This
demonstration may take the form of a detailed explanation
regarding why the waste does not exhibit a characteristic
property. As noted in Exhibit 6-2, you should submit results
from reactive sulfide and reactive cyanide testing if total
sulfide and total cyanide levels exceed 500 and 250 ppm,
respectively. 40 CFR §§261.20 through 261.24 explain what basis
determines that a waste exhibits one of the characteristics.
If you cannot demonstrate in a written explanation that your
waste does not exhibit a characteristic, then you should instead
test the waste appropriately. Applicable methods for the testing
of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity can be found in
Chapters Seven and Eight of SW-846. As noted above, you should,
at a minimum, test for the toxicity characteristic constituents
using the TCLP (or OWEP if appropriate), and address whether the
toxicity characteristic would be exhibited for any of the TC
constituents. You also should test for reactive cyanide and
reactive sulfide if total sulfide and total cyanide levels exceed
500 and 250 ppm, respectively. SW-846 Methods 9010/9012 and 9030
measure reactive cyanide and sulfide, respectively. In addition,
the Defense Logistics Agency's Explosives Hazard Classification
Procedures (DLAR 8220.1) prescribe a blasting-cap test for
characterizing explosiveness. If you are dealing with a waste
listed because it is explosive, you may want to contact the EPA's
Methods Section of the Technical Assessment Branch at (202) 260-
4761 for further guidance on test methods.
6.7 Identifying Quality Control (QC) Protocols (Step 8)
Laboratory quality control information demonstrates the
validity of the analytical data submitted with your petition.
Certain specific quality control information should be generated
simultaneously with each analytical method. If you do not have
the necessary personnel or laboratory resources in-house to
conduct the testing program using the appropriate QC protocols,
you should contract with a commercial laboratory or a consulting
analytical chemist with the necessary resources and experience.
6-12
-------
Chapter One of SW-846 contains a general discussion on the
QC protocols for waste analysis. The general procedures,
however, do not replace the specific QC methodologies described
under each SW-846 test method which should also be followed.
Chapter One of SW-846 discusses planning for a Quality Assurance
and Control Program to ensure that all data are of known quality,
to indicate when corrective action is required, and to outline
the procedure to correct out-of-control situations. (Note:
Quality assurance documentation is not required for delisting
petitions.) In addition, the chapter discusses certain general
quality control data appropriate for all analytical methods.
Examples of these methodologies are given below.
Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Analyses. These
analyses are measures of analytical accuracy and precision
performed by splitting a sample spiked with known quantities of
stock solutions of the analyte in question into duplicates,
conducting the appropriate analysis, and calculating the percent
recovery of each spiked analyte. These percent recoveries
indicate the accuracy of the analysis. The relative percent
difference between the samples indicates the precision of
analysis for the analyte in the specific matrix. The frequency
at which the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses
should be performed is discussed within most SW-846 analytical
methods.
Method Blank Analyses. These analyses are artificial,
laboratory-made samples carried through the entire analytical
procedure that are used to document any contamination resulting
from the analytical procedures. A method blank is often a sample
of analyte-free water or solvent.
Surrogate Spikes. These analyses are required for most
organic analyses to measure and evaluate analytical accuracy.
Surrogate compounds, which are spiked into each sample, are
chosen on the basis of similar chemical structure to the
substance of interest, with consideration for physical properties
as well. (Frequently, isotopic isomers are selected as surrogate
compounds.) The analysis procedures found in SW-846 will
indicate which surrogates are to be used. Percent recovery of
the surrogate spike is then calculated and used to evaluate
analytical accuracy.
Field PC Analyses. These analyses monitor the introduction
of any variables during the sampling process. Field QC analyses
may include trip blanks and equipment blanks. Trip blanks are
samples of analyte-free water or solvent brought to the field in
sealed containers and transported unopened back to the laboratory
along with the actual samples. Equipment blanks are used to
document adequate decontamination of sampling equipment and are
actually passed through the sampling equipment prior to sampling.
6-13
-------
Trip blanks document contamination attributable to sample
shipment and handling procedures.
This section provided a brief discussion of some of
the Quality Control methodologies appropriate for all
analyses. We recommend that you review Chapter One of
SW-846, in addition to the specific QC procedures for each
method, prior to performing your waste testing. If these
methodologies are not met, we may not consider your
analytical data valid or your petition complete.
6.8 Summary of Appropriate Analytical Plan Information
In summary, you should submit with your petition:
A complete list of the constituents of concern
identified for your petitioned waste. Identify which
of these constituents were guantitated by laboratory
analysis in support of your petition.
Mass balance demonstrations for those constituents of
concern in your list for which analyses were not
conducted.
A discussion explaining why any other delisting
constituent of concern is not on the constituent of
concern list for your petitioned waste.
A discussion explaining why your petitioned waste does
not exhibit any hazardous waste characteristic for
which analysis was not conducted.
The information requested above corresponds with Station D
of the "Outline for Delisting Petitions" found in Appendix A.
6-14
-------
7.0 SAMPLING PLAN DEVELOPMENT
This section tells you how to develop a plan for sampling
the petitioned waste. Analytical data must be from a sufficient
number of representative samples, but in no case less than four,
collected over a period of time sufficient to represent the
variability and uniformity of the petitioned waste. The
regulatory basis for this requirement is found in 40 CFR
§260.22(h). Information in this section will help you develop a
sampling plan that ensures that samples are representative of the
petitioned waste and that sample integrity is maintained until
analysis.
As noted in Section 6.0, "Analytical Plan Development," the
EPA publication "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste:
Physical/Chemical Methods," SW-846, is the reference for the
analyses of solid wastes under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Program. SW-846 also contains guidance in
developing plans for solid waste sampling. This section of the
guidance manual summarizes and refers to certain sampling plan
development considerations discussed in SW-846 and addresses
sampling plan considerations and needs specific to delisting
demonstrations.
Guidance in sampling plan development may also be obtained
from other EPA-published guidance manuals or other standard
reference sources, such as documents published by the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The development of a
scientifically credible sampling plan is a critical element
unique to each delisting petition demonstration. Please contact
us if you need more guidance than given in this manual or other
references.
This section is organized as follows:
7.1 Defining Sampling Objectives
7.2 Selection of an Appropriate Sampling Strategy
7.3 Sampling Plan Considerations
7.4 Examples of Sampling Strategies for Delisting
Demonstrations
7.5 Recommended Elements of a Written Sampling Plan
Section 8.0, "Waste Sampling and Analysis Information," will
provide specific guidance on what information concerning your
sampling procedures should be submitted with your delisting
petition.
7-1
-------
7.1 Defining Sampling Objectives
You should define the objectives of your sampling effort as
the first step in sampling plan development. Once defined, these
objectives should be considered throughout the development of the
sampling strategy.
The primary objective of any waste sampling effort is
to obtain valid information that can be used to describe
the chemical and physical nature of a waste. Specific
objectives should be defined based on such considerations
as:
1. Compliance with the regulatory requirement for
representativeness found in 40 CFR §260.22(h)
(i.e.. characterizing temporal and spatial
constituent variability in the waste).
2. Meeting the data quality assurance objectives
(e.g.. accuracy and precision) defined in SW-846.
3. Familiarity with the analytical parameters (as
identified during analytical plan development).
4. Whether the waste is continuously generated, not
yet generated (e.g.. pilot-scale process for
future wastes), or located in a container or in a
land-based waste management unit.
You can refer to SW-846 for additional guidance regarding
specific sampling objectives. All personnel involved in sampling
plan development and the actual sampling effort should be
familiar with and understand the basis for the defined
objectives. This understanding by your personnel will maintain
sampling program consistency and quality.
7.2 Selection of an Appropriate Sampling Strategy
It is important to collect representative samples for your
delisting demonstration because the resulting analytical data
will be used to characterize the entire waste stream. Therefore,
these samples should be non-biased and "sufficient to represent"
your waste. Otherwise, re-sampling may be required.
As stated in 40 CFR §260.22(h), you must collect and analyze
at least four representative samples of the petitioned waste.
The actual number of samples sufficient to represent the
7-2
-------
variability or uniformity of your waste will likely be more than
four; the number of samples must be determined on a waste- and
unit-specific basis.
With respect to most wastes, we also request that each
sample be a composite of independent grab samples collected over
a certain period of time (e.g.. for continuously generated
wastes) or area (e.g.. for wastes held in a container or unit).
The number of grab samples adequate to make up each composite
sample will be waste- and unit-specific.
Additionally, the analytical testing to be performed may
impact sample collection. Specifically, volatile organic
analysis is typically performed on a grab sample rather than on
the composite sample. This practice eliminates the possibility
of volatile organic loss due to sample compositing. In some
cases, compositing of samples under laboratory conditions may be
appropriate. In any case, the volatile organic sample aliquot
should be appropriately packaged and forwarded to the laboratory
as soon as feasible to avoid exceedance of the analytical holding
time. Generally, other types of analysis can be performed on
aliquots from the composite sample.
Waste variability can be categorized as spatial (area) or
temporal (in time) and both types can act separately or together
to influence waste composition. The following paragraphs provide
general guidance in selecting sampling strategies for wastes that
may exhibit temporal and/or spatial variability. Section 7.4
provides more specific delisting guidance regarding sampling
strategy considerations and requirements for various scenarios
(e.g.. process discharge points, drums, and surface
impoundments).
Temporal Variability
Temporal (relating to time) variability occurs when a
periodic fluctuation in process or raw material also causes a
fluctuation in physical or chemical output (e.g.. a change in
waste characteristics).
Temporal variability is often exhibited in wastes generated
from process point discharges, such as waste characteristics that
periodically vary due to changes in product outputs. Temporal
variation may depend on whether the generating processes are
continuous or batch operations. Continuous processes are more
likely to generate a fairly homogeneous waste than batch
operations. Batch operations involve processes that may be
frequently stopped and started or involve changes in raw
materials or product lines. Batch operations, therefore, usually
generate a waste with temporal variability. In order to account
for this greater variability, a waste generated by batch
7-3
-------
operations requires more frequent sampling over time than a waste
generated by continuous operations.
Temporal composite sampling is usually required to
obtain representative samples from either continuous or
batch process wastes that may exhibit variability over
time. This method involves collecting a number of
independent grab samples of equal volume at predetermined
time intervals (e.g.. every two hours) over a certain time
period of waste generation (e.g.. during one 8-hour
operating shift). The grab samples are composited in equal
proportions and a sample aliquot is collected from the
composite at the end of the time period. The time
intervals for grab sampling and compositing are
predetermined based on known process operating shifts and
known discharge variations over time.
If your waste may exhibit temporal variability and you use
this strategy to obtain representative samples, you should
collect and analyze enough composite samples to sufficiently
characterize expected waste variability over the life of the
process. For a delistino demonstration, petitioners typically
collect and analyze at least four composite samples over a period
of at least one month. You should, however, be able to defend
any aspect of your sampling strategy and actual sampling
activities.
The frequency of grab sample collection and the number
of composite samples will ultimately depend on the process
and its operating schedule and known periodic variations in
waste composition. The greater the potential for waste
composition variability, the greater the number of
composite samples required to characterize the waste.
The schedule for sampling should be developed by personnel
who are familiar with the process and understand the importance
of collecting a representative sample. The required volume of
waste per sample must also be determined beforehand; the required
volume and number of different types of containers (for a single
sample) is dictated by the analyses to be performed and the waste
matrix. Sample volume, therefore, should be identified by the
individuals selected to perform waste analyses.
7-4
-------
Spatial Variability ^
Spatial (relating to space) variability may be vertical or
horizontal and is often exhibited by a waste contained in a tank,
drum, pile, landfill, or surface impoundment. Contained wastes
usually vary more in a vertical than a horizontal direction due
to the settling of solids, variations in densities of liquid
phases, and periodic (temporal) variations in the composition of
the waste entering the container or management unit. However,
horizontal variation can also occur when the routine for waste
deposition is altered (e.g.. the relocation of influent points at
a surface impoundment or the one-time discharge of a volume of
waste). Factors such as waste unit design, waste influent
locations, and mixing device location and usage rates can also
affect the waste deposition patterns and spatial variability
within the unit.
You should characterize the waste's spatial
variability in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
This consideration usually requires collecting a complete
vertical (i.e.. "full-depth" core) sample of the waste.
Actual sample locations can be determined through randomly
selected points on an imaginary horizontal grid overlaying
the waste unit. The actual number of samples collected
will depend on the area of the containment unit and the
expected degree of both vertical and/or horizontal spatial
variability.
7.3 Sampling Plan Considerations
During the selection of an appropriate sampling strategy and
development of the waste sampling plan, you should consider a
number of factors. These factors include waste properties, site
factors (e.g.. processes), sampling equipment, sample containers
and preservatives, personnel health and safety, quality control
(QC), and sample handling and documentation. Each of these
factors interact and should be fully understood and addressed
before finalizing a sampling strategy and initiating sample
collection. To account for all factors, personnel designing the
sampling plan should include: (1) an analytical chemist, (2) a
facility engineer familiar with contributing processes, waste
properties, and site factors, (3) a quality control
representative, and (4) experienced field samplers.
7-5
-------
Waste Properties
The physical and chemical properties of your waste are
the most important factors to be addressed in a sampling
plan because waste properties affect many aspects of your
sampling effort. For example, waste properties (e.g..
liquid or solid) will determine the type of sampling
equipment that has to be used and whether spatial variation
has to be addressed in the sampling strategy.
Sampling equipment should be selected based upon whether the
waste is a viscous or a free-flowing liquid or a hard, soft,
powdery, or monolithic solid. The waste's physical state will
also affect the type of sample container needed. Wide-mouth
containers are used for most solids, sludges, or liquids with
large amounts of suspended matter and narrow-mouth containers are
usually used for liquid and flowing samples. If the physical
state and composition of the waste allows random heterogeneity or
stratification of liquid phases or solids, then your sampling
strategy for obtaining representative samples should address
these characteristics. The volume of the waste also should be
represented by the number of samples collected (e.g.. based on
the area and depth of a waste management unit).
Site Factors
Site factors include such items as waste accessibility,
waste generation and handling practices, transitory (changing)
process events (e.g.. process start-up and shut-down), and
hazards. These factors will influence the sampling strategy and
personnel health and safety. Site factors should be thoroughly
examined during sampling plan development to ensure a successful
sampling effort. You should, of course, be familiar with the
waste generation, waste handling and/or management practices, and
transitory process events to ensure collection of representative
samples.
Sampling Equipment
When choosing the sampling devices, you should consider
waste properties and site factors, as noted above. Sampling
devices should also be selected based on the analytes to be
quantitated. For example, if the waste will be analyzed for
volatile organics, you should choose a sampling device that will
minimize sample agitation. You should also consider ease of use
under the site conditions and the degree of hazard associated
with using a given device.
7-6
-------
Commonly used sampling devices include dippers, weighted
bottles, coliwasas (composite liquid waste samplers), thiefs,
triers, and augers. SW-846 contains descriptions of these and
other sampling equipment.
Disposable sampling devices should be used when practical.
Examples of disposal sampling equipment include trowels, thiefs,
coliwasas, and buckets. If use of disposable devices is not
feasible, then the sampling device should be decontaminated after
collecting each sample. Containers used for sample compositing,
such as buckets, should also be decontaminated prior to sampling
and disposed or decontaminated after each compositing event.
Besides sampling devices, you also will use other types of
equipment during the sampling effort. We recommend that you
develop a detailed list of all types of equipment that may be
needed during the sampling effort.
Sample Containers and Preservatives
All samples should be placed in containers of a size and
construction appropriate for the planned analyses. SW-846
identifies appropriate containers and preservatives for SW-846
analytical methods.
Containers for collecting and storing waste samples
before analysis are usually made of plastic or glass.
Sample containers should be compatible with the waste and
not interfere with sample integrity. A list of appropriate
containers is presented in SW-846. Your laboratory should
be responsible for guaranteeing that the appropriate
containers are available for both waste and quality control
(QC) samples based on the planned analysis.
Quality Control and Sample Handling and Documentation
Quality control (QC) procedures are employed to measure how
well quality assurance objectives are met. The analytical QC
methodologies for a delisting demonstration were discussed in
Section 6.0, "Analytical Plan Development." As noted in Section
6.0, trip and equipment sample blanks should be collected to
monitor the introduction of any variables during sampling. SW-
846 contains guidance regarding the collection frequency of these
sample blanks.
7-7
-------
In addition to collecting field QC samples, quality control
procedures include sample handling and documentation protocols.
Waste sample containers should be properly handled and stored to
ensure that the samples are chemically and physically
representative of the sampled waste. In addition, proper sample
labeling and documentation of sample collection, preservation,
and chain-of-custody procedures should be followed to maintain
sample integrity. Chain-of-custody procedures include
documenting sample collection activities, sample shipment, and
laboratory processing to ensure that sample results are fully
traceable back to sample collection. All persons having custody
of the samples should comply with the procedures discussed in
SW-846.
7.4 Examples of Sampling Strategies for Delistina Demonstrations
In this section, examples of sampling strategies are
presented for the following sampling locations: pipes and other
process discharges, drums, landfills, and surface impoundments.
We also describe approaches for dealing with "hot spots" within a
unit and collecting representative samples at MWTFs. Diagrams
and descriptions of sampling equipment mentioned in this section
can be found in SW-846.
The variety of waste properties and the uniqueness of
each sampling situation necessitates a thorough examination of
options for acquiring representative samples. We believe the
procedures discussed here represent the best approaches to
sampling under each respective waste scenario. However, the most
appropriate sampling strategy for your waste may be somewhat
different and should be devised by personnel familiar with the
specific waste properties, site factors, and sampling objectives.
Pipes and Other Process Discharges
Representative samples from pipes and other process
discharges are best obtained through time-composite sampling,
which is described in Section 7.2. Composite sampling may be
performed manually or through the use of automatic compositers.
The following discussion assumes that manual compositing is
performed.
There are two basic types of process discharges: (1) liquid
or slurry discharges, and (2) solid or semi-solid discharges.
Liquids or slurries are generally sampled from pipes, valves, or
sluiceways. Solid process discharges are often sampled from
conveyor belts or filter presses.
For liquids and free-flowing slurries, a dipper-type sampler
can be used. The size of the dipper beaker should be directly
related to the stream flow rate. A dipper should be used to
sample only one waste stream; any sampling equipment which comes
7-8
-------
in contact with the waste should be decontaminated or replaced
prior to collecting the next sample.
Prior to collection of an actual grab sample, the dipper
should be first rinsed in the waste stream to be sampled. The
dipper should then be passed in one sweeping motion through the
discharge stream so that the beaker is filled in one pass. The
whole stream flow should be sampled, not just the edge of the
stream. If the cross-sectional area of the stream is large
compared to the size of the beaker, more than one pass may be
necessary to sweep the entire cross section of the stream and
fill the beaker. Each grab sample should be of approximately the
same volume and emptied into a larger container for compositing.
After collecting all of the grab samples, the entire contents in
the compositing container should be mixed well before collecting
a sample aliquot for analysis. (Typically, aliquots for volatile
analysis are collected from a grab sample and not from the
composite sample.)
Solid or semi-solid wastes on a conveyer belt can be sampled
with a trowel, scoop, or shovel. A shovel should be chosen or
fabricated to match the width and general contour of the belt as
closely as possible. The grab samples can be taken at any point
along the belt, as long as the entire width of the belt is
sampled. Any fines or liquid present on the belt at the sampling
point should be included in the sample.
Regardless of the waste type, the frequency of sampling and
the number of independent grab samples combined to form a
composite sample depend on the variability of the waste over time
and on the time span which the sample is meant to represent. If
you are sampling point-discharges from a fully continuous
operation, independent grab samples can be collected periodically
(e.g.. every four hours during a 24-hour period of operation) and
combined to form a daily composite. As an alternative, one
independent grab sample can be collected from the continuous
process per work day for a 5-day work week and the daily grab
samples combined into a weekly composite. You are required to
collect at least four composite samples over a period adequate to
gather representative waste samples (typically not less than one
month).
The sampling of a waste generated by a process that is not
fully continuous (e.g.. transient operating cycles or batch
operations) usually requires a greater number of composite
samples, composed of fewer grab samples, to sufficiently
characterize waste variability. Again, the sampling period and
number of composite samples will vary for each petitioned waste
and will depend on which scenario is best for obtaining the most
representative samples. Therefore, it is important that the
individuals designing the sampling strategy are familiar with the
known temporal variability of the waste stream.
7-9
-------
Solid discharges, such as filter cakes, often fall from a
press or plate-and-frame filter into a hopper or storage area.
In this case, a composite sample representative of a certain
waste generation period may be obtained by sampling the waste
from the storage container after a period of accumulation. For
example, filter cake can be allowed to accumulate in a storage
container for 24 hours, and then random core grab samples can be
taken using a simple two-dimensional random sampling strategy.
The sampling of filter cake from a storage container requires the
use of a thief or a trier, depending on the total liquid content
of the material. [A coliwasa could also be used if the solids
content is low.] The core samples can be combined to form a
composite representative of a 24-hour period of waste generation.
This procedure should be repeated enough times to obtain the
required number of samples (e.g.. four composite samples over one
month).
If phase separation of the waste has occurred, such as
exhibited by the appearance of a liquid in the storage container,
the waste should be mixed well before drawing the samples.
Excessive agitation of the waste, however, must be avoided if
volatile analysis will be performed.
Drums
If the petitioned waste is contained in drums, then each
drum should be sampled. If there are too many drums for this to
be practical, then a representative number of individual drums
must be randomly selected for sampling. Random selection is
easily done by consecutively assigning a number to each drum and
then using a random number table to choose the drums to be
sampled. Guidance in using a random number table may be found in
Appendix F of this manual.
For each drum, a single core sample representative of the
entire depth of the drum along its axis is sufficient. Equipment
used for sampling waste in drums includes weighted bottles,
coliwasas, thiefs, and triers. Coliwasas and weighted bottles
are best suited for sampling liquids and free-flowing slurries;
if the sample is comprised of dry granules or a powder, a drum
thief should be used. A trier should be used to sample moist or
sticky solids.
Landfills and Surface Impoundments
Before sampling landfills or surface impoundments, the
complete history of waste discharge to the unit must be reviewed
and understood. Such a review can provide a better understanding
of whether any waste stratification and spatial variability has
occurred. Regardless of whether variability has occurred, it is
important to obtain vertical samples representative of the entire
unit depth, including the bottom. Hollow-st.em augers combined
7-10
-------
with split-spoon samplers are frequently used for sampling
landfills. Triers or modified triers may also be used.
Generally, on-site and dedicated units contain wastes
generated and managed by fairly continuous processes and methods.
As long as no process changes or one-time discharges have
occurred during the life of the waste units, random number
sampling procedures or fixed transect and offset sampling
procedures are suitable. These procedures are summarized below
and illustrated by Exhibit 7-1.
Random Sampling Procedure
1. On a diagram, divide the unit to be sampled into
sections of equal area. If the unit area is under
40,000 square feet, then divide the unit into four equal
quadrants. If the unit area is over 40,000 square feet,
then divide the unit into equal sections of not more
than 10,000 square feet each.
2. Divide each quadrant or section into an imaginary
10 x 10 grid to obtain 100 rectangles of equal size.
Number the grid lines in each dimension from 1 to 9.
3. For each section, determine the number of sampling
points necessary (e.g.. five grab samples per section
composite sample) to characterize the waste. This
number will depend on the degree of known spatial
variability within the unit.
4. Select a two-digit number using a random number table.
Repeat this procedure until you have one two-digit
number for each sampling point in the section. (A
random number table is provided in Appendix F of this
manual.)
5. Locate those grid intersections with coordinates
corresponding to each of the two-digit random numbers.
These intersections are the locations of the randomly
selected sampling points.
6. Collect a full-core sample at each sampling point (i.e..
samples should be collected across the entire vertical
depth, from top to bottom of the unit).
7. Combine and mix the samples from each section to form a
homogeneous composite sample representative of each
section. Do not, however, combine samples from
different sections.
7-11
-------
Exhibit 7-1
SCHEMATIC OF SAMPLING GRID FOR A SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
This diagram shows a surface impoundment with a total area
of 30,000 square feet (150 feet x 200 feet) divided into 7,500
square-foot quadrants. Quadrant 1 illustrates the general random
sampling procedure and Quadrant 4 illustrates the fixed transect
and offset sampling procedure.
987654321
J.U
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
-
Quadrant 3
Quadrant 2
i
(
)
)
-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
123456789 10
7-12
-------
For example, a surface impoundment of 10,000 square feet should
be divided into four quadrants of 2,500 square feet each. In
each quadrant, five full-core samples should be collected and
composited, resulting in four composite samples, one from each
quadrant. Similarly, a landfill of 60,000 square feet would be
divided into six sections of 10,000 square feet each, yielding
six composite samples. At a minimum, we require the collection
and analyses of four representative samples per unit.
Fixed Transect and Offset Sampling Procedure
Waste units without a well documented history of waste
management should be sampled more extensively (e.g.. greater
number of samples per unit and fewer grab samples for each
composite sample) than units with complete documentation. More
extensive sampling is appropriate in order to fully characterize
the potential variability of the petitioned waste.
These types of units also are best sampled using a fixed
transect method with an offset sampling procedure rather than a
random sampling procedure. In this method, as shown by Exhibit
7-1, a grid is formed similar to that for the random sampling
procedure. The samples, however, are collected at different
points (non-random) along a grid line with a specified offset.
In cases where the waste deposition pattern has varied in a
regular manner, the sampling plan should be modified to account
for any waste deposition changes that are known to exist.
Hot Spots
Sometimes a localized area of contamination (a "hot spot11)
is known or expected to exist within a contained waste that
otherwise exhibits comparatively low concentrations of
constituents. Hot spots are often caused by the discharge of a
concentrated material (dumping) at a specific location. The
waste discharged in the specific area should be characterized
separately from the rest of the contained waste in order to
determine the boundaries of the hot spot.
Hot spots are sampled using procedures and equipment similar
to that described for sampling landfills and surface
impoundments. For contained wastes known or expected to have hot
spots, it is best to use the fixed transect and offset sampling
procedure. We usually request more than the minimum of four
samples to characterize a petitioned waste expected to contain
hot spots, regardless of the unit area. In such cases,
additional samples (e.g.. grab samples without compositing)
should be collected to verify the locations and exact boundaries
of all hot spots. If necessary, you may contact us for further
guidance regarding the sampling of wastes expected to have hot
spots.
7-13
-------
Multiple Waste Treatment Facilities v
As noted in Section 5.0, "Process and Waste Management
Information," multiple waste treatment facilities (MWTFs)
typically receive large numbers of individual waste shipments
from a variety of off-site processes. This practice results in
greater variability of constituent concentrations and thus makes
it more challenging to collect representative samples.
Therefore, the MWTF petitioner has fewer options for collecting
samples that adequately demonstrate that the petitioned waste is
not hazardous. To obtain representative samples, the following
guidelines are suggested:
Collect and analyze as many samples as are deemed
necessary to characterize the known variability in
constituent concentrations in the treatment residue
generated over one year (e.g.. eight weekly composite
samples collected over a period of two months).
Determine what percentage of waste treated annually was
represented by the sampling period. You should attempt
to represent wastes from a majority of your clients.
• Explain in your petition why the remaining percentage of
the waste is not expected to contain any other hazardous
constituents of concern, different levels of constituents
of concern, or other different characteristics than that
represented by the sampling period.
7.5 Recommended Elements of a Written Sampling Plan
A written sampling plan ensures that proper planning has
taken place and that planned procedures are followed during the
actual sampling effort. A good sampling plan should contain the
following information:
• Objectives of the sampling effort.
Description of the waste to be sampled.
Description of the sampling strategy.
• Names and professional qualifications of all sampling
team members.
• Description of all planned sampling and QC procedures,
including location of sampling points, sample numbering,
on-site sample preservation methods, sample containers,
sample shipment, and documentation.
• Decontamination and health and safety procedures.
7-14
-------
• Analytical lab to be used and analyses to be performed.
• Health and safety plan.
• Sampling equipment list.
A formal, written sampling plan is not necessary as part of
a delisting petition (although we do request that you submit a
comprehensive description of how samples were actually
collected). However, you may submit your written sampling plan
to the Agency for review before sample collection and submittal
of a formal delisting petition. If you choose this option, you
should also submit the process and waste management information
requested in Section 5.0 of this manual and a complete list of
analytes. Based on this information, we will review your
sampling plan and provide guidance before you dedicate additional
resources to sample collection and analysis.
7-15
-------
8.0 WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS INFORMATION
This section tells you how to provide waste sampling and
analysis information. You should submit this sampling and
analysis information to directly support your contention that the
petitioned waste should be removed from the lists of hazardous
wastes found in 40 CFR Part 261. The regulatory basis for
requesting most of this information is found in 40 CFR
§260.22(i).
The information requested in this section corresponds with
Section E of the "Outline for Delisting Petitions" found in
Appendix A. This section is divided into two major subsections:
8.1, "Waste Sampling Information" and 8.2, "Waste Analysis
Information."
As noted in Section 6.0 ("Analytical Plan Development") and
Section 7.0 ("Sampling Plan Development"), you have the option of
submitting, for our review, a draft plan outlining future sample
collection and analysis efforts before committing resources to
actual sample analysis and petition preparation. If you chose
this option, then you should note that you did when submitting
your formal petition.
8.1 Waste Sampling Information
We will review information on waste sampling efforts to
determine whether:
• Collected samples sufficiently represent the variability
or uniformity of the petitioned waste.
• Waste sampling was conducted by qualified personnel.
• Sample integrity was maintained up to receipt by the
laboratory.
If you wish, a copy of your written sampling plan may be
included with your petition, but it is not necessary*
You should demonstrate that waste sampling was conducted by
qualified personnel. Therefore, you should provide the following
information:
• The name and address of the organization(s) or company(s)
responsible for designing the sampling strategy and
collecting the samples, if sampling assistance was
obtained from outside the petitioning facility.
8-1
-------
• The names, affiliations, titles, and qualifications (a
resume will suffice) of all personnel (in-house and
otherwise) who designed the sampling plan and the quality
control plan and those individuals responsible for sample
collection.
In order to demonstrate that collected samples are
sufficiently representative of the petitioned waste, you should
include the following information in your petition:
Identification of which process point discharges,
containment areas (e.g.. lagoons), or other areas (e.g..
soils) were sampled and why these areas were selected for
sample collection.
A description of the techniques and guidelines used to
select waste sampling points (e.g.. random sampling
procedure or fixed transect and offset sampling
procedure).
• A general description of the sampling and subsampling
(i.e.. transferring aliquots of a sample to containers
specific to certain analyses) procedures used during the
sample collection process, including the particular days
and times selected for sample collection, the number of
grab samples collected for each composite sample, and why
these procedures were used.
• A description of the sampling devices used for sample
collection and the basis for selecting the devices.
Identification of any deviations from your original
sampling plan and strategy and the impact of these
deviations on waste characterization.
• A detailed discussion explaining why you believe the
samples collected are non-biased and sufficiently
represent the petitioned waste. This explanation should
fully address the potential for waste uniformity or
spatial and temporal variability and how the strategy
ensured collection of representative samples.
We also request sample-specific information to show that
sample integrity was maintained. Therefore, you should include
the following information for each sample collected for analysis:
• The sample identification number, as it appears in your
field logbook and other records.
Whether or not the sample is a waste sample or a quality
control sample.
8-2
-------
• A detailed description of how the sample was collected
and its point of collection from the petitioned waste,
including whether the sample is a composite of grabs, the
number of grab samples collected for the composite
sample, the sampling location for each grab sample, the
volume of each grab sample, and the volume of the
composite sample. The general sampling location (e.g..
which quadrant of a surface impoundment) and the specific
sampling point (e.g.. specific location in the quadrant)
should be provided. You may refer to numbered sampling
points indicated in a diagram.
A description of how the sample was composited (e.g..
equipment used and manner of mixing).
• A physical description of the sample at time of
collection (e.g.. color, odor, whether phase separation
occurred soon after collection).
The time and date when each grab sample was collected and
the time when the sample was composited, as applicable.
• The handling and preparation techniques used for each
sample (including types of containers used and techniques
employed for container preparation) and types and amounts
of preservatives used.
Petitioners should also include some of the more general
information about sample collection so that we may fully evaluate
sample representativeness and integrity. This information
includes:
• A description of weather conditions during sample
collection (if sampling is conducted outdoors).
• An indication as to whether any facility activities
separate from sampling occurred at the same time and
might have affected sample representativeness (such as
fossil-fueled motors being used nearby).
• A description of sampling device decontamination between
samples. Alternatively, note when new devices were used
for each sample.
A description of the quality control procedures and
documentation system used to track sample location and
maintain sample integrity during transportation to the
laboratory. You may simply state that you followed the
chain-of-custody system specified in SW-846, if you have
done so. You may also provide copies of the
chain-of-custody forms, but this is not a requirement.
8-3
-------
If you have collected samples to characterize a localized
area of contamination (a "hot spot," see Section 7-4) within the
petitioned waste, then you should also provide the following
information:
• Your basis for believing a hot spot may or does exist
(e.g.. records of a one-time discharge of a concentrated
material at a specific location).
• The known or predicted location (on a diagram) and the
dimensions (e.g.. depth, width and length) of the hot
spot.
» Identification of the samples specifically collected to
characterize the hot spot.
• An explanation for why the samples sufficiently represent
the hot spot.
If you have collected samples to characterize a waste
generated by a multiple waste treatment facility (MWTF), then you
should also provide the following information:
• A listing and description (based on your knowledge) of
the untreated wastes that were treated and are
represented by the treatment residue samples collected
during the sampling period.
• The percentage of wastes treated annually that was
represented by the sampling period.
• A listing and brief description of the untreated wastes
that also are treated at the facility but were not
represented by the sampling period.
• A discussion explaining why the wastes not represented by
the sampling period are not expected to contain any other
hazardous constituents of concern, different-levels of
constituents of concern, or other different
characteristics than those represented by the sampling
period.
8.2 Waste Analysis Information
Based on the analytical results reported in your petition,
we will determine whether your waste exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic (if you chose analysis for the demonstration) and
whether any of the tested constituents are present at levels of
regulatory concern. Besides analytical results, you should also
provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the data are
valid (e.q^. results from quality control analyses supporting
8-4
-------
data validity) and that sample integrity was maintained
throughout the analysis.
Some of the information requested below is routinely
supplied on reports from an analytical laboratory.
However, we suggest that you inform your laboratory of the
specific information we prefer for delisting petitions to
ensure complete data submittals.
You should demonstrate that laboratory analyses were
conducted by qualified personnel. Therefore, you should provide
the following information:
The name and address of the organization(s) or company(s)
responsible for sample analyses, if analytical assistance
from outside the petitioning facility was obtained.
The names, affiliations, titles, and qualifications (a
resume will suffice) of all personnel (in-house and
otherwise) who conducted analyses or were responsible for
data reduction, validation, and laboratory quality
control.
Your petition should clearly specify analytical
information for each analytical test conducted, including
testing for the hazardous waste characteristics, total oil
and grease, inorganic constituents (leaching procedure and
total results), and organic constituents (leaching
procedure and total concentration results).
For each sample, you should report the following
information:
Sample identification number as logged during collection
and as assigned by the laboratory.
Type of sample (e.g.. waste sample, waste sample
replicate, equipment blank, trip blank).
Date of sample receipt by the laboratory.
For each analysis performed on each sample, you should report the
following information:
8-5
-------
• The sample preparation method and reference for the
method (e.g.. SW-846 Method 3500).
• The date of sample workup or preparation.
• Initials (or name) of the person conducting each
analysis.
• The date each extraction and analysis was performed.
The test method used and the source of the test method
(e.g.. SW-846 Method 802C).
The specific constituent, parameter, or hazard for which
analysis was conducted.
The test results, expressed in appropriate units (e.g..
mg/L, mg/kg).
Basis for each analysis (e.g.. wet weight, dry weight).
We prefer that this basis is the state in which the waste
will be disposed, if allowed by the test.
• The estimated guantitation limits (EQLs). While method
detection limits (MDLs) are of concern, we also evaluate
EQLs for delisting purposes. EQLs are provided in SW-846
and should be discussed in all petitions.
The names and model numbers of all equipment used during
analysis.
All other information necessary to fully interpret the
test procedures or results (e.g.. percentage solids in
the waste, solvent(s) used during oil and grease
extraction, extraction method used during semi-volatile
analysis).
Quality Control Information
We also request that laboratory quality control (QC)
procedures be performed and the results reported. You should
report the methods taken to ensure the quality of sample analysis
so that we can fully and accurately evaluate the validity of the
waste sample results.
Chapter One of SW-846 is an excellent source for general
guidance regarding quality control procedures. Each SW-846 test
method has specific QC requirements that should also be followed.
8-6
-------
For each QC analysis, you should report the analytical
information listed above, as appropriate (e.g.. date of
analysis, person conducting the analysis, sample
identification number, units, method source). You should
also report the information specific to each type of QC
analysis that is listed below. You should present your own
acceptance criteria, which should be at least as stringent
as the criteria specified for each method in SW-846.
Section 6.7 of this guidance manual, "Identifying Quality
Control (QC) Protocols (Step 8)," provides more guidance
regarding QC procedures. You should comply with the QC
procedures and criteria of each analysis method as
documented in the method source (e.g.. SW-846), otherwise,
we may not consider your analytical data valid or your
petition complete.
Each type of analysis should have a method blank, matrix
spike, and a matrix duplicate or matrix spike duplicate. The
appropriate frequencies for performing these QC analyses are
discussed in SW-846. For each method blank, you should report
the concentration of each analyte in the sample. For each matrix
spike, you should report:
The name of the matrix spike analyte added.
The concentration of the matrix spike analyte in the
unspiked sample.
The amount of the matrix spike analyte added.
• The concentration of the matrix spike in the spiked
sample.
The calculated percent recovery of the matrix spike and
method of calculation.
• The acceptance criterion for recovery of the matrix
spike.
In addition to the information listed above, for each matrix
spike duplicate pair, you should report:
The measured amount of the matrix spike in both spiked
samples.
8-7
-------
The relative percent difference (RPD) between the two
analytical results. The calculation for the RPD is:
(XI - X2/X)1100), where XI - first value, X2 - second
value, and X = mean value = (XI + X2)/2.
• The acceptance criterion for RPD of each matrix spike
compound.
Most organic analyses require specific surrogate spikes.
depending on the method. Surrogates are specific constituents
that are similar in chemical structure and physical properties to
a substance of interest, but are not in the waste itself.
(Deuterated compounds, in which deuterium replaces hydrogen in a
given compound, are popular surrogates.) We request that the
surrogates listed with the method in SW-846 be used. You should
report the same type of information as listed above for matrix
spikes.
Finally, you should provide the following information:
• Were waste analytical data corrected based on quality
control results (e.g.. spike recoveries) and, if so, how
was any correction made?
Explain any inconsistencies or deviations found in the
reported analytical results. This discussion should
include any observed analytical interferences and what
actions were taken to resolve the problems.
8-8
-------
9.0 GROUND-WATER MONITORING INFORMATION
This section tells you how to provide ground-water
monitoring information. Appendix G contains a copy of a Federal
Register notice to amend 40 CFR §260.22 that clarifies our
ground-water monitoring information requirements. Until that
amendment is finalized, the Federal Register notice, and the
discussion below, should be used as guidance concerning when
ground-water monitoring information should be provided in
connection with a delisting petition.
In general, you should submit ground-water monitoring
information if you currently manage, or ever have managed, the
petitioned waste in a land-based waste management unit for which
a ground-water monitoring system is required pursuant to 40 CFR
Part 264 or 265 or authorized state equivalent; if collection of
such information is mandated pursuant to other Federal, state, or
local requirements; or if such information is otherwise available
for the unit.
We often use analytical models to predict the potential
environmental impact of a waste under a reasonable worst-case
management scenario. We use this generic, non-site-specific
approach because once a waste is delisted, the waste may be
disposed without the protective management constraints of RCRA
Subtitle C. Thus, a delisted waste could be disposed at
locations where hydrogeological and other conditions may vary
considerably from those of the original disposal site.
Nevertheless, we also believe data that characterize the actual
impact of waste disposal are* useful in evaluating the hazards
posed by the waste and will serve to complement the use of
predictive models. For example, ground-water monitoring data for
a unit containing the waste may indicate that the waste has
contributed to ground-water contamination. Such ground-water
data suggest that the waste poses a hazard at one location and,
thus, would potentially pose a hazard if disposed at other
locations.
This section identifies which petitioners should submit
ground-water monitoring information, where to obtain most of the
information, what information is requested, and how we may
evaluate the information. The section is organized as follows:
9.1 Who Should Submit Ground-water Monitoring Information
with a Delisting Petition?
9.2 Where Can a Petitioner Obtain Ground-water Monitoring
Information?
9.3 What Information is Requested?
9-1
-------
9.4 Special Case Information - Unsaturated (Vadose) Zone
Monitoring Data
9.5 What Happens if Submitted Ground-water Monitoring
Information is Incomplete or Inadequate?
9.6 How Does the EPA Evaluate Ground-water Monitoring Data?
9.1 Who Should Submit Ground-water Monitoring
Information with a Delistina Petition?
Only certain petitioners are asked to submit ground-water
monitoring information with their petitions. This section will
help you determine whether you should submit ground-water
information.
In general, we request that you submit ground-water
monitoring information if the petitioned waste is managed in, or
was ever managed in, one or more land-based waste management
units (e.g.. surface impoundments, landfills) for which a ground-
water monitoring system is required pursuant to 40 CFR Part 264
or 265 or authorized state equivalent or other Federal, state, or
local requirements; or if such information is otherwise available
for the unit or units. We usually request that petitioners
submit ground-water monitoring information for those units used
to manage the petitioned waste.
We usually do not request that petitioners submit
ground-water monitoring information if the petitioned waste has
never been managed in a land-based waste management unit. For
example, petitions for wastes that have not yet been generated
(i.e.. petitions requesting an "upfront" exclusion) would not
require ground-water monitoring information. Obviously,
ground-water monitoring data for such wastes are not physically
obtainable or required by a regulatory authority.
There are two additional situations in which ground-water
monitoring information may not be requested. First,'in some
cases, ground-water monitoring data for non-dedicated waste
management units may have little value to our evaluation of the
petitioned waste. For instance, non-dedicated commercial units
may accept a wide variety and significant amounts of other
wastes, such that ground-water monitoring data for these units
would presumably reflect the environmental impact of numerous,
co-disposed wastes.
Secondly, we have received a number of petitions for
facilities that are using stabilization or other procedures to
treat or reduce constituent mobility in appropriate waste
matrices. We believe that the treatment or stabilization process
generally alters the chemical composition of the waste and the
9-2
-------
mobility of the waste constituents and, thus, the treated or
stabilized waste is inherently different from the waste in its
untreated form. In these cases, we typically request
ground-water monitoring information from only the unit(s) in
which the treated waste is managed.
For petitioners who we have requested to submit ground-water
monitoring information with their petitions, the following
subsections describe how such ground-water information may be
obtained, what information should be provided, and how we may use
the information during petition evaluation.
9.2 Where Can a Petitioner Obtain Ground-water Monitoring
Information?
If you are required to monitor ground water pursuant to 40
CFR Part 264 or 265 or authorized state equivalent, or pursuant
to other Federal, state, or local requirements, most of the
requested ground-water monitoring information should be readily
available and can be provided without significant cost. If you
are asked to submit ground-water monitoring information from an
off-site unit that you do not own or operate, you should obtain
the required information from the facility owner or operator.
If you previously submitted ground-water monitoring
information to EPA or an authorized State in response to
Federal, state, or local requirements (e.g.. 40 CFR Part
264 or 265) , you may either resubmit the information with
your petition or specify the titles and dates of the
reports and the State or EPA Regional contact in possession
of the submitted reports. We will coordinate with State
and EPA Regional contacts to obtain this information, when
appropriate. We may request additional information
necessary for the delisting evaluation if the reports
submitted to the State or EPA Region are not adequate for
delisting purposes (e.g.. we may request ground-water
monitoring data for additional constituents).
In addition to information previously submitted to State or
EPA Regional authorities, you may obtain the information from
sources such as literature reviews, previous studies, field
investigations, field tests, maps, well logs, and cross sections.
9-3
-------
9.3 What Information Is Reauested?
It is likely that you have or are currently generating
much of the ground-water information (as outlined further
below) that we may wish to review. Information of this
type is required for hazardous waste management units
pursuant to under 40 CFR Part 264 or 265. Therefore, you
may submit, as part of your delisting petition, copies of
appropriate ground-water monitoring reports and/or the
ground-water related sections of permit applications (e.g..
Part B permit application) for the units used to manage the
petitioned waste. As noted above, we may request
additional information necessary for petition evaluation if
this ground-water information is not adequate for delisting
purposes.
In order for us to evaluate the impact of your waste on
ground-water quality, we typically review the following basic
information:
A description of site geology and hydrology.
A description of the ground-water monitoring systems for
the units in which the petitioned waste is managed.
Results obtained from the analysis of ground-water
samples collected pursuant to 40 CFR Part 264 or 265 or
authorized State equivalent, or other Federal, State, or
local requirements; or otherwise collected for the unit
containing the petitioned waste.
• A discussion of ground-water sampling and analytical
procedures followed in obtaining and analyzing the
ground-water samples.
• Any additional information necessary to characterize the
petitioned waste's impact on ground-water quality.
An analysis and discussion of whether the above-listed
information and data that indicate contamination of the
ground water is attributable to the petitioned waste.
9-4
-------
We request that you submit ground-water monitoring
information for all well systems and wells (including non-RCRA
wells) that monitor each hazardous waste management unit in which
the petitioned waste is, or ever was, managed. You should submit
all available ground-water monitoring data, which normally should
include data from at least four rounds of monitoring conducted
over the course of one year. The data should represent any
expected seasonal or other temporal variations in ground-water
quality.
In general, the ground-water monitoring system for a
regulated hazardous waste management unit in which the petitioned
waste is managed should meet the requirements of a RCRA
ground-water monitoring system as described in 40 CFR Part 264 or
265, unless otherwise exempted. You should fully explain in your
petition any deviations from these requirements that are the
result of site-specific conditions or variances issued by an
authorized State or EPA Regional office. We also will request
ground-water monitoring information 'from any other unit
containing the petitioned waste, if such information is
available.
We typically request analytical data for all hazardous
constituents that may be derived from the petitioned waste. If
your permit does not require you to monitor for all of the
hazardous constituents potentially derived from the petitioned
waste, we may request that you perform additional sampling and
analysis for those constituents. We will make this request for
additional information if we have sufficient reason to believe
that un-monitored constituents in the waste could have an adverse
effect on ground-water quality.
9.4 Special Case Information - Unsaturated (Vadose) Zone
Monitoring Data
You may be monitoring the unsaturated (vadose) zone at your
facility in order to detect hazardous constituents migrating from
a waste management unit before ground water or the soil column
has been adversely affected. Such a program is particularly
advantageous and necessary when a waste management unit is
located in a region where depth to ground water is substantial.
We will use vadose zone monitoring data (e.g.. lysimeter data),
when it is available from a petitioner or is required by EPA
Regional or State authorities, to support our evaluation of the
potential impact of the petitioned waste on ground water and the
environment. If such information has been collected for a unit
in which the petitioned waste is managed, you should submit the
following information in as much detail as possible:
A description of regional, local, and unit-specific
geology, hydrology, and soil characteristics.
9-5
-------
• A description of the monitoring system (e.g.. design and
construction of lysimeters).
• A description of the sampling and analytical procedures
followed.
• A presentation of all analytical and QC data.
• An interpretation of the information submitted.
9.5 What Happens if Submitted Ground-water Mpnitorinct
Information is Incomplete or Inadequate?
We will notify you if submitted ground-water monitoring
information is insufficient to complete our evaluation of your
petition. Pursuant to 53 FR 6822, March 3, 1988, such incomplete
petitions may be dismissed upon receipt (Appendix D contains a
copy of 53 FR 6822). If your petition is dismissed, you may
submit a new petition after you have' obtained updated and
complete ground-water monitoring information. If the information
you have submitted is not seriously deficient fe.cr.. well logs
were not provided), we will give you up to six months to provide
the necessary ground-water monitoring information.
In most cases, ground-water monitoring programs approved by
the EPA Region or an authorized state will provide the data
necessary for evaluating the impact of the petitioned waste on
ground-water quality. In some cases, however, an approved
ground-water monitoring program may not be adequate for
determining the impact of the petitioned waste on ground-water
quality. For example, the EPA Region or State may have approved
a single ground-water monitoring system for a waste management
area. A waste management area is defined by an imaginary line
circumscribing more than one regulated unit. A well system that
monitors several regulated units within a single waste management
area, including a unit containing the petitioned waste/ may be
inadequate for evaluating the impact of the petitioned waste on
ground-water quality. Petitions for wastes contained in such
units will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Such petitions
may be dismissed if we believe the inadequacies of the monitoring
program render the ground-water monitoring data insufficient for
properly characterizing the impact of the petitioned waste on
ground-water quality and if adequate information will take more
than six months to obtain. However, we may still use data from a
non-compliant or inadequate ground-water monitoring system to
support petition denial if the data indicate that the petitioned
waste may have adversely affected ground-water quality.
9.6 How Does the EPA Evaluate Ground-water Monitoring Data?
We will review your ground-water monitoring data to
determine whether hazardous constituents have migrated from the
9-6
-------
petitioned waste to ground water at levels of concern. Evidence
of ground-water contamination may provide grounds to deny your
petition unless you can demonstrate one of the following:
1. The petitioned waste has not contributed to the
contamination (e.g.. the contamination is the result of
other on-site or off-site sources). A demonstration
that the petitioned waste has not contributed to
ground-water contamination may require that you submit
analytical data in addition to that required by 40 CFR
Part 264 or 265. The demonstration may include
information such as background ground-water quality,
waste composition data, mass balance demonstrations,
unsaturated zone monitoring data, results of the
chemical analysis of other potential contaminant
sources, and manufacturing and treatment process
information. If our evaluation shows that constituent
concentrations in your designated background (or
upgradient) wells are of concern, you may be required to
demonstrate that background (or upgradient) ground-water
contamination is the result of a contaminant source
other than the petitioned waste and is not in fact
related to factors such as inappropriate well
construction or placement, ground-water mounding, or
site-specific hydrogeologic factors that might cause
background (or upgradient) wells to intercept flow from
the petitioned unit.
2. The contamination is due to an error in sampling or
analysis or other factors not associated with the
petitioned waste. If you believe an error in sampling
or analysis has occurred, you may be required to provide
an explanation of why the error occurred and sufficient
data to show that the data in question are not
representative of actual ground-water quality. Such a
demonstration may include the presentation of field and
laboratory QC data (e.g.f equipment blanks, trip blanks,
laboratory blanks, replicates).
3. The ground-water monitoring data of concern are not
statistically significant. A variety of EPA-approved
methods can be used for statistically evaluating
ground-water monitoring data from hazardous waste
facilities. The appropriateness of a given procedure,
however, is governed by specified performance standards
that require that the use of a statistical test be
determined on a case-by-case basis. You may refer to 53
£E 39720, October 11., 1988, and the EPA publication
entitled "Statistical Analysis of Ground-water
Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities" for more information
on statistical evaluations of ground-water monitoring
data.
9-7
-------
We will evaluate the results of indicator parameter analyses
(e.g.. pH, specific conductance, total organic carbon, or total
organic halogens) submitted in support of your petition and any
indicator parameter analyses obtained from State and EPA Regional
offices, according to statistical procedures set forth in 40 CFR
Part 264 or 265 (or as amended) as appropriate. If our
evaluation shows that a statistically significant increase (or
for pH, an increase or decrease) over background levels of an
indicator parameter has occurred, you may be required to collect
additional ground-water samples and analyze the samples for one
or more hazardous constituents.
If an evaluation of indicator parameter analyses shows that
a statistically significant increase (or for pH, an increase or
decrease) over background concentrations in the level of an
indicator parameter has not occurred, we still may request that
you perform additional sampling and analysis for one or more
hazardous constituents. We may ask you to submit such additional
analytical data in order to demonstrate that the concentrations
of hazardous constituents in ground water are not of concern.
Ground-water monitoring data will not be used as the sole
basis for the Agency's decision to grant an exclusion. We
consider many factors during the evaluation of a delisting
petition. For example, when modeling results do not correspond
to ground-water monitoring data (e.g.. when the petitioned waste
fails the model evaluation but does not appear to have
contaminated ground water), the Agency may assume that the waste
could pose a threat to human health and the environment either in
the future or at another disposal location where environmental
conditions are less effective in preventing leachate generation
or migration.
9-8
-------
APPENDIX A
OUTLINE FOR DELISTING PETITIONS
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
OUTLINE FOR DELISTING PETITIONS
1. This "Outline for Delisting Petitions" is meant to be used
while preparing a petition to delist a listed hazardous waste
under the provisions of 40 CFR §260.22.
2. This outline is contained in Appendix A of the document
entitled "Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes: A Guidance
Manual" (second edition), a publication of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The manual contains guidance
in identifying and supplying the information necessary for a
complete petition. We recommend that you thoroughly review
the manual before attempting to develop a delisting petition.
You may also obtain further assistance by writing to the Chief
of the Delisting Section (address is provided below) or call
the RCRA Hotline of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
at (800) 424-9346.
3. This outline is intended to be read and addressed sequentially
from "Section A" to "Section F". A space is provided with
each item (i.e.. "Section ") so that you may indicate
on the outline which section of your petition fully addresses
the requested information.
4. If you choose to assert a confidential business information
(CBI) claim for any petition information, this intent should
be specified in the transmittal letter. In addition, the CBI
claim should be clearly identified in red on each page which
contains the confidential information.
5. The original of the petition should be forwarded by certified
mail to the following:
Office of the Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W., Suite W1200 (A-100)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Two copies of the petition should also be submitted to:
Chief of the Delisting Section
Office of Solid Waste (OS-333)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
SECTION A: ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
(Refer to Guidance Manual Section 3.0, "Administrative
Information.")
A space is provided (i.e.. "Section ") with each item in
this outline so that you may indicate which section of your
petition fully addresses the requested information.
1. Name of Petitioner. Section
a. Name of individual or firm submitting petition:
b. Mailing address of individual or firm:
Street/P.O. Box:
City:
State: Zip Code:
2. People to Contact for Additional Information Pertaining to
this Petition. Section
a. Name Title Telephone No.
f )
_[
b. Mailing address of contact(s) if different- from
petitioner. Section
Street/P.O. Box:
City:
State: Zip Code:
A-l
-------
3. Facility Responsible for Generating Petitioned Waste.
Section
a. Name of facility:
b. Location of facility:
Street:
City:
State: Zip Code:
c. RCRA ID number:
4. Location of Petitioned Waste. Section
Same as facility name and address given in item 3;
or
a. Name of facility:
b. Location of facility:
Street:
City:
State: Zip Code;
c. RCRA ID number:
5. Describe the proposed delisting action. Section
6. Provide a statement of your interest in the proposed action,
Section
7. Provide a statement of the need and justification for the
proposed action. Section
A-2
-------
8. Signed Certification Statement. Section
I certify under penalty of law that I have personally
examined and am familiar with the information submitted in
this demonstration and all attached documents, and that,
based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that
the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete.
I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment.
Signed by Authorized Representative*,
Typed Name:
Title:
*Note: An "authorized representative" is a person responsible
for the overall operation of a facility or an operational unit
(i.e.. part of a facility), for example, a plant manager,
superintendent, or person of equivalent responsibility.
Consultants or other outside parties should not sign the
certification statement.
A-3
-------
SECTION B. WASTE AMD WASTE MANAGEMENT HISTORY INFORMATION
(Refer to Guidance Manual Section 4.0, "Waste and Waste
Management History Information.")
BASIS FOR THE WASTE LISTING
1. Which of the following scenarios best describes the
petitioned waste? (Choose the most appropriate scenario and
provide the information requested for the chosen scenario.)
Section
a. Petitioned waste is not a mixture of two or more listed
hazardous wastes.
Common name of
petitioned waste:
EPA Hazardous
Waste Number:
Hazardous waste
description:
b. Petitioned waste is a mixture of two or more listed
hazardous wastes.
Common name of
mixture:
For all listed wastes provide:
EPA Hazardous
Waste Number:
Hazardous waste
description:
Common name:
c. Petitioned waste is a mixture of one or more solid non-
hazardous wastes and one or more listed hazardous
wastes, as described in 40 CFR §261.3(a)(2)(iii-iv).
Common name
of mixture:
Solid waste(s)
common name(s):
A-4
-------
For all listed wastes provide:
EPA Hazardous
Waste Number:
Hazardous waste
description:
Common name:
d. Petitioned waste is generated from the treatment,
storage, or disposal of one or more listed hazardous
wastes (or solid non-hazardous and listed hazardous
waste mixture), as described in 40 CFR §261.3(c)(2)(i)
Description of
petitioned waste:
Common name of
petitioned waste:
Solid waste(s)
common name(s):
For all listed wastes provide:
EPA Hazardous
Waste Number:
Hazardous waste
description:
Common name:
2. Describe the physical form of the petitioned waste.
Section
3. If the physical form is sludge or liquid, estimate based on
waste analysis the percentage of solids (e.g.. provide a
range). Section
A-5
-------
HISTORY OF WASTE GENERATION
4. Which of the following describes the generation of the
petitioned waste: (Indicate those that apply and provide
the information requested for each item.) Section
Waste has been generated in the past.
Provide the year when waste
was first generated:
Provide the year when waste
generation ended (if applicable):
b. Waste is presently being generated,
Provide the year when waste
was first generated:
c. Waste will be generated in the future.
VOLUME OF PETITIONED WASTE
5. Is the petition for a waste of fixed quantity (e.g.. a
discrete volume of waste contained in a unit)?
Yes [Answer item 5a]
No [Answer item 5b]
a. Petitioned waste is/will be a fixed quantity.
Section
Estimated volume:
Quantity Unit of measurement
Describe the method of volume estimation.
A-6
-------
Petitioned waste is/will be generated on a routine or
continuous basis. Section
Average Maximum Unit of
Quantity Quantity Measurement
Monthly Volume
Annual Volume
Describe the method of volume estimation.
HISTORY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
6. As appropriate, describe the present, past, and proposed
waste management methods for the petitioned waste.
Section
a. Present waste management methods, and off-site facility
or facilities used (name, address, and waste management
method).
b. Past waste management methods, if different from
present, and off-site facility or facilities used
(name, address, and waste management method).
c. Proposed waste management methods if delisting petition
is granted, and off-site facility or facilities to be
used (name, address, and waste management method).
A-7
-------
SECTION C: PROCESS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
(Refer to Guidance Manual Section 5.0, "Process and Waste
Management Information.11)
GENERAL OPERATIONS AT THE GENERATING FACILITY
1. Describe facility business area(s) and operations. Include
SIC code(s). Section
SIC
SIC
2. List and describe products manufactured at the facility.
Section
3. List and describe all wastes (including all hazardous
wastes) generated at the facility. Section _
4. Describe your manufacturing and waste treatment areas and
waste management units. Attach schematics showing the
layout of the facility. Section
Describe the regulatory status of all on-site waste
treatment, storage, and disposal units. Include a list of
all hazardous waste permits and other permits issued under
Federal and State environmental statutes. Include the
permit numbers in this list. Section
A-8
-------
CONTRIBUTING MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
6. Describe and include schematics of all "pre-process" steps
used to prepare materials for processing prior to primary
manufacturing operations, including surface and equipment
preparation operations. Identify all pre-process material
inputs and outputs in your descriptions and schematics.
Section
7. Provide a step-by-step description and schematic of each
manufacturing process contributing to the petitioned waste.
Include each process step, reactions occurring, flow rates,
and material inputs and outputs, as well as reaction
intermediates and byproducts. Identify and describe waste
inputs and outputs on the schematic(s) and indicate how each
waste is managed. Section
Describe, and identify on the schematic, exactly where the
petitioned waste is generated (if generated by a
manufacturing process). Section
9. List and describe all process equipment, including the
function of each unit and the ranges of the operating
parameters. Section
10. Describe all of your operating cycles (batch cycles, versus
continuous operation, start-up, shut-down, maintenance,
cleaning) on a daily, weekly, or other period basis, as
appropriate. Identify periods when process wastes are not
generated (e.g.. plant shutdowns or routine equipment
maintenance). Section
11. Assess the extent that all contributing manufacturing
processes, operations, process materials, or generated
wastes have varied in the past or may vary in the future.
Section
12. Describe how the composition and generation rate of the
petitioned waste may periodically vary due to any aspect of
manufacturing process variability. Section
A-9
-------
13. Does a waste treatment process contribute to the petitioned
waste?
Yes [Continue with item 14]
No [Skip to item 22]
CONTRIBUTING WASTE TREATMENT PROCESSES
14. Provide a step-by-step description and schematic of each
waste treatment process contributing to the petitioned
waste. Include process steps, reactions occurring, flow
rates, material inputs, and waste inputs and outputs.
Section
15. Describe, and identify on the schematic, exactly where the
petitioned waste is generated (if applicable).
Section
16. Identify and describe waste inputs and outputs on the
schematic(s) and indicate how each waste is managed.
Section
17. Describe all non-process wastes entering the waste treatment
processes, including composition, rate of inputs, and
source. Section
18. List and describe all process equipment, including the
function of each unit and the ranges of the operating
parameters. Section
19. Describe all of your operating cycles (batch cycles versus
continuous operation, start-up, shut-down, maintenance,
cleaning) on a daily, weekly, or other period basis, as
appropriate. Identify periods when treatment wastes are not
generated (e.g.. plant shutdowns or routine equipment
maintenance). Section
20. Assess the extent that all contributing treatment processes,
operations, process materials, or generated wastes have
varied in the past or may vary in the future.
Section
A-10
-------
21. Describe how the composition and generation rate of the
petitioned waste may periodically vary due to any aspect of
treatment process variability. Section
22. Has the petitioned waste been managed in a land-based unit?
Yes [Continue with item 23]
No [Skip to item 25]
WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS
23. Provide the following information (items 23a through 23g)
for each unit that is (or was) used to manage the petitioned
waste: Section
(If the petitioned waste is managed in more than one unit,
assign a number to each unit (e.g.. Unit #1, Unit #2, etc.)
and use the unit numbers to associate a description with a
specific unit.)
a. Unit location/address (indicate if on- or off-site).
b. Description of unit construction (current design and
materials).
c. History of unit design (e.g... chronological summary of
any changes to original construction).
d. Purpose and description of any unit design and
operating modifications.
e. Estimated surface area.
f. Estimated unit capacity volume.
A-ll
-------
Listing of waste and material inputs which have
occurred throughout the life of the unit, if known.
24. Provide detailed schematic(s) of the waste unit(s) showing
(as appropriate) unit dimensions, influent point(s),
effluent point(s), and waste thickness. Section
PROCESS MATERIALS
25. List all materials used in the operations that contribute to
the petitioned waste. The list should include:
Section
a. The name of the material(s).
b. The process/operation in which it is used (i.e..
manufacturing process, treatment process, waste
management operations).
c. Function of each material in the process.
d. Approximate annual quantities used.
26. Provide Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and any other
compositional information for tradename and non-elemental
materials. Section
27. Specify the source, quality (i.e.. recycled or virgin), and
quantity of oil, grease, and hydraulic fluids entering the
processes. Section
A-12
-------
SPECIAL INFORMATION
28. Are you requesting an upfront exclusion for a waste that is
not currently generated but will be in the future?
Yes [Continue with item 29]
No [Skip to item 32]
29. Explain how the bench-scale or pilot-scale process
demonstration adequately models the proposed full-scale
process. Section
30. Explain any real or potential differences-between the two
processes. Section
31. Describe the impact of those differences on the character of
the petitioned waste. Section
32. Are you requesting an exclusion for a waste generated by a
multiple waste treatment facility (MWTF)?
Yes [Continue with item 33]
No [Skip to Section D]
33. Describe your procedure for prescreening clients and wastes
and how this procedure will be implemented should your waste
be excluded. Section
34. Describe the procedures by which you will ensure that: (1)
treatment levels required by an exclusion are maintained and
(2) a hazardous waste is not disposed improperly as
non-hazardous. Section
A-13
-------
SECTION D: ANALYTICAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT
(Refer to Guidance Manual Section 6.0, "Analytical Plan
Development.")
1. Provide a complete list of the constituents and parameters
of concern identified for your petitioned waste based on
appropriate waste constituent analyses and the results of an
engineering analysis. Identify those constituents
quantitated by laboratory analysis and those quantitated
using mass balance demonstrations. Section
2. Provide mass balance demonstrations for those constituents
of concern in your list for which analyses were not
conducted. Provide all calculations and assumptions.
Section
3. Explain why any other delisting constituent of concern is
not on the constituent of concern list for your petitioned
waste. Section
4. Explain why your petitioned waste does not exhibit any
hazardous waste characteristic for which analysis was not
conducted. Section
A-14
-------
SECTION E: SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS INFORMATION
(Refer to Guidance Manual Sections 7.0 and 8.0, "Sampling Plan
Development" and "Waste Sampling and Analysis Information,"
respectively.)
1. Has a draft sampling and analysis plan been submitted to EPA
for review prior to petition preparation? Section
Yes [Answer items la and Ib]
No [Skip to item 2]
a. Submittal date of sampling and analysis plan / /
b. Log number assigned by EPA to
your draft submittal
WASTE SAMPLING INFORMATION
2. Were all sampling-related activities performed by in-house
staff?
No [Answer itarns 2a and 2b]
Yes [Answer item 2b]
a. Name and address of the organization(s) or company(s)
responsible for designing the sampling strategy and
collecting the samples. Section
Name
Street
City State Zip
Telephone ( )
For each individual person (in-house and otherwise) who
designed the sampling plan, the quality control plan,
and/or participated in sample collection, please
provide a resume of qualifications and the following
information: Section
Name
Affiliation
Title
A-15
-------
SAMPLING STRATEGY
3. Provide the following information (items 3a through 3f) on
the sampling strategy you followed to ensure that the
samples were representative. Section
a. Identify which process point discharges, containment
areas (e.g.. lagoons), or other areas (e.g.. soil) were
sampled and why these areas were selected for sample
collection.
b. Describe the techniques and guidelines used to select
waste sampling points (e.g.. random sampling procedure
or fixed transect and offset sampling procedure).
c. Describe the sampling and subsampling (i.e..
transferring of sample aliguots into containers
specific to certain analyses) procedures used during
the sample collection process, including the particular
days and times selected for sample collection, the
number of grab samples collected for each composite
sample, and why these procedures were used.
d. Describe the sampling devices used for sample
collection and the basis for selecting the devices.
e. Identify and discuss any deviations from your original
sampling plan and strategy and the impact of these
deviations on waste characterization.
Explain why you believe the samples collected are
non-biased and sufficiently represent the petitioned
waste. In this explanation, fully address the
potential for waste uniformity or spatial and temporal
variability and how the strategy ensured collection of
representative samples.
A-16
-------
SAMPLE SPECIFIC INFORMATION
4. How many samples of the petitioned waste were collected?
Section
5. For each individual sample collected, please provide the
following sample-specific information (items 5a through 5g),
a. For each sample included in item 4, provide the sample
identification number (as it appears in your field
logbook and other records), the date that the sample
was taken, an indication as to what type of sample it
is (waste sample versus quality control sample and
whether or not it is a composite sample).
Section
A-17
-------
Sample
Identification
Number
Type of Sample
JMark one box onlvl
Date Quality
Sample Waste Control
Was Taken Sample Sample
Composite
Sample
Yes No
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
A-18
-------
b. Describe how each sample was collected, and its point
of collection from the petitioned waste. If a sample
is a composite of grabs, provide the number of grab
samples collected for the composite sample, the
sampling location for each grab sample, the volume of
each grab sample, and the volume of the composite
sample. Section
c. Describe the general sampling location (e.g.. which
quadrant of a surface impoundment) and the specific
sampling points (e.g.. specific location in the
quadrant). You may refer to numbered sampling points
indicated in a diagram. Section
d. Describe how each sample was composited (e.g..
equipment used and manner of mixing). Section
e. Provide a physical description of each sample at time
of collection (e.g.. color, odor, whether phase
separation occurred soon after collection).
Section
f. For each composite sample, specify the time and date
when the grab samples were collected and the time and
date when the sample was composited, as applicable.
Section
Describe the handling and preparation techniques used
for each sample (including types of containers used and
techniques employed for container preparation) and
types and amounts of preservatives used.
Section
OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION
6. Describe the weather conditions during sampling (if
conducted outdoors). Section
7. Describe any facility activities separate from sampling that
occurred at the same time and might have affected sample
representativeness. Section
A-19
-------
8. Describe sampling device decontamination; and note when
disposable devices were used for sample collection.
Section
9. Were the chain-of-custody procedures specified in SW-846
followed?
Yes [Skip to item 11]
No [Continue with item 10]
10. Provide a description of the quality control procedures and
documentation system used to track sample location and
maintain sample integrity during transportation to the
laboratory. Copies of the chain-of-custody forms may be
provided, but are not required. Section
LOCALIZED AREA OF CONTAMINATION
11. Have you collected samples to characterize a localized area
of contamination (a "hot spot") within the petitioned waste?
Yes [Continue with item 12]
No [Skip to iten 16]
12. Discuss your basis for believing a hot spot may or does
exist (e.g.. records of a one-time discharge of a
concentrated material at a specific location).
Section
13. Describe the known or predicted location (on a diagram) and
the dimensions (e.g.. depth, width and length) of the hot
spot. Section
14. Identify the samples specifically collected to characterize
the hot spot. Section
15. Explain why the samples sufficiently represent the hot spot,
Section
A-20
-------
MULTIPLE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
16. Have you collected samples to characterize a waste generated
by a multiple waste treatment facility (MWTF)?
Yes [Continue with item 17]
No [Skip to item 21]
17. List and describe the untreated wastes that were treated and
are represented by the treatment residue samples collected
during the sampling period. Section
18. Provide the percentage of total wastes treated annually that
was represented by the sampling period. Section
19. List and briefly describe the untreated wastes that also are
treated at the facility but were not represented by the
sampling period. Section
20. Explain why the wastes not represented by the sampling
period are not expected to contain any other hazardous
constituents of concern, different levels of constituents of
concern, or other different characteristics than that
represented by the sampling period. Section
A-21
-------
WASTE ANALYSIS INFORMATION
21. Was sample analyses done by in-house staff?
No [Answer items 2la and 21b]
Yes [Answer item 21b]
a. Name and address of the organization(s) or company(s)
responsible for sample analyses. Section
Name
Street
City State Zip Code_
Telephone ( )
For each individual person (in-house and otherwise) who
conducted analyses or was responsible for data
reduction, validation, and laboratory quality control,
please provide a resume of qualifications and the
following information: Section
Name
Affiliation
Title
22. Provide your signed laboratory data reporting forms from all
analyses, including results from quality control analyses.
Section
23. Provide the following information on each sample and each
analysis. Section
Sample identification numbers as logged during
collection and as assigned by the laboratory.
b. Type of sample (e.g.. waste sample, waste sample
replicate, equipment blank, field blank).
Date of sample receipt by the laboratory.
A-22
-------
d. The sample workup or preparation method and reference
for the method re.a.. SW-846 Method 3500).
e. The date of sample workup or preparation.
f. The name of the person conducting the analysis,
g. The date of extraction and analysis.
h. The test method used and the source of the test method
(e.g.. SW-846 Method 8020).
i. The specific constituent, parameter, or hazard for
which analysis was conducted.
j. The test results, expressed in appropriate units (e.g..
mg/L, mg/kg).
k. The basis for the analysis (e.g.. wet weight, dry
weight).
1. The quantitation limits.
24. Provide the names and model numbers of all equipment used
during analysis. Section
25. Provide all other information necessary to fully interpret
the test procedures or results. Section
A-23
-------
26. For each quality control analysis that involved a matrix or
a surrogate spike and spike duplicate analysis, provide the
following information. Section
a. The name of the spike analyte added.
b. The concentration of the spike analyte in the unspiked
sample.
c. The amount of the spike analyte added.
d. The measured amount of the spike in both spiked
samples.
e. The calculated percent recovery of the spike and method
of calculation.
f. The acceptance criterion for recovery of each matrix
spike.
g. The relative percent difference (RPD) between the
duplicate results.
h. The acceptance criterion for the RPD.
27. Identify whether the waste analytical data was corrected
based on quality control results (e.g.. blank analysis) and
explain how the correction was made. Section
28. Explain any inconsistencies or deviations found in the
reported analytical results. The discussion should include
any observed analytical interferences and what actions were
taken to resolve the problems. Section
A-2 4
-------
SECTION Ft GROUND-WATER MONITORING INFORMATION
(Refer to Guidance Manual Section 9.0, "Ground-water Monitoring
Information.")
1. Indicate which of the following describes the management of
the petitioned waste. Section
a. The petitioned waste is currently managed in a
land-based waste management unit (on-site or off-site),
and ground-water monitoring is required pursuant to 40
CFR Part 264 or 265 or authorized State equivalent, or
other Federal, state, or local requirements; or if
ground-water monitoring information is otherwise
available for the unit.
[Go to item 2]
b. The petitioned waste was once managed (but is no
longer) in a land-based waste management unit (on-site
or off-site) and ground-water monitoring was required
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 264 or 265 or authorized State
equivalent, or other Federal, state, or local
requirements; or if ground-water monitoring information
is otherwise available for the unit.
[Go to item 2]
c. The petitioned waste is currently managed, or was once
managed, in a land-based waste management unit, but
ground-water monitoring requirement has been waived.
[Go to item 9]
d. The petitioned waste is currently managed, or was once
managed, in one or more land-based waste management
units containing also significant amounts of other
wastes, and you consider ground-water data from these
non-dedicated units are immaterial in evaluating the
petitioned waste's impact on ground-water quality.
[Go to item 10]
e. None of the above management scenarios apply.
[Go to item 11]
A-25
-------
2. Has the appropriate responsible party previously submitted
ground-water monitoring information for the subject units to
an EPA Regional office or an authorized State in response to
40 CFR Part 264 or 265 requirements (or authorized State
equivalent)?
Yes [Continue with item 3]
No [Skip to item 5]
3. Do you wish that we directly obtain the ground-water
monitoring information from the EPA Region or State?
Yes [Complete item 4 and continue vith item 6]
No [Skip to item 5]
4. Indicate the EPA Regional or State contact for obtaining the
ground-water monitoring information (include name of
contact, affiliation, mailing address, and phone number).
Section
a. Name of contact:
b. Affiliation:
c. Title of report (if applicable):
d. Street/P.O. Box:
City:
State: Zip Code;
e. Phone: ( )
5. Provide all available and relevant (e.g.. for each unit used
to manage the petitioned waste) ground-water monitoring
information and reports which, at a minimum, should include:
Section
a. A description of site geology and hydrology.
A-26
-------
b. A description of the ground-water monitoring systems
for the units in which the petitioned waste is (or was)
managed.
c. The results obtained from the analysis of ground-water
samples.
d. A discussion of sampling and analytical procedures
followed in obtaining and analyzing the ground-water
samples.
e. Any additional information necessary to characterize
the petitioned waste's impact on ground-water quality.
f. An analysis and discussion of whether the above-listed
information and data that indicate contamination of the
ground-water is attributable to the petitioned waste.
6. Is the unsaturated (vadose) zone monitored at any of the
subject units?
Yes [Continue with item 7]
No [Skip to item 8]
7. Provide the following information on vadose zone monitoring
(e.g.. lysimeter information) in as much detail as possible
(similar to that requested for ground-water monitoring
systems). Section
a. A description of regional, local, and unit-specific
geology and hydrology, and soil characteristics.
b. A description of the monitoring system(s) (e.g.. design
and construction).
A-27
-------
c. A description of the sampling and analytical procedures
followed.
d. Analytical and QC data obtained from sample analysis.
e. An interpretation of the information and data
presented.
8. Discuss whether ground-water contamination exists on the
site and, if it does, identify the source. If the source is
not the petitioned waste, explain, with supporting
information, why the petitioned waste has not contributed to
the contamination. Section
[End]
9. Provide documentation on the waiver or exemption of ground-
water monitoring at the land-based waste management unit
containing the petitioned waste. Section
[End]
10. Identify the units in question, provide estimates of the
relative volumes of the petitioned and other wastes disposed
in the units, and discuss in detail why you consider ground-
water data from these non-dedicated units are immaterial in
evaluating the petitioned waste's impact on ground-water
quality. Section
[End]
11. Describe why ground-water monitoring is not required for
your petitioned waste. Section
A-28
-------
APPENDIX B
RELEVANT HAZARDOUS WASTE DELISTING RULES
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agoncy
7090 Beryllium (AA. Direct Aspiration)
7091 Beiylllum (AA. Furnace Technique)
7198 Chromium. Hexavalent (Differential
Pulse Polarography)
7210 Copper (AA. Direct Aspiration)
7211 Copper (AA. Furnace Technique)
7380 Iron (AA. Direct Aspiration)
7381 Iron (AA. Furnace Technique)
7460 Manganese (AA, Direct Aspiration)
7401 Manganese (AA, Furnace Technique)
7550 Osmium (AA, Direct Aspiration)
7770 Sodium (AA. Direct Aspiration)
7840 Thallium (AA. Direct Aspiration)
7841 Thallium (AA. Furnace Technique)
7910 Vanadium (AA. Direct Aspiration)
7911 Vanadium (AA. Furnace Technique)
7950 Zinc (AA. Direct Aspiration)
7951 Zinc (AA. Furnace Technique)
9022 Total Organic Hallder (TOX) by Neu-
tron Activation Analysis
9035 Sulfate (Colorimetric, Automated.
Chloranllate)
9036 Sulfate (Colorimetric, Automated,
Methylthymol Blue. AA XX)
9038 Sulfate (Turbidimetric)
9060 Total Organic Carbon
9065 Phenollcs (Spectrophotometric.
Manual 4-AAP with Distillation)
9066* Phenollcs (Colorimetrlc, Automated
4-AAP with Distillation)
9067 Phenollcs (Spectrophotometric,
MBTH with Distillation)
9070 Total Recoverable Oil and Grease
(Gravimetric, Separatory Funnel Ex-
traction)
9071 Oil and Grease Extraction Method
for Sludge Samples
9080 Cation-Exchange Capacity of Soils
(Ammonium Acetate)
9081 Cation-Exchange Capacity of Soils
(Sodium Acetate)
9100 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity.
Saturated T^^»h*t» Conductivity, and
Intrinsic Permeability
9131 Total CoUform: Multiple Tube Fer-
mentation Technique
9132 Total Collform: Membrane Filter
Technique
9200 Nitrate
9250 Chloride (Colorimetric. Automated
Ferricyanlde AAI)
9251 Chloride (Colorimetrlc. Automated
Ferricyanlde AAIJ)
9252 Chloride (Titrlmetrtc. Mercuric Ni-
trate)
9310 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta
9315 Alpha-Emitting Radium Isotopes
9320 Radlum-228
•When Method 9066 Is used it must be
preceded by the manual distillation speci-
fied In procedure 7.1 of Method 9068. Just
pnor to distillation in Method 9065. adjust
the sulfuric acid-preserved sample to pH 4
with 1 + 9 NaOH. After the manual distilla-
tion is completed, the autoanalyzer mani-
fold is simplified by connecting the re-
sample line directly to the sampler.
§260.20
(b) The references listed in para-
graph (a) of this section are also avail-
able for inspection at the Office of the
Federal Register. 1100 L Street, NW,
Washington. DC 20408. These incor-
porations by reference were approved
by the Director of the Federal Regis-
ter. These materials are incorporated
as they exist on the date of approval
and a notice of any change In these
materials will be published in the FED-
ERAL REGISTER.
[46 PR 35247, July 7,1981. is amended at 50
FR 18374. Apr. 30. 1985; 52 FR 8073. Mar.
16. 1987; 52 FR 41295, Oct. 27. 1987; 54 FR
40266, Sept. 29. 1989; 55 FR 8949. Mar. 9.
1990; 55 FR 25493, June 21, 1990; 56 FR
7206. Feb. 21.1991]
Efficuvi DATE NOTE At 56 FR 7206, Feb.
21. 1991. in 1260.11, paragraph (a) was
amended by adding to the first listing the
final reference, effective August 21.1991.
Subpart C—Rulcmaking Petitions
§260.20 General.
(a) Any person may petition the Ad-
ministrator to modify or revoke any
provision in parts 260 through 265 and
268 of this chapter. This section sets
forth general requirements which
apply to all such petitions. Section
260.21 sets forth additional require-
ments for petitions to add a testing or
analytical method to part 261, 264 or
265. Section 260.22 sets forth addition-
al requirements for petitions to ex-
clude a waste at a particular facility
from i 261.3 of this chapter or the lists
of hazardous wastes in subpart D of
part 261.
(b) Each petition must be submitted
to the Administrator by certified mail
and must include:
(1) The petitioner's name and ad-
dress:
(2) A statement of the petitioner's
interest in the proposed action;
(3) A description of the proposed
action, including (where appropriate)
suggested regulatory language; and
(4) A statement of the need and jus-
tification for the proposed action, in-
cluding any supporting tests, studies.
or other information.
ic) The Administrator will make a
tentative decision to grant or deny a
petition and will publish notice of
15
-------
§260.21
such tentative decision, either IB the
form of an advanced notice of pro-
posed rulemaklng, » proposed rule, or
a tentative determination to deny the
petition, in the FEDERAL REGISTER for
written public comment.
(d) Upon the written request of any
interested person, the Administrator
may, at his discretion, hold an infor-
mal public hearing to consider oral
comments on the tentative decision. A
person requesting a hearing must state
the issues to be raised and explain
why written comments would not suf-
fice to communicate the person's
views. The Administrator may in any
case decide on his own motion to hold
an Informal public hearing.
(e) After evaluating all public com-
ments the Administrator will make a
final decision by publishing in the
FEDERAL REGISTER a regulatory amend-
ment or a denial of the petition.
[45 FR 33073. May 19. 1980. as amended at
51 FR 40636. Nov. 7. 1986]
9 260.21 Petition! for equiTilent testing or
analytical methods.
(a) Any person seeking to add a test-
ing or analytical method to pan 261,
264, or 265 of this chapter may peti-
tion for a regulatory amendment
under this section and i 260.20. To be
successful, the person must demon-
strate to the satisfaction of the Ad-
ministrator that the proposed method
is equal to or superior to the corre-
sponding method prescribed in part
261. 264. or 265 of this chapter, in
terms of its sensitivity, accuracy, and
precision (i.e.. reproducibility).
(b) Each petition must include, in
addition to the Information required
by § 260.20(b):
(DA full description of the proposed
method, including all procedural steps
and equipment used in the method;
(2) A description of the types of
wastes or waste matrices for which the
proposed method may be used;
(3) Comparative results obtained
from using the proposed method with
those obtained from using the rele-
vant or corresponding methods pre-
scribed in part 261. 264. or 265 of this
chapter.
(4) An assessment of any factors
which may interfere with, or limit the
use of, the proposed method; and
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-91 Edition)
(5) A description of the quality con-
trol procedures necessary to ensure
the sensitivity, accuracy and precision
of the proposed method.
(c) After receiving a petition for an
equivalent method, the Administrator
may request any additional informa-
tion on the proposed method which he
may reasonably require to evaluate
the method.
(d) If the Administrator amends the
regulations to permit use of a new
testing method, the method will be in-
corporated in "Test Methods for the
Evaluation of Solid Waste: Physical/
Chemical Methods," SW-846, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste, Washington, DC
20460.
[45 FR 33073. May 19. 1980. as amended at
49 FR 47391. Dec. 4.1984]
B 260.22 Petitions to amend part 261 to ex-
clude a waste produced at a particular
facility.
(a) Any person seeking to exclude a
waste at a particular generating facili-
ty from the lists in subpart D of pan
261 may petition for a regulatory
amendment under this section and
i 260.20. To be successful:
(1) The petitioner must demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Administra-
tor that the waste produced by a par-
ticular generating facility does not
meet any of the criteria under which
the waste was listed as a hazardous or
an actutely hazardous waste; and
(2) Based on a complete application.
the Administrator must determine,
where he has a reasonable basis to be-
lieve that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for
which the waste was listed could cause
the waste to be a hazardous waste.
that such factors do not warrant re-
taining the waste as a hazardous
waste A waste which is so excluded.
however, still may be a hazardous
waste by operation of subpart C of
pan 261.
(b> The procedures in this Section
and i 260.20 may also be used to peti-
tion the Administrator for a regula-
tory amendment to exclude from
i 261 3
-------
Environmental Protocttat Agency
dix VII of Part 261) that caused the
Administrator to list the waste, using
the appropriate test methods pre-
scribed in Appendix III; or
(ii) Although containing one or more
of the hazrdous constituents (as de-
fined in Appendix VII of Part 261)
that caused the Administrator to list
the waste, does not meet the criterion
of { 261.11(a)(3) when considering the
factors used by the Administrator in
§ 261.11(a><3) (i) through (xi) under
which the waste was listed as hazard-
ous; and
(2) Based on a complete application.
the Administrator must determine.
where he has a reasonable basis to be-
lieve that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for
which the waste was listed could cause
the waste to be a hazardous waste.
that such factors do not warrant re-
taining the waste as a hazardous
waste; and
(3) The petitioner must demonstrate
that the waste does not exhibit any of
the characteristics defined in i 261.21.
§261.22. {261.23. and {261.24 using
any applicable methods prescribed
therein:
(4) A waste which is so excluded.
however, still may be a hazardous
waste by operation of Subpart C of
Part 261.
-------
§260.30
40 CHi Ch. I (7.1-91 Edition)
(h) Demonstration samples must
consist of enough representative sam-
ples. but in no ease less than four sam-
ples. taken over a period of time suffi-
cient to represent the variability or
the uniformity of the waste.
(1) Each petition must include. In ad-
dition to the information required by
1 260.20(b):
(1) The name and address of the lab-
oratory facility performing the sam-
pling or tests of the waste;
(2) The names and qualifications of
the persons sampling and testing the
waste;
(3) The dates of sampling and test-
ing;
(4) The location of the generating
facility.
(5) A description of the manufactur-
ing processes or other operations and
feed materials producing the waste
and an assessment of whether such
processes, operations, or feed materi-
als can or might produce a waste that
is not covered by the demonstration:
(6) A description of the waste and an
estimate of the average and
monthly and annual quantities of
waste covered by the demonstration;
(7) Pertinent data on and discussion
of the factors delineated in the respec-
tive criterion for listing a hazardous
waste, where the demonstration is
based on the factors in I 261.11(aX3);
(8) A description of the methodolo-
gies and equipment used to obtain the
representative samples:
(9) A description of the sample han-
dling and preparation techniques, in-
cluding techniques used for extrac-
tion. contalnerization and preservation
of the samples;
(10) A description of the tests per-
formed (including results):
(11) The names and model numbers
of the instruments used In performing
the tests; and
(12) The following statement signed
by the generator of the waste or his
authorized representative:
I certify under penalty of law that 1 h»»e
personally examined and am familiar with
the information submitted IB this demon-
stration and all attached documents, and
that, bated on my inquiry of those tadirtd-
uais immediately responsible for obtaining
the information. I believe that the submit-
ted information is true, accurate, and com-
plete. I am aware that there are siSBlflcant
penalties (or submitting false Information.
including the possibility of fine and impris-
onment.
(J) After receiving a petition for an
exclusion, the Administrator may re-
quest any additional information
which he may reasonably require to
evaluate the petition.
(k) An exclusion will only apply to
the waste generated at the individual
facility covered by the demonstration
and will not apply to waste from any
other facility.
(1) The Administrator may exclude
only part of the waste for which the
demonstration is submitted where he
has reason to believe that variability
of the waste justifies a partial exclu-
sion.
[45 FR 33073. May 19. 1980. as amended at
50 PR 2*742, July 15. 1985; 54 FR 27110.
June 27.1989]
EDITORIAL Norr Tor Information on the
availability of a guidance ™«*"i«i for peti-
tions to delist hazardous wastes, see 50 FR
21607. May 28.1986.
1260JO Variances from classification as a
•olid
In accordance with the standards
and criteria in i 260.31 and the proce-
dures in i 260.33. the Regional Admin-
istrator may determine on a case-by-
case basis that the following recycled
materials are not solid wastes:
(a) Materials that are accumulated
speculatively without sufficient
amounts being recycled (as defined in
i 261.1(c)(8) of this chapter);
(b) Materials that are reclaimed and
then reused within the original pri-
mary production process in which
they were generated:
(c) Materials that have been re-
claimed but must be reclaimed further
before the materials are completely re-
covered.
(50 FR 661. Jan. 4. 1985; 50 FR 14219, Apr.
11. 19*5]
I260J1 Standards and criteria for TIT-
iaaca from classification as s solid
(a) The Regional Administrator may
grant requests for a variance from
classifying as a solid waste those mate-
rials that are accumulated speculative-
ly without sufficient amounts being
18
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF STATE AND EPA REGIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE OFFICES
AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS
-------
-------
REGIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE OFFICES
Region I
U.S. EPA, Region I
Division of Hazardous Waste
1 Winter St., 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5851
Region II
U.S. EPA, Region II
Hazardous Waste Programs Branch
26 Federal Plaza
(2AWM-HWFB Room 1043)
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-3408
Region III
U.S. EPA, Region III
PA Permit Section
841 Chestnut Street (3HW51)
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-1230
Region IV
U.S. EPA, Region IV
RCRA and Federal Facilities
Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3016
Region V
U.S. EPA, Region V
RCRA Permitting Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-6161
Region VI
U.S. EPA, Region VI
Hazardous Waste Programs
Branch
First Interstate Bldg.
1445 Ross Avenue (6H-CX)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-6750
Region VII
U.S. EPA, Region VII
RCRA Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7051
Region VIII
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
Waste Management Branch
Denver Place Mall, Suite 500
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1795
Region IX
U.S. EPA, Region IX
RCRA Branch
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 744-1796
Region X
U.S. EPA, Region X
Waste Management Branch
1200 6th Avenue
Mail Stop HW-112
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-1260
-------
STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE OFFICES
Alabama
Alabama Dept. of Environmental
Management
Land Division
1751 Cong. W.L.
Dickerson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205) 271-7726
Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Hazardous & Solid Waste
Management
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK 99811
(907) 465-2671
American Samoa
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Government
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
011-684-633-2304
Arizona
Department of Environmental
Quality
Office of Waste
2005 N. Central
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 255-1170
(602) 257-2380
Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology
Hazardous Waste Management
Division
P.O. Box 9583
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219
(501) 562-7444
California
Department of Health
Services
Toxic Substances Control
Program
P.O. BOX 942732
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
(916) 324-1826
Colorado
Colorado Department of
Health
Waste Management Division
4210 E. llth .Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
(303) 331-4830
Commonwealth of North
Mariana Islands
Division of Environmental
Quality
Dr. Torres Hospital
Commonwealth of North
Mariana Islands
P.O. Box 1304
Saipan, Mariana Islands
96950
011-670-234-6984
Connecticut
Department of Environmental
Protection
Waste Management Bureau
Waste Engineering and
Enforcement Division
State Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566-4869
-------
Delaware
Hawaii
Department of Natural
Resources and
Environmental Control
Hazardous Waste Management
Branch
89 King Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736-3689
District of Columbia
Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs
Environmental Control Division
Hazardous Waste Section
614 H St., NW, Suite 505
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 783-3194
Florida
Department of Environmental
Regulations
Waste Regulation Section
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904) 488-0300
Georgia
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection
Division
205 Butler St., SE
Floyd Towers East
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-2833
Guam
Environmental Protection Agency
ITE Harmon Plaza
Complex Unit D-107
130 Rajas
Harmon, Guam 96911
011-671-646-8863
State of Hawaii Department
of Health
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Branch
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 543-8225
Idaho
Department of Health and
Welfare
Division of Environmental
Quality
Hazardous Materials Bureau
1410 N. Hilton Road
Boise, ID 83706
(208) 334-5879
Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Land Pollution
Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-6761
Indiana
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Hazardous Waste Management
Branch
105 South Meridian Street
P.O. Box 10015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317) 232-4518
Iowa
Department of Natural
Resources
Hazardous Waste Program
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand Street
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-5145
-------
Kansas
Massachusetts
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment
Bureau of Air and Waste
Management
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 296-1600
Kentucky
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection
Division of Waste Management
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-6716
Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources
Solid Waste Management Division
P.O. Box 44307
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4307
(504) 342-1216
Maine
Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Oil and Hazardous
Materials
State House - Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-2651
Maryland
Department of the
Environment
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management
Hazardous Waste Program
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(301) 631-3343
Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Hazardous Waste
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5589
Michigan
Michigan Department of
Natural Resources
Waste Management Division
Box 30038
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-2730
Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Division
520 Lafayette Rd., N.
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 643-3496
Mississippi
Department of Environmental
Quality
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601) 961-5171
Missouri
Department of Natural
Resources
Waste Management Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-3176
-------
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Oklahoma State Department of
Health
Industrial & Solid Waste
Service
1000 NE 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 271-5338
Oregon
Department of Environmental
Quality
Hazardous Waste Management
Division
811 S.W. 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5913
Palau
Environmental Quality Protection
Board
P.O. Box 100
Koror, Palau 96940
Local f 1639
Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Resources
Bureau of Waste Management
Fulton Building, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-9870
Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board
Solid, Toxics, & Hazardous Waste
Program
Box 11488
Santurce, Puerto Rico
00910-1488
(809) 767-8181
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Division of Air and
Hazardous Materials
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908-5767
(401) 277-2797
South Carolina
South Carolina Dept. of
Health and Environmental
Control
Bureau of Solid & Hazardous
Waste Management
J. Marion Simms Building
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-5200
South Dakota
Department of Water and
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental
Regulation
Joe Foss Building
523 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 773-3153
Tennessee
Department of Public Health
Bureau of Environmental
Services
Division of Solid Waste
Management
701 Broadway
4th Floor, Customs House
Nashville, TN 37247-3530
(615) 741-3424
-------
Montana
New Mexico
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Bureau
Cogswell Building, Room B-201
Helena, MT 59602
(406) 444-2821
Nebraska
Department of Environmental
Control
Hazardous Waste Section
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402) 471-4712
Nevada
Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources
Waste Management Program
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89710
(702) 687-5872
New Hampshire
Department of Health and Welfare
Office of Waste Management
Health & Welfare Building
Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-4608
New Jersey
Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Hazardous Waste
Management
401 East State Street
5th Floor, CN028
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-7081
New Mexico Health and
Environment Department
Hazardous Waste Bureau
Harold Runnels Building
1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87504
(505) 327-2929
New York
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Division of Hazardous
Substances Regulation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7250
(518) 457-6934
North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-2178
North Dakota
Department of Health
Division of Waste Management
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismark, ND 58502
(701) 224-2366
Ohio
Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
Division of Solid and
Hazardous Waste
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216
(614) 644-2917
-------
Texas
Washington'
Texas Department of Health
Bureau of Solid Waste
Management
1100 West 49th Street, T-605
Austin, TX 78756
(512) 458-7271
Utah
Bureau of Solid & Hazardous
Waste
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
(801) 538-6170
Vermont
Agency of Environmental
Conservation
Hazardous Materials Management
Division
103 South Main Street
West Office Building
Waterbury, VT 05676
(802) 244-8702
Virgin Islands
Department of Planning and
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental
Protection
NISKY Center, Suite 231
St. Thomas, USVI 00802
(809) 774-3320
Virginia
Virginia Department of Health
Department of Waste Management
101 North 14th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 225-2667
Department of Ecology
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Division
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 459-6322
West Virginia
Division of Natural
Resources
Waste Management Section
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, WV 25301
(304) 348-5393
Wisconsin
Department of Natural
Resources
Bureau of Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-7278
Wyoming
State of Wyoming Department
of Environmental Quality
Solid Waste Management
Program
Herschler Building
4th Floor West
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7752
-------
APPENDIX D
NOTICE OF DELISTING STRATEGIES AND PROCEDURES
-------
-------
/ V«L .53. Mo. 4? / Thursday. Match 3. 1M> / Rnlei and Regulations'
directorU) of the MARA divisioojs)
which his cuttody of the requested
recordi. The Committee may consult
other person* within and outside the
Federal Government who an
knowledgeable in the research field for
•distance in evaluating a request
(1) The Committee will-examiae the
request to determine;
(i) Whether the requested information
is of such a highly sensitive personal
nature that disclosure should not be
permitted even for biomedical statistical
or quantitative research:
(ii) Whether the methodology
proposed by the requester wifl permit
the researcher to obtain the projected
research results without revealing
personally identifying information;
(iin Whether the research results wilt
be published or presented at an
academic or research conference;
(iv) Whether the requester is a bona-
fide biomedical researcher woo has
previous experience in conducting
statistical research protects and
pabliahing articles or books on such
research:
(v) Whether the safeguards proposed
by the requester will adequately protect
the personal information: and
(vi) Whether NARA has sufficient
stuff and space available to safeguard
privacy interests necessary to
accommodate the research project.
(2) The decision of the Committee will
be made in writing to the requester
within 15 workdays after receipt of a
completed request At the discretion of
the Committee, the researcher may meet
with the Committee to discuss the
project or to discuss revising the
research proposal to meet possible
obiecn'ons of the Committee.
(d) Condition* 0/occatas. Researchers
who are granted access to restricted
records, all others associated with the
research project who will have access to
personally identifiable information from
the records, and the manager of any
AOP facility *"~"J«g the' records or
data elements ""tfrnfog personal
identifiers shall agree in writing in
maintain the confidentiality of the
information and to adhere to the
conditions of access imposed by NARA.
NARA may impose some or all of the
following conditions of secret on any
protect additional conditions may be
imposed on the use of specific records or
on specific projects:
(1) The records may be used only fur
the purpose of the statistical research
and for the statistical reporting of
research findings as described in the
approved research project. The records
msy not be used for any other purpose
without NARA approval
(2) The records and copies of any data
elements which permit the identification
of an individual or which can be
identified with an individual may not be
transferred to any person or institution
not directly involved with the approved
research project
(3) Reasonable administrative.
technical and physical safeguards, as
approved by NARA. to prevent
unauthoriied use or disclosure of the
records shall be established by the
researcher and followed-by ail persons
associated with the research project
(4) When required by NARA. the
records shall be consulted at the NARA
facility where the records are located;
(5) Any individually identifiable
information m the researcher's notes or
in authorized copies of the records shall
be rendered anonymous by the
researcher at the earliest possible time
consistent with the purpose of the
research project
(6) Persons who are identified in the
records may not be contacted by or on
behalf of the researcher
(7) Prior to publication or public
presentation of the data, the final
research product(s) shall be provided to
the Assistant Archivist for the National
Archives for review. NARA s review
shall be limited to ensuring that there is
no possible identification of individuals
in the research findings. NARA will not
evaluate the validity of the research
findings:
(8) All reseerch notes contenting
personally identifiable information from
privacy-restricted records and/or copies
of such records shall, upon completion
of the protect, be destroyed or returned
to NARA. whichever condition NARA
has imposed es e condition of access. If
the notes and/or copies ere destroyed.
the researcher shall verify in writing to
the Assistant Archivist for the National
Archives thet the reseerch notes end/or
copies have been destroyed.
(e) Nancompiianc* with conditions of
access. If NARA discovers that a
researcher has violated any of the
conditions of access imposed by NARA.
NARA shall take steps to revoke the
NARA research privileges of that person
end shsil consult with the NARA legal
counsel to determine any other steps to
be taken to prevent any further
disclosure of the personal information
concerned. NARA may also inform the
following persons and organizations of
the researcher s failure to follow the
conditions of use:
(1) The institution with which the
researcher is affiliated, if applicable:
(21 Persons who served as references
in the application for access:
(3) Organizations which provided
grsnt funds for the protect
(4) The sponsor of the publication or
public presentation: and/or
' (5) Appropriate professions!
organizations.
Dated. February 18.1986.
Don W. WUseo.
Arctuvutoftht United States
|FR Doc. aa-4637 Filed 3-2-A& 8 45 »m|
coos
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 2C1
ISW-fHL-JWT-JI
Haurctoua Watte Management
System; Manttflcatton and Ustsna of
Hazardous Waata
AOajNCV: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTON: Notice of delisting strategies
and procedures.
•UMMAMY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency) is announcing
strategies end procedures it intends to
apply in reviewing existing and
anticipated petitions submitted to the
Agency under 40 CFR 260.20 and 2fio ::
to exclude certain wastes on a
generator-specific" basis from the
hazardous waste lists tn Subpart D of
Part 261.
These strategies and procedures
should improve the petition ret iew
process, help to eliminate the existing
backlog of petitions, and reduce
processing time. This notice outlines
new strategies and reiterates several
existing procedures.
POS) niRTMSM INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, conuc: trie
RCRA'Super-fund Hotline, loll f-ee ji
i«.'iOI 4:4-9346. or at (2021 332-3000 Fur
tThRjrit! information. contdCt Terrv
Crogitp.. Office of Solid WrfSie |VMH-
563). L'.S Environmental Proirc'ion
Agenc\.401 M Street SW.. V\.isSnt .
DC 20460.12021 382-Cae.
SUPM.CMINTARV INFORMATION: I -01 - •>"
CKR 260.20 and 260.22. facilities -,^
petition the Agency to exclude i c
delist) their wastes from the lisn of
hazardous wastes contained ai *0 Cl- *
261.31 and 261.32. After reviewing •••"-
delating process, the Agenc> hds
developed several strategies ana
procedures to fsc.litate reaching
expeditious decisions on these pennons
This notice summarizes both exisimg
«nd new delisting strategies and
procedures, in particular
-------
Fedeal Racier / VoL SX No. 42 / Thttracky. March X 19M / Rule* and Reunions 6823
(1) DiimiiMl of certain incomplete
petition*.
(2) Petition review priorities.
(3) Agency assistance to petitioners
pnor to petition tubmiiiion.
(4) Certification of dtu sohmjrted in
retpoase to condffioDiI exclusions.
(5) Ute of analytical detection tenlti
in petition evilnation.
L Dismissal of taeotnptete Petitions
Petition* for en exclusion from
haxardou* waste control must contain
sufficient information to allow the
Agency to determine that (1) the waste
to be excluded is non-haxardoua based
upon the criteria for which it was listed.
and (2) that no other factors (including
additional constituent*) could cane the
waste to be hazardons. Acquisition and
analysis of this information is necessary
before a tentative determination (ie.. a
proposal to grant or deny a petition) can
be made for the petitioned waste.
If adequate data are not received in a
unary fashion, the Agency will remove
these petition* from the review process.
Such removal will help to conserve
Agency resource* for proceMing
complete petitions by avoiding
burdensome, iterative request* for
needed information. Incomplete
petition* include, but are not limited to.
petition*: (l) That are seriously deficient
upon receipt (e\j, lack analytical
results: or tack of appropriate
information on quality assurance
procedure* ueed during sample
analyses); (2) for which the petitioner
does not provide complete, responsive
informatioo within 6 Booth* of an
Agency tnfomatioa request and (3) that
are the subject of a deferral request by
the petitioner (ej~ the petitioner plans
to make a process change and asks that
the petition be put on hold).
The Agency currently specifies that
petitioners must respond to information
request letters within 6 months. The
Agency has previously denied petition*
based on the failure to provide
information within 12 month* of making
the initial information request The
Agency ha* reduced the 12-month denial
penod to 6 months, baeed open
historical analysis of petition* and
response*. Six months should provide a
reasonable period of tine for petitioners
to f ubmit information responding to
typicel petition deficiencies, such as:
Clarification of process descriptions:
identification of chemical components in
trade-name products used es raw
materials or as treatment reagents: and
resampling and analytical testing
requests to assure that samples are
representative. EPA expects that in most
cases, the requested information can be
submitted in much less than a months. If.
EPA anticipates that the requested
information will take longer than 6
month*, the petition will be considered
seriously deficient and dismissed at
that point. Petitioners are encouraged to
submit the requested information as
soon as possible but in no event later
than B months from the Agency's
request
In the past when a petitioner did not
respond to an information request, the
Agency's procedure was to publish a
proposed denial notice in the Federal
Register. Because the administrative
burden* of such ruletr.skings resulted in
resource demands and in delay* for
those petitioner* who have fully
responded to EPA's information
requests, the Agency now plans to
dismiss incomplete petition* by letter.
This procedure applie* to petition*
currently under review a* weH a* to
new ones.
The dismissal letter will be sent to the
petitioner and to appropriate State and
EPA regional contacts. The letter win
explain the reason that the petition is
being dismissed and will clearly state
what information is needed to complete
the petition. The effect of the dismissal
is to remove the petition from the review
system and to close the petition file. The
petitioner may at any time re-submit a
complete petition. The Agency will
review newly submitted and re-
submitted petitions in chronological
order.
A. Serimufy Deficient Petition*
Seriously deficient petitions include
petitions that lack information that will
take more than 6 months to collect
including those that will require
significant resampling and analysis.
Senous deficiencies also include lack of
seasonal sampling data for processes
that vary throughout the calendar year
and omission of necessary quality
assurance/quality control analytical
data («£.. data on the use of standard
additions and surrogate spiking) that
allow verification of detected and
nondetecud constituents. Seriously
deficient petitions will be dismissed
immediately based on the Agency's
determiosboo that even given an
additional six months, the petitioner will
not be sble to correct the data
deficiencies.
EPA plans to publish a Federal
Register notice regarding the use of
ground-water monitoring information by
the Delisting Program. This notice will
describe ground-water dels needs, use
of the date in dehsting decision-making.
and the Agency's dismissal procedure
where there is s Isck of sufficient
ground-water monitoring data from an
adequate system.
B. Insufficient Retpontet
If a petitioner's initial submission is
not considered seriously deficient upon
receipt but is still not complete, the
Agency will generally make only one
request for the petitioner to submit the
needed data. Given the availability of
an EPA guidance manual on preparing
petitions ' and of EPA staff to resolve
questions and problems, the Agency
believes that 6 months should provide
more than sufficient time for petitioners
to respond. (If the information can be
prepared in less than 6 months. EPA will
establish a shorter time penod.) If a
petitioner submit* additional
information in a timely fashion that does
not fully respond to the Agency's
request (e.g.. EPA requests Oily W asie
EP toxicity test data for s waste
containing greater than one percent oil
and grease but receives Ep toxicity test
data), and if conforming or missing
information is not received before the 5-
month period expires, the petition will
be dismissed. The Agency will not notify
petitioners that such unresponsive
submissions are deficient pnor to.
sending a dismissal letter. Of course. »
petitioner may submit s new petition for
the same waste that contains the
complete information.
C. Requests for Deferral
In the past some petitioners hdve
requested that the review of a petition
be deferred until such time as they
collect additional information or until
decisions are made on other petitions
they may have submitted. The Agency
does not believe that it is appropriate 10
keep such petitions in the petition
review system. Therefore. EPA will
dismiss such petitions and will
encourage petitioners to resubmn their
petitions when they are ready to protme
complete information.
II. Delisting Petition Review Priorities
The ultimate goal of the Agency u to
process each petition in » timely
manner. The Agency intends 10 rt\ K«*
petitions in chronological order of
receipt. Under this procedure, a pentiun
received in |une 1887. for example wu
have higher priority in the review
process than a petition submmea n
December 1967.
Notwithstanding, the Agency Mill
process petitions out of chronological
order whenever the Agency determines
that such action is necessary or
1 Copm of "Pwiiiojn n D*h»t Hiuroom
X\ jtitt A Gwdmei Muiiwl" «r» •••IKBM
iht Ntraul T«cfeaieaJ bfomuiion S>nn» iN
Port Roytl fcaad. S*rai*ftMO. VA ITOI
Alt (or Publication No PBS31M4I*,
-------
Feriatal R«$*t«r / Vol. 53. No. 42 / Thursday. March 3. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
appropriate. For example, the Agency
may proceti petitioni out of
chronological order when a rulemaktng
or policy decision will allow several
related petitions to be processed
simultaneously. This occurred when the
F006 listing was modified on December
2.1966 (see SI FR 43350). allowing a
number of dehsting petitions to be
removed from consideration
simultaneously due to regulatory
changes. The Agency will also deviate
from chronological order to process
complete petitions submitted later than
incomplete petitions that are awaiting
the receipt cf additional information.
The Agency considered using a
programmatic as opposed to a
chronological basts for determining
review and processing pnonty of
petitions. Primarily, consideration was
given to providing pnonty review for
delistmg petitions for wastes associated
with corrective action, even if such a
petition was submitted at a later date
than other petitions (i.e.. petitions for
wastes not associated with corrective
action). Such a general procedure WM
not adopted since it would not be
equitable to those petitioners who
submitted their petitions at an earlier
date. The Agency may, however, on a
case-by-case basis, revise its priorities
to give early consideration to delistmg
petitions for wattes at facilities which
are subject to RCRA corrective action
under permits or orders, when the
issuance of a delistmg decision is
integral to the timely completion of
corrective action measures to be taken
at the facility. Similarly, when the
delistmg decision is an integral pan of
other facility efforts to dispose of wastes
and avoid adverse impacts to human
health and the environment the Agency
may deviate from its procedure of
reviewing petitions in chronological
order.
m. Pre-Subnittal Coivuhatton
Prior to submitting a formal petition.
petitioners are strongly encouraged to
meet or to ditcusa with EPA staff the
nature and extent of information that
must be included In the petition,
particularly to develop adequate
sampling and analytical plane. This
should assist petitioners in preparing a
complete petition, and will help to
assure petitioners of the adequacy of
sampling and analytical data before
they invest resources to develop those
data. Petitioners should note, however.
that draft sampling and analytical plans
must be clearly identified as drafts and
will be handled separately from formal
petitions in the petition review process.
(Plans should be sent to the same
address as petitions.)
IV. Certification Requirements
For some exclusions that are granted.
the petitioner is responsible for
conducting sampling and analysis and
reporting the results to EPA according to
a schedule specified in the exclusion. To
ensure that petitioners comply with
conditions of exclusions, the Agency
will require petitioners to provide the
following signed certification statement
with each data submittal. This
statement will be proposed for each
individual rulemakmg concerning a
conditional exclusion.
L'nder civil and criminal penalty of law for
the making or submission of false or
fraudulent statements or representations
(pursuant to the applicable provisions of the
Federal Code, which include, but may not be
limned to. 16 USC 11001 and 42 USC I aott).
I cerfity that the information contained in or
accompanying- this document is true, accurate
and complete.
As to the (those) identified section(s) of
this document for which I cannot personally
verify its (their) truth and accuracy. 1 certify
11 the company official hsvm| supervisory
responsibility for the persons who. acting
under my direct instructions, made the
verification that this information is true.
accurate and complete.
In the event that any of this information is
determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be
false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon
conveyance of this fact to the company. I
recognize and agree that this exclusion of
want! will be void as if It never had effect or
to the extent directed by EPA and that the
company will be liable for any actions taken
in contravention of the company's RCRA and
CERCLA obligations premised upon the
company's reliance on the void exclusion.
Name of Certifying Person
Title of Certifying Parson
Data
V. Practical Quaantatton Units
Where appropriate, the Agency has
evaluated the mobility of constituents of
concern in a petitioned waste using the
vertical and horizontal spread (VHS)
model (see SO FR 48886. November 27,
1965). The VHS model Is used to
calculate hypothetical compliance-point
values for concentrations of constituents
of concern, based on the waste volume.
the extract concentrations (e.f., from the
EP or Oily Waste E7 toxitity test or the
Organic Leechete Model (OLM)), and
reasonable worst-case parameters for
dispersion of leachate by ground water
m rwo dimensions. The compliance*
point concentrations are then compared
to the regulatory standard established
for esch constituent of concern.
The Agency is aware that the
recommended or accepted extraction
and analytical procedures (either ai
described in Tes; Methods for
-••aljating Solid Wastes Physical/
Chemical Methods. U S. EPA Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Publication SW-846 or as accepted by
EPA under 40 CFR 260.21) m some cases
cannot achieve low enough quantitation
limits for particular wastes to pass the
VHS model analysis for some
constituents when the quantitation limit
is used as the input concentration. The
Agency has determined that, if
hazardous constituents m s waste are
not quantifiable using appropriate
analytical methods, the Agency will not
usually cpnstder the waste to be
hazardous for those constituents. EPA
has taken this position m s number of
proposed exclusions (e.g.. see 51 FR
36235 and 36241. October 9.1965: 52 FR
33439. September 3.1967).
Appropriate practical quantitation
limits (PQLs) will be determined on a
case-by-case basis and will depend on
the wasta matrix and available
procedures for extraction and analysis
of specific constituents. The PQL is the
lowest level that can be reliably
achieved within specified limits of
precision and accuracy during routine
laboratory operating conditions. EPA is
specifying the use of PQLs rather than
minimum detection limits (MDLs)
because PQLs provide a reesonable
degree of certainty that true values.
rather than false negatives or positives.
are determined. The Agency has
specified the use of PQLs. rather then
MDLs. in proposed rules (e.g.. see SO FR
46902. November 13.1965). as well as in
SW-846 methods 8240 and 8270 for the
analysis of organic contaminants.
(42U.S.C.60Z1I
Date: February 24. isea.
|.W. McCrew.
Acting Auittant Adminiitrator Office of
Solid Want and Emergency Anporse
(FR Doc. ae-MOa Filed >-2-aS: 8.45 *m|
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Offlee) of the Secretary
4SCFR*>artH
Stock Grant Programs
AOINCr Office of the Secretary. HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
V:This final rule implements
two changes to the Department s
regulations governing administration of
the low-income home energy assistance
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
CHECKLIST OF REQUESTED PETITION INFORMATION
-------
-------
CHECKLIST OF REQUESTED PETITION INFORMATION
Administrative Information (See Section 3.0)
Name and mailing address of petitioner
Facility contact names, titles, addresses, and telephone
numbers
Name and location address of the facility
RCRA identification number of the facility
Description of proposed action
Statement of interest in proposed action
Statement of need and justification for proposed action
Signed certification statement
Waste and Waste Management History Information (See Section 4.0)
EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s) and appropriate hazardous
waste description(s) for the petitioned waste
Indication as to whether the petitioned waste is listed
based on 40 CFR §261.3(a)(2)(iii-iv) or (c)(2)(i).
Description of any non-hazardous solid waste components of
the petitioned waste
Physical form of the waste
History of waste generation
Estimated fixed volume of waste, if applicable
Estimated waste generation rates, if applicable (average
volumes generated monthly and annually; maximum volumes
generated monthly and annually)
Method used to estimate waste volume(s)
Past, current, and planned (if delisted) waste management
practices
Names and locations of all off-site facilities that have
been used or will be used to manage the petitioned waste
E-l
-------
Process and Waste Management Information (See Section 5.0)
Overview of the generating facility's manufacturing
operations and business area
Descriptions and schematics of all contributing
manufacturing processes
Descriptions and schematics of all contributing treatment
processes
Descriptions of operating cycles for all contributing
processes
Assessment of extent of past and future process variability
and discussion of potential for waste variability
Descriptions of waste management practices, including
schematics of all units
List of all materials used in contributing processes
Material Safety Data Sheets for all non-elemental and
tradename materials used in contributing processes
Sources of oil and grease in contributing processes
Constituents of Concern Information fSee Section 6.0)
List of all hazardous constituents of concern for the
petitioned waste
Detailed discussion explaining why any other delisting
constituent of concern is not included on the list
List of constituents of concern selected for analyses
Mass balance demonstrations for constituents of concern not
selected for analyses
Waste Sampling Information (See Sections 7.0 and 8.0)
Name and address of organization conducting sampling
Names and qualifications of personnel conducting sampling
Description and schematic of sampling points
E-2
-------
Waste Sampling Information (continued)
Number of samples (grab and composite)
Sample identification numbers
Description of sampling methods (including compositing)
Physical description of samples
Sampling frequency, including dates and times
Description of sampling equipment and containers
Description of sample handling and preservation methods
Description of quality control and documentation system
Statement that the samples are representative and a
discussion explaining why the samples are considered
representative
Waste Analysis Information (See Sections 6.0 and 8.0)
Name and address of organization conducting analyses
Names and qualifications of personnel conducting analyses
Dates of sample receipt at laboratory
Laboratory sample identification numbers
Laboratory sample preservation and handling methods
Sample workup and preparation dates and methods
Sample extraction and analysis dates
Names and model numbers of analytical equipment
List and source of analytical methods
Quantitation Limits
Total oil and grease analysis results
Hazardous waste characteristics analysis results or, if
appropriate, a discussion explaining why characteristics are
not exhibited
Total sulfide and total cyanide analysis results
E-3
-------
Waste Analysis Information (continued)
Reactive sulfide and reactive cyanide analysis results, if
necessary based on the respective total analysis results
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis
results for the TC metals, nickel, cyanide and any remaining
inorganic of concern
Total constituent analysis results for the TC metals and
nickel
Total constituent and TCLP analyses results for the TC
organic constituents
Total constituent and TCLP analyses results for all other
inorganic and organic constituents of concern
Field quality control analysis results
Method blank analysis results
Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses results
Surrogate spike analysis results
Discussion regarding any analytical inconsistencies or
deviations
Ground-water Monitoring Information (See Section 9.0)
Descriptions of regional, local, and unit-specific geology
and hydrology
Description of the ground-water monitoring system
Well logs and well construction diagrams
Map of monitoring well locations
Description of well development procedures
Analytical results from a minimum of four rounds of
ground-water monitoring
Discussion of ground-water sampling and analysis protocols
Any additional information required to fully characterize
the impact of the petitioned waste on ground-water quality
E-4
-------
Ground-water Monitoring Information (See Section 9.0) (continued)
Interpretation of the ground-water analytical data based on
understanding of site hydrogeology and hydrogeochemistry and
any seasonal variations.
E-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
USE OF RANDOM NUMBER TABLE
-------
-------
HOW TO USE A RANDOM NUMBER TABLE
A random number table (shown in this appendix as "Table 1")
may be used to select sampling points without bias by the
sampler. The procedure generally involves selecting a set of n
elements (e.g.. grid intersections points) from a population
totalling N elements. The steps listed below form a single-
stage method for making the selection.
1. Label your population by numbering its elements. Each
label should have the same number of digits; for
example, if N = 308, the labels should be written down
as 001, 002, 003 ... through 308.
2. Decide upon a rule for selecting numbers from tl.s
random number table. You might select the n numbers
by starting sequentially in a given column, or in a
given row, or by skipping through the table in some
orderly fashion.
3. Using the rule you have selected, choose your first
number from the random number table. The number may
have more digits than you require; in that case,
simply disregard the excess digits on the end of the
number.
4. If the number you have chosen is greater than N (e.g..
greater than 308), choose another number. Repeat the
procedure until you have a set of n numbers, all
within the range of 1 to N.
If you suspect that the table is itself biased in some way, you
can introduce an additional element of randomness by throwing
dice to decide which entries in the table you will use.
If you exhaust the table before n random numbers have been
selected, you could start over from some new point in the table.
However, if you need that many sampling numbers, you may find it
more convenient to use the random number generators provided in
many computer languages.
-------
Example: We have 287 drums of waste. We wish to choose 34 of them
randomly and collect one sample for analysis from each.
1.
2.
3.
We assign numbers to the drums 001, 002, 003,
through 287.
We decide to choose 3-digit numbers sequentially, starting
from the top of the farthest left column of the random number
table.
The first number is 201. The second number is 744, but we
cannot use it because it is greater than 287. The next
useable number is 221. The 34 numbers and their locations in
the table are shown below.
tan
7449
947»
2zi>
9J*9
4304
4491
142)
2*5.0
1*70
22*4
6149
61 oo
«90j
321i
226
49 0$
49 74
2226
4887
2SZ*
95 97
3799
2229
S3 •)
671!
IS 16
40 10
9433
mi
•400
3094
•69*
6«9i
3331
S*49
7491
So 16
4946
124s
6417
ISO
6338
7990
223
90 el
3} I*
98 17
2fii
1711
4»*8
2*&9
49 Jl
78IS
1218
7797
9949
91 01
6504
IS*
3907
J2J.O
9516
9049
3383
4979
7448
37*5
i2iJ
7796
8746
98 61
S7 Jl
S837
6)4»
9«»J
•471
6000
8948
7777
2tfi4
IttJ
3796
4*8)
ml
4016
9399
5430
6.89
1344
4767
9737
6087
Jl 00
8213
14Z«
6Tot
Zilf
lii«
4677
ai7
0104
3867
6984
2Z2o
3614
8939
1fi6
6365
22ii
4193
6786
98J6
2BZ4
3140
34)4
1223
97 16
8808
43 39
7373
17 »7
7040
8333
0079
68 ]6
3*39
0388
0080
11*0
S4SS
7841
4413
6077
0107
7140
7830
01 88
3379
78 J9
8739
6897
31 09
91 U
S90I
01 J»
ii Si
0450
1140
8487
3966
10))
•341
31 3*
30 35
9945
9460
47 39
8:41
6616
8. J9
93 48
140)
11 04
6007
3» si
33 15
33 94
1983
7693
00 II
31 41
4653
73 18
91 11
14-1
5181
78*4
7780
33 61
3857
603!
45 05
9091
19 40
7305
7947
6957
9684
73 8J
8l 40
5656
9661
8563
1609
93 46
34 1}
7*1$
]0 6l
6? 39
)86i
3370
19 »5
3> 34
9187
5193
4849
896$
70 51
*47I
0641
JiS)
48 SI
0996
0671
6053
14 it
4S »3
08 12
08 79
IT OT
64-1
46 U
•»TI
19 01
ojl$
•643
63 '3
16 89
6a 19
94 62
10 60
34 39
6090
ji 29
So -.0
96 C2
!« «!
21 34
6JOJ
-I 61
S7 95
'5 S3
3' -5
94 41
30 Jl
41 8J
» 33
45 SO
8554
01 10
U 54
4088
13 ii
3»57
698$
0677
1784
53 »4
1177
10 81
1907
31 07
00 43
8917
91 IT
19 21
01 :8
47 6J
ii it
ot 20
46 21
24 31
>3 44
41 39
49 14
7)8«
SS2S
IT 44
19 93
61 40
88 46
•SSS
•0 62
31 «5
02 04
4! 4 so
01 5*
16 It
») '5
28 48
n •»
11 M
«« "4
e. «
*• ;•
86 10
486)
7871
540*
5851
038)
647*
309*
6147
8833
9134
6768
33 40
110)
1419
33 »6
3566
59 58
6S 6)
54 55
3083
3175
36 T4
5418
SI 40
0569
4560
37 II
13 74
94 13
16 04
)0 11
4897
5766
904*
98 24
40 37
23 11
28 T3
IS 96
28 28
n 89
66 SS
45 03
63 T6
00 14
05 30
ig 31
65 IT
)3 «'
S> 5)
0460
J7I8
01 )7
493*
5187
59*6
6)37
188)
1778
S«9»
490)
•686
5*8*
55 U
4470
6634
9169
3607
937)
11 11
19 31
6910
0048
366)
6486
8937
1847
6610
56)7
1415
4398
17 19
7>l8
5884
03 jo
8976
0369
J9 39
8676
3586
4807
4475
6478
6367
19 18
0097
"3 33
89 >S
II 74
9*5*
9449
4864
3837
1153
855«
08 31
1614
9934
•891
3908
»747
317*
• 179
8379
93 U
16 35
0)66
978j
9716
0467
1009
71 10
961)
16 II
0819
0687
7561
10 19
1409
O)6i
7006
•78)
0870
854)
1715
8441
93 44
36 34
6790
13J8
4200
3701
3433
34«l
4031
3630
5964
5944
90 $0
441)
5738
0657
1*91
964*
»* 37
»S 57
1)66
8»)7
7349
at 4*
)»o)
6837
Il8i
H96
9970
91 1)
7381
)679
9077
19 1)
948S
95 9J
664)
78)1
91 ii
08 I)
51 11
16 51
47.16
01 20
)68o
4831
960)
9567
1088
7468
033*
9707
11 68
16 I)
II 91
1S88
8801
94 10
9109
• 343
9617
9995
29 6l
-------
TABLE I
RANDOM SAMPLING NUMBERS
•017
7449
•470
aaiS
93*9
45°4
4491
16 23
0450
3170
0364
6249
6t oe
8903
ei 71
2756
49 OS
4974
20 26
4«87
087»
95 97
3799
«S79
S3 85
6728
8586
40 10
9455
II 63
6400
SO 94
6608
6691
3358
5*49
7498
SO 26
4946
19 *S
6417
1843
05 S8
79 9*
0723
90 08
53«a
9817
0891
37 ai
4228
0449
493i
78 is
1218
7797
9949
91 oa
6s 04
»77»
S907
0090
9586
9049
338s
4979
7448
37 as
aa43
7796
8746
9862
S73i
S837
634«
962$
9478
6009
8948
7777
26 04
>3a3
3796
4a83
1218
40 16
9399
S43«
6189
»344
4767
9737
6087
3100
oo 15
14 a4
6201
26 is
"44
4677
23 17
0304
3867
6984
2730
36 14
8939
1996
656$
03 61
4a9S
6786
9836
a874
5240
3434
loss
9726
8808
4339
7S73
17 a7
704*
8533
0079
6836
3a59
0588
oo 80
23 20
S45S
7841
4413
6077
0207
7*40
7830
01 88
3379
7839
8? S9
6897
Si 09
91 14
S90S
ot 51
21 31
04 -3
82 43
84 S7
596«
1033
234»
32 S«
3» SS
9945
9460
47 S9
82 42
6626
81 39
9348
1403
21 04
60 07
3222
35*5
3394
19 8s
7693
OO II
3»43
4653
75 «8
91 22
84 7a
51 82
7844
778o
3362
3857
6058
45 es
9091
1940
73«S
7947
6957
9684
7388
8 1 40
5656
96 61
8565
16 09
95 46
34 >3
7625
30 62
67 39
3861
S3 70
2963
3>54
9187
Sa9S
4849
89 6S
70 si
a47i
06 41
3183
4888
0996
06 71
60 53
2428
4**3
08 12
0879
2707
6471
46 12
8871
29 oi
038$
8643
63 '3
2689
62 19
9462
10 60
3459
60 90
21 29
5090
96 92
5445
2834
62 03
7261
57 95
IS 53
3' 75
94 4*
JO 3*
41 03
20 33
45 50
8SJ4
02 10
II 54
4088
15 ia
5057
6985
0677
8784
SS04
aa77
20 8l
1907
Si 07
6045
89a7
91 17
20 22
01 28
476$
22 18
OS 2O
46 22
*43*
a344
41 39
4924
7384
5825
8744
2903
6840
8846
758$
7962
3945
02 04
45 58
6988
«93S
36 oo
14 oo
oi 88
6681
43 «5
20 40
33 '9
12 8s
54 84
6454
97 37
86 to
4863
7871
54 oa
S85i
0383
647»
30 92
6147
8833
9*34
6768
3340
22 03
1429
33*6
3566
5958
6563
54 SS
3085
3275
3674
54*8
SI 40
0569
4560
37 II
as 74
94 IS
2604
3O 21
4897
S766
904»
9824
4037
2321
a8?3
2596
2828
1189
6688
4593
6376
oo 14
65 30
393i
65 17
3341
5i SS
946o
3718
oi 37
4936
31 87
59*6
63 37
8883
1778
51 90
4903
0686
5280
55*4
4470
6634
9269
5607
9373
22 21
193*
69 2O
0048
366S
6486
89 S7
1847
66 20
S637
242S
4598
27 19
7*28
5884
05 30
8976
0569
39 59
8676
5386
4807
4475
6478
6567
19 *8
0097
*3 33
8925
II 74
92 $2
9449
4864
3837
"S3
85 S6
08 si
26 24
9934
0892
3908
a? 47
3376
oi 79
8579
93 '4
26 3S
03 66
97 8s
9726
0467
2099
7210
0623
26 ii
08 19
0687
7562
20 19
1409
03 61
7096
1785
08 70
8543
*7*S
8441
9344
5634
6790
23 38
42 60
3701
3453
34 II
40 $1
5630
5964
5944
90 so
44*5
5738
0657
1293
9640
**37
*557
2366
8a37
7349
*i 4a
S*«>3
6857
338i
3196
9970
91 23
7382
S679
9077
19 13
948s
9593
6645
7832
91 21
08 is
Sa*i
26 52
47 16
ot 20
3689
4851
9603
95 <>7
2088
7468
o$ 32
9707
21 63
16 15
11 92
2888
8802
94 to
9* 69
1548
96 27
9995
29 62
Each digit is an independent simple from a pep . jncn m which the digits o to 9 are equally likely
i each haa a probability of ft.
-------
i6 16
9863
01 03
1907
72 61
71 ti
61 05
8189
10 24
1428
35 4»
0789
27 59
9598
1295
35 >3
8633
02 82
4440
0877
fri 59
6770
23 09
8940
8495
5214
8956
65 94
13 08
03 18
10 04
2394
35 63
4286
6726
9> 93
37 »4
07 46
92 18
0049
0859
6705
2499
6s 86
5270
3288
54 16
95 22
93 10
19 20
5704
80 s»
09 3S
1634
So 54
41 82
66 18
4*34
9084
3343
1789
3687
1558
45 52
7*7*
0668
9573
9623
3496
07 19
3708
1801
0879
2639
6641
49 oa
3i 4i
0593
'575
3357
0095
9728
4290
03 36
9287
8856
73 3S
5058
0946
9843
4> 41
1954
4806
2746
03 2O
2993
3940
1859
27 94
8520
8171
77»3
0254
49"
7099
7937
7682
0049
22 l6
01 32
8704
9873
1968
2735
8184
52 so
80 92
1646
3268
9440
0846
67 19
1878
7458
9074
1931
3787
0668
02 83
16 71
8504
6043
9074
4533
0996
3570
32 01
0873
9499
3967
33 59
3233
9641
7093
8496
58 21
98 S7
54 S7
9045
1567
1746
6108
51 96
5296
2464
0045
ii 18
9753
2696
5839
28 32
7764
9547
8681
3658
3955
2649
«5 S»
4822
'7J1
5676
2949
oo 32
5955
«37i
28 15
28 16
3472
4826
60 27
3280
4225
33 '7
6077
8537
9735
0794
4297
1741
6840
43 28
3468
21 2$
2739
1437
7' o$
02 05
44 22
3933
7803
5329
6390
9275
8934
II38
9854
61 90
33 16
54 II
1954
'345
75 19
2569
16 29
os to
92 28
5450
60 31
40 17
«373
2948
5867
8674
8711
oo 71
51 01
6248
73 «7
5377
1518
1901
2648
5877
7292
8261
19 37
7828
20 42
2860
41 3«
U$I
27 93
2903
6437
51 o$
68 58
65 t$
7» 35
50 26
3* *3
7346
8038
5829
17 U
8365
5289
9063
26 91
0196
S^S?
5903
05 61
II 90
376o
7050
2889
41 21
55 27
4325
9989
3387
0856
78SS
7406
2441
1909
01 84
6534
6296
393>
8503
4813
8336
1076
3901
1466
9033
6468
6794
92 28
02 71
3935
5771
01 63
63 99
7908
73 23
81 24
8846
5« S9
4»73
4*7*
2423
0691
2723
2634
7857
S7S8
5881
*3S8
91 08
ii 64
26 19
3935
3104
6487
0662
8414
3331
2844
7*79
»724
SS7»
4946
6763
9794
4606
oo 65
5652
3701
2929
3468
76 22
2255
7005
0757
71 56
4835
2654
4957
2445
62 51
9049
21 03
81 oa
8637
S» Si
1494
9057
2483
7763
8570
25 19
2438
4037
40 13
3206
4248
3797
2487
69 24
3»7S
0740
05 24
12 67
8000
7391
7158
2626
1687
03 80
2O TO
5854
3194
389*
5243
0439
7578
2826
0586
8004
3922
0089
11 OO
1266
2441
6377
0438
6370
1555
41 57
3555
9474
4378
8456
9876
750*
2404
4047
0499
6258
04 81
8997
5506
8458
6038
3995
51 05
8098
77 36
8444
4938
83 59
49«o
7401
8453
3585
9471
5934
56 16
9681
4631
7607
8666
3926
22 21
94 10
2397
12 IS
25 14
21 52
7485
61 ss
3760
1739
06 90
8924
2828
8473
ii 81
22 It
4099
9890
1874
1778
7045
3813
42 26
71 63
1800
6059
05 $o
91 29
83 59
48 S3
0886
75 94
4827
72 81
2097
4283
96 60
9095
2907
7290
9797
21 37
48 35
9900
5609
7968
0432
5373
6697
3029
1766
76 21
13 04
75 53
35 4i
U76
03 25
'3 »7
4773
99 34
07 72
24 z3
3694
7661
41 89
7979
46 19
21 5*
7707
4845
6623
51 68
92 U
62 59
78SO
E2ch digit i* in independent sample from • population m which the digits o to 9 an equally likeii
is each ha» a probability of -j^.
U•printed fro* CflfcHo** Elaaantary Statistical Table*. O.v. undlty and J.C.P. Miller, 1952.
-------
APPENDIX G
AMENDMENT TO SUBPART C - RULEMAKING PETITIONS;
USE OF GROUND-WATER DATA IN DELISTING DECISIONS
-------
Federal Register / Vol 54. No. 196 / Thursday, October 12. I960 / Propped Rulet
41931
hazardous characteristics (/•*•
ignitability. reactivity, corroejviry, and
EP toxidty). and mutt present sufficient
information far the Agency to determine
whether tht waste contain! any other
toxicants at hazardous levels. See 40
CFR.28f«2(a), 42 USX. 8821(0- and the
background documents for tht listed
wastes. Although wastes whickan
"delisted" (ie, excluded) have. been
evaluated to dttarmina whether or not
they exi^t any of the characteristics of
hazardous wastes* generator* remain
obligated to dttarmint whether or not
their waste remains nonhazaidous
based on the hazardoua waata
characteristics.
In addition to waataa liatad aa
hazardoua in 40 CFR 28L3I and 28L32.
residues from tha traatmant storage, or
disposal of liatad hazardoua waataa and
mixtures containing hazardoua waataa
also ara alJgibla for exclusion and
remain hazardoua waataa
excluded Saa 40 CFR 20L3 (c) and
(d)(2V Tha substantive itandard for
"delisting"'a traatmant residue or a -
mixture is tha aaaa aa previously
described for liatad waataa.
In tha past the Agency requested that
petitioner* submit ground-water
monitoring data for tha waste
management units which contained tha
petitioned waste. This ground-water
monitoring information was evaluated
as part of the submitted petition on a
case-by-case basis. In April I960, the
Agency published a guidance manual to
assist facilities in preparing delisting
petitions. See "Petitions to Delist
Hazardoua Waste*— A Guidance
Manual- U.S. EPA. Office of Solid
Waste (EPA/S30-SW-6S-OW). April
1961 This manual informed petitioners
that ground-water monitoring data
would be collected, if available, from
State and EPA Regional offices for
consideration during petition reviews.
The Agency has also used (and
currently uses, where appropriate)
analytical models, such as the vertical
and horizontal spread (VHS) model and
the Land Treatment Modal (LTM). to
evaluate the mobility of toxicants from
land-disposed wastes. See 90 FR 46806.
November 27. 1965; 50 FR 48961.
November 27. 1985: and 51 FR 4109B.
November 13. 1986. The Agency has
relied, and currently relies where
appropriate, on these models to quantify
the potential hazards of a petitioned
waste.
For wastes mat contain toxic
constituents (/.«~ constituents listed in
40 CFR part 261. Appendix VHI). the
listing criteria require the Agency to
consider a number of factors in
determining if the waste poses a
"substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment" 4ft-
CFR 261.11(a)(3). These factors include
the "potential of tha constituent to
migrate-from the wast* into the
environment" 40 CFR 26Ul(a)(3)(iii). In
deUating evaluations, the Agency
normally assesses the potential for
migration from the waste into tha
ground water. Although EPA uses
modeU'to predict the movement of.
waste Constituents, EPA views ground-
water monitoring data from an adequate
well system aa important information m
determining that the petitioned waste
. has not had or could not have an
adverse Impact on ground water.
Therefore, the Agency routinely
evaluates ground-water monitoring date
for petitions involving on-eite and
dedicated off-site land-based hazardoua
waste units.
The Agency recognizes that
m?«<+n<"fli by definition, is leas accurate
in predicting hazards at a particular site
than data that reflect hazard* posed by
tha actual disposal of a specific
wastaatream at that particular site.
However, wastes which have been
delisted may be disposed of at
numerous locations when the
hydrogeological and other conditions
may vary substantially. Predictive
models, therefore, are necessary to
evaluate the hazards posed by disposal
of specific wastestreams.
When data can be obtained to
characterize tha effects of past disposal
practices for a given, wasteatream. the
Agency believes this data will.
complement tha use of predictive
models. Such waste-specific data
provide "g"'***-*"* additional
information that the Agency believes is
important to characterize fully the
hazard* posed by disposal of a
particular waste. For example, ground-
water monitoring data from a particular
site at which a specific waste waa
disposed may reflect contamination
(*#. exceedance of health-based
levels). Such data clearly indicate that
the specific waste is hazardous at one
location, and thus is potentially .
hazardous at many other locations.
EPA is proposing today's amendments
to 40 CFR 26O22 to clanfy the authority
of tha Agency to consider ground-water
monitoring data as part of the
evaluation of delisting petitions, and
also to clarify the ability of the Agency
to require such data from petitioners.
(EPA is not soliciting, and will not
respond to. comments on other existing
elements of the delisting program or
regulations.) EPA will require petitioners
to submit as part of debiting petitions,
ground-water monitonng data sufficient
to characterize the effects on underlying
aquifers of waste disposed of at on-iife
and dedicated off-site hazardous waste
units. If such units are required to have a
ground-water monitoring system under
40 CFR part 264 or 265. EPA will not
require such ground-water monitoring
data from nondedicated off-site
hazardoua waste units for delisting
petitions, because the ground-water
data from each units would not provide
useful information about the petitioned
waste. In other situations, EPA will not
require petitioners to provide this
additional data, because ground-water
monitoring date cannot be obtained
(•.£, in eases where petitioners have
requested upfront delistings).
m. Overview of Ground-Water
Monitoring Requirements Under 40 CFR
Parts 264 and 264
Facilities that have not yet received
final administrative disposition of their
Part B permit application (/.*. facilities
with interim status) are required to
comply with 40 CFR part 265. All other
regulated subtitle C facilities managing
hazardoua wastes in on-site land
dispoaal units are required to comply
with a permit issued under 40 CFR part
264. Aa explained below, subpart F in
both part 284 and part 265 generally
require facilities that treat store, or
dispose of hazardous wastes in on-site
surface impoundments, waste piles (40
CFR part 264 only), landfills, or land
treatment facilities to implement a
ground-water monitoring program that
evaluates the ground-water quality in
the uppermost aquifer underlying the
facility. (See 40 CFR 264.90(a). 26S.90(a)j
Interim status facilities are required
under 40 CFR part 265. subpart F. to
install a ground-water monitoring
system capable of determining the
faculty's impact on the quality of ground
water in the uppermost aquifer. Under
40 CFR 265.92 and 265J3. facilities are
required to sample ground water st
specified time intervals and to
determine whether statistically
significant increase (or for pH. increase)
and decreases) of indicator parameters
(e.g.. specific conductance. pH. total
organic carbon, total organic halogen)
over background have occurred. If a
statistically significant increase (or for
pH. an increase or decrease) of an
indicator parameter over its background
level occurs, then the facility must
develop and implement a ground-water
assessment plan approved by tha EPA
Regional Office or the author zed St«i«
RCRA-permitted facilities are
required under 40 CFR part 264. jubpcn
F. to install a ground-water morutor.ru
system capable of detecting haurdou*
constituents that have entered ihs
uppermost aquifer. RCRA-permjt:w
-------
4U30 PecUrri Regtotsjr I VoL »*• No- 196 I Thunday. October 12. 198G / Propped Rules
: Environmental Protection
Agency.
Acnose Proposed rule tad rtquMt for
Comments.
r The Environmental Prottction
Agency (EPA or Agency) is today*
proposwg to amend ita regulation*
under tht Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) to clarify tha
Agency's authority to conaidar ground-
water monitoring data in tba evaluation
of debating pttition* (tubmittad under
40 ( J*'K 9*Tt tt
clarify tha ability of tha Agaacy to
require such data from petitioners.
Accordingly, Una propoaai provide* that
petition* for wastes managed in a
hazardoua waste unit moat
ground-water monitoring information, if
a ground-water monitoring tyatam for
the unit ia required under 40 CFR pert
284 or 285. or equivalent authorized
State requirement*. Such petitioner*
ahould have adequate ground-water
monitoring syttema in place and should
be conducting regular ground-watar
monitoring, except aa specifically
provided otherwise in 40 CFR part 281.
284. or 285. Facilities will be required to
provide the following information aa
part of their petitions: A description of
site geology and hydrology; a
description of the ground-water
monitoring systems for the units in
which the petitioned waste is managed:
the results obtained from the analysis of
ground-water samples collected
pursuant to 40 CFR part 284 or 265 or
authorized State equivalent; a
discussion of sampling and analytical
procedures followed and an
interpretation of the information and
data presented. The petitioner must also
submit any additional ground-water
information necessary to characterize
the petitioned waste's impact on ground-
water quality, including the analyses of
ground water for any constituent
deemed necessary by EPA.
Alternatively, the petitioner may specify
the titiet of reports containing this
information and identify the State or
EPA Regional authority which has
possession of the submitted reports. The
Agency ha* in the past evaluated and
will continue to evaluate ground-water
monitoring data, where appropriate, aa
well a* other factors (e.g., waste
constituent concentration*, mobility, pH.
and reactivity) during the delisting
petition revtew process.
OATB EPA will accept public comments
on this proposed rule until November 27,
1980. Comments postmarked alter the
dose of the comment period may not be
.considered.-Any person may request a
bearing on tfaa proposed rule by filing a
request with Joseph & Cam whose
eddress appears below, by October 27,
1989.
: The public must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to the Docket Clerk. Office of
Solid Waste (OS-30S), US.
fiBVaTODBcotaU Protection A^uicy* 401M
Street SW, Washington. DC 20480.
Identify your comments at the top win
this regulatory docket number "F-4^^
GWRP-FFFF".
Requests for a hearing should be
addressed to foseph & Carre. Director,
Permits and State Programs Division.
Office of Solid Waste (OS-340). OS.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street SW. Washington. DC 20460.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this
proposed rule is located at die U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW. Room 2427. Washington. DC
20480, and ia available for viewing from
840 ajn. to 4:00 p.au Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call
(202) 475-0327 for appointments. The
public may copy material from any
regulatory docket et a coat of $0.15 per
PON PUKTMBI MFOraSATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline, toll free et
(800) 424-8348 or et (202) 382-3000. For
technical information, contact Robert
Keyset. Office of Solid Waste (OS-343),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street SW. Washington, DC
20480, (202) 382-4538.
TA*TV MSFOSlMATIOst
Pnambit Outline
L Authority
IL Background
m. Overview of Ground-water Monitoring
Requirement* under 40 CFR Part* 284
and 265
IV. Use of Ground-water Monitoring Data in
Deliattng Decision*
A. Incomplete Debating Information
B. Non-compliant Monitoring Systems
C Identification of Ground-water
Contamination
D. Impact on Future Hazardous Wa*tt
Generator!
E. Impact on Facilities Planning to Treat
Stored Waits*
V. Effective Date
VI. Slate Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
SUM
B. Effect OB State Authorizations
VTL Regulatory Analysis
A, Regulatory Impact Analysis
& Regulatory Flexibility Act
C* Ptpd^vorii Ratwiction Act
VSL List of Subjects.
L Authority
This regulation is issued under the
authority of sections 2002(a) and 3001 of
the Solid Weate Disposal Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 8812(a) and 6921).
On January 18, 1981. as part of its final
and interim final regulations
implementing section 3001 of RCRA.
EPA published an amended list of
hazardous wastes from nonspecific and
specific sources. This list has been
amended several times, and is published
in 40 CFR 261 Jl and 281.32. These
wastes are listed as hazardous because
they typically and frequently exhibit one
or more of the characteristics of
hazardous wastes identified in subpart
C of part 261 (/.e.. ignitability.
corrosivity. reactivity, and extraction
procedure (EP) toxicify) or meet the
criteria for listing contained in 40 CFR
281.11 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
- Individual waste streams may vary.
however, depending on raw material*.
industrial processes, and other factors.
Thus, while a waate that is described in
these regulation* generally is hazardous.
a specific waste from an individual
facility meeting the listing description
may not be. For this reason. 40 CFR
28O20 and ?y ?g provide an exclusion
procedure, allowing persons to
demonstrate that a specific waste from a
particular generating facility should not
be regulated as a hazardous waste. The
petitioner makes this demonstration by
submitting manufacturing and treatment
process information, raw materials lists.
analytical data, mass balance
arguments, and other administrative
information.
• To have their wastes excluded.
petitioners must show that wastes
generated et their facilities do not meet
any of the criteria for which the wastes
were listed. See 40 CFR 260-22(a) and
the background documents for the listed
wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of
1984 require the Agency to consider any
factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which
the waste was listed, if then is a
reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste
to be hazardous. Accordingly, a
petitioner also must demonstrate that
the waste does not exhibit any of the
-------
54. No. MB / Thmsday. October 12. 1089 / Ftopooed Hale*
facilities moil sample ground water at
specified tine iatenele and determine-
whether die lavela of consti
parametess specified ia their paint
have increased (or tor pH. increased or
decreased) statistically over
huckgrmrH
increase (or for pH. an increase or
decrease) u a constituaat or parameter
** detected, tba facility muat develop
•n«j inclement a cfwrUmffv monitoring,
»ta testing for
conetituanta listed ia Appendix DC to
part ?fH **"^ thereafter* aa,
for aU Appendix DC const! tueats)
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
204JC. If the IcveU of any constituent
being moialund era* bond to exceed the?
coBcentretkm limtta specified in tne>
facility permit the facility mat prepare?
and implement a cooectrve actJoo
program is accordance with 40 CFR
We
rv.u»«af
Today/a proposed amendment to 49
CFR 28O2Zcodifle» me Agency's pottcy
to lequiie individuals wbo submit
debating petitions' (under 40 CFR 28O29
and 28O22J for weste* managed fat on-
sita (or off-stt* dedicated) hazardooa
waste management units to provide
jronnd-water monitoring, inrormetfOB a*
part of their petition* tf the antte of
concern are required to have ground*
water monitoring system* under 40 CFR
part 284 orZBS. Generally. fadBtfe* that
have submitted denstfng petition* for
waste managed ia land-based
hazardoua waat* management unit*
already are required to monitor ground
water under 40 CFR part 284 or 288.
subpart F. Tiros, ground-water
information and analytical data should
br readily available ead can be
provided for use in the deliatinf
evahaatiOBt without any T A dadteatad off-aita uart
toeatad apart fram tba fadltty proper, ia
wttkn no hazaidooa waataothar than
thepatitionadwaateiamanagadlftha1
dadicatad ofWta- unit ia not ander the*
petitioner*a oontrot tha petitioner anat
arrange to provide tha required
information. Tba Agency ia not raqahing
ground-water montorBig ntformaooit
frosBnondediealadofl-aitaanitabecauaa>
such data would likely reflect
conatituant coBcentrarJoas from
namaieaa. eodlapeead haaardoaa waata
streaam. Tboa, thia data would hart
little vataa t» tha Agency's avalnatfoa of
thapatttioBadw««tai
Tha Agency will however, reouira tba
petitiODar to aoomrt gruuiurwatat data
for all oa-aita adta mart eontam tba
petitioned waata; including those units
that aJao contain other wastes (La«
nondedieated mriti J if me unit is rob jact
to RCRA grouiiii-water monitoring'
raqtrJn
ita, Tba Agency bcUevas that
such data may provide useful
information for debating because tha
petitioned wasta ia often a significant
component of tha waata contained ia on-
sita, nondadJeated units. Aa noted
above, off-aita nondedieated units are
more likely to be large facilities that
accept a wide variety of wastes. EPA
wiO evaluate the Importance of ground*
water and other information for on-sita
nondadieatad units on a case-by-case
In general tba petitioner ia required to
submit ground-water monitoring
information and analytical data for alt
ground-water waOa that monitor the
unit(sj in which tha petitioned waata ia
managed All available analytical
•results for upgradiant and downgradiant
monitoring walla should be submitted.
The Agency will normally require et
leaat four rounda of monitoring data
collected over the course of one year
unless, in tba judgment of EPA. data
from a shorter time period are adequate
to evaluate tha impact of the petitioned
waste on the ground water. The
submitted data muat represent any
expected seasonal variation ii ground-
water quality. If the petitioner baa
previously submitted ground-vrater
information in response to RCRA
subpart F requirements, the petitioner
may either resubmit tba information in
the delisting demoaatratioa. or specify
the tttlee-oi tfae reporta containing tba
required information and identify tha
Star* or EPA Regional contact who baa
po aaaaaiea of tha submitted reporta. The
Agency will eootdmata with State and
EPA Regional contacts1 to obtain thia
information; wbaa appropriate. The
Agency retain* the- eatfaority to request
the petitioner to submit additional
infiormatio* necessary for tha delisting
evaluation, if tha reporta submitted to
the State or EPA Region are not
adequate for this purpose.
This- proposal alao explain* how the
Agency intend* to use the submitted
ground-water monitoring information to
support deiisting' decisions. Ground-
water monitoring data from EPA Region
or State-approved RCRA monitoring
system* that show no unacceptable
toxicant level* (g.f, hazardous
constituent concentrations above
health-based level*) may support the
Agency** decision to grant an exclusion.
However, because the monitoring data
from a particular site do not reflect the
potential to contaminate other sites.
these data alone are not sufficient
evidence to grant an exclusion. The
evaluation of many factor* («.£.. waste
constituent concentrations. pH, and
reactivity) and tha Agency's evaluation
of toxicant mobility from wastes using
ground-water transport models (e.g.. the
VMS model) may contribute to the final
delisting decision. If the Agency
believes that under reasonable worst-
case conditions a wasta will leach
unacceptable levels of toxicants, then
the Agency may consider the waste to
be hazardous and subject to subtitle C
control even though ground-water
monitoring data may not indicate
ground-water contamination. Ground-
water monitoring data showing no
contamination indicate that either
contamination has not yet occurred or
has not bean detected, but do not
indicate whether tba waste will cause
ground-water contamination in tba
future at the site assessed or at other
potential sites. In addition, because
waste* may be moved to a different
location following exclusion, the
evaluation of ground-water monitoring
data from the current location will have
no direct bearing on possible migration
from a similar unit at a different waste
management site which may have
different hydrogeological conditions.
On the other hand, ground-water
monitoring data mat show ground-water
contamination may support the
Agency's decision to deny a petition.
even when laachate test results and
modeling evaluations would not indiute
potential ground-water contamination.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 196 / Thursday. October 12. 196E / Proposed Rules 41933
The Agency intends to UM results of
ground-water monitoring data
evaluations as a check on tbt
reasonable worst-case evaluations
performed in order to provide an
additional level of confidence in its
deiisting decisions. Because ground*
water monitoring data are descriptive of
the impact of the petitioned waste under
actual conditions, and not reasonable
worst-case assumptions, the Agency
believes that evidence of ground-water
contamination originating from the
unites) of concern may be a sufficient
basis for petition denial
A. Incomplete Diluting Information
The Agency's policy to dismiss
incomplete petitions by letter is
explained in detail in 53 FR 0822, March
3.1988. Petitions that are substantially
incomplete may be dismissed upon
receipt. Facilities with petitions that are
partially deficient will have a maximum
of 6 months to submit the information
necessary to complete their deiisting
petitions. In the event that the 6-month
deadline passes without full submittal of
the requested information, the Agency
may dismiss the petition by written
notice to the facility. The effect of the
dismissal is to remove the petition from
the petition review process and to cloee
the petition file. The facility may submit
a new petition with updated and
complete information at any time.
Pursuant to this policy, the Agency '
will notify facilities when submitted
ground-water monitoring information is
insufficient to complete their petitions.
Such incomplete petitions may be
dismissed upon receipt or the facility
may be given e *n**iTT"t" of six months
within which to provide the necessary
ground-water monitoring information.
B. Non-compliant Monitoring System*
In most cases, the Agency will dismiss
petitions for wastes in on-site and
dedicated off-site waste management
units if ground-water monitoring is not
in compliance with the applicable 40
CFR part 284 or 285. subpart F ground-
water monitoring regulations and such
lack of compliance, in EPA's discretion.
renders the ground-water monitoring
data insufficient to properly
characterize the impact of the petitioned
waste on ground water. Compliance
with supart F regulations will be
determined after consultation with the
appropriate State or EPA Regional
offices. Such petitions generally will be
dismissed upon rinding the system out of
compliance, because more than six
months will typically be required to
bring the monitoring system into
compliance and/or to collect the
requisite ground-water monitoring data.
A facility may submit a new petition
with updated and complete ground*
water monitoring information after the
ground-water monitoring system is.
brought into compliance ind the
required sampling information has been
obtained.
If data submitted from non-compliant
monitoring systems indicate that the
petitioned waste may have caused
ground-water contamination, the
Agency may use this information to
support a denial of the petition. The
Agency believes that these data may be
used as a separate basis to dan* the
petition because the ground-water
monitoring results, even though the
monitoring system is not in compliance.
may indicate that the petitioned waste
has adversely affected ground-water
quality at the site. The petitioner may
submit a new petition if the monitoring
system is brought into compliance with
the appropriate regulations and may
attempt to provide sufficient information
to demonstrate that the petitioned waste
has not contributed to ground-water
contamination.
In most cases, ground-water
monitoring systems spproved by the
EPA Region or State will provide the
data necessary for evaluating the impact
of the petitioned waste on ground-water
quality. IB a few cases* however, a
petitioner's approved ground-water
monitoring system may not be adequate
for determining the impact of only the
petitioned waste on ground-water
quality. For example, the EPA Region or
State may have granted approval of a
single ground-water monitoring system
for a waste management area. A waste
management area is defined by en
imaginary M**» nr**"m>iir'^>'ng more *h*n
one regulated unit A well system which
monitors several regulated units within
a single waste management area may be
.inadequate for determining the •
petitioned waste's impact on ground-
water quality where, for example, the
petitioned was e is found only in one
unit Such situations will be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis.
Other cases in which data from an
approved ground-water system will not
be adequate may arise for units that are
subject only to the monitoring
requirements in subpart F of 40 CFR part
285. The list of analytes required under
part 285 is limited in scope and often
will not include constituents that are of
concern to EPA in evaluating deiisting
petitions. Therefore. EPA will require
that petitioners provide ground-water
analyses for any constituents that the
Agency believes may be derived from
the petitioned waste and might
adversely affect ground-water quality.
C Identification of Ground-water
Contamination
r
L Evaluation of Hazardous Constituent
Concentrations
In evaluating a deiisting petition, the
Agency will consider to be unacceptable
ground-water contamination that
exceeds health-based levels in wells
that monitor the units containing the
petitioned waste. The health-based
levels are Agency-reviewed levels of
regulatory concern proposed for use in
deiisting decisions (see "Docket Report
on Health-Based Regulatory Levels and
Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of
Deiisting Petitions." June a. 1988. located
in the RCRA public docket). These
levels include Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) developed for drinking
water, as well as Reference Doses (for
noncarcinogens) and Risk Specific
Doses (for carcinogens). Health-based
levels are intended to protect humans
from the possible adverse effects of
chronic, low level exposure to
hazardous constituents.
The Agency is aware that the ground-
water monitoring regulations in subpan
F to 40 CFR part 284 appear to take a
somewhat different approach in
evaluating contamination. Under part
284. detection of hazardous constituent^
in the ground water above certain
concentration limits (ground-water
protection standards) triggers the
requirement for corrective action. These
concentration limits are based on; (l)
Maximum concentration limits for
drinking water specified in part 264. (2)
alternate concentration limits (ACLs)
established in a permit to protect human
health and the environment or (3)
background levels. (Subpart F to part
285. unlike part 264. does not provide
any specific mechanism for corrective
action. The focus of the part 265
regulations is on determining the extent
and nature of ground-water
contamination, not on its removal or
treatment The use of health-based
levels in deiisting ground-water
evaluations is not inconsistent
subpart F to part 265. because pan 265
does not contain procedures for
evaluating what levels of constituents
are unacceptable and require corrective
action.)
The use of health-based levels
(including MCLs) in evaluating ground
water for deiisting is clearly consistent
with the use of MCLs and ACL* as
ground-water protection standards m
part 264. subpart F. (ACLs are site-
specific limits developed from health-
based levels similar to the levels used m
deiisting decision-making.) For densnng
purposes, however, the Agency
-------
4,1934
/ VoL S4. No. Mft / Thunrfay, October 12.196t / Proposed Rules
generally will not eea conatrhsent kveie
above background as a safe basis for
petition denial EPA believee thai
the deiisting decision procaesf the
deiisting process determines which
wastes are baaardoua- to hnsftaa health
and (ha environment, whereaa subpart F
is designed' to protect haman health and
the environment by detecting, and
addressing rebates from regulated and
solid waste manag
could
- - •• __{«_ 4ka*
Fistaenaore, thie. spparent dttbsence.
of approach with past 204 sufcpart P haa
Bttfe pjeetiaai impact. IT iocreaaea above
bafifcgnwad ate detected in ground,
watee. the Agency's deflating program
will await the- submitlai ef that furtfatt
giuuad water sTaUiecasredem-deg
r.£e*rt F (ie, Appendbi DC U> part 2M)
before 1fa«—<-<-•. ifnnelfh-heaed
levela ere exceeded for any eonatit
of concaa to daBatiafv baddUaa,
today's proposed rule will raqvine
petitioners, to aaalysa tha |
for any constituent dssssert necessary
by EPA for tha deiisting, evaluation. U
significant graunoVwalar contananatfon,
exists si a site, il sseaf highly unttely
ths( no constituents ef coacaca, would, be
found above health-based levels.
Finaflj, aa notad ptcviavafy. EPA
Keadqaastaa pXaaa to ooonBoaia
closely with EPA Recfdnal and State
permitting anthoritfea to anaura that aoy
evidaaca that Aa patOfaoatf waata haa
caoaao* a yound-watet ptoalam k
evafaatad poor to daQatfna>
at r ar ftifvr • nf the health haaad
levela in g
hydra ulwaUy downgradLent from a
regulated unit in which tha petitioned
waste ia m"">g**i indicates that the
petitioned waste may be u«''hi"t
constituent* at levela ef concern to the
deiisting pragrsav Graond-watar
contamination in>estceedance of heefthV
based levela may provide grennda to
deny a petition unless the
demonstrate on* of thaf '
petitioned waata haa aat
coattibuted to tha •"•-^-'-itftm (44.
contamination, ia tha raault oX othat oor
site souicaat Ul the exceedaaca ia doa
to aoemr in aampllna nr ""^fytit ftr
other factors not associated with tha
petitioned waste, or (3> tha axeeedanca,
although greater than tha health-baaed
levels, is not statistically significant The
Agency will review these
demonatratfons on a case-by-case basis.
fl J ff the evaJiMtion ef ground-water
monitoring infaonarJaa showa that
constituent concentration* ia tha
bac&ground for upgradlent} walla
designated by the facility also exceed
health-baaed leveia, tha patitfoaar wfll
be raqpiMd to daaoasoata tha* tha
CQMtitveof cancaottatioBa i&> tha
badcfrooad fcoi upgradiaBt} waUa are- tha
result of an
thai tha- patttioaad waaaa, and ara> not io
fact related to factor* such as
jnipjiniarista
effecta, at lite apacific hydngieiegc
factors that night cataw backfyoaad (
upgradiaat) w«U» t» iataicaycSow bam
the;
aaalywa io aaWtoa to*
analysis of other potential «
sourcaSi 00 pSDoaeaae)
(9 Tbt Agncr al*9 wo*? coosejer •
wc^Rjnp cleflft (set as excec^aoca* if t&e
analysts. Tbt petiBorw most pttrwdeaa
explflBBttfoo or wfey tne* errer on
occvfev eBG SBrfioerrc oeta1 t9soow/ tov
excsedeoee> fir iwi reprnenfetrve1 or
actual grooBoVwater (jvanTy. SQCB e
denMDetretfov a»y facrade the
preaeoretioD of aeror anu noorajtory
QA/QC deta (t.f~ t^\il\ioi9M bfanfcsv
trip* btsidra* laooratory bianksx
GQ A racffify may show that a
eaBatftueaf eoncaDtran'on. which fa
above a health-based leveL ia not a
•tatfstfcaffy s{gniBcaat exceedanca.Tha
Ageacy haa approved the use ef a
variety of slaoalfcal method* for
evaluating ground- water monitoring
data &OB huacdoua waata facHitiaa.
However, the appropfiataneaa of a gives
procedure ia governed by specified
performance standards which require
that toe use of a statistical teat be
determined oo a case-by-caa* basis. See
the Federal Kagbtac. October U. 1988.
53 PR 39720. Examphe of accepted
statistical procadurea- are an analyaia of
vanaoce CANOVAt a tolerance or
predkrJa&intarvsJ procedure, and
control chavta> Gtudanca maiefisla are
being developed that will diacuea tha
tolerance interval method and aa
alternative *«>*fi order to- demonstrate
tftet leveiv of banrdbos constituents in
gnond water are not exceeding heeltfr-
based levehfc hr addition, twlsy's
proposed1 amendments to the deiisrmy
reguietfbns reqairr that petitioners
submit ground-water data for any
coustftuent deemed1 necessary by EPA
(see 12BO22ffjri3ft EPA wiO mmally
require groond-water monitoring data
(to tRchde hazardous* constituent
analyses} coUeeted over the course of at
least one year.
If an evaluation of indicator
parameter analyse* shew* thai a
statuticaHy t-g»'B"«* increase (or for
pR an increase or decnaae>over
background concentrations' in the level
of aa iadicator parameter has nor
occurred, the Agency may still require.
for delating purposes, that a petitioner
perform additional sampling and
analyses for one or mere hazardous
conatituanta. Similarly, the Agency may-
require analyses fee constituents not
specified in. the permit, even without an
exceedaaca for specified constituents or
parameters. The request for additional
information wouki be made whea the
Agency haa sufficient reason to- suspect.
that such constituents in the waste cooid
hwve aa adverseefJect on groundrwater
quality. EPA Headquarters will
coordinate with appropriate State and
EPA Regional offices ia determining the
adequacy of existing ground-water
moaitociagdata in demonstrating thai
-------
Federal Rajgtotsjr / Vol. 54. Na 196 / Thunday. October 12. 1969 / Proposed Rule* ^335
the petitioned waste haa not adversely
affected ground-water quality.
3. Evaluation of Vadoae Zona
Monitorinf Data
In some- initancas a pttitionar may be
monitoring tha vadoaa zona (La. tfaa
unsaturatad zona between tha waate
and tha ground water) in ordar to dataet
hazardous constituents migrating from a
wasta managtmtnt unit bafora ground
watar haa been advanaly affected. Such
a program ia particularly advantageoua
and nacaaaary whan a wasta
management unit Is located in a region
where depth to ground watar ia
substantial The Agency intends to use
vadoze zone monitoring data, when it ia
available from the petitioner or ia
required by EPA Regional or State
authorities, to support the evaluation of
a waste's potential impact on ground
water and the environment* Should an
analysis of vadoae zone monitoring data
indicate that
vadoae zone haa- occurred or i»
occurring, the Agency may determine
that the petitioned waata could cause
ground watar contamination if it were to
migrate to ground watar. or it once
excluded, the wasta was transported to
a disposal site with different
hydrogeologic properties («.$.. a shallow
water table). The Agency will
coordinate with appropriate State and-
EPA Regional offices- in determining
whether vadoae zone monitoring data
demonstrate that the petitioned waste-is
capable of adversely impacting ground
water and the environment,
D. Impact oa future Hazardous WaMt»
Generators
The Agency- recognizes that some
petitioners may be planning to generate
new wastestreams that would be listed
in 40 CFR 281.31 and 281.32 once
generated. These petitioners may
request an "upfront" delisting, submit
pilot-scale waste constituent data.
process descriptions, and other
information in support of their delisting
demonstrations prior to full operation of
the new process. If these data and tha
information in tha remainder of the
petition demonstrate that the waate ia
not hazardous, the Agency may grant an
upfront exclusion. Obviously, ground-
water monitoring data for such wastes
are not physically obtainable.
For an upfront delisting. the
conditions of the exclusion will set
maximum allowable constituent levels
in the waste and will require the facility
to submit representative sampling and
analytical results from the full-scale
process to verify that the allowable
levels have been met in the generated
waste. Such upfront delisting will be
granted only whan the Agency haa
sufficient reason to conclude, baaed
upon information submitted about the
process and wasta and upon the
conditions of the exclusion, that
unhazardous wastes will be generated.
£ Impact on Facilities Planning To
Treat Stand Watt*
The Agency haa received and
currently ia reviewing a number of
petitions from facilities that are using
various procedurea (»&, stabilization.
incineration, leachata treatment) to treat
and to reduce constituent mobility in
appropriate waste matrices. In a typical
case, a petitioner may stabilize wastes
contained in a land-baaed hazardous-
waste management unit In all cases.
petitioners must demonstrate that the
treatment procedures are effectively
reducing constituent mobility ind/or
concentrations to levels that are below
regulatory concern.
Ground-water monitoring information
from units used to store wastes prior to
treatment will not be required for
petitions for treated waste because the
treatment process is expected to altar
tha chemical composition of the waate
and/or the mobility of the waata
constituents. Ground-water monitoring
for the original unit therefore, generally
will not provide useful information on
tha impact of the treated waata on
ground-water quality. If a petition for
treated wastes is submitted on an
upfront basts (/.a, before the waate is
treated), ground-water monitoring data
from die treated wastes will not be
physically obtainable. For waates that
have already been treated and placed in
a new unit ground-water monitoring
data from the new unit will be requirad
for delisting purposes, if the Agency
believes that such data would be useful
in evaluating the hazards of the treated
waste.
EPA's decisions to delist a waata are
generally retrospective and typically
remove the waste management units
holding the delisted waste from control
under subtitle C of RCRA. In effect tha
Agency has decided that these units
have not received a hazardous wasta.
However, if waste from a hazardous
waste management unit is treated and
subsequently delisted. the unit in which
the untreated waste was managed ia not
necessarily removed from regulation
under 40 CFR parts 282 through 268 and
the permitting standards of 40 CFR parts
270. Delistings also may be prospective
and remove from subtitle C control only
the waste sampled or newly disposed/
generated waste. The Agency believes
that the unit from which the untreated
waste was removed should remain
regulated until any hazardous residues
j from dispose! of the original
(untreated) waate are managed to meet
applicable requirements under RCRA
(*£. dean closure requirements), or
until these residues receive an exclusion
based on a separata delisting petition,
Before the unit itself could be removed
from regulation, die petitioner must
demonstrate (through ground-water
monitoring and other data) that residues
remaining at the unit that contain or are
derived from the original (untreated)
waste are not hazardous and that past
waate management practices at the unit
have not caused ground-water
contamination.
V. Effective Data
This rule, when promulgated, will be
effective immediately. Although Subtitle
C regulations normally take effect six
months after promulgation (RCRA
section 3010(b))~, the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow
rules to become effective in less than six
months when the regulated community
doea not need the six-month period to
come into compliance. Because today's
rule merely clarifies the Agency's
existing authority to require any
additional information needed to
evaluate a petition (see 40 CFR part
280.220)). tha Agency believes that a
six-month delay ia unnecessary. In
addition, a six-month deadline is not
necessary to achieve the purpose of
section 3010 and good cause exists to
make the rule effective immediately
upon promulgation. These reasons also
provide a basis for making this rule
effective immediately, upon
promulgation, under the Administrative
Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C
553(d).
VL State Aumority
A. Applicability of Ruin in Authorized
State*
Under section 3006 of RCRA. EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
pan 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization. EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008.7003, and 3013 of RCRA. although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendment (HSWA) of 1984. a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
-------
VoL 54. Nbi t9B / Tterday. October T2. M89 f PtuymeJ
end EPA c**M M( fsenopwmfts fcri
focMfeo i» tb* Stelo **t tko r
authorised Ss» permit'
FaaessJrev.1
pwbjbrttom iscpeaed
by the HSWA tair effect ip aatbmisoti
States it the Mfflt time that they t»k*
effect ia non-authorized SUtes. EPA is
directed to implement those?
requirements aad prohibittau, ia
tnTfrM eppiieetir
uniese th» Statn rvrise* Hi pfopmrn to
adopt equivalent regulations under Stair
law and the State ravisiona an
authorized If a State if authorized for
deoatiag. it> progna muat b» no feat.
itnngent than that of the Federal
Program, for the State to obtain and keep
final authorization. Today's role
proposes to clarify EPA's exerdae of Ha
existing authority by codifyinf specific
renuiremems to coMider ground-water
monitoring data M parr of the Agency's
evaluation of ditiftin? petitions. EPA
belirrw that thn additional speeirlcrrj
of deUsting regnlations make* the
deKstxng process nore stringent.
Therefore, tfte State program must
include equivalent regulations in order
for the State te> obtain aad to keep Rnstl
auAonntian. upon promulgation of
these requirements.
40 CFR 27l^lfe)(2) revaim Href
States that bare Snel Mthorizetion moat
moettfy tbea> piuyanfs to reflect Federal
program changes and mast subseoeently
submtt moiBoJBu«Ltoo>tb IP* for
approved To* aevdso* oy WBICS mr
State- most modfly- a* program to edopf
this proposed1 regmofiev wiO bo
determine*/ by too diet* of prenrahjition*
of tfio Asse* rdr in- eecorianeo wrrdt 40
CFR 27J.&(•>. Tbaoo dudsne* cast bo
extended in certain caoao (4ft CFR
271.21(e)t3]}. One* EPA approve*, tho
modifiicatfev, the Statt requtrenents
becomo Sobtttie, C RQtA requfrsments.
S*Jt*»wttb*«tnorfzedRCRA
program* drvady may havo
nOr steilarto those 'm today'*
jposerf ralo. 7&e*o State refnlatfon
rre not beeff assessed1 agatar me
Feoani legulatfuus bciuy proposed1
todcy/todejtanmne wbstirer they meet
the tarts- fbraumutfiatiuiL Thus; a SUte
wilfnofbotuAorftedtocirryoatthaae
rtqu&vmentr upon (ftefr premiigatioB ta
lieu of ro*. nBttt the State progrmn
modlftatioB ff submitted to EPA and1
approved. Of course. Slates with
regoletlons may continne to
echuMstej and enforce their regulations
as a. mafrer of Sum f*w.
Statwftat snbmff meiroiBdal
apptfcsTtfons (brikBsJ au AurLcetion ISM
thmxtf mont&s after die* tflecttredatt
of these, sttndirdi sxo not Dfo^uJreff to
incmdr itnidaxdii eo-orvaJtat to mesc
sfatuhMb in meir snpUcation. However.
the Stats most modify its program by the
deadlines set fortfc in 40 CFR 2TL2X(el.
State* mat sobmit oScfai appPcations
for final autnorizatfon 12 months after
the effective date of these, standards
most tndude standards equivalent to
these standards ia their application. 40
CFR 27TJ sets forth the requirements a
State most meet when submitting its
final authorization application.
A.RfguIatary Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
muet jodga wkethcr e reguiatroa ia
-major" aad taereiere. sooiect to the
requirtmestl of a R4-g«aitary Impact
Anaoyeso. A me. jor rate, is defined a* a
reguklioai mat i» Skaiyr to remit me
1. An annual effect on the- economy of
$100 meUJoe) or more:
2. A mojor inaees* in costs or prices for
indmdueJ
FederaL Sute, or tocai gwwmmeirf
egesicteo or teogrephic regions; or
3. Significant advene affects on
coaocvtitioit. empieymeni investment,
prodactmry, mno»»tio»v or me ability/
of United States-based enterprise* to
compete with foreign-baled
eeaerpcfse* in domestic or export
markets.
The Agency ha* determined *at
today's propoeal is not e meforrule. If
piuumlfsted, this propoeel wmld not
siganfcantiV incretee coat to the
petitioner beeense me information
requested i* toekye. propeael jineiiilfy
should be available from f»~ '*«*•« m
campjianre with 40 CFR part 20A or 285.
subpait F. IB
beea given, the, optiaa ef soeofyiag the,
title* ef reporta casoaiaiaf the requested
iafacaaytias. aad ideatirytag the Sute ot
EPA R*go**I cemtact who ha*
pa*MSB»» of s«cht repostsv isj lieu of
the deOstint apoiication. Finally. EPA
coeJd fomure sebmssaum of thi*
informatios) auier txistmg satbonty. so
no esjBificsflt coot of providing this
iafannanm wUl bo edemata hie to this
propQsod rolsfc
&. fazttiat*ry FLuuMtty Act
Pursoeat to tbo Regulotory Flexibility
Act S USC m-mi whenever an
*goocy t* reejuffeo to poouen * wenerai
Notice of RnJemeJong for any proposed
or final rule; it must prepare and make
available for pebifc comment a
reguiefory (nxibifity aiiarysis that
describe* tho impact of the role ou small
entities (X*v small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictionsJ. No regulatory flexibility
anafysi* is required, however, if the
head of the agency certifies that :he rule
witt not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This amendment wili act have aa
adverse, impact on, a «»>>«t»mi«j nuaber
of smafl entities, since the information
requested in today's proposal generally
is already required of petitioners under
40 CFR part 284 or 265. subpart F and 40
CFR port 270, subpart E, and can be
requeued under existing: delisting
authority. Accordingly. I hereby certify
that due regulation upon promulgation
will not have a significant economic
impact 00 a substantial number of small
entities. Thi* regulation, therefore, does.
not require a regnUtory flexibility
C. Paperwork Reduce aa Act
The Information collection
reqeirenents in this proposed rule have
been sabmiMed for approval to the
Office ef Management end Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act 44 U.S.C 3501 etaep. Reporting and
recordkeeping burden on the public for
this collection is estimated- to be 1.550
hoars for the 50 respondents per year.
with an average of 31 hoars per person
These burden estimate* inciode all
aspect* of the coUectJon effort and may
include time for reviewing ins true sons.
searching existing datv sources.
gathering and maintaining the data
-------
FedaceJ Registsa / VoL 54. No. 196 / Thursday, October 12. 1989 / Proposed Rules
41937
needed completing and reviewing the
collection of information, etc.
If you wish to submit comments
regarding any aspect of this collection cf
information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, or if you would like
a copy of the information collection
request (please reference ICR (1180),
contact Chief. Information Policy
Branch. PM-223. U.& Environmental
Protection Agency. 401M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20400 (202-382-2745),
and Paperwork Reduction Project 2050-
0063. Office of Management and Budget
Washington. DC 20503. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
VUL List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 2tt
Hazardous materials. Waste
treatment and disposal. Recycling.
Dated October 4.1980.
WDUnlLlaiDy.
Adaunitamor.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 260-HAZAROOUS WASTI
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006.2002U). 3001 through
3007.3010.3014.3018. 3017.3018,3019. and
7001 Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1979, u amended (42 U.S.C 6006.
eei2(«). een through 6027. eoao. 6834. ens.
8837. 8038. om and 6*74).
2. Amend paragraphs (a)(2), (c)(2).
(d)(4). and (e)(4) of I 26CU2 by replacing
the ending period with a semicolon
f ollowed by the word "and".
3. Amend i 26O22(b) by adding to the
end of the paragraph the sentence
"During the review of the complete
application, the Administrator will
consider the ground-water monitoring
information collected under paragraph
(i)(13) of this section and evaluate the
impact of a petitioned waste on ground
water."
4. Amend § 26O22 by adding
paragraphs (a)(3). (c)(3). (d)(5). (e)(5).
and (i)(l3) to reed as follows:
121022 NOttoneto emend part »lto
»a weete produeed at a |
(3) During the review of the complete
application, the Administrator will
consider the ground-water monitoring
information collected under paragraph
(i)(13)«f mis section and evaluate the
impact of a petitioned waste on ground
water.
• • • • •
(c) ' * '
(3) During the review of the complete
application, the Administrator will
consider the ground-water monitoring
information collected under paragraph
(i)(13) of this section and evaluate the
impact of a petitioned waste on ground
water.
(d) ' * *
(5) During the review of the complete
application, the Administrator will
consider the ground-water monitoring
information collected under paragraph
(i)(13) of this section and evaluate the
impact of a petitioned waste on ground
water.
(e)' * •
(5) During the review of the complete
application, the Administrator will
consider the ground-water monitoring
information collected under paragraph
(0(13) of this section and evaluate the
impact of a petitioned waste on ground
water.
* • • • •
M ' ' *
(13) Ground-water monitoring
information for a petitioned waste that
is managed in a unit for which a ground-
water monitoring system is required
under 40 CFR part 264 or 265. The
ground-water monitoring information to
be submitted includes: a description of
site geology and hydrology: a
description of the ground-water
monitoring systems for the units in
which the petitioned waste is managed
the results obtained from the analysis of
ground-water samples collected
pursuant to 40 CFR part 264 or 265 or
authorized State equivalent a
discussion of sampling and analytical
procedures followed: and an
.interpretation of the information and
data presented The petitioner must also
submit any additional ground-water
information deemed necessary by the
Administrator to characterize the
petitioned waste's impact on ground-
water quality including, but not limited
to. the analysis of ground water for any
constituents deemed necessary by the
Administretor. In lieu of submitting this
information as part of the application, a
facility may specify the titles of report*'
containing this information and identify
the State or EPA Regional authority who
has possession of the submitted reports
The Agency retains the authority to
request the petitioner to submit
additional information on ground-water
monitoring necessary for the deli sting
evaluation, if the reports submitted to
the State or EPA Region ate not
adequate for this purpose.
• • • • •
(FR Doc 80-24074 Filed 10-11-89: 8.45 am)
-------
APPENDIX H
HOW DELISTING LEVELS MAY BE CALCULATED
-------
HOW DELISTING LEVELS MAY BE CALCULATED
EPA often evaluates the potential hazards of waste through
the use of appropriate fate and transport models. These models
calculate possible exposure to hazardous chemicals that may be
released from petitioned wastes after disposal, based on a
reasonable, worst-case management scenario. A key exposure
route of concern is ingestion of contaminated ground water. To
evaluate this concern, the Agency typically relies on leachate
data as determined by an appropriate leaching test (i.e., the
TCLP). The leachable concentrations and the estimated waste
volume are then used as inputs to an appropriate fate and
transport model, e.g.. EPA's Composite Model for Landfills
(EPACML), to predict the constituent concentrations in the
ground water at a hypothetical exposure point. The calculated
exposure-point concentrations are compared to drinking water
standards or other EPA health-based levels. Table 1 provides a
listing of some of the dilution/attenuation factors (DAFs)
generated using the EPACML for annual waste volumes ranging from
1,000 to 300,000 cubic yards per year, and Table 2 provides some
health-based levels currently used by the Agency.
For example, for a waste that is generated at an annual
rate of 10,000 cubic yards, the DAF from Table 1 would be 36.
Thus, multiplying the health-based level for cadmium given in
Table 2 (0.005 ppm) by this DAF would yield a delisting level
for cadmium in this example (36 x 0.005 ppm « 0.18 ppm). This
delisting level would correspond to the maximum allowable
concentration of the constituent in the TCLP leachate. For more
information on the use of the EPACML in delisting evaluations,
see the Federal Register notice published on July 18, 1991 (56
FR 32993). Please note, however, that the health-based levels
and models used in delisting evaluations are subject to change
as new information becomes available.
The health-based levels used by EPA in delisting decision-
making are updated periodically in order to stay consistent with
the latest drinking water standards (i.e. Maximum Contaminant
Levels, or MCLs), risk information, and toxicologic data. An
up-to-date list of health-based levels of the constituents of
concern is normally contained in the RCRA public docket for the
latest delisting rulemakings, and is available from OSW upon
request. Also, a large number of EPA verified health-based
levels are available through EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS). (For more information on accessing IRIS contact
IRIS User Support Group: (513) 569-7254).
-------
Table 1 - EPACML DAFs
Waste volume
(cubic yards/yr)
1,000
1,500
2,000
4,000
6,000
6,000
10,000
25,000
50,000
100,000
200,000
300,000
Dilution Attenuation
Factor (OAF)
100
90
79
57
48
43
36
24
19
15
13
12
Table 2 - Health-Based Levels for Selected Hazardous Constituents
Compounds
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chromium
Cyanide
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1.2-Oichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Ethyl benzene
HBL (ppm)
0.05
2
0.005
0.0002
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0002
0.075
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.7
Compounds
Hexachlorobenzene
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
PCBs
Pentachlorophenol
Selenium
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
M.l.Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
Xylenes
HBL (ppm)
0.001
0.015
0.002
0.1
0.0005
0.001
0.05
0.1
0.005
1
0.07
0.2
0.005
0.002
10
-------
APPENDIX I
EVALUATION FORM
-------
-------
EVALUATION FORM
USEPA is interested in how worthwhile users have found this
del1sting Guidance Manual, and what changes can be made to the
Manual to make it a more valuable resource. To assist in this
effort, we would appreciate your response to the following
questions.
Overall, I feel this Manual is:
Very Useful (Glad I have a copy.)
Somewhat Useful (It's not something I really need to
have, but I'll use it occasionally).
Not Useful (Sorry I bought a copy.)
I. Please indicate which sections of the Manual were
particularly helpful.
II. Which sections were of little use? Why?
•III. Please indicate whether you feel that the help of
outside consultants is necessary to use the Manual
when preparing a petition. If yes, why?
IV. What additional information, if any, would you like to
see included in the Manual.
-------
V. Please provide any additional suggestions or comments
regarding the Manual:
VI. (Optional)
Name:
Position:
Company:
Address:
Send tot
Deliating section
Office of Solid Waste (Mail Code 08-333)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M street, 8.W.
Washington, DC 20460
------- |