United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-SW-91-062B
Environmental Protection Emergency Response . August 1991
Agency (OS-343) .
RCRA Permit Policy
Compendium
Volume 2
9420.1980 - 9434.1990
Hazardous Waste Management
System (Part 260)
• Genera!
• Definitions
• Petitions
ATKIA607/1.
-------
530SW91062B
DISCLAIMER
The compilation of documents in this Compendium, as well
as the policies, procedures and interpretations outlined
in the documents themselves, is intended solely for the
guidance of employees of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This compilation may not include all
documents discussing Agency views on particular subjects.
In addition, these documents are not intended and cannot
be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with
the United States. The views expressed in these
documents do not. necessarily reflect, the current position
of the Agency, and EPA reserves the right to act at
variance with these views or to change them at any time
without public notice.
-------
General OSW Policy And Procedures
ATK1AU2,
-------
9420 - RESERVED
ATKlAlCHAZkp
-------
Hazardous waste Management;
System (Part 260)
ATKlA112/2sm
-------
9431 - GENERAL
Part 260 Subpart A
ATKlA104/2kp
-------
9431.1984(01)
PERMIT POLICY Q & A REPORT
DEFINITION OF UPPERMOST AQUIFER
SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
POLICY C-USSTION fc
RCPOtcT
r Vrot-»ct ion
1. Ouestion: E/o tho definitions of 'uppermost aquifer* and
•aquifer' include the top most saturated clay layer even though
r.'ut stratum is not used as a grounrtvater resource? 40 CFR 260. 1C.
7nc 26 July 1922 pr^anDle suggests that 'nigni f leant
yielC" o£ grounewatcr is rtet»min«d on a eaae by ease b««L»,
dopnnding on site tyec.it ic factors. . Significant yield in the
Southwest iR likely to be a nucti lower quantity than significant
yiel-J in the F.ast. In addition, the flow froa a nunber of w«ll
systens can be totAled in or fie r to reach the level of significance,
Thus, if the saturated, clay layer can produce a significant yeiltf
of grcuniwa ter frcn a single well or fron a combination of
wells, then that layer nay atet the rtofinition cf an aquifer.
If that leyer is alio-the f creation nearest to. Che natural orocno
surface or is hydraulically interconnected to such a surface,
it ncecs the ceffnition of uppermost aquifer.' .
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLIKE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9431.1987(01)
JUNE 87
A. RCRA PROGRAM
'•'•aste Vini.Tu.zati or. Requirements
What is the iasis for waste -j.ru.Tj.za-.i3.-. and what is required?
Ir. the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste A-sendments (HSVR.) to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (IOA) i Section 3002), Congress
stated thai as a rvatter of national policy, the generation of hazardous
waste should be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible.
Waste that is nevertheless generated should be treated, stored or
disposed of sc as to minimize the present and future threat to hirar.
health and the environment.
required that generators of a hazardous waste submit a biennial
report to the Regional Administrator which would include:. 1) efforts
undertaken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity Of waste
generated, and 2) the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually
achieved during the year in comparison with previous years (Section
3302(a)(6)(A-C). Effective .September 1, 1985, generators had to use a
manifest containing a certification by the generator that he had a
program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of
hazardous waste to the degree determined by the generator to be
econotiically practicable. The program rtust include a practicable
method currently available to the generator which minimize the present
and future threat to human health and the environment. Also effective
September 1, 1985, any permit issued under Section 3004 of the Solii
Waste Disposal Act for the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous
waste must require that the permittee certify no less often than
annually that he has a program in place to reduce the volume and
toxicity of hazardous waste that he generates to the degree determined
by the permittee to be economically practicable. The permittee's
proposed method of treatment, storage or disposal .must include a
practicable method currently available to him which minimizes the
present and future threat to human health and the environment.
. The term "waste minimization" nas been defined differently by different
organizations. The U.S. EPA. in its October 1986 Report to Congress or.
the minimization of hazardous 'waste, defined waste minimizaton as:
"The reduction, to the extent feasible, of hazardous waste that
is generated or subsequently treated, stored, or disposed of.
It includes any source reduction or recycling activity undertaken
by a generator that results in either: (1) the reduction of total
voiune or quantity of hazardous waste or (2) the reduction of
toxicity of hazardous waste, or both, so long as the reduction is
consistent with the goal of minimizing present and future threats
to human health and the environment. Waste minimization does not
include treatment of hazardous waste."
Source: Elaine Eby (202) 475-7237
Research: Carla A. Rellergert
-2-
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9421.1967(02)
JUNE 87
?. ~Di was-.e Miri.Tjzat.ior' Prccrv AT*, iv: ties
What :s EPA currently 001.19 in the ares of -waste .Tj.rjjrJ.i
"sr the past -wo years, the Office of Soiii Waste has been actively
i.-.volved in tine area of waste rru.niru.2ar.ion. -In a 19S6 repcr-. tc
Cor.=ress required aider Section SOC2(r) cf RC3A, E?A stated that
ir.ce.i-.ives for waste minimization are strong and growing. Since
data was scarce on existing waste minimization programs, EPA
seated that it would report back to Congress in 1990 on the need
for "c-j.i.i.anc and control" regulations for -waste minimization.
Under Section S002(r) Congress had asked EPA to look at desirability
and feasibility of "ccrtrand and control" regulations.
As it is presently structured, the Agency's -waste minimization
program has two principle objectives: (1) evaluate the need for
regulations for waste minimization and present this evaluation
along with appropriate recortnendations in a report to Congress in
1990, and (2) foster the use of 'waste minimization through technology
transfer and information dissemination activities. In order to
achieve these goals, CSW developed its 1987 and 1988 Fiscal Year
programs to focus on gathering information and data to determine
-aste minimization trends and to develop information dissemination
and technology transfer activities.
Presently, OSW activities include:
(1) Revising the requirement for a narrative statement for waste
minimization in biennial reports. The current 'format consists
of a "blank page" with instructions to provide a "narrative -
description" of -waste minimization activities. The revised
biennial report will consist of yes/no questions which will
indicate generators' awareness of waste minimization, specific
questions about waste minimization techniques, and volume of
toxicity of data.
(2) Initiating a conputerized data and infontation retrieval
system for waste minimi zat.ion.
(3) Developing waste minijnization policy statements which will be
non-binding and reflect EPA's ideas on what does and does not
constitute waste minimization.
(4) Co-Sponsoring two meetings "National Roundtable of State
Waste Reduction Programs" and Woods Hole III "Waste Minimization
- The Hurdles Ahead".
-3-
-------
9431.196-7(03:
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MOKTHLY SUKKARY
JULY 87
4. r/aboratory Audit Inspection
Vhat is the Laboratory Audi*. Inspection (LAI) Program?
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Art (RCRA) requires the owner/
operator of a surface impoundment, landfill or land treatment unit that
IS used to manage hazardous waste 10 implement a ground water monitoring
program capable of determining a facility's uipact on the uppermost
aquifer. The Environmental Protection Agency has developed guidance
titled, JOA'Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
recurrent (TEGD), which details the technical aspects of ground-water
monitoring system design and operation deemed important by the Agency to
assist a ground water monitoring system to meet the goals of the RCRA
program. Cnce it has been established that the owner/operator has
adequately designed and constructed the ground water monitoring water
svs-.^is and that these systems are providing representative ground-water
sarples, EPA must confirm that these samples are being properly analyzed.
The Office of Waste Program Enforcement (OWPE), JOA Enforcement Division,
is developing a FOA Laboratory Audit Inspection (LAI) program. The
goal of the inspection program is to enable the owner/operator to
determine whether the laboratory that the owner/operat_or is using for
ground water sample analyses is properly equipped, maintained, and
staffed, and whether samples are properly logged and tracked throughout
the laboratory.
This inspection does not constitute a laboratory certification for
. ts^zgzzz^gs*- ~*-
opera-.ors ground-water monitoring program.
Source: Med Pryor (202) 475-7033
Research: Caroline Canek
-------
9431.1988 !01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLIKE MONTHLY SUKMARY
JANUARY 88
1. Definition of Dsed Oil
Nuraber 2 fuel oil is used to clean air filters and then is
burned for energy recovery. Is "used oil" subject to the
regulations of 40 CFE 266, Subpart E? If the substance used
for cleaning the air filters was gasoline, and then was
burned for energy recovery, would it be considered "used
oil"?
Currently, there is no more specific definition of
"used oil" than that found in RCRA Section 1004 and in
40 CFR 266.40(b). When the 'used oil" technical
standards are proposed, a more specific definition of
"used oil" will be included in that proposal. EPA'c
current position is oil that has been refined from
crude oil, used a* a lubricating hydraulic or heat
transfer fluid, and hac become contaminated through
use, in a "used oil*" Petroleum distillates which have
been used only as cleaning agents, or only for their
solvent properties, would not be regulated as "used
oil" when burned for energy recovery or recycled in
some other manner. It is important to note that "used
oil" does not need to be a solid waste per Section
261.2 in order to be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C,
because the authority to regulate "used oil" is found
in Section 3014 of RCRA.
Source: Dave~Tompton (202) 382-2550
Research: Becky Cuthbertson
-------
J • D^spu-Sg^oi .^ixes r. a ~ J. o C _• t. .. v g jr.; .-. a;ar---a *^--- =
A generator of a mixed radioactive and hazardous waste,
which is a listed hazardous waste with a pH below 2,
disposes of it on-site in a land disposal unit. The
disposal began in early 1986 and ended in the summer of
1987. The owner never submitted a Part A or Part B permit
application. The State in which the facility is located
became authorized for RCRA in late 1985, but is not
authorized to enforce HSWA provisions, and is not authorized
to regulate mixed waste. However, the State has its own
regulations regarding mixed waste. If the owner wants to
close the land disposal unit, will he be required to submit
a Part B permit application and conduct groundwater
monitoring?
According to the Federal Register of July 3, 1986 (51
PR 24504), mixed radioactive and hazardous waste is
subject to RCRA regulation. In a state which is
authorized to implement Subtitle C, the mixed waste
will not be subject to the Subtitle C authorized
program until the state becomes authorized to regulate
mixed waste; however, state regulations enforced under
state law would apply to the mixed waste. In addition,
if the facility contained a RCRA-regulated unit, and
was applying for its permit, EPA could use RCRA Section
> 3004(u) authority for releases of hazardous
j5 constituents from solid waste management units (the
S mixed radioactive and hazardous waste would be a solid
5 waste, per Section 261.2(b).
> Once the State receives authorization to regulate mixed
x radioactive and hazardous waste, the disposal unit
§2 would become subject to the State's authorized program
O regulations, and would become subject to the HSWA
eo provisions (which would be enforced by EPA until the
g ^ State gained authorization to implement HSWA
M oj authorities).
M <
§5 ^ tne disposal unit was closed and was an inactive
*3 facility prior to the date chosen by the State to be
2 the interim status "in existence" date, the disposal
g unit might not be subject to State Subtitle C
p, regulation unless the waste was subsequently managed in
S a manner that would constitute treatment, storage, or
gj disposal. However, if State law does not otherwise
v. prohibit it, the State could elect not to grandfather
g any inactive mixed waste units. A State could do this
v because a State RCRA program can be broader in scope
than the Federal program. Thus, a State could choose
to~regulate inactive units in some manner.
If the disposal unit was still an active facility on
the date the State selects as its interim status "in
existence" date, which can be no later than the date on
which the State's authorization to regulate mixed waste
became effective, the facility would need to submit a
-------
Disposal of Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous Waste
(Cont'd)
Part A permit application within the tiroeframe
specified in the State's regulations or statute to
qualify for interim status.
Depending on the regulatory dates selected by the
State, closure of the disposal unit could occur while
the facility was under interim status. State law on
closure, post-closure permits, and groundwater
monitoring will control.
Source: Betty Shackleford (202) 382-2221
Research: Becky Cuthbertson
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ' 94 31 . 198 9 (0 I )
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN 2 6 1989
pcc.ce je
SOLiO WASTE ANOEWEOGENCv
Peter R. Simon, M.D., K.P.H.
Assistant Meical Director
Division of Family Heath
Cannon Building
Davis Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908-5097
Dear Dr. Simon:
Thank you for your letter Of April 20, 196», regaraing the
potential effect of the leach testing procedure on programs
designed to remove lead-contaminated soils from residential
areas.
Under existing solid waste regulations, if a contaminated
soil is removed from a site, the generator must determine
whether the soil is contaminated by a hazardous waste and thus
must be managed as a hazardous waste. (Contaminated soil that
is left in place is not subject to any hazardous waste
management requirements, including any testing.) This
determination can be made either by testing the waste
containing soil or through knowledge of the composition of the
waste soil. If the soil is deemed to contain a hazardous
waste, it must be managed under the Subtitle C regulations of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
RCRA requires that regulatory decisions regarding a
hazardous waste take into account the potential risks to hunan
health and the environment posed by mismanagement of the waste.
The ZnviroflBSfltal Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that a
municipal landfill, which does not have design and operating
standards as stringent as those under Subtitle C of RCRA, is
not an appropriate site for disposal of hazardous waste. Under
the existing ..statutory and regulatory framework, 'hazardous
waste generated as a result of cleanups at industrial and
residential sites are subject to the same management standards.
a..
-------
-2-
As you know, EPA also has authority to clean up releases
of hazardous -materials under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, more popularly known
as "Superfund." Superfund, like RCRA, requires cleanups to
protect hunan health and the environment. Furthermore, unless
certain exceptions apply, Superfund cleanups must comply with
requirements from other environmental statutes, such as RCRA,
when those requirements are "applicable" to the Superfund
activities. The Superfund statute also encourages compliance
with these other laws where they do not apply, but are
"relevant" or "appropriate" to the clean-up action. Currently,
EPA follows the rules outlined above to determine whether the
hazardous material at a Superfund site is a RCRA hazardous
waste — in other words, we test the material or determine
whether it is hazardous based on knowledge of its composition.
If the material were a RCRA waste, RCRA standards would
probably be "applicable," and disposal in a municipal landfill
would not be acceptable.
You have expressed concern that EPA has proposed to change
its regulatory test for determining whether a waste is toxic
hazardous waste. Section 3001(g) of the 1984 amendments to
RCRA specifically directed EPA to examine the extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity test as a predictor of the leaching
potential of waste and to make necessary changes to improve its
accuracy. In June 1986 (see 51 FR 21648), the Agency proposed
to require a new, more precise/ leaching procedure, using a
buffered solution instead of an acid titretion, to determine
whether a waste is characteristically hazardous based upon its
toxicity. This test, the toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP), is more precise than the original EP toxicity
test. A second Federal Reciter notice (53 £B 18792, Kay 24,
1988) provided additional information and opportunity for
comment on the TCLP. When the toxicity characteristic proposal
is promulgated as a final rule, the TCLP vill supersede the EP
test.
He are avare that under certain conditions the TCLP may b«
somewhat more aggressive than the EP toxicity test. For this
reason, we are gathering information on the relationship
between the two test procedures. We would like to ensure that
the test pspoedures ve use to determine whether a waste is
hazardous appropriately model our reasonable worst-case
mismanagement scenario — in the case of the toxicity
characteristic, management of a hazardous waste in a municipal
landfill. "—
-------
-3-
At this time, we are working closely with EPA Region I
official* to assess the possible implications of applying the
TCLP to lead-contaminated soils. I encourage you to provide us
with any information you may have that compares the results of
the two procedures on identical lead-contaminated soil samples.
We will be using these data in our continuing efforts to
improve the accuracy and reproducibility of our test
procedures.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us. To keep up
to date on our progress regarding this matter, we suggest that
you contact Gerry Levy, Branch Chief of Massachusetts Waste
Management, in our Region I office. Mr. Levy can be reached
at (617) 573-5720.
Sincerely yours,
f-
/"?*>-
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITEU STX» £S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGb..CY 9431.1989(02)
Mr. Jeffrey j. Wells
Regulatory Consultant t
HazMat Environmental Group Inc. £
P.O. Box 676
Buffalo, KY 14217 ?
*
U
Dear Mr. Wells: •
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 1989," requesting
verification of your interpretation regarding the wastewater treat-
ment unit exemption. Specifically, you are seeking confirmation
that a facility, which operates a vastewater treatment unit that
discharges to a POTW as defined in section 260.10, may also receive
and treat wastewater from any off-site source and not affect the t
exemption under which the unit operates. E
As you pointed out in your letter, in the September 2> 1988
Federal Register notice (53 ££ 34079), EPA stated that the .c
applicability of the exemption does not depend on whether the on- r
site wastewater treatment facility also treats wastewater generated £
off-site. As long as the facility accepting. -and treating the j
wastewater from an off-site source does not violate the conditions r
of its NPDES permit or pretreatment agreement, it is the Agency's
intent to allow a facility to operate with this exemption.
Of course, as also discussed in the same notice, any storage or
treatment tank system used to manage the wastewater at the
generator's facility, prior to shipment to the off-site exempted
wastewater treatment unit, is not eligible for the wastewater
treatment unit exemption.
Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your
letter. If you should have any further questions regarding this
issue, please call me at (202) 475-9614.
Sincerely,
•William J. Kline
Environmental Scientist
cc: Chester Oszman, PSPD
Kirsten Engel, OGC
Randy Hill, OGC
-------
9431.1989(03)
June 5, 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Management of Test Samples as Hazardous Waste
FROM: Howard Wilson, Manager
Environmental Compliance Program
TO: Environmental Compliance Managers
This memo is intended to clarify a letter from the EPA's
Office of Solid Waste on the management of laboratory samples
under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (40 CFR Part 261).
According to 40 CFR Part 261.4 (d)(1), samples collected
solely for the purposes of testing are exempted from the
regulations for hazardous waste management. I would like to
emphasize that this is a qualified exemption. The samples are
exempt from regulation as long as they meet any of the following
conditions contained in 261.4 (d)(l)(i..vi):
(i) Being transported from the collector to the
laboratory
(ii) Being transported from the laboratory back to the
collector following testing
(iii) Being stored at the collector waiting to go to the
laboratory
(iv) Being stored at the laboratory before being tested
(v) Being stored at the laboratory after being tested
but before being returned to the collector
(vi) Being stored at the laboratory for a specific
purpose after being tested (i.e. for a court case
in which the sample is evidence, etc.)
Regulation 261.4 (d)(3) states that the exemption does not apply
if the laboratory determines the waste is hazardous and the
conditions listed above are no longer being met.
According to 40 CFR Part 261.5 (a), facilities that generate
less than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste or 1 kg/mo of acute
hazardous waste are exempt from hazardous waste regulations.
This exemption is also conditional, based on a generator's
compliance with- the following:
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Determining if .their waste is hazardous; this is
required by 261.5 (b) , which references 261.5 (g) ,
which cites 262.11.
Disposing of their waste at a facility authorized to
accept it; this is required by 261.5 (f)(3) and 261.5
Generators of less than 100 Xg/mo of hazardous waste would also
be subject to RCRA requirements under regulation 262.34 if they
accumulate, for the purpose of disposal, greater than 1000 kg of
hazardous waste.
In summary, samples held for testing need not be
managed as hazardous waste while they are being tested. Once
they are determined to be waste, a determination of whether the
waste is hazardous must be made if it hasn't been already. . If
the waste is determined to be a hazardous waste, it must be
managed in full compliance with all applicable regulations,
including 40 CFR Parts 26i.5 and 262.11.
This docuaent has been retyped from the original,
-------
9432 - DEFINITIONS
Part 260 Subpart B
ATKl A104/13 kp
-------
'i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
r > WASHINGTON, O.C 204ftC
jf
36
OSWER Directive * 9432.00-1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Totally Enclosed Treatment
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director f ;" •—•*•"•/
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)'1 :' - - ;--
TO: David Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
5HS-JCK-13
This is the regulatory clarification you requested on
December 30, 1985 for the application of the totally enclosed
treatment facility exemption to a tank treating emission control
dusts at a scrap metal recycler. The system you describe is not
totally enclosed because of the reasons given below.
Your description of the Grede foundry indicates that it
heats scrap in a cupola. Emissions from the cupola rise into a
hood which is connected to a baghouse via ducts. Ms. Randi Kim
of your staff pointed out that hazardous waste is not generated
prior to the baghouse unit, and the hood is not directly connected
to the cupola. The emission control sludge captured in the
baghouse is EP toxic for lead, and possibly chromium, according
to Jim Roberts of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources .
Grede Foundries proposes to directly connect a mixing tank to the
baghouse by pipeline where the dust will be rendered nonhazardous
by mixing with nonhazardous foundry waste sands and dusts contain-
ing bentonite clay. Since the mixing tank does not exist, we
cannot determine whether the tank can technically prevent release
of hazardous waste into the environment during treatment through
use of traps, recycle lines, etc. Therefore, the central issue
you raise is whether the nixing tank can be considered directly
connected to the industrial production process, satisfying one
condition of a totally enclosed treatment facility as defined in
S260.10.
The definition in S260-.10 of totally enclosed treatment
facilities specifies that the treatment must be directly connected
to an industrial production process. In your foundry example,
-------
the cup.ola is part of the industrial production process, since it
produces reusable metal; and the baghouse is part of the waste
treatment process, since the sludge is not associated with product
or raw materials, i.e., the sludge is disposed of, not recovered
for further recycling. Therefore, the treatment that occurs
downstream of the baghouse cannot qualify for a totally enclosed
treatment exemption, since the cupola is open to the air before
the hood collects the dust.
Although our preliminary information indicates that adsorption
to clay can be an acceptable treatment method, you should pursue
the question of whether the specific clay adsorption process pro-
posed for this facility will provide the effective treatment that
would allow it to be permitted as a treatment facility. Carlton
Wiles, ORD/Cincinnati, FTS 684-7871, nay be able to provide you
with further guidance on clay adsoption treatment standards that
should be incorporated into the treatment permit to assure effectiv*
treatment.
With alternate management practices, the emission control
sludge would not be defined as a solid waste, and, therefore, would
not be a RCRA hazardous waste. If the fines were returned to the^
cupola for metal recovery, the entire process would be viewed as *
closed loop recycling, and the baghouse sludge would not be con-
sidered to be a solid waste according to $261.2(e)(1)(iii). If the
sludge were reclaimed elsewhere, it also .would not be considered
to be a solid waste, according to S261.2(c)(3). Sludges being
reclaimed are not considered to be solid waste unless specifically
listed by EPA, and this particular sludge is not so listed.
Alternatively, the system could be engineered differently.
By connecting the hood directly to the cupola, the system could
then meet the criteria for being directly connected to an
industrial production process. The system nay then qualify
as a totally enclosed treatment system if the treatnent net
the technical standards for being closed to the environment.
Since nixing the baghouse dust with bentonite clay as
described vould require a RCRA permit for treatment. Grade
Foundries nay wish to pursue one of these other approaches that
are not regulated under RCRA. According to data from the 1981
nail survey, nany waste streans of K061 and K069 sludge are
recycled both on and off site, so Grede nay find that recycling
is a cost effective nanagement strategy. If you have any ques-
tions about this natter, you can contact Irene Homer of my staff
at PTS 382-2550.
cc: Solid Waste Branch Chiefs
Regions I-IV and VI-X
Jin Roberts, Michigan DNR
I to
-------
9432.1980(01)
December 30, 1980
Lawrence W. Beirlein, Esq.
Council for Safe Transportation
of Hazardous Articles
910 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Dear Mr. Beirlein:
This is in response to your letter of December 8, 1980,
requesting written clarification of whether puncturing, crushing
or shredding of aerosol cans prior to disposal is a treatment
process subject to our RCRA hazardous waste management
regulations.
As you know, we clarified our regulations as they pertain to
containers which hold or have held hazardous wastes in amendments
published in 45 Federal Register 78524-78529, November 25, 1980.
In those amendments, we clearly indicated that our regulations
are directed at controlling the management of hazardous wastes or
hazardous waste residues in non-empty containers as opposed to
controlling the management of the containers per se.
Accordingly, with respect to aerosol cans, our regulations are
confined to regulation of the contents of the cans, not the cans
themselves.
Based on this and the definition of "treatment" in §260.10
of our regulations, the puncturing, crushing or shredding of
non-empty aerosol cans which contain hazardous wastes does not
constitute hazardous waste treatment. Treatment is defined as
"any method, technique or process, . . . designed to change the
physical, chemical or biological character or composition of any
hazardous waste . . . . " Although puncturing, crushing or
shredding of an aerosol can changes the physical character of the
can, the can is not the hazardous waste. The materials in the
can are the hazardous waste and the puncturing, crushing or
shredding of the can does not change the physical, chemical or
biological character or composition of these materials.
Accordingly, the puncturing, crushing or shredding of such
aerosol cans does not require a RCRA permit or does not need to
comply with other requirements of our hazardous waste management
regulations.
•This, document has been retyped from the original
n
-------
-2-
Although this is beyond your request, I hasten to point out
that the materials removed from aerosol cans that are punctured,
crushed or shredded and the residues remaining on such cans, in
some cases, may be subject to our regulations. Let me discuss .
several situations where this may be true.
The first set of situations involve aerosol cans which hold
commercial chemical products listed in §261.33(e) and (f) of our
regulations. Where these chemicals are removed from aerosol cans
when they are punctured, crushed or shredded, they are subject to
our regulations if they are discarded or intended to be
discarded; (if they are recovered for re-packaging and beneficial
use or recovered for other beneficial uses or legitimate
recycling or reclamation, which is their normal manner of use
they are not solid wastes and therefore not subject to our
regulations. If the removed chemicals are kept segregated from
the punctured, crushed or shredded cans, the regulated management
of those wastes would not involve management of the cans (except
see discussion below relative to §261.33(e) chemicals). If the
removed chemicals are not kept segregated from the punctured,
crushed or segregated cans, one has a "mixture" of chemicals and
cans (see §261.3(a)(1)(ii)) and this mixture is subject to our
regulations. Finally, even if the removed chemicals are kept
segregated from the cans but the chemicals are §261.33(e)
chemicals, then the residue on the punctured, crushed or shredded
cans (and, for all practical purposes, the cans themselves) are
subject to our regulations until they are triple-rinsed or
eguivalently decontaminated (see §261.7(b)(3) at 45 Federal
Register 78529, November 25, 1980).
The other type of situation is where the cans hold products
which are not listed in §261.33(e) or (f) but which are to be
discarded (therefore are solid waste) and exhibit one or more of
the characteristics of hazardous waste (therefore are hazardous
waste). If those waste products are kept segregated from the
punctured, crushed or shredded cans, then, as above, their
regulated management would not involve management of the cans.
If segregation is not accomplished, then the mixture of these
products and the punctured, crushed or shredded cans would have
to be managed as a hazardous waste if the mixture also exhibits
one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste. Of
course, if the product removed from the punctured, crushed or
shredded cans is not to be discarded but, instead, is to be
beneficially used or legitimately recycled or reclaimed, then our
regulations do-not apply.
This document has been retyped front the original.
-------
9432.1931(011
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. C.C. 2046C
. orncr o? SOLID -V:^TI
r WATEK
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Chris Howell
Chemical Processors, Inc.
5501 Airport Way south
Seattle, WA 98108
Dear Kr. Howell:
I an in receipt of your letter of June 1, 1981 to Mr.
Ren Schuster regarding your request for a working definition
of a "liquid* waste.
As you are aware, the Agency is actively working to
develop improved laboratory procedures for defining both
"ignitable" .and "liquid." In the interim you may employ the
following .wording definition of a "liquid" when
evaluating wastes:
A liquid is any material that will pass through a 0.. 43
micron filter at a pressure differential of 75 psi. If
the material to be evaluated consists of 2 or more phases
then the phases should be separated by eentrifugation or
other- means prior to evaluating whether any of the phases
meet the above definition. "Free liquids" as defined in
S260.10(a) (25) are a subset of this broader class of liquids.
Any waste OB phases of a waste found to meet the above
definition of a "liquid* should then be evaluated for ignitability
using the procedures in 5261.21. All such wastes which contain •
or consist of liquids which have & flash point below 60 "C are
to be considered as ignitable wastes.
X hope this response serves to answer your question. If
you would like-further information plea.se feel free to give
me a call at (202) 755-9187.
David Friedman
Manager
Waste Analysis Program
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WE-565)
\°\
-------
! think this covers all of the situations that say be encountered,
I hope this is helpful to you.
Sincerely yours,
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administratoi
for Sol id Waste
bcc: Filonena Chau w/incoining
Jack Lehnan
AT an Corson
Dotz Darrah
Regional AiHF! Division Directors, E?A. Region 1, I1I-X
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9432.1962(01:
AUGUST 82
(2)
Resolution of Difficult Questions - «C?.A
Question: The definition of "existing portion" (40 CFS 250.10) r^rs to the
"original Part A permit application." ?)oes tlis mean t?»e
first Part A sut>iiitt»d (be'ore November i9, I960, for most
facilities) or the last emended ?art A suomiued dj-ing intsrit
status?
Resolution: The t»rr\ 'original »art A" means the first Dart A submitted «/hic*i
fulfilled the requirements for interim status,.
•ource: Fred Lindsey. OSW
iesetrch: Karen Gale
-------
9432.1983(01)
February 18, 1983
Mr. Duane W. Marshall
Regulatory Affairs Program Manager
NCASI
260 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Dear Duane:
The subject of what is and what is not a Totally Enclosed
Treatment Facility has come up a number of times since we
discussed the issue in July 1980. In the course of answering
these questions, we prepared the enclosed Regulatory
Clarification, which we now send to everyone that asks. It
treats the subject generally, but I think it answers your
questions.
If I can provide any further clarification please let me
know.
Sincerely yours,
John P. Lehman
Director
Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
Enclosure
bcc: Fred Lindsey
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
TOTALLY ENCLOSED TREATMENT FACILITY
Regulatory Clarification
I. Issue; From questions asked since promulgation of the
regulations on May 19, 1980, it is clear that the definition and
practical application of the term "totally enclosed treatment
facility" require clarification.
II. Discussion; The definition appears in §260.10(a) as
follows:
Totally enclosed treatment facility means a facility for the
treatment of hazardous waste which is directly connected to
an industrial production process and which is constructed
and operated, in a manner which prevents the release of any
hazardous waste or any constituent thereof into the
environment during treatment. An example is a pipe in which
waste acid is neutralized.
A facility meeting this definition is exempted from the
requirements of Parts 264 and 265 (See §§264.1(g)(S) and
265.1(c)(9)) and, by extension, the owner or operator of that
facility need not notify nor seek a permit for that process. The
purpose of this provision is to remove from active regulation
those treatment processes which occur in close proximity to the
industrial process which generates the waste and which are
constructed in such a way that there is little or no potential
for escape of pollutants. Such facilities pose negligible risk
to human health and the environment.
The part of the definition which has generated the most
uncertainty is the meaning of "totally enclosed." The Agency
intends that a "totally enclosed" treatment facility be one which
is completely contained on all sides and poses little or no
potential for escape of waste to the environment even during
periods of process upset. The facility must be constructed so
that no predictable potential for overflows, spills, gaseous
emissions, etc., can result from malfunction of pumps, valves,
etc., associated with the totally enclosed treatment or from a
malfunction in the industrial process to which it is connected.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
Natural calamities or acts of sabotage or war (earthquakes,
tornadoes, bombing, etc.) are not considered predictable,
however.
As a practical matter, the definition limits "totally
enclosed treatment facilities" to pipelines, tanks, and to other
chemical, physical, and biological treatment operations which are
carried out in tank-^like equipment (e.g., stills, distillation
columns, or pressure vessels) and which are constructed and
operated to prevent discharge of potentially hazardous material
to the environment. This requires consideration of the three
primary avenues of escape: leakage, spills, and emissions.
To prevent leaking, the tank, pipe, etc., must be made of
impermeable materials. The Agency is using the term impermeable
in the practical sense to mean no transmission of contained
materials in quantities which would be visibly apparent.
Further, as with any other treatment process, totally enclosed
treatment facilities are subject to natural deterioration
(corrosion, etc.) which could ultimately result in leaks. To
meet the requirement in the definition that treatment be
conducted ". . . in a manner which prevents the release of any
hazardous waste or any constituent thereof into the environment
. . . ." the Agency believes that an owner or operator claiming
the exemption generally will have to conduct inspections or other
discovery activities to detect deterioration and carry out
maintenance activities sufficient to remedy it. A tank or pipe
which leaks is not a totally enclosed facility. As a result,
leaks must be prevented from totally enclosed facilities or the
facility is in violation of the regulations.
A totally enclosed facility must be enclosed on all sides.
A tank or similar equipment must have a cover which would
eliminate gaseous emissions and spills. However, many tanks
incorporate vents and relief valves for either operating or
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
emergency reasons. Such vents must be designed to prevent
overflows of liquids and emissions of harmful gases and aerosols,
where such events might occur through normal operation, equipment
failure, or process upset. This can often be accomplished by the
use of traps, recycle lines, and sorption columns of various
designs to prevent spills and gaseous emissions. If effectively
protected by such devices, a vented tank would qualify as a
totally enclosed treatment facility.
When considering protective devices for tank vents, the
question arises as to whether the protective device is itself
adequate. The test involves a judgment as to whether the
overflow or gaseous emission passing through the vent will be
prevented from reaching the environment. For example, an open
catchment basin for overflows is not satisfactory if the
hazardous constituents in the waste may be emitted to the air.
Similarly, it may also not be satisfactory if it is only large
enough to hold the tank overflow for a brief period before it
also overflows. However, even in this situation, alarm systems
could be installed to ensure that the capacity of the catchment
basin is not exceeded. Where air emissions from vents or relief
valves are concerned, if the waste is non-volatile or the
emissions cannot contain gases or aerosols which could be
hazardous in the atmosphere, then no protective devices are
necessary. An example might be a pressure relief valve on a tank
containing non-volatile wastes. Where potentially harmful
emissions could occur, then positive steps must be taken. For
example, the vent could be connected to an incinerator or process
kiln. Alternately, a sorption column might be suitable if
emission rates are low, the efficiency of the column approaches
100 percent, arid alarms or other safeguards are available so that
the upset causing the emission will be rectified before the
capacity of the column is exceeded. Scrubbers will normally not
This document has been retyped front the original,
-------
be sufficient.because of their tendency to malfunction and
efficiencies typically do not approach 100 percent.
Tanks sometimes have floating roofs. To be eligible as a
totally enclosed facility, such tanks should be constructed so
that the roof has a sliding seal on the side which is designed to
prevent gaseous emissions and protect against possible overflow.
The part of the definition requiring that totally enclosed
treatment facilities be "directly connected to an industrial
production process" also generates some uncertainty. As long as
the process is integrally connected via pipe to the production
process, there is no potential for the waste to be lost. The
term "industrial production process" was meant to include only
those processes which produce a product, an intermediate, a
byproduct, or a material which is used back in the production
process. Thus, a totally enclosed treatment operation,
integrally connected downstream from a wastewater treatment
lagoon would not be eligible for the exemption because the
process to which it is connected is not an "industrial production
process." Neither would any totally enclosed treatment process
at an off-site hazardous waste management facility qualify,
unless it were integrally connected via pipeline to the
generator's production process. Obviously, a waste transported
by truck or rail is not integrally connected to the production
process.
Hazardous waste treatment is often conducted in a series of
unit operations, each connected by pipe to the other. As long as
one end of a treatment train is integrally connected to a
production process, and each unit operation is integrally
connected to the other, all qualify for the exemption if they
meet the requirement of being "totally enclosed." If one unit
operation is not "totally enclosed" or is not "integrally
connected," then only unit operations upstream from that unit
This document has been retyped frost the original,
-------
would qualify, for the exemption. The unit and downstream process
would require a permit.
The device connecting the totally enclosed treatment
facility to the generating process will normally be a pipe.
However, some pipes (e.g., sewers) are constructed with manholes,
vents, sumps, and other openings. Pipes with such openings may
qualify as totally enclosed only if there is no potential for
emissions or overflow of liquids during periods of process upset,
or if equipment (sorption columns, catchment basins, etc.) has
been installed to prevent escape of hazardous waste or any
potentially hazardous constituent thereof to the environment.
This exemption for totally enclosed treatment facilities
applies only to the facility itself. The effluent from that
facility may still be regulated. If the waste entering the
totally enclosed treatment facility is listed in Subpart D of
Part 261, then the effluent from the facility is automatically a
hazardous waste and must be treated as such, unless it is
"delisted" in accordance with §§260.20 and 260.22. If, on the
other hand, the waste entering the totally enclosed treatment
facility is hazardous because it meets one of the characteristics
described in Subpart C of Part 261, then the effluent waste is a
regulated hazardous waste only if the effluent meets one of the
characteristics. Since the totally enclosed treatment facility
is exempted from the regulatory requirements, it is only the
effluents from such processes which are of interest to the
Agency. Thus, whether the waste in a totally enclosed treatment
facility must be considered towards the 1000 kg/month small
quantity generator limit, depends on whether it is a regulated
hazardous waste as it exits the totally enclosed treatment
.facility. ..
Finally, it is important to note that if the effluents from
a totally enclosed treatment facility are discharged to a surface
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
water body (Jake or stream) or to a publicly owned treatment
works or sewer line connected thereto, then these wastes are not
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste controls at all but are,
instead, subject to the Clean Water Act and regulations
promulgated thereunder (See 45 FR 76075).
III. Resolution: In sum, a "totally enclosed treatment facility"
must:
(a) Be completely contained on all sides.
(b) Pose negligible potential for escape of constituents to
the environment except through natural calamities or
acts of sabotage or war.
(c) Be connected directly by pipeline or similar totally
enclosed device to an industrial production process
which produces a product, byproduct, intermediate, or a
material which is used back in the process.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
3432.1983(02)
R*f»»nt Court 9eci*l»n on *C*A Applicability to
John Skinner* Director
Of tic* of Solid *ast«
w.azsrrtous vantB Division directors, 1>.*-.}ioris I-x
In s recent ^«cisi<.'n, Snyir^nK«»ntol i>?gr.Bo fur-f. v.
71* F.2d 331, th« united states Court of App««i*f fourtf. Circuit,
docl*r»e court* citing tbe definition of storage in *n CFR
263.10, h»j.u mat the fact tii^t no trectee had rscn ;l^c&< in
storage after November 19, 19*0, was "ianaterial* because the
had continued to store wastes deposited before that
This decision seaports previous guidance ve have issuee on
this stit»ject (attached), Zt is particularly signiticant because
it was delivered by a court which has traditionally taken a
narrow view of EPA 'a authority* Please note this decision and
ensure that bath technical staff and Regional Counsel are aware
of it.
\ttaehwents
cct S« f) ranch Chiefs
Permits Contact*
Hark Greenwood
Wf^S63rCJUlleri€M:rBuS2ODi3&2-46S2sll/25/t3tniiler** disk «5
-------
9432.1984(01)
January 27, 1984'
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determination of Operator at the DOE Oak Ridge Facility
FROM: Bruce R. Weddle, Acting Director
Permits and state Programs Division (WH-563)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
I am writing in response to your letter of December 30
regarding who should be the operator in the pending permit for
the DOE facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. My staff has been in
contact with your staff and other HQ offices concerning the
issues in this case. It is my understanding that the Office of
General Counsel has requested copies of the permit and related
documents and has asked your Office of Regional Counsel to delay
any decisions in this matter until OGC has reviewed these
documents. You should also be advised that the generic issue of
contractors serving as RCRA permittees has been raised in the
negotiations between EPA and DOE Headquarters. We will let you
know of any developments in these negotiations and we urge you to
keep us advised of developments in the Oak Ridge case.
I have two general comments at this time regarding the Oak
Ridge operator issue.
First, the decision as to which party should be the operator
in the permit should be made by the Regional Office, based on
application of the definition of "operator" in §260.10. As
general guidance in such determinations, I suggest that you
consider the role of the contractor in making major decisions at
the facility. If the contractor has considerable autonomy to
make such decisions without DOE involvement, then the contractor
could be considered the operator. If on the other hand, DOE
retains responsibility for major decisions, then DOE could be
considered the operator. Obviously, there will be cases where
the contractor's responsibility is less precisely defined; in
those cases, the Region should exercise judgement given the
factual situation. (OGC may have additional guidance in this
area following their review of the Oak Ridge situation. In
particular, OGC will examine the contract language and site
This document has .been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
management practices at Oak Ridge in respect to the §260.10
definition.)
Second, your letter states that the Region may deny the DOE
permit if the disagreement with DOE is not resolved. I suggest
that you consider, instead, making a determination as to who is
the "operator" and issuing the permit. (This assumes that the
application demonstrates compliance with RCRA and is signed by
the proper owner and operator.) If the permittee objects to
permit conditions, he may appeal those conditions. But I'D not
sure whether there are grounds to deny the permit and I doubt
that such an action would help resolve the larger questions.
(Again, OGC may have some suggestions in this regard as well.)
Please let me know if we can provide additional assistance
on this issue.
cc: Gene Lucero
Peter Guerrero
Terry Grogan
Elizabeth Cotswoth
Susan Schmedes (OGC)
Tony Baney (OWPE)
Sandy Williams (OPA)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9432.1964(03)
APR 251S84
SCSJtCT: Permit Policy for Decanning and Crushing Operations
FROM: . John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: . Jaaes H. Scarbrough, Chief
.Residuals Management Branch, Region IV
* • *•
This aaaorandu* 1s 1n response to /our April 5, 19*4,
request for • headquarters policy Interpretation on peralttlng
of hazardous waste decannln? and crushing operations.
ftastd on our understanding of the process at Shulton, Inc.,
toiletry crushing optritlon clearly meets the definition of
*
as specified in §264.10. It 1s therefore subject to
»per«1tt1ng under Parts 264 and 270. Me have based our conclusion
~ on the following:
o ••
* * a) The addition of wastewater in the crushing operation
» o serves to reduce the potential for fires and explosions,
* and also dilutes the alcohol to a non-hazardous state.
a This 1s consistent with the treataent definition, which
T ° extends to an/ "process...designed to change the physical,
J chealcal or biological character or composition of an/
> hazardous waste...so as-to render such waste non*hazardous,
I or less hazardous* or safer to transport* store or dispose
of....* That the water »a/ serve ether purposes, such
as keeping tn* 9**rs of tn» ••eh*n1»n clean and cleaning
tne container residuals* does not alter the fact that
«„. treatment of the hazardous wastes Is taKloy place. We
<•> also would disagree with /our suggestion that the use
? of the wesnwater 1s 'Incidental* (and thus does not
j* constitute treataent) b/ virtue of the fact tnat
e wasnrfrters trt used in other siollar crushing
. . operations that do not Involve hazardous wastes.
e ' . •
* e) The aeaorandua of April 2, 1981, which dealt with-a
*o . liquid SI 1 vex decanning operation, was tot Intended tc
«• . be .interpreted as applying to all decanning and crushing
e •' ' operations. The Sllvex decanning process in question
-------
wardeslgned sIspljT to ««jjr«g«te the wastes Into
larger containers. Tht wastes «%r« not rendered
v»on-nazaraous or less hazardous. ano any Chang* in
tne wastes' cnaract«r1 sties (such as a posslole
1n concentration) *t\ 1n this Instanca trjly 1nc1 dental .
Cnanijej 1n « waste's characteristics cannot be ^rosuiied
to DC tficldentil stnply becius* inejr occur 1n a crusMng
or oecannln^ process.
let «« know 1f /ou have any further 'joestlons
tnls 1ssu«.
cc: ti. Meddle
A. Ltndsejr
P. Guerrero
T. Groyan
£. CostwortA
A. Corson
-------
9432.1964(0-;!
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY .SUMMARY
MAY 84
A. RC7A
1. Can a Unfc11k« portal* 1 e filter press use* 1« a wtstevater tre«t«efft faclVltjr be
etcluietf fpon reguUtton 1f the filter press «Mts «TI of the 250.10 criteria
uftoer V«st««at(r tre<.l(s)(6) as a vtstewxter trtateent unit.
-------
9432.1954(05)
SUBJECT: Definition of Treatment; Application to • ;
Great Lakes Carbon Corp* • ;
• r
'' f
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director • "••
Office of Solid waste (WH-562) . I
' £
TO: Janes .Scarbrough, Chief ' . f
Residuals Kanacement Branch " :
EPA Region IV ' ' . . * :
we have reviewed and interpreted'the definition of treatment "
as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, Subpart B - Definitions. The defini- ^
tion is made up of' two parts: the change.'in the waste's character =
effected by trea-taent and the purpose of the change* Based on this ^
definition, the process proposed by Great Lakes Carbon Corporation . ~
(GLCC) docs not'constitute treatment...* GLCC's plan to add water to >-
the cyanide contained.in dissolvable plastic bags will change the ^
physical character of the cyanide waste. However, the purpose of =
this channe is to facilitate disposal. The change will not make •<
the waste safer to dispose. None of 'those purposes listed in the '. ^
definition, that is to neutralize; to recover energy or material _ ^
resources? to render such waste non-hazardous or less hazardous, ~ _• v
safer to transoert, store, or dispose; or aaenable for recovery, ' • e
amenable for storage, or reduced in-volume, apply to the process . *
proposed by CLCC. ..'-•''.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr* Thomas Baugh of
the Waste Treatment Branch at PTS 362-2550.
-------
9432.1354;'06;
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MOKTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 84
4. Hi* K-*r. rc^ulallonE cciine *n '^jlicr* tt * •..•feruatlon c^dXe of yielding
anoint of (prtunriwiter te veils or C7rin£s*($260.10). Per th*
rtf u* IOA crcvran, has •sivrUficant «aaunt' or '•ijnif leant yield*
fiiynlf ic4nt yiele (*«s rvec C*»M «MiyT«n3 « discrete nroer t*c*u*« »lcni;ieanee
o*n VAT/ iroa iccaticr to locution. Significant yield is dependent, in pert,
on ovolo;lc «nd hyaroleyic eoneiticns. Far instjtnev, ate lees tier ney Sew
tiuruant Krl^co «r£ ^rcurkSatsr r«*curer« with uppencat peolegie »tr«u
yiclsiirt; only very mi: »cunu. Another iootiw ir/ have »LMl*r upper
straU aut viutcut «ue> rlc±> rncureM. C*cisioro en the ••i^iificanct* Of
the yield trot these iLnUar stratt fust be n*> in light of such region*!
eenBidar*tionc. be&KnM of tnls vtriicility, tf4 Aiy-cney has not esutllished
* wirdrun tisniticant yield figure. Sere D"A Heltons hcve fountf th*t 20
9*llcnc per day (ejptf) to be epeRpriete. Outer toeiene heve uMtf leal
definition or Ttnpes (e.g., &*SO ep(5). .A diseussien et eiydfieant yield
ic in tt» July 26, 19B2, Parieral Reuister (4? FR J2289).
Souroei BuraelJ Vinwnt (2u2)
C«T5* Oixon (»2) 3S2-44M
Aesutrent
-------
9432 .1964(07 ;
MCHORAMLAJK
SUBJECTt Bequest for Guidance/Clarification of Mastewater
Treatment unit
John E. skinner* Director
Office of ftolid Masts (*»-5i2)
TOi James H. ftcarbrough, Chief
mtsiduals Management Branch
baste Management Division
E.P.A. Region IV
Your memo of December 11* 1984 is one ot several requests tor
guidance that OSW has received from the Begions since the wastewater
treatment unit exemption waa promulgated on November 17* 1900.
The case on which you requested guidance involves tanks
storing hasardotts wastewaters that are then trucked across the
Department of Energy Oak Ridge reservation to s treatment facility
tnat has an Ki>l>ti> permit. You asked whether a direct mechanical
connection between the components ot the treatment facility were
necessary tor the tanks to be part of the wastewater treatment
facility.
For the purposes of this e Kempt ion, a wastewater treatment
unit is defined in 40 CFK (260.10 asi
(1) a tank*
(2) which is part of a wastewater treatment facility subject
to regulation under either Section 402 or Section 307(b)
of the Clean Mater Act* and
(3) which receives and treats or stores an influent waste-
water that is a hazardous waste or which generates*
accumulates* treats, or stores a wastewater treatment
sludge that is a hasardous waste.
In providing guidance on implementation of this rule* we have
been baaing our interpretations on the intent of the eiemption aa
well aa on the wording ot the regulation.
-------
You acknowledge that the DOE reservation is a "facility,*
and we have followed this interpretation in accepting their Part A
RCRA application. Because there is no requirement that component*
of the wastewater units in • facility be connected, there is no
reason why vatervater oould net be piped, trucked, or othtrvlM
conveyed Croa one vatervater unit to another* Therefore, the
wastevater tanks in question are part of a wastevater treatment
unit, exempt under 40 CFK 52*4.l(g)(4).
Further, this office has acknowledged that if vastevater is
stored and treated in • tank at one facility prior to shipment to
a POT*, the tank is exempt under 40 CPU S264.1(g)(t) (••• the
attached •eaorandua)*
If you have any questions, please call Donald White
(382-7917) of *y staff.
Attachment
-------
5(02;
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 85
Generator Determination
5. Vfciile en maneuvers, a U.S. ifeval vessel generate* various hftWTVll* wastes CT
board, sueh as spent listed solvents and reactive wastes. These wastes arc
placed in containers while still en the vecsal. The vessel docks at a shipyard
and the wastes are unloaded free the ship and placed en the pier. The owner/
operator (o/o) of the shipyard store* the wastes for up to 90 days without a
storage peraat and then manifests the waste fior shipnant off-«it«. Xc the naval
vessel or the shipyard operator the generator of the waste,? If the shipyard
operator it considered the generator* is he entitled to the 90 day amtniTntinn
tine per $262.347
The naval vessel is considered the cite where the waste is generated.
Language in the October 30, I960, Federal Register (45 FR 72024} states that
in certain case* a waste is not generated until it is moved from e product
or rav rate rial transport vessel. Thic naval vessel is not «. product or raw
material transport vessel; it is the site where a tarcoess produces a hazar-
dous waste and ic the generator «(yrw** »g to the definition in (260.10. Th*
shipyard operator is oat the generator and is not authorized to store wastes
for up to 90 days without a parmLt.
Source: Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217 ^^ 2*0 2(S5)
-------
9432.1965(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 85
Free Liquid*
1. Section 3004(c) (3) of JOA as amended by the Hazardous and Solid waste
Ameidnents of 1964 states that "Effective twelve tenths after the date
of enactment.. .the plaeanent of any liquid which is not a hazardous
waste in a landfill for which a penult is required under Section
3005 (e)...is prohibited." There is no mention of "frw liquid*' ia
• this prohilaitiorv. Hew is EP* going to define "any liquid"?
EPA believes that Congress intended the term "liquid" in Section
3004(c) (3) to enconposc free liquids (at defined in (260.10) as
well as liquids. The legislative history to Section 3004(e)
indicates that Congress aaant EPA to develop a uniform definition of
"liquid" and to prescribe a test to determine when a waste contains
liquids and free liquids. See & Rep. to. 284, 98th Cong., 2d
Seas. 22 (1963). In addition, the legislative history she* that
Congress generally used the tenn "liquid" to include both liquids
and free liquids.
Hence, the Agency intends to use the paint fiU
-------
9432.1955(04:
JffiZ
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
3 0 l££5
OFFICE Of
•OLID WATTE AND EMERGENCY HE*»ON»£
Mr. John Ouarles
Morgan, Lewis & Boekius
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20036
Dear John:
This is in response to your letter of June 25, 1985, requesting
clarification as to whether above-ground portions of landfills
in which waste is placed only within the lateral boundaries of the
unit are considered to be "existing units* under the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendment* (HSVJA) of 1984.
Section 3015 of HSWA requires new unite, lateral expansions
of existing units, and replacements of existing units, to comply
with the minimuar technological requirements set out in Section
3004(o). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has
interpreted Section 3015 to provide that for a unit to qualify
as an existing unit, it oust have received waste by November 8,
1964, and Bust also have been fully "operational" by that date.
In order to be considered operational, the unit must have been
constructed to comply with all federal. State, and local require-
ments, including licenses and permits, in effect prior to
November 8, 1984, so that as of that date there was no legal
impediment to the operation of the unit. See 50 Fed. Reg. 26707
(July 15, 1985).
Your June 25, 1985, letter suggests that while under some
circumstances an above-ground area must be classified as a new
unit, such an area nay be exempt from the new requirements if
it i* part of an existing unit. Me agree that the statute provides
for such a distinction.
The boundaries of an existing unit are limited by the
specifications in operating or closure plans, permits, etc.,
that were applicable on November 8, 1984, that describe a final
elevation or "trU"""" capacity of the unit. The elevation or
capacity limitation will,restrict the maximum allowable height
of the existing unit. Tf a State permit, for example, placed an
interim restriction on the height of the unit, only the height
-------
allowed in the permit on November 8, 1984, is included in the
existing unit. Additional placement of waste would constitute a
new unit.
An above-ground area must also be considered a new unit if
a new or modified State or local permit would be required prior
to receipt of waste in that area after November 8, 1984. We
believe that such areas do not qualify as existing units nor at
portions of existing units. This is because such vertical
expansions do not meet the existing unit criterion of being
•operational" on November 8, 1984, since there was a legal
impediment to the operation of the unit on that date.
On the other hand, an above-ground portion will be considered
part of an existing landfill unit if (1) the owner or operator,
prior to November 8, 1984, bad been granted the legal authority
to expand vertically, i.e., all required permits and licenses
for the vertical expansion had been obtained by that date, and
(2) no further State or local approval is needed for such vertical
expansion after November 8, 1984. Placement of waste vertically
in such existing landfill units, including vertical expansions
that involve additional construction of berms, liners, leachate
collection systems, or other physical structures or appurtenances,
constitute portions of existing units provided that the additional
waste is placed only above waste placed within the lateral boundaries
of the existing landfill unit; i.e., there must be no lateral
placement of waste. Zf required construction features added
after November 8, 1984, would result in expanded lateral placement
of waste (i.e.. would result in a lateral expansion). Section
3015 would require that this expanded area be in compliance with
the new minimum technological requirements.
We will vary shortly clarify to our Regional Offices that
the minimum technological requirements are applicable to above-
ground landfill areas if such areas constitute new units, as
described above.
We have not yet completed a detailed review of the information
we have received regarding your client's facility in Deer Park,
Texas. In fact, we have not yet received from you all of the
information I requested in my letter of August 9, 1985. Specifi-
cally, as requested in my previous letter, we need drawings
that clearly identify which portions of the unit were constructed
and where the-liner and leachate collection system were located
on November 8, 1984. Zn addition, it is possible that we will
need even more informatipfl regarding this unit before a final
determination can be made. Hence, we express no opinion here
about whether your client's unit would qualify as an existing
unit under the definition and guidance set out above.
-------
I hop* that the information contained herein it helpfi
to you, and look forward to receiving the information we a]
requesting regarding your client'* facility.
Sincerely your*,
fohn E. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Haste
-------
9432.1985(05)
Definition of Existing Portion O £+££ , Q5 (_%S )
The definition of 'existing portion* in Title 40 CFR 5260.10 refers to the land
surface area of an existing waste management unit included in the original Part A
permit application on which hastes have been placed prior to the issuance of a
permit. If a landfill unit has waste placed over fifty percent of the surface area
of such unit, is the whole unit considered the 'existing portion?*
The whole unit is rot considered the 'existing portion.* Only the fifty percent
covered surface area would meet the definition of 'existing portion.* Hence, at
pennit issuance, the non-covered fifty percent portion would have to have a
single liner as required by 5264.301. If the uncovered area was also covered
with waste prior to permit issuance, the whole unit would then meet the
definition of "existing portion.*
The ttuardous and Solid ttoste Aaendnentc (HSWM, in effect, limit the appli-
cability of the 'existing portion* concept to those units that are "existing
units* under HSWX. This is because units that are not 'existing units* under
HSWA must meet the minima* technological reguirenents of H9A (i.e., landfills
and surface impoundments that are not existing units must have double liner
and leachate collection systens, and waste piles that are not existing units
must have single liner and leachate collection system) . See the guidance
entitled 'Craft Guidance on topleaentation of the Kinimn Technological teguire-
nents of the Hazardous and Solid Vfeste Jtoendraents of 1984* , dated May 24, 198S.
lurcet Les Otte (202) 382-4654
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9432.1965(07)
9 I985T"
Mr. Lewis D. Walker
Deputy for Environment, Safety and
Occupational Health
OASA (I&L)
Room 2E613
Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20310-0103
Dear Mr. Walker:
My staff and I have reviewed the Technical Document dated
27 June 1985, which was submitted by the U.S. Army Chemical
Agent/Munitions System (CAMDS) Directorate, to consider the
CAMDS site at Tooele Army Depot in Tooele, Utah as a "totally
enclosed treatment facility* and thereby exempted from RCRA
Subtitle C requirements. The substance of this document was
presented to technical, policy, and legal EPA staff at a meet.im
on September 5, 1965, by several Department of Defense (DoD)
personnel.
A "totally enclosed treatment facility" under RCRA is
defined in 40 e.F.R. S260.10 as:
... a facility for the treatment of hazardous waste which
is directly connected to an industrial production process
and which prevents the release of any hazardous waste or
any constituent thereof into the environment during treat-
ment. An example is a pipe in which waste acid is neutra-
lized.
The CAMDS facility does not meet this definition for two
reasons. First, the objective of CAMDS is to destroy obsolete
chemical munitions; this activity constitutes treatment as
defined in $260.10 and is not directly connected to an industrial
production process. Second, this treatment involves incineration
of hazardous waste, thus releasing emissions of hazardous con-
stituents to the environment. These emissions (e.g., byproducts
of the combustion process during normal operation and during
upset conditions before the vastefeed is shut off) are inherent
in the normal operation of a hazardous waste incinerator. Even
a highly efficient incinerator will not destroy- 100 percent of
all constituents of the hazardous wastes that are fed into it.
The regulatory exclusion of a totally enclosed treatment facility
pertains only to treatment that prevents releases of both hazardous
wastes and their constituents.
-------
- 2 -
v.e realize tf.et loL ray soon £>t nanciatert to cor:fletelv
uebtroy 90 percent of tfce r.ilitary stork:/ile of letliol chemical
iuicr.ts and nuriitions fcy Stpter-.ber" 30, 1394 (h.F.. 1P72, 131
Ccns « f'ec., t:o. £7, June 26, IPSi). Conseauently, r«on intends
to U6e tfie'CAhCS facility to develop and demonstrate the incin-
eration technology to accomplish this proposed statutory objective.
In view of the structural rodif ications ane/or operating ehannes
necessary to provide DoD and Connreae with information about the-
ef teetiveness of incineration to demilitarize ehcrical agente
anr munitions et tlic CAnrs facility , we raccw.end that the tt-.R.
Arry apr-ly £or a research, development, and denonstration (PT^r.)
pernit unrier 4C C.h.H. 5270. 65? a full PCKA incinerator r»«rrit
issued under 40 C.P.P.. Part 2€4, Suhpart 0 would not provide
ilexibility in nocifying the design and operation of the facility.
All intended modifications to the facility rust he ider.tifictj
in the RDtD pcroit. However, unlike a Subpart 0 permit, a trial
burn for each notification is not recuircd to defxinstrato corpliance
with &2C4 recjuirenents since this would be counter to the Intent
ot an PDtP perr.it. You should note, however, that before the
facility pay be operated outside the conditions vpfteitietf in the
KbfcD pern it (i.e., structural or operational roc!if icaticnr) the *
F.Dfct/ pcreiit nust Le re-orefteo to retlect the r»ortif ications
requirfed and raust be made available for. public notice end conrtent
for 45 days ($270.41). Therefore, X reecrmend that attention be
giver to planning the project so that it is not delayed tor tfiis
reason.
RDtD nerrits are lirited to one year of operation (365 r'sy*
ot actual o[ust specify the type And Quantities of hazartfou?
waste intended for treatment (5270. €5(a)(l) and (2)). The Concres
and EPA intend to lirit these Quantities of hazardous waste tc
the Pinieur necessary to deronstrate the feasibility of the
incinerators. In order to expedite the review and issuance of
the KL'&D perr.lt, the EPA Regional Office can tailor the PCr.A
perrit application and procedural requirements of 4P C.F.r.
Parts 124 and 270 (except for the public participation procedures
anci tinanciel acsuranc* requirements) to the research objectives
of the CAIiL'S facility (£270.f S(t} ).
Until the RDtD permit is issued, th« CAMPS facility can
continue to operate under interim status, provicUnn it continue?
to operate sccordinc to the reejuirenents of $270.71. nurinn the
w;&D testing* CA>:DS could apply tor a full l:CPA incinerator
I>ernit if you Intend to continue using the incinerators tc de«-il-
iturize stockpiles of chemical *c7«nts and munitions followino
ti»e twrw of the RL>*P pensitr in this cas««v date .frof the ITrr
activity *
-------
To assist the Regional Office, we reviewed the information
in the Technical Document and made a preliminary determination
about the aocitional type of information necessary to prepare a
complete JRDtD application (see enclosure 1). Ke also described
the type of performance data, which would be necessary in lieu
of conducting a trial burn, thereby accelerating the permitting
of similar hazardous waste incinerator! based upon the RDtn
demonstrations. Also, we arc enclosing a copy of the draft
Guidance Manual for Research, Development, and Demonstration
Permits, dated October 3, 1965, to assist you in preparing an
KD4D application (see enclosure 2).
The Agency is encouraging the development and demonstration
of new and alternative technologies and processes to treat and
minimize hazardous wastes. We recognize the critical need for
DoD to demilitarize chenical agent munitions, particularly in
view of the limited technical data on processes and technologies
and the lack of facilities to treat these wastes.
You should contact Mr. Larry Wapensky at (303) 293-1662,
Chief, RCRA Permits Section, EPA-Region VIII about processing -.
the RDfcD application.
Sincerely,
Harcie E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
ccx Bruce Keddle
Peter Guerrero
Truett DeGeare
Art Clazer
Nancy Pomerleau
Robin Anderson
Dov WeitBtan (LE-132S)
Ken Gray (LE-132E)
jack Lehman
Warren Bull (A-104)
Larry Napensky, Region VIII
Dale D. Parker, Ph.D., State of Utah
Regional Hazardous waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
-------
X 9432.19B5(OS)
SUtJLCT: Reicholda Cher.icals in Elizabeth, »:j
FPOfii Robin Anderson (ue-563)
Penoits Branch
Toi John Brogard
Region II
As you requested, Z have reviewed the heat recovery unit
for fceicliolo Chemicals in Elizabetbr New Jersey, to determine if
it should be classified as a boiler and/ therby, exenpt from
SCKA regulations under 40 CPK 261.6 based on energy recovery.
The applicant has requested that a variance bo granted under
40 CFf; 5 26C.32 to classify the unit as a boiler. The request
ie primarily Cased on the efficiency of the beat recovery unit
(i«e.r 65% heat recovery)* the fact that 100 percent of the
therr,4.1 energy generated ic used throughout the year, and because
the applicant claims the syste* provides better destruction of
hazardous constituents than boilers as defined under f 2f0.10.
t£
Although the intent of the operation appears to be legitimate
enercy recovery under $261.6, the boiler variance cannot be
granted because the heat recovery unit, which is the Dear. Enemy
Recovery Syster, is an add-on device. Further, the the clas-
sification of such a unit would set a precedent which ray be
contrary to EPA regulations to be proposed in June 19?6. The
combustion eyater. is properly classed aa an incinerator, and rust
be pern it ted as such under f»CRA Subpart C to ensure the adequate
treatment of the hazardous waste. The definition of a 'boiler*
under $ 260.10 requires tbe energy recovery syster? to be of
integral design to the eoebustion chamber and specifically
excluoes a unit in which the ccebustion chamber and the recovery
chaaber is joined by ducts or connections carry inn flue nas.
The variance procedures should not be used to evaoe a restriction
definitely stated. The procedure was swant to apply to devicet
not fully considered by the definition and* therefore, such
variances should be few.
-------
-2-
With regard to the destruction efficiency of a "boiler" flC
Defined under $ 260.10r ,thf AgffflCy agrees that sone boilers may
pose a' hazard when burning certain hazardous wastes/ and is
developing regulations for boilers. The Hazardous and Solid
i.aste Amendment of 1904, Section 3004(q), requires the Agency to
develop standards for the burning of hazardous waste as a fuel
within two years of enactment. As part of this activity the
Agency has proposed regulations (50 FR 1664-1724* January 11,
1985) to provide administrative control of hazardous waste burned
'in boilers. The final rule, to be published shortly in the
Federal Register, will prohibit the burning of hazardous waste
in non-industrial boilers (e.g.,.boilers used in a residential,
commercial, and institutional setting) unless such activity was
permitted as a hazardous waste incinerator under RCRA. Other
regulations are presently being developed which would regulate
the burning of hazardous waste in industrial boilers and industrial
furnaces regardless of the purpose of the activity*
The Reichold system was also reviewed by Marc Turpeon of the
Waste Treatment Branch and he is in aoreenent that the system can-
not be classified as a boiler under RCEA for the reason* presented
above. Please call me on FTS 362-4496 if further clarrification
of this issue is needed.
eci peter Guerrero
David Sussnan
Art Glazer
Marc Turgeon
Incinerator Permit Writers Work Group
u
-------
9432.1985(10]
DEC 30W6
Mr. Prank ,7. Fox , Jr.
2300 r.TV Center
Texas "75201
. pox:
In vour letter of l>eer*ber 13, 19B5, you reouested our
orinion as to whether the Lubrizol combustion unit at Painesville,
Ohio i? of inteoral desinr under 40 CFP 260.10.
After reviewino the enaineerina drawings, which you provide*,
our staff has concluded that the COffbuStOf is « rotary ^e«! furnace
with secondary combustion to which a waste h*at boiler h«» been
attach*^. It appears that the entire unit was rtesinrert af one
tir»e, am* that it incorporates some uniau^ desinn features* r»ost
particularly the use of firebrick lininci in the secondary coi"-
fcustion chamh«r. It does appear that the unit was rlesinned to
burn a slurry material with, hioh ash content.
However, the Painesville desion does not meet the intearal
flesinn standard oiven in the boiler .definition, and does not
fall under the fluidited bed or process heater exempt-ions to the.
intenral desian criterion. Pneeif ically. we consider the boiler
section connected by a duct "fooufurnace outside the rmanina of
the • inteoral deslpn* Definition. Thus, we consider the unit an
incinerator. We believe your arouwent that the secondary combus-
tion chamber (labeled "flue" in the blueprints) is not A duct if
accepted would also allow commercial rotary viins with heat
recovery boilers to be classed as boilers, defeatino the main
purpose of the definition.
50
-------
w* a}*o Believe the variance nrocwdure unc^er 260.32 i* not
ppnropriat.e" for furnaces ducte* to heat recovery boilers.
Please call *r. Pobert Hollpway or Mr. K*rc Turaeon at
(2C2) 362-7934 if you have any further cu*stions on this natter.
Sincerely,
John P. Lehman
Pi rector
Waste Manaoenant and
Economics Division (WH-565)
cc: Pec ion V
Waste Kanaoenent Division
51
-------
j
r
.*.<': "• *.-,,>-»-•.•»-it,
i-JOj ni.r-way 7.) K
''.)t Springs, Arkansas 71901
Dear fr. Philips:
In your letter of December 5, 1995 you requested that the
Aqency identify the Resource Conservation an
-------
Second, the sludv)e dryer treats or stores a wastewater
treatment sludge which is a hazardous waste as defined in $261.3
(i.e.* the sludge itself is a listed waste, derived fron treatment
of a listed waste, or is hazardous on tho basis of characteristics
identified in $261 subpart C). This mean* that th« treatment of
sludges generated frosu waste water treatment units i* also exempt
fron regulation under the ftCRA treatment standards.
Tanks (here a sludge dryer) that do not themselves have any
discharge subject to regulation under Sections 402 or 307(b) of
the Clean Water Act, but that are part of the v**t»vater treatment
system, qualify for the exemotion if other tank* in the trentaent
train have discharges that are subject to these Clean Meter Act
provisions. So the third condition, being part of a wastewater
treatment unit subject to regulation under Section 402 or 307(b)
of the Clean i?ater Act, can be net by sludge dryers in certain
circumstances. However, as Che November 17, 1980 preamble stated
(45 F£ 76077), even the proposed regulations...."may not provide
adeouate environmental protection where treatment of the hazardous
wastewater tends to result in the escape of hazardous waste
constituents into the atmosphere (e.g., the treatment of highly
toxic volatile wastes in open tanks).* Unless the Administrator
promulaa'tes regulations covering waste we ter treatment units,
wastewater treatment tanks that qualify for exemption under
current RCRA standards nay volatilize their contents and retain
the exemption.
Sludge dryers may be used as part of « program to meet the
waste minimization requirements of Section 3002(b) of RCRA without
requiring pe rait ting if the above conditions are net. Of course,
although exempted froo permitting reguireaents in the wastewater
treatment units, any hazardous waste sludge that is removed fron
the tanks is subject to applicable regulations under $5260-266,
such as nanifesting off site, permitted storage after 90 days,
and so on. If you have any additional questions regarding this
exemption for wastewater treatment units, please do not hesitate
to call Irene Homer at 202-382-7917.
Sincerely yours,
•f. 'insto* f-ortrr
.*.= !
TtnnaCYPaPrTfrrlCaU
i"C* Division Directors, Ken Cray
"V . ^. . .
-------
9432 . 196 6(02)
TUBJFCT: University. of Fouth Alabama Heat Pecovery r
-------
and 265. The fcurninn of hazardous wast* in industrial boilers
and industrial furnaces is currently eyerrpt frnp renulation.
Permit standards to control emissions fror these HevieeB ar«
under development, however, «nd are »ehedu)ed to be proposed
in June 1986. Even thouqh we plan to wortel the boiler and
industrial furnace standards Generally after the incinerator
standard*, it still i"«y be necessary to distinquish between
incinerators, boilers, and industrial furnacee because standards
or permit procedures ^ey be scmiewhat different (e.g., we are
considerino an automatic waiver of trial burn* for boilers
operated under specified conditions that would ensure 99.99%
destruction and removal efficiency of toxic orqanics).
In addition to being a clear, unambiguous test to distinguish
between boiler ft and incinerators r the intenral desian criterion
has environmental sionif icance. r>e vices where the combustion
chamber an& heat recovery unit are of intenral rtesirn recover
eneroy wore efficiently. Thus, such devices are more likely to
be operated for the primary purpose of enerpv recovery and , in
turn, nor* likely to be operated and maintained to achieve peak
combustion (and destruction) efficiency (see 50 FF 626).
I should also point out that the final rule establiahinq
administrative controls on blendinn and burninq hatardoue
waste and used oil fuels published in the Federal Register on
November 29, 1985, prohibits the burnino of hazardous waste fuels
in nonindustrial feoilsrs (copy attached). Even If the University's
combustion unit were of intenral desion and otherwise determined
to be a boiler, it would be considered a nonindustrial boiler
under that rule. Thus, hazardous waste could not he burned in
the device, unless the University complied with an exception to
the prohibition provided by that, rule for nonindustriel holler
owners and operators who comply with the hazardous waste incin-
erator standards under Subpart 0 of Parts 264 or 265. When the
technical, permit standards for boilers and industrial furnaces
are ultimately proi»ulpat»rt , any nonindustrial boilers burnino
hazardous waste under the interim status incinerator standards of
Part 265 would become subject to the standards for boilers. We
that few nonindustrial boiler owners and operators will
to centime (or beninl burMnr hazardous waste fuels under
the*p
A? » f.t*9^ rote, vou «•»" <-snt fr> con*iri«>r whf»f>»*r
?« tc be ^ur^e^ ar«» el\riK1« fr\r t-ht exe^
tw<» inrinTat^r Ptandar'l* for ws«te« rh?t »rt>
in rr> rr
If VP" ;-=.vr r>i)C''*'i^*i? "^r f"*""*' &«f c r\p »n" ^f t> v.ner- ^\r\\ r t ~
B(B i-.jv" 'r..K ' 1 1 f ••.••?'.' 'rr " '
rl —
-------
9432.1986(02)
Cl=on'« rrscnhousef/ Inc.
5*>C Scuth Ptr^et
Pavnhan, Massachusetts 027K7
Dear Mr. Punke:
we have considered your necemher 1"» 19R5, reouest for
determination as *
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Of ICE O*
SOLID WASTE AND EMEAGENCv
Mrt Gary L. Ford
Senior Attorney
Stauffer Chemical Company
Westport, Connecticut 06881
De ar Mr. Fo rd :
This is in response to your December 17, 1985, request
that we confirm that "combustion devices used in the recovery
of sulfur values from spent sulfuric acid" are industrial
furnaces subject to the administrative controls on burning
waste fuels published in the Federal Register on November 29,
1985.
As you know, EPA defined industrial furnaces in the
January 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 661, 5260.10) as any
of the specifically identified and listed devices that are
"enclosed devices that are integral components of manufacturing
processes and that are controlled flame devices to accomplish
recovery of materials or energy*. The definition also includes
criteria that the Administrator may use to add other devices
to the list. That list includes sulfur recovery furnaces and
other furnaces that were inadvertently omitted from the list
of industrial furnaces provided in the November 29 notice
on pages 49194 and 49211.
Notwithstanding those omissions, sulfur recovery and
other furnaces included in the definition of industrial
furnaces under 5260.10 are industrial furnaces subject to the
November 29 rule.
Sincerely,
Robert Holloway
Environmental Engineer
*^j
f
cc: Hazardous Waste Division
Directors, Regions I-X
-------
9432.1986(05
5 1986
Vie* Artnlral Peter J. fcotr
Chl«f, Office of Marine E&viror.Bent
and Systewa
United States Coast Guard
2100 2n<* St.. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20593
Dear Vice Adrelral Rotz:
We have been asked bv Bembers of your staff to clarify the
applicability of EPA's regulations under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCKA) to operational wastes from ships. The
Coast Guard's Reception Facility Requireieents for Waste Materials
Retained On Board, issued under Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 (50 FR
367*8, September 9, 1985), have raised a cumber of ques clous
Che status of ships a&ri ter»i&« Is /ports under Che RCRA reirulactoi.e
It. particular, we have Heet. asked to deteraibe who is the
of oily waste that is produced ou ships ar.d required uuder the
Coast Guard's September 9, 19R5 regulations to be riischarp.ed to
reception facilities at ports and terni&als.
Vf. have determined that, as a tenerai ««tter, for any
waste that is produced in product or raw material vessel units,
xuch as those used for bulk shipment of oil, hoth the ship and, in
soine clreunstanees, the operator of the central facility involved
in revovin? the waste frots the ship would be considered haxardous
waste generators. For other types of oily waste, such as Mire
water in vessel e&ei&e roovs contaminated with enelne Ixihricant
drippines or solvents, only the ship would be deemed to be the
hazardous waste generator.
1. Generator remiiregents
The RCRA regulations define a generator as any person, bv
site, whose act or process produces haxardous waste identified or
listed in 40 CP? Fsrt 261 or whose act first causes a hazardous
waste to becoDe sub.Wct to regulation. 40 CFR 52*0.10. Any
person who generates a solid waste Bust determine if that waste
is hazardous, and if so, rust receive an EPA identification (ID
number before treatinp, storing, transporting or disposing of tb«-
vaste. If the penerator plsns to move the waste off-site for
treatment, storaee or disposal, he must comply with certain
requirements in Part 262. IncluHinp. prepavli.fi an FPA manifest.
msrkinr the waste, Veeptnc. record* and filing reports. In add i-
-------
- 2 -
to 90 days without a permit if he complies with the requirements
of S262.34(a>(1-4).
2. Type* of waste subleet te regulation
The oily wastes subject to Coast Guard regulation under
MARPOL Annex I generally are produced in two way*. The first 10
through bulk shipnent of oil, whereby Kludges and aediaents that
settle out in the oil storage tank or unit mint b« periodically
reaoved. Oil tanker* alto oeed to periodically diapoae of oily
ballast water a&d table cleaning water. The second type of watt*
i« produced from the use of oil as a fuel a&d lubricant in a
ship's propulsion a&d auxiliary systen. Bilge water that accumulates
in engine rooms often co&ttinr hith concent rations of oil froa
lubricant drippinet a&d other routine losaea. The bilpe water
•ay alao be contaminated with other typei of wastes. Both types ..
of waste are aolid wastes under 1261.2*
Whether these wastes are haeardoua wastes would be deter-
•ined under 5261.3, In general, the waste would have Co be
either (1) liated la Subpart D of Part 261; 42) identified In
Subpart C of Part 261 (e.g.. exhibits iRnitability characteris-
tic); (3) a vircure of solid waste and a listed hazardous waste;
or (4) is derived from treating a listed hazardous waste. Under
current EPA regulations, used oil is not liated as a hazardous
waste,*/ a&d therefore, would have to Beet (2), (3) or (4) above.
Ve do not anticipate »acy situations in which one of these criteria
would be vet, with the possible exception of eontanination of bilge
water vith spent solvents. (1261.31) However, even this possi-
bility can be winiaited if the bilge watera are aegregatri froa
other wastes generated on the
£/ EP4r*s recent proposal to list used oil aa a hazardous waste.
"" if finalized, will change ita current status under the RCKA
regulations. See 50 Peg. Reg. 49212 (November 29, 1985).
**/ Under EPX*a spent solvent Hating, since a solvent la consi*
dered "spent" when it has been used and is no longer fit
for use without being reclaimed or reprocessed, it is likely that
solvents dripping fro* machinery and collecting in bilge water
would not cause the vastewater to be hazardous. See 50 Fed.
53315, 53316 (December 31, 19*5).
-------
- 3 -
3. Regulation of oily waste ui.d«?r RCRA
The two types of oily waste from ships - - waste produced
ir, product transport units and waste produced in the propulsion and
auxiliary syatews - - are treated differently under the UCRA regula-
tion". Under 1261.4(e), a hazardous waste generated in a product
or raw material transport vessel is exempt from regulation until it
exits Che unit in which it was generated or unless it remains in
the unit wor*- than 90 day* after the unit ceases to be operated for
storage or transportation of the product or raw materials. These
waste* are sludge* and residues produced in tank* or holds that
carry product* or raw materials, where the products or raw i»aterials
are not in themselves hazardous wastes. See 45 Fed. Reg. 72024,
72026-27 (October 30, 1980).
A« a result of this exemption, parties who remove the waste
fron the ship at a central facility Hy either emptying, the pro-
duct-holding unit or cleaning the holding tank are deemed to ht>.<
generators under 40 CFR I260.10 because their actions cause the
hazardous waste to become sublect to regulation. In addition, .&h*
actions of both the operator and owner of the vessel and the ewiitr of
the product or raw material result in production of the bazardoc*
waste. Thus, these parties, and any others that fit the generator
definition, are loittly and aever*lly liable as generators. See
.id. at 72026.
The Agency looks primarily to the central facility operated
to remove sediments and residues to perform the generator duties,
since it is the party best able co perform such generator dutle* a«
determining whether the waste is hazardous* Where the wastes art*
not removed at a central facility, however, the Agency looVs to th?
operator of the vessel to perform the generator duties. Id. at
72027.
Engine-related wastes are treated quite differently In that
they are regulated froa the moment they are produced. Since the
operation of the ahlp's propulsion system produce* the oily waste*,
the ship's pv&er and/or .operator are generators. The facility
involved in removing this waste fro» the ahip Is t.ot a generator
because it la tot causi&F the waste to become subject to regulation
•>.• thi»~waste ia.already subject to regulation when produced in
the. ship", The facility may be a transporter (Part 263) or a treat-
ment storage or disposal (TSD) facility (Parta 264-265), depending
upon the actions it takes.
The Coast Guard'a requirement that certain port* and terminal*
be certified to have available adequate reception facilities for
ahips* -oily waste* does not necessarily determine the role of the
-------
- u -
port or terminal it the RCRA repilatorr seheoe.V For exacple, a
pore or terminal that has available an independent waste hauler who
transfers enfcine room waste directly into a tar.k truck do»-« r.ot
appear to fit the definition of tenerator, transporter or TSD
facility, "The vaate hauler, or whoever is encaged ir. the offsite
(i.e., off the ahtp) transportation of the vaate. would be deemed
the transporter.
Of course, if the manifested waste ia fttored for any period
of time in tank* or containers At the port or terminal, or if the
waste ia renewed to and stored in a barge, both the port and bane
storinR the watte would be deemed TSD facilities subject to the
requirement* of Parts 270. 264 and 265. If whoever is transporting
the manifeated vaatr fros the ship stores the waste in eoutalters
meeting the requirements of (262.30 at a transfer facility, such as a
loading dock, the waste Bay be atored for 10 days without being
subject to regulation under Parts 270, 266 and 265. See 40
CFR 5263.12.
The ship, as the generator, it also c TSD facility to
the estent that it ia storing hatardous waste on board. Under
(262.36, a generator mar accumulate hatardou* waste on aite for $0
days or les* without having *• pvrcit provided certain repuire^eats
are aet. EPA ia currently finalitine a proposed rerulation that,
would extend this accumulation period for aeneratora who pwneratv
betweer. 100 - 1000 kilof.ranc of hazardous waste per BO&£h. See ^60
Fed. Reg. 31278 (Auniat 1. 19R5).
The Agency believes chat the application of the RCRA regula-
tions in this way will be workable for the ships and reception
facilities subject eo Coast Guard regulations. In actuations where *
ship*1 owners or operators are unable to perfora the generator
duties, ahips' aeents that are. available at portu or terminals to
handle fueling a&d other necessary functions, anch as carryinE out .
CUBtons requirements, may perform these duties on behalf of the ship.
The AEer.cy would expect the-shippi&R company or age&t handling the.
required manifesting and record keeping fu&etior.s eo retain records
either at its U.S. business headquarters or at the local arent'*
office located near the port or terminal where the ahipc have their
waate removed.
*/ SlvilcrlTf potatiticl liability of parties under the
"* - Comprehr&aiye Environmental Kespo&ae, Compeanation
and Liability Act (CCRCLA) it not necessarilT deternitifd
by fcCRA responsibilities. For exa»pl», uudt>r CF.RCIA 1107,
persona who arraate for transportation, disposal or treatment
of h«tardous_pubstancei are liable for certain costs, so
that parties who are not -"reuerators" under RCRA swy nonetheless
have certain CERCLA liabilities.
(o
-------
- 5 - •
Also, any parties liable for performing eenerator duties may
designate awor.f themselves the person who will actually carry out
those functions. For «xa»ple, where both the ship ar.d a central
waste removal facility are deeaed to be renerators, they Bay mutually
agree that the central facility will perfora the Keaerator duties.
We hope that thlt has beer, responsive to the Coaat Guard*a
co&eerr.s regard II.E the Interact lor. between the MARPOL ar.d RCRA
repulatlor.s. Please don't hesitate to contact »e or Bruce Weddle
of By staff at 382-4746 If yon have any further questions.
Sincerely.
Original signed tfo
Marcia E. Williams
Marcla Vllliaaa
Director
Office of Solid Uaattf
i h
{/>*-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204«0
9432.1966(06)
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. "Ridgway M. Hall, Jr., Esq.
Crowe11 t Moring
1100 Connecticut Av«, K.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Hall:
This is in response to your letter of August 2, 1985, and
our meeting with you and your client, VerTeeh, on September 13,
1985, asking our opinion on whether the VerTech wet-air oxidation
system could be considered a totally enclosed treatment system
and thus exempt from the regulatory requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C. You provided
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the generic plans
for a wet air oxidation process that could be directly connected
to a hazardous waste generator's proeesc equipment. Since the
meeting in September, Jack Binning and Gerry Rappe provided
additional details on the nature of the gaseous phase and above
ground treatment units in their process in order to support your
contention that the proce'sc could be considered a to telly enclosed.
treatment facility.
After reviewing the information provided on the process
blueprints, written descriptions of the treatment process,,, and
data on treatment of a synthetic waste stream, it ic our opinion
that the VerTech process is not totally enclosed under RCRA. The
definition in {260.10 ict
•Totally enclosed treatment facility* means a facility for
the treatment of hazardous waste which is dire-ctly connected
to an industrial production process and which is constructed
and operated in a manner which prevents the release of any
hatardous waste or any constituent thereof, into the environ-
ment during treatment. An example is a pipe in which waste
acid is neutralized (45 PR 33076).
The May 19, 1980, Federal Register elaborated on the intent
of the totally enclosed exclusion!
Commenters pointed out that in some production processes,
wastes (particularly acid and alkaline solutions) are treated
in-pipe, often resulting in a non-hacardous discharge.
-------
EPA agree* that to classify "totally enclosed
treatment systems," such as pipes, as hazardous waste
treatment facilities...would not make a great deal of
sense. These facilities by definition do not release
wastes or waste constituents into the environment....
The key characteristic of such a facility is that.
it does not release any hazardous waste or constituent
into the environment during treatment. Thus, if a
^facility leaks, spills, or discharges wastes or waste
constituents into the air during treatment, it is not
a "totally enclosed treatment facility" within the
meaning of these regulations (45 FR 33218).
A review of the regulation and preamble demonstrates that
the totally enclosed treatment exemption was intended to exclude
from regulation a very narrow subset of treatment facilities.
The regulation provide* only one example> neutralisation in
pipes. The preamble emphasizes that a facility that discharges
wastes or waste constituents to the air during treatment cannot
be considered totally enclosed. Your wet-air oxidation unit,
like many other types of thermal treatment units (defined in
40 CTR 260.10), does emit constituents to the air during treat-
ment. The totally enclosed treatment exemption was not intended.
to exclude such units.
The enclosed regulatory clarification, prepared in July 1981,
in response to an inquiry from Travenol Labs, limits totally
enclosed treatment "to pipelines* tanks, and to other chemical,
physical, and biological treatment operations, which are carried
out in tank-like equipment....• While the clarification does
recognize some situations in which minor releases to the air
would not preclude eligibility for the exclusion, continuous
gaseous by-products emitted during treatment represent an open
system that interacts significantly with the environment. In our
opinion, extension of the exclusion to thermal treatment units
would be inappropriate and unjustified by the rationale for the
exclusion as expressed in the preamble language quoted above. We
believe that thermal treatment units, like incinerators, should
be subject to regulatory control to assure that they are designed •
maintained, and operated at all times in a manner that protects
human health and the environment.
The Agency doee not have 40 CTR 264 Subpart P standards to
establish a permit for VerTech's thermal treatment unit. There
are, however, other types of standards that might be used to
permit an underground wet-air oxidation unit and the associated
aboveground treatment processes.
Section 270.65 research, development, and demonstration
permits allow short-term, limited operation for processes that
have no applicable permitting standards. These RD&D permits
-------
are currently being issued for innovative technologies and would
allow experimental operation of wet-air oxidation with actual
RCRA wastes. A copy of the draft guidance manual for RD & D
permits it..being sent to you under separate cover.
Part 264 Subpart X Miscellaneous facilities regulations
are currently undergoing accelerated rulemaking development.
Currently, promulgation is anticipated in December 1986. Sub-
parto: will provide EPA with permitting standards that could, be
applied to thermal treatment processes.
You also may be required to meet the requirements for
treatment tanks. The tank regulations proposed on June 26, 1985,'
50 PR 26444, would allow treatment in underground tanks that
cannot be entered for inspection, and, based on our preliminary
review, the VerTech process may meet the proposed standards for
secondary containment. These proposed tank regulations are
scheduled for promulgation in June 1986. Presently, tank regula-
tions do not allow permitting of an underground tank that cannot
be entered for inspection.
In any case, thermal treatment that occurs one mile
underground presents unique permitting requirements not specified
for any RCRA unit. Section 3005(c)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR
270.65(a)(3) allow EPA or the State to add terms and conditions
to permits when necessary to'protect human health or the environ-
ment. Therefore, when a permit is issued under a particular
subpart of 40 CFR Part 264, additional permitting standards may
apply, such as the operating conditions of a thermal unit and
conditions from the Safe Drinking Water Act covering aspects of
construction and operation of injection wells (e.g., sealing,
cementing, location, pressures, sice and grade of casing, log,
and reporting). The underground injection standards that may
apply can be found in 40 CFR 146.12(b) (1 )-{7), |146.12(d) (2),
§146.12(e), (146.13(b)(l)=T7), i!46.13(c) (1) t (2), and 5146.14. -
Specific standards will be specified during the permitting process.
I appreciate your patience while we addressed the difficult
policy issues created by your request. EPA welcomes the opportunity
to work with you to develop wet air oxidation as an environmentally
acceptable alternative to incineration and other types of chemical/
physical and biological wastewater treatment systems•
Sincerely yours,
i.uW/W
Winstc
^Assistant Admini
Enclosure
-------
April 30 1986 9432.1986(08)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Standards Applicable to Pipelines
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director, Office of Solid Waste
TO: Barry Seraydarian, Director, Toxics and Waste
Management Division (T-l)
This is a follow-up to my interim response of March 19
(attached) concerning standards applicable to transportation by
pipeline.
Since my interim response, Carolyn Barley has been in
contact with Mostafa Badmand of your staff to discuss the
questions you raised in your memorandum of February 21.
Specifically, you ask whether transportation of hazardous waste
by pipeline is acceptable under RCRA when the definition of
transportation contained in 40 CFR 260.10 includes only "the
movement of hazardous waste by air, rail, highway, or water."
The fact that the definition of transportation does not
include pipeline as a mode for the transportation of hazardous
waste does not mean that hazardous wastes via pipeline is not
acceptable under RCRA. Rather, because the definition of
transportation does not include pipeline transport, the
provisions of 40 CFR §263 do not apply to the transportation of
hazardous waste by pipeline.
While the §263 regulations do not apply to the transport of
hazardous waste by pipeline, there are other provisions under
RCRA and CERCLA which may apply. For example, a release of
hazardous waste from a pipeline which is not immediately cleaned
up could constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to
health or the environment under RCRA §7006, and, therefore, be
subject to a §7003 action. Such a release may also be reportable
under 5103 (a) of CERCLA. The generator or owner /operator of the
pipeline could be liable under §107 of CERCLA for clean-up costs
and damages to natural resources, and may also be subject to a
§106 administrative order to clean up the release.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
If you .have other concerns or questions regarding
transportation by pipeline, please call Carolyn Barley on 8-382-
2217.
Attachment
cc: Nostafa Radmand
cc: OSW
PSPD
This document has been retyped from-the original.
I/'
-------
9 < ^ 2 . 1 9 8 6 ( 1
jiJV-jr.CT: Uofinition ot Xyprortuct "aterial
F.«c:<:: Vnrcia L. Ulliairs, director Original Sipntd »y
Office of Solid '..'ast« Mania ». iUlle»s
To: Thomas i«. Devine, Li rector
uaste ^anaqe»ent Division
Kenion IV
In response to your lemorandu*1 of *arch 12, 19*J6r w* have
outiinefl below how you anrt the State of south Carolina car proceed
with n«»rp»ittini anrt/or enforcement actions leading to issu.wce of
a *Cf.A permit .it the savannah River Plant (SRP).
of ."Used
has seen and reviewed some of the waste stream
prepared by CCE tacilicies. W« reviewed tne one for -RF> several
yoars »yr>roduct in 10 CPR 20*3 which you referenced in your ^enoranoua
is nerely a r*«t«t«m*ne of eh* statutory definition and, ehus ,
noes not provide definitive r;uirtance to determine which Byproduct
are^ttgulated and which are excluded*
TOE recently proposed a revised definition of byproduct
material (November 1. 1»85, SO PR 45736). The proposal rtid net
->«s»t witr. favorable public contents and it is unlikely that they
vi 11 finalize the rule in the near future* The only way states
will ^» able to judae which wast* streams at any L-Ofc facility
sftoulH ne recjulated is to -work directlv with the facility to
rako case-t-y-CAce ueciaions based on th« At A definition.
-------
EPA considers all mix«»d wasto streams to L.C- -subject
:i :-:.^ril regulation jn'jer RCRA. »(<; would v.x'.^ct that ~.t?ite«
wi.iii the jaae radioactive waste exemption as tPA would also
.r.c: .uJo all aixe'J wastes in their rc-^uiatoiy uniyers*?. ::uw>.v..r,
u-til thr 3tata» are authorized lor nixed wastos, it iu ^Disiiic
^..ut-t.icir int^r;--rttetioriB of ti»eir ?tatutna nay .-In Ttr lircm
:TA'-i i.-iturj-ret-jt .on o» *CftA.
Ujc o_r RCRA _Authgri_tibs
The savannah Rivar Plant should provide to tht otitn ot
-w-t.i Caronr.a a p«r*iit application Tor all waste unite r- ^ulat-:i1
under State law. Based on that laforaation. the utat.« saould
/rocced to process and issue a RCRA peroit covering all PCRA-r<-cu-
lated units at tn« facility. Units containing oixed wastes (or
susV.oct^ci oi containing nixed wastes} art currently not covered
under the authorised RCRA program in Couth u&rolin*.. Howevar,
..- tnc ^tate regulates nixed wastes unU«r Jtate law, units
containing such wastes may also be addressed wituin the £t*te
7^i« State snould obtain security clearances, where
n«c«5sary, and use its lull rany* of 9nj.orcuswnt authorities
to sain access to the site an4 to require sampling and analysis
l/y th« facility to detersiinu whether units should be regulated.
headquarters DOL has assured full cooperation in obtaining
security clearances ior Jtatc personnel.
EPA can also use its HtiWA authorities to suppleeient an auth-
orize State's authority ov«r RCRA-r«*9ulatc:U unite. Under y3UU4(u),
-PA can jointly issue a p«z»it with the State and iapose corrective
action requirements OB ha&ardeuc w*st* taanag^iaent units and solid
waste aanagement units (SWHU's) at facilities that contain RCRA-
re<*ulat3d units. Although mi^ed waste units are aot fcCRA-r»»gulat*»d
under luthorited State ACM programs, mixed waste will bt consiiier«»U-
r.c co a "solid waste* for purj.oees of corrective action at solid
aanagement units.
The federal Uefiaition of 'solid waste* is to b* used in
J^tcmining what unit* are StfMU's, becaus» Stare definitions were
aot 5crutinim*d in evaluating application* for State author irat ion
U'xc'.-}
-------
^ writer, * ri»p^ -*ste unit is rot «
in .*n authorize'! '«r>t°. Th^r^tor1?. tihf»re ~.u«t '>* -it lease
c-n* ricri-Tuxed, hazardous «*ste unit at a racility in order tor
l. T-A trv -,ui..jact »ixe<1 wsist* unit* to corrective action r*r,ui r»^onts
.-M"! lariy, rPA iav issus an ord«r .jrvic-r iJOOS(h) renui
.-or i t«~rt nr. , investigation ot release* and corrective action, t>ut
C'TS or'Jer can arply to -lix^'- ^a«;te units onl/ if there is or? or
.-r>re unit subject to interi?' statu* rccuireoients at tne age 2 of your .nenorandum, we have the following
answers:
• If you suspect that Part ti's have not been submitted
tor all nCkA units* LP*. and/or the State should tate
insertiate enforcement Action, iou and the state should
•!etenctine who should appropriately take enforcement
action. If there are nixed waste units in nuestion,
ZPA cannot enforce submission of the fart S's in an
authorized State, while EPA cannot issue penalties to
another Federal agency, the dispute resolution process
oescrined in the revised federal Facility Compliance
>trattoy may be ut«d.
of the Part B suhieitted *v SRP nay provide you
and/or the State with sufficient information to make
such a determination. However* if it does not, then
CPA and/or the State should recuire SP*», through enforce
ment action, to make such a determination through
saraplinq and analysis or whatever other method (e.r>.,
application of knowledge of waste generation process)
may be appropriate*
• As stated earlier* the booklets only provide a starting
point for negotiations. SPA HO will not be reviewing
or approving the individual facility booklets.
1. The nay 10 letter to COS did not delegate any authority.
Ther»f«re« it need not be withdrawn.
2. The XEA definition of byproduct is the only appropriate
and legally enforceable definition that can be used.
rou should use that definition to aake case-6y-caae
decisipnj* as described on page 2 of this oenorandun.
3. There is no documentation available of the EPA review
of the SRP waste stream booklet.
-------
I r.ote this sur ticiently clarifies your ind tne state's
current authorities wif..*i reanect to permitting and enforcement
actions you might take at &Kp. u« wiil continue to *ork with
you f.o resolve any r^rr-aininn issues, and would appreciate
jL-inu i-opt inforneu about tne t)rcx:res* you and tr.e state of
couth Carolina ar« r»akiny in resolving th«ee issues *ith 5P.P.
cc: Ji." s'csriirouqh, Per ion IV
i.ichard Ca'-poell, i^enion IV
Joe frec-'.iman, CGC
Inny Baney, OV-HE
Peter Guerrero, oSw
sCKA Division Directorn, Kegions I-III, v-x (with incoi«ino
r.CRA Branch Chiefs, Kwgiona I-III, v-x (with incoming)
bcc: Henry Elsen, Regional Coun*el (613),
Region X (with incoming)
State Programs Branch
-------
9432.1986(12)
JUL 2 £ 1936
Mr. Ronald D, Conte
Operations Coord to* tor
Patroavill ChcBieali, Inc.
2523 Mogadore load
Akron, Ohio 44312
Dear Mr. Cent*:
I an responding co your letter of June 27. 1986, vhicft
requested clarification of cht aerinlcion of aever*i taras in
40 CFR 270.2.
Th«.- cerair "holding" and "taBporary period" are noc
explicitly oeiined in the ICKA regulation*. Holding in context
of thtsse regulations aeans contaiaaent. Storage, aa defined
in RCKA »e«na "Che contfinaent or' hazardous wasc*. either on a
temporary basis or ic'r a period of yaara, in auch a nanner aa
not to const ictite ditpoaal ot auch hacardoua waate." The t«-rr.
diaposal (the oppoait* of aeorate or eonta invent) is defined
in XCKA (ana in the kCfcA reRulationc) aa "the clacharff. ...
Itiicinc, or placing of any vmr loco or on any land... to chic
• uch. . .vaact-4 . .Bay eneer Che environment." Tb« ^7P'* o:
"holding" devices' (i.e. eoocainera. tank* , •ttriacv i»f«tntdBetiCs ,
and vaate piie«) are d*rined In Che r*gul«tiona.
The ten "tevporary period", although not explicitly
dfcilufcd, ia indirectly limited in th* regulations fry the eloaur*
plan and financial responsibility requir«*ent«. These require
cb« facility owner/eporator to epecity up tront che operating
period (cloaure tie*) and che »aria»uai no«Bt of waste In acorajee
at any tiae aod at closure. This tfafmas C«e at tent or Che
•taajporary pariah* tad •torago aceiTley. AC eloaure, the
vaace ansac M raaov»d trm all acaraae sja
All hasartfoua vaace acorai^e unica, includiat acorag* ueiiea
cc reeycliat taciltciaa, ar» regulated »y the tCIA rales anloaa
nasiptttd la -Part 261, 2*4. or 265. Icaaa associated wick
•corage unica cbac arc uaed eo craaafar haaardout vaate, a«eb
aa pipea, funaala or hoaea, ara regulated aa pare of th* acorate
unit. • —
-------
- 2 -
I understand that you recently met with staff in EPA's
Region V to discuss these definitions as well as the applic-
ability of the requirements in 40 CFR Parts 264, 265 and 270
to your facility. Since implementation of our regulations is
the responsibility of our Regional offices I urge you to continue
working with Region V. However, if you need additon^&l help
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Y.J. Kim, Region V
Lisa Pierard, Region
COssman:WH-563:5-256:382-2210:7/15/86
Disk,Os ff6/Index 26
-------
AUG 6 I9S5
Honorable Matthew J. Rinaldo
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Rinaldot
Thank you for your July 1, 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent Mr. Paul DeCosimo. Mr* DeCosimo requests an
interpretation as to whether he would be considered a co-
generator of hazardous waste as a result of recyclino solvent
at a generator's site using a mobile treatment technology.
Based on the information provided by Mr* DeCosimo, we do not
believe that he would be considered a co-generator for
regulatory purposes under most circumstances*
A Generator is defined in Section 260.10 of the hazardous
waste regulations as, '...any person* by site, whose act or
process produces hazardous wast* identified or listed in Part
261 of this chapter or whose act first causes a hazardous
waste to becone subject to regulation." Since the spent
solvent is presumably already a hazardous waste prior to Mr*
DeCosimo coning onto the generator's site, and since the
solvent is likely to have been accumulated prior to being
recycled, the hazardous spent solvent would Already have been
subject to regulation under the accumulation provisions of
Part 262 of the hazardous waste regulations. Thus, none of
the actions taken by Mr* DeCosimo would appear, in the limited
circumstances described in his letter, to cause him to become
subject to BCRA liability as a RCRA hazardous waste generator*
Mr. DeCosimo should, of course, be aware that if he
transports a hazardous waste off of the generation site, he
would be considered a hazardous waste transporter subject to
regulation* . •
If you have any further questions, please call Bob
Axelrad at (202) 382-5218.
Sincerely,
t>
j. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9432. 1986(14 J
;:s. Suzann M. Unger
Radiation Safety Officer
Merrell Dow Research Institute
9550 K. Zicnsville Road
P.O. Box 68470
Indianapolis, IN 46268 - 0<20
Dear MB. Unger:
. This is in response to your letter of August IS in which you
proposed to incinerate on-site a waste that is both a by-product
material and hazardous. .
/^
After reviewing the information presented in your letter, £PA
has concluded that the waste stream in question would be/considered
a radioactive mixed waste (see enclosed Federal Register notice,
which sets forth EPA's interpretation of this term and/RCRA'.t
jurisdiction over it)-. As the Federal Register notice discusses,'
in the' past, EPA has not made authority to regulate the hazardous
components of radioactive mixed* waste a prerequisite to a State
obtaining authorization to run the Federal RCRA program. The
notice changes this, buy requiring States to pick up this piece
of RCRA if they wish to become, or remain, authorized. Since the
currently authorized Indiana program does not include authorization
for mixed wastes, these wastes are not now subject to the RCRA
regulations in Indiana, and RCRA approval is not required for your
proposed incineration.
However, you are still subject to whatever regulations the
State of Indiana may have adopted pursuant to State law that are
applicable to the hazardous components of radioactive mixed wastes.
Therefore, I recommend that you work closely with the State of
Indiana to discuss the appropriate management of these waste streams
under Indiana law. You should contacti
Mr. David LaiBB, Assistant Commissioner
for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
~ 105 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
(317) 243-5026
Once the State receives authorization under RCRA for radioactive
mixed wastes, you will then also be subject to the RCRA regulations.
-------
It _,cu have any dr^iitior.il •.•;'J=sticr.s Alsace foci rive.1
ct -in Michael, Jltttt. i'roarir.s i.ranc.i • CJiica c: jclir
'.'ir.cer<=l> ,
•arcia ^. r.
Lirector
Office of Solid V.'aate
cc: Jii" •. .iuhael
i*-avij Laran
Lcvi-j btrinchan
7 if
-------
i f|kUf»MC« I'AL PRO f cC T- £j*
9432. 1986(15)
CEC 2 2 086
Mr. Frederick M. Sved, Jr.
RMT, Inc.
Suite 124
1406 East Washington Ave.
Madison, Wisconsin 53703-3009
•^
Dear Mr. Swed:
Thank you for your letter of November 10 requesting guidance
on application of the totally enclosed treatment exemption to the
treatment prior to disposal of baghousc dust generated in the
foundry industry. Your letter addressed a generic case in which-
an emission control baghouse system and the treatment equipment
are directly connected to a cupola furnace through a closed system
of ducts. The Agency does not believe that the totally enclosed
treatment exemption applies to the system you describe, subject
to tht conditions described below.
As you ttated, totally enclosed treatment it defined in 40 CFR
260.10 as'(1) being directly connected to an industrial production
process and (2) constructed and operated to prevent the release of
hazardous waste and any constituent thereof into the environment
during treatment. In addition, the regulatory interpretive letter
issued July 27, 1981'to Travenol Laboratories {RZL 84) further
clarified what constituted totally enclosed treatment.
In the March 25, 1986 letter from Region 5 to Grede foundries,
EPA found that the specific configuration of the Orede baghouse
did not qualify as totally enclosed because the hood collecting
emissions was not directly connected to the cupola, only to the
baghouse. Ac part of that determination, EPA stated that
a foundry cupola qualifies as an industrial production process,
but that the baghouse ic en air pollution control device ;
associated with waste treataent prior to disposal. /
/
However, our answer to Grede nay have been misleading. .
Connecting the ductwork to the.cupola only fulfills half q£ the
totally enclosed treatment requirement. The question remains
KB to whether a system that includes a baghouse qualifies as
totally enclosed treatment* Since baghouses do not remove 100%
af the hazardous constituents, treatment downstream of a ;'
E P«T"t of t t
JPY
-------
fou suggested that the baghouse is par*-, of the production
' process because the cupola cannot be operated without the baghouse.
While your system might require modification in order to operate
without the baghouse, I do not believe that the baghouse is
inherently necessary to the operation of a cupola furnace. In
fact, prior" to the development of air quality standards, cupolas
typically operated without baghouses. Baghouses limit emissions
from units subject to Clean Air Act standards. Therefore,.
the Agency still maintains that the baghouse is not part of a
production process, but it associated with waste treatment.
You asked whether adding the treatment reagents prior to the
baghouse would qualify as totally enclosed treatment. Since we
agree that the point of hazardous waste generation is typically
the bottom of the baghouse hoppers, any processing that occurs
prior to that point would not be treatment subject to RCRA - -^
requirements. '- r*
»
You are also correct in stating that even if a production
unit is open to the atmosphere, the unit downstream could still
qualify as totally enclosed. As stated in a preamble to the ,
§261.4(c) amendment, "Except for surface impoundments and non-
operating units, EPA did not intend to regulate.. .manufacturing
process units in which hazardous wastes are generated." (45 PR
72025, October 30, 1980) In your case, however, the production -
unit is the cupola, not the baghouse,vso treatment that occurs
downstream of the baghouse is not totally enclosed treatment.
In summary, although production units may not necessarily
prevent releases of constituents to the environment, units
downstream may still qualify for the totally enclosed treatment
exemption. However, while cupolas are production units, bag-
houses are not considered to be production processes. Further-
more, baghouses release hazardous waste or constituents thereof
to the environment during normal operation as a waste management
method. Therefore, dust treatment downstream of a baghouse system
directly connected to a cupola does not perform totally enclosed
treatment under the Federal program. In addition to this Federal
determination, of course, the States would have to be consulted
for State hazardous waste and air quality standards that apply to
these systems. I apologize for any inconvenience that arose from
your reading of the EPA letter to Grede Foundries.
Sincerely.
.._. Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid w&ste
cc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chief, Region V
bcc: Hazardous waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-IV, VI-x
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Irene Homer, WTB
-------
9432 .1986(161
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
13. 3DAT for Wastgwater
Best. neronstrated Available Technology (BDA.T) for solvent
includes three -waste treatability groups (spent solvent
•.«ast*»aters frcn the pharmaceutical industry and other solvent
'wastes ) . How are wastewaters defined?
EPA has established a separate treatability group for spent
solvent wastewaters. Xastewaters are defined as sol vent -*ater
aixrures containinc totai organic carbon (TOC) of one percent
or less [51 FR 4O609].
-------
9<32.1987(01
m n
HKMORXMDUM
SUBJECT: Total Enclosed Treatment and the Steal Industry
FROKi Marcia E. Williams, Director
office of Solid Waste
TOi Jamas H. Searbrough
Chief, Residuals Management
R*gion IV
I have reviewed your memorandum of February 4, 1967, regarding
our guidance to RMT, Inc.* advising that its baghouse dust treat-
ment syttra float not matt tha requirement of a totally •nclottd
treatment system. Zt is unfortunate that Region IV apparently has
reviewed a similar facility in Alabama and reached the oppoaite
conclusion. Although Z understand your reasoning in that decision,
Z cannot concur with it. Z believe this interpretation would
umneceesarily broaden tha exemption and create new problems in
the dafinition of what cons ti tut as a treatment unit.
Tha concept of a totally enclosed treatment unit in 40 CFR
1260.10 was designed to prevent the need for a permit for treatment
that occurred in pipes exiting a process unit. As a result, this
definition made clear that tha treatment units must be connected
directly to an industrial production process. By not adhering
strictly to this principle, your interpretation would broaden
the universe of exempt units beyond what waa intended for this
exemption.
As you note in your memo, the baghouse is not part of the
production process. Therefore, as stated in my December 22, 1986,
letter to RMT, the dust fixation system cannot be considered
directly connected to the process because the baghouse is open to
.the environrae-Qt. Although listed waste is not generated until the
emission control dust is collected in the baghouse hopper, this
3oes not change the fact that there is an opening between the
production unit and the fixation system. I recognize that this
-------
means that any treatment provided downstream of a baghouse cannot
be totally, .enclosed treatment. To find otherwise, however, would
require us to find that the baghouae is a process unit. Z think
this would hopelessly confuse the definition of treatment units
an€ process units and complicate enforcement by introducing how
a unit is used into the definition.
Therefore, Z believe that despite its possible environmental
advantagai, this unit should not bt •xempttd fros permitting ei *
totally enclosed treatment unit. Based on your extensive involve-
ment in the design and construction of this system, Z expect per-
mitting will not create an unreasonable barrier to the uae of the
closed fixation technology on baghouae dusts, expedited permit
review would seen appropriate.
Z also would note that treatment in 90-day accumulation
units is currently exempt from permitting. Management within 90
days could make this issue moot for the Alabama facility at this
time.
-------
9432.1987(02
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT.- Regulatory Classification of Three and
Four-Sided, Floored Structures, OSW-IB5
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director/^/
Office of Solid Waste
TO; Karl Sreaer, Acting Director
Region V Solid Waste Branch (5HS-JCK-13}
Thank you for your patience in waiting for our response to-
your memorandum of April 23, 1986, requesting guidance on*how
nine examples of three and four-sided, floored structures should
be regulated — as tanks or waste piles. Aw you noted, the
ramifications of these decisions are significant since tanks and
waste piles are subject to different regulatory standards. For
example, waste piles are subject to the land disposal restrictions
and have lost interim status unless the November 7, 1986, certifi-
cation deadlines were met.
We have been having a great deal of trouble and have spent a
great deal of time in an effort to develop a methodology that could
be used to identify these various odd-shaped units. We believe
that such an approach is necessary to ensure that similar units
located throughout the country can be classified on a consistent
basis by Regional and State permitting authorities. Unfortunately,
there is a great deal of overlap with respect to the definitions
of "tank" aad "pile* found at 40 CFR 260.10. nil* overlap can
create a problem when it is necessary to identify certain specific
units suaw a* those described in the attachment to your memo. We
conclude* that th* only viable long-term solution is a regulatory
"fix" tha£-»Ul be described in detail below.
For the short term, on the advice of our Office of General
Counsel and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, we would
advise that-individual units be identified identically to the
applicant's Part A designation unless the unit clearly cannot be
-------
a specific type of unit (e.g., flowing liquid! cannot be managed
in pile*; primarily earthen unit* cannot be tank*). If permitting
or closure requirement* are deemed inadequate, we would use the
corrective action (assuming there is a permitted unit, at the
facility)-and omnibus authorities to impose additional require-
ments, as necessary, to protect human health and the environment.
The advantage of this approach is that it provides the most
legally defensible petition in view o£ the ambiguities of the
various regulatory definitions. The disadvantages include our
inability to use omnibus authorities for 90-day accumulation and
wastewater treatment tank* that do not require RCRA permits, and
our inability to apply corrective action requirements to these
same units at facilities with no other permitted units.
As explained above, our long-term strategy for dealing with
these units would be to make regulatory changes a* n*eded. In
that regard, w« are considering a regulatory fix that we would
pursue as erpeditiousiy ac possible. This approach involves
reviewing the various definitions found in 40 CFR 260.10 including
those for (e) tanks, (b) piles, and (c) surface impoundment», and
miscellaneous unit* under Subpart x. While various definition*.
tend to overlap (for example, both tank* and piles can accept solid,
non-flowing waste), we are able to make certain distinction*, for
example, the definition of tank states that tank* contain materials;
the definition of a pile state* tfcet & pile IK a ponconfefcineri«ed
accumulation of solid, non-floving hazardous vast*.
Therefore, our approach to classifying these units would be
to focu* on the terms "contain" and "noneontainerised." The
methodology that we have developed to classify these units is to
first review the regulatory definitions. In general, this enables
one to distinguish tanks and piles from surface impoundment* and
Subpart Q or Subpart X units. However, ther* is considerable
overlap in the definition of tank and pile. Where either defini-
tion might apply, we would ask the question — Zs containerixation
a function of the structure or is it a function of fthc wast*
itself? Zf the wast* is contained within th« unit by virtu* of
the fact that it is a cohesive solid, the unit is a pile. Zf the
unit would contain any wasta, including a free—flowing liquid, it
is a tank.
Wa Momld describe this approach in a Federal Register notice
and, in tfe*> same notiea, would propose to ansnd the regulatory
dsfinltioaa-of pil* and tank, as required, so that this methodology
could be employed nationally. For your information, we are pro-
viding an attachment that classifies each of ths ain* units based
on our us* of the proposed methodology*
-------
We welcome your input in critiquing our long-term strategy.
Additionally, if you would like to discuss this matter in more •
detail, please have your staff contact either Bob Del linger, Dob
April, or Bill Kline of ny staff at (202) 382-7917.
Attachment
cc; Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Region* I-IV, VI-X
Lloyd Guerci, RCRA Enforcement
Matt Hale, Permits Branch
Robert Tonetti, Land Disposal Branch
Mark Greenwood, Office of General Counsel
-------
ATTACHMENT J
Proposed Long-Term Approach Applied
to Nine Specific Units
Unit 1 is a four-sided structure u»ed to store dry waste on
a. floor that slopes towards the part of the building that has
three doors designed to admit front-end loaders and dump trucks.
The building floor is not designed to contain the waste (that is,
if th« material being stored in the structure were a liquid, it-
could escape). Although the company hat designated the unit as a
90-day storage tank, our methodology would classify this unit as
a waste pile with some wind dispersion control.
Unit 2 is a four-sided structure with window* and a 20-foot
opening partially closed with a 3-foot removable steel barrier.
This unit wac originally identified on Part A of the permit
application as a storage waste pile, and Region V correctly
denied a subsequent request to redesignate the unit ac a tank.
Applying our methodology, we would classify this unit ac a waste
pile. If the waste war* a liquid, it could escape; thus, only
the characteristic* of the waste allow it to be contained.
The structure is not designed to contain waste.
According to a consent order between the State and the
company, Unit 3, when built, will either treat reactive waste
in gondolas or in free form on the floor by adding water to the
unit. If the unit treat* reactive waste in gondolas, the unit
serves as a $264.175 containment system for containers and should
be subject to the Subpart I container regulation. If the wastes
are treated in free form on the floor, the unit cannot be a waste
pile since the unit will be flooded with water, with the water
contained during waste treatment. Therefore, the unit is a tank
when waste is managed on the floor in such a manner that all the
waste is kept within the unit. However, if the waste is mounded
higher than the retaining sides or highest level of the floor,
then the unit would bet subject to the Subpert X regulation, pro-
posed on November 7, 1986 (51 PR 40726). Specifically. Applying
our methodology. Unit 3 could be operated, at times, as a contair
area, a tank, or ft miscellaneous unit. While operating as a
particular «j»s of unit, the specific unit standards would apply;
thus the pmfi&t would contain standards for each operating mode
for which tsii unit would be used. To do this, the most stringent
design and.flamrafci&f standards that would apply in each of these
situations would be incorporated into the permit. For example*
this unit would eventually have to be closed under the most
stringent closure requirements applicable to any of its operviinc
modes. Should—the permittee maintain that the unit is always
operated as a tank, it could be permitted as such. In a case
where the height of the waste was found to exceed the height of
-------
the walls, the Region would have a choice of enforcement actions.
The Region would either enforce against an improperly operated
tank (no freeboard) or a false permit application.
Unit 4 was initially a four-walled concrete tank that flooded
a reactive -waste with water to render the waste nonreactive.
However, one wall has been removed, and the fourth side is now
oeraed with sand while the unit is inundated with water to render
a reactive waste nonreact.ive. After treatment, the berm is
broken, and the liquid flows into a drain in a concrete slab also
bertned with sand. Since the sand bern is not stationary when
emptying the unit, the unit is not a tank. Although the waste
is nonflowing when covered with water, the unit is not a pile
Jdcauae piles are not designed to contain liquids. Therefore,
using our approach, we would classify the unit as an interim
status Subpart Q unit, which will eventually be permitted under
the Subpart X standards.
Unit 5 is designed to solidify sludges that contain free
liquids. From the limited amount of information available about
the unbuilt unit, the unit would have a roof, 3 walls, a sloping
floor, and a leak detection system. Applying our methodology,
this unit would be classified as a tank or a pils depending on
its operating node. If waetea are always kept lower than tt»«
floor and wall height, the unit would be a tank. However, if the
waste is managed in such a manner that the wastes pile up above
the floor and wall height, the unit would be a pile. The contain-
ment that is provided in the latter case would partially be a
function of the tfaste being managed, not solely of the design of
the structure.
Unit 6 mixes noncontainericed wastewater treatment sludges
with lime when the sludge contains free liquids. The floor of
the unit slopes towards catch basins which collect the liquids
that separate from the piles. Applying bur methodology. Unit 6
would be a waste pile. The unit is managed so that waste exceeds
the height of the retaining walls. If this waste were a liquid,
it could escape the unit. Therefore, we would argue that the
structure is not designed to contain waste; the properties of the
material allov it to be contained in this unit.
In Unit 7, hazardous waste sludges and nonhaxardous wastes
would be mixed with sand and coal ash to eliminate free liquids.
The arooosfd unit has a run-off control drainage system that is
designed to-collect liquids draining into floor drains from the
waste pile. This design has a 12-inch reinforced floor over a
6-mil polyethylene sheet, a leak detection system, and a 10-inch
reinforced concrete slab underneath. Under our proposed approach,
this unit would be a waste-pile. Liquids are controlled by drains,
not contained. As with Units 1, 2, and 6, the structure is not
-------
designed to contain the waste, in that slope of the floor is not
sufficient to qualify as the fourth side of a four-sided tank.
Unit 8", which is to be closed, contains EP toxic metal dust
that has been premixed in a cement, truck with another waste to
control fugutive dusts. A front-end loader mixes in foundry sand
(which contains clays) to render the waste nonhazardous. The
unit is concrete, below grade, and has three concrete walls with
metal wall extensions that rise eight feet above the sloping floor.
Applying our methodology, this unit could either be a tank or a
pile depending on how wastee are managed. If waste ic never
piled up higher than the highest floor level, it would be a tank.
However, if waste is piled higher than the level of the concrete
wall, it would be a pile.
Unit 9 managed listed and characteristic waste in solid, semi-
solid, aiid liquid form in a below grade, three-walled structure
with a sloped concrete floor and a pump-out sump at the bottom.
According to the dimensions of the unit, utilizing the narimum
capacity of the unit would fill the unit over to the top of the
sloping floor. Therefore, under our proposed methodology, it
would not be a tank. Although the unit handled liquid waste, ths>
unit would be closed as a waste pile if the waste was kept solid
and nonflowing. Otherwise, the unit would need to close ac a
niseellaneous unit.
In summary, applying our methodology, Units 1, 2, 6, and 7
appear to be waste piles? Unit 4 is a Subpart Q treatment unit.
Depending on the aode of operation. Unit 3 would cither be a con-
tainment system for containers, a Subpart X miscelleneous unit,
or a tank. Units 5 and 6 would be either tanks or piles, depending
on how wastes are managed, and Unit 9 would either be a waste
pile or a miscellaneous unit.
-------
9432.1987(03
Mr. Anthony SatSOB
Technical Assistance and
Engineering Section
Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43266-1049
Dear Mr. Bassoni
Your letter of January 7* 1987, requested an opinion from
this office on the regulatory status of evaporators used to r
water from hazardous wastes. First* you asked whether evapora- •
tion would be considered treatment, as dsfined in 40 CFR 260.10.
Second, you asked whether, if evaporation is considered to be
treatment, an evaporator would be eligible for an exclusion from
permitting under the gsnerator 90-day accumulation exclusion or
the totally enclosed treatment exclusion.
You are specifically concerned about the "Uordale Fluid
Eliminator," a device that in one circumstance would be used to
remove water from aqueous wasts that is hazardous because of
its metal content. We consider that this unit is a treatment
unit because it meets the definition of •treatment" contained
in 40 CFR §260.lOr i.e., it reduces the volume of the waste.
Additionally, for the reasons described below* the Hordale
units do not appear to meet the criteria established for totally
enclosed treatment*
kb
• A totally enclosed treatment facility is defined in
40 CFR $260.10 as a facility that is "...directly connected to
an industrial production process and...which is constructed and
operated in a manner which prevents the release of any hazardous
waste or any constituent thereof into the environment during
treatment•" As operated, the tfordale unit discharges vapor
directly into the environment. Since neither the definition
contained in-40 CFR 1260.10 nor the preamble (45 ££.33216)
distinguishes between hazardous and nonhazardous constituents
in the hazardous waste* a totally enclosed treatment system can
not release any constituents into the environment. Although the
W4\eJtW^yW\A V** e»Ci7etlvW^tm>*H
_~*J ^ ^iL. I I « t.m *
eo i an o - «UJDI
-------
evaporation could release volatile organic* as well as water
vapor into tha environment. Therefore, we believe the Nord&le
units do not meet the criteria of totally enclosed treatment.
With regard to the 90-day accumulation exclusion, generators
who accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or lee* in a
tank do not need a permit if they meet the requirements of 40 CFR
$262.34. This policy is stated in the prsamhls to tha ssall
quantity generator regulations that were promulgated on nay 24,
1986, (51 FR 10168). The 'Hordale Fluid Eliminator* meeta the
definition of a thermal treatment unit in that it is a device/
that "uses elevated temperature* a* the primary mean* to change)
tha chemical, physical, or biological character of the hazardous
waste* (see 40 CFR $260.10). However, our review of the manufac-
turer'* literature leads ua to the conclusion that thi* specific
evaporative unit alao meets the definition of "tank* as that
term is used in 40 CFR $262.34. Therefore, generator* could
remove water from hasardou* waate* using the Hordale units
without obtaining a RCRA permit provided they comply with the
provisions of 40 CfR $262.34.
I want to make you aware of the fact that the Agency is
currently developing regulations that would apply to air emissions
from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The first
phase of thi* ruleaaking effort was published in proposed form on
February 5, 1987, (see enclosed 52 PR 3748). Additionally, we are
considering aodifying the 90-day accumulation standards as dis-
cussed in aa advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared
in tha Federal Register on July 14, 198J. (see enclosed SI PR
25487). Thus, in the future, we would regulate air emissions
from evaporative equipment if we were to determine that emissions
from these units posed an unacceptable risk to human health and
the environment. * »
If you would like to discuss this matter in more d*tail,\
please contact Robert Dellinger, Chief of tha Maats Treatment .
Branch, at (202) 382-7917.
Sincerely,
Marcia 1. Millii
Director
Office of Solid «e*te
Matt
-------
9432.19S"1 (-0 = )
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU>
JUNE 87
5. >tobile Wastewater Treatment. Units
Wastewater treatment units, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, are excluded
. fron the peiriitiinc requirements per §270.l(c) (2)(v). In order for a
unit to neet the "wastewater treatment" exclusion, it .Tust meet the
three criteria set in §260.10.
(1) It -ust be part of a wastewater treatment facility that is
subject to §402 or §307(b) of the Clean Water Act;
(2) It must receive and treat or store a wastewater or wastewater
treatrient sludge that is a hazardous waste, or generate and
accumulate a hazardous wastewater treatment sludge, and
(3) It must be a tank as defined in §260.10.
Wastswater treatment units, by definition, must be tanks. A tank is
defined in §260.10 as "a statutory device, designed to contain an
accisnuiation of hazardous waste which is constructed primarily of
non-earthen materials... which provide structural support."
A potential application of mobile treatment unit technology is for a
mobile treat-ient. unit to be used for 'wastewater treatment (e.g.,
dewatering sludges). Is it possible for a mobile treatment unit to
be a tank as defined in §260.10?
Yes. A mobile treatment unit could be a tank as defined in §260.10.
Although §260.10 defines a tank as "a stationary device", EPA has
determined that a mobile tank could be a "tank" provided that it
is intended to be stationary -when in operation and that it meets
the definition of a tank in all other respects (See 52 FR 20919).
In additon, EPA proposed regulations in the June 3, 1987 Federal
Register (52 FJR 20914} for permitting of mobile treatment units
(WIUs) that are subject to RCRA. According to the proposed rale,
MTU woulcTbbtain a state-wide technical permit and a site specific
permit that would allow it to operate. EPA is also requesting
cements on the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council's suggestion
to exclude certain "low risk" treatment units, such as evaporation
or dewatering units, from the permitting process.
Source: Robin Anderson (202) 382-4498
Research: Jennifer B. Planer-.
Ctl
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOf 9432.19:7(06)
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
O'
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Marc R. Wolman, P.E.
EnerGroup, Inc.
The Thomas Block
116 Commercial Street
.Portland, Maine 04101
Dear Mr. Wolman:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 19, 1987,
in which you request an opinion on the regulatory status of a
hypothetical waste treataent facility. Since the premises you--
provided in your example stipulate that the facility neither
receives nor generates hazardous waste, none of the RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste rules would apply (i.e., the hazardous
waste rules only apply to the management of "hazardous waste").
However, if the facility was subject to the hazardous waste
rules, incineration would not be considered "totally enclosed
treatment* because some emissions would inevitably be released to
the environment. (In your example, the incineration is of
nonhazardous waste, so the point is moot.) You should also note
that EPA does have RCRA Subtitle D guidelines for solid waste
incinerators at 40 CFR Part 240; these guidelines are implemented
through State regulations.
If you have any further questions in this area, please call
Mike Petruska at (202) 475-6676.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. William*
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A&ENCY
9432.1987(07;
Jtt f?,
Major Jesse Cabellon
U.S. Army Material Command
Sooi Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333-0001
Dear Major Cabeilon:
This letter is in response to your request to Sonya Stelmack
concerning confirmation of the Environmental Protection Agency's..
(£PA's) policy on deactivation (popping) furnaces. As we have
stated verbally and in past correspondence (copies enclosed) to
the Department of Defense and Region VIZ, EPA classifies popping
furnace* &• incinerators.
Uadtr 40 CFR 200.10, 'incinerator* is defined as "any enclosed
device using controlled flame combustion that neither meets the
criteria for classification as a boiler nor is listed as an
industrial furnace." Popping furnaces meat the definition of
incinerator because the process that occurs in the eneloaea unit
is controlled flame combustion. The reaction which occurs is
initiated by controlled flame heating and the resulting detonation
products are combusted.
Existing units are thus subject to the 1989 statutory deadline
for permitting of incinerators. Section 3005(c)(2)(C) of ESWA
state* that interim status mhall terminate on November 19, 1989,
for incinerators which nave not been permitted, and for which a
permit application was not submitted by November 19, 1966.
According to information provided by your office, there are two
popping furnaces (Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Missouri
and HeAlester Army Ammunition Plant in Oklahoma) for which Part
B applications have not been submitted, and which plan to burn
only munitions classified as non-hazardous. These facilities
should be in touch with, their permitting authorities regarding
closure requirements associated with the cassation of hazardous
waste burning. '
-------
T'-.T. ..oncv .--'-ained its reasoning in the definition of
solid we r;;i:- •? i.ng- In the preamble to the April 4, 1983
proposed aaendinei.es to the recycling provisions at 48 PR 1448 we
stated: "Second, we wish to clarify that Materials being burned
in incinerators or other thermal treatment devices, other than
boilers and industrial furnaces, are considered to be abandoned
by being burned or incinerated under §261.2(a)(1)(ii), whether or
not energy or material recovery also occurs... In our view, any
such burning (other than in boilers and industrial furnaces) is
waste destruction subject to regulation under either Subpart o of
Part 264 or Subpart 0 and P of Part 265." In the preamble to the
January 4, 1985 final rule at 50 FR 625, we reiterated that
incinerators are built to destroy hazardous wastes, and so are
normally used for this purpose.
Therefore, the unit at the Drew Metalex facility is subject
to RCRA regulation as an incinerator, which is defined at §260.10
as "any enclosed device using controlled flame combustion that
neither meets the criteria for classification as a boiler nor is
listed as an industrial furnace." The Drew Metalex Corporation
does have the option of petitioning to have their unit listed as
an industrial furnace under §260.10. That rule establishes out
criteria under which thermal combustion devices classified as
incinerators could be reclassified after agency ruleaaking.
If you have any questions, on this matter, please contact me"
at FTS 382-4500. •
cc: Bruce Weddle
Susan Bromm
Suzanne RudzinsKi
Matt Straus
Bob Holloway
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Incinerator Permit Writer's Workgroup
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT .7* AGENCY
9432.1967(06)
AJJ6 3
;;r. 'Jic CIsen, iiales .".anager
Fenton Conpany, Inc.
16J8 N. BecXley
Lancaster, Texas 75134
Dear Mr. Olaen:
Thank you for your letter of Jun« 30, 1987, in which
you requested information on the regulatory status of sludge
dehydration equipment which in part of a wastewater treatment
facility.
Your understanding of the requirements contained in
40 CFR 270.1(c)(2)(v) is correct. Sludge dehydration equipment .
that it part of a wastewater treatment system is excluded from
the need to obtain a RCRA permit provided the equipment meets
the definition of wastewater treatment unit as defined in
40 CFR 260.10, and actually is used to evaporate water from
the sludge.
It is iaportant to note that the exclusion provided by
$270.l(c)(2)(v) does not apply to conventional incinerators.
Such devices are subject to Subpart 0 of Parts 264 or 265 even
when part of a wastewater system.
I Bust caution you that various States hate requirements
that are different fro* the Federal standards. Under their own
authorities, States can establish requirements that are *ore
stringent than the Federal requirements. Zn this instance, the
owner or operator is required to comply with the more restrictive
requirements. Thus* Z encourage you to contact an appropriate
State official to determine what the requirements will be for a
specific unit.
-------
If you have any further questions regarding the Federal
requirements, please contact Mary Cunningham of ay staff at
(202) 3B2-7935.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. willians
Director
Office of Solid waste
CCT Mary Cunningham
Steven Silveraan, Esq.
bcc: R. Holloway
B. Weddle
S. Rudzinsfci
R. Dellinger
h. Hale
G. Garland
D. Per la
-------
August 19, 1987 9432.1987(09)
Mr. R.J. Bar-nhart, Ph.D.
Technical Manager
American and Chemicals, Inc.
Buddy Lawrence Drive
P.O. Box 4912
Corpus Christi, CA 73469
Dear Mr. Barnhart:
This letter is in response to your July 12, 1987 inquiry
regarding the status of the K006 wastes and the on-site disposal
unit containing these wastes at your Corpus Christi facility. As
mentioned in your letter, these wastes received a temporary
exclusion on Kay 25, 1982. Based on our evaluation of the
information submitted in support of your petition, however, the
temporary exclusion for this waste was revoked and a final
exclusion denied on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 41320-41321) with an
effective date of May 14, 1987.
The State of Texas has been authorized by EPA to administer
and enforce a hazardous waste management program pursuant to
Section 3006 of WCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6926. In light of the State's
authority, the future status of this disposal unit should be
determined by the Texas Water Commission. This will ensure that
the use of the unit will be commensurate with ongoing and planned
waste management requirements at the facility. In a similar
manner, if this unit is to close in the future, all closure
requirements should be determined by the Commission.
I hope this explanation has addressed all of your concerns
regarding the status of your petitioned wastes and the on-site
disposal wait in which they are contained. Should you have any
further questions concerning the Federal regulatory compliance
for the petitioned waste, please feel free to contact Suzanne
Rudzinski of the Office of Solid Waste at (202)382-4206.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Allyn Davis, Region VI Div. Dir.
Lee Haze, Region VT Delisting Contact
Sam Becker, Region VI RCRA Enforcement Contact
Randy Brown, Region VI RCRA Branch Chief
Bill Honker, Region VI Permits Section
This document has been retyped from the original,
-------
UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTk ACI
9432.1957(10)
AJ6 28 1987
Mr. Marc P. Wolman, P.£.
ENER GPOUP, Inc.
The Thomas Block
116 Coraercial St.
Portland, Maine 04101
Dear Mr. Wolman:
This letter it in response to your letter dated July 9, 1987
sent to Mike Petruska, Office of Solid Waste. Your questions
concern the applicability of the totally enclosed treatment
exemption for your ash treatment facility and the applicability -.
of other RCRA regulations for your facility. Your letter addresses
a hypothetical waste treatment facility that includes incineration
for purpose of energy recovery. The ash frov the incinerator is
nixed with a non-hacardous reagent, which you state substantially
reduces aetal leachability and EP toxicity levels. You also
state that the reagent addition vessel and mixing apparatus
prevent releases jDf any hteardoui aaterial into the environment.
The Agency does not believe that the totally enclosed treatment
exception applies to the system you describe, for the reasons
explained below.
The definition of a totally enclosed treatment is defined in
40 CFB 260.10 as (1) being directly connected to an industrial
production process and (2) constructed and operated in a manner
which prevents the release of any hazardous waste or any constituent
thereof into the environnent during treatment. For your information,
I have enclosed the. regulatory clarification of a totally enclosed
treatment facility issued by EPA in 1981.
In your hypothetical waste treatment process, you state that
the incinerator is considered an industrial process. The Acency
disagrees with your interpretation and instead, considers the
incinerator as a waste trectrent process. Therefore, the ash
tre.itr.ent cannot, qualify as a totally enclosed treatment facility
htcauBC (1) it is not connected to an industrial process end (?)
the incinerator stack IE optr. tc the air which would inevitably
rcleat-c SCTP ttarrai'."c>us ccT.Etit.uter.t-E tc the; envii cnr-ent.
-------
Ac you have requested, the other applicable RCRA regulation
that would apply to your facility is the -snail quantity generators
rule (40 CFR 261.5). This rule allows generators of 100-1000
fcg/»onth to accumulate waste on-site in'tankf or container*
for up to ISO days (or 270 day* If they rust ship their waste over
200 Biles for treatment or disposal). Generators of sore than
1000 Xg/nonth only are allowed to accumulate waste in tanks or
containers for up to 90 days. In either case, the generator
would be exempt fros> the permitting process for treetnent that
occurs in the accumulation tank (see 51 FF 10146).
In sunnary, your hypothetical treatnent facility would not
••et the totally enclosed treatment facility exemption because the
incinerator is not considered an industrial process. Therefore,
the ash systtn is not connected to an industrial process but
connected to a waste treatnent process that produces a hazardous
material as a residual. However, soae flexibility with respect
to pernitting your treatment system «ay erist if it can be described
as treatcs-nt in an accumulation tank as described in the preamble to
the snail quantity generators rule. If you should have any
questions or clarification, please contact Monica Chatnon of sry
staff at (202) 475-7236.
Sincerely,
Janes Berlow, Chief
Treatment Technology Section
ccs Robert Dellinger
Robert April
Michael Petruska
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLIKE MONTHLY SUM 9432 ,19o , U.L)
SEPTEMBER 87
4. Treatment of Infectious Waste
There is growing national concern over proper infectious
waste management. What are some of the treatment
methods currently used for infectious wastes?
Although RCRA section 1004 includes wastes with
infectious characteristics in the definition of
hazardous waste, there are presently no Federal
regulations for management of infectious waste
under RCRA Subtitle C. Instead, regulation of
infectious waste has been left up to the States'
discretion. EPA has, however, issued a guidance
manual entitled EPA Guidance for Infectious Waste
Management (May 1986), available through NTIS
(publication number PB-86-199130) which describes
numerous methods for effective treatment of
infectious waste. Many treatment methods employ
some form of heat or chemical sterilization.
Steam sterilization uses steam at a temperature
high enough to kill infectious agents in
combination with pressurization in a vessel such as
a steam sterilizer, autoclave, or retort. Steam
sterilization is an effective treatment method for
low-density wastes such as plastics. A method that
can be used for most types of infectious waste is
incineration. Incineration converts combustible
wastes into a noncombustible ash while combustion
gases are vented to the atmosphere. A third type
of heat-related treatment is thermal inactivation.
For liquid wastes, thermal inactivation heats the
waste at a set temperature for a designated period
of time. Solids may be chemically inactivated by
heating them in an oven, typically at 320 degrees
to 380 degrees Fahrenheit for two to four hours.
Chemical treatment methods include gas .vapor
sterilization and chemical disinfection. In
gas/vapor sterilization, the infectious waste is
fumigated with a gaseous or vaporized chemical such
a* ethylene oxide or formaldehyde. Chemical
disinfection (the name is self-explanatory) is
effective for. liquid wastes but may also be used
for solid wastes.
A technology that may be used in the future is
sterilization by irradiation. Ionizing radiation
has already been used to sterilize other materials
such as food and medical supplies.
Source: Jacqui Sales (202)475-8933
Research: Jennifer B. Planert
-------
UNITED STATEi ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC 1987{12)
Mr. Richard A. Unlar
International Chemical Workers Union
1655 west Market Street
AJcron, OH 44313
Dear Mr. Uhlar,
Thank you for your letter of September 17 regarding the
definitions of "owner" and "operator" under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Recovery Act . .
(CERCLA). You have asked whether your members can share in any
liability for RCRA or CERCLA violations that occur at a plant. •
Although RCRA does not contain a statutory definition of
"owner" or "operator," the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Section
260.10 state the following:
"operator" means the person responsible for the
overall operation of the facility.
"owner" means the person who owns a facility or part
of a facility.
Section 101(20)(A) of CERCLA provides:
"[0]wner or operator" means ... in the case of an
onshore facility or offshore facility, any person
owning or operating such facility .... Such term
does not include a person, who, without participating
in the management of a facility, holds indicia of
ownership primarily to protect his security interest
in the . . . facility.
It is* clear that one must hold an ownership interest in a
facility in order to fall within the definition of "owner"
under either RCRA or CERCLA. With regard to the definition of
"operator, •--the courts have consistently held under either
statute that this term requires some degree of participation in
the management of the facility or authority to make decisions
regarding the handlina or fliRrxvsal of hazardous substances.
-------
- 2 -
Therefore-,-• non-management workers of a plant would typically
not fall under the definition of an "owner" or an "operator"
unfier either statute.
You should be aware, however, that the civil enforcement
provisions of RCRA Section 3008(a), which is the basic permit
enforcement authority, extend to all persons. Nonetheless, to
date, there have been no civil enforcement actions taken under
RCRA (or CERCLA) against employees below the level of corporate
officer or manager. Of course, individual employees may be
criminally prosecuted for knowing violations of RCRA under
section 3008(d) and (e).
Finally, depending on applicable state lav, an employer may
also "pass through" civil liability to employees by including
indemnification provisions in employment contracts. In such a
case, the employer's right to indemnification or contribution
would not be governed by RCRA or CERCLA.
I trust this information is responsive to your inquiry. If
you have additional questions, feel free to contact Anna Thode
in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring at
(202-475-8212) or Frank McAlister in the Office of Solid Waste
at (202-382-2223).
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9432.1987(12a;
NOV
B87
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Office of Solid Waste Activities for Persistent Marine
Debris
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director \,}
Office of Solid Waste pj
TO: Cynthia Dougherty, Deputy Director
Office of Marine Estuarine Protection (WH-556F) •-:
The Office of Solid Waste.has no activities or programs
that relate directly or indirectly to persistent marine debris.
However, we would like to stay abreast of any activities that
may be pursued with respect to such material because of the
impact or interrelationship with our ongoing program for
effective management of solid waste. Please add Michael Flynn
(WH-565) as your contact point for this office; he may be
reached at 382-4489.
Under the definitions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)—and the regulations developed in response
to it—the term "disposal" includes deposition of solid waste
into or on any land or water. Thus, debris deposited on or into
rivers or continental waters of the United States is subject to
control under RCRA. To date we have taken regulatory action
only on those wastes that we have defined as hazardous; some
guidance-type regulations have been issued for non-hazardous
wastes. Ne are developing additional control approaches for
non-hazardous waste and welcome any information or options you
may offer. As part of that developing program for non-hazardous
waste we did conduct a study of the municipal waste stream. A
copy of the report is attached.
Please let Mike know if you need anything else. He look
forward to participation in your program.
Attachment
cc: Jeffrey Denit, OSW
-------
9432.1967(13)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .
WASHINGTON, O.C. 204*0
NOV 10 :9£7
O'FICE OF
•OLIO WACTE AND EMEMOENCr
Elihu I. Leifer, Esq.
Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & counts
1125 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 801
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Leifer:
Thank you for your letter of October 19, 1987, in which you
requested guidance and a clarification of our position regarding
the regulatory status of the spent pickle liquor to be generated
at the USS/POSCO facility at their plant in Pittsburg,
California. Since we have been involved, the Agency has
reviewed information provided by both the Contra Costa Building
and Construction Trades Council and USS/POSCO. This information
was provided to assist us in reaching a decision as to whether
the spent pickle liquor at the POSCO facility was considered a
hazardous waste and subject to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste rules. We regret that we
could not provide an answer before the Council's October 20
meeting.
While we appreciate and understand your desire to resolve
this matter as soon as possible, the Court of Appeals decision
in American Mining Congress v. EPA. 824 F.2d 1177 (D.C. Cir.
1987), has complicated our decision. In particular, the court
held that EPA's authority over hazardous waste recycling
activities is limited to those activities that, in some sense,
involve discard. In addition, the court indicated that EPA has
no authority under Subtitle C of RCRA regarding those activities
involving the recycling of hazardous secondary materials that
are recycled in on-going, manufacturing-type processes. The
activity to be conducted at the USS/POSCO facility in Pittsburg,
California, may involve such type of recycling. The Agency
intends to deal with questions regarding the scope of the
court's opinion by issuing Federal Recister notices interpreting
the opinion and clarifying which portions of the existing rules
must be amended. Because these issues affect the entire
regulated community, and not just individual facilities, we
believe that use of rulemaking procedures is a fairer and more
appropriate way of proceeding. As we have indicated previously,
we expect to publish these notices within the next one to three
months. However, we will provide an update in three to four
weeks .
-------
In the meantime, we have reviewed the available information
to determine whether the spent pickle liquor generated at the
USS/POSCO facility is abandoned by being incinerated. We
believe the spent pickle liquor is being processed in an
industrial furnace to produce the usable products hydrogen
chloride and ferrous oxide. Therefore, the spent pickle liquor
is not being incinerated. We consider the reclamation furnace
to be an industrial furnace under the expansive definition of
•smelting, melting, and refining* furnaces designated as
industrial furnaces under 40 CFR 260.10. Specifically, we
believe the furnace is an integral component of the finishing
process. He also believe that the finishing process is an
extension of the smelting, melting, and refining process because
it processes on-site intermediary products produced by those
operations. The pickle liquor recovery unit is an integral
component of the finishing operation because the feedstock,
pickle liquor, is generated on-site by the finishing process,
and one or more products produced by the recovery unit are
reintroduced into the smelting, melting, or refining (or
finishing) processes.
We believe that an expansive definition of smelting,
melting, and refining furnaces is justified. The recovery unit
clearly meets the criteria for designation as an industrial
furnace. It produces usable products — hydrogen chloride and
ferrous oxide.* Ihe unit is not used to destroy a waste by
incinerating organic compounds. In addition, in 1985, when EPA
changed the definition of an incinerator from a test based on
the primary purpose of the combustion device (i.e., use for
destruction of wastes) to a test based on the physical
characteristics of the device (i.e., enclosed device using
controlled flame combustion but not meeting the definition of a
boiler or industrial furnace), the Agency stated that "this
change is essentially a clarification of the existing rules
which should nave little effect on the number or identity of
units already subject to [regulation as incinerators]*. (See 50
EE 617 (January 4, 1985).) Given that the primary purpose of
the recovery wit is not to destroy waste but, rather, to
produce products, the Agency did not intend to regulate the unit
as an incinerator. This unit is not used to destroy abandoned
materials, but rather to recover usable products.
-------
In closing, I want to assure you that we are closely
examining the issue at USS/POSCO and will do our best to get an
answer to you as soon as possible on EPA's authority to regulate
the spent pickle liquor.
Sincerely, •
J. whteton Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9432.1936(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT _______________ «
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPON:
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory interpretat^
FRCM: Marcia E. Williams,
Office of Solid
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Chief' (SHS-13)
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
As requested by Chevron Chemical Company, a meeting was held on October 23,
1987 with Chevron representatives and members of my staff to discuss the possi-
bilities for reversing an earlier interpretation made by the Agency that a still
bottom waste generated at their polystyrene production facility in Marietta,
Ohio, is a POOS hazardous waste. (See attached memo EPA/OSW to EPA Region V,
September 1, 1987).
During the meeting, the Chevron attendee* agreed to forward our office
additional information that would support their opinion that their waste is a
process waste contaminated with toluene (4%) and does not meet the definition
of a spent solvent (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F005).
After careful review of the information that has since been forwarded,
our Office agrees the waste is not the F005 hflrarrimis waste as was interpreted
earlier. Chevron uses toluene as both a solvent (i.e., to solubilize small
quantities of additives) and a feedstock (i.e., a chain transfer agent) in
their process. The primary purpose of the toluene, however, is to control the
rate of reaction as a chain transfer agent. During the reaction, polymer chain
growth proceeds until it is stopped by some event such as an encounter between
two "growing" ends of a chain resulting in mutual termination or utilization of
a readily removable group from another molecule (chain transfer agent). Every
toluene molecule utilized in thi« chain transfer activity then becomes a "seed"
and an inherent part for the growth of a new polymer chain, and, as a result, is
partially consumed. The excess toluene is recovered for reuse in the process.
Chevron claim that years of research indicate that toluene is used in lieu of
other chemical agents because it is the ideal chain transfer agent for their
process and is safer to use.
-------
A similar issue was reviewed by the Agency several years ago. In that
case, toluene, nethanol, and tfr-cresol (cannon solvents) were used as reactants
in the production of pesticide products. The quantities of these materials fed
into the process were of such excess, that large amounts of the chemicals did
not react 'and had to be removed from the process as waste. The Agency concluded
that these wastes were not the listed spent solvent wastes because toluene,
raethanol, and B-cresol were used as chemical reactants in the production process.
(See attached letter EPA/OSW to R. Scott, Mobay Chemical Corp., May 24, 1985).
Based on the similarities of the use of toluene in Chevron's process and
the process cited above, in addition to the additional information received
from Chevron; our Office has determined that the recovered toluene is not an
F005 hazardous spent solvent waste. Therefore, the still bottoms that are
generated from this process are also not an F005 waste.
Please advise Chevron of our interpretation and make them aware that as
the generator of this waste, they are responsible for determining whether the
still bottoms exhibit any RCRA hazardous characteristics (e.g., corrosivity,
toxicity, reactivity, or ignitability - see 40 CFR 261.21-24). Also, you
should investigate whether this waste is regulated by the state, which may
have more stringent regulations. Finally, careful handling of the still
bottom waste is advised because of Superfund liability that exists for wastes
containing CERCLA hazardous constituents.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if you wish to discuss
the matter further, please contact Ed Abrams, FIS 382-4787, of my staff.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY "-"•1965(02)
FEBRUARY 88
Identification Nuinbera
Corporation A owns & large site. Corporation B, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Corporation A, is a permitted treatment
facility on the site. Corporation B has an identification
number associated with this site activity. Corporation C,
another wholly owned subsidiary of Corporation A, is also
located on this site and will be generating hazardous waste.
Should Corporation C use the identification number which is
associated with the Bite, although a different Corporation,
or is Corporation C required to obtain its own identification
number?
Section 262.12 requires a generator to have an EPA
identification number before treating, storing,
disposing of, transporting, or offering for
transportation, hazardous waste. The definition of
generator, in Section 260.10 is keyed to both person and
site: "any person by site whose act or process produces
hazardous waste...". The definition of person in
Section 260.10 is "an individual, trust, firm, joint
stock company. Federal agency, corporation (including a
government corporation), partnership, association,
State, municipality, commission, political subdivision
of a State, or any interstate body." The definition of
individual generation site in 40 CFR Section 260.10 is
"the contiguous site at or on which one or more
hazardous wastes are generated." An individual
generation site, such as a large manufacturing plant,
may have one or more sources of hazardous waste but is
considered a single or individual generation site, if
the site or property is contiguous.
In this situation Corporation B and Corporation C are
two distinct entities (i.e., persons). They must each
'apply for a separate EPA identification number. Even
though identification numbers are usually site-
specific, where different people conduct different
regulated activities on a site, a person conducting each
regulated activity must obtain an EPA identification
number. This does not preclude an EPA Regional office
or State from issuing the same number to two persons.
Source: Diane Regas (202) 362-7706
Research: Craig Campbell
,. c
-------
9432. • 9 S a "> •>
* *'o 0 i u j
RCRA/SUPERFUKD HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 88
1. Definition of Tank/Definition of Hastewater Treatment Dnit
A facility includes a wastewater treatment unit that meets
the definition in Section 260.10 and the Section
264.1(g)(£) exclusion. Piped directly to the wastewater
treatment unit is a tank on wheels that is used to collect
an EP toxic wastewater treatment sludge. When the wheeled
tank is full it is disconnected from the piping and towed
to the generator's 90-day accumulation area where the
sludge is emptied into the generator's accumulation tanks
and/or containers. The wheeled tank is then moved back to
the wastewater treatment unit and reconnected. Does this
wheeled tank meet the definition of a tank or a container?
If it is a tank, would it also be covered by the wastewater
treatment unit exemption?
The wheeled tank would meet the definition of a tank
under Section 260.10 because it in stationary during
operation. Devices that are typically used as part of
the storage/treatment system and that are directly
connected by piping to the wastewater treatment system
are regarded as being stationary units. If the
wheeled tank is used to accumulate a wastewater
treatment sludge as part of a wastewater treatment
facility, it would fall within the definition of a
wastewater treatment unit per Section 260.10 and would
be included in the Section 264.Kg) (6) exemption.
Source: Carrie Wehling (202) 382-7706
Millian Kline (202) 382-7924
Research: Randall Eicber
-------
9432.1988,04!
j,?W'"rf
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
f
'\ma<^ '
SOLID WASTE AND £MS»GENCv RESP
Kurt E. Whitman, Project Coordinator
SWlnc.
P.O. Box B
SauKville, WI 53080
Dear Mr. Whitman:
This is in response to your July 1, 1988 letter requesting
clarification on EPA's current interpretation on whether the
depressurization of aerosol cans on-site would be considered
treatment, requiring a RCRA permit. You also requested
pertinent information on Ril t43 and on whether or not it has
been rescinded. I am enclosing per your request a copy of Ril
t43 and the 1985 memorandum which I believe is the one you are
requesting.
You revealed in a July 26, 1988 telephone conversation with
Doreen Sterling of my staff that your main interest in this
issue was to determine the requirements for disposal of a wide
variety of aerosol cans located at a number of Department of
Defense facilities throughout the country.
The Agency is aware that conflicting interpretations have
been given by the EPA Regional Offices, EPA Office of Solid
Waste, and the RCRA Hotline regarding whether certain aerosol
can disposal methods constitute treatment and whether or not a
permit is required for this activity. The Agency is currently
evaluating this problem and may decide to issue more specific
guidance in the future if it is warranted. It is our policy,
however, to refer issues of this nature to the Region in which
the facility is located since they are normally best able to
make a case-by-case determination on whether: (l) the waste in
question is hazardous according to our regulations and
(2) treatment is occurring.
-------
According to our regulations, cans are hazardous if: (1)
they contain a commercial chemical product on the 40 CFR
261.33(e) or (f) lists or exhibit one or more of the hazardous
waste charactreistics, and are not empty as defined under Sec.
261.7; and/or (2) they exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste identified in Part 261, Subpart C.
Treatment, as defined in 40 CFP 260-10, means any method,
technique, or process, including neutralization, designed to
change the physical, chemical, or biological character or
composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such
waste, or so as to recover energy or material resources from the
waste, or so as to render such waste nonhazardous, or less
hazardous; safer to transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable
for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume.
It should be noted that if any of the aerosol cans are
included as part of household waste.(i.e., from military
housing), those cans are exempt from RCRA subtitle C under
Section 261.4 (t>) (1).
If you have any further questions, you may contact Ooreen
Sterling of my staff at 202-475-6775.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9432 .195S ( 05)
OCTOBER 88
3. Definition -of Wastewater Treatment Unit
On September 2, 1988 (53 FR 34079), EPA published a clarification concerning the
scope of-the wastewater treatment unit exemption (see 40 CFR Section
264.1 (g)(6)). One aspect of this clarification concerned whether or not a tank
system is "dedicated" to an on-site wastewater treatment facility. Specifically,
EPA stated, "...if a tank system, in addition to be being used in conjunction with
an on-site wastewater treatment facility, is used on a routine or occasional basis
to store or treat a hazardous wastewater prior to shipment off-site .for treatment,
storage or disposal/ it is not covered by this exemption [emphasis added]."
Hazardous waste tanks which are part of wastewater treatment facilities
sometimes have waste removed from them for off-site disposal. Examples of
this situation include hazardous waste accumulation tanks (dedicated to on-site
wastewater treatment facilities) which must occasionally be cleaned out, and also
those tanks which produce (on a routine basis) filter cakes or sludge residues as
part of the wastewater treatment process. Does the removal of these wastes from
tanks for off-site disposal preclude these tanks from qualifying for the wastewater
treatment unit exemption?
EPA stated that the wastewater treatment unit exemption applies to "any tank
system that manages hazardous wastewater and is dedicated for use with an
on-site wastewater treatment facility" (53 FR 34080). The removal of waste-
water treatment sludges or tank bottoms for off-site disposal from tanks
should not disqualify these tanks from the exemption, provided that this
occurs as part of normal wastewater treatment activities. The removal and
off-site disposal of treatment sludges and tank bottoms are not necessarily
indications that the tanks in question are being used in a manner other than
for on-site wastewater treatment; on the contrary, the generation of tank
bottoms and filter cakes is a common process in wastewater treatment
operations. The definition of a wastewater treatment unit (Section 260.10, as
amended in 53 £E 34079) includes tanks which generate and accumulate
wastewater treatment sludges (either solid, semi-solid, or liquid) or tanks
which treat or store wastewater treatment sludges. The intent of the
September 2,1988 notice was to clarify that the exemption does not apply to
those tanks that are used to store or treat a hazardous waste/wastewater prior
to shipment (either on a part-time or full-time basis) to off-site facilities rather
than manage it in an on-site wastewater treatment facility.
Source: William Kline (202)382-7917
Research: Ross Elliott
-------
9432.1959(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMi™
AUGUST 89
3. Clarification of Electroplating Listings
The background document which supported the listing of F006 initially
included electroless plating within the scope of the definition of
electroplating. However, the December 2,1986 Federal Register (54 FR 43351)
clarified EPA's interpretation of the definition of electroplating as it pertained
to the F006 listing. The clarification stated that electroless plating was not
considered an electroplating process. Would electroless plating baths which
contain small concentrations of cyanide meet the F007 listing when disposed?
No. Although the December 2, 1986, clarification was written specifically
for the F006 listing, the definition of electroplating may be applied
analogously to the F007, F008 and F009 listings. Therefore, plating bath
solutions from electroless plating operations will not meet the F007 listing
when disposed. The bath would be regulated, however, if it exhibited one
or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste.
Source: David Topping (202) 382-7737
Research: Kent Morey
-------
9432.1969(02)
MAY I 6 1999
Mr. John R. Jacus
Bradley, Campbell & Carney
1717 Washington Avenue
Golden, Colorado 80401-1994
Dear Mr. Jacus:
This letter responds to your request of March 28, 1989 for
clarification of the definitions of "in existence" and "under
construction." You explained that you want to evaluate the
business risks associated with proceeding to install an
industrial boiler to burn hazardous waste prior to the effective
date of the final rule governing the burning of hazardous waste
in boilers and industrial furnaces. You further expressed your
desire to be "grandfathered" under existing RCRA regulations and
not subject to new regulations,.and your belief that being "in
existence" on or before the effective date of the new
regulations would allow you to do so. You cited previous Agency
interpretations of "in existence" and "under construction" in
the Federal Register notices of January 9, 1981 (46 FR 2344) and
May 19, 1980 (45 FR 33324) and asked three specific questions
related to those interpretations. I have addressed your
specific questions below. However, in order to help you make an
informed decision, I must first clarify the effect of the new
regulations on existing boilers and furnaces burning hazardous
waste.
Currently, the burning of hazardous waste in boilers and
industrial furnaces is not regulated. When the proposed
regulations of May 6, 1987 become final, all boilers and
industrial furnaces not specifically excluded will become
subject to those regulations. Thus, non-excluded boilers and
industrial furnaces will be required to obtain a RCRA permit
before they-may continue to burn hazardous waste. However, as
is true for other operations that become newly subject to RCRA
permit requirements, the regulations allow for.existing
facilities'to obtain "interim status" if they satisfy certain
requirements (see $270.70). This allows continued operation
while the permit application is reviewed by the Agency. During
the period that the facility has interim status, it must comply
with the appropriate standards in 40 CFR Part 265. Once a final
RCRA permit is issued, it will impose standards pursuant to 40
CFR Part 264.
-------
One of the threshold requirements to be eligible to obtain
interim status, discussed in the regulations at 40 CFR
270. 10 (e), is that the facility be "in existence" on the date it
becomes subject to the regulations. Thus, the preamble
discussions in the proposed rule of May 6, 1987 on "in
existence" or "existing hazardous waste management units" relate
to the opportunity to obtain interim status, not, as your letter
suggests, to an opportunity to avoid new regulations. The
following discussion answers your questions as they relate to a
newly regulated facility's ability to obtain interim status
where EPA is administering the RCRA program. Authorized states
may have equivalent or more strigent regulations governing
qualification for interim status. Please also note that if a
boiler or industrial furnace is currently operating at a
multi-unit facility that itself already has interim status, 40
CFR 5270.72 is applicable.
1 . Under current Aoency policy, is 10% of the total project
cost the threshold for determining whether a potential loss due
to conract cancellation ..
Yes. As EPA stated in the preamble of the May 19, 1980
regulation, if the amount an owner or operator must pay to
cancel construction agreements exceeds 10% of the "total project
cost," the loss would be deemed "substantial" within the meaning
of the regulatory definition of "in existence" (40 CFR
§260.10). The Agency reiterated that policy in the January 9
preamble, and has not changed it since that time. It should be
noted, as was discussed in the January 9 preamble, "total
project cost" refers to tfte total cost incurred for physical
construction of the project, and not to all costs that might be
associated with the project.
2. What constitutes a "continuous Physical, on-site program of
construction"?
As was discussed in the May 19, 1980 preamble, the Agency
believes that owners and operators who have commenced facility
construction in good faith prior to the date they became subject
to regulations should be classified as existing. The preamble
also explained that a continuous on-site, physical construction
program means physical site preparation, and does not mean
design, non-physical, or non-site specific preparatory
activities. The scenario you describe in your letter, where
foundation work has started, and no substantial delays between
curing of the foundation and actual equipment installation are
built into the schedule, describes, on its face, a continuous,
on-site, physical construction program. However, it should be
noted that the decision as to whether a good faith construction
project has commenced is based on the facts of each case and
will be made by the Agency or the authorized State at the time
the facility applies for interim status.
-------
3. p_ges the term "all necessary Federal. StafP- and local,
pre-construetinTi approvals anri pprTnits" include county building
nj- cpnsTnrug't::'on permits?
No. _.The Agency discussed this issue in the January 19, 1981
preamble. There, the Agency stated that the permits and
approvals required under paragraph (a) of the definition of
"existing facility" (40 CFR 260.10) are those required under
Federal, State, or local "hazardous waste control laws or
regulations." This preamble clarifies that the permits required
are limited to those issued under any law intended to control
the management of hazardous waste, including any laws designed
to regulate the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous
wastes or the siting of hazardous waste management facilities.
County building or construction permits would be included only
if they satisfy this condition, which usually they do not. As
the Agency also noted in the January 19 preamble, although the
Federal regulations do not require the facility to obtain such
local permits to have "commenced construction," the facility
remains responsible under State or local law for obtaining such
permits before actually beginning construction.
I hope this answers the questions you raised. If you have
any further questions on this matter, please contact Barbara
Foster at (202) 382-4751.
Sincerely,
Joseph Carra, Director
Permits and State Programs
Division
-------
9132.1989(03)
WNfTEO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ,
iAGENCY
',-> '£
Honorable Bill Goodling
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Goodling:
Thank you for your May 9, 1989, letter referring the
communication from your constituent, Mr. Edward E. Shott of
Weilsville, Pennsylvania. Mr. Shott is interested in
reclaiming palladium, platinum, and other precious metals from
discarded automotive and electronic devices, and questions
whether there are EPA regulations applicable to such a
processing activity. Also Mr. Shott is interested in the
production of deuterium oxide (heavy water).
Regarding reclamation, more information is needed to
determine whether the materials in question are subject to
regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). If the material from discarded automotive
and electronic devices is scrap metal, the material meets the
definition of a solid waste; however, scrap metal that is
reclaimed is exempt from regulation as a hazardous VBSte
(assuming it meets the definition of a hazardous wa&te). If
the material is a spent material that does not meet the
definition of scrap metal (e.g., a circuit board that has
relatively small amounts of metals), it may be subject to RCRA
regulations.
In defining hazardous waste, EPA specifically listed
residuals from many types of industrial processes as hazardous
wastes and has identified characteristics that when set would
cause a waste to be considered a hazardous waste. Specific
state lavs sometimes vary from Federal law, but must be at
least as stringent as Federal requirements. Thus, residuals
that would be produced in metal recovery may be subject to
state or Federal regulations.
The State'of Pennsylvania is authorized to administer the
Federal hazardous waste program. Thus, I strongly encourage
Mr. Shott to contact his State regulatory agency to determine
what, if any, regulations apply. In addition, Mr. Shott should
contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine the
regulations governing the production and distribution of heavy
water.
-------
UMfTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Thank-.you for your interest in reclamation activities. If
I can b« of further assistance, please let. me know. If your
constituent, Mr. Shott, has any further questions, he should
contact either Robert Dellinger or Mitch Kidwell of my staff at
(202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
OS-305/DELLINGER/T. MCMANUS -382-4646/CSH/5-26-89
CONTROL 1 AL892312/DATE DUE: 5/30/89/DISK 25/NAME:CODDLING
-------
9432.1989(00
JUL 2 0 IS89
Mr. Jeffrey A. Leed
Director - Haste Management
Exide Corporation
P. 0. BOX 14205
Reading, PA 19612-4205
Dear Mr. Leed:
In response to your recent letter, while your understanding
is correct with respect to 40 CFR 261.22 defining the
Characteristic Of eorrosivity, your letter appears to indicate
that there is still some confusion over the RCRA definition of a
liquid.
The term liquid has three different definitions in the RCRA
program depending on the specific regulatory application. In
addition to the general definition used in the characteristics,
the other types of liquids include "free liquid" and "releasable
liquid". These other definitions of "liquid" find application in
the waste management standards dealing with land disposal.
Specifically, the regulations prohibit the landfilling of
containerized wastes containing "free liquids". Similiarly, the
amendments to RCRA passed in 1984, banned the use of absorbant
materials that would release liquids under the overburden
pressure present in a landfill (i.e., "releasable liquids).
The specific test procedures used in identifying the
different types of liquids are:
Liquid:
A "liquid" is the material (liquid phase) that is expressed
from the waste in step 2 of Method 1310 (the Extraction
Procedure).
-------
-2-
Free Liquidr
A "free liquid" is the material that drips from the waste
using Method 9095 (the Paint Filter Test).
Releasable Liquid:
While we have not yet promulgated a specific test procedure
for defining when a waste .contains "releasable liquid", a
draft procedure has been developed and proposed - The Liquid
Release Test - method 9096.
Therefore, the first question to answer when characterizing
a waste to determine if it exhibits the 40 CFR 261.22 (a)(2)
definition of a corrosive waste, is whether the waste is a
liquid. For this purpose the first definition, using step 2 of
Method 1310, is to be used.
I hope that this helps to clear up any misunderstanding with
respect to the hazardous waste identification characteristics.
If you have any additional questions relative to waste testing,
please contact my office at (202) 382-4761. For general
questions on the hazardous waste identification characteristics,
please call the Characteristics Section at (202) 382-4798.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman
Chief
Methods Section (OS-331)
cc: Devereaux Barnes
Reva Rubenstein
-------
"UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-AGENCY JT II h \j\\f
DEC 51=89 »32.19e9,05,
Mr. Carl A. Evers
Vice President
Tricil Environmental Services
3055 Kettering Boulevard
Suite 400
Dayton, Ohio 45439-1900
Dear Mr. Evers:
I an writing in regard to your August 22, 1989 letter in
which you discuss your definition of a batch as it pertains to
the conditional testing requirements included as part of Tricil's
November 17, 1986 final exclusion. [Please note that we did not
receive an original copy of this letter? we were first made aware
of the letter through David Hefner's November 17, 1989 letter to
us.] Based on your definition of a batch, it is-clear that
Tricil and the Agency interpret the term "batch" differently, and
as discussed further below, this situation must be corrected.
As stated in our July 31, 1989 letter, we believe a batch
snouid, at a minimum, be confined to the sludge contained within
1 lugger box. Under Tricil's current practices, however, 4-4 1/2
lugger boxes are represented by only a single composite sample.
we believe Tricil is over-compositing the waste samples ffom
individual lugger boxes, and thus, is not collecting and
analyzing samples which are representative of the waste. As also
noted in our July 31 letter, we assume that the lugger box is
filled gradually over a given time period; grab samples should be
taken from each of the periodic loads transferred to the lugger
box. All grab samples representing wastes transferred to a
single lugger box should then be composited to fan a *Hn7if.
composite sample. This composite should then be subjected to the
appropriate conditional testing requirements. We suggest that
this same approach be used to collect batch samples at all three
of your facilities.
If you do not agree with our definition of a batch for
Tricil's treatment system, then we believe it is necessary to
meet with you to discuss the matter further. In particular.
under such circumstances we believe it may be necessary to reopen
Tricil's exclusion to include a significantly more precise
definition of a batch. As we mentioned in our July 31 letter
any new proposal would also incorporate updating Trieil's '
conditional delisting limits. If you do agree with our definition
nf a bitcihi bawev«>i *h«n \n ^\^f^^-tf ilia a^n L^II IJM
cioSea.
-------
Should you have any questions or require any additional
information regarding this matter, please contact Linda Cessar of
my staff at (202) 475-9828.
Sincerely,
Robert Kayser, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Linda Cessar, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
-------
9432.1990(01
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUENLY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
6 IS90
sc-.r .-.-s~c ••••.: EV = 3.3r..;*
Mr. Robert D. Wyatt
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
Spear Street Tower
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
I am writing in response to your letter of January 6, 1990,
concerning the uses of the terms "liquid" and "aqueous" in the
RCRA characteristic tests for ignitability and corrosivity.
This letter will describe the background on this issue as well as
our current position.
As a preliminary natter, I want to clarify that EPA has not
promulgated any rule establishing a mandatory test method for use
in determining whether a waste is "liquid" or "aqueous" for the
purposes of ignitability or corrosivity testing. The generator
of the waste may use any method for which he can provide .
appropriate scientific or technical justification. The Agency
has in the past provided guidance indicating that it is generally
willing to accept test results from the use of Method 9095, the
"paint filter" test. As explained in more detail below, however,
the Agency is in the process of re-evaluating its general view of
the suitability of Method 9095 for characteristic testing.
Mr. Friedman's memorandum is one indication of this re-
evaluation.
When the Agency promulgated a rule requiring the use of
Method 9095 for completely different purposes in 1985, it
believed the method could also be used as a fast, inexpensive,
and reasonably accurate means of obtaining the liquid to be
evaluated in the•ignitability and corrosivity tests. It believed
that material that passed through Method 9095's mesh filter would
also be a liquid under more stringent tests such as step 2 of
Method 1310 (the "extraction procedure" test). Consequently, the
preamble to the 1985 rule stated that Method 9095 "...may be used
to obtain the. liquid portion of the waste for subsequent
evaluation under the ignitability or corrosivity tests." 50 FR
18370 (April 30, 1985).
trutud tm X«.-
-------
Similarly, in 1986, the Agency published the proposed Third
Edition of SW-846. This document, which is quoted in your
letter, also endorsed the use of Method 9095 for determining the
free liquid in the waste for purposes of the corrosivity test.
Subsequent experience with Method 9095 has raised concerns
about its suitability for identifying liquids for characteristic
testing. The Agency's concerns with Method 9095 are described in
the discussion for the Toxicity Characteristic proposal of
June 13, 1986 (51 FR 21681). In that notice, the Agency
discussed problems with using the paint filter test for hazardous
waste identification purposes. Especially serious was the fact
that, in some cases, whether and how much liquid separated out of
the waste depended on how the waste was poured into the filter.
Under the 50 psi pressure the Agency selected as representative .
of a landfill environment and specified in the Toxicity
Characteristic, liquid which would not pass through the paint
filter might be released from a waste and cause environmental
damage. We believe that landfill disposal represents reasonable
worst-case mismanagement for both toxic and corrosive or
ignitable wastes. Consequently, the concerns about the test's
performance under landfill pressures are equally valid for these
additional characteristics. Also, certain particulate materials
are capable of passing through the paint filter, and using Method
9095 would lead to classification of these solids as liquids.
For these reasons, the Agency expects to announce in the
final rule revising the Toxicity Characteristic that Method 9095
is not appropriate for determining whether a liquid is present or
not for purposes of toxicity testing. The same reasoning applies
to the corrosivity characteristic, and we intend to provide
appropriate guidance in the preamble accompanying the final rule
adopting the changes in the proposed Third Edition of SW-846. He
also intend to revise the recommendation in the text of SW-846 in
our next update.
With respect to your quote from the 1980 'background document
where we indicated we did not believe we needed to regulate solid
materials, that discussion was intended to deal with materials
which would "form an aqueous solution of high or low pH" (in
other words dissolve) rather than materials which contained and
could release liquids, which is the case here.
with respect to the issue of whether Mr. Friedman provided
testimony in .the Hassayampa litigation, the aforementioned
memorandum was not addressed to any specific litigation. Rather,
it was in response to continuing questions that his office has
received on this matter and a desire on our part to reduce the
confusion. The cited regulation (40 CFR 2.401 elb sea.) therefore
is not germane in this instance.
-------
In conclusion, there is currently no specific test for
liquids which the Agency mandates under regulation as part of the
corrosivity characteristic test. Mr. Friedman's
October 24, 1989, memorandum and this letter describe and explain
our Office's current thinking on this issue, which we intend to
include in future guidance and in the next update of the Third
Edition of SW-846. We regret any confusion that may have arisen.
If you have any questions on this issue, please contact
Alec McBride on 202-382-4761.
' •/ h
*;.-•'I.,* //
:e
Director
ffice of Solid Waste
cc: Christina Kaneen
Alec McBride
David Friedman
-------
9432.1990(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OfflCE Of
SOLID WASTE AMD EMEMCENCV *ES»ONSE
Mr. Christopher J. Jaekels
GSX Government Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 140
902 south Main Street
Saukviiie, wi 53080
Dear Mr. Jaekels:
This letter is in response to your January 22, 1990 request for
clarification of regulations applicable to bulking or containerising.
compatible hazardous wastes for transportation. Specifically, you
requested EPA's concurrence on your interpretation of the
regulations: that bulking and containerizing practices do not
constitute fuel blending, and thus, do not require permitting.
Determinations of this type are made by authorized states and
EPA regional offices. In some cases authorized states have
promulgated applicable regulations that differ from Federal
regulations; hence, you should contact the authorized state
hazardous waste office. If you need information in an unauthorized
state, you may contact the appropriate EPA regional office.
However, for your information, this letter discusses in a
general fashion the federal regulations which may apply. First, it
is important to distinguish between bulking and containerizing
different hazardous wastes for the purpose of efficient
transportation and disposal from bulking and cont&inerizing
different wastes to produce a hazardous waste fuel.
The bulking of characteristic hazardous waste shipments to
achieve efficient transportation may result in incidental reduction
of the hazards associated with that waste mixture. However, this
incidental reduction may not meet the definition of treatment (as
defined under 40 CFR Section 260.10) because it is not designed to
render the waste nonhazardous or less hazardous. Accordingly, such
activity may not-require a RCRA permit. For a specific situation a
determination is made by the appropriate Regional office or
authorized State based on the particular circumstances, state
regulations, and policies.
-------
There is no definition for "fuel blending" in Federal
regulations. However, the March 16, 1983 federal Register (48 E£
11157) discusses the Agency's current enforcement guidance for
Menders of hazardous waste fuel. In the preamble, the Agency
explains that "waste-derived fuel blenders are responsible for
ensuring that low-energy value hazardous waste are not blended into
fuels" (48 EB 11159). Therefore, bulking and containerizing of
hazardous wastes which are intended to be burned for energy recovery
(i.e., "fuel blending") are subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
Specifically, a RCRA permitted storage facility consolidating
compatible hazardous wastes for the purpose of burning for energy
recovery must ensure that the resulting hazardous waste fuel has
substantial heat value (i.e., 5,000 to 8,000 Btu) and that each
consolidated hazardous waste fuel constituent possesses substantial
heat value.
The Agency has clearly stated that the storage requirements of
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 apply to hazardous waste fuel blending
tanks. (See the April 13, 1987 Federal Booister (52 ZE 11820).)
Therefore, unless the fuel blending operations are conducted in
units exempt from permitting requirements (e.g., a generator's
accumulation tank or container in compliance with standards for less
than 90 day storage), these units are subject to RCRA permitting
requirements under Federal regulations.
Again, we remind you that the final determination of the
regulations that apply at a particular facility is made by the
authorized states and EPA regions. Should you have additional
questions regarding this letter, please contact Bnily Roth of my
Staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sine
~MM&%.
)i rector
Solid Waste
-------
9432.1990(03.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP i3
OF
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Charles Winwood
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Inspection and Control
U.S. Customs Service
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20229
Dear Mr. Winvood:
Thank you for your letter of July 12, 1990 concerning the -
current and future regulatory status of "empty" containers under
40 CFR 261.7. .
Your statement is correct that this section allows, in some
cases, up to one inch of residue to remain in a container that
held certain hazardous wastes and be considered empty for
purposes of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations. However, the "one* inch" rule is only part of the
definition of an "empty container" in 261. 7 (b) . This definition
has three parts and is dependent on the type of vaste the
container held. In other words, how one determines whether a
container is empty depends on the material previously contained.
Enclosed with this letter for your review, and for the use of
your staff, is a discussion of 'the Agency's interpretation and
rationale for this important provision. The current rule was our
way of defining when a container no longer poses a serious
hazard, but we did not have definitive data, to support the
conclusion.
I have asked Kike Petruska, Chief of the Waste
Characterization Branch, to contact your staff. His Branch is
responsible for generator and transporter issues, and I think it
appropriate for them to meet as this would allow us to understand
more fully your concerns and to discuss alternative regulatory
definitions to rectify this situation.
My understanding of your concern is that border inspections
of containers may unknowingly expose your agents to hazardous
waste through this regulatory definition. This is a legitimate
concern, and you should note that this situation may be rectified
through our work on the administration's Export Bill pursuant to
-------
the Basel Agreement. When it is finalized, it is anticipated
that it vill subject hazardous waste that is currently exempt
from Subtitle C requirements (*..a.. "empty" containers) to the
provisions governing the import and export of hazardous waste.
My staff will continue working with your staff to ensure that
situations such as this are covered in the final bill.
In the interim, EPA will continue working with Customs on
training efforts such as the recently completed U.S. Customs/NEIC
training of 500 customs inspectors on the Mexican border.
Currently, we are discussing the feasibility of expanding this
effort to include joint training of O.S. and Canadian customs
officials with Environment Canada. Adequate training for
inspection procedures for hazardous waste shipments is probably
the best method of ensuring the continued safety of Customs
employees.
Thank you for your interest in this issue, I look forward to
continuing to work with the Customs Service on hazardous waste
issues. If I or my staff can be of any further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
^Sylvia K. Lowranc
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
EHCLOSURZ
The definition of "empty" containers in 40 CFR 261.7 ha*
three parts and is dependent on the type of waste the container
held. In other words, how one determines whether a container is
empty depends on the material previously contained.
The first part of the definition applies to containers which
held hazardous wastes other than compressed gases or acute
hazardous wastes. For such containers, the regulations provide
that an empty container is one from which all wastes have been
removed that can be removed using practices commonly employed to
remove materials from that type of container, (e.g., pouring,
pumping, aspirating), and that no more than 2.5 centimeters (one
inch) of residue remain on the bottom of the container or inner
liner (40 CFR 261.7(b) (1) (i) and (ii)). Additionally, in the
August 18, 1982 federal Register, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) provides a weight alternative to this "one-inch"
rule. Specifically, the Agency allows 3 percent by weight of the
total capacity of the container to remain in containers that are -x
less than or equal to 110 gallons in size. For containers
greater than 110 gallons, an empty container is one from which
all residues have been removed by normal means, and no more than
0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container
remains in the container (40 CFR 261.7(b)(1)(iii)).
In the preamble to the August 18, 1982 Federal Register. EPA
discusses the incorrect substitution, by members of the regulated
community, of the word "or" for the word "and* at the end of
paragraph 261.7(b)(l)(i). This substitution would lead an
individual to believe that the practice of leaving one inch of
residue in a container qualifies the container as being "empty*,
whether or not all of the waste has been removed to the extent
possible using methods commonly employed. The Agency
emphatically states that this is not the case. When the two
paragraphs are correctly read together, it is clear that one inch
of residue is an overriding constraint, to be utilized only if
all wastes cannot be removed by normal practices.
The second part of the definition covers containers which
have held hazardous wastes which are compressed gases. For these
containers to be considered empty under RCRA, the pressure inside
the container oust approach atmospheric pressure.
The third~part of the definition covers containers that have
held acute hazardous listed in 261.31, 261.32 or 26l.33(e). For
such a container to meet the definition of •empty* under
261.7(b), the container must be triple rinsed with an appropriate
solvent, or in the case of a container with an inner liner, the
inner liner must be removed.
-------
• The EPA discusses the rationale for the definition of "empty
container" in the preamble of the November 25, 1980 redera.1
Register (45. Q 78525). "EPA believes that, except where the
hazardous waste is an acutely hazardous material listed in
261.33(e), the small amount of hazardous waste residue that
remains in individual empty, unrinsed containers does not pose a
substantial hazard to human health or the environment." However,
EPA was still (and remains) somewhat concerned with unregulated
container residues.
This concern was illustrated later in the November preamble,
when the Agency set forth three options for regulation of the
residues in "empty" containers and solicited comments on these
options, as well as any data indicating that unregulated residues
may pose a substantial hazard to human health and the
environment. The three options were 1) to require triple rinsing
for all containers; 2) to regulate the residue when it is removed
from a container; and 3) to impose a limit on the amount of
unregulated residue. Of the three options presented, EPA
considered triple rinsing for all containers to offer the
greatest protection to human health and the environment. This
approach would ensure that the only container residues left
unregulated would be trace amounts remaining after triple rinsingv
or an equivalent cleaning operation. Thus, if all container*
vert required to be triple rinsed before they were considered
"empty" under RCRA, the potential for environmental and health
problems associated with these containers could be substantially
reduced.
The Agency addressed the comments received in response to.
the November 25, I960 solicitation in the August 18, 1982 Federal
Register. Most commenters found the triple rinsing option
undesirable and the Agency had no data to support the proposal of
the triple rinse option based on the comments received.
Accordingly, the Agency has continued to implement the "one-inch"
rule (or the 3 percent/0.3 percent alternative) under Federal
regulations.
It is also important to note that the shipment of empty
containers which have held hazardous wastes may be registered
under more stringent or additional State, local, or Federal
regulations. For example, under the Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulations, a container which has held a hazardous
material oust be cleaned and purged of its contents before the
hazardous material label can be removed (49 CFR 173.29).
-------
9433 - RULEMAKING
PETITIONS
Part 260 Subpart C
ATKl/l 104/14 kp
-------
9433.1984(03)
»".r. John C. Oliver
Porcelain Enanel Institute, Inc. •
1911 North Fort hryer Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Dear John:
As ve have discussed previously, che Agency considers
its July 27 interpretation (see enclosure) of che spent pickle
liquor listing Co be che correct reading of the hazardous waste
regulations. Therefore, the spent pickle liquor (as veil as
any sludge generated iron the treacaenc of cbe spent pickle
liquor) that is generated from ch« procelain enaael industry
is considered to be a listed hazardous waste—namely, EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K062. In order for cbe industry to
change che regulatory status of this waste, they will need co
subait an industry-wide ruleaaking peticion.jL/ AC your
request, we have sade a preliminary assessaenc of die nu&ber
of planes eo be saopled and che specific toxicants chat
would need to be evaluated co support an indu»cry-wide exclusion
petition for the Procelain Ena&eling Category. In addition,
the petition should address che requireaencs ciced in 40 C?R
$260.20. We would noc view an Induscry-wide pecicion as
applying co planes Chat are Integrated vich electroplating
operations and generating vasces covered by che F006-F009
listings. Wastes of chis type would have co be evaluated
independently.
We escioace chat in order eo obcain a 951 degree of
confidence that you have a representative saaple of Che
industry you will need co saople 20 integrated and 5 Don*
integrated racilities. (If nose Integrated porcelain enaoeliag
planes are integrated vich electroplating operations under
che circucscaaces described above, Chen we would accept
saaples froo a lesser number of integrated facilicies, since
I/ Of course, any person say submit a R»te-specific dclisting
"~ petition pursuant co AO CFK SS260.2C and 260.22.
-------
'-/ Che petition would not be addressing porcelain enaoel plants
chat are integrated wth eleccroplacing operations.) These
figures were determined using an approxiaace sampling rule
developed by OSHA. Thia type of saspling approach has been
successfully used in Che past by the Institute for Scrap
Iron and Steel in a similar study for EPA. The actual number
of saaples which should be analyzed cannot be identified as
precisely. However, a sufficient nunber of saaples should
be taken from each facility which would represent the' variable
nature of the waste. In this regard, composited samples
representing any variability in raw materials or process • •
would be the best approach in minimizing the overall analytical
burden. • •= '•
Sample analysis should include determination of a limited
number' of both inorganic and organic constituents and tests •
for the four hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.. ignitability;
corrosivicy, reactivity, and Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicicy).
The specific constituents chat should be analyzed for in the
wastes are as follows:
2/
Category Constituent""
Inorganic Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Cadmium
Selenium
Category Constituent
Organic Carbon cetrachloride
Chloroechaae
Chloroform
Chloronethane
1-dichloroetbylene
crans 1.2-dichloroechylene
Diehloromethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-diehloropropylene - •
Tecra chloroehcanes
Tecrachloroethylene
21 The aecals should be analysed using the Extraction Procedure
~" (EP) toxicicy cesc and for cheir total metal content.
-------
-Trichioropropane
Methyl ethyl ketone
.-. Methyl i»obutyl ketone
• Benzene ' •".'
Ethyl Benzene .~
Toluene
Xylenea •
The organic constituents were selected due CO Che likelihood
that both halogenated and non-halogenaced tolvenci *re used
at integrated facilities, and caac cheat facilities are doing
painting operaeiona. However, if you have information which
would indicate chat sone of these toxicant* 'are not expected
to be in the watte from integrated facilitiea,_ve will consider
thia inforaation to determine whether analytia'for Cheae
contaainanta ia neeeasary. We will require ch*C-all these
contaainanta (i_.e... organic and inorganic toxicant•) be
analyzed for at tne 2D integrated facilitiea; however/ aince -
the non-integrated facilities are not expected to"contain
significant .levels of organies, we will only require chat
two of the five noa-integrated facilities be analyzed for '
the organies. All fivs non-integrated facilities should be
analyzed for the inorganic contaainants. ' Test sethods for -
these constituents- are provided in Che Mechods hanual "Tesc
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste " SW-846.
•" . . •"' • '• • '• . *.-'»'
T*'e believe it is in the industry's best interest-to
proceed.with a deliacingV whether or noc ic purauec the
pending*litigation. EPA will expedite processing of Che
petition no aatter*how the litigation *ic proceeding. .If you
decide to oove forward with aa industry-wide petition and . •
need specific inforoation OB aaapling and analysis method*,"
please-call Jia Poppiti at :(20Z) 382-4690
SiBcire'ly,'-.
Matchew Scraus, Chief .
Waste Identification Breach
" " • • ••'
-------
_,„_ ' 9433.1984(05)
^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
* WASHINGTON. D.C. 204*0
— - ~
DEC I I pa/.
SOtlO WASTE AND IMtHCENC'r MES'ONSE
Mr. Dave Rudder
Vice President - Environmental/Process Control
Seigel-Robert, Inc.
86^5 South Broadway
St. Louis. Missouri 63111
Dear Mr. Rudder:
The purpose of this letter is to- describe the test methods
and standards used in evaluating cyanide levels in inorganic wastes
petitioned for exclusion under S260.22 of the RCRA regulations.
As explained in our telephone conversation on December 5, 1984, the
Agency requires four forms of cyanide to be evaluated for the
purposes of petitioning to delist an electroplating sludge. These
include total, free (amenable to chlorinatlon), leachable, and
photodegradable cyanide.
Total and free cyanide in Che waste is determined using Method
No. 9010 "Total and Amenable Cyanide" in Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste. The delis.ting program imposes no
limitations on the amount of total cyanide present in the
waste other than the requirement of running the photodegradable
cyanide test if total cyanide in Che waste exceeds 10 ppm. Free
cyanide in the waste however, is considered hazardous at
levels at or above 10 ppm. The 10 ppm limitation is derived
from the workroom air threshold standard of 10 pom set by the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygieniscs
(ACGIH).
Leachable cyanide is Che only cyanide parameter evaluated in
the extract rather than in the waste. The test method used for this
determination is the EP Toxicity Test with no acetic acid adjustment.
Therefore this is a distilled water extraction. The delisting
program looks at all cyanide showing up in the extract as being
leachable cyanide, therefore cyanide in the extract is measured as
total cyanide. This total cyanide concentration in the extract is
evaluated using a generalized ground water dispersion model which
predicts a receptor well concentration 500 feet from the disposal
site. The receptor well concentration is Chen compared to a health
based standard - the U.S. Public Health Services' suggested drinking
water standard of- 0.2 ppm. If the receptor well concentration exceeds
0.2 ppm then Che waste is considered hazardous. The model uses
che maximum extract level reported as well as the volume of waste
generated on an annual basis. The model automatically yields
a ten fold dilution of the maximum extract value, therefore a waste
exhibiting a maximum extract concentration at or below 2.0 ppm
would be delistable while.a decision on higher extract levels
would depend on the volume of wasce generated.
-------
As indicated above, a determination of photodegradable cyanide
is required when total cyanide concentrations in the waste exceeds
10 ppm. The test used for this determination is Method 9011
"Method for the Determination of Phptodegradable Cyanides"
in Proposed Sampling and Analytical'Methodologies for Addition
to Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. This test measures
any hydrogen cyanide gas that might be generated after irradiating'
the waste with a UV lamp. The concentration of hydrogen cyanide
generated in this test is again compared directly to the ACGIH
threshold of 10 ppm as cited above. A concentration of less than
10 ppm would be considered non-hazardous.
In wastes exhibiting high concentrations of total cyanide
it is possible that artificially high free cyanide levels can
be recorded. This is due to positive interferences attributable
to the conplexed iron cyanides in the waste. In these Instances
the Agency has a number of alternate test methodologies that
are less prone to interferences. The sost frequently used is
"Test Method for the Determination of Cyanide and Sulfide
Containing Wastes" (copy attached). This test measures Che
generation of hydrogen cyanide gas which is then evaluated
in terms of the 10 ppa ACGIH threshold previously discussed.
Again, a concentration of less Chan 10 ppm would be considered
non-hazardous.
I have enclosed a background article on the ground water
model nov being used by che Agency In pec Icon evaluation. A
detailed appendix explaining che assumptions used in che model
will appear in che Federal Register as a pare of che next
group of proposed delistings (hopefully in February of 1985).
If you have any questions regarding any of che tests or
standards descibed in chis leccer do noc hesitate to call
me at (202)-382-4782.
Sincerely,
Myles E. Morse
Environmental Proceccion Specialist
Deliscing Program
-------
9433.1984(06)
V"r"<,
•h. ^
••&
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEi.
/ WASHINGTON. D C 20460
DEC I R
OFFICE O<-
SO.10 WASTE AND I*•£*&!
Mr. Ton Horvath
Environmental Control
Weirton Steel
400 Three Springs Drive
Weirton, West Virginia 26062
Dear -Mr. Horvath:
1
As indicated in my telephone conversation with Mr. Wood
on Tuesday, December 18, 1984, three additional issues reearding
Weirton's delisting petition need to be resolved. These include
testing representative waste samples for the EP toxic metals
using the EP Toxicity Test for Oily Wastes; testing representative
waste samples for photodegradable cyanide; and an explanation
of where in the process 1,1,1-triehloroethane is used including
analyses of representative waste sawoles if it is determined chat
this toxicant has a reasonable likelihood of being present in Che
waste.
The Agency previously indicated that the EP toxicity test
is not applicable to wastes containing greater than 1 percent
oil and grease since the oil fraction way act as a binder.
(See 49 FS 42591, October 13, 1984). Weirton has submitted
data that indicate a naxiaun oil and grease concent of 2.8
percent. Therefore the data supporting the lack of mobility of
metals from Weirton's waste (as measured by the E? toxicity
test), is questionable. I have enclosed a copy of the EP
Toxicity Test for Oily Wastes. This test should be run on
representative waste samples from the impoundments.
The Agency is concerned about the possible Photodegradation
of conplexed cyanide to free cyanide upon exposure to sunlight.
The Agency has data indicating that this conversion can occur
in some wastes, resulting in the formation of free cyanide that
can escape from the waste by leaching or by the generation of
hydrogen cyanide gas. Due to the levels of total (complexed)
cyanide in Weirton's waste (maximum concentration reported
was 96 ppm), testing of representative samples for photodegradable
cyanide is reoui^ed. The Agency requires all petitioners to
test for photodegradable cyanide when total (complexed) cyanide
concentrations in the waste exceeds 10 ppn. I have enclosed a
copy of this test methodology. If you have a problem locating
a laboratory that is set up to run this test please call and we
will assist you.
-------
-2-
Finally, Weircon indicated chat 1.1,1-trichloroethane is
used in the process. The Agency must determine if this toxicant
has a reasonable chance of entering the petitioned wastestream.
AS required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 19SA.
If Weirton indicates that 1,1,1-trichloroethane can enter the waste
as alluded to by Mr. Wood, then you are reouired to present an
explanation (including mass balance relationships) detailinp. why
it could not be present in the waste in hazardous concentrations,
or analytical test data on representative waste samples. If
you find it necessary to test the waste for this toxicant, I
have included the appropriate analytical method.
.It is important that these issues be resolved as soon as
possible so the Agency can complete its action on the petition.
If you have any questions regarding the information requested above,
do not hesitate to call me at (202)-382-4782.
Sincerelv, .
: /•.>•<•. '•.' '''-:'••*-
Myles E. Morse
Environmental Protection Specialist
Delisting Program
enclosures
-------
9433.1935(02)
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A
f WASHINGTON. D C 20460
"*<. ««on~
MAY If
QpeiCE 0'
SOl-lC WASTE »MO EMiHGENC* "ES'ONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Reauthorization Statutory Interpretation I 4 :
Effect of Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 on State' Delisting Decisions
/ / r /*. —-*
>/ •'**>{< /
-------
- 2 - .
State of those parts of the Federal program for which the State
was authortzed. Consequently, any authorized State thar had a
delisting program could make delisting decisions without prior
EPA review of each decision. Any delisting decision made by the
State still was subject to EPA oversight, however, to ensure
that the State program did not become less stringent than EPA's.
(Any delisting decision made by the State was in effect only
while the waste remained under State control.)
HSWA Effect On State Delisting Decision
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 modified
both the substantive standard and the procedures to be used in
evaluating delisting petitions. The Amendments require the
Administrator, when evaluating delisting petitions !_/ to:
0 consider factors (including additional constituents) other
than those for which the waste was listed if there is a
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste; and
• provide notice and an opportunity for comment before
granting or denying a petition.
Furthermore, the Amendments require the Administrator to re-
evaluate all temporary exclusions granted before the date of
enactment (i.e. , before November 8, 1984); if a final decision
to grant or deny a petition has not been promulgated within 24
months (i.e. , by November 8, 1936), the temporary exclusion
will cease to be in effect.
Under Section 228 of the HSWA, any requirements, including
the delisting requirements, imposed pursuant to the Amendments
are effective in authorized.States at the sane time they are
effective in other States. Therefore, until the States are
authorized for these requirements, EPA is responsible for admin-
istering these provisions. Based on this provision:
• any further RCRA delisting decisions made by States (once
authorized) will have to be based on the new delisting
criteria and procedures noted above;
I/ In evaluating a petition, the Agency does not consider
the evaluation to be completed until a final decision is published
in the Federal Register.
-------
" • any State delisting decision nade on or after November 8,
1984, and before authorization under the new standard
would~not qualify as a RCRA delisting decision? and'
• any temporary exclusion 2/. that was granted by the state
before November 8, 1984,"must be reevaluated by the
State ( if they have been authorized under the new
delisting criteria) or by EPA. If a final decision to
grant or deny a petition has not been made within 24
months of that date, the temporary exclusion will cease
to be in effect.
Finally, any final exclusions that were granted by the State
before November 8, 1984, are not affected by the Amendments
(i.e., no additional action is required by the State or by EPA).
The States, however, are encouraged by EPA to reevaluate those
decisions if the other factors were not considered by the State.
The effect of the Amendments on the States is summarized on
the attached table.
Attachment
2/ Temporary exclusions are any delisting decisions which
are not considered the final delisting action under the
regulations of the issuing authority. For example, EPA issued a
number of temporary exclusions, pursuant to 40 CFR 5260.22(m).
That provision explicitly states that these decisions are made
"before making a final decision." Similarly, several States
have mechanisms for removing a waste from regulation before
promulgating a final decision, such as delistings patterned on
the Federal temporary exclusion. All such exclusions are
temporary.
A final exclusion is an Agency determination done in
accordance with the issuing authority's regulations; e.g., with
notice and comaent after which no further review of the petition
is contemplated. EPA issues final exclusions pursuant to 40 CFR
$260.20, which requires publication of a tentative decision in
the Federal Register, receipt and evaluation of public comments,
and publication of a final decision in the Federal Register.
Decisions not—to prosecute petitioners because it was believed
that a delisting later would be issued do not qualify as
final exclusions.
-------
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY: EFFECT OF
AMENDMENTS ON STATE DELISTING
• FINAL EXCLUSIONS
States do not need to reevaluate decisions made before
November 8, 1984.
- States must use new delisting criteria for decisions made
after November 8, 1964.
States must provide an opportunity for comment before
making a final decision.
TEMPORARY EXCLUSIONS
- EPA will need to act on previous State temporary
exclusions, unless, within 24 months of November 8, 1984,
the State:
a) modifies its regulations;
b) requests and becomes authorized by EPA for delisting;
and
c) acts on previous temporary exclusions.
If the State (as described above) or EPA does not make a
decision within 24 months of November 8, 1984, the waste
is hazardous again.
- States must use new delisting criteria for decisions
made after November 8, 1984.
- States must provide an opportunity for comment before
making a temporary decision.
-------
9433.19B5J03]
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 85
Solie" *aste Variance
5. A solvent product is sent off-site for use. The solvent, material Decodes spent
and is sent sack to the production facility as a hazardous waste. The production
facility reclaims the waste and then uses it as a raw material in the production
process. toes this waste management scenario qualify for a variance ti'csr the
definition of solid waste for a material that is reclaimed and then reused witnin
the original primary production process Li which it was generated ($260.30(5))?
No. The variance applies to a waste which is reclaiaed and then reused within
the original primary production process in which the waste, not the product,
was generated. In contrast, the waste here is not used ultimately in the
process from which it was generated. The following scenario nay qualify for a
variance under $260.30(o): Raw material A is put into primary production process
B. In this process, raw material A becones spent and is generated as hazardous
waste A» This waste A is reclaimed and then reused in the original primary
production process in which it was generated.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
-------
UK/TEDS. ,£5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A> ICY
9433. 1985(04
OCT 2 3 !?P5
Mr. Ronald Panlcucci
LAM Associate
662 Goffle Roao
Hawthorn*, New jersey 07506
Dear Hr. panieuecit
This is in response to your letter, dated September 25,
1985, concerning the liability of an industry once a waste
is delisted. In particular, you request clarification of
the generator's liability if a waste that is delisted and
disposed of in a non-hazardous waste landfill is, at some
point in the future, considered hazardous again.
In general, after a waste has been delisted, it is
no longer subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulation.
However, the generator is still liable for any damage the
waste aay cause and can be held responsible under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
or can be sued by any citizen for damages incurred. Zn
response to your concern over revoking a previous delicting
decision, if a delisting were revoked it would not effect
any waste that has already been disposed as non-hazardous,
since the waste was considered non-hazardous at the time of
disposal (i.e., you would not be required, under RCRA, to
dig up the waste). However, as indicated earlier, you still
may be held responsible under CERCLA if it is shown that your
waste contaminated the environment.
Should you have any further questions regarding this
matter, please contact Mr. James Poppiti at (202) 362-47B8.
Sincerely yours.
J. Winston sorter
assistant nununistratar
-------
UNITED ..xTES ENVIROK*TCTTT*L PROTECTION *..
9433. 1965(05)
NOV 27 1985
Honorable Dan Glicfcnan
«e»b«r, United State*
House of Representatives
U.S. Court House
Box 403-Roon 224
Wichita, Kansas 67201
Dear Mr. Glickman:
This letter is in response to your inquiry of October 29,
1985, concerning the delisting petition filed with tne Agency by
Boeing Military Airplane Corporation for its Wichita, Kansas
facility. The Agency has proposed (in the Federal Register, on
February 26, 1985) the use of a vertical and horizontal spread
(VHS) model to aid in the evaluation of delisting petition*.
After addressing tne public comments received on the model, this
•odel was aade final (with few adjustments) on November 4, 19B5;
it will be u»ed to assist us in making delisting evaluations.
Tne VHS model uses ieachate data and waste volume estimate* in
order to predict waste toxicant concentrations in ground water
at a downstream compliance point* and Allows the comparison of
predicted values with appropriate health-based numbers. The
Agency's use of this model involves several reasonable worst
case assumptions concerning the land disposal of hazardous
wastes. These assumptions are based on reviews of the technical
literature and informal surveys of States and State Solid and
Hazardous Waste agencies* and are not based on site-specific
factors. The Agency believes that the VHS model is quite
conservative, and represents a reasonable worst case tor the
factors considered.
The Agency has considered the use of site-specific factors
in its delisting evaluations. Specifically, the local geographical
hydrogeological, and demographic conditions were considered as
ractors that could affect the Agency's decisions. Once a wast*
is oelisted, however, there is no guarantee that the waste will
DC nanayoC at the site that was evaluated. That is, the generator
ot thf waste is under no obligation to manage the waste at a
particular site. Therefore, we believe the use ot sito-speciric
tartcrs arc irtar-vro^riate. Th«> A^oncy also considered i>laciny
conditions on t*v. cieJiBtin^. excisions that would require s^ecitic
t !a*na..,c!rt?nt. This opticr. was also rejected since such an
-------
evaluation would essentially be the sane as the permitting
process. The Agency reels that if management conditions need to
be specified to ensure that a particular waste does not damage
human health or the environment, the waste i± hazardous and
•hould be managed at a site that is fully permitted to handle
that waste.
I would also like to point out that the Agency does
consider ground-water data fro* a facility as part of the
delisting evaluation. The lack of ground-water contamination
is viewed as being supportive of a petition; however, this
information is indicative of what has happened at the site
receiving the waste and not what wTTT happen. Therefore,
ground-water data alone are not sufficient to determine
whether a waste is non-hazardous.
X am hopeful that this response addresses your concerns.
If you have any questions, please contact my office at your
convenience.
Sincerely yours,
J. Winston porter
Assistant Administrator
bcc : GWTF
Nancy H. Fussell, Boeing
Faye Sandberg, EPA Region VI I
Congressional Liaison/Craig Deremer, EPA
-------
9423.1965(06)
OCT 29 BS6
«r. V«rrill «. Norwood, Jr.
Vie* President, Environmental Affair
01 in Chemicals
P.O. Box 248
Lower River Road
Charleston, Tennessee 37310
Dear Mr. Norwoodt
Thit it in response to your letter to »e dated October 8,
1985, regarding the applicability of a variance fro*
classification as a solid waste for a spent material which
is regenerated and then recycled at the facility which produced
the original commercial product. Before I respond to your
specific request, Z would like to define the facts (as Z
understand the*):
A commercial alkaline etchant (produced by the Philip X.
Runt Chemical Company) is distributed for us* to manufacturers
of printed circuits. After a period of use, the alkaline
etchant is reduced below acceptable levels and therefore
becomes spent (i.e., a material that has been used end
as a result of contamination can no lonqer serve the
purpose for which it was produced without processing).
This material (as you indicated) would be defined as
hazardous because of its corrosive nature. This spent
material is then returned to the manufacture of the
alkaline etchant where copper is first recovered
(defined as reclamation)! the remainder of the etchant
(after reclamation) is then used as a raw material to
produce additional alkaline etchant. (Although not
germane to the decision, you indicate that the recovered
copper salts are eold providing additional economic benefits.)
Based on this description, Z do not believe that you
qualify for a variance under the modified closed-loop provision.
In particular, to qualify for a variance pursuant to S260.31(b),
the material that is reclaimed must be used as a feedstock
within the original primary production process in which the
waste was generated. You are correct that the regulations do
not require that this all occur at a single production/regeneration
facility) howevert the material (after reclamation) must be
returned to the process from which it was generated. In your
-------
situation, the process which generated the vast* is the us*
of the «tcheat by th« printed circuit board manufacture? the
reclaimed material 1* not returned And used •• an etchant but
rather ueed-aa an ingredient to make additional etchant.
(Zt should also be nottd that if you were to rtturn tht
•tenant to the printed circuit board manufacturer after
reclamation, you still would not qualify for a variance
since the material is not being used as a feedstock/ingredient.)
Tlius, since you do not return the reclaimed material to the
process which generated the waste, your particular situation
does not meet the basic conditions of the modified closed-loop
provisien.V
Therefore, the spent alkaline etchant is subject to
regulation by the generator (which includes the manifest),
must be transported by a hasardous waste transporter, and the
reclamation facility must comply with the appropriate standards
regarding storage of the spent alkaline etchant. Z had
discussed this with several of the Regions when you originally
sent in your petition and, therefore, I believe we are all
being consistent.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any
questions* my telephone number ie (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Vasts Identification Branch
I/ Although you do not qualify for a variance pursuant to
~ |2C0.31(b), the reclaimed material that la used as a
rav material to produce the alkaline etchant is not a
weete, and thua is not subject to regulation.
-------
9433.19'66(Ci)
JAN
7 £5-
MB. Elizabeth Ro»« (6H-CB)
EPA Region VI
1201 El» Street
Dallas. TX 75270
Dear Us. Ro»»:
This letter is in response to your recent telephone
conversation with Mr. David Topping of my staff. Specifically,
you requested information concerning the definition of hazardous
waste contained in 40 CPR Part 261 and the delisting criteria
related to leachate levels.
S261.3UM2) (ill) the deals with wastes which are included '-
in Subpart D solely because they meet the characteristic! of
hazardous waste described in Subpart C (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxiclty). Thus, a mixture of D002
waste (included solely for corrotirity) and a solid wast* would
not be hazardous if the mixture no longer exhibit* the characteristic
of eorrosivity, nor any other hazardous waste characteristics.
However, waste which are listed in Subpart D because of th» presence
of specific hazardous constituents (e.g., K04f, K049, and K051,
all of which are listed for hexavalent chromium and lead) remain
hazardous unless thy are excluded from the list under 55260.20 and
260.22 (i.e., delisted).
The delisting criteria include a sliding regulatory scale
which dictates allowable leaehate levels for specific volumes of
wastes. Por wastes which are typically disposed of in a landfill,
this scale Is described at 50 PR 7882, February 26, 1985 and 50
PR 48886, November 27, 1985. In general, the allowed leachate
levels for landfilled wastes range from 32x the drinking water
standards for small volumes of wastes (< 475 yd3) to approximately
6x the drinking water standards for large volumes of waste
(> 5000 yd'). Also, as required by the Hazardous and Solid
waste Amendments of 1984, the Agency's evaluation of petitioned
wastes is -not restricted to the constituents for which the waste
was orginally listed. Rather, the Agency evaluates all factors
(including additional constituents) which could reasonably be
expected to be*present and would cause the waste to be hazardous.
It should also be noted that the type of leachate test to be performed
may vary, depending upon the nature of the waste being evaluated.
Por example, oily petroleum refinery wastes are typically subjected
to the EP for Oily waste procedure rather than the standard tP
leachate test.
-------
Evaluation criteria for vast** that are subject to disposal
other than in landfills (e.g., land treatment or management in
surface impoundments) art currently being developed; in fact, the
evaluation criteria for waste that are land treated was proposed
on November 27, 1985 (SO PR 48943). While these models have not
yet been made final, it is expected that the allowed leachate
levels for these disposal scenarios will oe more strigent than
those described above for landfilled wastes.
Should you have any further questions concerning the hazardous
waste definitions or the delisting prograw, please contact me or
Hr. Havid Topping of my staff at (202) 475-8531.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Haste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
9432.i966(0<)
Jonn Far.se y
Kansas Departrvent of
health arvJ Environment
Hazardous U'aste Section
froryes Field
Topeka, Kansas 66620
Dea:
Ha^sey:
As per our telephone conversation, this letter sufliTr.ar izes
the- information that our office would have reouired for the
evaluation of the filter cake froir> the new filter cress systen
at Boeino's t-'ichita facility. Typically, we reruest the
following items from all petitioners, we ask for a Tnininum of
tour representative sanples (usually composites) to be taken
over a tine period sufficient to encompass any normal variations
in the process systwv. Janis Butler had indicated to me that
uoeina woula likely be preparing weekly composites for analysis.
-Analyses for total constituent concentrations of the
EP toxic netals, nickel, and cya.nirte
-EP leachate data for the EP toxic metals and nickel
-Distilled water leaching test for CK~ (substitutinn
distilled water for acetic acid in the EP test)
-Total oil and grease content of the waste (the EP Test
for Cily Waste nay be necessary if there is >1% OSC
in the waste)
-Testing for the other characteristics of hazardous waste
(i.e., ignitabilitv* corrosivity, and teactivicv)
-Averace and maximum annual sludrje volumes (projected if
necessary—waste volume ia a variable in our VHS rr.oael)
-Raw materials lists and/or Material Safety Data Sheets
(to evaluate the waste for the presence of Appendix
VIII constituents)
-Detailed descriptions of the production processes and
-- f*"'*-
wosLc Lid-.U-i-.-L ^QwCajT^^n^wwi »***n • * .—
i«ot 1
r.Oesc:
prc
ip.t.i.o.ns...j
ceriuros,
"analyst"!
and cual
.ty contr
nsste"
jceoures,
si nr'oceJ
anAlytic
.ires" "used
al
"i'ri
. P»n« 1J20.I OJ-70) . OFFICIAL FILE COPY
«5 : l«tl 0 - «V«1
-------
Some ot this.information is picoaoly in youv files already,
and there may be additional items not mentioned here for which
you will want wore information from Boeina.
I hope this will help your office with the i;e-evaluation
of Boeing's waste. If vou have any questions, feel free to
call we at (202) 382-47U3.
Sincevely,
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Poecialist
Office of Solid waste (WH-5f2*)
-------
9433.1966(05)
SUBJECT: kequletory Status of Temporarily and Informally
Del isted Wastes
FROM: harcta E. Williairs, Director c^.v -;—?^ t>y
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) f'"='=^ £. V.'.-.J.T^
TO: Solia Waste Branch Chiefs
Regions {I-X>
A number of questions have arisen regarding the status of
informally excluded wastes (i ,e., those facilities that submitted •-
delisting petitions and were informed via letter that th*ir wastes
wo.uld be delisted). After discussions with Enforcement personnel,
the Office of. General Counsel, and Conaressional staff, we have
determined that interval exclusions are no longer effective.
This menorandur sets our current policy with regard to informal
exclusions.
First, however, Z would like to review where we stand with
regard to petitioners with temporary exclusions* As you are
aware, those facilities that were granted temporary exclusions
are those that were rtoticed in the Federal Register (see attached
list)* Tnese exclusions terminate on November 8, 1986, unless
the Aoency grants a final exclusion before that date. Petitioners
with temporary exclusions, that have outstandinq data requests,
have been notified by letter that if a complete petition is not
received by a certain date, we will propose to deny their petition
based on insufficient data. The first notice of this kind was
published at 51 FP 2526, January 17, 1986.
Informal exclusions, on the other hand, are those previous
decisions where the staff of the delisting program evaluated the
petition, and decided to grant the exclusion; however, the decision
was never published in the Federal Penister, as reouired under
S260.22(r). (See attached list.) Tne Agency informed the
petitioners and Regional enforcement counsel of the anticipated
deli sting, ive_ requested that the Pec ions exercise discretion with
recierd to these facilities until the decision was published in the
Feoer al Perister as a temporary exclusion. t*hile the Agency inferred
[petitioners and enforcement counsel that this interir period should
be short, no specific time period was mentioned.
-------
It was ultimately decided, however, not to publish the decisions
in the Federal Register due to tfte anticipated chances in delistirw
criteria as-a result of the Amendments (i«e., the consideration of
other factors in evaluating the hazards posed by the waste).
Instead, these petitioners were asked to submit the additional
information, as would bt required under HSWA, to evaluate the
petition.
Since notices were never published in the Federal Register,
legally, informal exclusion* were linited to the exercise of
enforcement discretion, and these wastes are still considered
hazardous. Since the provisions under Section 3005 (e)(2)
apply to hazardous wastes, any person who nanacje* hazardous
waste in a land disposal facility, including petitioners with
informal exclusions, lost interim status on November 6, 1985,
unless the requirements of the loss of interim status provision,
42 U.S.C. S6925(«)(2) are satisfied. Petitioners with informal
exclusions will receive a letter very shortly clarifying this
issue, and reouesting that they contact you regarding the specific
concerns of their facility. A copy of any letter sent to a
facility in your Keg ion will be sent to you. In addition, those
facilities that sianage their waste off-site nust transport it
to a Subtitle C facility (i.e., a facility that has been fully
permitted or one that has interin status).
for those facilities with an active petition still on file
with us, we art processing their petitions in an expedited
manner, when a decision is wade on these petitions, it will
be proposed in the Federal Register as soon as possible.
Zf you have any questions or need any further information on delist-
ing, please contact Hatthew A. Straus or Hyles worse of »y staff,
at (202) 475-8551. Please direct any questions on enforcement to Lloyd
Cuerci at (202) 382-4808.
Attachment
-------
9423.1966(06)
MAR 10 :
•*: . HAI tin Srith
PRI-i/awaiian Independent Refinery
PUI Tower, 733 Bifchop St.
Honolulu, M
i Mr.
Th* purpose of this letter is to infor* you that the
informal rtelistinc that your facility received, with icoard to
the wastes identified in the petition (f0119) you »ubr>itte^
pursuant to 40 CPP 55260.20 enj 260.22 of the PCPA haznzrtotj*
w»»te reculations, id no loncer effective. In particular, on
l/ec*PD«r 3, 1*81, your company submitted * petition to exclude
tho wastes censrated [and stored] et youi facility (listed an
EPA Haziiruous v»«£te Hos. r050 and K051). Pese-1 on our evaluation
of the petition at that tire, t.^« dclistina oroqr*r r«co^re>ied
thAt your petition be granted.^/ Tho ntfiec of Solid Waste sent
a letter to you (datwd Auqust 7, 19*1) infosninvj you that
a preliminary decision had been rade en youv petition, and that
tne wastes generated [and stored] at your facility were likely
to be declared non-haiairtous (basert on the orininul lintinr; cri-
teria). According to this letter, a notice would he puMiMie-J in
the Fectfral Ppciat^r in the near future that wuulo riv« your
facility a temporary exclusion. In the inter in, however « It WAS
sugvevted to the Region that your facility be alloyed to hanale
the petitioned wastes as non-hazardous.
Tho Assistant Administrator for Solid v;astr unrt
Kosponbe aecideu, however, not to grant your facility a te™ not-
ary exclusion due to the anticipated statutory changes in deiist-
inc criteria (1 >e. , the consideration of other factors in evaluat-
ing the hazards po»«d by the wastes)* Instead, you *er* AS*.*'.) to
subnit the aocition^l information, as would oe recuirtd under
HSS'A, to evaluate the petition. As a result, a notice grantinr P.
temporary exclusion was never published in the federal
*c required under £260.22(e). Co nsa fluently, you nav«r receive
It Should be noted that the Hazardous *nd Solid waste
pents (HSWA), enacted in 19tU, reouiie the Vjency to address
other factors (including additional constituents) when «v«lu*
atinr e dflistinr petition* if there ie a reasonable basis to
believ* th*t those factors way cuustt th* notition«
-------
o t-.v ;x;r s: > exclusion for t*"-f* •£ef'.'*e> r~-..->rr <••••'' (>n.' .r
VOL: iH'.-ilifvf ynur waftes *: * <••->."•"• it' '••_-<•••: (.^TV:: jivrv*
:.£*.•.-;! hs^ar-jous waster,.
rust hendlo your wastes as h^zartJous. If you
your w.vtes off-«it*, «/ou rust transport th'K to a v,^:-.titls
facility ( i... g . > a facility that has C^PD fully •^r
or une tf.r»t r>ar- int«rir; star.us) . If, en the ot'ifr
you ran-j.;C' you: wcsccs o^-site, you ruse Tenant tl:ev. in BD
intc-ri:- ttatur, or tullv rer~itt*jj facility. You sr.ou)-! !-o
«wore t^'-et if you use a l.ina .1inr>osal f^ctlitv, enn you rtj.-
not crr;-'ly yith tr.e provisions of ?ection 30p5(e)(?) (I
fiurr.it a corrr;it-te Pf.r t r: i.ercit application ffn-*' certifv
anco .wit^ uiou.-v; wotv-r ervl financial responsin-il ity
n/ '!ov«r :-• » 19R3), you have lost intei ir status. Tnus^ if
tl.c- ianJ ciafioiial tacility is still active, you' must iwnp •'•) e t*lv
closst* it a.-vJ Kuin:it a closure plan. If vou have arty inactive
lane1 cJiBpocal facilities that were user! to ranaoc thrsr- x.-^Btc'«>,
you must also suh*-it a closure rl«n for these units. You rsv
i>fe Buiiject to enforcement actions, inclurtint; enforcw»nt in th*
event of or»eration of land disposal units that have net co:-|-»lied
Ti»t» j^etition that 1* currently on tilt with this ottlce
r>e crested ns an «ctiv« petition tor wnich a previous
occisior. f.as not oeen r.ade. rinct? vour facility rtover recelvt
j tei..;;or&ry exclusion, the letters svnt to you announcing a r-.-
datory cJe«r3line for a final decision on your petition (^overscr a,
1^^.;) are no lonnei valia. fe plan to cx'»*oite tl:e :>rocessi-v fjt
your petition. Once your ne»tition in complete, a decision will i>*»
r-iicc , end a notice proposing to grant or cicny your rxclusic-n
will ^« {.uL'lishori in the Federal Ke
If you have any eueetionc re<;«rrtinc this decision,
contact ;:r. Matthew Straus at (202) 475-8551. Alfto, pi ear"
contact youi regional enforcement office (se« enclosure) to :!
ti«f- particular n«?euR of your facility as a result of this action.
Sincerely,
Origins' s!2"8& «y*
Marcia E. V/uliam$
riilinrs
Director
Office of Solid
Gene Lucero
Director
Cffic« of v-aete riotrrws Dnfprcer«?nt
-------
UK .0 STATES*.
9433.1986(07;
Mr. Ronald Shiver
Staff Engineer
K.W. Brown 6 Associates, Inc.
6A Graham Rd.
College Station, TX 77840.
Dear Mr. Shiver:
I have reviewed the ground water monitoring data you
submitted on behalf of Falcon Steel, Kaufman, Texas. The
increase in conductivity is not, in itself, sufficient reason
to deny a delisting petition. Unfortunately, data for the
remainder of the EP toxic metals and nickel (in addition to
lead and chromium) were not included in the 1984 and 1985
monitoring reports; ground water data for these constituents
is also necessary to insure that no contamination has occurred.
As a result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, we are required to consider all factors (including
additional constituents) when evaluating delisting pe-t-H-iuns,
if these factors may reasonably cause the waste to be hazar- _..--•
dous. (The EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide^are—reaso'nr
ably expected to be present in the wasjte—as~a result of the
operations performed at tJTe_i»«irity/ i .e., the tanks and
steel involved). -—'•
I also, once again, reviewed the closure plan submitted
in February, 1985. I want to clarify what will be required
in order to submit a complete delisting petition. The follow-
ing information will be needed:
1) all information under 40 CFR 260.22(b) and (i)(l-12)j
2) a detailed list, description and schematic of ell
manufacturing processes, including surface and
equipment preparation, cleaning and/or decreasing,
coating or painting processes, which may have contri-
buted waste, wastewater, painting or rinse water to the
waste petitioned for exclusion;
3) a complete list of all raw materials used, including
chemical compositions, and material safety data
sheets, if available, identifying all solvents, acids,
cleaners, surface preparation agents, paints, etc.,
-------
-2-
used in the manufacturing process which may have
entered the waste petitioned for delisting;
4) an explicit'statement verifying that the number
of samples collected and analyzed is representa-
tive of any variation in constituent concentrations,
and the basis for such e conclusion;
5) a detailed description of the sampling methodology
and analysis methods used on the representative
waste samples;
6) data indicating that representative samples were test-
ed for the ignitable, reactive, and corrosive charac-
teristics outlined in Subpart C $261.21-13.
The following testing requirements Rust be performed on
samples collected front each impoundment. The impoundments should
be divided into quadrants; at least four core samples should be
collected in each Quadrant and composited (at least four composites
are needed from each impoundment).
7) total constituent analyses of the waste (complete acid
digestion) for each of the EP toxic metals, and nickel
on a representative number of samples (but not less
than four);
8) total analysis for cyanide on a representative number
of samples (but not less than four); if the cyanide
concentration exceeds 1 ppm, then tests should be
run for free cyanide on representative samples;
9) an EP leachate analysisV of the waste for each of the
EP toxic metals, nickelT and cyanide (using distilled
water for the CN analyses) on a representative number
of samples (but not less than four);
10) a determination of the total oil and grease content of
the waste be testing a representative number of samples
(but not less than four) using the enclosed method;
11) amount of waste present in each impoundment after neutral-
ization;
12) describe quality assurance procedures followed during
sampling and analysis, for example, results from the
method of standard additions for the EP toxicity tests
should be included.;
2/ If the oil and grease level of the waste exceeds one percent,
~" the EP for oily waste metholology should be followed during
analysis.
-------
-3-
If after reviewing the data specified above, the Agency finds
that organic toxic constituents or other toxic metals are used in
the facilities manufacturing processes, you nay be reouired to sub-
mit representative test data quantifying these constituents in
the waste.
If you have any questions about these information reoueets,
please call me at (202) 382-4519. In addition, the final guidance
manual is available through NTIS if you have not already acquired
it.
Sincerely,
Ann Burke Sarno
Environmental Protection Specialist
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9422.1966(08)
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Samuel Mostkoff :
Legal Counsel
Monroe Auto Equipment
International Drive
Monroe, Michigan 48161
Dear Mr. Mostkoff:
This is in response to your letter dated February 21, 1986,
formally requesting the Agency's reconsideration of, and a
rehearing on, its decision to deny, in part, Monroe's delisting
petition No. 0020. Monroe also requested the Agency to stay
the effective date of the final decision to deny the petition
for the waste contained in Monroe's lagoon.
Monroe raises three issues as the bases for its request
for reconsideration. These include: (1) Monroe's lack of
an opportunity to comment on the final VMS model; (2) the
Agency's evaluation of Monroe's waste using a total chromium
regulatory standard rather than a standard based on the waste's
hexavalent chromium content; and (3) the use of the present
drinking water standard for chromium rather than the use of
the proposed recommended maximum contaminant level (RMCL) in
the evaluation of the petition.
The Agency has evaluated Monroe's request, and has decided
that the final decision published on November 27, 1985, denying
Monroe's petition for the impounded waste was correct. The
Agency believes that the issues raised by Monroe do not warrant
a reversal of our decision.
Monroe had an opportunity to'comment on the model and its
application to Monroe's waste during the comment period. The
final version of the VHS model and its application to Monroe's
waste consider the sane elements as the proposal on which
Monroe commented. The change in the VHS formula, an altera-
tion in the vertical dispersion term, was made in response to
comments, and-did not alter the Agency's basic approach.
Monroe had an opportunity to comment on this aspect of the
proposed model.
-------
- 2 -
Monroe, reiterating its April, 1985 comments, suggests
that separate standards for hexavalent and trivalent chromium
are appropriate. A single standard for hexavalent chromium
and totat chromium is currently warranted. The current maximum
contaminant level (MCL) and the EP toxicity test level both
refer to total chromium. The Agency has considered revising
its standards to refer only to hexavalent chromium but has not
done so, and is concerned that trivalent chromium may be con-
verted to hexavalent chromium in the environment. The Agency
continues to believe that total chromium is an appropriate
factor to consider in its evaluation of delisting petitions.
The Agency is using the current MCL (50 ppb) set for
drinking water as the health-based standard for delisting.
As noted in the November 27, 1985 Federal Register, an increase
has been proposed for the recommended maximum contaminant level
to 120 ppb. As this new level is only proposed, and comments
on this proposal are still being evaluated, the Agency intends
to use the current MCL (to grant or deny petition*) until a
new RMCL or MCL can be set.
Finally, the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), referred
to in your letter, are standards applying to water* of the United
States, which are primarily surface waters. We have decided to
use MCLs in the VHS model, which consider* the potential for
contamination of ground water. AWQC will only be used when no
MCL or no other regulatory standard is available. The AWQC would
be used in that situation, until an MCL va* developed.
If you have any further questions regarding these issue*
please contact Mr. Steven Hirsch in our Office of General Counsel
at (202) 382-7703.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
cc: Jeffrey K. Sherwood
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
9433.1986(09
I 5 -~-
MBMORANPUH
SUBJECTi RCRA Section 3001 ( f ) ( 2) (b) and States' Exclusion
of Wastes fron Regulation a> Hazardous
FROMi Marcia E. Williams, Director j ?**£. *
Otf ice of Solid Waste Marcla E. Williams
TO: Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Regions I-X
Since November 8, 1964, EPA has administered all RCRA delistTng
programs and will continue to do so until States become authorized
for delisting under the new provisions of the Hazardous end Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (RSWA). A State is not required to have
a delisting aechanisn, and may be authorised under BSHA without
one. To receive authorization, a State must conform its delisting
program, if any, to the Federal proa rant and apply to the Agency
for authorization.
Effective November 8, 1986, temporary exclusions automatically
expire. Any temporary exclusion granted by a State before
November 8, 1984, should be re-evaluated either by EPA or a State
that has been authorised to conduct delisting pursuant to HSWA.
If a final decision to grant or deny a petition has not been made
by November 8, ±986, the temporary exclusion will cease to be in
•ffect for purposes of RCRA Section 3001 (f ) (2)(B).
Temporary Exclusions
Temporary exclusions are delisting decisions which exclude
a vast* from regulation at hasartous, but are not the final
delisting action under the regulations of the issuing authority.
For example r 1PA Issued a number of temporary exclusions pursuant
to 40 CPX 2i0.22(a). That provision explicitly stated that these
decisions are made •before making a final decision". Similarly,
several States have mechanisms for removing a waste froa regulation
before promulgating a final decision, such as delistings patterned
on the Federal temporary exclusion.
-------
- 2 -
These temporary exclusions should be distinguished from
grants of enforcement discretion, where a State did not remove a
waste froB regulation, but stated only that it would not initiate
an enforcement action against a person treating this waste as non-
hazardous. Enforcement discretion, sometimes called informal
exclusions, are not temporary exclusions (nor are they final
exclusions).
final Exclusions
A final exclusion is an agency determination done in accordance
with the issuing authority's regulations; e.g.. with notice and
consent after which no further review of the petition is contemplated,
EPA issues final exclusions pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,
which requires publication of a tentative decision in the Federal
Register, receipt and evaluation of public comments, and publication
of a final decision in the Federal Register. States issue final
exclusions in accordance with their State legal authorities.
Any final exclusions that were granted by authorised States
before November 8, 1984, are not affected by BSWA (i.e., no
additional action is required by the State or by EPA). EPA
encourages the States to re-evaluate those decisions if all
factors (including additional constituents) which could cause
the waste to be hazardous were not considered by the State.
Actions Required
On November 8, 1986, all temporary exclusions will cease to
be in effect for purposes of RCRA if a final exclusion has not
been granted. States and Regions should plan to verify that the
handlers of these previously excluded wastes are complying with
applicable requirements after November 8, 1986. To this end, the
Regions and States should begin to evaluate all State delistings
to:
(1) determine the type of State exclusion (temporary or final)
that was granted before November 8, 1984;
(2) determine whether a final exclusion has been granted or
denied by EPA; and
(3) take appropriate action to ensure full compliance with
RCJLA.(e.g., prior to 11/8/86, you should send handler*
written notification of their regulatory responsibilities.
-------
- 3 -
Proe a practical standpoint, the expiration of • temporary
exclusion will have greatest immediate impact on those who
manage their waste in land disposal unite. These units may
be immediately subject to ground-water monitoring requirements
and, on November 8, 1987. may be subject to the 'loss of interim
status" requirements of Section 3005 (•)(?), depending on whether
other haiardous. waste management activity is occurring at tme
facility.
Currently, there are no State* ••thorised for the BSUA
delisting authority. Even if a State v«re to receive the
required authorisation before November 8, 198€, it it highly
unlikely that adequate tiat exists to collect and evaluate the
additional information Cram, petitioners so as to avoid termination
of the temporary exclusion.
A "Reference Guide to Delisting Petitions" is compiled at
EPA Headquarters and distributed weekly to the Regional delisting
contacts. In turn, the Guide ia distributed to the States. This
reference can be used to determine if EPA is reviewing a particular
petition and the status of BPA's review.
Please feel free to contact the deliating ataff of the Haste
Identification Branch or the Regional Liaisons of the State
Programs Branch here in the Office of Solid Naste if you have
any questions regarding State delistings.
ec: Matt Straus, OSW
Truett DeGeare, OSW
-------
9 4'3 3 . I 9 8 6 ( I 0 ;
APR ? £ '?
» instruction of Lioxin Contaninatt«J Soil Using Mobile
Incineration
Marcia L. fcilliejns, Director
Cttic* or i»olid fcacte to the waste generated at the indivicual
tacility covered &y the demonstration ano will not Apply to
t.a»te iror. any other facility*. In addition, NCkA $3005(f)(lJ
rc^uiret. the petitioner to aenonstrate, to tne satistaction of
the Aar.inifttrator, that the waste does not eeet any ot the criteria
lor which it is listed nor contain any oth«r additional constituents
vnich could cause the waste to be hazardous. The oelisting
aeiionatration, theretore, is required to be taaae on the waste
itselt, and cannot Le eaoe on surrogates (i.e.,
may, however, incinerate a small portion ot the
contacinatec soil iron-. Cult port, Mississippi on another CNSCC
unit ccrtitieo'~aB achieving .six 9's L*L as a basis for their
-------
collating petition M.'i»c would need to denonstrate that: (1)
tne two £totO units are essentially identical, and (2) the waste
incinerated curing th« "test burn* is representative or a ' worst -
case" or tne waste that will be incinerated during the field
demonstration, furthermore, NCiiC must provide 'test burn* oata
on a u.ininun ct tour representative samples ot the solid residue
and ct the scrubber water* These samples nust be analyzed for the
characteristics or a hazardous waste ana for all the Appendix VIII
constituents that are reasonably expected to be present in the
waste. Tnu Appendix VI II constituents would be chosen based on
the results or the analyses on the contaminated soil from
tiulfport, Mississippi. Providing that the concentrations of the
nazaruous constituents in the waste meets the delisting require-
ments, the Agency could propose to *rant a conditional exclusion.
The conditional exclusion is needed to verity that the two tt«cco
units do indeed achieve the sane destruction of riciency.
site Construction
, as amended cy tne Hazardous and Solid waste
AL-.enor.ents ot 19B4, requires owners and operators of all hazardous
waste treataent, storage, and disposal facilities to obtain a
*tUvA perr.it prior to constructing a iiCRA facility* While I can
appreciate the LSAt 's intent to expedite the testing of the
mobile incinerator, KD&u permits are also subject to this
restriction* (Jeotion >27C.6&(b) only allows tPA to codiry or
waive tne permit application and procedural requirements of
<*u C.r.i\. t'arts i70 ano l**f not the statutory requircrtents
or r.C*A. ) ihis reeans that the nobile incinerator can be prefab-
ricated and transported to the proposed treatment site, but
construction ot the site itself, sucn as pouring concrete founda-
tions and connecting the KTU to physical structures on-site
cannot occur until the Afc*D permit is issued (&CKA $iuy4(2)>.
If you have any additional questions on these issues, pleaso
contact U>reen sterling at PTS/*75-<*sSl with regard to delisting
and .%ancy fonerleau at fTS/3«U~450u with regara to site
construction*
ccs aruce Meddle
feter Uuerrero
Art Ciiaser
t
-------
•-? 2 i
«r. LelanC Herninq
Chevron USA, Inc.
P.O. box 7
Cleves, OH 45002
Dear Hr. herningi
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the February 13,
1986, telephone conversation between yourself and uoreen Sterling
of my staff and the ensuing conversations with Chris Tanner, ERrt-
Soutnwest, Inc. regarding Chevron's sampling and analysis plan.
The plan was submitted on January 13, 1986, and covered both the
separator sludge and pond sludge. We agree with Mr. Tanner that
it is imperative that we document our position to ensure no aiAunder-
standings in the future*
Chevron proposed to take ten grab samples of the separator
sludge as it is pumped to the thickener during a five-«inute pump
cycle. Thusr samples would be taken every 30 seconds over the
course of five minutes. Chevron further proposed to allow the
samples to settle for a half-hour, and the samples which showed a
•relatively significant volume of solids' would be sized. «rab
samples of the essentially solios free water pumped at the end of
the cycle and the solids free water left in the line would be
discarded. Chevron claims tnat the grab samples are "representative"
of the pump cycle. A composite sample would be constructed fro*
equal volumes of three grab samples taken over a four hour period.
The Agency is concerned that the proposed sampling plan
nay not result in collection of samples that are truly representative
of the listed waste. In particular, we believe that the camples
would consist of the listed API separator sludge diluted with a
large volume of non-listed wastewater. Chevron concedes that the
water* which purges the sludge from the line, is "easily" separated
from the sludge and returned to the influent of the oil/water
separator. The Agency has, therefore, concluded that the dilute
samples taken from the separator are not representative of the
waste. Although the Agency recognizes that it is the *tt>X separator
sludge which is tne listed waste, the Agency believes, however,
that samples of tne thickened sludge would more accurately represent
the waste -tor the reasons discussed below.
-------
Ordinarily* tne coraDination of API aeparator sludge and
water veuld be considered a mixture of a listed haxardous watt*
.and nosr-listed wastewater. By virtu* of the aixture rule (40 CFR
f2fl.3(a)(2)(iv)}, the resultant wastestreaa would be defined as
hasardous. Even if the sludge is dewetered, the resultant liquid
stream would be considered a hazardous waste by virtue of the
•derived fro*' rule (40 CPR 261.3(c ) (2)(i).
According to a memorandum dated August 23, 1985 (see enclosure),
however, the Agency concluded that the 'derived £rom" rule ia not
uniformly applicable to the aqueous stream generated in a sluag«
dewatering process. The basis for this determination was that
properly conducted dewatering of API separator sludge would insure
that none of the listed waste is returned to the system* while
simultaneously reducing the total amount of waste generated. This
assumes that the non-listed waatewater caae in contact but was not
•mixed" with the sludge.
The burden of proof is on the facility to establish that
•properly conducted* dewatering had occurred. Specifically* it
the facility can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Regional
authorities* that the return water stream is chemically equivalent
to the non-listed wastewater influent to the wastewater treataent-
devlce that originally generated the listed waste* then the return
water itrtao it not 'derived from' tftt hazardous vaste. EPA nay*
hovever* make its own evaluation and determine that the waste in
question is indeed a mixture.
Chevron's four bay aerated lagoon is not currently reported as
a regulated vaste management unit* We, therefore presume that
Chevron has satisfactorily made the demonstration, to the appropriate
Regional authorities* that effective dewatering of sludge had
occurred and that the return wastewater ia not the listed vaste. If
this is correct* then the separator aludge* which is diluted with
water, is not considered a mixture. Sampling of a waste* diluted
with a large volume of water* does not constitute a representative
sample. It is, therefore* necessary that you sample the dewatered
sludge by eithers (1) sampling the thickener* or (2) analyzing the
sludge from the separator once the water has been removed. If you
choose the latter option* the samples should be allowee to settle
for ninety minutes (the calculated wastewater residence tiae in
the separator). During settling* the samples should oe properly
stored to prevent the possible loss of hasardous constituents
through volatilization (i.e.* the samples should be capped and
refrigerated).
If we have misrepresented your position that properly conducted
dewatering has occurred and you believe instead that the dilute
sample coming_off of your seperator is indeec a 'mixture** you
should be aware that your .downstream impoundments are then hazardous
vaste management units. If the units in question were not included
on Part A of your RCJtA permit application* or subsequent modification
thereof and/or were not covered in your certification of compliance
-------
with applicaDle ground water nonxtoring «nd financial requirea«nts,
then these units do not have interxa status unaer KCRA. They must
cease the receipt of naxaraous w*«t* i&a«diat«ly and closure plans
•u«t b« subaittsd to EPA or an «utnonz«d Stat* agency for review,
approval, and implementation (S3U05(e}(2) ot KCxA, see 50 £* 3«^46),
Failure to comply aay suoject you to entorceeent action.
If you nave any further questions regarding this issue, please
contact Doreen Sterling of ay staff at 202-475-6775.
Sincerely,
Eileen Cl*u*sen
Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division (WH-562E)
Enclosure
cci Chris Tanner, Ckn-Southwest
bcc: Ben Smith
Lloyd Guerci, OWPE
Dale Helmers, Region V
-------
5. Delistinc 94:3.
A petroleum refinery obtained interim status in 1980 for a surface
ijnpoundment used to treat and store K051. The facility manages no
other hazardous waste. In 1981, the EPA granted a delisting for
the K051 waste because the owner/operator proved that the refining
process waste did not contain lead and hexavalent chronium, the
constituents for which K051 was listed. Does the K051 delisting
effectively mean that the facility never managed a listed hazardous
waste? How would the delisting affect the facility's interim status?
A person may submit a petition to EPA, pursuant to 40 CFR
§§260.20 and 260.22, to have a waste at a particular facility
delisted. Prior to September 21, 1985, EPA granted only
"informal" or temporary exclusions. "Informal" exclusions
were suggestions to the Regions that enforcement discretion be
used when a tentative decision to grant a temporary exclusion
had been made. Temporary exclusions renewed a waste at a
particular facility from regulation, pursuant to 260.22(m)
(then in effect, see 50 FR. 28727-28, July 15, 1985). EPA
follows the procedures set forth in 40 CFR $260.20 to grant
final exclusions, which are regulatory amendments.
Wastes which were informally excluded were technically still
hazardous wastes. An impoundment holding informally excluded
K051 waste was subject to the Loss of Interim Status provisions
£ on November 8, 1985.
f For temporarily excluded wastes, the facility's status depends
OT on the scope of the temporary delisting granted. If only the
P, waste generated after the date of. the temporary exclusion was
J delisted, waste placed in the impoundment prior to that date
t* would still be hazardous (K051) waste. The impoundment would
^ have had interim status and should have met Part 265 standards.
x The Loss of Interim Status provision applied to the impoundment
u D on November 8, 1985.
n j
J M If the temporary exclusion covered the waste already in the
5 §j impoundment as well as K051 waste generated after the exclusion
* < date, then the facility would still have interim status, but
o none of the Part 265 interim standards would apply to that
p surface impoundment. The facility would technically have been
* subject to the Loss of Interim Status provision, but not
u required to certify compliance with financial responsibility or
8; ground water monitoring requirements, since none of these Part
S& 265 requirements were "applicable," or to submit a Part B
< permit application on November 8, 1985, (50 FR 38947, September
g 25, 1985). ~
o*
If EPA revokes the temporary exclusion, or it ceases to be in
effect by operation of law, e.g., if the Agency does not make
a final decision on the petition by November 8, 1986, (RCRA
S3001(f)(2)(B)), the facility will become subject to the Part
265 interim status reouirements. The facility must then
certify compliance with financial responsibility and ground
water monitoring reouirements and submit a Part B permit
application within 12 months or lose interim status (RCRA
S3005(e)(3)>.
Source: Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7703
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
9423.:966(l4
Hr. J. K. White
President
United Chair
P.O. Uox 9fa
114 Churchill Ave. M.W.
Leeds, Alabama 35094
Dear Mr. White:
I have received your letter dated April 17, 1985, regarding
the informal exclusion issued to your Irondale, Alabama facility
on May 5, 1982, and withdrawn on March 10, I»b6. The issues
addressed in your letter are discussed separately below.
(1) There is an apparent conflict in the Agency's claims that
United Chair received an informal delisting, but that
the waste generated has always been considered hazardous
and must be treated as hazardous.
There is no conflict. A temporary exclusion and an informal
exclusion are very different. A temporary exclusion is a change
in the regulatory status of certain wastes, from hazardous to
non-hazardous. A temporary exclusion could only be granted by the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste ana Emergency Response,
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S260.22(m). In contrast, an informal exclusion
was not a regulatory change at all. It was an indication by tne
Agency that it would not take enforcement action against a petitioner.
This enforcement discretion was exercised when it was believed
that a temporary exclusion would be granted, but before tne petition
had been processed and the tenporary exclusion granted. (See
enclosed meaorandum from R. Sarah Compton to the Kegions, January 12,
1981.)
In Hay 1982, a memorandum was sent from Headquarters Enforcement
Counsel to our Regional contacts advising them that the office of
Solid Haste had made * preliminary decision on United Chair's
petition (see enclosure). The memorandum suggested the use of
enforcement discretion until the delisting was published in tne
Federal Register. This memorandum reflects only the use of
enforcement discretion, i.e., an informal exclusion, not a temporary
exclusion. As~noted above, a temporary exclusion could only be
issued by the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. The Assistant Administrator never acted on United Chair's
petition, and thus an temporary exclusion was never granted.
Accordingly, your waste is, euM§uiBa»cg
-------
(2) united Cna.ir believes that the informal exclusion was the
sarcu as a temporary exclusion and tnat EPA us*a these
terms eynonynously to indicate the waste's non-haiardousne»s.
Despite, .the regulatory difference between these two types
of decisions, the Agency for a period of tine, treated informal
and temporary exclusions similarly (i .e., all wastes were allowed
to be managed as non-hazardous wastes, although Agency discretion
had been used with regard to informally excluded wastes). The
Agency, however, cannot legally ignore this regulatory distinction.
(3) United Chair believes that its exclusion was a temporary
exclusion which would require EPA to provide notice and
opportunity for public comment before effectively withdrawing
this decision and further claims that HSWA under 42 U.S.C.
S6921(f)(l), (f }(2)(A) requires notice and comment.
As indicated above, there is a clear regulatory definition of
a temporary exclusion. If a recomnendation to exclude a waste was
never signed by the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response then the petitioned waste is still a listed
hazardous waste* Despite the Agency's choice to exert discretion
for a period of tine, your waste was never legally an exempted
waste, and notice and public comment are not required for the Agency
to withdraw an informal decision. It should tie noted that notice
and an opportunity for public comment is not necessary for issuing
and withdrawing enforcement discretion. 42 U.S.C. $6921(f)(1) and
(2)(A) indicate tnat the Agency must provide notice and an opportunity
for public comment before granting or denying a petition. The
March 10, 1986, action withdrew our decision to exert enforcement
discretion. It was not a decision to grant or deny United Chair's
petition. It, therefore, was not necessary to provide notice and
an opportunity for public comment.
(4) EPA must make a final decision on United Chair's petition
by November 1986, and must, in the meantime, consider the
waste as non-hazardous.
The November 1986 deadline referred to only affects temporary
exclusions. The Agency is not required to make a tinal decision
on temporary exclusions by November tf, 1986. The 1984 Amendments
state only that if a final decision is not made by that Gate,
the temporary exclusion will cease to be in ettect. Tne Agency
intends, however, to make a final decision on all temporary
exclusions by November 8, 1986. Again, no decision to exclude
United Chair's vasts- was ever signed by the Assistant Administrator
and, therefore, a temporary exclusion was never granted. Tne only
statutory requirement imposed on the Agency for petitions for
Which a temporary exclusion has not been granted is tnat a decision
be proposeo in the Federal' Register within one year of receipt of
a conplete petition, and that a final decision be made within two
years of receipt of a complete petition, to the maximum extent
practicable. We expect to meet these deadlines tor your petition.
-------
-J-
(5) Representatives of the Alabama Department of environmental
Management (ADEH) are prepared to testify that EPA
representatives had made a decision to approve United Chair's
petition and had granted United Chair an informal delisting.
The Agency has never denied granting United Chair a
discretionary or informal exclusion. The Agency's Regional Office
correctly relayed this information to the ADEM.
(6) An EPA letter dated September 17, 1*85, requesting additional
data under HSWA indicated that the data be submitted as
soon as possible since all exclusions not made tinal by
November 1986 will expire.
As indicated in |2 above, the Agency had tracked both informal
and temporary decisions together in its etforts to collect additional
information in a timely fashion under HSWA. The Agency, however, is
not required by statute to issue a final decision on any informal
decisions by November 6, 1986. Nevertheless, we would like to
process your petition and issue our final decision by this date.
(7) HSWA acknowledges that EPA had granted non-published A.
temporary exclusions and that they are valid. '
The HSWA reference meani only that temporary exclusions were
granted without a prior opportunity for comment and the* tull
consideration of such comments (i.e. , temporary exclusions were
issued with a request for comment after the effective date of the
exclusion).
(8) United Chair also requests that a final decision be made no
later than November 8, 1966.
The Agency expects to issue a tinal decision by November 8,
19E6. Much of our analysis has been completed, and our tentative
decision to deny is based on highly variable levels of barium
and chromium in the waste and the unacceptable mobility of both
barium and chromium exhibited by the population of waste samples
tested. United Chair will receive a letter providing the details
of this analysis in the near future.
Zf you have any further questions regarding these issues,
please contact Mr. Hyles Horse of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely
fc. *
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9433.1986(16
Byron R. Crary, Esq.
Environmental Law Section
The Uow Chemical Company
2030 Millard H. Dow Center
Midland, Michigan 48674
Dear Mr. Crary:
This is in reference to your ruleaaking petition to classify
your halogen acid furnaces (HAFs) as industrial furnaces under
KCRA. Although the Agency has not yet reached a decision on the
merits of your petition, our thinking has progressed sufficiently
to provide you with our initial views.
I understand that you and other DOW representatives met with
member* of ray staff and our Office of General Counsel on July 10,
1986, to exchange information. At that meeting, we provided an
overview of our regulatory authority and existing and planned
controls for aaterials that are recycled by burning. We also
discussed the information you provided in your July 8, 1986,
letter.
Based on our understanding of your operations as summarised
in the enclosure, we believe it could be appropriate to classify
those HAFs that are not currently boilers as industrial furnaces.
Accordingly, we currently plan to propose to designate your non-
boiler HAFs as industrial furnaces in a Federal Register notice.
We hope to be able to develop the notice for publication this
fall and to make a final decision early next year after considering
public comment.
Please review the enclosure and correct any misunderstandings
we may have about your operations. In particular note that we
consider the nonboiler HAFs that we tentatively plan to propose
to designate a* industrial furnaces to be burning the secondary
streams both M an ingredient and for energy recovery. The heat
energy released from burning the aaterials provides substantial,
useful energy to drive furnace reactions (i.e., to thermally
degrade chlorinated organic compounds). (Energy recovery does not
have to involve export of energy froo a combustion device such as
steaa produced by boilers.) Accordingly, these nonboiler UAFs as
-------
well as the boiler riAFs would be subject to regulation under
the rules we are planning to propose this fall for boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous wastes.
Furthermore, we consider the secondary streams to be
inherently waste-like and subject to designation as a solid
waste under §261.2(3) when burned in the KAFs. However, given
that the HAFs are considered to be burning partially for energy
recovery and would be subject to the soon-to-be proposed rules
for industrial furnaces, there is no need to undertake a desig-
nation at this time.
If you have questions or comment*, please contact Bob
Holloway, Chief, Waste Combustion Section, at (202) 382-7938.
Sincerely,
Williams
Marcia £.
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WB-562)
Enclosure
cc: Bob HoiIoway
Steve Silveraan,
bcc: David Garrett
Dwight Hlustick
Marc Turgeon
Esq.
-------
TC-iTATIVZ SA3IS FOR CLASSIFICATION OP HAFs
AS 3OIi-i.?>3 UR I.^oSTP.lAL r"JA.««^«.S
1 .• .The liAFs are fire-tube toilers modified to r;ro-uce rid froi.;
cnlonne-oearinj secondary streams uy scruooxa.j :;C1 rru.:. con-
Dustioa 3&ses. Tne typical cnlorxne content 01 the «treats
is 20>7u«.
2. Some HAFs operate as boilers and meet iiPA's definition of a
boiler.
3. The nonboiler H&Fc meet EPA's criteria for designation as an
industrial furnace (see 40 CFR 260.10) and related preamble
language (50 PR at pp. 625-627 (Janaury 4, 19BS)) for the
following reasons<
a. Klthough industrial furnaces normally process raw materials
and. thus, there is no question that they are integral
components of a manufacturing process, the HfcTs are con-
sidered to be integral components of a manufacturing process
because! (1) they are located on the site of a manufacturing
process and the only secondary streaas they handle are from
that manufacturing process; (2) the HC1 produced is a bona *
fide product in that it has a HC1 content of 7-20% and is .
used on-iit*. Thus, for these reasons and others identified
below, these device* are clearly distinguishable from
devices used to incinerate waste whsre some output, from the
incinerator may be considered to be a marketable product
(e.g., HC1-bearing scrubber water, bottom ash)
i •
b. The device is designed and used primarily to accomplish
recovery of ewterial products. The devices are specially
designed and operated fire-tube boilers tnat enable them to
accept highly chlorinated feedstocks without unacceptable
corrosion and to •axlaiae HC1 production and recovery. DOM
has patents oa the HfcPs as evidence of their special design
differing frost normal incinerators. The materials are aleo
burned in these nooboiler HUTs partially for energy recovery
because substantial, usable heat energy is released by the
material during combustion, (inergy recovery occurs when
substantial, usable heat energy is provided either to drive
furasjsj* reactions or for export (e.g., steam generation by
a bolter)*) The materials have an as-fired heating value of
approximately 9,000 Btu/lb. The heat released results in
the 'thermal degradation of chlorinated organic compounds to
form HC1. If the materials had insignificant heating
value,_auxilliary fuels would have to be used.
c. The device is used -to burn a secondary material as an
ingredient to make a material product. Chlorine-bearing
secondary streaas from chemicals manufacturing operations
are burned to produce HC1.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT
9 4 3 3. 19 So
SEP 30 fr3S
George Beys_
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Burns Harbor Plant - - . —
Box 246
Chesterton, Indiana 46304
Dear Mr. Baysi
Since our last telephone conversation, I have looked into
the regulatory requirements that would be applicable to Bethlehem's
waste should the temporary exclusion for this waste be withdrawn.
Since your waste has a temporary exclusion, it may be handled and
disposed as a non-hazardous eolid waste. If Bethlehem were to
move the petitioned sludge to a new site closer to the Burns
Harbor sinter plant in order to prepare the sludge for metals
recovery, a hazardous waste manifest would not be necessary while
the temporary exclusion was in effect. Manifesting would be
necessary in order to transport the waste to the new site after
the exclusion was withdrawn.
Whenever the exclusion for this waste is lost, the waste
must b« nanaged as hazardous wherever it is located on Bethle-
hem's property. If the waste was re-located prior to lost of the
exclusion to another site on Bethlehem's property closer to the
sinter plant, theji Bethlehem nay be eligible for interim statue
as a storage facility under $3005(e) of RCRA, subject to Part A
permitting requirements and compliance with storage standards
(40 CFR Part 262). Please contact your Regional representative
for further information.
Concerning Mr. Sapia's desire to store the waste on site
for future reclamation, it nay be possible for Bethlehem to do
so under the conditions specified above. It may aleo be possible
that the future management of this waste nay be affected by the
Agency's definition of eolid waste, which contains several
exemptions for the recycling and recovery of waste materials.
Por additional information, you should contact Mr. Matthew Straus,
Chief of the Kaste Characterisation Branch, at (202) 475-8551.
If you have any questions concerning the delisting petition
review process* please call me at (202) 382-4763.
Bincerely,
Scott J. Maid
•Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division
-------
_ PROTECTION AGEWCY
9433.1986(19)
-9DEC
John B. Hagar
Chemist
stone Industrial Division
J.L. Clark Manufacturing Co.
Slat Avenue t Cree Lane
•College Park, Maryland 20740
Rei Delisting Petition 1582
Dear Mr. Hagarr
Z have completed the review of the confidential business ~
information submitted by you in support of the delisting
petition that J.L. Clark Manufacturing Co. has on file here
at the Agency. My concern is focused primarily on the
detection limits provided for the organic constituents of
the still bottom solids. These limits are expressed in units
of percent by weightr and at such art too rough to allow a
precise evaluation of actual waste concentrations (that isr
if these rough percentages were used as inputs to the Agency's
organic leaching model and VHS groundwater model, several
resultant compliance-point values would be too high to consider
delisting). Finer detection limits for these compounds (i.e.,
parts per million) must be produced in order to evaluate the
organic content of the waste.
Also, inspection of the material safety data sheets has
indicated the potential presence of several other toxic Appendix
VZII constituents in the waste stream. These compounds must
also be evaluated in the waste in a manner similar to that
needed for the re-evaluation of the previously tested solvents.
A list of these constituents is given below.
Phthalic acid esters
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Aniline
.._ Tolylene diisocyanate
The Agency would like to' receive further clarification about
the ingredients of several other compounds mentioned in the
juaLBiial safely data sliceLS,
iLluJe
uraaul u
nation..ii
have thi
^B^^^^^Vw^^^* ^^^^pTTaTtis
.pjt0pr.ieJ.ary
^^xf^^n Jfr^rff^mr*
8...tQ
SYMBOL
•JftMAMt |
DATE I
Informal
*.. the.
ion kept
confiden:ial
er*
1120.1 (tj.70)
OFFICIAL. FILE COPT
-------
In order to ensure the timely review of your petition,
this information should be forwarded to the Agency as Boon
as possible. If you have any questions, please call ne at
(202) 3&2-<763.
Sincerely, "
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division
-------
9433.19£6(20
•DEC II 1996
KEHCRANDUK
CT: Delisting Issues Relating to £PA's Mobil* Incinerator
70. ravid wagoner Cirector
»»aste Manajeeent Civic ion
Aegion VII
F«Ofi: aruce weddls, Cirector
P«r«it» and State Programs Division
This raeso serves to suswariK* th« questions resolved, and
data to ce •utmitted a* discussed in a conference call on
December 6, 1986 with My lee Horse of my staff. The questions
discussed included the extent of coverage of the delistir.g
decision for the Oenney Farr site (originally proposed on June
1985); redefinition cf the terns of the contingency testing
requirements r areas of the the original petition that would
ftaain "yrandfathered" and data re^uiraaent.^ &na »ch«duliD5
for a new petition demonstration re<,ardins w»ste fros Syntex
Corporation.
First, you asked if the msiciuc generated rrcr. the iucii
oi an acloitioual (approxicately) 550 druns of wast« »oulu be
covered by the origins! decision ana tr.ereiore he considered
non-hazardous under the terns of the ei elusion, riui wastes in
these rlra-is vere describee as either *ueriveroce»sius oc the Oennsy Panu soil and scil iroc the riarza
Poad site. You indicated that nany of these drucs cont»in»c:
"jarbtge" trosi these sites which say have ineluu*d l*tor«tory
debris from processing samples of these wastes as well as
disposable clothing worn during the sailing at forts. As .vylea
and Steve Uirsch of our Office of .~an«ral Counsel (C-C) indicated.
c.r.«se wastes would be covered by the original dclistin^ decision
since they would hsve been iaplied as similarly stated in category
Ho. 13 "Soils and other materials free clean-up from Baldwin Park*
of the field xJe»onstr*tio« categories in the proposed decision
(see &C 7K 2J722). The origins,! decision therefor;, would not
have to be reopened for public comment to treat these wastes. *e
do, however, need an accurate description of thes« wastes and
their estimated *olue*s for the file and to assure OGC that this
-------
- 2 -
interpretation is correct. Several other drums were described
as containing solvent and stillbottom wastes. Neither Pecion vil
nor Prank freestone of our Kdison Lab adequately described this
wasts or its-source. Therefore, sines it could not be surmised
over the phone that these wastes were in any way derived iron the
original 13 categories of the exclusion, we could not conclude
that the exclusion covered these drums. We will further evaluate
whether this waste is covered by the original decision if acre
detailed information is sent concerning the characterization and
souce of this matarial, including your basis for believing that
it is a waste derived from the original categories.
The second question regarding the original decision was
whether ths definition of 'batch testing* for the contingency
testing procrac could be changed, and would such a change neces-
sitate reopening the decision for public comment. You indicated
that the requireeent of sampling and testing each tank of waste-
water for aercury, selenium and chroeiun generated during the
field demonstration, and the testing of daily composites of
sajnples from each CM£Af roll and each drum of ash, were too
prohibitive logistically and economically, be can propose to
change these conJitons to cover a less frequent sampling regime
(i.e., weekly instead of daily), however, this would reopen this
portion of the decision. That is, an amendment of this nature
would need to be proposed Federal Register allowing a suitable
public comment period. The original proposal included language
that Indicated if representative data on at l*cst 10 samples were
submitted and were below the liaits of 0.03, 0 14, 0.66 ppw for
mercury, selenium, and chromiun. respectively, in the wastewater;
and 0.044 and 0.22 ppm for mercury and selenium in both the CHEAT
media and ash, then the Agency would drop the testing conditions.
During tlis conference call, Frank Freestone incicatod that you had
collected representative test data. This data (on the wastewater,
CfaSAF media, and ash) should be submitted to the Variances Section.
If the data indicate that these materials are consistently non-
ha&ardous, then we can publish a notice amending the decision to
drop the testing requirement completely. If the data is satis-
factory we should be able to propose this change within a iew
weeks. This amendment would not reopen any other parts of the
previous decision to public comment - that is. we will not require
the application of different TCDD detection li&its as a result
of this amendment.
You should submit an explanation of the rise in chroniutt
levels noted in some samples due to the chromium content of
patching material used on the refractory after removal of parti-
culate build-up__in the refractory. You should also identify
which samples this affected. We are not at this time indicating
that this is an acceptable variation. We will need to review tne
data and determine if a sufficient number of sar.ples have L-een
tested before this decision'can be made. If a suitable' number of
-------
•aaples, (*t least forty Jive if non-parametric statistical
proceduree are used) ere presented it ray be potiibio to u»e
an average chrceUum level rather than a eaxiuama Lwvci in cur
•valuation".
Your third concern was whether any new (lower) detection
limits for TCDC would be applied to the original decision if
reopened for either of the reasons mentioned above. As already
nantioned the only situation where a Different TCUL level would
be considered would be in a new petition request for a waste not
covered by the previous decision. The TCOC levels used in the
original decision will not be changed as a result of anen
the decision to reaove the contingency testing conditions
final topic of discussion vas the initiation of a new petition
action for the Syntex waste. Zt will not be necessary to resulrniit
descriptive data on the treatment systen. You should however
describe specific alterations in flow through rates, residence
tine, etc. The vasts to be incinerated needs to be adequately
characterized. This should include physical description of the
waste, estimated volute and historical knowledge of the generating
source, and a description of how the charge was prepared.
Representative samples of this particular waste matrix Bust be
treated and representative samples of the vastewattr, CBEXF n»di*
and ash »ust be teitud for suitable Appendii VIII parameters
(including all priority pollutants). The conditions of the test.
burn should be described as well as the saa^llng procedure cf tne
waste for treataent and the sampling procedure of the treatr.wnt
residues for analysis. The voluses of tr«accent residues should
DO estimated tor the total voluee of Syntex waste to te treated.
Frank Freestone asked whether analytical data collected iron
earlier samples of the Syntax waste could b« used in our i-vaiuaticr..
This data can be used if you can descries the samplim; procedure
for both the untreated waste and the treatment residues in enough
detail for us to determine how representative these sasnles were
of the wastu retraining to be treated; and if the key conditions
of the trial burn, (i.e., residence time) were similar enough to
the actual com; it ions that will occur during tr»atu»ent.
Using the recos»ended test nethods in sw-b^i, the detection
liaats for all other Appendix VZZZ constituents other th«n th«
TCDD's do net fall below the ppb range. Tht Characterisation aud
Assessment Division (CAfc) is currently working with CT.D anu th«
Chlorinated Dioxin Workgroup to Ceternine if the assumptions
aacie about the nobility or dioxin through environo^ntal uoJia
and subsequent exposure levels were too strinqcnt. Ue will let
you know i* -»ur health standards change as a result ot* this
review. To date, we have not proeulgated a regulatory standard
for dioxin which is applicable to delieting evaluations. As
previously mentioned we are considering using various exposure
scenarios such as overland sediaent and soil transport &nd jrr-unu-
-------
-2-
filtratia» stage. The vacuum unit, which provides suction for
the entire system, is attached to the outside of the hopper. The
vacuum unit houses the final filtration element, which consists
of three filters. This second filtration stage traps the
remaining dust in the air before it is discharged into the
ambient air.
The collection container is detached from the hopper and
vacuum unit when it-is filled to capacity with dust, two percent
of which is beryllium. It is then replaced with a new container.
The subsequent management practice is to stabilize/solidify the
dust in cement prior to disposal. The container filled with
concrete (stabilized dust) is then sent off site to a disposal
facility.
The final filtration element, on the other hand, has never
been replaced since the start-up of the operation. As I
understand the current operating procedures, the final filtration
element will eventually be discarded when gross dust ,
contamination renders it useless.
The materials that you wish to characterize are the final
filtration element, the beryllium dust, and the dust collection
container. To videntify the materials as hazardous waste under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act , they
must first be classified as solid wastes under 40 CFR Section
261.2. Based on information you provided over the phone, the
final filtration element, the solidified dust (concrete), and the
container holding the concrete are abandoned by land disposal
and, therefore, meet the definition of solid waste [40 CFR
Section 261.2(b)(1)].
Based on the additional information you provided over the
phone about the subassembly grinding/polishing and air filtration
process, I have concluded that the dust is not a commercial
chemical product (i.e., P015) and is not any other listed
hazardous waste identified in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D. The
solidifia* dust, the container holding the solidified dust, and
the finalrfiltration element contaminated with dust also are not
RCRA list|& hazardous wastes. If the dust does not exhibit a
hazardotvwaste characteristic (prior to solidification) as
defined in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, the dust is not a .
hazardous waste and is not regulated under RCRA Subtitle C.
Also, if the filter element contaminated with the dust does not
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic once rendered useless,
it is not regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA.
-------
9434.1989(0"'
UNITED ATES ENVIRONMENTAL .
Mr. Joseph E. Cothern
Environmental Protection Specialist
Department of the Air Force
HQ Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center (AFLC)
Newark Air Force Station, Ohio 43057-5000
Dear Mr. Cothern:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 2,
1989, in which you requested an assessment and characterization
of beryllium wastes generated at Newark Air Force Station.
In follow-up conversations with you on February 10, 1989 and
February 13, 1989 to obtain more information related to the >
process involved, you indicated that the beryllium is generated
in the form of a very fine dust. In order to meet the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) worker
protection standards and the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), the airborne dust is
collected by vacuum hoods and directed through a two stage
filtration system. As I understand the vacuum-filtration
process, the system consists of the following components:
vacuum hood
10-foot tube
air trap
cyclone hopper (with a bag filter located on top of hopper)
collection container
vacuum unit (with three filters inside)
The dust-laden air initially enters the vacuum hood located
on the ceiling of the grinding/polishing room and travels up the
10-foot tube. It then enters an air trap in which heavier
particulate matter is collected. The lighter air-suspended
particle* are then channeled into a cyclone hopper. A bag filter
is situated at the top of the hopper. This is the first
-------
9434 - HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Other Federal Facilities
ATKlAUKASkp
-------
characteristic, you nay provide a detailed explanation as. to
why the wastes do net cxr.it it. the characteristic.
Appropriate quantification limits are given in SW-846; these
limits should be net for all ex-tract and ground-water samples.
SW-846 also gives practical n-.'.antitation limits (PQLs) for other
matrices. AS stated in your coupling plan, the reported
laboratory detection limits ci-.ouid be as close as possible to
established drinking water rtnr.dards.
The following information also should be provided:
A detailed description
prepare, preserve, e.-.d
names and gualificatio:
all personnel involved
Also provide a list cf
sample collection, p::--
instruments used. r."
analyses should be prr
A description of all ^
followed during eel lev.
should include, as anp:
field QC analyses (_i.~.
trip blanks), 3} r.?.t.-
analyses, and 4) one ;
each cf the TC netri.-,
of standard addition.-.
appropriate QC proc
of'SI.*--M6. Each ar.
laborr.tcry QC prcce
test nethod. In a:!
procedures and hel-J
follcvcd.
of procedures used to collect,
L.::-.lyze each sample. Include the
3 (a brief resume will suffice) of
;n the sampling and analysis program.
• •: r.c-.cs and model numbers of all
-.ic:i, preservation, and analytical
-.." c.nrpling, extraction, and
-lity Control (QC) procedures
:-.r, and analyses of samples. This
r-riate: 1) method blank analyses, 2)
., ::-i-J blanks, equipment blanks and
. ' :-.e ar.d matrix spike duplicate
• :• or civEP) toxicity test run for
~ ?1, nnd cyanide using the method
-•:tc•.!•-• res for these and other
- - i-c fully described in Chapter One
1 tirt method in SW-846 notes
.prcpriate for that particular
, all of the sample preservation
-3 required by SW-846 must be
-------
limiting constituents for testing, it is not sufficient to just
state that a constituent is not. likely to be present. Based on
the numerous historic processes contributing wastes to the units,
we do not believe that you would be able to limit constituents
for testing" (except perhaps for special constituents, such as
dioxins).
We recognize that the Appendix VIII list presents a number
of analytical problems for some constituents. However, we
request that any available information concerning the presence of
these constituents be included as part of a complete petition.
For analytical testing purposes, you must analyze the samples for
those compounds which can be accurately quantified using
appropriate methods from "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes - Physical/Chemical Methods," (third edition), EPA
publication SW-846, November 1986. It should be noted that
SW-846 analytical test methods exist for all constituents listed
in 40 CFR Part 264, Appendix IX.
Representative samples of the petitioned wastes should be
analyzed for the following parameters:
o Total oil and grease content
o Total constituent concentrations of all the TC metals,
nickel, cyanide, sulfidc, and any hazardous constituents
that are potentially present in the wastes
o Leachable concentrations of all the TC metals, nickel, and
cyanide. Use distilled water in place of the acetate buffer
in the cyanide extraction. For waste samples that contain
less than one percent oil and grease, use the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311,
see the TC rule in 55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990). For waste
samples that contain greater than one percent oil and
grease, use the Oily waste Extraction Procedure (OWEP, SW-
846 Method 1330) and substitute the TCLP for the extraction
procedure in step 7.9 of tre OWEP. We plan to continue to
require the OWEP for drlisting demonstrations because the
TCLP currently has no special provisions for oily wastes.
In all cases, the TCLP should be used to determine the
leaching potential of hazardous organic constituents that
are potentially present in the wastes. Please note that for
liquid wastes, the leacnr.ble concentration of a constituent
is equivalent to the totnl concentration of that
constituent.
o . Total concentrations of reactive sulfide and reactive
cyanide, if total sulfi:!^ and total cyanide levels exceed
500 and 250 ppm, respectively.
o Characteristics of ignit-.bility, corrosivity, and
reactivity. In lieu of taring for a particular
-------
ENCLOSURE II
Analytical Parameters
The selection of constituents for testing should be
dependent on the historical introduction .of materials to the
units. In particular, our review is not limited to the
constituents in the Foil waste, but encompasses all influents
(e.QT. process water and surface run-off) over the lifetime of
the units.
Therefore, you must provide descriptions of:
o All historic operations, including process and non-process
sources of wastewater, that contributed wastes to the three
units, and the composition or characteristics of these
streams. Please specify when the units were constructed and
when they began receiving wastes.
o The identification of sources of facility run-off, both from
your facility and surrounding areas that could have
contributed run-off to the units. We believe that run-off
nay contribute significant levels of hazardous organic
constituents to the petitioned wastes.
o Sources of oil and grease, including oils that are present
as contaminants in run-off and in process water as a result
of inplant use or from residual oils on metal received at
your facility.
o Sources of hazardous organic constituents that could be
present in additives to corrosion inhibitors, cleaners, and
treatment materials. All relevant material safety data
sheets (MSDSs) should also be included.
Based on the information submitted thus far, you have not
justified why organic analyses should be limited to the
constituents listed in Section 3 of your draft sampling plan.
Analytes should include all constituents listed on 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix VIII, acetone, ethyl benzene, isophorone, 4-methy1-
2-pentanone, styrene, and xylene (total) that nay potentially be
present in the wastes. You may determine that some hazardous
constituents are not expected to be present in the petitioned
wastes because the constituent was not used as a raw material at
the plant, is unlikely to be present as a raw material
contaminant, and is not likely to be formed as a byproduct in the
plant processes— You must include a justification for not
analyzing other Appendix VIII constituents.
Your ability to characterize the past and present influents
to the units will affect your choice of analytical parameters.
Based on the process descriptions provided above, you may be able
to limit the required analytical parameters. However, in
-------
additional sampling of the sediment or the influents in the
future.
Sample Collection
We arc concerned that the full depth variability of the
wastes will not be sampled. For example, depth is dependent on
free liquid above the sediment, which in turn is dependent on
current influents to and effluents from the units. You must
demonstrate that the sampling equipment vill penetrate the
sediment to the bottom of the units. You have not provided
sufficient information for the Agency to determine if a three-
foot Shelby tube would be of sufficient length to sample the
petitioned wastes. Because it is likely that the sediments are
not homogeneous due to settling and due to historic changes in
influents over time-, it is important that the full-depth of the
wastes be sampled. Please also state the overall dimensions of
the petitioned units; the dimension information presented in
Figures 1-2, 2-1, and page 3 of your draft sampling plan are
inconsistent. Also include the waste depth and volumes in each
of the three units.
In addition, any liquids present in the units are also
classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. FOIL You must explain
whether a significant volume of free liquids is present above the
sediments and, if so, if these liquids are to be included in the
scope of the petition. If you desire to include the liquids as
part of your petition, you must collect and analyze samples of
the liquid in a manner similar to that described for the unit
sediments.
Samples to be analyzed for volatile organic compounds should
not be composited in the field due to the potential loss of
volatile compounds. We recommend that you either analyze grab
samples separately for volatiles, or carefully composite grab
samples in the laboratory prior to analysis.
The equipment decontamination procedures described in your
sampling plan (steam cleaning) are adequate to prevent cross-
contamination of the composite samples. However, we are
concerned that the use of Shelby tubes may not adequately
represent the volatile organic composition of the sediments due
to the necessary sample extraction procedure. Rather, we suggest
the use of a split spoon or coliwasa depending on the physical
state of the sediments. Sampling equipment should be constructed
of stainless steel, or be lined with other inert material, to
prevent metal-contamination.
-------
ENCLOSURE I
Waste Sampling Strategy
You may pursue one of two waste sampling strategies:
sampling the waste in the units, or excavation of the units and
subsequent sampling of the excavated materials. Regardless of
which strategy you choose, sampling must account for variability
resulting from historic process operations and the introduction
of other wastewaters to the units.
Spatial and Temporal Variation
Based on the information provided in your sampling plan, we
believe that you have chosen an adequate number of samples to
represent the spatial variability of wastes in each unit (i.e..
the collection of four composite samples from each slurry pond;
the collection of eight composite samples from the flood control
reservoir) . We also recommend that five grab samples be drawn
from each section of each waste unit to form each composite
sample, as determined by random sampling methods discussed in the
Guidance Manual1. We believe this approach will result in the
collection of samples that are more representative of constituent
variability than the perimeter sampling approach presented in
your previous petition.
Variability over time, or temporal variability, must be
accounted .for in your sampling plan. This is dependent upon the
operating characteristics of your units. For example, your
petition must specify whether facility run-off, process waters,
and non-process waters currently enter the units, whether liquid
is discharged or evaporated from the units, and the quantity of
standing liquid in the units. If the units are not presently in
use, then your wastes are expected to show little or no
variability in the future and thus you do not need to provide
further information in this regard.
Current influents will affect the future waste composition
of the units. Although waste classified as EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F011 is no longer introduced into the flood reservoir, other
influents will contribute sediment to the units and thus will
affect the variability of the petitioned wastes over tine and
must be accounted for in the sampling plan. To address this
concern, you may be able to show that current influents are
similar in composition to influents of the past, due to similar
plant operations. If influents are expected to change, or have
recently changed, you must describe how these influents are
expected to influence the composition of the petitioned wastes.
Based on our evaluation of petition information, ve may require
"Petitions To Delist Hazardous Wastes - A Guidance
Manual," Office of Solid Waste (EPA/53O-SW-85-003), April
1985.
-------
After reviewing our comments, you may find that many of our
suggestions overlap with State or Region requirements. In
particular, the State or EPA Regional office may have ground-
water monitoring, waste sampling, and soil sampling requirements
for closure. We encourage you to investigate the applicable
requirements for your units so that your sampling and analysis
program might fulfill both delisting and State or EPA Regional
requirements concurrently.
If you choose to pursue a delisting of the wastes, we
recommend that you consider our comments regarding spatial
variability, temporal variability, and sample collection
procedures. These comments are presented in Enclosure I.
In addition, we are concerned that your sampling and
analysis plan will not characterize all hazardous constituents
that may be present in the wastes. Specifically, additional
hazardous constituents are likely to be present as a result of
waste management practices that allowed non-hazardous wastes and
facility run-off to be discharged to the units. A discussion of
analytical parameters necessary to characterize the wastes is
presented in Enclosure II.
We also are concerned that issues which were grounds for our
dismissal of your previous petition (10543) are not addressed in
the sampling plan. Specifically, your proposed sampling plan
fails to identify how representative ground-water sampling will
be conducted. The Agency has recently proposed a rule clarifying
the Agency's use of ground-water monitoring data in delisting
decisions (see 54 ££ 41930, October 12, 1989). Our specific
requirements concerning ground-vater monitoring are presented in
Enclosure III.
Should you have any questions concerning our review of your
sampling plan or need to clarify the information required for
submitting a revised sampling plan or formal petition, please
feel free to call me at (202) 382-2224.
Sincerely,
Robert Kayser, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Elizabeth-Cotsworth
Bob Scarberry
Jim Kent
Chet McLaughlin, Region VTI
Mike Sanderson, Region VII
Gary B. Enloe, JMM
Eileen Regan, SAIC
John Vierow, SAIC
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9433.1990(05)
26 1990
Ms. Melinda Young
Viking Pump - Houdaille, Inc.
406 State Street
Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613
Dear Ms. Young:
I am writing to inform you of the Agency's review of your
sampling plan (#00811) that pertains to a petition which, when
submitted, will request exclusion of wastes from the treatment of
cyanide furnace crucibles, currently listed as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. FOIL The subject wastes are presently contained in
two slurry ponds and a flood control reservoir located at your
South Main Street Plant, Cedar Falls, Iowa.
Please note that, while EPA has granted exclusions for
wastes contained in land-based units, recent proposals to exclude
such wastes have led to negative public comments (e.g. . see 55 FR
11188, March 27, 1990). This opposition was based on the use of
delisting to supersede formal closure of the units under RCRA.
Therefore, to avoid the uncertainty associated with a petition
for the in-place wastes, we suggest that you excavate the units
and store the waste in question and pursue a delisting for the
excavated materials. Further details concerning this strategy
are given in Enclosure I. Excavation also more clearly defines
the aerial extent and volume of the petitioned waste. An
accurate estimate of the volume of the petitioned waste is
critical to the evaluation. If you desire to pursue this
strategy, we encourage you to confer with the State and EPA
Regional office to determine the regulatory status of the
residual soils remaining in the treatment units.
A key issue arising from the delisting of in-plac* waste is
the regulatory status of the unit after delisting. Typically,
when EPA delists a hazardous waste, the vast* remains a solid
waste and must be managed according to all applicable State solid
waste regulations. If Viking is still interested in delisting
the in-place waste, we suggest you provide a full explanation of
the regulatory status of the unit after delisting. It would be
helpful if the petitioner can demonstrate that existing State
laws (or binding consent agreements) require that the unit (and
any delisted waste contained therein) remains a solid vast*
unit and is subject to some level of regulato
ry
control. The diet inet ion btftMMMMtHgplcan" Cloeur* and d*llsting
H /An, this I case woujd be clearer and 4«sier to | justify, j |
-------
-7-
Any questions regarding our findings nay be submitted in
writing to -Mr. James Michael of my staff.
Sincerely,
Jeffery D. Denit, Deputy Director
Office of Solid Waste
Attachment
cc: Docket
Bill Honker, Region VI
Bill Gallagher, Region VI
Randy Brown, Region VI
Damon Wingfield, OSDH
C. Michael Swindell, Conoco
Elizabeth Cotsworth, EPA HQ
Janes Michael, EPA HQ
-------
-6-
Hovever, because the technical basis for denial already exists,
we are not requesting you to provide this, or additional
information on waste characterization, revised VIP modeling
results, or air monitoring and modeling for particulates, that
would be necessary for EPA to judge your petition to be
technically complete.
Summary
As discussed above, we believe that Conoco has failed to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a)(4) and that the results
of the unsaturated zone monitoring (soil-pores) show that Conoco
has failed to demonstrate, to a reasonable degree of certainty,
that hazardous constituents will not migrate beyond the land
treatment unit boundaries at hazardous concentrations. Conoco
has also failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a) (3).
We will therefore recommend to the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Haste and Emergency Response that the no-migration petition
for your Ponca City.facility be denied.
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of
withdrawing their petitions to avoid a negative publication in
the Federa} Register. If you prefer this option, you must send
us a letter withdrawing your petition and acknowledging that the
petitioned wastes are still considered to be restricted wastes
subject to the Third Third Land Disposal prohibitions scheduled
to be effective November 8, 1990. This letter should be
forwarded to the following address within two weeks of the date
of receipt of today's correspondence:
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Chief
Assistance Branch (05-343)
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, O.C. 20460
If you choose not to withdraw your petition, we will
recommend that a proposed denial decision be published in the
Federal Register.
-------
-5-
AJbility te Prevent Future ffigration
Conoco's December 11, 1989 letter to the OSDH provided a
rationale and procedure for how Conoco will prevent future
overloading and subsequent migration of phenolic compounds. We
do not believe that the rationale provided by Conoco, or future
testing, as proposed by Conoco, Will prevent future migration of
phenolic compounds or hydrocarbons (benzene, ethyl benzene,
toluene, and xylenes) below the treatment zone.
First, analytical data provided in the petition (Table 3-6,
page 20) indicated that phenol was not present in any of the
wastes sampled using the following detection limits: 10, 20,
100, 200, and 990 ug/Jcg. If these data are representative of the
wastes managed at the LTF, how can Conoco demonstrate which waste
had or will exhibit elevated levels of phenol. Second, we note
that many of the wastes sampled and analyzed contained
significant concentrations of benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene,
and xylene (Table 3-6, page 19); therefore, limiting phenolic
content may not be sufficient to prevent future migration of
these hydrocarbons (see Table 1). Lastly, assuming that Conoco
screens the wastes and is able to determine which wastes have
"excessive" concentrations Of phenol, we do not believe that the
"water leaching" test, as proposed by Conoco, is adequate to
determine the leachable concentrations of phenol. The Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) should be used to
determine the leachable concentration of phenol (and the
hydrocarbon constituents). At a minimum, Conoco should conduct
the TCLP using distilled water. We note that Conoco should use
and adhere to the analytical methods and protocols established in
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical
Methods. Publication sw-846 (third edition), November 1986.
Incomplete Petition
Although the Agency limited its technical review to the
soil-pore liquids and ground-water monitoring portion* of
Conoco'« no-migration petition, we found that Conoco also failed
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a)(3). Specifically,
during our review, we noted that Conoco acknowledges that the
underlying geologic unit bad not been completely characterized,
i.e.. Conoco recognizes that the thickness of the basal sand and
gravel unit and the top of the shale bedrock are still
incompletely defined (Attachment 9, Page 10-4). Conoco stated
that this data is scheduled to be collected in the near future,
however, a specific date was not given. Without this
information, we are unable to fully evaluate the design and
effectiveness of the ground-water monitoring program at the
facility. In addition, possible interconnections between the
upper and next lower aquifer have not been thoroughly explored.
-------
that these constituents may be contained in the soil-pore liquids
and the ground water beneath the other plots at the LTF. As
discussed above, Conoco's deficient soil-pore liquid monitoring
system does not allow for the early detection of these
constituents. EPA, therefore, is unable to clearly conclude
whether these constituents are absent from the soil-pore liquids
and ground water beneath the LTF. For the Agency to determine,
with a reasonable degree of certainty, that no migration of
hazardous constituents has occurred, we must be able to clearly
conclude that these constituents are not present in the soil-pore
liquids and ground water.
Our concerns that the present ground-water monitoring system
is inadequate are also supported by the following information
regarding the presence of hydrocarbon plumes and monitoring well
construction. According to a memorandum sent by Mr. Bill Honker
(EPA Region VI) to Mr. Jin Michael (EPA HQ) dated November 27,
1989, there are numerous hydrocarbon plumes in the ground water
beneath the facility. Previous correspondence between the OSDH
and Region VT (dated November 2, 1988) stated that one of the
upgradient monitoring wells at the LTF was filled with an oily
fluid, which we note Conoco contends was not released from the
LTF, but rather that a hydrocarbon mound was encroaching upon the
LTF. Nonetheless, we are concerned that the hydrocarbon plume(s)
eventually will influence all of the upgradient monitoring wells
and that Conoco will no longer be able to clearly compare the
ground-water quality at monitoring wells 8A, 11, 13, and 14 to
the background levels as specified in Provision VT(5)(b) of the
facility's permit. Furthermore, with time, as the hydrocarbon
plume continues to move beneath the LTF, it will become
increasingly difficult for Conoco to differentiate whether
hydrocarbons detected in the monitoring program are coming from
the hydrocarbon plume or the wastes applied at the LTF. Again,
for the Agency to determine with a reasonable degree of
certainty, that migration of hazardous constituents has not
occurred, we must be able to clearly conclude that any
hydrocarbons (if detected) originated from a hydrocarbon plume
and not the wastes applied at the LTF.
Lastly, in the petition, Conoco has assumed that the vast
majority of contaminants found in a refinery are lighter than
water and will be found at the unsaturated zone/water table
interface (Attachment 9, Page 10-3). The petition, however,
indicates that the monitoring wells are screened in the basal
coarse sand and gravel layer of the alluvial terrace sediments
overlying the shale bedrock. The depth at which the monitoring
well screens were installed, therefore, does not allow for the
detection of the "light" contaminants which Conoco assumed would
be found at the unsaturated zone/water table interface. These
inadequacies further impede the ability of the present ground-
water monitoring system to fulfill the requirements of
40 CFR §268.6(a)(4).
-------
-3-
Concentrations of Organic constituents
Detected in the BTZ (ug/kg)
Constituents
Cresol
Cresol , o
Cresol , p
Phenol
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Xylene, jn & p
Xylene, o
Bore Hole
BH-10-4
BH-17-4
Plot 9
Plot 9
BH-10-4
BH-17-4
Plot 9
BH-11-4 I/
BH-11-4 I/
BH-11-4 I/
BH-11-4 I/
Concentrations
9,000
35,000
43,000
96,000
5,000
19,000
210,000
300
14,900
119,200
39,500
KEY: Bore Hole data identified as "BH" were obtained from
the December 11, 1989 letter from D.R. Parker (Conoco)
to Mr. F. Rood (OSDH).
Bore Hole data identified as "Plot 9" were obtained
from the September 13, 1989 letter from D.R. ParXer
(Conoco) to Mr. F. Rood (OSDH).
I/ Text presented by Conoco in their December 11, 1989
letter indicated that detectable levels of volatile
organic constituents were present in two bore holes
(BH-11 and BH-18). Tabulated data were not received
for BH-18.
The presence of these organic constituents below the
treatment zone and other organic and inorganic constituents in
the zone of incorporation and treatment zone presents several
problems. First, if these or other constituents continue to
migrate and are detected at the downgradient monitoring well
(8A), it will b« impossible for the Ponca City ground-water
monitoring system to determine whether these hazardous
constituents migrated from the active or inactive plots. Second,
if Conoco were to install a new downgradient monitoring well,
this well would have to be installed inside Plot 9. As a result,
the new well would be drilled through contaminated media and
could possibly-act as a conduit for additional ground-water
contamination. Again, we believe Conoco would be unable to
distinguish whether the contamination resulted from hazardous
constituents migrating from the active or inactive plots.
Lastly, the detection of the constituents listed above in Table 1
in the soils beneath the treatment unit raises the possibility
-------
-2-
•
program. Conoco's petition indicates that only four lysimeters
were installed in the 38 acre LTF (of which approximately 24
acres are actively used) (Figure 5-19, "Location of Monitoring
Wells, Lysiaeters, and Land Treatment Demonstration (LTD) Plots,
page 84). This means one lysimeter monitors approximately six
acres of active area. In addition, Figure 5-19 indicates that
the four lysimeters were installed in the upgradient corner of
Plot l, the upgradient edge of Plot 7, and the tvo upgradient
corners of Plot 9. Based on the locations of these lysimeters
(assuming that wastes are actively applied in the LTD plots), we
are concerned that these four lysimeters are subject to edge
effects fe.o.. reduced loadings) and, therefore, do not believe
these lysimeters are capable of collecting representative samples
of the active areas within the LTF. Furthermore, as a result of
Conoco's anticipated closure of Plot 9, in the future there will
only be two lysimeters installed at the LTF.
Given the amount of time generally required for a
constituent to be detected at a downgradient ground-water
monitoring well (especially an inorganic constituent), lysimeters
are important in detecting constituent migration at the earliest
practicable time. Neither current reliance on four lysimeters
nor Conoco's reduction to two lysimeters in the future fulfill
the requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a)(4).
V
Ground-Water Monitoring System
Conoco has further failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
§268.6(a) (4) as the result of the anticipated closure of Plot 9,
which will result in the downgradient ground-water monitoring
well (8A) being located more than 610 feet from the "new" outer
edge of the LTF (Plot 7). The magnitude of the distance between
the unit and the downgradient monitoring well means, once again,
that Conoco's ground-water monitoring system for the Ponca City
LTF will be incapable of detecting hazardous constituent
migration at the earliest practicable time.
In addition, Conoco stated in its February 6, 1990 letter to
Ms. Karen Dihrberg (Oklahoma state Department of Health (OSDH))
that "a remediation plan is being developed for a part of Plot 9
where hydrocarbons and phenolics have been detected below the
treatment zone." Specifically, cresols, phenol, benzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes were detected below the
treatment zone—(-BTZ) at the concentrations summarized below in
Table 1.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!'
9433.1990(04
Mr. Dennis R.- Parker.
Conoco Inc.
Post Office Box 1267
Ponca City, Oklahoma 74603
Re: No-Migration Petition submitted for Conoco Inc.'s Ponca
City, Oklahoma Land Treatment Facility (F-90-NPCP-FFFFF)
Dear Mr. Parker:
I an writing in regard to your October 12, 1989 "no-
migration" petition, which requests a variance under 40 CFR
§268.6 to allow Conoco Inc. to continue the land treatment of
restricted wastes (EPA Hazardous Haste Nos. K049, K051, K052, and
D001) at Conoco's Ponca city, Oklahoma land treatment facility
(LTF). Based on our evaluation of your petition, we believe that
Conoco's soil-pore liquids and ground-water monitoring systems
are inadequate for the purposes of a no-migration variance and
that Conoco has failed to demonstrate, to a reasonable degree of
certainty, that constituents will not migrate beyond the land
treatment unit boundaries at hazardous concentrations. As a
result of our evaluation, we will recommend to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Haste and Emergency Response that the
petition be denied.
Our decision to recommend denial of the petition is based on
the lack of a monitoring plan that detects migration at the
earliest practicable time. In addition, the information
presented in the petition indicates that migration of hazardous
constituents beneath the treatment unit has already occurred.
Lastly, we believe that Conoco has failed to provide a
comprehensive characterization of the disposal unit site. He
discuss the results of our evaluation below.
Soil-Pore Liquid Monitoring System
Conoco has failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
§§268.6(a)(4). specifically, the facility is required to have a
monitoring system capable of detecting migration of hazardous
constituents fraim-,ijS%L.TFlkat, the
-------
Should you hava any guaationi cr raquira any additional
information ragardinc; thi» »«tt»r, plaaca contact Lindi Caoar of
xy Bta£f at (202) 475-9828.
Sincaraly,
Dtvaraaux Barnac, Acting Diractor
Pazaita and Stata Prograaa
Diviaion
-------
?or petitions submitted prior to December 31, 1990, if ve believe
the EP and total constituent data submitted prior to the
affaetiva data are eoaplete and ara sufficient to support a
delisting decision by tha Agency, than va do not plan to require'
ratacting using the TCLP. For example, if tha EP laachata data
for inorganic constituent* and tha total constituent data for
organic constituents ara judged to be co&plete, we do not plan to
rtquirt rtttsting. However, additional data (including TCLP
data) say be requested at any tiae if va believe tha information
is needed to complete a petition or to address consents received
on a proposed decision. In any case, all petitioners should plan
to use the TCLP for any new sampling and analyses conducted for
delisting petitions.
As part of all dalisting demonstrations, va vill require
that the TCLP be used to predict tha leaching potential of any.
inorganic and organic constituents (listed in Appendix VIII to 40
CFR section 261). Therefore, the TCLP extracta should be
analyzed for any inorganic or organic constituent that may be
present in the vaste. we vill continue to also require analysis
of total constituent concentrations of metals, cyanide, sulfide,
and any organic constituents which may be present in your vasta.
Please note, if your petition is for a liquid vasta fi.«.. lass
than 0.5 percent solids), than tha TCLP cannot be performed, and
the TCLP requirements vill not affect the dalisting
demonstration. Total constituent data vill eontinua to be used
to determine if a liquid vaita should remain hazardous.
For vastes vhich have a total oil and grease content of more
than one percent and/or vhich are difficult to filter using the
TCLP apparatus ri.«.. tare), va vill require use of the oily
waste Extraction Procedure (OWEP) (SW-846 Method 1330) in place
of the TCLP to determine the leaching potential of inorganic
constituents. The OWEP has bean used in place of tha EP in.the
past, and ve plan to continue to require its use for oily vastes
because the TCLP currently has no special provisions for oily
vastes. we vill evaluate the applicability of the TCLP for
organics in problem matrices (such as oily vastas) on a case-by-
case basis. For stabilised vastes, ve vill continue to require
use of the Multiple Extraction Procedure (KEP) (8W-S46 Method
1320) in addition to the TCLP for inorganic constituents.
-------
9433.1990(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON, O.C. 2M60
JUN 141990
O"ICC O»
• OklO MASTC AND (MlftBlNCv «II»ONtI
Dear Petitioner:
The purpoaa of this letter is to infora you that the Agency
ha* finalired the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule (published in
the Federal *«oi«t«r on March 29, 1990, see 55 ££ 11798). This
rule replace* th« Extraction procedure (EP) Toxicity t«»t found
in Appendix ZZ to 40 CFR Saction 261.24 with th* Toxicity
Characttristic Laaching Procadura (TCLP). Tha TCLP i> « »ora
•ophisticatad laaching procadura that pradieta laaching and
axpanda tha Toxicity Charactariatic to includa organic hazardoua
conatituanta. Tha TCLP currently ia uaad for othar hazardoui
vaata prograai, and tha procadura haa alao baan described J.n
Appandix Z of 40 CTR Part 268. Tha intant of this 1 attar is ro
notify you that taa TCLP will be required for all new testing
used to support petitions submitted by hazardous vasts facilities
to exclude ("delist") a vasts pursuant to 40 CTR 260.20 and
260.22.
Ve have chosen to adopt the TCLP as a requireaent for
delisting deaonstrations in order to reaain consistent vith the
leaching procedure used to define a characteristic vaste. We
believe this early notification to you of tha changes will enable
petitioners to prepare in advance and adjust any future saapling
and testing plans accordingly. Petitioners vho have recently
received correspondence frea the Agency should have already been
informed of soae of the intonation in this letter.
As noted in the preaable to the final TC Rule, ve vill soon
publish a notice of our intent to require TCLP data for all
dalisting deaonstrations. This forthcoaing Fadaral »«oi«t«r
notice vill discuss ia »ore detail the effects of these changes
en required dalisting petition information for both future and
pending petitions. A copy of that notice vill be aent to you
upon its publication in the r«darai »»oi«t«p. we are talcing this
opportunity, however, to briafly describe for you the key iapacta
of the change to the TCLP.
Zn order to ainiaita the impact ef this change en the
current schedules for individual delisting decision-making, ve
are establishing an effective date of December 31, 1990, beyond
vhich ve vill no longer accept nev petition* without TCLP data.
-------
9433.1990(02}
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCT
MAY 3 1 1990
Ms. Christine A. Mathias,
Environmental Project Manager,
Heritage Remediation/Engineering, Inc.
P. 0. Box 51020
Indianapolis, IN 46251
Dear Ms. Mathias:
I have received your letter dated April 18, 1990 regarding
delisting of a soil contaminated with toluene diisocyanate (TDI).
In your letter, you 1) described the spill that caused the soil
contamination, 2) submitted Material Safety Data Sheets for
Mondur 437 (65% to 75% TDI) and ortho-toluenediamine, 3)
presented results of soil analysis, and 4) requested that the
Agency specify delisting levels for your use in discussion with
the State of Indiana on site clean-up.
Please be advised that contaminated environmental media such
as the above TDI-contaminated soil must be managed as if they
were hazardous wastes until they no longer contain the listed
hazardous waste, or unless they are specifically excluded from
RCRA regulation. Also note that this contaminated soil is
considered hazardous because it contains a substance (TDI) listed
as U223 waste, but not according to the "derived from" rule as
you cited. You should discuss the necessary clean-up activities
and appropriate clean-up standards with the permitting authority
ri.e. the State of Indiana). To have a hazardous waste excluded
(or delisted), a petition must be filed with EPA Headquarters.
Pursuant to 40 CPR 260.22 (In), any exclusion rendered by the
Agency will only apply to the specific waste generated at the
individual facility covered by the petition and detailed
demonstrations_must be presented to show that hazardous
constituents listed on Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 that may be
present in the petitioned waste are not found at levels of
regulatory concern.
You should be aware that the Agency in its delisting
evaluation considers any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which a waste was listed.
Accordingly, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does
not exhibit any of the hazardous characteristics, and does not
contain any constituents at hazardous levels. Typically, wi
require me use of appropricttsaiHKBc methods
M^renrWf-l-WM.
-------
9433.1990(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIBOHMEMTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
KAY 2 4 199°
Jim Sherman
U.S. Army
Watervliet Arsenal
Watervliet, New York 12189-4050
Dear Mr. Sherman:
We have received Mr. Russell Wells' letter of February 7th
concerning the proposed substitution of magnesium sulfate for
aluminum sulfate currently used as a flocculating agent for waste
soluble oils in your wastewater treatment system. As discussed
further below, such a substitution may result in a waste which is
not covered by your 1986 exclusion.
The substitution of treatment chemicals (or any change to
your 1986 exclusion) may be considered a major process change if
it significantly alters the composition of your waste. We
believe that the substitution of magnesium sulfate for aluminum
sulfate may significantly alter the composition of the petitioned
waste, particularly if the rationale for the substitution is to
reduce constituent concentrations in the resultant wastewater.
However, we cannot fully assess the impact this substitution
might have on the exclusion status of your wastewater treatment
sludge without knowing more about the flocculation step.
Therefore, if the substitution that you describe is
implemented, you may be producing a new waste that is not covered
under the existing delisting. In this case you would have to
submit an amended petition and we would have to reopen your
delisting petition-^or review and comment. Please note that
current delisting criteria are somewhat different than those used
in 1986. For example, the health-based levels used in delisting
decision-making may have changed for some hazardous constituents,
and petitioners with on-site units containing the petitioned
waste are now required to demonstrate that the petitioned waste
as not adversely impacted ground water.
If you still believe this change in process is not
significant and will not adversely impact your waste, you may
submit the following information to allow us to fully evaluate
*•*<• •*-rir~Bfl ~K"r7*»*
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
9433.1
NOVEMBER 88
2. Used Oil Court Derision
On March 7, 1988, a petition was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia by the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, the
Association of Petroleum Re-Refiners, and the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., versus the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The petition
called for a review by the Court on a decision of the EPA concerning the
regulatory status of recycled used oils under RCRA. The Court issued a decision
on the petition on October 7, 1988.
Specifically, on what decision were the petitioners asking the Court to rule?
What was the Court's decision?
In its final action of November 19,1986 (51 FR 41900), the Agency decided not
to list used oil that is recycled as a hazardous waste. The Agency based this
decision on its finding that such a listing would attach the stigma of the label
"hazardous waste" to recycled oil, thereby discouraging recycling.
Furthermore, the Agency stated that its authority to regulate used oil under
RCRA is not dependent on a hazardous waste listing, under the authority of
the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980, which was redesignated as RCRA Section
3014 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. (See the
discussion at 50 F_R 1691; January 11, 1985 and 51 FR 41900; November 19,
1986.)
The petitioners in this case were challenging this determination made by
EPA. The petitioners argued that the Agency acted contrary to law in basing its
determination on the stigmatic effects of listing. That is, the petitioners
argued that the RCRA statute does not give EPA the authority to not list a
waste based on the stigmatic effects of such a listing. Consequently, the
petitioners requested that the court order EPA to list recycled used oils as a
hazardous waste.
The Court agreed that EPA erroneously based its decision not to list recycled
used oils as hazardous wastes on the stigmatic effects of such a listing, a factor
not permitted by the statute. Thus, the Court is requiring EPA to determine
whether any recycled used oils meet the technical criteria for listing under the
law.
Source: Sarah Carney (202) 382-7932
Research: .-_. Chris Bryant
-------
- 6 -
For all of the above reasons, we consider the waste to be
hazardous and subject to regulation under no CPR Parts 262 through
265 and to the permitting standards of DO CPR Part 270. Accordingly,
we will recommend to the Assistant Administrator that a denial
notice be published in the Federal Register.
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of with-
drawing their petitions to avoid publication of a negative
finding in the Federal Register. If you prefer this option, you
must send us a letter withdrawing your petition ,and Indicating
that the petitioned waste is considered hazardous and will be
managed as such. If you send such a letter, it should be forwarded
to me within two weeks of the date of receipt of today's correspon-
dence. If you choose not to withdraw your petition, a denial
decision will be published in the Federal Register. You and
other interested parties will be able to submit comments if you
disagree with the Agency's decision.
If you have any questions regarding our decision, please
contact Mr. Scott Maid of ray staff at (202) 382-1783.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Bob Greaves, Region III
Sharon Peldsteln, Region III (Superfund)
Jenny Utz, SAIC
-------
- 5 -
wastewater treatment system. Consequently, your petition should
have included an evaluation of the aeration basin wastes (including
the volume of previously generated waste) and the clarifier
wastes for the total concentrations of the following constituents
as well as any other constituents that may be present from these
process waters and/or contaminated groundwater:
acenaphthalene 2-methoxy-^-raethylphenol
arsenic dibenzo(a,h)anthraeene
barium ethyl benzene
benzene fluoranthene
benzo(a)anthracene indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
. benzo(a)pyrene lead
benzo(b)fluoranthene mercury
benzo (2-chorolsopropyl)ether naphthalene
cadmium 'nickel
chrysene . phenol
chromuim plcoline
cyanide pyrldine
eyclohexane silver
eresote selenium
2,4-dlraethyl phenol toluene
Fourth, a petitioner must also provide data indicating the
waste to be dellsted would not be hazardous based on any charac-
teristic of the waste. You failed to provide such data despite
our requests for it. The aeration basin wastes should have been
analyzed for corrosivlty (pH), ignltablllty, reactivity, and EP
toxicity. .
Finally, submitted data indicate that mercury, although not
expected to be present in K035 waste, is present in the waste.
This fact further supports the Agency's position concerning the
Inadequacy of the waste characterization and analytical data you
provided. Specifically, we are concerned with the source of
this metal contaminant. The summary EP toxicity data submitted
on November 17, 1986 showed that the mercury concentration in
the March 12, 1986 staple, when subjected to the VHS nodel,
exceeds the regulatory level of concern (i.e., National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation for Mercury).
We recognise that we have not previously requested that you
submit some of these missing data (e.g., aeration basin waste
characterization data). As we explained above, however, your
groundwater monitoring data and the status of your groundwater .
monitoring well network provide independent grounds for denying
your petition. Therefore, even if you had supplied the missing
data, and if it had allowed us to predict that no constituents
in the waste exceeded a level of regulatory concern, we would
have recommended denying your petition. The missing data, although
potentially useful, is therefore not needed to support our decision.
^-
-------
Finally, we must again recommend denial because your petition
does not f.ully characterize the wastes in the wastewater treatment
units. Without a complete understanding of the composition and
nature of these wastes, we can not exclude these wastes or assoc-
iated treatment units from regulation under 40 CFR Parts 262
through 266 and 270. Each of these deficiencies discussed
belowi
First, Koppers requested that the waste in all units of the
wastewater treatment system (i.e./ 2 aeration basins and 1 clarifier)
be delisted. Among other things, delisting procedures require
that the petitioner (1) properly sample and characterize the waste
in all units seeking delisting; and (2) analyze the waste for factors
(including constituents other than those for which the waste was
listed) which may cause the waste1 to be hazardous. The Koppers
petition is significantly deficient in both these areas.
Koppers provided sampling data only for the waste in
the clarifier. We do not consider the samples taken from the
clarifier to be representative of the waste that accumulated in '
the two aeration basins because potentially hazardous organic
residues (that may be more dense than the wastewater) may be
settling out in the aeration basins. This may cause the waste
in the aeration basins to be substantially different from the
clarifier wastes. Therefore, the Agency has no basis to delist
the uncharacterized aeration basins.
second, submitted data indicate that material, other than
K035 waste was added to the wastewater treatment system. Your
firm added contaminated groundvater removed from other locations
at the facility (as reouested under CERCLA) to the wastewater
treatment system before the units were sampled, but failed to
clearly document the source or contents of the added groundwater.
This information is essential under EPA's definition of "hazardous
waste." Mixtures of listed hazardous wastes, such as K035 and
another solid or hazardous waste, are hazardous wastes. See
40 CPR S261.3(b)(2) ("the mixture rule"). EPA would need to
evaluate all of the constituents in the resulting mixture before
granting • delisting petition. To succeed, your petition would
have to demonstrate that the ground water that you added to the
units contained no wastes. Even if you could show that the
ground-water contained no RCRA wastes, you would need to perform
a full Apendiz VIZZ analysis if you wanted to demonstrate that
any of the constituents found in the samples from the R-C series
wells originated in the contaminated ground-water from the CERCLA
action rather than the R035 waste.
Third, the constituent analyses you conducted were limited to the
constituents for which the waste was originally listed. However,
available data indicate that other processes at your facility
use pyridine, picoline, cyclohexane, or naphthalene. It is not
clear whether constituents from these processes may end up in the .
petitioned wastewater. Further, contaminated groundwater
containino these and/or other constituents has been added to the
-------
- 3 -
We reviewed the data that Koppers submitted and concluded
that two of the monitoring systems (wells In the R-A and R-8
series) were"hot adequate to monitor ground-water quality In the
uppermost aquifer underlying the aeration units because they
were Installed In shallow fill materials that are typically dry.
The R-C series wells which are downgradient of the units and the
upgradlent A-115 well, although not-fully complying with the
Subpart P requirements, can be used to sample the uppermost
aquifer. Koppers Submitted two quarters of data from these wells.
Data from the downgradient veils showed concentrations exceeding
background levels for the following hazardous constituents, which
are among those we would expect to find in K035 waste; cadmium,
barium, phenathrene, benzo(a)-pyrene, dlbenz(a,h)anthracene,
lndeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene
and phenol. In all cases, concentration levels at the downgradient
wells exceeded the levels of regulatory concern that EPA uses to
evaluate delistlng petitions. In some cases wells at the background
(upgradlent) well also exceeded these delistlng levels. Moreover,
the downgradient wells also showed higher concentrations of TOO, ...
pH, and specific conductants, three of the four general indicators
of ground-water contamination measured under the Subpart F
monitoring requirements. Appendix I presents these data in
greater detail.
We discussed the need for data on ground-water contamination
with representatives of Koppers In 1986. At that time, we focused
primarily on a CERCLA action that addressed ground-water problems
at a different part of the facility. We were concerned that
releases from the wastewater treatment units might be contributing
to that problem. In response to our letter of March 1986, Koppers
•submitted information Intended to show that the wastewater
treatment units were not contributing to the ground-water
contamination subject to the CERCLA response. We have serious
questions about this demonstration. More significantly* that
demonstration provides no basis for us to conclude that the
wastewater units are not contributing to the contamination closer
to the units at the three R-C series wells. Because samples from
these wells contained a large number of constituents frequently
found in K035 waste, and because the wells are located downgradient
of the units, *• bar* tentatively concluded that the units are
contributing .te> the contamination at those wells. Accordingly,
we oust recosjMttd that the Agency deny your petition.
Furthermore, as mentioned briefly above, none of the wells
in. the vicinity_of the aeration units fully complies with the
monitoring standards In Part 265, Subpart P. For example,
two of the monitoring systems (the Initial R series and the RB
series) were Installed in fill materials that are typically
dry, and have been determined to be inadequate for monitoring
groundwater quality in the uppermost aquifer underlying the
aeration units. EPA's current delistlng policy also requires us
to recommend denial of your petition on this basis.
-------
-2-
The Agency disagrees. The K035 listing background document
speclflcallylncludes biological sludges:
"2. Creosote Wastewater Treatment Sludge
The wastewater treatment sludges that remain after
biological treatment are also hazardous. The carcinogenic
constituents of creosote, namely benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)-
fluoranthene, and benzo(a)pyrene, are especially likely to
be present in the treatment sludge since these constituents
absorb to sediments at very high levels (App. B). Where
treatment is incomplete, creosote (which is, however, somewhat
• amenable to blodegradatlon (App. B)), is projected to be
present in the sludge as well. If these sludges are placed
in a leaking landfill, an unllned holding pond, or an improperly
sited facility (i.e., as in an area with permeable soil), the
waste constituents may be released."
For this reason, the Agency concludes that the wastewater treatment
sludge generated at the Koppers' Pollansbee, West Virginia facility
is a listed hazardous waste K035.
In addition., your firm contends that the aeration basins are
tanks, not surface impoundments, and are therefore exempt from
regulation under *»0 CPR 261.4(c). As explained in the attached
October 11, 1985 letter from Stephen Wassersug (EPA Region III),
EPA examined the structural details of the aeration units and
found that the units do not meet the criteria for tanks. Therefore,
the §26l.4(c) exemption does not apply.
Because the units and waste are subject to Subtitle C
regulations, we evaluated the merits of your dellsting petition.
As mentioned previously, our evaluation has resulted In our
decision to recommend the denial of your firm's petition. The
primary basis for this decision Is that the submitted groundwater
monitoring data indicates that the waste units may have contributed
to groundwater contamination. Also, we are concerned about the
adequacy of jour ground-water monitoring system. Finally, you
did not supply all of the data needed to fully characterize the
waste in the treatment system. We address each of these concerns
in more detail below.
It is EPA's policy not to exclude any waste until the
petitioner demonstrates that it poses no past or present threat
to the environment. For waste that has been treated, stored or
dlposed of in a land-based 'unit, EPA will Investigate the potential
for ground-water contamination. Our policy is to request four
consecutive quarters of groundwater monitoring data from a ground-
water monitoring system meeting the requirements in &0 CFR 265,
Subpart F. These data must show no exceedanee of regulatory
standards.
-------
9433.1987(271
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
DEC /
Of'ICE O*
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY "tS'ONSE
Mr. Jordan Dern
Manager, Environmental Regulatory Programs
Koppers Company, Incorporated
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Dear Mr. Dern:
The Permits and State Programs Division has reviewed your
September 21, 1963 petition (10528) requesting an exclusion from -
regulation for sludges, presently classified as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K035» generated at the Koppers' Follansbee, West Virginia
facility. We will recommend to the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response that your petition be denied.
There are two reasons for this recommendation: (1) groundwater
monitoring data Indicates that the subject units and waste may
be contaminating groundwater; and (2) the waste has not been
sufficiently characterized to demonstrate that it is non-hazardous.
(Note: We have not previously requested some of the missing
information because of (a) confusion created by the petition as
to which wastes are treated in the system, and (b) the evolving
requirements of the Delisting Program). The specific bases for
our recommendation are further described below.
However, before further explaining our denial recommendation,
let us first address your contentions that the waste to be delisted
is not subject to regulation.
Your firm contended that its wastewater treatment system does
not generate or treat a listed hazardous waste. Specifically, you
argued that the waste is a sludge generated from the biological
treatment of creosote production wastewaters and that the K035
listing (wastewater treatment sludges generated in the production
of creosote) is not applicable to this waste because the listing
background document does not include biological treatment sludges.
-------
A list of any Appendix VIII constituents which may be
"formed as products of incomplete combustion in the EPA
Mobile Incineration System (MIS).
A detailed description of the high resolution GC/high
resolution mass spectrometry method which will be used
to analyze the incineration residues for PCDDs/PCDFs,
including a discussion of the analytical detection
limits which you intend to achieve and the
appropriateness of such detection limits.
Process information regarding the carbon filtration
unit which will be used to treat the wastewater and the
management of the resulting carbon- filter cartridges.
Also describe any other process changes which will be
made so that the MIS can effectively treat the
indemnified products.
Expected waste generation rates for each of the
petitioned residues, per batch and over the entire
incineration period. Also, provide a definition of
'batch' for each of the petitioned residues (i.e.,
solids from one day/week's run, one full tank of
wastewater, 10 drums of solids). We will use these
definitions in the development of the verification
testing requirements for the exclusion.
Describe the expected residue disposal scenarios if the
residues are successfully delisted.
cc: Bob Hall
Dick Valentinetti
Fred Lindsey
Steve Johnson
-------
943 3 . 1967 (26 )
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 2 8 i^T
SOUO W»STE ANO EME"BENC* -SS'-' SE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Delisting Petition Information Requirements
FROM: Suzanne Rudzinslci, Chief
Assistance Branch (WH-563)
TO: Judy Hectanan, Chief
Management Support Staff (TS-769C
The purpose of this memo is to outline the critical elements
of a deiisting petition for the residues from the incineration
Of the indemnified 2,4,5-T and silvex pesticides. Other general
requirements are presented in the deiisting petition guidance
document; I believe you already have a copy of this document.
The most important data requirements are summarized below:
o A discussion of history behind the petition (i.e., the
litigation) for inclusion in the federal Register.
o Identification of all Appendix VIII constituents
present in the waste. This characterization is needed
for each different product formulation. We believe you
should be able to provide sufficiently detailed
information in the format of the confidential product
formulations and MSDS. We suggest that you supplement
these data with one full Appendix VIII scan of both the
major liquid product formulation and the Silvex
product.
o A catalog of the pesticides which will be burned,
including physical state (aqueous, organic
solvent-based liquid, solid, etc.), volume, and
origin. If other materials are going to be mixed with
the pesticides prior to incineration (e.g.,
contaminated soils), they must also be fully
characterized (including contaminant profiles,
volumes, origin, etc.).
-------
cf th* Tojrlcity Characteristic Ipechin? Procedure (TCI;/ arc
?.T results); the T.7> assuage ar acetic acid leachinr re-?ip
fror, e EiHiioipal landfill which renerally will overestirp.te
leaching potential in an aqueous Inpoundnent, a.c well PS a
20 to 1 dilution factcr for e municipal landfill which will
underestimate the dilution which IB expected to occur in aost
Inpoundmenta ani thus overestimetes the l**chete concentration
for lapoundMentfi. We therefore belleve'that the VES aodel IB
the beet model currently available to evaluate dsta Included
In delietlng petitions. Until, In eur judgaent, a more
suitable lodtl IB developed for l«poundaentP we will continue
to use the TBS landfill model for deliiting.
I hope that this letter addressee your concerns. If
you have other questions about delistine, please call ce at
(202) 3B2-47P?.
Sincerely,
»«yles E. Morse, Chief
Variances Section
-------
UKT^|D STAT^ ENVIRON^CHTAL PROTECT
V i- » W 9433.19C7(25)
KT 26 £87
Mr. John Ramsey
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Hazardous Waste Section
Forbes Field, Building 730
opeka, Kansas 66620
m
Pear Mr. Raneey:
In your telephone conversation on October 13, 19S7 with
ttr. Scott Maid of my staff, you requested a statement from our
office regarding the models used to evaluate wastes in surface
impoundments and how they differ from those used to evaluate
landfilled wastes. We. are glad to comply with your request.
As you are avare, our office developed the Vertical and
Horizontal Spread (VHS) model based on a landfill scenario.
The site characteristics at the hypothetical site were fixed
at reasonable worst-case levels, which allows the modrl to
operate usinf just two variables, leachate constituent concen-
tration and waste volume. Potential ground water impacts are
evaluated at a hypothetical drinking water well, called the
compliance-point, located 500 feet from the disposal site.
Ve have, as a matter of policy, used the VHS model as it
presently exists to evaluate wastes in surface impoundments.
Ve have indicated IB numerous Federal Register notices that
the VHS model wes used in those instances where surface
impoundments were evaluated and that this use of the model
was justified in the evaluation process. Ve believe the YES
model is sufficiently conservative to provide a reasonable
degree of protection to human health and the environment
when used to evaluate impounded wastes. For example, the VES
landfill model assumes no attenuation, no biodegradatlon, and
no photolysis; each of these mechanisms may be significant
in an impoundment scenario. The VBS landfill scenario also
assumes the use of the UP Leachate results (or the results of
the Organic Leachate Model (DIM) which is an empirical model
-------
Z hop* tb«t this explanation has addressed your concern*
egarding tee regulatory status oC Th»r»*i'» petitioned wastes
and the oir-tit« units in which th«y ar« contained. Should you
ha»« any further questionsf pl»as* £••! Crt« to contact
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI 0 , , ,
9433. 19 o 7(2 3
OCT 5BSI
ris. Nancy Stein
Radian Corporation
8501 Mo-Pac Blvd.
P.O. Box 99^8
Austin, Texas 78766-09^8
Dear Ms. Stein:
This letter is in response to your August lHt 1987
inquiry regarding the regulatory status of Thernex Energy
Corporation's surface impoundments located at their Brooksville,
PL; McCleansvllle, NC; and Casper, WY facilities. In that
letter you requested an interpretation of the regulatory status
of the surface impoundments at these facilities which contain
K044 wastes that had been temporarily excluded. This response
addresses only the regulatory status of these units under the
Federal hazardous waste management system but does not address
whether the units have met the closure requirements of 40 CFH
Part 265.
Based on the information provided by Thermex and reiterated '
in your letter, the subject surface impoundments, which contain
wastes that were generated prior to and during the tine that the
temporary excluelon was In effect, stopped receiving these wastes
while the temporary exclusion was still in effect. Since the
impoundments at all three facilities stopped receiving wastes
prior to the effective date of the final denial decision, which
was Hovenber 8f 1986 (see 51 PR 25887, July 17,1986), the surface
impoundments at these facilities are not subject to hazardous
waste regulation other than would typically apply to solid waste
management units. The wastes in these units, however, are now
considered hazardous and oust be handled In accordance with
Subtitle C requirements if they are ever managed in such a way
as to trigto63" Subtitle C regulation (i.e., they are removed,
excavated, shipped off-site, mixed with other wastes, or receive
further on-alte treatment).
The States of North Carolina and Florida are authorized by
EPA to administer and enforce hazardous waste management program
pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA, 42 D.S.C. $6926. The closure
requirements of Thermex's impoundments at the facilities In these
states, therefore, should be determined by the appropriate State
authorities. The State of Wyoming, however, is not authorized
under the aforementioned statute and therefore, the disposal unit
at Thermex!a_Wyoming facility should .comply with the applicable
Federal hazardous waste closure requirements of 40 CPR Part 265.
-------
Ar-.-l 19SC), on» aaap3e per each 10,000 eq«ar* foot InereBent,
or a total of trenty-*ix supine, should be analyse* for total
oil and greaee, cyanides, and for total anC £P leacaable concen-
trations of the £? toxic aetala, pin* nlckfl and beryl llus.
In thin ca»«, the ?3PD la rilling to stills* a "tiered" approach
to the B? analyses, rh^rebT the total aetal concentration*
will fjret be evaluated to determine whether encash of each
metal la prevent IB each alodf* sample to rarrant further
analysis with the IP teat. The- threehold ralue for arsenic,
lead, ehroviua, and silrer is 3? «eA£» for eadalot and aeleni-jx,
(.4 Bg/ke; for barltua, 640 mf/*ti for marosry, 1.28 »c/k«; for
^•rjlllvvt 126 ».g/k|t; for alekel, 224 *£/*£• Sa*plea oootalninr
•ort than *&••* aaoonta of Bttala Miat *e t*at*4 vlth tb« B?
teat (or tt« Oily VaJtt Z?, if **tal oil an< freaae la fauod
to exceed o»e p«re»nt).
ODC« thlt iaforiatiOB ha* b**a r»o«lv«d, tba evaluation
f the lagoon |6 portion of jour petition may proceed. After
of thvae data, vt vlll «val«ate the a&alyaea uain^ tre
ftlaa obtained for each conitltuent, in accordance
with our policy.
Ve voul
-------
.*, PROTcCTI-
943 3. 1987 (2 2
OCT '2 ISS7
Mr. Richard. Davis
R:RA Coordinator
Brush Wellman, Inc.
South River Road
Elmore, Ohio 43416
Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter is to inform you that the Permits and State
Programs Division (PSPD) has re-evaluated its earlier decision
regarding Brush Wellman's exclusion petition (#0573) submitted
October 25, 1984. Based on our original policy of considering
on-site management units as a single waste volume for purposes
of delisting, we had indicated to you (in correspondence dated
December 5, 1985) that our office would recommend a denial
decision to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Recent delisting policy changes, however,
now would allow for exclusion of separate waste treatment units
at a multi-unit facility. •
Based on preliminary data in the petition, we are now
considering an exclusion for Lagoon #6 only. Based on the high
level of clay in the Lagoon #6 samples, however, we believe that
more sampling data from this lagoon are needed before a final
decision can be made. As stated in earlier correspondence, we
will recommend to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response that your petition to exclude wastes from
Lagoon #3 and the Triangular Lagoon be denied. You may wish
to withdraw your petition for these two Lagoons rather than have a
negative decision published in the Federal Register. If you choose
to do so, please advise us in writing within two weeks of
receipt of this letter.
As noted in Table 4 of Brush Wellman's revised petition,
which was submitted on June 14, 1985, visual inspection of the
Lagoon #6 samples indicated the absence of sludge material;
samples appeared to be 100$ clay. Thus, these samples may not
be representative of the waste because of the dilution Jby the
clay substrata. Ve suggest that the samples be collected in a
horizontal plane, so that contamination and dilution by clay
are minimized. This will necessitate the use of a grab-sampling
device, e.g., "clam-shell" type sampler, to collect sludge
samples.Tne sample locations should be determined in the
random fashion used in your original petition. As described
in our previously published guidance document, Petitions to
Delist Hazardous Wastes—A Guidance Manual (EPA/530-SW-85-003,
-------
If you here any questione rtfarfiing our preliminary tinfiinga, F
pleaae contact Rr. Hylea Home of ay staff at (202) 352-1763. 1
•T
Sincerely,
Bract B. V«4dle, Director ^
ftnitt ftnd Stat* Prograae DiTiiion ^
I
ce: Tricia ficrb«rt, Rtgion IT f
Allan Jbtley, Region IT «
Howard ?lnk*l, 1C?
. f
»u
1
B
§
5.
o
K
-------
i roc tr.r ciey-osai eiz«. 1'Qe iai/ BOCCI UBBE cne aaxiauB annuaj
waste generation rate to determine tb« a»ount of dilution that
mey occur in an underlying aquifer. The results of the model
are compared with tte Afency'e level of regulatory concern for
that particular constituent.
Ve also UB«, ic conjunction with the VHE motfel, «r. organic
leaehate model (OIK) that wax developed to predict the mobility
of organic toxicants from land-disposed vaetee (see 51 Federal
Remitter 41064, Roveober 13, 1986). The OLE generates leachate
values for each organic constituent which are used as inputs to
the T!i2 «od«l. The calculattd eoBpllaeee-poir.t concentrEtions
sre then co«pare<: vith tbt Agency's refulttory standards for
each conetitaent. for lead and b«n«o(a)*rthraoene ve heve
estahlishei the lerels of regulatory concern as 0.05 •£/! and
1.0x10-5 if,/!, respectively. Dats presented in the petition
for the eediientatlon basin solids reported a aaxi«ua IT leachate
value for bento(a)anthraoene as 1.6 a^/kf. Using these values
for our preliminary evaluation, the OLK/TES aodel predicted a
•£JiDuc lead and becxc(a)anthracene concentration of O.C75 C£/l
and 5.98x10-5 rng/1, respectively, in the ground water at th*
dowr.fradient eoepllance point. ?*o of tfce four 2P leachate
velues for lead and two of the four total constituent values for
bcnso(a)&.nthracene valuee generate coaplianee-point concentrations
that exceed the Agency's Ktaniards. These faili&£ values vere .
derived from a sarrling scheae that involved corroelting, thereby
tilovint the avera^ir.p of five separate aacples (jer section) of
which, one or acre aay have exceeded the reported average values.
In order to i-rerent double averafinf, a* performed by your een-
tractors in their TKZ model evaluation, ve do not allov trie
averaging of eospoeite aasplcs.
Bteed on our preliainary evaluation of your petition, ve have
concluded thet (1) your petition ie not complete due to the l*cc
of four quarters of ground-vat«r aocitorine data, am! (2) based on
the analytical data subaitted as part of your petition, the wastes
could present a significant hatard to both human health and the
environment. Ve believe that the waste^should therefore be con-
sidered batardous, and subject to regulation under 4C CF? Parts
262 through 26E acd the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270.
t'e trill therefore recommend to the Assistant Administrator tt?.t a
denial notice be published in the ?»deral Rsgiatsr.
It ia our practice to five petitioners the option of with-
drawing tbtlr petitions to avoid a negative publication in the
Federal Keciater when our preliminary evaluation determines
that the vmates rill be denied exelmcion. If you prefer this
option, yon smst mead as a letter withdrawing jour petition
mad lEdleatiag that the vmstea are considered haaardous and
trill be mana«ed as euch. Zf yon mead ««om a letter, it should
be forwarded_to this offlee within two weeks of.the date of
receipt of today's correspondence. If you ehooae not to
withdraw your petition, a denial decision will be published in
the federal Register.
-------
C.NV\ROH*C.H~ *.
9433.1967(21)
f".r. Johr. _P.. .Gey
Mantper-Invironaental
Ashlp.nd Petroleum Company ccp
Division of Ashlar.d Oil, Incorporated XT
P.O. Box 391
Ashland, Kentucky 41114
Dear Mr. Cay:
The Permits and State Programs Division has completed a
preliminary review of your petition (#0700), submitted on July
7, 19^7, vhich requested the exclusion of EPA Hazardous Waste
Xos. K048 through K052 generated at Ashland's Kentucky facility.
Based or, our prelioinary evaluation of your petition ve will
recoBraen'i to the Administrator for Solid Waste and icereency
Response that the petition be denied for the reasons discussed
below.
We now require all petitioners who employ on-site land-th.3ed
manp.fement of petitioned waste(s) tc submit four quarters of
,Toi:nd-vater monitoring data collected from a monitoring system
jiuif-ed to be adequate hy the Regional EPA office or e.uthoriseu
State (i.e., the system must comply vith all of the 4C CFR §263
Subpart i" requirements). Ve note that your petition did net
contain any monitorinc date characterizing the ground water at
the sedimentation baein, and therefore, your petition is incomplete
Submission of ground-water monitoring data which show no existing
contamination ie not, in itself, sufficient grounds for the
exclusion of petitioned wastes. Ihe Agency also evaluates the
anelyticRl data for the petitioned wastes to evaluate their
•potential to contpainate ground water.
Despite the fact th&t your petition is not complete,
the analytical data submitted for the sedimentation*solids
is statistically sufficient to characterize the petitioned
wastes, and therefore, a preliminary evaluation of these data
was conducted. Eased on our evaluation of the EP leachate
data for lead and total constituent data for benzo(a)anthraccne
presented in your petition, your wastes have the potertiRl to
cor.taoina.te ground water at levels which exceed the regulatory
standards, for these constituents. Our evaluation is based on
results coaputefl by using the vertical and horizontal spread
(VKS) model (see 50 ?ederal Register 48886, November 27, 19S5).
Ve use thieunpdel to predict constituent concentrations in the
ground water at the compliance point located 500 feet downgradier.t
-------
iff repp ir ainc mat etn*r cniorinate* rjuoroearbone eay
C7* significantly different HoluMlitiee and/or toilclties,
could lead to different aoiel reeulte for thoe* copoundc.
Since YOU »entloned your eoneern for continued eo*pllt,r.c?on«»0 to Etere Vsll, Chief of I?A'» Land
Tiapoaal ReHtrietlone Branch, for hl» offiee to aeaver separately.
They «»y be able to identify any potential probreme with the land
disposal of your freon ttill bottoas in coajunetlon vlth the
on-^oing prograa ef laa< diapoaal restrictions.
X hope thi» bae addressed your ooaoern*. If you have farther
.e»ie call at at (202) 382-4763*
Sincerely,
/s/
Scott J. HalJ
Tarlancet Section
ce: Pteve Veil
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 9433.1957(20)
SEP 3
C.N. Spalarifi
Technical Director
Qu&drer Recycle Center
100 rii-.t Road
Oak Pidpe, TN 37230-703?
Deer IT. talaris:
T hp.ve received your letter requesting a definition o«' th-r-
BP.rci'aun! concentration limit for rreon (trichloro trifluoroethr.n*)
in still tottoins thst would be non-hazardous. I have perforoerl r.
calculation ucin? the Organic Leaehinp Model (OIK) and th* Ver-tie*:
and 5-orizontPl Spread (VSS) model in ord*?r to reach a general
conclusion about the relative hasard pos*»d "by th» diBpocp.l o?' a
iT^cvn - containing still bottom in a landfill.
Th* regulatory etRndarf;. for 1,1 ,2-trichloro-1,2,?tri-rliiorcrThRr'--
that is li current us** i'or delistinp purposes is 105C mc/1 (ir
wat*T), a relatively hi£:h VR!UP that suggests a low tor.icity tc
huaanPt Eaeed on a rou*;h snproxlr.ation of waste volune, ?.T .
Morse gave you a cut off oi' 6000 n?/l* This was likely Vaeef on
a reaoona>>l*; worst-case where there may b* a lar^* arount of
WE.st« in
the- actual waste helov 6.600 ppo (i.e.. 600C prc) an^ rstf'^i'1-!
2eechin,7 r-rctlpn won!fi be circumvent^.
Since you generate a email volune of waste (<475 tonB/yr.).
th*« VHE model would aaelgn a dilution factor of about. ?2.J- to yo-jr
wae-re, which a cans that your still bottoa leachate could contain
alnost 3*iCX)0 ng/1 of 1,1,2-trichlorot ,2,2-trlfluoroethane ar.d
still pasa th« VHC ^valu«tlOT«. Because 1,1,2-trichloro1 ,?,2-
trifluoro«thane is only slightly solubl* In water (170 B£/l).
th*» total content of this ooopound in the etill bottone
could approach 100£ and still pass the Agency's evaluation.
-------
T^UB, »ir»ce v* plan to deny your petition to cxcluut /cur
waste, we l>elieve tV.ut t-..~ i«6cca rci.e-1 in your .'.-y i.., 1<,<;7
letter are ;»rer*turc for conriieraticn. Th* data r'^cicntea fcr
tw.c Crj> ;-otiticn indicate tr.ct the C.TU- ray >.tv« cor.ta-iriote i
the ground water. Ir fc'Jiticn, th* data were 'jeneratad Iror: tJ.c
Analysis e* 'san;-l«s th*t were- ii:-ro:>erly eollcctt:) (un^uryert
vrlli ir. 19JS and filteraJ saRpleB in 1?£G) fror. an inanc^uatc
system (tno fev Jowngr&.'Ucnt wtllt). ~.trt?cr«. t'^e ^,:.Iorr-at.ior.
»u!>ritte<: cannot •upl'ort any other ccr.clu«icm but denial of your
petition nnJ: u*fcrral of tSe concern* r*i»«d in your Hay le>, !S»s37
letter •
rrly, we will r«eotx:enrt to tlie A«sl»tant A
-------
o 3oth 1905 and 1986 data demonstrate that the CRP has
increased the concentration of chlorides, fluorides,
sulfates, manganese, sodium, and nitrates in downgradient
wells as compared to the upgradient well KW-10. All three
quarters of the 1985 data also demonstrate an increase in
pK for all downgradient wells. These indicator parameters
support the previously mentioned metal findings, in that
they identify the CRP's impact on the aquifer.
In addition to the problems outlined above with your ground
water analyses, we believe that your ground water monitoring
syaten is inadequate. Specifically, we have evaluated well
placement and construction and have concluded that your monitoring
system cannot properly characterise the extent of contamination
that may have been caused by the CRP. Our specific concerns are
summarised below:
o Well HW-ll (brought into service after the 1985 sampling)
is not a valid downgradient well because it does not
Intercept ground water that flows through the CRP. Based
on the map of the CRP which includes water levels, well -
KW-11 is laterally offset fron the CRP (and thus is
neither upgradient nor downgradient of the CRP).
o As reported by our Regional office, the well* for this
unit may be monitoring more than one aquifer or are not
screened at consistent depths within a single aquifer.
Their information leads us to believe thati the shallow
aquifer is not monitored by an upgradient well; the
system lacks enough wells to monitor the ground water in
each aquifer; and that the upgradient and downgradient
wells are not screened at appropriate depths. Construction
diagrams of wells KW-8 and 11 demonstrate that these
wells nay be inadequate.
The inadequacies of the monitoring system, sampling, and
testing make definitive characterisation of ground water quality
difficult and the proposal of an exclusion impossible. It is our
policy not to exclude any waste until it has been properly charac-
terized and that the characterisation demonstrates that the waste
poses no past or present threat to the environment. In your
case, existing data indicates that ground water contamination may
exist. Accordingly, we plan to deny ypur petition. If you choose
to refute, this conclusion, additional3/ data from a compliant
ground water monitoring systen would DC necessary for proper
characterization.
£/ You need at least four quarters of data that include, but
~~ are not limited to, testing for all metals expected to be in
the waste.
-------
o The second, third! i.r.jJ fourth quarters of the 1985
ground water monitoring results indicate that the
chromium concentrations exceeded the regulatory standard
for both the downgradient (MW-8&9) and the upgradient
(MW-10) wells.
o Our information indicate! that the 1985 ground water
samples were collected improperly. Specifically, the
wells were not purged prior to sampling. As a result,
the samples may reflect constituent concentrations that
are either higher, lower, or the same as the concentrations
of the constituents in the aquifer. These samples are,
therefore, not necessarily representative of ground
water quality.
o The 19B6 samples were filtered at the time of collection.
This is an inappropriate method under RCRA guidelines;
samples should be split when filtering is used with both
filtered and unfiltered analyses submitted for evaluation .£/
Since filtering tends to decrease the concentration of ~
metal constituents?/ contained in the sample, filtered
samples will contain lower concentrations of metals than
the leachate as it exists under the CRP. Thus, the
concentration! presented for the 1986 filtered .sampling
are expected to be lover than the actual concentrations
of these constituents in the ground water as it exists
under the CRP. If the ground water contains levels of
constituents that exceed regulatory standards we are
unlikely to delict the waste in the CRP.
As a result, your reported 1986 ground water monitoring
data raise several concerns about selenium, lead, and
cadmium. No analyse* for these constituents were conducted
in 1985. First, a sample from the downgradient well MW-8
on November 17, 1986 contained selenium at a concentration
of 6.013 mg/L which exceeded the regulatory standard.
Second, lead detection limits are reported as <0.10 mg/L.
This value is twice the regulatory standard for lead.
Therefore, your detection limit needs to be decreased
below the standard (0.05 mg/1). Third, .cadmium concen-
trations for the January 31, 1986 sampling round were
reported as 0.01 mg/L. This value is equivalent to
the regulatory standard for cadmium, however the actual
unfiltered concentration may hav* exceeded the standard.
I/ See "RCRA Ground-Water* Monitoring Technical Enforcement
~~ Guidance Document", Section 4.3, page 114.
£/ Approved analytical procedures for metals require that the
*~ total metals concentration be determined. These procedures
discourage filtration. See "Methods of Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes," EPA-600/4-79-020.
-------
UNiTED STATES €NV|RONM£WTAL PROTECTIO
*" 9433 . 1987 ( 16 )
ALE 1 1987
Mr. B. A. Steiner
Manager* Envirorwental Engineering
Arnco Incorporated
P.O. Box 600
Kiddletown, Ohio 45043
Mr. Steinert
In your letter of May 16, 1967, you raised several questions
concerning Delisting policy as it relates to waste treatment units
operated at your Butler, PA facility. The issues you raise are
concerned with managing the number 5 surface impoundment wastes
as hazardous. However, your delisting petition 10613 applies
only to the Chrome Reduction Pond (CRP). Your petition raises
two concernsi the effect the CRP has had on the underlying aquifer
and the adequacy of your ground water monitoring system.* Before
we consider the issues raised in you Kay IB, 1987 letter, we must
resolve the concerns raised by your petition.
The data submitted to date on the CRP's impact on ground
water are mixed but indicate that the CRP has potentially leached
metals (including chromium and cadmiun, two metal* for which
the CRP waste, K061, is listed). Some of the 198S data indicates
contamination above the National Primary Drinking Water Standards
(NPDWS) for some metals. The 1986 data which was filtered prior
to analysis indicate metal concentrations at downgradient wells
at the drinking water standards. We believe that if the samples
had remained unfiltered as per EPA's recommended procedures, that
these levels nay have exceeded the standard.
The specific information you submitted that leads us to believe
the CRP sludge has adversely affected the underlying ground water
aquifer is summarized below. Metal concentrations and around
water indicator parameters for monitoring data are of particular
concern.
-------
t-e understand that our decisions on the Holloaan situation
may potentially affect your negotiations with Hollonin. However,
we i.iust proceed carefully to ensure that our del latins decision
conci-jere all pertinent factors and zr.axiinizes protection of the
environnent. Vve hope to resolve these issues soon and will keep
you informed-of our prcaress.
If you have any questions/ please contact Suzanne Rudslnski,
(202) 3K2-S206, of my staff.
-------
oresent status of each of these issues •followsi
Delie'tlng Portions of Treatment Trains
At the February meeting, Air Fore* officials were infonaed
that only the entire treatment train, not portions of it,
could be subject to delisting. The Air Force believes
that contamination of one impoundment in a treatment train
does not imply contamination of all impoundments in that
train. Thus, even though two of the irpoundaents are
showing PCB contamination* they believe that the renaininq
five impoundments and two lakes should be delisted if they
meet all of the Agency's delisting criteria.
We are reevaluating this issue and have not yet reached a
resolution. We will inform you of our decision as soon as
possible.
Hot Spot Regroval
A final decision has not yet been reached concerning the
Air Force's request to remove "hot spots" from the two
contaminated impoundments and eliminate from consideration
the failing samples that were collected from this area*
Hoi Ionian officials believe that if these samples are not
considered, that all seven impoundments will meet delisting
standards.
Sampling and Analytical Requirements
EPA has reevaluated the Air Force's request to reduce the
number of sample* to be taken for analysis and agrees that
the large size of the impoundments and lakes in question
warrants a departure from standard procedure. A statistically
valid characterisation of these impoundment wastes may be
achieved with a fewer number of samples, we are developing
guidelines for a sampling approach that would be appropriate
for the Hollonan situation and hope to reduce the number of
samples required*
EPA will continue to require a full Appendix VZIZ analysis
of all samples since a complete history of the chemicals
disposed in the area is not available. As noted previously,
this complete analysis will be required to ensure that all
hazardous constituents that have been disposed in the
impoundments are properly characterized. The background
information and preliminary sampling data illustrate several
inconsistencies in the Air Force's disposal records} for
example, there is no mention of transformer oil disposal in
the impoundments, however* the waste is contaminated with
PCBs and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, two constituents commonly
found in transformer oils.
-------
Sampling*
Air Pore* officials were inforaea that to prorerly
characterize the waste and evaluate its uniformity and
variability, deliating policy would require the collection
and analysis of over 1600 composite aamplea (439 of impound-
ment sludge, 439 of impoundment liouiti, 723 of lake
water and soils). . .
Zn addition, they were informed that, generally, any delisting
decision is based on the maximum detected concentrations of
hazardous constituents for which the waste is analyzed.
However, a nean concentration value nay b* used if a sufficient
number of samples is collected, but this approach would greatly
increase the number of samples required for characterization.
Analytical*
Air Force officials were informed that they would have to
analyze each composite for all Appendix VIII constituents
in order to fully characterize the waste as required under
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1964. Petit-
ioners can deviate froa this requirement only if they can
demonstrate through historical records and/or raw material
input information that certain Appendix VIII constituents
cannot be present in the waste* Air Force official* were
concerned that their records could not support such a
deviation from the requirements*
Croundwateri
Air Force officials were informed that a complete delisting
petition should include four quarters of groundwater
monitoring data from a system that had been inspected and
approved by EPA Region VZ authorities*
The meeting concluded with the understanding that Air force
officials would evaluate this information and decide whether to
pursue a delisting.
The third seeting between EPA and Air Force representatives
•on February 6, 1987 focused on Air Force requests for possible
allowances to delisting sampling and analytical requirements due
to the large volune of watte involved. EPA was not encouraging
but agreed to reevaluate the issue.
We understand that in June, baaed on telephone cownunications
with delisting staff, Hill Focht (formerly of Region VI) .
informed Air Force officials that the EPA was still evaluating
the regaining outstanding issues regarding delistinq a portion
of the treatment train, removal of hot spots, and more lenient
sar.pling and testing requirements. Zn addition, it is our under-
standing that Hollonan officials will delay submitting a formal
petition pending resolution of these issues.
-------
UNITED STATES EKVIF HMT- -. >T£C 9 4 3'3 . 1 9 C 7 ( : 6 )
JUL 3 I
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Statu» of Hollowan Air Fore* Base Dslisting Action
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid wastes (WH-562)
TOi Allyn K. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
tegion VI
In your aeraorandun of June 6, 1987, you inquired about the
status of the Holloaan Air Force Base (EAFB) petition to delist the
waste contained in seven impoundments and two lakes* Specifically*
you requested the status of policy issues that have been raised
during the review of HAPB's preliminary characterisation of the
wastes • You were^ primarily concerned with the amount of sanpling
that would be required by the Delisting Program for proper
characterization of the waste* In response to your memorandum,
r».y staff has conpleted a chronology of meetings between KAFB and
EPA representatives and outlined the progress that has been made
concerning the major outstanding issues that were discussed at
these meetings.
EPA and Air Force representatives have net three tines to
discuss delisting options and issues for their treatment train
system* The impoundment train* which was established to treat
the base's domestic sewage, also received hazardous wastes.
Therefore, under the "mixture rule* [40 CPR 261.3(b)(2)], the
waste contained in the seven impoundments* Lake Hoi Ionian, and
Lake Stinky is considered to be hazardous*
At the first Meting on August 29, 1986, Air Force officials
submitted background Information and preliminary sampling data.
EPA and Air force representatives met again in November 1966 to
oiscuss the results of the EPA evaluation of the information
that was submitted at the August meeting. The meeting focused
on the additional data that would be needed to complete the
delisting petition. Three major issues were discussed at this
meetingi sampling requirements» analytical requirements; and
ground water monitoring needs.
-------
9433. 1967 (15,
Ut -u :.AEMTAL PROTECTIO
JUL 2 8 'I"
Mr. Omar Muniz-Diaz, P.E.
Manager-Safety, Health and
Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Caribe Incorporated
Ponce, Puerto Rico 00731
.I
Dear Mr. Muniz-Dias:
We have received your June 24, 19R7 letter asking the Agency
to place Union Carbide Caribe' s delisting petition on hold until .
it can provide additional data to the Agency. As a matter of
policv, we do not allow delistina petitions to remain inactive
or on "hold". Union Carbide Caribe may withdraw the petition
and resubmit a new petition at such time as it can supply the
additional data. Our March 19, 19*7 letter- to you, indicated
the reasons we believe your petition should be denied and stated
that we would publish our decision to deny the petition in the
Federal Register unless we received a written notice of Union
Carbide Caribe '6 intent to withdraw the petition. We will allow
you two additional weeks to withdraw the petition if you so
choose before we proceed with our decision to deny.
If you have any questions regarding the above decision,
please contact Mr. Myles Morse of my staff at (202) 382-47RR.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
-------
-3-
* x*n! 1S * listi°9 of 411 pending delisting
tions, broken do*n by Region. Please asLre thaJ ?hese
facilities are in full compliance'with all appUcabte RCR!
regulations if you have any questions regarding the iteration
of this policy, pleas, call Steve Heare at 382-2207 It€ratl0n
cc: Elaine Stanley
Bruce Meddle
. RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I -
-------
-2-
Sections 269.20 and 260.22 establish a petition process
which allow* a facility to demonstrate that its waste, although
captured, by the broad listings of Section 261 Subpart D,
does not meet any criteria under which the waste was listed,
including the presence of additional constituents. Decisions
on waste delisting have always'been based on a chemical
characterization of the waste itself and of the processes
generating that waste, not on facility design, management
practices or site conditions. Therefore/ until a final
decision is made to grant the petition, the waste is hazardous
and the facility remains subject to enforcement of all applicable
regulations (including compliance with Subpart F groundwater
monitoring requirements). Facilities that are not in compliance
with RCRA regulations are subject to enforcement action.1
Concoramitantly, facilities (excluding those with temporary
or informal exclusions) that had pending delisting petitions
on November 8, 1985, were subject to the Loss of Interim
Status (LOIS} provision of the Hazardous and Solid Wast*
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Facilities that failed to-validly"
certify compliance with Subparts F and H and submit a Part B ,
application for an operating permit on or before November 8,
1985 were required to cease operating thtir haiirdoui vast*
land disposal units and submit a closure plan for those units
by November 23, 1985. Facilities with pending de-listing
petitions that failed to retain interim status and continued
to operate after November 8, 1985, and/or failed to submit the
required closure plan are subject to enforcement actions
under Section 3008 of RCRA.
Facilities whose only waste was subject to a temporary or
informal exclusion were not required to meet Part 265
standards during the effective time of the exclusion.
However, all temporary and informal exclusions that had
not previously been acted on expired by statute on 11/8/86
(Section 3001(f)(2)(8)). Facilities that had either a
temporary or informal exclusion were in one of four
categories on 11/8/86: (1) the final delisting was granted
and that watt* is no longer subject to regulation under
RCRA; (2) the petition was denied when, after repeated
requestsf frea the Agency, the facility failed to provide
additional information for the petition; these facilities
had to -fa* in compliance with Part 265 regulations immediately;
(3) the completed petition was denied based on the merits
of the petition (i.e., the waste was determined to be
hazardous); these facilities had six months from the date
of publication of the denial in the Federal Register to
come into compliance with Part 265 standards; or (4) the
exclusion expired by statute; these facilities petitions
moved back into the standard delisting process and the
facilities were immediately subject to all applicable RCRA
requirements.
-------
33. 19S7( 14
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
WASHINGTON, O.C. 204*0
JUL 20 1987
SOUC <*A*T|
O»»iCf Of
IMI •OtNC' »ES»ON!
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: enforcement of Applicable RCRA Regulations at Facilities
with Pending Delisting Petitions
PROM: Gene A. Lucero, Oirectoi
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Garcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I, IV, V, vil, & vni
Air £ Waste Management Division Director
Region II
V-
Hazardous Waste Management Division Director
Region III, VI t x
Toxics 6 Waste Management Division Director
Region IX
The purpose of thi* memorandum is to restate Agency
policy regarding the enforcement of applicable RCRA
regulations^at hazardous caste handlers that have pending
delistiog petitions* It has come to our attention that some
Regions and States My be allowing non-compliance with some
or all of the RCRA Subtitle C requirements pending a decision
on active delicting petitions, we are reaffirming here that
these wastes resain hazardous wastes and that they, and the
units in which they are managed, are subject to all applicable
RCRA regulations, including financial responsibility, groundwater
monitoring and_closure requirements, until the delisting is
officially granted. In addition, facilities are still subject
to the 1988 and 1989 statutory deadlines for permit issuance.
-------
••an* that any traatmant provided downstream of a baghouse cannot
be totally, enclosed treatment. To find otherwise, however, would
require ue to find that the beghouee is a process unit. I think
this would hopelessly confuse the definition of treatment units
and procees units and complicate enforcement by introducing how
a unit ia used into the definition.
Therefore, I believe that deepite its possible environmental
advantages, this unit should not be exempted from permitting as a
totally encloeed treatment unit. Based on your ext*naive involve*
meat in the design and construction of this system, I expect per-
mitting will not create an unreasonable barrier to the use of the
closed fixation technology on bagfoouse dusts. Expedited permit
review would seem appropriate.
Z also would note that treatment ia 90-day accumulation
units is currently exempt from permitting. Management within 90
days could make this issue moot for the Alabama facility at this
time.
-------
/ATTACK ^EiAJT-
m IT
KB*3RXKDUM
SUBJXCTt Total Enclosed Treatment and the Steel Industry
fJCMi Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO i James B. Scarbrough
Chief, Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
Z have reviewed your memorandum of February 4, 1987, regarding
our guidance to RKT, Inc.* advising that its baghouse duet treat-
ment system doe* not meet the requirement of a totally enclosed
treatment system. Zt is unfortunate that Region ZV apparently has
reviewed a similar facility in Alabama and reached the opposite
conclusion. Although Z understand your reasoning in that decision,
Z cannot concur with it. Z believe this interpretation would
unnecessarily broaden the exemption and create new problems in
the definition of what constitutes a treatment unit.
The concept of a totally enclosed treatment unit in 40 CFR
1260.10 was designed to prevent the need for a permit for treatment
that occurred in pipes exiting a process unit. As a result, this
definition made clsar that the treatment units must be connected
directly to an industrial production process. By not adhering
strictly to this principle, your interpretation would broaden
the universe of exempt units beyond what was intended for this
exemption.
As you note in your memo, the baghouse is not part of the
production process. Therefore, as stated in my December 22, 1986,
letter to RMT, the dust fixation system cannot be considered
directly connected to the process because the baghouse is open to
the environment. Although listed waste is not generated until the
=nilssion control duct is collected in the baghouse hopper, this
iocs not change the fact that there is an opening between the
production unit and the fixation system. Z recognize that this
-------
Water Act and Beets the other requirement! specified in 40 CFR
260.10 for a wastewater treatment unit is eligible for the creep-
tion. This-definition does not require a permit under the Clean
Mater Act* only that it be eubject to regulation under Section 402
or 307(b) should a discharge occur. The attached letter fro*
John Lehman to Richard Boynton of EPA'* Region I explains our
interpretation in greater detail.
Finally* we do not agree with the third possible excaption,
which was suggested by the company. The exemption froB the
definition of solid waste for reclamation requires that the water
be returned to the manufacturing process. As explained in the
attached memorandum on totally enclosed treatment, the emission
control device is considered a treatment unit, not the manufac-
turing process. Therefore, the water is recycled back to another
treatment unit, not back to the process. As a result, this
recycle would not qualify as reclamation under the definition
of solid waste.
Any questions regarding these interpretations should be
referred to Janes Berlow, Chief of the Treatment Technology
Section, on FTS 362-7917.
Attachments
-------
9433.1987(10
JIN I2B87
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Filter Press
at Burham Corporation
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Chief
Solid Waste Branch
EPA Region V
I as responding to your May 5, 1987, memorandum requesting a
determination of the regulatory status of a filter press*proposed
as part of a corrective action at the Burnhaa Corporation. You
asked whether this unit could be excluded from permitting as (1) a
totally enclosed treatment unit, (2) a wastewater treatment unit, *
or (3) as reclamation exempt Bunder the definition of solid waste.
With respect to totally enclosed treatment, it is clear to
us that this exemption is not available because the treatment is
not connected to the process. EPA's position with respect to this
issue was clarified in our March 17, 1987, memorandum to James
Scarborough of Region IV which is attached. Further, it appears
in this case that, even if direct connection to the process were
somehow achieved, the filter press, as diagrammed, could be open
to the environment and could release hazardous constituents to
the environment, therefore, we do not believe it could be con-
.sidered totally enclosed.
Your •ecoad approach appears to provide the proper basis for
exemption. OSW currently has no formal definition of wastewater.
Although Agency guidance suggested that wastewater should not
exceed sore than a "few* percent constituents other than water,
this definition was never promulgated. Therefore, our current
interpretationJ.s that any waste that is treated in a unit that
is subject to regulation under Section 4192 or 307 (b) of the Clean
-------
- 4 -
Thus, in terms of delisting criteria, the waste contained
in these locations is hazardous and should be treated as such.
If you have any questions concerning the review process, please
contact ae at (202) 3B2-4783.
L
Sincerely,
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division
cc; Robert Aten, Keystone
Andrew Running, Esq. (Kirkland t
D. Jansen, Illinois EPA
C. Lieoman, Illinois EPA
K. Pierard, Region V
M. Radell, Region V
K. Palmer, SAIC
-------
Table 1
Constituents ot Concern for Keystone Consolidated Industries
" Number' of
Samples (of
total) that
exceed Delist-
ing Standard
tor the
Constituent
Waste Location
Constituents of concern
North Ditch
Mid Mill Ditch
South Ditch
(north halt)
South Ditch
(south half)
North Dredge
Sediment
South Dr«--3ge sedi
ment Stockpile!/
Surtacs Drainage
Uitch
24-Hour Retention
Reservoir
Sulfides
Lead
Tctrachloroethylene
buIf ides
1,1-Dichloroethane
Sultides
Sultides
Lead
Benzofa)antnracenc
Bonzo(a)pyrene
Bento(a)anthrac«ne
Sultides
Lead
Chrooiun
Chronium
Lead
Sulfides
9 of y
1 ot 5
1 ot 5
4 ot 5
2 ot 4
4 ot 4
4 or 4
3 ot 6
1 ot 6
1 of 6
1 ot b
2 or to
3 ot 6
2 of 6
1 of b
11 Of 16
16 ot 18
8 of 18
We usually require that the Oily Waste- BP (OWEP) be used m»
the leachate protocol for wastes that contain greater than one
percent oil—and grease. Several of the saapled wastes contained
greater than one percent, oil and grease. Because the OWEP
includes an organic digestion step, the leachate concentrations
are expected to be higher than EP leachate concentrations. Thus,
since even £** leachate concentrations are exceeding delisting
standards/ we believe that the EP data nay be used as a basis
lor petition denial.
-------
The sur>rai tt
-------
UNITEP STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
'•— "*-— • 9433.1987(09)
JUN 8 1987
Mr. Hark Gruraraer, Esq.
Environmental Enforcement Section
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Subject: Keystone Consolidated Industries
Dear Mark.
We have finished our review of the information submitted
by Keystone Consolidated Industries for its tacility in Peoria,
Illinois. Based on the evaluation of EP leachate and total
constituent data tor the wastewater treatment sludges (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F006) contained in the waste management
units at this facility, we have concluded that it is extremely
unlikely that this waste could be granted an exclusion from
regulation under 40 CFR Part 261.3 or the lists ot hazardous
wastes in Subpart D ot Part 261. Our evaluation indicates that
the waste has the potential to leach high levels of lead, chromium,
selenium, and several organic constituents into ground water.
Specifically, Keystone submitted EP leachate and total
constituent data for waste contained in eight locations at the
Peoria tacility. A list ot waste locations and constituents of
concern are presented in Table 1.A/
Our decision is based on an analysis using the vertical and
horizontal spread (VHS) model (see 50 federal Register 48886,
November 21, 1985). He use this sod el to predict constituent
concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical compliance
point located 500 feet downgradient from the site. The VHS
model uses the waste volume and maximum leachate concentrations
as inputs to determine the amount ot dilution that may occur
in an underlying aquifer. For Keystone, we assumed co-disposal
ot the wastes of the different areas and assumed a maximum waste
volume of at least 8,000 cubic yards. The results ot the model
(i.e., the calculated compliance-point concentrations) are
compared with the Agency's level of regulatory concern for
each constituent.
-------
We Ho rot corai^r ^he Gran*! ri««c landfill r»>tition
tn h» rorp]ete, and hav«» serious r«»Bervat inns *r>out the
^ "_ which It w** compiled. Tw:6 petition ^oes rot
n anv o* th»» Information «tatc»d as n**c«>csary in 40 CFR
2*0. 2n »n£ ?*0.?7. Tnste»d, the r>«»tiMon
sts wh \ ch r'ormr'ent ^.he Hazardu of t.we
. l»nrtfiij ^«otn*> of r^'p IHstC!* h^zar^o
the c^aractprist ic of TP Tasticity) »namnlp.
to t.b<«
vour netition H^ r that
he rub1 i**.ed in th* F»ripr nrtitlon *nd «ti»t.ino that t.he waste will te
»ied as * hayar^ous w*ste an reruired under 40 CFR Parts
thronnh 2^5 and 40 rpp Part ?70. Please inform u*> as to
derision within two weeks of recejnt of today's corres-
If t*e lett.er of withdrawal IP not. received by
f-at. tir-e, a dpnial notic«» will b* nuMJfhed in t:h* Federal
Pecister.
any eru*»stlons reqardinn our derfp1/SMaid/38?-4783/l-30-87/S269/HF 08
revised 4-8-87, 4-10-87
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI
9433.1987(06)
Nr. William U. Leoni
President
Grand Blanc Landfill, Znc.
2277 W. Grand Blanc Road
Grand Blanc, Michigan 4B439
Dear Kr. Leonit
The Pernits and State Programs Division has completed
ita review of your delisting petition (#0631) for all 40 CPR
Part 261 listed and non-liated hazardous wastes disposed in
your landfill, located in Grand Blanc, Michigan. Based on our
evaluation of ground water sonitoring data presented by the
State of Michigan, and the lack of representative data necessary
to characterize the wastes disposed in the landfill, we will
recommend to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Haste and
Emergency Response that your petition be denied*
Our decision to deny the petition is based on the fact
that significant ground water contamination has occurred at and
around the Grand Blanc Landfill (see Attachment 1). Bariur,
cadttium, lead, bi«(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate,
benzene, and chloroform have been detected in the ground water
at levels above their regulatory standards (these standards are
1.0 ag/1. 0.01 ng/1, 0.05 stg/1, 0.7 ng/1, 0.6 ing/1, 0.0012 rag/1,
and 0.0005 ng/1, respectively) used by our office in petition
evaluations. The above constituents were detected, in all eases
(except cadniua), in higher concentrations at the downgradient
nonitoring wells than at the upgradient Monitoring wells.
We use positive Indications of ground water contasiination
as a basis to deny an exclusion petition. We note that it is
the petitioner's burden to adequately deaonstrate that the
petitioned waste is not the actual source of contamination.
Based on the fact that the waste disposed at the Grand Blanc
Landfill contains the sane constituents detected in the
surrounding ground waters (based on our review of the hazardous
waste Manifests submitted by the petitioner), we snist conclude
that the waste disposed at the Grand Blanc site has contributed
to the overall degradation of the ground waters.
-------
- 3 -
disposed waste upon ground water, since such data represent*
only a "snapshot" in time. Ground water data, therefore* is
useful for evaluation of past management practice but cannot
be used as a predictive tool such as the VHS model.
You requested a delisting decision for the nickel plating
rinse waters and electrocleaning/bright dip rinse waters prior
to their commingling with numerous non-listed waste streams in
the lagoon system. These two wastewatera are not eligible for
delisting. These waitewaters are not disposed wastes, but are
subsequently treated in the lagoons, where wastewater treatment
sludges accumulate* Because the accumulated sludges are listed
(F006) wastes, it is inappropriate to delist the wastewaters
prior to treatment in the lagoons. We would like to note that
even if the nickel plating rinse waters were to be examined as
the waste of concern, using your maximum generation rate of
36,000 gallons per month and the average cadmium concentration
in this wastewater (from the petition), the VHS model indicates
the compliance-point concentration for cadmium in the ground
water would be 0.016 ppro, which exceeds our regulatory standard-
of 0.01 ppm.
Finally, meeting the BAT guidelines for rinsewaters under
the Clean Water Act has no bearing on the regulation of sludges
generated from the treatment of these wastewaters under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The
sludges generated from these bright dip and plating rinsewaters
are regulated as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006 under RCRA.
He re-affirm our earlier decision to deny the petition for
the impounded F006 wastes at the Elmore, Ohio facility. We
anticipate that a denial notice will be published in the Federal
Register in the near future. Zf you have any additional questions
or concerns, please direct then to Scott Maid at (202) 382-4783.
S1neer e ly yours,
/* / Signs*
Suzanne RudzinsXi
Branch Chief
Assistance Branch
ccs file
Al Debus, Reg. V
William Muno, Reg. V
-------
- 2 -
The rationale behind the combining of your ir.pounded
wastes i» that these wastes are the same (F006) waste that
have been subject to a corur.on treatment regime, contain common
constituents, may possibly be disposed together, and in fact
have been impacting the underlying aquifer as a single unit.
The consideration of the combined wastes in the VHS evaluation
would, therefore, be a reasonable worst case. We cannot
restrict the disposal of the waste after it has been delisted.
Our position has been that if management restrictions must be
placed on a petitioned waste to ensure the proper treatment of
the waste, then the waste should be considered hazardous.
Consequently, the analysis of a waste for delisting must
necessarily take into account all viable management practices,
including simultaneous disposal of the wastes. Because of the
snail amount of F006 sludges accumulating in these three lagoons
(less than 300 tone total}, our model calculations used the
naximum dilution rate of 32-fold dilution in the aquifer. No
greater dilution would occur, therefore, if each lagoon was
considered separately.
Our findings, as stated in the December 5, 1985 letter,
indicate that lead may leach from the waste and cause ground
water contamination. Although lead is not a listed constituent
of F006, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
require the Agency to consider additional factors (other than
those for which the waste was originally listed) to determine
the hazardous nature of a waste. The presence of leachable lead
in the impounded waste has been determined to be a significant
problem, in spite of your contention that the lead may have
entered the waste stream from a non-listed source. More recent
evaluations of the data have indicated that beryllium, another
Appendix VIZI constituent, is also capable of leaching from the
waste at levels which fail the VHS evaluation. The impounded
wastes are defined as F006 sludges because a portion of these
sludges were derived froa the treatment, storage, and disposal
of a listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR (261.3(a)(2) (iv),
which states that such a combination of solid wastes and listed
hazardous wastes is defined as hazardous.
You have mentioned previously that ground water monitoring
data for the Elmore facility shows that no hazardous constituents
are migrating from the surface impoundments, and that this site-
specific' data should be used in the evaluation instead of the
compliance-point concentrations predicted by the VHS model.
Ground water data is used in the course of petition evaluation,
because it is an indicator of past management practices at a
site. Ground water data which indicates contamination from
on-site waste management may be used as a basis for petition
denial. Ground water monitoring data does not, however, offer
a means by which we can evaluate potential future impacts of a
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOl 9 4 3 3 i 9 £ 7 ( o 7 )
APR f 3 I9S7
n/»tor
Brush V-'ellman Inc.
Scutf. TMver Ro*c*
Ohio 4341f
Mr. Dat'is:
In vour letter of H«rch 23, 1987, you Indicated your concerns
our decision t.c deny thr dtllatlno petition (10573) that
Eru«h Wenman has hart on filf» with U«* Aoency sine* October 2*,
In our denial lettf-r of Derei»her 5, 19P5, th^ laooon
(EPA Hazardous WantK Kn. PPCC) aecurnulatino »t your
F3mor<», Ohio facility v»re de«m^d tr> h* harerdoun. T^Jp
jalnation was based larq«ly OP the evaluation of th* v»rt*9
a ornund water »ooundtBent« in the VFg analyses. Coabination of
imr-ounded rludnes to determine a •aximuat waste voluve has been
rerforw*d routinely in delistlnq decisions; examples of previously
published decisions which have combined volures of Impounded
wastes for VHS analysis are oiv»n below. These Hated
have either been granted final exclusions or have been prorosc-J
by the Aocncy to be granted final exclusions for their wastes.
Petitioner Citation Iapound»ents
WatervJiet Arsenal 51 PR 1253 (1/10/86) 2 dryln?
Bcw»er Industries 50 F? 4993C (11/27/85) 2 ponds
General Flectrfrc 50 FR 48949 (11/27/C5) 4 ponds
-------
-2-
application of the Agency's vertical and horizontal spread
(VHS) nodel. Specifically, the VKS model analysis does not
take into .account the potability of the aquifer beneath a
petitioner's facility, i.e., it is limited to waste-specific
rather than site-specific evaluations. We also will not limit
our analysis to K103/K104 waste constituents. Due to both the
HSWA requirements and the mixture rule (40 CFR 261.3 (a)(2)(iii))
the waste must be evaluated for all hazardous Appendix VIII
constituents likely to be present in the mixture, regardless
of their origin. In addition, EPA has made a policy decision
not to grant exclusions which are based on the future management
conditions of a waste. Again, this is due to the fact that
delisting decisions are based on the characterization of the
waste rather than on management conditions.
E.I. du Pont.requested confirmation that if it can be
demonstrated that the K103/K104 wastes do not contribute to
lagoon sludge generation, EPA will not consider the lagoon
sludge to be hazardous. Theoretically, we believe that this
may be possible and the suggested,filtration and waste mixing
experiments may show that the wastes, as currently generated,
do not add to the lagoon sludge. Practically, however, we do
not believe that this demonstration is possible. For example,
you would need to demonstrate that the wastes have historically
never contributed to the sludge. Because you have implemented
a number of process and treatment changes over the past five
years, we are skeptical that such a demonstration can be made.
If the impoundment continues to receive hazardous waste four
years after the date of promulgation of the petition denial,
HSWA §3005(j)(6) requires that the impoundment be retrofitted to
meet minimum technology requirements. Accordingly, the deadline
for installing a double liner and leachate collection system is
November 18, 1990, if the unit continues to receive hazardous
waste after that date.
We realize that several key questions regarding applicable
requirements for continued management after the effective date
have not been answered. The Agency's policy is presently
being prepared and will be forwarded to you in the near future.
If you have any questions regarding either the issues addressed
above or our progress on resolving any outstanding issues, please
call Mr. Steven Hirsch of our Office of General Counsel at (202)
382-7706. .
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9433.1987(06)
9&
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-2 198T
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY BESH3NSE
Ms. Julia L. Phillips
Counsel, Environmental Division
E.I. 4u Pont de Nemours & Company
Wilmington, DE 19896
»
Dear Ms. Phillips:
The Agency is still in the process of reviewing E.I. du Font's
request for reconsideration of our denial decision regarding the
K103/K104 waste streams. I apologize for the delay in responding;
however as explained in your meeting with my staff on
February 19, 1987, several questions involve resolution of
cross-cutting policy issues at the Agency. Therefore, this is
only a partial response. The remaining issues, such as the
impact on future management and closure requirements, of the date
of your initial delisting and the effect of terminating input of
listed wastes into the impoundment prior to the effective date of
the denial on future management and closure requirements, will be
resolved as soon as practicable and addressed in a separate
response.
While the K103/K104 waste streams may meet the best available
technology (BAT) effluent limitations established under the Clean
Water Act, it is not within our regulatory purview or policy
directives to consider this compliance as a basis for delisting
decisions. The statutory authorities and objectives of the Clean
Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are
different and were not designed as integrated directives from
Congress. Hence, the levels of concern developed under BAT and
the VRS model have been derived differently with different
assumptions and goals.
In your letter you also point out that your treatment
methods for the K103/K104 wastes are included in the BOAT
treatment technologies identified in the November 7, 1986 land
disposal ban rule. Again, this is not considered in the delisting
process. BOAT treatment will assure that the waste can be land
disposed, but not necessarily delisted from the hazardous waste
management system.
You requested that EPA reconsider its denial decision if
£.1. fl'i Pont could demonstrate that (a) the lagoon does not have
the potential to leach K103/K104 constituents into potable water,
and (b) the waste streams will never be transported to another
location for disposal where a usable aquifer might be affected.
Our current policy is not to consider site-specific factors
(such as local hydrogeology and aquifer potability) in the
-------
-4-
We conclude that the aeration basins and the materials con-
tained therein present significant hazards to both human health
and the environment. The basins should be considered hazardous
and subject to regulation under 40 CFR Parts 262 through 265 and
the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270. Accordingly, we will
recommend to the Office Director and Assistant Administrator that a
notice proposing to deny the petition be published in the Federal
Register. Our policy is to give petitioners the option of with-
drawing their petitions instead of publishing, a negative finding
in the Federal Register. If you prefer this option, you must send
us a letter withdrawing your petition and indicating that the
aeration basins are considered hazardous and will be managed as such.
If you send such a letter, it should be forwarded to this office
within 2 weeks of the date of receipt of today's correspondence.
If you choose not to withdraw your petition, a proposed denial
decision will be published in the Federal Register. If you have
any questions regarding any of the above, please contact Myles
Morse of my staff at (202) 382-4788.
Sincerely,
Susan Bromm
Acting Director, Permits
and State Programs Division
cc: J. Utz, SAIC
F. Kozak, Region II
S. Siegel, Region II
-------
-3-
Specifically, bromomethane, trichloroethylene, and 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane levels in the sludge? benzene, fluorene, phen-
anthrene, and tetrachloroethylene levels in the va*tevater; and
broraomethane, trichloroethylene, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
levels in the soils generate compliance point concentrations that
exceed health-based standards (i.e., fail the OLM/VHS model
analysis). A summary of our analysis is presented in the following
table. Thie table present* the maximum allowable level (MAL) for
each constituent of concern, as determined by the VHS model, that
would be allowed in the sludge, wastewater, or soil. The number of
samples that exceed this level and the number of samples analyzed
are also presented.
Ho. of Samples No. of Samples
MM. (ppm) that Exceed MAL Analyzed
Sludge;
Bromomethane 0.69 1 8
Trichloroethylene 0.59 1 8
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro- 0.15 1 8
ethane
Wastewater;
Benzene 0.0076 6 24
Fluorene 0.013 2 14
Phenanthrene 0.013 2 14
Tetrachloroethylene 0.004 1 7
Soil;
Bromomethane 0.69 3 10
Trichloroethylene 0.59 3 10
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro- 0.15 1 10
•thane
As a matter of policy, the Agency does not consider site-specific
factors (such at ground water salinity and hydrogeologic site
characteristics) when determining whether or not a petitioned
waste is hazardous. Instead, because waste, once delisted, can be
moved to any .oiher cite and be disposed, the Agency uses a model
(GUI/VHS) with general applicability to evaluate the potential
hazard. The model results combined with the existing ground water
contamination discussed above are the basis for the Agency's intent
to deny your petition.
-------
-2-
well 15B, UCCI has claimed that the contamination of ground water
in it» vicinity is a result of a leak from an underground concrete
transfer pipe for influent to the wastewater treatment system. We
believe, however, that the tracer test conducted to investigate
this claim is inconclusive. The tracer test did not demonstrate
that the leaking fluid would reach well 15B under normal conditions
(i.e., in the absence of the test's rigorous pumping conditions).
Therefore, we cannot conclude that the leaking fluid has reached
well 15B and is solely responsible for the ground water contamina-
tion.
We believe that all units of the wastewater treatment facility
and management area, including the aeration basins, have contributed
to the ground water contamination since a ground water mound uni-
formly surrounds the complex* We cannot conclude, however, that
the area's ground water contamination is solely a direct result of
seepage from the aeration basins since constituents similar to those
found in the basins are also contained in wastes found in other
units of the wastewater treatment facility and waste management area.
Even though underlying ground water is not potable, we consider the
existence of ground water contamination to be sufficient grounds for
petition denial*
In support of deli sting decisions, the Agency uses a ground
water transport model, the vertical and horizontal spread (VHS)
model, that was developed to predict the environmental impact of
toxicants leaching from wastes .£/ The Agency also has developed
an organic leachate model (OLM)~to predict the mobility of organic
toxicants from land-disposed wastes. The 01/4 calculates organic
leachate concentrations which nay then be used as inputs to the VHS
model. (See 50 PR 48944, November 13, 1985; 51 PR 27061, July 29,
1986; and 51 PR 4T084, November 13, 1986.) The OLM and VHS models
were used to evaluate the sludge and wastewater contained in the
aeration basins* as wall as the soils below the basins. This
analysis predicted that levels of certain constituents at a hypo-
thetical drinking water well will exceed regulatory standards.
£/ As a result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984,
*~ the Agency is now required to consider all toxicants and factors
that may cause the vasts to be hazardous. In addition to these
changes* the Agency has developed new tools to evaluate petitions.
The VHS. model (see 50 PR 48886-48967, November 27, 1985) is one
of those tools used by the Agency in making delisting decisions
regarding leachable toxicants contained in a land-disposed
waste. The-VHS model establishes a sliding regulatory scale
that is based on the volume of waste generated and extract
data. The model predicts the concentration of each toxicant at
a hypothetical compliance point located 500 feet from the disposal
site. The Agency considers the hazards presented by the waste by
comparing the compliance point concentrations of the toxicants
predicted by the VHS model with a regulatory standard for each
toxicant.
-------
9433.:957(C5)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL FROTEC
WASHINGTON. D.C. 204«0
MAR i 91967
OFFICE Of
•OLID WATTE AND EMEMOENCV RESPONSE
Mr. Omar Muniz Diaz, P.E.
Manager - Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Caribe, Inc.
Firm Delivery
Ponce, PR 00731
Reference: Delicling Petition for Union Carbide Caribe, Inc.
(#0656)
Dear Mr. Diaz:
The Permit* and State Program* Division has completed its
review of Union Carbide Caribe Inc.'s (UCCZ) petition requesting •
the exclusion of its aeration basins, which are located at UCCI's
Penuelas, Puerto Rico wastewater treatment facility and are
presently classified by application of the derived-from and
mixture rules as EPA Hazardous Waste Number K022 (distillation
bottom tars from the production of phenol/acetone from curoene).
Based on existing ground water contamination and results from
our evaluation of aeration basin sludge, wastewater, and soil
composition data, we will recommend to the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that your petition be denied.
We believe that UCCI's aeration basins are at least partially
responsible for contamination of the ground water underlying the
wastewater treatment facility based on the detection of organic
and inorganic contaminants in nearby monitoring wells and on the
existence of a ground water mound beneath the basins. Monitoring
well data submitted in support of your petition for monitoring
wells 13B and 14B, which are immediately downgradient from the
aeration basins, exhibit silver* mercury, and lead levels above
their respective drinking water standards. Constituents found in
these wells were.also found in the wastewater and sludge of the
aeration basins and in the soils below the basins* These reported
concentrations of heavy metals are above background levels and
are most likely indicators of the downgradient ground water
transport of these contaminants from the aeration basins. Other
contaminants te.g., benzene, toluene, naphthalene, dimethyl
phenol, fluoranthene, anthracene, chrysene, dibutyl phthalate,
barium, cadmium, chromium, and selenium) were also reported as
detected in nearby monitoring wells. With respect to monitoring
-------
9433.1987(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 87
5. Appealing a Petition Denial
A generator submitted a petition under §260.22 to amend Part 261 to
exclude a hazardous waste produced -at a particular facility, but
the Agency's final decision was to deny the petition. Vftiat options
does the generator have for appealing the Agency's decision to deny
the petition?
A generator who has had his petition denied by the Agency nay
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, pursuant to §7006(a)(1) of RCRA.
The generator nay also wish to petition the Agency for
reconsideration of the decision. Denial of a delisting petition
is a final Agency action, however, and a petition for
reconsideration does not extend the time to file suit in court.
Source: Steven Hirsch (202) 382-7706
Research: Joe Nixon (202) 382-3112
-------
This summary represent* the body of information presently
available concerning Nameplate. SOM additional technical
information on Nameplate'* drainage field can be obtained
from the Regional docket at the U.S. EPA Region VIZ Library,
726 Minnesota Avenue* Kansas City, Kansas, 66101. As more
information becomes available to the Agency, this information
will be made available to the public. Zf you have any questions
please do not hesitate to contact the Agency or EPA Region VII.
Sincerely yours,
Suzanne Rudrinski
Branch Chief
Assistance Branch
-------
managsaent unit. The Part A permit application was sub-
mitted in February 1981, but the lagoon did not receive interir.
statua freer the State, and has, therefore, been operating as a
non-permitted hazardous waste treatment unit. In 1982, after a
State inspection noted aeveral deficiencies, the State of Zowa
determined that the lagoon was leaking, based on high fluoride
levels in ground water at the Nameplate aite.
Nameplate petitioned the Agency in December 1984 for an
exclusion ("delisting") to exempt its lagoon from compliance
with the federal hazardous waste program. Samples of lagoon
aludges taken by EPA Region VZZ personnel in July 1985 indicated
the presence of triehloroethylene (TCE) in Baseplate's sludge
at concentrations of up to 95 parts per million (ppm). TCE
waa alao detected, aa well as barium, lead, chromium and nickel,
at elevated levels in the ground water, although the data was
insufficient to make any statistically valid determination
about the ground water contamination at Nameplate'• facility.
liameplate did not indicate in its petition that TCE was used
in its process. Zn addition, the Agency has knowledge that
highly corrosive wastes (pH < 2) were allowed +*) enter the
lagoon from 1982 through 1983, which created conditions amenable
to increased leaching of metals from the waste into the ground
water.
Based on the Agency's findings, Naweplete's petition for
its lagoon was proposed to be denied by the Agency (51 PR 26417,
July 23, 1986) due to the unaccounted presence of TCE in the
lagoon, the preliminary indications of ground water contamination,
and the documented past management history of the lagoon. The
etching processes st Baseplate have stopped, and the lagoon is
no longer accepting hazardous waste.
Zn response to s request by Hameplate, Agency Headquarters
personnel visited the Mameplate site in August 1986 in order to
take 45 additions! lagoon sludge samples and two ground water
samples for analyais. Naaeplate had retreated the lagoon sludge
by nixing (which aerated the waste) prior to the Agency's visit
in order to reduce possible levels of volatile organic constituents
such AS TCE. TCE levels in the sludge were found to be lower
than the levels previously documented by Region VII. TCE
contamination in the ground water, however, was shown to be at
levels higher than previously reported. The Agency has prepared
a notice of ^Availability which will provide en opportunity for
interested parties to review and comment upon the analytical
laboratory report on the Baseplate site. Publication of this
notice in the Federal Register is expected to occur during the
week of February 22, 1987.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTin" ir-Ck""v
9433.1957(03
FEB-25 1967
Harvey Z. Henjua
President
IFS Investors Servicesi Inc.
7800 Metro Parkway
Suite 100
Minneapolisf Minnesota 55420
Dear Mr* Renjtuns
This letter i« in response to your October 20, 1986 letter
to Ms. narcia William, in which you requested information about
discharges generated by the U.S. Haneplate Costpany (Nameplate) ,._
and the possibility of ground water contamination at its facility
in Mt. Vernon, Iowa. I an sorry that our response has been so-
long in coning, but the Agency has only recently been able to
address the issues of concern to you.
we are aware of two types of waste management units at the
Nameplate sitet a drainage field and a waste lagoon. Prior to
1979, Naaeplate's liquid wastes were treated in septic tanks and
discharged to an on-site drainage field which flowed into a nearby
creek. These acidic wastes were generated frosj Baseplate'a aetal
etching operations, and wastes such as these typically contain
high concentrations of several netals.
As * result of the discharge frc* the drainage field,
Nameplate was proposed in October 1984 to be included in the
Rational Priorities List (RFL) for future clean-up under the
provisions of the Cenpreheneive Environmental Response* Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or "Superfund')• based on the
potential for copper* cine* and fluoride to reach ground water.
This site renains in proposed status until the Agency implements
its final policy for listing sites on the MPL that are still
rsgulatsd under ths authority of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
After a number of citizen coaplaints to the State of Iowa
about the drainage field, Mameplate constructed a waste lagoon
to treat the wastes. The State subsequently determined that the
lagoon was treating hazardous vastest and requested Baseplate to
file a Part A permit application for the* lagoon as a hazardous
-------
Your letter of September 9 stated your belief that the
Integial des.ign teat is arbitrary and capricious. You believe
that test regulates ac incinerators waste heat recovery combustion
systems thar•recover energy as efficiently as integrally designed
boilers, which are exempt iron regulation- EPA nas considered
the criticism of relying on physical criteria to differentiate
between incjneratoie and boilers (see the preamble to the January 4,
1905, final rule on the definition of solid waste (50 FR 626)).
Given, however, that significant regulatory consequences result
froti the distinction, EPA believe* it is important that the test
for the distinction be unambiguous and easy to apply. The physical
test of integral design meets that need.
The Region has interpreted your petition in a manner con-
sistent with previous decisions denying variances to units with
waste heat recovery boilers. We are sending the appropriate
officials in Region IV a copy of this letter for inclusion in
their decision record.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Janes Scarbrough, EPA Region IV
Beverly Spagg, EPA Region IV
bcc: Bob HoiIoway
Marc Turgeon
Art Glazer, Permits Branch (WH-563)
Sonya Stelmack
-------
UNITED •.TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO Q . , , , oe,/n
" n J _ ,1967(01)
jAN 1 i96i
Mr. W. Prank Owan
American Environmental
Pollution Control, Inc.
Post Office Box 98
Dedeville, Alabama 36853
Dear Mr. Owent
This is in response to your letter of September 9, 1986,
regarding a petition for a boiler variance under 40 CPR 260.32,
now pending before the Region IV EPA Administrator. We are sorry
not to have been able to respond earlier. I understand, however,
that you, with Ors. Moeller and Whittle of the University of
Alabama, wars able to meet with my staff on October 20, 1986, to
clarify your letter and to provide additional information.
Our understanding is that the installation will use a waste
heat recovery boiler to produce steam for use in drum cleaning.
The unit will maintain a thermal energy recovery efficiency of
at least 60 percent, and at least 75 percent of the steam will
actually be used for drum cleaning or for other purposes and will
not be vented.
At your meeting with my staff on October 20. 1986, you
provided further information in support of arguments that the
design of the facility was innovative and should be considered
to be of integral design. We have since received a copy of your
submission of October 27, 1986. to Me. Beverly Spagg of EPA
Region IV.
Our conclusion after considering the information before us
ia that the American Environmental Pollution Control combustor
design as installed for Buckner Barrel and Drum does not meet the
definition of boiler because it is not of integral design. We
consider 41 to.be a two-stage combustion system with a waste heat
recovery boiler connected by insulated ducting. We do not believe
that the special nature of the insulation la sufficiently unique
to consider the boiler and combustion chamber to be of integral
design.
-------
5423.1936.:-;)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
12. Variance frcm a Treatment Standard
Can a fadlitv obtain a variance from the treatment standard
[51 ra 40642,"§268.41 and §268.42] for a particular -waste stream
•which cannot be treated to the level (or by a method) specified by
the trsatnent standard?
Wastes may be subject to a treatability variance in cases where
the treatment standard for a particular waste cannot be met
because the waste iocs not fit into one of the BOAT tre*taftilit
groups [51 FR 40605] used to set the treatment standard.
Facilities interested in obtaining a treatment variance mist
submit a petition- in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR 260.20 [51 FR 40642. §268.44 as amended].
-------
believe thet formaldehyde i« a potential hazard
and should .be evaluated in the sedinent* based on the fact
that formaldehyde was known to be influent to the waste strean.
(In the Agency's evaluation process, the delisting office uses
a regulatory standard of 7 x 10~5 ag/1 for formaldehyde, which
is classified as a Class A carcinogen.) -The Agency, however,
does not have an approved test method for formaldehyde in
solids, and alternate test methods (e.g., Inorganic colorinetric
test*) do not offer a detection limit as low as the calculated
worst-ease level (0.057 ppm) presented by Keystone. A GC/Hfi
•can ttay be possible if the end of the analytic spectrus !•
lowered to below 30 to accommodate the low molecular weight of
formaldehydei the analysis would also involve the use of a
fortaaldehyde standard in order to identify the compound by its
retention time, and a strict quality control/quality assurance
program. Even if such an analysis were performed successfully,
however, there is little indication that a detection limit lower
than 1 ppm could be achieved. The Agency labs are working on a
high resolution method for formaldehyde, but it is not expected
to be available until mid-1987 at the earliest. Until the Agency
has an acceptable test method for formaldehyde, I do not believe.
that analysis of the sediments would be worthwhile in Keystone's
case. It say be necessary, however, to require Keystone to test
its ground water for formaldehyde (analysis of water is much
easier than analysis of solids) in order to shnw that none of
the formaldehyde has entered the aquifer.
The other constituents (e.g., pesticides, plastics, etc.}
not found on Keyttone'i list art not reasonably expected to be
present in the sediments since they are not used (and have not
been used, according to Keystone) in the production of fabricated
steel wire products* Testing for these constituents is, there-
fore, not necessary*
Sampling for the purposes of submitting a delisting
petition should begin as soon as possible. It you have ques-
tions concerning the chemical analysis of wastes, please con*
tact Mr. Ian Phillips (of ERCO, an Agency contractor) at (617)
661-3111. If you have any questions concerning the petition
review process, please contact me at (202) 3B2-4783.
Sincerely,
•cett J. Maid, B.P.
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division
-------
9433.1986(23)
0 DEC J9.85
Mark Z. Grummer, Esq.
Environmental Enforcement Section
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Rei United States v. Keystone Consolidated Industries
Dear Mr. Griunoert
I have reviewed the description of the sampling plan
submitted by Keystone Consolidated Industries for the impounded
hazardous sediments at its Bartonville facility. The outline
of the proposed plan seems to be consistent with the methodology
discussed in our earlier conference call with Keystone's
representatives. I would like* however* to make some Modif-
ications to the list of organic compounds compiled by Keystone.
The list of Appendix VIII compounds presented by Keystone
is not complete. After consultation with two chemists, I have
determined that testing for acid-extractable (i.e.* phenolic
compounds) organics should be performed. Phenols are often used
in degreasing operations, and could have been used by Keystone
in that context. In addition* if oils arc present in sludges*
the oily sludges will likely contain phenolic compounds as
degradation products. Keystone has proposed testing for other
compounds (e.g.* polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons or PAH*)
that are often associated with the presence of petroleum hydro-
carbons* which suggests that Keystone is aware of the presence
of some oil or grease in the sediments. The phenolic compounds
can be evaluated either in separate or combined fractions with
the other compounds on Keystone's list for minimal additional
cost (estimated at approximately $200/aample, about $14,000
total).
Keystone should evaluate its sludge for total oil and
grease content prior to any other analysis. If the amount of
oil and grease is found to exceed one percent* then the waste
should be subjected to the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure
(OWEP), which involves a dual solvent extraction, instead of
the conventional EP test, which uses a dilute acetic acid
solution.
U20-1 rfs-70)
,,- c
-------
of no greater than 10,000 ft2 each, selecting sampling points
at random, and collecting complete-depth cove samples has
been in active use for several years. The Agency's guidance
document, 'Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes,* was published
in April 1985, and also describes this sue method for sampling
solid wastes. The requirement of four samples does not subject
Keller Industries to a sampling program any more rigorous than
that routinely performed by any other facility.
In response to your point that Keller's treatment system
was designed to create a homogeneous waste, I wish to point
out that the delisting evaluation must include an appraisal
of the uniformity or variability manifested by the waste.
Process variability has been found in the past to be quite
substantial at a number of different facilities, as seen in
test data (on file at the Agency) submitted in support of
other delisting petitions. Homogeneity of a waste cannot
be assumed but must be proven in a delicting petition.
You have established the presence of substantial
quantities of natural vegetation in the impoundments, and
have cited this vegetation as the cause of the elevated TOC
levels exhibited by the subsoils. Z agree that this occur-
rence is very likely in Keller's impoundment, end also believe
that the TOC results may not accurately depict potential con-
centrations of toxic organic compounds. Z do not believe that
use of the TOC test as • screening procedure for the presence
of toxic organic compounds in Keller's impoundment subsoils is
effective, and do not believe that TOC levels should serve in
any way as a basis for limiting sample sice. My office will
adhere to its previously published guidance, namely the
requirement for a minimum of four representative samples.
The Agency affirms the previous information request that
was forwarded to Keller Industries by TRI. Zn order to ensure
the timely review of the petition, the information should be
forwarded to this office as soon as possible* If you have
additional questions concerning the review.process, please
contact me at (202) 362-4783.
Sincerely*
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division
ccs A. HcLaughlin, TRZ
Joel Karmazyn, Region ZZZ
-------
943 3. 1966 (2 2)
1966
Jack H. Luckhardt
Manager, Corporate Safety and
Health/Environmental Affairs
Keller Industries
18000 State Road 9
Miami, Florida 33162
Re: Delisting Petition #650
Dear Mr. Luckhardtt
I an responding to a letter dated September 30, 1986,
in which you outline several reasons why Keller Industries
should not have to submit additional test results (besides
the single organic analysis already performed) for the
impoundment subsoils at Keller's Kilford, Virginia facility.
I believe that the information requested in the letter sent
to you by Technical Resources, Inc. (TRI), dated September 9f
1966, is necessary fox the further review of the petition,
and so the remaining three quadrants of the impoundment sub-
soils aust also be evaluated for organic*.
The first point you raise, that no organies would be
expected in the other three quadrants if none were detected
in the first quadrant sample, is fallacious. Such a procedure
nay not allow the evaluation of the waste in terms of prior
management, accidental spills, or 'hot spots,* and certainly
does not allow for evaluation of laboratory error. The Agency's
experience is that predictions of waste consistency cannot be
made on the basis of a single composite sample. Such a value
is not statistically defensible and will not allow a valid
estimate to be made of the variability of the waste. The
federal regulations also require a minimum of four samples to
be evaluated in a delisting petition (see 40 CPR $260.22[h)>.
The fact that the impoundment is no longer active does not
excuse Keller from meeting the same delisting standards that
all waste managers must meet in order to receive exclusions
for their wastes.
The Agency has provided guidance on numerous occasions
to petitioners to indicate- how many samples must be evaluated
in a petition. The Agency's method of dividing impoundments
and lauJIills lulu tguul siied nuadi miia (a miniumi et foui)
-------
9433.1966(21)
Hike Everhart
Boeing military Alrnlane Company
P.O. *ox «7730
Wichita, Kansas 67277-7730
Dear wr. Everhart:
TM* letter is in response to several recent telephone
conversations I hav« had with you and with Janis Butler of
Cutler & Associates concerning tht waste sampling necessary
to be performed in order to complete your del1sting petition
(1200). KS. Butler and X have discussed at lenoth the
sanplina plan for the landfill. The waste is landftiled in
trenches at the site. The trenches, as near as they can be
determined, would be divided into ouadrata of roughly eoual
sixe, aoproxirately 10,000 ft2 each, and 5 to 8 randomly chosen,
full-denth corinos would be taken from each ouadrat. These
corings would then be composited to oroduce a sample from each
cuadrat for analysis. This particular samnling olan would ensure
that cotDOsite samples would he very representative of the process
operations utilized by toeing over the oast 25 years, while at
the sane time minimising the actual costs of analysis.
In order to move ahead with the delistinq of the laMf ill,
it in necessary for the landfill to be samnled as comprehensively
as oossible, so that a full accountinn may be made of the spectrum
of wastes which "isy be present in the landfill. Such a semolina
effort *ust be completed as soon as possible; the Agency has a
November ft, 1*SC deadline for finalizing all delistino decisions
for facilities holding temporary exclusions. If final decisions
on these petition* are not rendered by that date, these exclusions
become void. In order for our office to have sufficient tine
to process the data from all the affected facilities, we have
reouested petitioners to forward their additional information
by January 31, 1986.
If you have any Questions, please contact »e at your
earliest convenience at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely,
Scott J. "aid
environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Solid waste (WM-562P)
-------
water transport. If we determine that diorin containing wastei
• hould be evaluated using the OLrt (see 5i Kk 41032-41100, Nov. 13,
l*be) and the VbS nodel (••• 50 FR 4d8S7, Appendix, Nov. 27, l^oij
th*n a regulatory standard of 0.2 ppq and a solubility of 0.2 ppl<
would be used in conduction with the volume of. treati&ant residue
to detereine an acceptable dioxin level in the incineration
residue. It the CAD finda that^t^jf exposure routes are core
relevant for diorin wastes thtn'these scenarios tfci* may result
in a less conservative level of concern.
••.it have attached a list of maxiBua acceptable levels of some
Appendix VIII constituents based on the health based standards
and the mini no* attenuation a i loved through the GLW and V'.ii
models currently us«d by the Variance Section. It should be
noted that the attached levels only apply to a landfill waste
3i*na9ttment scenario (i.e.. exposure to contarinated groundwater
froia landfilling of the treatment residue). It should also be
noted that although the standards for seas of these constituents
are extremely low, we would not require detection Units below
those noraally achievable using the rscoeuueoded extraction and
analytical procedures fron Test .Methods t'or tvaluating Solid
Waste (Ste-B46). (We can make the detection li«it« froa SW-B46 •-
available to you if you do not have the*.) Where he,&ardous
constituents in a waste are not detected using Appropriate
analytic*! aethcxis, we will, as a Better of policy, not us*
those constituents as a basic to regulate the waste as hazardous.
we will make every attesipt to oeet your A.pril deadline
:or tnis new ^«tition. however, it should '-c noted that if «
complete petition with all necessary descriptions and test oat&
is not received Ueiore the end of Seccaber. then achievimj ycur
April 1, 1987 deadline be cor* a less likely. liven if all necessary
aata is received by January 1 1967, we would need to propose a
decision in the FR by January JO, 1937. A thirty day comment
period cringa us to the first week of (-larch, leaving us less
than a month to address public ccunenta and finalize tne decision
in the FR. This process usually takes o montr.s fron the oate ««
receive a ccnplete petition. We will attenpt to accelerate the
process as ouch as possible. Zt should be noted that petitions
are handled as they are submitted (i.e. on a first corse, first
served basis). w« are currently acting on about 150 active
petitions, therefore an accelerated schedule on a new petition
could have an adverse effect on the schedules of several otl.er
petitioners in your Pegion.
If you have any additional questions concerning the original
Denney Fara decision or about information requirements tor the
new petition, please call tyles Horse of ay staff at FTS 3e2-*7ct>
Attachment
------- |