United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-SW-91-062C
Environmental Protection Emergency Response August 1991
Agency (OS-343)
RCRA Permit Policy
Compendium
Volume 3
9441.1980 - 9441.1986
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste (Part 261)
•General
ArKl/1607/2c
-------
530SW91062C
Identification And Listing Of
Hazardous Waste (Part 261)
ATKl/1112/3sm
-------
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
ATKl/1112/4sm
-------
9441 - GENERAL
Part 261 SubpartA
ATKl/1104A6kp
-------
9441.1980(01)
NV3|
••r. ''arris ilershson
*roairtent, 'tation&l barrel awl
!>rur. r\s» Delation, Inc.
*»1* Seventeenth Street. N.V».
'«-a*hinaton, D.C. 20006
!'ear "r* Tiershsons
In response to yoar letter of May 21, 1980, concerning
the RCP.t regulations related to Section 3C01. the follovinq
information is provided!
1. Is an empty 4raa* containing the residue of a
hazardous material and being shipped to a recon-
-!itioner for reeonditioninq and reuse* eieapt froa
the nCRA regulations?
Section 261.6 provides the special requirements for
hazardous waste which is used* reused, recycled, or reclaimed;
this category includes any 4r\as which are a hazardous waste
%n<* which ar« being shipped to a reconditioner.
only e«»irtied containers that are listed as hazardous
vnste are those referenced in $261.33(c) of the regulations.
This paragraph indicates that a container which formerly held
any coraercial chemical product or nanuf aeturing ehenieal inter-
->Qi!iate listed in 4261. 33 (e), is a ha«»rdous waste unless the
container is 4eeontasiinated hy triple*rinsing or another
armreve£ nethod. (Section 261. 33 (e) liets 12? substances which
Are acutely hazardous.)
Thus, in accordance with (261. Mb), those specific druns
*Meh Are a hazardous waste (formerly contained §261. 31 (e)
substances and have not been decontaminated) woul<*. be in the
7CRA hazardous vest* r»enaqenent systea with respect to trans*
portation and storage prior to use, reuse, recyellnq or
reclamation.
WH-565snFried!nanspssta 2111 WSMtX591?5 5/30/80
-------
2. Is such a shipment equally exempt if it is originally
delivered to a ilealer an* destined for a reconditioner?
The dealer i« not a user, reuser, recycler, or reclaimerr
therefore, emptied drum* which are hazardous wastes would not
be exempted if delivered to such a dealer. It is likely that
the dealer (in this case) would be th« owner or operator of a
storage facility (in RCRA parlance) and thus would require a
permit. The dealer's shipment to a reconditioner, however,
would be the same as discuased in question 1.
I hop* this serves your needs. Please let ne know if I can
be of further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Alan S. Corson. Chief
Waste Characterisation Branch
HAB«rdoaa ft Xadoetrial Wa.ete Division (WH-565)
-------
9441.1980(02)
«US JO 1330
Dr. Willian Connors
Public Intervenors office
114 E. state Capitol
Madison, Wisconsin ">3702
Dear Dr. Connors:
This is in response to your telephone conversation of
flay 30 with Susan Absher of the EPA Office of Solid Waste.
You asked about EPA's interpretation of the agricultural
waste exclusion of 40 CFR Part 257.
The agricultural waste exclusion in Part 257.1 (c)(l)
reads:
"The criteria do not apply to agricultural wastes,
including manures and crop residues, returned to
the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners."
This exclusion stems from the House Report (H.R. Rep.
Mo. 94-1401, 94th Conn., 2nd session (1976) which states
that "agricultural wastes which are returned to the soil as
fertilizers or soil conditioners..." (are tiot tneant to be
covered by the program). The relevant page of the report
is attached.
You specifically asked whether EPA intended food
processing wastes which are land spread to come under the
agricultural waste exclusion. EPA intended the exclusion
to apply mainly to manures and crop residues used to enhance
the quality of the land. In general, EPA considers food
processing waste to be commercial or industrial waste and
not to come under the agricultural waste exclusion. '-Where
large quantities of food processing 'wastes are land spread,
this procedure can have adverse environmental effects.
(WH-5G3)Susan/kw/x59145/2G24/8-14-nO
-------
9441.1980(03)
OFFICc, OF UCi-l!) w'ACTE
4 1980
r
c
Jlr. Stanley L. Zalck«*r
Union Oil ConpAny of California
Union Gil Center, box 7600
Lot Angelea, California 90051
Dear Mr. Zviekers
Thie ia in resf>on«e to your J«tt«r of August 18* I960,
in which you sugccet that certain vAstrt froo drilling op*
erationn (other then froa oil, natural gas, or geothsreal
energy exploration) should be excluded fro* control as
hazardous wastes. Also, you indicated you did not feel it
neceaaary to file a notification of hazardous waste
activity.
The epecific cxclueions citod in *261.*(b)(5) of the
regulations (45 Pr^ 3^120, May 19, J9AC) were included aiace
chc Con;;r«cs hns Included euch l«u«:u.ite in iKs pending bills
(«ce tJio discussion In the preamble, A3 £R 33089). This
exclueion appliea only to oil, natural gas or r.eothernal
exploration. Thua, aiuilar wastes revolting froa other
operations are not specifically excluded; to the extent
these other waste* exhibit any of the char ac'ter is ties of
hacardoua waste they are include'? in the regulatory program.
Section 261.11 defines a generator'e responsibility to
d«t*rniue whether his waate is hazardous. This section does
not aanJate testing and does allow the generator to aake the
deturninatlon based on knowledge of the oaterials and
rroce*s*s iuvo\ve«t. *our decision to not notify is appropri
ate if vade for thl.s reason, rather tl*«n the analogy to
energy exploration wastes*
If you have any questions flrace call Alan Corson of «y
staff, ue aay be reached at (20?) 755-9187.
Sincerely yourr,
John P.
Director
U*zardor n-d Industrial ;antr ^'vision (Uti-565)
-------
9441.1980(04)
-UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
flOV 1 7 1980
Mr. Williaa S. stowo
Boston Edison Company
800 Boyleston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02199
Dear Mr. Stove:
This is in response "to your letter of Septeaber S, I960, requesting
the issuance of regulation.interpretation seaoraada (RIMs) on three
questions you have about, our RCItX hazardous waste nanageaent regulations.
Although we may consider Issuing RIMs or amendments to our regulations
of these issues at some point in the future, I do not wish to further
delay our response to you. Therefore, I an providing answers to your
questions in this response,- _._--
First, you raise the"question about whether the mixture rule of
§261.3(a)(2)(ii) causes railroad ties to be hazardous wastes because
they contain creosote which it listed in <261.33(f) or causes insulating
materials to be hazardous wastes when and because they contain asbestos*
which also is listed in $261.33(1). The answer is no. The intent and
purpose of $261.33 is to list commercial chemical products end
manufacturing chomical intermediates as hazardous wastes when and only
when they are discarded or intended to be discarded* Thus, we are
interested in creosate and asbestos in their eomnon corsnereial fora as
hazardous wastes if discarded. If we should ever be interested in
listing railroad ties or insulation .materials as hazardous wastes, when
discarded, because of their content of creosote, asbestos or other
chemicals, we will specifically list then in $261.33 or in a similar
section. Similarly* if %*• should ever be interested in listing used
railroad ties or used insulation materials (insulation aaterial removed
free buildings) as hazardous wastes because of their content of
chemicals, we will list them in $261.31.
The mixture rule of |2C1.3(a)(2)(ii) does apply in a limited way
to $261.33 chemicals. If these listed chemicals are discarded by being
mixed into a solid waste* then the resulting solid waste mixture becomes
a hazardous waste. Examples are dumping excess acetone, into a wastewater
sewer or dumping excess inventory or expirad-date inventory of pesticide
into a refuse bin.- IB these cases, the Connercial chemical becenes a
hazardous waste instantly When the act of discarding takes place. Xs a
hazardous waste at that point, the mixture rule operates to cause the
mixture to become a hazardous waste. Incorporating creosate into
railroad ties or asbestos into insulation materials is not an act of
disc&ruina these chemicalsi thus, these chemicals do not, at that point.
^ ^ •. . — < —. .•^•^•^^•^^^ •. ^.•_ ^^A-^--^ ^ W.^ ^ A ••»•*. «» 4 m,*m
-------
Vcur second question i« whether the small quantity generator
special requirement of 5261.5 apply to each facility: a facility being
manufacturing plant or, possibly, several manufacturing or other
operations on the sarae or geographically continguous site (see definition
of "on-site" in §260.10(e)). The tern "person" was erroniously used
in §261.5. The Agency meant to use the term "generator" which by its
definition in $260.10(a) means "any person, by site, . . . ." We will
be correcting this error in a forthcoming amendment of $261.5. The
terms "person* as defined in §260.10(a) includes whole companies and
this causes §261.5 to be applicable only on a ccnpany-vide basis. Thus,
for example, a company that operates several plants, each of Which
could qualify for the small quantity generator special requirements
because each generates slightly loss than 1000 kilograms of hazardous
waste each month, could not qualify, under a literal reading of the
provision as now written, because the company's aggregate generated.
quantity of hazardous waste exceeds 1000 kilograns each month.
Finally, you asX whether the full regulations apply to intermittent
or very snail quantities of hazardous waste generated by a facility that
c«nnot qualify for the small generator special requirements because it
also generates one or more large quantities of hazardous waste. The full
regulations apply to these intermittent and very small quantities of
hazardous waste as they do to all other quantities of hazardous waste
generated by a "large quantity generator."
I hope I have clearly answered your questions and apologize for
the tardiness of this response—we have siaply been overburdened with
questions, requests for RIMs and other demands.
Sincerely yours.
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Haste
bee: Filomena w/incoming
Regional AfcHM Division Directors w/incoming
Jacfc Lehman w/incoming
WH:GDietrichtbm:ll/13/80s401 M
-------
9441.1980(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOV 1 7 1980
Mr. William A. McClintie
Defense Division
Brunswick Corporation
150 Johnston Road
Marion, Virginia 24354
Dear Mr. McClintie:
This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1980, asking
for clarification of the applicability of our hazardous waste nanagement
regulations to very small quantities of hazardous wastes generated
by a generator who also generates a large quantity of hazardous waste.
-The email quantity generator special requirenents of $261.5 of our
regulations are only available to generators that generate an aggregate
raount of hazardous wastes of less than 1000 kilograms per nonth at any
>ne site or facility. Zf the aggregate anount of hazardous wastes
generated at a site or facility exceeds this monthly anount, then the
special requirements of $261.5 do hot apply to any of the hazardous
wastes generated at that site or facility. I air. afraid, therefore,
that the very entail quantities of hazardous waste generated at your
•'.arion facility are subject to the "full" regulations because the single
larce quantity of hazardous waste disqualifies the facility for the
special small quantity generator requirements.
x hp-«* this sufrxci*atly answers your questions.
Sincerely yours,
Gary H. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Uaste
bee: Filomena Chau w/incoming
-------
9441.1981(01)
January 13, 1981
Mr. Paul Emler, Jr.
Chairman
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Suite 700
1111 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Emler:
This is a response to your letter of October 10, 1980 to
Administrator Costle, regarding the recent Solid Waste Disposal
Act Amendments of 1980 and their relation to the electric utility
industry. In your letter and its accompanying document, you
discussed the specific amendments which address fossil fuel
combustion wastes, and suggested interpretive language which EPA
should adopt in carrying out the mandate of the amendments. You
requested a meeting with our staff to make us more fully aware of
•the solid waste management practices of the electric utility
industry, and to discuss the effect of the amendments on the
utility solid waste study which EPA is currently conducting.
I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you, in your
capacity as chairman of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
(USWAG), on November 21 to discuss your concerns. I am taking
this occasion to share with you the most recent EPA thinking on
the exclusion from our hazardous waste management regulations of
waste generated by the combustion of fossil fuels, and to confirm
certain agreements which were reached during our meeting. The
language contained in this letter should provide you and your
constituents with an adequate interpretation of the fossil fuel
combustion waste exclusion in Section 261.4(b)(4) of our
regulations. This letter is also being circulated to appropriate
Agency personnel, such as our Regional Directors of Enforcement,
for their information and use. We intend to issue in the Federal
Register an official Regulations Interpretation Memorandum
reflecting the policies articulated in this letter.
In our May 19, 1980 hazardous waste management regulations,
we published an exclusion from Subtitle C regulation for those
fossil fuel combustion wastes which were the subject of then
pending Congressional amendments. The language of that exclusion
in §261.4(b)(4) of our May 19 regulations is identical to
pertinent language of Section 7 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-482) which was enacted on October 21,
1980 and which mandates that exclusion. Specifically, the
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
exclusion language of our regulations provides that the following
solid wastes are not hazardous wastes:
"Fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas
emission control waste generated primarily from the
combustion of coal or other fossil fuels."
Residues from the Combustion of Fuel Mixtures
The first point which you raise in your letter and your
"Proposed RIM Language" is the interpretation of the term
"primarily" used in this exclusion language. EPA believes that
Congress intended the term "primarily" to mean that the fossil
fuel is the predominant fuel in the fuel mix, i.e., more than 50
percent of the fuel mix. (See Congressional Record, February 20,
1980, p. H1103, remarks of Congressman Horton and p. H1102,
remarks of Congressman Bevill.) Therefore, EPA is interpreting
the exclusion of §261.4(b)(4) to include fly ash, bottom ash,
boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes (hereinafter
referred to as "combustion wastes".) that are generated by the
combustion of mixtures of fossil fuels and alternative fuels,
provided that fossil fuels make up at least 50 percent of the
fuel mix.
This interpretation begs the question of whether the
exclusion also extends to combustion wastes that result from the
burning of mixtures of fossil fuels and hazardous wastes. We
have limited data which indicates that spent solvents listed in
§261.31 of our regulations, certain distillation residues listed
in §261.32, waste oils that may be hazardous wastes by virtue of
characteristics or the mixture rule, and other hazardous wastes
are often burned as supplemental fuels—sometimes in
proportionally small amounts but sometimes in significant amounts
(comprising 10 percent or more of the fuel mix ratio)~
particularly in industrial boilers but sometimes in utility
boilers. EPA is concerned about the human health and
environmental effect of the burning of these hazardous wastes:
both the effect of emissions into the atmosphere and the effect
of combustion residuals that would be contained in the fly ash,
bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes.
We intend to address the first of these concerns in our
future development of special requirements applicable to
hazardous wastes that are beneficially used or legitimately
recycled. In §261.6 of our May 19, 1980 regulations, we
currently exempt from regulatory coverage hazardous wastes that
are beneficially used or legitimately recycled, except that,
where these wastes are listed as hazardous wastes or sludges,
their storage or transportation prior to use or recycle is
subject to our regulations. We clearly explained in the preamble
to Part 261 of our May 19 regulations that we fully intend to
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
eventually regulate the use and recycling of hazardous wastes
and, in doing so, would probably, in most cases, develop special
requirements that provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment without unwarranted discouragement of resource
conservation. Consequently, although the burning of hazardous
waste as a fuel (a beneficial use assuming that the waste has a
positive fuel value) is not now subject to our regulations
(except as note above) it may well be subject to our regulation
in the future.
Our second concern with combustion of fuel mixtures is the
one at focus in this interpretation. It must first be noted that
we do not intend for §261.6 to provide an exemption from
regulation for combustion wastes resulting from the burning of
hazardous wastes in combination with fossil fuels; it only
provides an exemption for the actual burning of hazardous wastes
for recovery of fuel value. Thus, if these combustion wastes are
exempted from our regulation, such exemption must be found
through interpretation of §261.4(b)(4). Secondly, we note that
although the pertinent language in Section 7 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 and the related legislative
history on this matter speak of allowing the burning of
alternative fuel without precisely defining or delineating the
types of alternative fuel, the only examples of alternative fuels
used in the legislative history are refuse derived fuels.
Therefore, a literal reading of the legislative history might
enable us to interpret the exclusion to include combustion wastes
resulting from the burning of fossil fuels and other fuels,
including hazardous wastes. However, since each of these
legislative comments was made in the context of refuse derived
fuels or other non-hazardous alternate fuels, we do not believe
the Congressional intent compels us to make such an
interpretation if we have reason to believe that such combustion
wastes are hazardous.
Presently, we have little data on whether or to what extent
combustion wastes are "contaminated" by the burning of fossil
fuel/hazardous waste mixtures. The data we do have (e.g.,
burning of waste oils) suggests that the hazardous waste could
contribute toxic heavy metal contaminants to such combustion
wastes. When coal is the primary fuel, the amount of resulting
contamination is probably in amounts that are not significantly
different than the metals that would be contributed by the fossil
fuel component of the fuel mixture. This may not be the case
with oil and gas, where huge volumes of waste are not available
to provide a dilution effect. We suspect that the other
hazardous constituents of the hazardous wastes that typically
would be burned as a fuel are either thermally destroyed or are
emitted in the flue gas (and therefore are part of our first
concern as discussed above). If these data and this presumption
are true, then combustion wastes resulting from the burning of
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-4-
coal/hazardous waste mixtures should not be significantly
different in composition than combustion wastes generated by the
burning of coal alone. Because the Congress has seen fit to
exclude the latter wastes from Subtitle C, pending more study, we
feel compelled to provide the same exclusion to the former
wastes.
Accordingly, we will interpret the exclusion of §261.4(b)(4)
to include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission
control wastes generated in the combustion of coal/hazardous
waste mixtures provided that coal makes up more than 50 percent
of the fuel mixture.
We offer this interpretation with great reluctance and with
the clear understanding it is subject to change, if and when data
indicate that combustion wastes are significantly contaminated by
the burning of hazardous wastes as fuel. We also offer this
interpretation with the understanding, as discussed at our
meeting of November 21, that the utility industry will work with
us over the next several months to improve our data on this
matter. We believe it is essential that we make a more informed
judgement and possible reconsideration of our interpretation of
•the exclusion as soon as possible and before completion of our
longer-term study of utility waste which is proceeding.
Accordingly, we would like you to provide to us all available
data on the following questions by August 1, 1981:
1. What types of hazardous wastes are commonly burned as
fuels in utility boilers? In what quantity? In what
ratio to fossil fuels? How often? what is their BTU
content?
2. Does the burning of these wastes contribute hazardous
constituents (see Appendix VIII of Part 261 of our
regulations) to any of the combustion wastes? If so,
what constituents, and in what amounts? How does the
composition of combustion wastes change when hazardous
wastes are burned?
Co-disposal and Co-treatment
The second issue raised in your letter was whether the
exclusion extends to wastes produced in conjunction with the
burning of fossil fuels which are co-disposed or co-treated with
fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control
wastes. As examples of such wastes, you specifically mention
boiler cleaning solutions, boiler blowdown, demineralizer
regenerant, pyrites, cooling tower blowdown, or any "wastes of
power plan origin whose co-treatment with fly ash, bottom ash,
slag and flue gas emission control sludges is regulated under
State-or-EPA-sanctioned management or treatment plans."
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-5-
The legislative history on this matter clearly indicates
that the Congress intended that these other wastes be exempted
from Subtitle C regulation provided that they are mixed with and
co-disposed or co-treated with the combustion wastes and further
provided that "there is no evidence of any substantial
environmental danger from these mixtures." (See Congressional
Record, February 20, 1980, p. H 1102, remarks of Congressman
Bevill; also see remarks of Congressman Rahall, Congressional
Record, February 20, 1980, p. H1104.)
We have very little data on the composition, character and
quantity of these other associated wastes (those cited above),
but the data we do have suggest that they are generated in small
quantities relative to combustion wastes, at least when coal is
the fuel, and that they primarily contain the same heavy metal
contaminants as the combustion wastes, although they may have a
significantly different pH than the combustion wastes. These
limited data therefore suggest that, when these other wastes are
mixed with and co-disposed or co-treated with the much larger
quantities of combustion wastes, their composition and character
are "masked" by the composition and character of the combustion
wastes; that is, they do not significantly alter the hazardous
character, if any, of the combustion wastes.
Given this information base and given the absence of
definitive information indicating that these other wastes do pose
a "substantial danger" to human health or the environment, we
believe it is appropriate, in the light of Congressional intent,
to interpret the §261.4(b)(4) exclusion to include other wastes
that are generated in conjunction with the burning of fossil
fuels and mixed with and co-disposed or co-treated with fly ash,
bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes.
We offer this interpretation with some reluctance because it
is made in the absence of definitive information about the
hazardous properties of these other wastes or their mixtures with
combustion wastes. We therefore believe it is imperative that we
proceed to collect all available data on this matter within the
next several months and reconsider this interpretation when these
data are assessed. Toward that end and consistent with the
discussion at our meeting of November 21, we are asking that you
assist us in collecting these data. Specifically, we ask that
you collect and submit by August 1, 1981, any available data on
the following questions:
1. What are the "other" wastes which are commonly mixed
with and co-disposed or co-treated with fly ash, bottom
ash, boiler slag or flue gas emission control wastes?
What are their physical (e.g., sludge or liquid) and
chemical properties? Are they hazardous wastes in
accordance with Part 261?
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-6-
2. What are the co-disposal or co-treatment methods
employed?
3. How often are these wastes generated? In what
quantities are they generated? Are they commonly
treated in any way before being co-disposed?
4. Does the industry possess any data on the environmental
effects of co-disposing of these wastes? Groundwater
monitoring data? What are the results?
The interpretation on other associated wastes provided in
this letter is limited to wastes that are generated in
conjunction with the burning of fossil fuels. We do not intend
to exempt hazardous wastes that are generated by activities that
are not directly associated with fossil fuel combustion, steam
generation or water cooling processes. Thus, for example, the
§261.4(b)(4) exclusion does not cover pesticides or herbicide
wastes; spent solvents, waste oils or other wastes that might be
generated in construction or maintenance activities typically
carried out at utility and industrial plants; or any of the
commercial chemicals listed in §261.33 which are discarded or
intended to be discarded and therefore are hazardous wastes.
Further, the exclusion does not cover any of the hazardous wastes
listed in SS261.31 or 261.32 of our regulations. None of these
listed wastes were mentioned in your letter or our discussions.
The interpretation on other wastes is also limited to wastes
that traditionally have been and which actually are mixed with
and co-disposed or co-treated with combustion wastes. If any of
these other wastes (e.g., boiler cleaning solutions, boiler
blowdown, demineralizer regenerant, pyrites and cooling tower
blowdown) are segregated and disposed of or treated separately
from combustion wastes and they are hazardous wastes, they are
not covered by the exclusion. In the same vein, the exclusion
does not cover other wastes where there are no combustion wastes
(or relatively small amounts of combustion wastes) with which
they night be mixed and co-disposed or co-treated—a situation
which might prevail where natural gas or oil is the principal
fossil fuel being used. Therefore, this interpretation of the
exclusion applies only where coal is the primary fuel. We feel
this is a legitimate interpretation of Congressional intent,
wherein the argument of little potential environmental hazard,
primarily due to the dilution factor, is clearly based upon co-
disposal or co-treatment with the huge volumes of wastes
generated during coal combustion.
EPA Utility Waste Study
The groups of questions raised above bring us to the subject
which you address concerning the study of utility waste
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-7-
management which EPA is conducting. We agree that the study, as
currently being conducted, does not focus on the matters
discussed in this letter. We would, however, like to address
these matters and include them in our report to Congress, to the
extent possible. To accomplish this, we plan to meet in the very
near future with our contractor, Arthur D. Little, Inc., to
discuss what studies may need to be carried out in addition to
their currently planned activities under the contract. The
inputs of your organization could be quite useful in this effort.
It may be impossible, however, to modify our present study to
include a detailed investigation of all of the issues discussed
above.
Notwithstanding, we would like to address the matters
discussed in this letter within a shorter time frame—during the
next six months. Based on our meeting of November 21, it is my
understanding that the utility industry, working closely with
EPA, is willing to develop data on the questions put forth above.
We agreed that, as a first step, USWAG will prepare a study
outline designed to obtain these data. EPA staff and industry
representatives designated by your organization will then
mutually review the information needs. The data collection
effort will then follow. Finally, data and analyses will be
presented to EPA for review. This will enable us to reconsider
the interpretation provided in this letter and make any changes
deemed necessary. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would
designate a technical representative as USWAG's contact person
for this coordinated data collection effort.
In the meantime, and pending completion of this effort, EPA
will interpret 40 CFR §261.4(b)(4) to mean that the following
solid wastes are not hazardous wastes:
(a) Fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission
control wastes resulting from (1) the combustion solely
of coal, oil, or natural gas, (2) the combustion of any
mixture of these fossil fuels, or (3) the combustion of
any mixture of coal and other fuels, up to a 50 percent
mixture of such other fuels.
(b) Wastes produced in conjunction with the combustion of
fossil fuels, which are necessarily associated with the
production of energy, and which traditionally have
been, and which actually are, mixed with and co-
disposed or co-treated with fly ash, bottom ash, boiler
slag, or flue gas emission control wastes from coal
combustion.
This provision includes, but is not limited to the following
wastes:
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-8-
(1) boiler cleaning solutions,
(2) boiler blowdown,
(3) demineralizer regenerant,
(4) pyrites, and
(5) cooling tower blowdown.
I an hopeful that our future research activities together
will prove fruitful and that these issues can be rapidly
resolved. I have designated Ms. Penelope Hansen of my staff as
the EPA point of contact for this effort. You may reach her at
(202) 755-9206.
Sincerely yours,
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1931(03)
OF SOL r • Af-vr
IT. Frircir Ouinn
Corpo Industries, Jr.c.
125 Robert? Rose
'rtflitharn, Vassachuasetta 02254
Dear Mr. Ouinn:
As Jircusrrd in <-»ur telephone conversation on 1/20/80,
paint wastes (both from manufacture an<* use) have been temporarily
•suspender] frotr. the lists of hazardous ..flutes (S5261.31 and
261.32) until further evaluation is mode on the hazardousness
of there wastes. Therefore, as indicate'' by 40 CPP 4614,
January 16, 19C1, (copy enclosed), all paint wastes except
as rrcvic>rl b»low which are hazardous* and which are used,
retir":1, recycled or r«»cl*imed (UR3) «re currently excluded
fro* rcnulation under Parts 262 through 266 or Parts 122
tn rough 124 an<* are not subject to th« notification requirements
of Section 3010 of RCRA. Exceptions to this are waste solvents
..hi.:1 p.rc- rtill list*--! oonerically (F002 to F005) and which
if i:r.cd, reused, recycled or reclaimer* would bo subject to a
liwited sot of requl^tions (5261. 6(b) ).
e feel fro* to call me if you have any additional
question* (202-755-9187).
Sincerely your.1,
L. Morse
Lnvironrer.tal Protection f-r'.-cialist
Kar.te Definition Pronroiu
& Industrial V.'arte Divirfon (KH-565)
Enclosure
*Cact none rotor is ntill responsible* to <•<• ferrine whether
his waste exhibits nny of the characteristics of a hazardous
waste (i.e., ianitpi ility, corrosivity, r'-«ctivity and EP
toxicity), as prrvi'Jed in 5262.11 of the '^
WH
[-565iMMorse:per.;x59187:4-2-81 Disk LB-52-5
-------
9441.1981(04)
APR I 0 1981
' r.jor i;avid J. varner
CMcC, '.raste Disposal "nnineerinn revision
"tjT.artnfint r.l the Ar~y
".;'. Army rnviron^entftl Hyqiene Agency
Proving Ground, Varyland 2101C
near Major v/arr.er:
Your letter dated De center 4, 1980 to Mr. Alexander Wolf
(El»A) requesting a written interpretation of 40 CPR 261. 6(b)
of the KCRA Hazardous t'aste Regulations as it applies to the
reuse of *red water* from TNT production has come to »y
attention. The questions raised in your letter are re-stated
and answered below t
(1) "Is the paper sill, ac a user/recycler of a listed
hazardous waste, required to comply with those portions of
Parts 264 and 265 listed in Section 261.6{b)7*
Pursuant to Section 261. l(b) of the regulations* any
hazardous waste listed in Subpart D which is transported or
stored prior to being used* re-used, recycled or reclaimed
is subject to Sutparts A,B,C,C and B of Chapter 264, and
Suhparts A-£, 5-J and L of Chapter 265. Furthermore, such
j-ersonB are subject to Parts 262 , 263, 122, 123 as well as
tho notification requirements under Section 3010 of RCRA*
Therefore, the paper mill which receives the listed waste
fro-a the generator and holds or accumulates the waste until
such tine that it is used, reused, recycled or reclaimed
qualifies as a hasardous waste storage facility and is subject
to all requirements identified in Section 261. 6(b). •Storage*
is Defined in Section 260.10 as the holding of hazardous wastes
for a temporary period of time. However* it should be noted
that the Agency is currently re-evaluating its policy toward
materials/wastes which are used, reused, recycled or reclaimed
which may reduce or negate the requirements for 'red water*
which is sent to a paper mill for recovery. The Agency is
now discussing the various options dealing with oar present
reuse policy and expects to make a decision sometime in the
near future. When and if a change is made, tfce Agency will
F»J-lt«p it in the Federal Register.
-------
(2) "Arc they re<"p_iro-3 to h*> permitted as a P.CT.A
l.azarc^us waste storsqe facility e"«»P t^ouch f.re "red water"
..ill net be accumulated at the prper mill for period? in
oxcess cf 90 days?'
:'r.:Vr the current regulations, exclusions for wastes
stored SO days or less pertain solely to generators accumula-
ting ..f.sttT, on site. Temporary #cmniul«tion or storen<» of
"re-rf -ater" i.y the paper n
-------
9441.1981(05)
April 14, 1981
Dr. James Wood
Resource Recycling
2003 Gallatin Rd.
Madison, TN
Dear Dr. Wood:
As you requested, I have enclosed an outline of the
necessary information to be included in petitions for exclusion
of hazardous waste treatment residues. I have also enclosed
copies of several petitions, previously submitted to the Agency,
which may provide guidance in preparing your petition. These
items, along with 45 CFR 33076 §260.22, indicate the areas of
concern which should be addressed in a petition for exclusion.
Under 45 CFR 33120 §261.3(c)(2), a treated hazardous waste
remains hazardous for the same constituents and/or
characteristics for which it was originally listed. Therefore,
petitions for "delisting" the residue from the treatment of
listed wastes must address the treated residue in terms of the
hazardous constituents and/or characteristics for which the
initial wastes were originally listed.
If you have any questions concerning these information
requirements please give me a call (703-755-9187).
Sincerely yours,
Nyles E. Morse
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division
Enclosures
This document has Jbeen retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1981(06)
OFFICE OF SCLID WASTE
Kr. George Boyd
Pennsylvania- Foundrynens Assn.
Suite 512
One Plymouth Meeting
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Dear George*
Your understanding of the operation of the nixing rule
in S2tl.3(a) (2) (ii) is correct. If one nixes a listed
h22?r3ous waste with a non-haz«rnoui» waste the total waste
autcn:atically becor.es a hazardous waste. Por such a mixture
to cease to be e reoulatec' hazar^nus waste the qenerstor
r:ust petition the Accncy to delist the cixture. For non-listeO
i.ozarcous wastes t&e situation is different.
If a waste beeoces a hazardous waste only because it
exhibits one or aore characteristics (i.e., it is not a
listed waste), then if such a waste is mixed with another
wacte and the mixture does not exhibit any of the characteristics
01 a hazardous waste, the mixture automatically ceases to be
a; hazardous waste* Such an action does not require any
delisting action by CPA.
I hope this note is sufficient for your needs.
Sincerely,
David Friedman
Manager
Haste Analysis Program
Hazardous and Industrial waste Division (NB-56S)
WH-565/DFriedraan:na:xS9187:6/3/81 Disk NA-01-30
-------
9441.1983(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 83
Question: Benzene from a storage tank leaked into the ground water. This lean
occurred before November 19, 1980. The grcundwater is now pumped
out and treated in a surface impoundment. Is the surface impound-
ment receiving a hazardous waste?
Answer: If a material is a listed hazardous waste, you must classify
it as a hazardous waste even though the leak occurred prior
to Novsnter 19, 1980. Pumping the water i» an activity under
261.2(b), so, 261.3(a)(2)(iv) applies. Therefore, the surface
impoundment is receiving U019, benzene, W»n a site is "re-
activated," (cleaned-up, waste removed, etc.), the facility
must conply with the hazardous waste regulations. See the
December 31, 1980, FR preamble, p. 86969.
Source: Matt Straus and Steve Silvernan I W I •£( (S3)
Research: Karen Gale and Tony Baney
-------
9441.1983(02)
1 APR I 9 '-'
^D
•o
—i.
3
DATPt
sPo.3r.CTi subtitle C Exclusion of Drilling
ane Produced waters
FROM i John H. Skinner
Director, office of Solid
TOi Kenneth 0. Feigner
Chief, waste •.anagement Branch
a P.P.A. - Region X
T Your interpretation of the- oil and gas vaata exclusion in
40 CPU 261-4, aa «xpreaaad in your Pthruary 14, 19B3 vamorandun
, to »•, is th* correct interpretation of the scope of that exclu-
x sion* The Agency's policy on oil and qas exploration, develepnent,
and production wastes, is the asm as the policy stated in the
r preamMe to the November 19, 1980 regulations (45 PF 76C19) for
, nining and cement kiln dust wastes. Specifically, wastes such
I as spent solvents, pesticide wastes, and discarded eoMnereial
» chemical products, that are not uniquely associated with the
•* exploration, development, or production of crude oil or natural
? gas or geothermal ererqy, are net eligible for the exclusion
3 As you noted, a metBoranduw free) OA's Office of General
, to Region VIT on September 2, 1981 confirms that policy.
Although soxe judgment is rtKiuired to determine those wastes
that are 'unique* and these that are not, .the interpretation in
the last paragraph of your aemorandua of February 14, 1982 ia
consistent with our policy on this issue*
-------
-3-
II. Legal Background
The current statutory exemption for wastes resulting
froo the exploration* development and production of crude oil
or natural gas has its origins in EPA's proposed hazardous
vasta regulations, 43 Fed, Reg. 58946 (December 18, 1978).
Proposed 40 CPR £250.46 contained 'special vasts standards*
- reduced requirements for several types of waste! that Ate
produced in large volume and that EPA believed may b«
relatively low in toxicity as compared to other hazardous
wastes. One of these 'special wastes* was *gas and oil
drilling suds and oil production brines.* EPA did not define
this tent in its December 18 proposal*
Zn the RCRA amendments of 1980» Congress exempted most
of these "special wastes* from regulation as haxardous wastes
pending further study by EPA. The oil and gas exooption
(Section 3001(a)(2)(A)) reads in relevant part as follows»
(Footnote Continued from Previous Page)
As you know/ it is the generator** responsibility to
deternine, on a case-by-case basis* whether a waste is
hazardous. However, Z can offer yon soae guidance to assist
you in reviewing such determinations.
The Office of Solid Waste has reviewed the technical
reports prepared by Canp, Dresser & HcKee on April 8, 1982
and submitted to Region VIII by Holland and Bart oa behalf
of Gary Energy Corporation on November 22* 1982. Zt is
their opinion that* ander the facts detailed in the
report* the iron sponge would probably be haxardous. Since
the spent iron sponge can generate considerable hydrogen
sulfide if contacted with an acidic solution* it meets the
characteristic of reactivity under 40 CPR $261.23(a)(5).
Similarly, sinct 1$ generates a great deal of heat when mixed
with water* which results in the dissociation of ferric
sulfide to release additional hydrogen sulfide* it meets the
reactivity characteristic in $261.23(a)(4) as well.
Zt is possible* though less certain* that the spent
iron sponge slight also be ignitable in soee circumstances
under f 261.21 (a) (2). Pint, it is not a liquid and appears
to be capable in some esses of causing fire through absorption
of moisture. Second, it might be considered to burn *so
vigorously snd persistently that it creates a haxard* through
persistent burning (e.g.» special fire fighting techniques
would be necessary to extinguish a fire) since the waste
reacts with water to produce heat.
-------
-4-
(D) rilling fluids* produced water*, and
other wastes associated with the exploration,
development, or production of crude oil or natural
gas or qoothernal energy shall be subject only
to existing State or Federal regulatory programe
in lieu of aubtitle C until at least 24 months
after the date of enactment of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 and after
promulgation of the regulations in accordance with
subparagrapha (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
It is the sense of Congress that such State or
Federal programs should include, for waste disposal
site* which are to be closed, provisions requiring
at least the followings . * ':. . •.;«-..•
(i) The identification through surveying,
platting, or other measures, together with recordation
of such information on the public record, so as
to assure that the location where each wastes are
disposed of can be located-in the future ...rand
(11) A chemical and physical analysis of a
produced water and a composition of a drilling fluid
suspected to contain a hazardous material, with
•uch Information to be acquired prior to closure
and to be placed on the public record. lEaphasis added.1
Legislative history defining the tern 'other wastes
associated" is sparse. The primary source is the Conference
Report, H.R. Rep. Ho. 96-1444, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 32 (1980),
(hereinafter "Conf. Rep.*) which briefly explainst
The term 'other wastes associated* is specifically
included to designate waste materials intrinsically
derived from the primary field operations associated
with the exploration, development, or production of
crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy. Xt
would cover such substances ast hydrocarbon bearing
soil in and around the related facilities; drill
cuttings, materials (such as hydrocarbon water, sand
and emulsion) produced from a well in conjunction
with crude oil, natural gas, or geotheraal energy)
and the accumulated material (such as hydrocarbon,
water, sand, and emulsion) from production separators,
fluid treating vessels, storage vessels, and
production impoundments.
The phrase •intrinsically derived from the primary
field operation*... is intended to differentiate
exploration, development and production operations
fron transportation (from the point of custody
transfer or of production separation and dehydration)
and manufacturing operations.
-------
-5-
•
Floor statements on this exemption consist only of •
few brief statements supporting the exemption. They do not
define the exempted wastes. The speakers refer to otuds and
brines and hot specifically to other associated wastes.
IV. Regulatory Status of Spent Iron Bpooge
'' •" '•"' •."' ''.-, V .',".'. '" •
Zt is ay conclusion, based upon the factual and legal
background set forth above,- that waste iron sponge ia not ",
within the Section 3001(a)(2)(A) exemption.
The key words in the statute, •exploration, development,
or production", all relate to locating oil and gat deposits .
of connercial value and extracting the oil and gas from
those deposits. The only wastes specifically listed in the
statute are 'drilling fluids" and "produced water". These
are substances that were originally extracted from the ground
together with the desired oil or gas or that were injected
into the ground to enhance extraction of the oil or gas.
They do not result from any process other than physical
separation from the product. It is therefore reasonable to
conclude that "other wastes* should similarly be materials
extracted from the ground or injected into the ground to
enhance oil or gas recovery and not wastes resulting from
subsequent processing and manufacturing.
The legislative history supports this conclusion. Zt
states that the term "other wastes* includest hydrocarbon
bearing soil} ddll cuttingsi and materials such as hydrocarbon,
water, sand and emulsion that were 'produced" from a veil or
fron production separators, fluid treating vessels 2/, storage
vessels, and production impoundments. Conf. Hep. a"t 32. Wastes
froa the iron sponge process are substantially different from
these wastes. The iron sponge process goes beyond physical
2/ An argument might be made that the term 'material ... from
7.. fluid treating vessels* in the Conference Report includes
iron sponge used to treat sour gas. However, because the
statute uses, the term 'fluid* only in conjunction with the
term "drilling fluids"., Z think the most reasonable interpretation
of the term "material ... from ... fluid treating vessels* is
that it refers to wastes froa the treatment of drilling fluids
prior to their disposal or reintroduction into the well. So
construed, this explicit reference to wastes from the treatment
of drilling fluids strengthens the argument that wastes fron
the treatnent of the natural gas product (e.g., iron sponge)
are not included in the Section 3001(a)(2)(A) exemption.
-------
-6-
soparation of the gas from other produced materials or drilling
fluids to processing the -gas through a chemically treated
material. It is thus a processing operation that is downstream
fron the production operations. The spent iron sponge waste
consists of materials extraneous to drilling fluids and
production waters; it consists of commercially aanufeatured,
chemically treated wood chipe;that-have been farther altered .
by reaction with the natural gas,- -'-.". '„•••'• ••'.-;••• J;•'•':.*'•••".•'•'•>
' '•••' ,.-••*. •" '*•'• " .» . '•" , "' * -v •'•• ' '• '• * ' .
Zn addition, the difference between the spent iron .t
sponge and the drilling fluida and produced Waters manifests
itself in the differing hazards presented by these -wastes. ^
The reactive nature of spent iron sponge is not shared by
drilling fluids and productd waters* Xt is unlikely.that
Congress had this type of waste in mind when it exempted
•drilling fluids, produced waters* and other wastes associated
with the exploration, development* or production of crude
oil or natural gas* from hasardous waste regulatory requirements.
Finally, I note that it would be incorrect to argue*
based on the last sentence in the conference report langauge
quoted above* that Congress intended to exempt all wastes
generated prior to transportation of the natural gas. Such
an argument would prove too ouch, since it would exempt all
petroleum refining and chemical manufacturing wastes where
such refining and manufacturing takes place near the wellhead.
Furthermore, it would be inconsistent with the preceding
language limiting "other wastes* to drilling materials and
such natural constituents of the ground as soil, sand, water*
hydrocarbons and emulsions* A better reading of the Conference
Report* consistent with the plain language of the statute
and the logic of the exemption* is that only those wastes
associated with exploration* development and production are
exempt. Wastes resulting from manufacturing* whether they
precede or follow transportation* are not exempt.
-------
9441.1983(03)
.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 25J083
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TOt
Scope of Oil and Gas Waste Exemption
in Section 3001 (b) (2) (X) of RCXtAt
•Iron Sponge* Process
Lisa K. Friedman
Acting Associate General Counsel
Solid Waste t Emergency Response
Division (LE-132S)
Richard J. MoIan
Regional Counsel
Region VZZZ
QUSSTIOH PRESENTED
Zn your March 2, 19 "3, memorandum to me, you asked
whether waste "iron sponge* generated during the sweetening
of natural gas is exempt from the requirements of the hazardous
waste regulatory program under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), by virtue of the
exemption for oil and gas wastes in Section 3001(b)(2)(A).
ANSWER
Waste iron sponge is not within the Section 3001(b)(2)(A)
exemption and* therefore, is subject to the hazardous waste
regulatory program.
DISCUSSION
Z. Factual Background •
Waste iron sponge is • material which is produced during
a natural gas sweetening process (hydrogen sulfide removal).
Its origin is best understood by reviewing the entire chain
of operations used to extract and refine natural gas for
transportation and sale.
-------
-2-
Natural gas is extracted from the ground by bringing
reservoir fluids to the surface. The gas aay be extracted
in association with oil or fron • reservoir yielding
predominantly gas. In any case* the gas generally is extracted
together with other gaseous or liquid substances contained in
the ground. The combined extracted material is passed through
a physical gas-liquid separator so that the gas can be
separated from the unwanted liquid components or solids (e.g.»
sand). (The separated liquids are typically returned to the
ground or discharged to impoundments.)
After physical extraction and separation, -the gas is
generally processed or treated to improve its transportability
and to achieve the quality required for commercial sale. Zf
the extracted and separated gas is "sour* (i.e., it contains]
hydrogen sulfide), it is refined (•sweetened") to separate
the hydrogen sulfide gases from the commercially told gas.
This operation is typically performed prior to long-distance
transportation to reduce pipeline corrosion. The sweetening
process often includes a sulfur recovery operation*
In addition to the sweetening and sulfur recovery operations,
a natural gas processing plant often includes several other
manufacturing operations. These include dehydration and
dewpoint control of the sweetened gas, condensation stabilization,
and distillation (to separate various gases for comercial
sale).
The iron sponge process involves passing sour gas through
an absorption tower containing redwood chips coated with hydrated
ferric oxide (the "iron sponge*). The hydrogen sulfide-bearing
gas reacts with the hydrated ferric oxide to produce ferric
sulfide and residual water.
After three to four months, the iron sponge is 'spent*.
It is then flooded^ with water* initiating a reaction which
produces hydrogen sulfide. The spent iron sponge is then
removed from the absorption tower and is placed on the ground,
where, with the increased exposure to oxygen* it generates
heat. The heat dries the wood chips* which begin to smolder.
The smoldering continues until the spent iron sponge is
reduced to ashes. The ashes are then generally disposed of
in a landfill. I/
I/ You have not asked my opinion whether the spent iron sponge,
7s a hazardous waste prior to completion of treatnent. I
have assured for purposes of the question presented that it
is hazardous and would be subject to the hazardous waste
regulations unless exempted under Section 3001(b)(2)(A) of
RCRA. (Footnote Continued on Next Page)
-------
9441.1983(04)
••w. / X
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Disposal of Outdated Ordinance by Incineration
FROM: Steven J. Levy
Chief
Permits Branch
State Programs and Resource Recovery Division (WH-563)
TO: Regional Branch Chiefs
;Regions I - X
An issue has been raised about the status of so called "popping"
furnaces operated by the Department of Defense. These are furnaces
where DoD disposes of outdated ordinance by incineration, but then
recovers brass or lead from the residue. The question is asked
whether this constitutes legitimate recycling for purposes of
40 CFR 261.6.
In general, where DoD directly engages in this sort of activity
one can presume that the primary purpose is to dispose of outdated
ordinance, a hazardous waste. DoD is under an obligation to properly
and safely dispose of these reactive wastes. Recovery of metals
is normally incidental to the performance of that obligation.
Because the intent is to dispose of hazardous waste,, 40 CFR 261.6
does not apply and the popping furnace must be persisted.
.*
Of course, in some instances, the operator of a popping furnace
can substantiate a claim for exemption under 40 CFR 261.6. The
clearest case would be where a reclaimer purchases outdated or
surplus ordinance as contaminated scrap metal from a DoD facility,
and derives substantial revenue from the sale of the reclaimed
metal. It may even be possible that a DoD facility could substanti-
ate a claim for legitimate recycling. In the above cases 40 CFR
261.6 would apply and the facility would not require a RCRA permit
under the current regulations.
V
Finally, it must be recognized that the 4 April 1983, proposed
redefinition of solid waste (48 FR 14514), if promulgated, would
moot this issue. Under the redefinition popping furnaces, even
those used for reclaiming metals, would be required to obtain a
RCRA incineration permit.
Therefore, unless a claim can be substantiated, you should
go ahead and cal* in and process the Part B's for these popping
r^msT**.
/••«• "*t?I:S/2d/B.3cRChrisBon Disk No. 1
-------
9441.1983(07)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 83
When is the residue of hazardous waste in a containe- no longe-
regulated?
If the wa^te is listed in 261.33(e), the container or 1nh^r
liner must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or
cleaned by another method which will achieve equivalent removal.
Alternatively, the Inner liner could be removed and disposed of
as a hazardous waste. In the latter case, the rinsate would
also be a hazardous waste.
If the waste 1s a compressed gas, regardless of the waste type,
the container 1s empty when the pressure 1n the container approaches
atmospheric pressure.
For ill other wastes, a container 1s no longer regulated if the
container has been emptied by usual methods and less than one
Inch remains; or if the container 1s less than or equal to 110
gallons and no more than three percent by weight of the total
capacity remains; or 1f the container 1s greater than 110 gallons
and no more than 0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity remains.
-------
9441.1983(08)
2 I (983,
Mr. N.C; Vasuki
General Manager
Delaware Solid Wast* Authority
P.O. nox 455
Dover, Delaware 19903-0455
Dear Mr. Vasuki t
Thank you for your follow-up letter of September 30 requesting
clarification of the news item on leaohate that appeared in the '
American City 4 County magaclne. Also* please accept ay apologies '
for not responding to your letter of August 9 that waa apparently
mlsplacnd.
The statement that appeared in the July* 1983 ieaue of
American City and County magazine is correct. Leachate fro* a
•unicipal landfill is subject to the hazardous waste regulations .
if it is found to be hazardous by any of the hasardous waste
criteria. These criteria include Ignitability, reactivity,
eorrosivity. and tovicity. If the leachate is a hasardous waste
by any of these definitions, the landfill becomes a hazardous
waste generator and the leachate is subject to all the hazardous
waste regulations unless the landfill can qualify as a small
quantity generator. At the present timer a hazardous waste
generator producing less than 1000 kg. per oonth is exempt from
most requirements of*the hazardous waste regulations.
If the leachate is not found to be * hasardous wastef the
leachate can continue to be recycled back into the landfill.
However* if the leachate is a hazardous waste snd does not qualify
under the small quantity generator exclusion, the leachate
must be treated or disposed of in a permitted hazardous waste.
facility or* as you noted* discharged into a public sewer .system.
-------
I hop* th^pH this clarifies this issue for you. Onoe again
picas* accapt my apologia* for not res pondinq aariiar.
Sincerely youra,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Wasta
• • - - f, *
eoi Thomas P. Eichler
Reqion in Administrator
NH-565E:Kent Anderson:pj:S206:382-4654:WSM:10/19/83
-------
9441.1983(10)
December 13, 1983
Mr. William R. Shocklee
President
Tri-Rinse, Inc.
P.O. Box 15150
St. Louis, Missouri 63110
Dear Mr. Shocklee:
Thank you very much for the information you forwarded on the
TRI-RINSE process. It does appear that if properly operated this
process is capable of meeting the requirements of the RCRA
regulations for those instances where triple rinsing is required.
However, you should check with the appropriate State or EPA
Regional office for any specific explication to assure that all
regulatory requirements are met. This is covered in our
definition of empty containers in 40 CFR 261.7.
The referenced regulation, in dealing with empty
containers, divides containers into two groups: those which
formerly contained acutely hazardous wastes, and all others. For
the latter group, there is no specific requirement for rinsing;
the regulation merely requires that the waste be removed in its
normal manner, whatever that is—pouring, pumping, aspirating—
and that no more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of residue
remain (in order for the container to be considered as "empty").
However, for containers that formerly held acutely hazardous
wastes, triple rinsing (or its demonstrated equivalent) is
required (see 40 CFR 261.7(b)(3)). The regulation further states
that a suitable solvent, for the particular material, must be
used. Your process and equipment appear to be capable of meeting
this requirement.
When we proposed and then issued this regulation, we
indicated that such emptying, or triple rinsing, did not
constitute treatment, and thus, a permit is not required. Since
the solvent might vary according to the former contents of the
containers, a priori approval of a specific solvent/process is
not possible. Your equipment, if the correct solvent is used,
would accomplish the triple rinsing. As stated in the
regulations, whatever residue remains in the "empty" container is
no longer considered to be a hazardous waste.
This interpretation applies in those States where the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is implementing the RCRA
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
program. As you know, RCRA is intended to be a State-operated
program; where the State has been granted the authority by EPA,
it is the State's regulations that apply, in lieu of the Federal
program. Also, State rules may be more stringent than the
Federal rules. Therefore, you should check with each State
within which you expect to market your process to determine its
position with regard to triple rinsing and empty containers.
I hope this has been of some help. If you have further
questions please call me or Alan Corson, of my staff, at
202/382-4770.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1984(01)
JAN -
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Soils from Missouri Dioxin Sites
FRO*: John a. Skinner, Director
office of Solid waste
TO: David Wagoner, Director
Air and waste Management Division* Region VII
v^'e nave reviewed the results of the analytical program for
soils froT Missouri dioxin sites, in response to your request
tor an interpretation as to whether or not these soils are RCllA
hazardous wastes.
The analyses indicate the presence of a number of toxic com-
pounds in many of the soil samples taken froa various sites.
However, the presence of these toxicants in the soil does not
automatically aake the sell a RCRA hazardous waste. The origin
of the toxicants must be known in order to determine that they
are derived iron a listed hazardous waste(s). if the exact
origin of the toxicants is not Known, the soils cannot be con-
sidered RC3A hazardous wastes unless they exhibit one or more of
the characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, cor-
rosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure toxicity).
If there are any questions, please contact Matt Straus in
the Waste Identification Branch (PTS 382-4770).
DFagantrtaf:1/5/84tdisx Pagan 6
-------
9441.1984(03)
February 16, 1984
Walter F. Biggins
Technical Director
Hazen Paper Company
Holyoke, MA 01041
Dear Mr. Biggins:
This letter is in response to your letter, dated November
23, 1983, to Mr. Alan Corson who has referred it to me for
response. In your letter, you indicate that the dirty wash-up
solvent (i.e.. spent solvent) which you generate is placed in an
apparatus which completely removes all solvent from the residue
(i.e.. the resulting residue is in a dry state which contains
both pigment and various resin binders). The residue, you claim,
exhibits none of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e..
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction produce (EP)
toxicity); therefore, you believe your waste is non-hazardous.
Misses Suskind and Gayle of the RCRA Hotline, you indicate, share
your opinion and believe the residue is non-hazardous.
However, based on my reading of the regulations, your waste
(that is, the residue from the reclamation operation) is
considered hazardous since this waste is derived from the
treatment of a hazardous waste. In particular, §261.3(c)(2)
indicates that any solid waste generated from the treatment.
storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste, including any sludge,
spill residue, ash, emission control dust, or leachate (but not
including precipitation run-off) is a hazardous waste. In
addition, these wastes remain hazardous unless and until: (1) in
the case of any (non-listed) solid waste, it does not exhibit any
of the characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e.. ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity),
or (2) in the case of a listed waste, or waste derived from a
listed waste, it has been excluded from regulation under §§260.20
and 260.22 (so-called delisting procedures). Since the residue
is derived from a listed hazardous waste—namely, F003, F004, and
F005—the residue remains hazardous until your waste is
specifically excluded.
If you wish to handle this residue as a non-hazardous waste,
you should petition the Agency to exclude this waste from the
list of hazardous wastes. Procedures to follow are outlined in
40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Further detail is provided in the
enclosed information requirement sheet. In addition, the Agency
is considering modifying the delisting procedures (see enclosed
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Federal Register notice). Should you have any further questions
regarding this determination, please feel free to give roe a call,
my telephone number is (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Enclosure
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1984(03)
(61984
WIBMS840105 H
3)
Walter P. Biggins c
Technical Director ~
Hazen Paper Company "j
Holyofce, MA 01041 »
ut
near Mr. Bijyina: ™
This letter is In response to your letter, dated *
November 23, 1983, to Mr. Man Corson who has referred it £
to no Cor response. In your letter, you indicate that tho ~
dirty wash-up solvent (i.e., spent solvent) which you x
generate is placed in an apparatus which complete!/ retaoves £
all solvent froa the residue (i.e., the resulting residue \
is in a dry state which contains ootn pigncnt and various »
resin binders). The residue, you claim, exnibits none of
the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, £
corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction produce (EP) toxicity); o>
therefore, you believe your waste is non-hazardous. Hisses x
Susfcind and Gayle'of tho RCRA Hotline, you indicate, share £
your opinion and believe the residue is non-hazardous, c
o
However, based, on my reading of the regulations, your w
waste (that is, tho residue from the reclamation operation)
is considered hazardous since this wasce is derived from
the treatment of a hazardous waste. In particular,
5261.3(0(2) indicates that any solid waste generated from
the treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste,
including any sludge, spill residue, ash, emission control
dust, or leachate (but not including precipitation run-off)
is a hazardous waste. In audition, tnose wastes r«oain
hazardous unless and until* (*1) in the case of any (non-
listed) solid waste, it aoes not exhibit any of the
characteristics ot hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity), or (2) in the case of a listed waste, or waste
derived fron a listed waste, it has been excluded fron
regulation under 55260.20 and 260.22 (so-called delisting
procedures), since the residue is derived from a listed.
hazardous waste—namely, f003, F004, and POOS—the residue
remains hazardous until your waste is specifically excluded.
-------
-2-
If you wish to handle this residue as a non-hazardous waste,
you should petition the Agency to exclude this waste from the
list of hazardous waste. Procedures to follow are outlined in 40
CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Further detail is provided in the
enclosed information requirement sheet. In addition, the Agency
is considering modifying the delisting procedures (see enclosed
Federal Register notice). Should you have any further questions
regarding this determination, please feel free to give me a call;
my telephone number is (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Enclosure
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1984(04)
Requirements for Interim Status for Military Facilities
The military claims open burning can be used to train soldiers in detonation
techniques. Under 261.6(a), they do not feel they need interim status
for their open burning area. Is this legitimate recycling?
This is not considered legitimate recycling. The facility nust
have interim status.
Sour
-------
9441.1984(05)
9 .'984
Mr* Robert E. Blans
Ceputy Director, Program operations
Department of Pollution Concrol
and Ecology
*U01 National Drive
P.O. Box 9583
Little Bock, Arkansas 72209
• * "
Dear Mr. Blanzt
•
Your letter*dated February IS, 1964 asfcs whether the residue
iron the treatment of a listed hazardous vast* is also a hazardous
vasto.
In your letter, you correctly interpret 40 cm 261.3(c)(2)
and (d) to Bean that the scrubber brine and sludge produced while
incinerating listed hazardous wastes are thevselves hazardous
vastes unless dellsted. Where* however, the incinerated waste is
hazardous only by virtue of the characteristics identified in
Subpart C of 40 CPR 2C1» then the scrubber brine and sludge are not -
hazardous wastes if they no longer exhibit any of these characteristics
In your letter* you Bent ion an applicant who USAA surface
inpoundoenta to store scrubber sludge and brine produced while
Incinerating listed hazardous wastes. Based en our interpretation
of 40 CPR 261.3(1)(2) and (d), the applicant either snist attevpt
to have his sludge and brine delisted or he sjust have his surface
iapoundvent pen&itted for hazardous wastes.
Zf you need any additional •inforaation or assistance* please
.contact nr. Bandy Christen at (202) 382-4691•
Sincerely*
Peter Guerrero
Special Assistant to the Director
• Peralts and State Prog raws Division'
ect Bruce Keddle
r•'-•' ••'• Alan Corson
-------
9441.1984(06)
APR 10 1984
Robert J. Nelson
Associate "Director
National Paint and Coatings
Association
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, S.W
Onar Mr. 'to 1son:
This letter responds to your inquiry of March 20, 1934,
regarding the regulatory status of mixtures of spent solvents
listed in 40 CFR 261.31 (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F001-FOQ5).
As you correctly stated in your letter, the solvent listirvj
pertains only to the technical grade or pure form of the solvent.
Thus, solvent mixtures are not regulated unless they exhibit one
or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste. At this
tine, however, we are in the process of revising the solvent
listing to include these mixtures, vie expect to propose an
amendment by early next year. When this rule is promulgated,
spent solvent mixtures will oe regulated when treated, stored,
transported, or disposed off and whan treated* stored* or
transported prior to use* reuse* recycle or reclamation*
However, pursuant to- the new proponed definition of solid n
waste* certain recycling/reclamation activites will be exempt M
from regulation. Aa a practical matter* this means that
solvents (and solvent mixtures) that are reclaimed either
under certain batch tolling arrangements or on-site by the
generator for use as a substitute for the commercial product
will be exempt from regulation. (See PR 14472-14512* April 4,
1983* for details.)
Should you have further questions or require additional
information* feel free to contact Jacqueline Sales* of my staff,
at (202) 382*4770.
Sincerely yours*
Eileen R. Claussen
Acting Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (WH-5R2B)
-------
9441.1984(07)
Miss Bonnie Stuckey
wesselman Par It Nature Center
551 North Boeke Road
Evans villa. If) 47711
»
Dear Hisa Stuckey i
- t.
Thank you for your letter of March 21* 1984* in which
you requeat information on the proper disposal of household
batteries. •. t - - . . ;- ••, ..... ? « r » DO* \ or:****! -«?•.• . • • • . .•
t « •• :
Under the Resource Conservation.and Recovery Act (RCRA), , t
EPA is responsible for establishing regulations for controlling
the generation, transportation, storage, treatment, and
disposal of hazardous waste. In passing RCRA, Congress
exempted household wastes, from control under the hazardous
waste regulatory program. Neither Congress nor the Agency
believes that requiring homeowners to identify which of their
wastes may be hazardoua and .to comply with the significant
regulations other hazardous waste generators must follow
would prove feasible either from an economics or enforcement
point of view. • .
AS a result, household C and O cell batteries are exempted
from regulation under RCRA. The Agency does not believe that
this poses a significant environmental problem since most
household batteries are of the carbon-zinc variety. Carbon-zinc
batteries, while disposed of by many households, contsin only/ •.
very small quantities of hazardous constituents and are generally
dispersed throughout a landfill. It is the nickel-cadmium
and mercury batteries which are. hazardous* Bowever, since
nickel-cadmium batteries are considerably more, expensive
than most household batteries and also are rechargeable, they
are seldom disposed.of in significant quantities by nomeownere.
Consequently, the Agency does not believe that these batteries
pose a serious environmental hazard. Mercury cells, while
of concern if. disposed of in large quantities (e .g. • by. a
manufacturer), generally are very small (e.g., hearing aid
and watch batteries) and thus contain only very small amounts
of mercury. • These would also not be expected to result in
locally large concentrations in the landfill since household
use of these batteries is snail.
-------
-2-
While the Agency certainly encourages the recycling of
wherever possible, we are not aware of any facilities
that recycle carbon-zinc batteries, rtor do tie currently have any
poster.* or other materials that discuss the recycling or
proper disposal of household wastes. However, you r.ay wish
to contact the Indiana State Board of Health since that Agency
has responsibility for the hazardous waste program in Tndi.ina.
Their address is:
Land Pollution Control Division
.rate Board of Health
1330 Hist Michigan Street, *w A-304
Indianapolis* Indiana 46206
(317) 63VOH4
In addition, several national organizations disseminate
information on hazardous waste recycling programs, You
•ay wish to contact the Hazardous Mast* Project of Environmental
Action Foundation, Dupont Circle Building, Washington* D.C.
20036.
I hope this information will be of use to you.
sincerely yours*
John M. «kinner
Director
Office of Solid Haste
-------
9441.1984(08)
May 3, 1984
Mr. Len Devaney
Plant Engineer
Pettibone Corporation
4700 West Division Street
Chicago, Illinois 60651
Dear Mr. Devaney:
In response to your letter of March 5, 1984 and as clarified
in our telephone conversation, it was determined that the
emission control dust that is generated from your electric arc
furnace is not considered a hazardous waste under the EPA
hazardous waste classification of K061 - Emission control
dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric
furnaces. This determination is based solely on the fact that
your facility is a foundry.
The November 14, 1980 background document for the
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste makes it clear that
the Agency did not intend to apply this listing to dusts/sludges
that are generated at foundries (see Enclosure). This
distinction was made in response to comments submitted by the
American Foundryman's Society (AFS) on the original interim final
listing K061 - Emission control dust/sludge from the electric
furnace production of steel. See 45 FR 33124, May 19, 1980.
Although your facility's emission control dust is not
classified as a K061 waste, it may still be considered hazardous
if it exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste
(i.e.. ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity). It is incumbent upon you to determine
if your waste exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics; if your waste exhibits any of the
characteristics, your emission control dust is hazardous and must
be managed in accordance with the hazardous waste regulations.
(See 40 CFR 262.11).
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Should you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
This document has Jbeen retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1984(09)
c
9H3O1 'C
**«*: u
c
••
a
5
Mr. Thomaa J. Pronapfal, P.I. ; • ?
Stata of Marada . '••-." ••'••', * • •*
Department of Conaerratioo . . . £
and natural Resources - ^
Diviaioa of Environmental Protection *
Capitol Complex f . . \ - c
Caraon City, levada 19710 , •
Daar Mr. rronapfali . ;.. f, *
•„ '«..-• • ~ • • • '...'•. 2
..' I aa writing in raaponaa to your aaaorandua of April 19, 19*14 *
ragarding tha atatua of. mining laboratory vaataa uadar tha v •
axcloaioa of 40 CF1 2<1.4(b)(7). • • • • •••.:*.v ' •. f-V ^
.- - Baaad upon tha information aubmittad in your aaaorandua,'. tha u
Aganey baa d*t«rvin«d that, both tba aitria acid vaata and tha f ira ' "
aaaay oupala ara aolld vaata froa.tha astraetion, .banafieiation and -^
proeaaaing of oraa and ainarala. Aa aueh, tha vaataa tamporarily «
ara axeludad by 3001 (b)(3)(A) of tha Kaaourea Conaarration and . -> t
llaeowary Act (RCHA) froa regulation aa haaardoua vaataa undar y
Subtitla C of ROtA* Tha axeiuaion ia affaetiwa until at laaat '
aix aontha 'af tar tha data of aubaiaaion to Congraaa of tha aining i
vaata atudy baing conduct** andar Saetiona 1002(f) and (p) of J
•JtOlA and aftar promulgation'of ragulationa in aeeordanea with
Saetion 3001 (b)(3)(C) of 1CBA. Thaaa vaataa ara axeludad ragardlaaa
of vhatbar thay ara jganaratad by aining oparatlona 'or commercial :
laboratoriaa.. . , . ''•.;-""•.
Tha Aganey ia now in tha procaaa of ra-awaluating ita • • * •
Novaaber 19, 1900 iatarpratation (Ba« 45 r* 7€flt) of tha aining
vaata axeiuaion to daf ine aora a«eurataly tha vaataa that Congraaa
intandad to axeludo from raguljrtioa uadar fobtitla c ponding -"-:-\
coaq>lation of tha aining vaata study; If tha Aganey mod if iaa Ita
interpretation, va will notify you*
Zf you have any quaationa or raqulra any further information
on thia aattar, plaaaa eontact Jaaaa Antitto of ay ataff at (202)
382-7926.
Sincerely,
John ?. Lahnan
Diraetor
Waata Managanant i Eeononiea Diviaion
-------
9441.1984(10)
Mi Dlat VC05 doe. 9
MAT ISGBA
Lloyd ft. Cress
Greenebaum, Doll t McDonald
1400 Vine Center Tower
7.0. iox ItOS
Lexington, Ksntueky 40593
•.'.•. -
Dear 'Mr. Cress t
Zn your letter of April 2C, 1914, you requested confirmation
of our earlier discussion regarding the regulatory status of
residue from stream-stripping of process vaste containing toluene.
As X explained- in our recent conversation, the solvent
listings (I»A Sasardous Masts Mos. POOl-POOS) pertain to
'the pure form or technical grade solvent, when spent or discarded.
The listings do not pertain to industrial process vaste containing
solvents. Since process vastevater generated from your client's,
'facility, is not the listed hasardous vaste, the residue from
treatment (i.e.. stream-stripping) of the vaste is alao not a
hasardous vasts, unless it exhibits one or more of the character-
istics of hasardous vasts (i.e.. ignitaoility, reactivity, corro«i«
vity or SF toxicity),
Z trust that this letter adequately responds to your inquiry.
Should you require additional information, please call me at
(202)*t2-4l07. .
Sincerely,
Jacqueline w. Sales
Environmental Engineer
HH-562:JSALES:Ids382-4807:8-248:5-11-84:Disk VC05 doc. 9
-------
9441.1984(11)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
APRIL 84
rtCRA.'Superfund Hotline
April 1984 Report
Page 5
4. If equipment fron drilling for crude oil or natural gas is Steam-cleaned off-
site from tne drilling site, is the waste excluded fron regulation by 261.i;D)(5)
even if the waste exhibits a Subpart C characteristic?
Wastes uniquely associatea with the exploration, development or production
of crude oil. natural gas or geothertnal energy are excluded from regulation
by 261.4(b)(5) regardless of whether the waste exhibits i Subpart C
characteristic. Since only water 1$ used for steam-cleaning, the drilling
waste is still excluded from regulation. If another cleaning agent not
uniquely associated with the exploration, development, or production of
crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy was used, then the waste could
be subject to regulation. For example, if methylene chloride was used to
clean the equipment, the waste would be subject to regulation as FOU2.
Source: Meg Silver
Research: Oenlse Wright
-------
9441.1984(12)
Status of Supernatant from Lime neutralisation of Spent
Pickle Liquor - - ' ....
Mat thaw Straua, Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-5C2B)
Karl Klepltsch, Chiaf
Haste Management Branch (Hag Ion V)
This memorandum addreaaea your inquiry ragarding tha
atatua of sup* mat ant froai lime treatment of apant pickle
liquor.
First, you ara corract in stating tbat tha auparnatant
is not includad in tha industrywide exclusion of lime-
stabilized vasts pickle liquor sludge (LSWPLS) (formerly
known as line neutralised waste pickle liquor sludge)
generated from the iron and steel industry* The exclusion
pertains only to sludge generated froai the treatment process*
Second* the supernatant is a hazardous waste* However,
it is not regulated when stored in a tank connected to the
waatewater treatment ayatem* (This Material la generally
stored in a sedimentation tank (clarlfier) prior to discharge).
Zn addition, when diacharged, the supernatant is excluded
frca the presuaption of being a solid waste, and thus, a
hasardoua waate (see 40 CPU 261.4(a)(l)(ll)(2) ), if it is
discharged either to navigable waters pursuant to the
provisions of the Clean Water Act or to a POTU* Supernatant
that is removed from the wastewater treatawnt system, and
is otherwise managed, is regulated under ftCBA.
WH-562B:JSALES/KSTRADS/pea/475-B551/5/31/84 Disk MSB 40 201
-------
9441.1984(13)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
MAY 84
5. API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry (K051) 1s placed
in a surface impoundment where it further separates into sludge and water.
Is the water fraction a hazardous waste?
The water fraction 1s not a hazardous waste because the K051 listing
was meant to cover tne sludge generated from this process, regardless
of the nunoer of separations.
Source: Bill Sprott
Research: Tom Gainer
-------
9441.1984(14)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
MAY 84
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Hay 1984 Report
Page 5
4. Section 2S1.3(a)(2)(lV) excludes fron regulation the discharge o? certain
wastewater mixtures which are subject to Clean Water Act regulations
(307(5) and 402) "(including wastewater at facilities which have eliminated
the discharge of wastewater)."
A) Wha: is the significance of this section's parenthetical phrise
addressing eliminated discharge?
8) Do surface Impoundments qualify under that parenthetical reference?
A) The intended application of the parenthetical phrase in 251.3(a)(2)(lv)
is to situations where effluent guidelines or pretreatment standaras
require zero discharge as the most environmentally sound practice,
or where a facility surpasses these requirements by achieving zero
discharge.
B) If a surface impoundment 1s subject to Clean Water Act zero discharge
guidelines, then the exclusion applies. Information specific to the
purpose and management of surface impoundments Bust be supplied to
determine if this exclusion applies.
Source: Steve Silverman
Research: Ken Jennings
-------
9441.1984(15)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTi Zgnitablllty Characteristic Application to Hot
Caseous Process (missions
f item i John U. Skinner* Director
Office of solid waste
TO i James H. Icarbrough, Chief
Eeaiduala Management Branch* Rayion ZV
In your Junt 27* 1984* memorandum you requested our guidance
as to whether the hasardous determination of a waate la or is not
supposed to be made at standard temperature and pressure or
whether this determination is to be made in the form (i.e.* gas,
solid* liquid) that it la generated. ~~~
in particular* you raised concerns about the destruction of
materials in fume incinerators and argued that facilities could
avoid regulation by simply not condensing vent gaa and overhead
emissions. You also argued that |261.21(a)(2) states that
wastes which are not liquids must be evaluated for the ignitability
characteristic at standard temperature and pressure.
At the facility in question* the generator had been
condensing the gaseous emissions and feeding them along with
other gaseous wastes into an incinerator* These gaseous
emissions were previously condensed prior to treatment in a fume
incinerator. This same facility now plans to feed uneondensed
reactor vent gases directly to the fume incinerator (i.e.*
will not be condensing the gases and will only oe sending
gaseous emissions to the incinerator).
As you may be aware* our office previously addressed
tnis issue when we finalised the incinerator regulation in
June of 1982. In the preamble to that rule* we said that the
feed to fune incinerators are subject to regulation only uncer
the Clean Air Act and not under RCRA since these gaseous
emissions are not solid wastes (see -47~F£ 27530* June 24*
19H2). Zn particular* we stateds
-------
-•CPA agrees with eoamentera that fume iacineratora
are subject only to regulation under the Clean Air
Act and does not intend that the Parta 264 and 265
ragulationa apply to theea facilities. Fume incinerator*
which are used to deatroy gaaeoua emlaaiona from
varioua induatrial proceaaea, for example, are not
subject to regulation under RCRA. In generalt the
RCRA atandarda do not apply to fume incineration
since the input ia not identifiable at a solid
vasts, according to the definition aet forth
in 5261.2".
However, we recently Indicated in the Federal Register
(49 PR 3314, February 10, 1984) that we are re-considering this
position. In particular, in a propoaal to list light end vent
gases from the production of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons»
we stated that gaseous emissions which are condensable to
liquids at standard temperature and pressure can be subject
to regulation and would not be included in the exclusion of
gaseous materials under RCRA (see Section 1004(28))• See
preamble to proposal where we states
•*••• The light ends component of these overheads
is in fact liquids at standard temperature and
pressure, but because of elevated temperature and
and admixture with gases (e.g.* hydrogen, methane)
they require sooe font of physical condensation to
be isolated as liquids...,.
Ins Agency considers these light ends to be solid
wastes within the meaning of Section 1004(28) of
RCRA. Although these wastes are generated as gssea,
they are liquids at standard temperature and
": pressure* and can feasibly be condensed to the
liquid phase after generation*
The exclusion from RCRA of •gaseous materials* that
are not contained (Section 1004(28))* in the Agency's
view* appliea only to true gases* namely those
which are not capable of being condensed and which
remain gases at standard temperature and pressure*
Therefore, until we decide whether and how to finalise
the propoaal* we must defer s final anawer to your question*
In the interim* however* any incinerator that just receives
gaseous omissions would bo excluded from control under RCRA*
as stated in the preamble to the final incinerator rules.
At the same time* you should be aware that the rules may
change and that incinerators that receive gaseous emissions,
vnich are liquids at standard tenperature and pressure, may
be subject to regulation in the future.
If you have any further questions, please call Matt Straus
of my staff at 475-bbSl*
-------
9441.1934(18)
Response to Questions from State Pesticide
Personnel: Triple Rinsing
(3) Container disposal, particularly ULV products and in
impregnated fertilizer situations. What if triple rinsing
is impossible?
Section 261.7 is pertinent only if the product is
listed in s261.33. Section 261.7, Residues of
hazardous vast* in enpty containers, is explicit.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO
9441.1984(19)
AUG 15 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation on Mineral Processing
Residuals Generated by Combustion Units Burning
Hazardous Waste Fuel
FPOM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division (2AWM)
I an writing in response to your memorandum of May 25, 1984,
in which you requested a regulatory interpretation regarding mineral
processing residuals generated from the thermal expansion of shale
in rotary kilns that are fired with hazardous waste fuels. The
issue is whether these mineral processing residuals, i.e., shale
fines sludge, which would otherwise be exempt from Subtitle C of
RCRA under the mining "extraction, beneficiation, and processing"
exclusion of 40 CFR 5261.4(b) (7), are subject to regulation as a
hazardous ^waste due to the use of listed hazardous waste as a fuel
source for the process. This letter responds to the questions
that you raised in your request, and also addresses the points
that Norlite Corporation has made in response to the Region's
complaint against them.
In response to one of your questions, we are not aware of any
explicit precedent or policy that has been established regarding
the applicability of either the mining waste exemption or the
cement kiln dust exemption where waste solvents are employed as
fuels. Therefore, we have consulted with the Office of General
Counsel and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement in developing
the following responses.
Background
Norlite Corporation, located in Cohpes, New York, mines shale
and thermally expands it to produce a lightweight aggregate that
is used in construction products. The thermal expansion takes
place in two rotary kilns that are fired by listed hazardous waste
fuels (hazardous waste nos. F001-F005, according to Norlite) that
are purchased from waste generators and fuel blenders. Before
-------
entering the stack, the kiln gases are scrubbed with an alkaline
aqueous slurry. The shale fines captured by the scrubber are
collected in surface impoundments from which they are subsequently
dredged at a rate of 40,000 tons year. The shale fines sludg*
dredgings are accumulated in waste piles at Norlite's facility.
Question 1: Is Norlite's shale fines sludge exempt from
regulation under Subtitle C of RCPA by virtue
of the mining waste exclusion in $261.4(b)(7)7
Answer; Yes, the waste is currently exempt.
Discussion;
Section 261.4(b)(7) provides an exemption from Subtitle C
control for •Solid wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and minerals...*. In the preamble to the rule
providing this exemption, the Agency said we would interpret the
exclusion to include solid waste from the exploration, mining,
milling, smelting, and refining of ores and minerals (see 45
Federal Register 76618-76619, Hovember 19, 1980). This interpre-
tation includes residuals from mineral processing, including air
emission control wastes.
The process that Norlite uses involves heating shale to produce
a lightweight aggregate, thus enhancing its value. This approach
is analogous to many other thermal processes used to dry, smelt,
or otherwise upgrade an ore or mineral. Therefore, the Norlite
process would be considered beneficiation or processing, and the
wastes from that process fall within EPA's current interpretation
of the $261.4(b)(7) exclusion. The use of hazardous waste fuels
as the total or partial energy source does not. In our opinion,
change the status of the waste as beneficiation or processing
waste. EPA made it clear in the November 19, 1980, preamble that
the exclusion does not apply to solid wastes, such as spent solvents,
pesticide wastes, and discarded commercial chemical products, that
are not uniquely associated with the mining and allied processing
industries. The solvents that we were addressing in the 1980
notice are those that might be generated as a result of equipment
maintenance or some other general plant operations, but not as a
result of extraction, beneficiation, or processing operations.
We arrive at the same conclusion for cement kiln dust waste
that may be generated during a cement manufacturing process that
employs hazardous waste fuels as an energy source. Cement kiln
dust waste is currently exempt from Subtitle C by C261.4(b)(8).
The use of hazardous waste fuels in this process would not negate
the exclusion.
We emphasize that this interpretation of the mining waste
exclusion does not necessarily exclude all solvents from regulation
-------
'under Subtitle C. As described above, wastes that are not generated
from extraction, beneficiation, or processing operations, e.g.,
spent solvents generated during equipment maintenance, are not
excluded from Subtitle C regulation. Therefore, if Norlite mixes
Its shale fines sludge with nonexcluded listed hazardous waste,
the resulting waste is subject to the "mixture rule* in $261.3(b)(2).
The Office of Solid Haste is currently reviewing its 1980
interpretation of the mining waste exclusion to define more
accurately the wastes that Congress intended to exclude from Sub-
title C pending completion of the mining waste study. He will
keep you advised on the progress of the reevaluation and the
supporting studies.
Question 2t Is Norlite's shale fines sludge exempt under
the beneficial reuse exemption provided for
by S261.6?
Answer: No. Hastes resulting from a beneficial reuse
process are not covered by the $261.6 exemption.
•
Discussion:
V
Sections 261.3(c) and (d) state that any solid waste generated
from the treatment (which includes some recycling), storage,.or
disposal of hazardous waste, including any sludge or emission
control dust, is a hazardous waste until the generator proves
otherwise. In the case of a waste that is derived from a listed
hazardous waste, the solid waste is considered hazardous unless
and until.it is del is ted in accordance with 55260.20 and 260.22.
•
In the case of.^Norlite Corporation, the shale fines sludge is
considered to be derived froa the treatment of hazardous wastes,
i.e., the solvents that are used as fuel. Burning of hazardous
wastes, albeit for legitimate energy recovery, is still considered
treatment. If the shale fines sludge had not been considered a
beneficiation or processing waste under S261.4(b)(7), and therefore
•xcluded from regulation, it would be classified as listed hazardous
waste.
The beneficial reuse exemption contained in $261.6 applies to
the beneficial reuse process only, and not to any wastes that may
be generated as a result of such processes. This exemption thus
applies solely to hazardous wastes prior to and during legitimate
recycling.
It should be noted that listed hazardous wastes, such as the
solvents that Norlite uses, are subject to certain transportation
and storage requirements prior to reuse. These requirements are
contained in $261.6(b). I assume that Norlite's tanks used for
storage of these listed hazardous wastes prior to firing in the
kiln are subject to these provisions.
-------
Question 31 Is Norlite'8 shale fines sludge exempt under
the wastewater exemption of f261.3(a)(2)(iv)?
Answer: No, this exemption does not apply to the shale
fines sludge.
Discussion:
The wastewater exemption contained in «261,3(a)(2)(iv)(A)
applies only if solvents are cowiingled with process wastewater as
part of routine housekeeping procedures (e.g., minor release of
solvents during degreasing operations that would collect in the
wastewater sewer). The provision has no applicability to sludges
that are mixed or otherwise commingled with wastewater, or to
sludges that, in effect, generate a wastewater through the settling
of solids from the sludge.
You expressed concern that the mining waste and cement kiln
dust exclusions could lead to burning hazardous waste fuels with
high levels of toxic organic or metals constituents, resulting in
the generation of hazardous residues. We are presently developing
standards to regulate burning of hazardous waste in boilers and in
cement and aggregate kilns, and intend to require that these units
generally meet the same performance standards applicable to incin-
erators. The residues from burning hazardous waste in these units
may contain high levels of toxic compounds, particularly metals.
Consequently, if we find through our research that aggregate kiln
residuals or cement kiln dusts pose a substantial hazard, we will
consider elininating their respective exemptions under Part 261,
and subjecting the wastes to regulation under Subtitle C of RCPA.
your letter and Norlite's response to the Region*s complaint
necessitated this lengthy response. However, it has enabled us to
develop a position on a highly complex regulatory interpretation
issue* X trust that our response can be used by the Region in
resolving the Norlite cane, as well as providing advice to similar
waste fuel/mineral processors that you mentioned. John Heff el finger
of i*y staff has discussed our findings on this issue with Bob-
Harris, of your office. You may contact him at FTS-3P2-7923.
For further information on the subject of burning and blending
hazardous waste fuels and our regulatory development efforts,
please contact Bob HoiIoway at FTS-382-7936.
cc: Solid Waste Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
w/attachment (Region II Itr. dated 5/25/84)
-------
9441.1984(20]
AU6 161384
Mr. Ton Tiesler, Director
Division of Solid Wast* Management
Bureau of Environmental Service*
Department of Public Health
150 9th Avenue, North
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Dear Teas
At the request of Liz Cottingham in Congressman Leath's
office, X am writing to clarify f2€1.4(b)(4) of the RCRA
hasardous waste regulations. This section codifies a Con-
gressional exemption that was enacted in the 1980 RCRA
Amendments. The amendment (see RCRA Sec. 3001(b)(3)(A)(1))
r«nov«* fly ash waate, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue
gas emission control waste generated primarily from the com-
bustion of coal or other fossil fuels frosi control under RCRA
Subtitle C until at least sis months after a study under RCRA
Section 8002(n) is submitted to Congress. Other applicable
provisions of Federal and State laws, including RCRA Subtitle
D, remain in effect.
While EPA's study under RCRA Section 8002(n) to date has
concentrated on waste generated by coal-fired electric utility
power plants, the Congressional exemption is not limited to
these plants, in our opinion. Ply aehr bottom ash, slag and
flue gas dust and sludges from the combustion of coal, oil, or
natural gas from any source would also be exempted temporarily
from RCRA Subtitle C control.
Sincerely,
John P. Lehman
Director
Haste Management and
economics Division
cct Liz Cottingham
John Skinner
Fred Lindsey
Bruce weddle
Martha Klttel
Ton Devine-Region IV
JPLEHMAN:gb: WH-565:rmM2106:382-4756:8/14/84
-------
9441.1984(21)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 84
/ J.N 4. A natural gas production company injects methanol into well heads
?l VoTj to keep them from freezing during the winter months. Ihe water/
natural gas/bethanol mixture is piped through a central piping
station where the natural gas is separated from the water/methane 1
mixture. Ihe vateryfeethanol mixture is piped to a lined pond
and finally discharged to a series of percolation ponds. Ihe
discharge to the percolation ponds is regulated under the State
ground-water permit program. Ihe methanol is ignitable; however*
it eventually volatilizes into the atmosphere. Zs the methanol/
water mixture excluded from regulation according to 261.4(b)(5)7
Yes; the mixture is excluded according to 261.4(b) (5). Ihis
exclusion is specifically referenced in section 3001(b)(2)(A)
of BCRA. A report to Congress on the excluded waste is directed
under section 8002 of JOA. v
Source t Dexter Binckley
Research: Bill Rusin
-------
9441.1984(22)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
JULY 84
7. A dwn of listed wastes is dutped into an co-site wastewater
treatment facility at a laboratory operation. Is this covered
by the lab exclusion in S261.3(a)(iv)(E)7
This activity is not covered in the lab exclusion. $261.3(a)
(iv)(E) was meant to cover snail anounts of wastes added essentially
unavoidably to large volumes of process wastewater. Exanples
include Laboratory spills washed into a sink drain, and residues
from the washing of glassware which are carried in the washwater
into the sewer.
Sources Alan Ooraon
Research: Ton Gainer
-------
9441.1984(23}
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 84
23(?H'N) 3* Smelter slag waste buried around 1900 is currently being exzavated.
^ Is this waste ejcluded under 261.4(b) (4)7 •
The eclusion in $261.4(b)(4) covers boiler slag (solten
bottom ash) but does not cover saelter slag, de snelter
slag would probably fall under the mining exclusion
($261.4(b)(7)) as the processing of ores and minerals.
Source t John Beffelfinger
Research i lorn Gainer
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
SE? 6 iSc-1
9441.1984(24)
.Mr. Harold Nash
Vice President
Environmental Technology, Inc.
Ashland, Virginia
O»»iC£ Of
SOdO WASTE AND IMEHGINCY MS'QNSC
Dear Mr. Nash:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to our telephone
conversation of September 4, 1984 and the delisting petition
submitted.for Rappahannock Wire, Inc. Fredericksburg, Virginia.
The petition addresses the waste generated from zinc phosphating
on carbon steel and requests an exclusion from EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006 (vastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations).
•
There are several processes which are exempt from the F006
listing, one of which is zinc placing (segregated basis) on
carbon steel. Since the Agency's current definition of
electroplating includes phosphating processes, che exemption
for zinc plating on carbon steel also applies to zinc phosphating
on carbon steel. As indicated in the petition, Rappahanock
Wire's waste is*generated from a zinc phosphating operation
which soley involves carbon steel as che base metal.
Furthermore, you indicated chat che phosphating process is
not used with any ocher process which could generace a
hazardous waste, and che wastestream from chis process is noc
comingled wich any ocher hazardous wasce. Therefore you
characcerize Rappahanock Wire's process as segregated. If'this
representation of Rappahanock Wire's zinc phosphacing process
is aceurace. che Agency considers che wasce co be exempt from
EPA's F006 Hazardous Waste liscing and therefore noc a
lisced hazardous wasce under che Federal Hazardous Wasce
Management Syscem.
As a resulc of chis decermination no furcher action
will be caken on che deliscing petition received on August 29,1984.
The phosphacing wasce may be handled as a non-hazardous
wasce providing chac che generacor has fulfilled che
requiremenc of cescing che wasce for che four characteristics,
(ignicabilicy, corrosivity, reactivity, and EP Toxicity),
idencified under S261.20 of che RCRA regulations. Wich
regard co chis last poinc ic should be noced chac -sample
number 4-3187 in che petition failed che EP Toxicity Limit
for cadmium and therefore che wasce represenced by chis
sample would be considered hazardous by che EP Toxicicy
characteristic. Rappahanock Wire is required co handle all
wasce chac fails any characceriscic as a hazardous wasce.
The wasce may be recreated and if ic no longer exhibits che
characceriscic ic may then be handled as a non-hazardous wasce.
-------
-2-
Due Co che variabilicy of heavy mecal mobility exhibiced
.by Rappahanock Wire's wasce (as revealed by che EP Toxicicy
data in che pecicion), che Agency is very concerned abouc
che pocencial fercilizer use option cited in the petition.
Due to the ability of this waste to leach high concentrations
of cadmium, che Agency cannoc recomaend che use of chis
waste in the production of fertilizers. This potencial
problem has been noted by this office and we have informed
boch che EPA Region III Office and che Virginia Deparcaenc
of Health/Division of solid and Hazardous Wasce Management
of chis sicuacion.
If you have any quescions regarding chis letter do noc
hesicace co call me ac (202)-382-4782.
*
Sincerly,
MyleS E. Morse .
Envirnmencal Proceccion Specialise
Wasce Idencificacion Branch
Office of Solid Wasce
cc: Sam Rocenberg
OSW/SPA Region III
William Gilley
Solid & Hazardous Wasce
Virginia Depc. of Healch
-------
9441.1984(25)
S8>
Node
No!)el & Associates, Inc.
Westmoreland Building
nlfl orchard Moad
S'
-------
Although the unregulated residues in enpty containers is
still of concern, at present EPA resources are being employed
for othor, higher priority, projects, if you have any other
questions on the Agency position regarding possible future
regulation of residue from empty containers, please let me know,
Sincerely yours,
Alan S. Corson
Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
-------
Noble S Associates InC Environmental Consultant!
Westmoreland Building
Old Orchard Road
Skotie, Illinois 60077
(312) 677-8410
August 20, 1984
Alan Corson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Rinsate from Empty Containers
•
Dear Alan,
Further to our recent telephone conversations, I would like
to formally request an opinion on the subject of rinsate
from empty containers.
As you know 40CFR261.7, establishes an exemption for
"Residues of Hazardous Hastes in Empty Containers.*
However, the August 18, 1982, preamble to this regula-
tion created an expectation that we might in the near
future see some new regulation which would control these
residues after removal from the container.
If I understand you correctly, the current view is that
these residues (from empty containers) are thought to
be less of a problem than was supposed at the time the
preamble was drafted and that EPA does not propose to
regulate them.
I would very much appreciate a confirmation of the current
EPA position on this subject.
Your
Jorge Noble,
Copy to: Mark Wright
Steve Rubin
-------
9441.1984(26)
Mr. williaa M. Parker III m \ |
Akzo Cnemie Anerica ^
300 South wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Dear Mr. Parkers
X aa responding to your request for a written confirmation
of the interpretation that, tne RCRA/Superfund Hotline gave you.
According to 40 CFR 5261.7(b) (1), containers that h«ld ccra^ercial
chemical products from 40 CPR S261.33(f) are eapty when they
have oeen emptied using the practice commonly ueed to remove
materials and no nore then one inch of residue remains on the
ootton of the container* or no more than 3 .percent of the weight
of the container's capacity remains if.the container is 110- •
gallons or less in size. . " ~
Tnus, pouring out the contents from a bag* then shaking
and tapping the .outside of bags containing solid maleic anhydride
(U147) or solid phthalic anhydride (U190) is'a common emptying
practice. This practice would likely result in empty containers
neetin$ the definition cited above* These 'empty containers* are
not suoject to Federal RCRA regulation.
of course, the 44 States and territories that have instituted.
nazardous waste programs that operate in lieu of RCRA may have. • '.
slightly different viewpoints on this issue. You should be
familiar with regulatory standards of any States you deal with.
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline (800/424-9346) can send you a
list of tne State hazardous waste agency addresses and phone
numbers if you need it* .: : * -. .•*'."• :
I am glad to be able to confirm the Hotline's assessment
of your emptying practices. Let.me know 1C I can be of any
future assistance. • •
_•
Sincerely yours*
Alan S. Corson
Chief '
Studies and Methods Branch
-------
9441.1984(27)
Mr. Don Stanley
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Route 1, Box 7 ' *
Harrisyille, VW 26362 ;
Dear Mr. Stanley: -
This will confirm our telephone conversation of August 20,.
1984, regarding the RCRA regulatory status of dibutyltin difluoride
You wanted to know ajbout protective clothing contaninated- with '
the raw product and baghouse dust collecting unused product.
V ' . . ' ' • ..•..-.':
Dibutyltin difluoride is not a listed RCRA waste. It'ls .'.
the generator's responsibility to test or apply knowledge of .-;-
the material in order to determine whether, as a waste, it -
exhibits any of the 40 CPR Part 261 Subpart C characteristics.
The Material Data Safety sheet and the Ohio EPA analysis of *
product appear to confirm your decision that a waste contaminated.
with dibutyltin difluoride would not be a hazardous waste oh
the basis of the dibutyltin difluoride. '..' .
' ":>•• • - •'..'•
Of course, the 44 States and territories-that have instituted
hazardous waste prograas that operate in lieu of RCRA may have
a different viewpoint, especially in view of the TLV. In any
case, you. and your-customer should be aware of the regulatory
standards of any States.you deal with. The RCRA/Superfund
Hotline (800/424-9346).can.send you a list of the state hazardous
waste agency addresses .and phone numbers if you* need -it.
" **•.*. *«i •**•*!• • ."-••
Sincerely yours.
Alan s. Corson-
' • > » Chief
Studies-and Methods- Branch
-------
9441.1984(28)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 84
2. Is ts«» disposal of off-$pfcincat1or,, u»H?to«»*t««» e
1n oil exploration (Ov«rnc4 by trie exclusion In J»art 2C-l.t(a)(i»)?
ftol
are net uniquely associate with *x;> I oration.
fore. d1«i»o\«l or thes« tfjplosives 1s * r*yuljtzd activity.
Source: f sr.ny.
9«s«t«rcn: Too Gainer
-------
9441.1984(29)
SEP 2 4 sea
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: -Zinc Platinc (seareuated basis) on Carbon Steel ."
•••
FROMr: Matthew A.~* Straus, :Cnief.
Waste Identification'Branch. (MH-562B
TO: Michael Sanderson,'Chief
Air and Hazardous\Waste Compliance Branch
Air and Hazardous-Materials .Division'.» J:-'l
EPA Region VII
• * * • ' '
. •' ' •' • • '••:'
'. * ' >•'• •
. Ttxis is written in response to your September 18 f~ 1984-
request for clarification regarding'sine'plating* (segregated
basis).on carbon steel.
- *» • -.- ~ *!..».•*
•-" - With respect to electroplating operations, trastevat'er'-->
treataent sludges generated from zinc plating on .carbon steel
are considered non-hazardous only when the waste'stream - '"
froa this operation is maintained and'treated separately
(segregated) froa other hazardous waste"streams'generated at a
facility. In many cases,- however,"zinc plating is often
followed by chemical conversion coating* which includes. •
coloring* chromating* and immersion coating* as well ss;
other plating operations. Chemical conversion-coating 4,
is defined in EPA's listing background document as a component
of electroplating and therefore, the wastewater treatment '
sludges generated from this operation would be considered
hazardous. If the wastewater from a zinc plating line. .-
is combined with wastewaters from other electroplating "
operations, the resultant vastewater'treatment,, sludge ;
would be considered hazardous.-
• «
/ Therefore, wastewater treatment.sludges generated from '
zinc plating operations, where-the zinc waste stream .is
combined with other'hazardous waste streams, are considered '
EPA Hazardous waste.No. F006 and subject'to regulation under
40 CFR 262-266. -If you txave "any. further questions on this , -
matter, please do not'hesitate-to contact Mr..William Sproat
,of my staff 'at FTS 482-4783. ;,. •: -
-------
3441.1984(30)
22 OCT 1984
Dr. A. R. Tarrer
Auburn University
Pepartr'ent of Chemical Enctineerino
230 POSR Hall
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-3501
Denr Pr. Tarrer:
This is in response to your letter of September 20, 198*, in
which you requested a clarification of the Environmental Protection
Apency's (EPA) policy for distincuishino legitimate from "sham"
rncyclino. In qeneral, burning a hazardous waste with little or
no energy value does not constitute legitimate r*cvclinrr, even if
the waste has been blended with a hinh-BTU material (e.n., used
oil or fuel oil) that'rakes the mixture a marketable fuel. (See
the Federal P»rtster notice of March 16, 1983» 48 FT 11158 and
the ouidance memorandums of February 28, 1984, and %Tuly 5, 1904,
enclosed.]
Phile the enclosed guidance documents pertain to harardous
wastes hurn*d as Iccitimat* fuels, the same principles apply to
u>«ed oil. The main issue is whether the used oil became con-
taminated with hazardous constituents as listed in 40 CFP 2«1,
Appendix VITT, throuoh normal us* or throuoh purposeful mixing
with hazardous wastes. As you probably know, used oil can
pickun small amounts of chlorinated material* from various sources.
For example, leaded casoline contains chlorinated additives
("scavengers") that are deposited in crankcase oil. Also, used
oil from vessels can easily pickup chlorine from salt water that
may enter the enqine room, etc. In fact, a recent study by-my
office found that S68 of 540 samples of used oil contained some
amount of chlorine* In general, if the used oil acquires the*e
contaminants throuah normal uso it is not a harardous waste and
the enforcement policy does not apply, while if it acquires the
contaminants throuah mixino it is a hazardous waste and the en-
forcement policy doe's apply. . In practice, whether used oil is
subject to the enforcement policy depends on how much information
is available to the enforcing aoency rocardino the oricin of the
oil.
-------
We nro in the process of developing a number of regulations
which will set standards for the managenant of used oil, and of
hazardous wastes used as fuels. The first of these regulations,
the Wastfe-as-ruela Administrative Standards, is planned to be
proposed in January 1985. These standards will, in addition to
a number of other requ-lrenents, set a specification for used oil
that will clearly distinguish between used oil used' as a fuol and
hazardous waste uned as a fuel, tee have recognize* that an effi-
cient moans *>ust be established to distinguish between used oils
that have picked up incidental, de minimis amounts of chlorinated
material, and used oil that has been grossly adulterated with
la rye aircunta of spent solvents. In the proposal, a lirait of 4000
parts per million (0.4%) is the distinguishing criterion. Used.
oil with greater than 4000 p^ total chlorine will be presumed to
have been nixed with spent chlorinated solvents, and, unless a
person can snow no .mixing has occurred, tho material will bo regu-
lated- as hazardous waste (not used oil). Used oil with less than
4000 ppm chlorine will not be presumed to contain hazardous waste.
(However,- if EPA received information that mixing had in fact ,
occurred, wo would retain authority to regulate the'mixture as
hazardous waste.) ' • . •
I hope this explanation will help you clear up your problems
with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. While
our interpretation of our March 1«, 1933, Federal p»rri«t-gi" Notice
regardirr; Appendix A constituents and our intentions regarding tho
une of used oil and hazardous wastes as fuels differs from the
State of Alabama, you should bo aware that States can, under the
aCRA «yste», establish standards more atringent than EPA*. • if you
require further assistance, contact Michael Petruska of my staff
at (202) 382-7917.
.Sincerely yours.
John H. Skinner
Director ' ""
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Enclosures
^
cct Mr. Dan Cooper, ADEM-
*r. Larry Punning, Region TV
Mr. Fred Rraswcll, ADECA
-------
TO 28 I9&
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
SUBJECT: Guidance on Determining When a Hazardous Waste Is a
Legitimate Fuel That May Be Burned for Energy Recovery
in a Boiler or Industrial Furnace
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO Thomas W. Devine
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region IV
This is in response to your January 13 meno requesting guidance
on allowable concentrations of halogenated solvents in waste fuels
'Burned in high-efficiency boilers and rotary kiln incinerators.
This issue is understandably creating some confusion in your
Region and others as well. I believe that clarification of the
following three points can clear up the confusion: (1) the types
of combustion devices that can legitimately recover energyi (2) the
hazardous wastes that are legitimate fuels; and (3) the status of
our efforts to regulate burning in boilers and industrial furnaces.
Legitimate energy recovery can occur only when a legitimate
fuel is burned in a legitimate energy recovery device. The enforce-
ment guidance you referenced (48 PR 11157 (March 16, 1983)) and
the subsequent proposed amendments to the solid waste definition
(48 FR 14507-511 (April 4, 1983)) provide guidance to identify
legitimate energy recovery combustion devices and legitimate fuels.
A legitimate energy recovery device must be a boiler that
recovers usable heat (i.e., not just to preheat combustion air) or
an industrial furnace (e.g., process kiln, smelter, or blast fur-
nace) where the waste replaces other fuels. An incinerator cannot
burn hazardous waste without a RCRA permit.
A hazardous waste is a legitimate fuel if it has substantial
heat value, as generated. A blended hazardous waste is a legitimate
fuel if the mixture has substantial heat value, provided that the
-------
mixture does not contain a hazardous waste that does not have sub-
stantial heat value.The enforcement guidance indicates that a
waste has substantial heat value if it has a heat value of 5,000
to 8,000 BTU/lb, as a rule of thumb. Thus, a hazardous waste with
less than 5,000 BTU/lb heat value as generated is not considered
to be a legitimate fuel, and any waste that is intentionally nixed
with such a low heat value waste is not a legitimate fuel. For
enforcement purposes, if a waste fuel contains high concentrations
(say, >5%) of low heat value hazardous wastes, the Agency would
have good reason to assume that intentional mixing has occurred,
and should request documentation to the contrary from the party
. claiming the exemption. If it can be shown that each hazardous
waste in the mixture has substantial heat value as generated, i.e.,
>5,000 BTU/lb, the waste is a legitimate fuel regardless of the
concentration of low energy constituents (e.g., halogenated compounds
like chlorinated solvents) in each waste or in the blended fuel.
The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate waste
fuels is, at this point, a temporary necessity. We are regulating
the burning of waste fuel in boilers and industrial furnaces under
a two-phased approach. We will propose a rule this summer that
prohibits burning in nonindustrial boilers of any hazardous waste
and used oils that exceed a specification for toxic contaminants.
Marketers and burners of hazardous waste fuels burned in industrial
boilers and furnaces (and utility boilers) would be subject to
notification, transportation, and storage requirements. Marketers
and burners of off-specification used oil fuel would be subject to
notification requirements and an invoice system to track shipments.
Technical controls on burning waste fuels in industrial boilers
and furnaces will be proposed in spring 1985. We are now looking
at regulatory alternatives for these units. When these regulations
are promulgated, we will have controls for burning of hazardous
wastes in these units regardless of purpose (i.e., regardless of
whether the waste is a legitimate fuel burned for energy recovery
or a low energy waste burned for destruction).
If you have comments or questions, please contact Dave Sussman
of our Waste Treatment Branch at 382-7917.
cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I-X
Ginny Steiner, Solid Waste Enforcement
Steve Silverman, Legal Counsel
bcc: Steve Lingle, Waste Treatment Branch
Bob Holloway, Waste-Treatment Branch
Dave Sussman* Waste Treatment Branch
-------
tJHITED
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: K001 sludge Use as a Boiler Fuel
<**• 5 /984
FROM: John H. Skinner
Director, Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Thomas w., Devine
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
EPA Region IV
This is in response to your memo of June 5, 1984, concerning
whether K001 sludge qualifies as a legitimate fuel. A number of
wood preservers around the country are routinely burning K001
sludge along with wood waste in their process steam boilers. K001
sludge contains a number of constituents, some of which (such as
pencachlorophenol) have little or no heat value. Others may
have high heat value, bringing the average BTU of the sludge to a
level that would constitute legitimate recycling, i.e., approximately
5000 BTU per pound. In order to make the determination as to
whether burning a specific K001 sludge is legitimate recycling, it
must be determined that the sludge has not been mixed with high
BTU wastes to upgrade its heat value in order to circumvent the
policy set forth in the March 16, 1983, Federal Register, page
1115b, second paragraph.
As you know, we are developing standards to regulate the
burning of hazardous wastes in industrial' boilers and industrial
process furnaces. When those standards are in place, we will
regulate the burning of hazardous waste in these devices regardless
of purpose, i.e., energy recovery or destruction. The performance
requirements will be basically the same as for hazardous waste
incinerators under 40 CFR 264.343. At that time, the policy
stated in the March 16, 1983, Federal Register will become moot as
burning for "energy recovery" or "beneficial usage" will no longer
be the issue.
When these regulations are in place, burning K001 sludge in a
wood fired boiler that generates process steam will require a
RCRA permit and probably a trial burn. However, should we decide
to change the listing of K001 to include the dioxins and require
•special management standards" as we have proposed for the F020
-------
to 025 series of wastes, we would probably not allow combustion of
this waste in a boiler. Until all these regulations are in place
you must use the guidance in the March 16, 1983, and February 28, .
1984, policy documents to determine whether this specific K001
waste is a legitimate fuel. Me aimply do not have adequate data
to declare all 1001 waste non-legitimate fuel and require the
owners of these boilers to obtain RCRA incinerator permits.
Furthermore, we know that thia practice will fall under a different
regulatory program in the future and thus, such a declsration is
not appropriate.
Our advice in this situation is to inform the Langdale
Company and the other /wood preservers thatt
(1) The current regulatory exclusion for burning hasardous
waste in energy recovery facilities is grsnted only for
legitimate recycling (cite guidance) and that it is their
responsibility to have appropriate documentation of BTU
values of their KO01 sludge and to demonstrate that high
BTU wastes have not been blended into the KOO1 sludge to
increase heat value.
(2) The burning of K001 sludge as a fuel in industrial
process steam boilers will be regulated under a forth-
coming IPA rule end that they will likely be required to
obtain a RCRA permit when that rule becomes effective.
(3) In addition* they will probably have to meet performance
atandards similar to haiardous waste incinerators and
probably perform a trial burn.
(4) We still have the authority to regulate this activity
under Subpart O, if appropriate. The deciaion of uaing
this course of action will be clarified with the new
•definition of solid waste* to be promulgated this fall*
(S) There is a possibility of changing the K001 listing to
include dioxin and the possibility of •special management
standards* that may preclude the burning of the waste in
boilers if the performance necessary to protect public
health oannot be assured in these devices*
(6) The storage of these wsstes prior to burning is
subject to full regulation for storage over to days.
(7) The residue from burning these listed wastes is also
presently regulated under Subtitle C and requires disposal
in a Subtitle C facility or must be delisted. Likewise»
characteristic waste residue must be disposed in a Subtitle
C facility unless it no longer meets ins criteria in
40 CFR 261.21 through 261.24.
-------
r«r «0re-information on the vaste-as-fuels regulatory approach,
please contaTt S£id B. Sus.man, Manager, Wast. Combustion Program
(FTS 382-7927).
cct Regional Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-III and V-X
-------
9441.1984(31)
OCT251984
Tom Carlisle
Division of Solid and Hazardous
waste Management
State of Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049
Dear Mr. Carlisle:
This letter, responds to your inquiry of October 5, 1984*
regarding further clarification of the Federal Register notice
pertaining to lime-stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge (LSWPLS)
from the iron and steel industry (June 5, 1984).
Each point raised in your letter and our responses are
outlined below, please keep in mind, however* that the Porcelain
Enamel Institute has filed a petition for review against the*
Agency (August 24, 1984) regarding our interpretation of the
spent pickle liquor listing.
1) Although the June 5 exclusion applies only to iron and steel
industries (SIC codes 331 and 332), Mid-West Fabricating Company
(SIC code 3714) received notice from EPA that the exclusion
applies to LSWPLS generated at their facility.
' The Agency is aware that due to computer error a few
facilities listed in the June 5 notice are not actually in
the iron and steel industry. At this time, we are working
to Identify these facilities and to determine a course of
action. At a minimum, we would expect to notify them in
writing of the error and inform them that their LSWPLS is
not excluded by our decision on June 5, 1984.
2) How does EPA interpret the term "moot* as it pertains to
delisting petition^ submitted to-exclude LSWPLS generated
from the iron and steel industryI
•
EPA used this term in stating that site-specific delisting
petitions submitted by the iron and steel industry (to
exclude LSWPLS) no longer require Agency action since the
June 5 final rule automatically excludes these waste from
regulation (effective December 5, 1984). Administrative
procedures dictate that comments are not solicited when
rules are promulgated in final form.
-------
3) Data from dolistirxj petitions submitted by the iron and nteel
industry, as cited in the June 5 notice include at least four
facilities from industry categories other than iron and steel
(duanox Faoricating, Olin Corporation and Union Carbide). HOW
can this data bo used to support A rulemaking for the iron and
steel in«1t:atry, and aro these petitions also considered noot by
the ruleaaking?
•
Data £ro~i the Hazardous VJasto 0*ta Managonent System
indicates that Union-Carbide (Ohio)- SIC codes 331S, 3471,
3436, 3393; Olin Corporation (Conn.)- SIC codeii 331*, 3351,
3355; and Ouanex Corporation (Michigan)- SIC code 3317 aro
within the iron and steal industry or have proceasen that
generate «pont picklo liquor and are in the SIC codes (i.n.
331 and 332) covered by the exclusion, since EPA data
conflicts with your data, I suggest soneone from your staff
contact Jac.-uoline Sales, of -ny staff, at (202) 392-4770 to
furtner discuss this matter.
•
4) You state that although fifty percent of porcelain enamelers
have notified as* generating K0«2, this does not indicate general
knowledge of the broad applicability of tho listing since oany
of those notifiers are "protective filers.* You further state
that the spent pickle li-juor listing should have been listed
generically under 5261.31 if it was intended to apply to
industries otner than iron and steal.
•
Tho Agency has always interpreted the listing to include spent
picklo liquor generated from all steel finishing industries
regardless of industry category. This is the plain sense
of the X062 listing, which applies to wastes from steel .
finishing operations. As a matter of fact, we have taken
action on several delisting petitions for industries other
than iron and steel. At this tine* however, we believe it
prudent not to elaborate further on this issue until we
have litigated the suit filed by the Porcelain Enamel
Institute.
5) It is not clear what portion of the waste stroara has been
excluded fro* regulation (i.e., does tho exclusion apply to both
tho supernatant and sludge, or to the waste pickle liquor at
the nonent it is lime stabilized).
The exclusion applies only to the sludge firoa li-no troatnent
of waste pickle liquor. AS a practical matter, 'this means
that the sludge is considered non-hatardous and may be
disposed of in a Subtitle 0 or Municipal landfill. However,
the supernatant frori the troatnent of this waste reaains a
hazardous waste, unless delistod. Therefore, the exclusion
doos not apply to the entire waste streart.
-------
-3-
X trust that this letter adequately addresses your concerns,
Should you have questions or require additional information,
please call Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely yours,
;*/
Eileen K. Claussen
Director "
Characterization and Assessment Division
(WH-562B) -
-------
9441.1984(32)
NCV .7 1984
N.
Mr. Stephen S. Odojewski j-
waste Resource Associates, Inc. 3
2576 Seneca Avenue n
Niagara Palls, (lew York 14305 ^
01
Dear Mr. Odoiewski: n
3
This letter reponds to your September 18, 1984 request for £
clarification of the RCRA regulations that apply to wastes that are *,
only hazardous on the basis of a characteristic. ' . \
u*
If a waste th-at is hazardous because of a characteristic is not ^
a listed waste, then 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(1) says it is not a hazardous 1
waste when it no longer meets that characteristic. Your under- "•?
standing of 40 CFR 261.3(0(2) and 261.3(d)(l) is correct in saying c
that this treated waste residue is no longer hazardous when it no ^
longer is hazardous by characteristic. The treatment itself may or 7
may not require a RCRA facility permit, depending on if the treatment «p
is subject to regulation. Exceptions to treatment can generally x
be found in S264.1(g). *
On the other hand, some wastes are listed solely because of a "Z.
characteristic, such as F003 (ignitables). In this case the waste is £.
no longer hazardous when it is mixed with solid waste and the mixture
does not exhibit any characteristic according to $261.3(a)(2)(iii). =
On the other hand, if a waste like F003 is not mixed with solid >
waste during treatment, 40 CFR 261.3(0(2) and 261.3(d)(2) says the Q
treatment residue remains a listed waste until the waste has been >
excluded under SS260.20 and 260.22. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.22(c) £
requires a "delisting" petition to demonstrate that the waste no ^
longer meets the characteristic criteria. ~
9>
I do want to point out that all but 7 States and 3 territories
have programs that operate in lieu of the Federal RCRA program —
and 8 of these programs have received full authorization. When a
State has been granted authority to operate the RCRA program, you
are subject to the $tato regulations which nay have a slightly
different viewpoint. The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 600*424-9346
78611 AON
-------
can send you a copy of the State hazardous waste agency addresses
and phone numbers if you need it.
' In most cases, characteristic wastes would no longer be a RCRA
hazardous waste when they no longer exhibit the characteristic, except
as previously mentioned. Please do not hesitate to contact me
again if I nay be of further assistance.
Sincerely,•
Alan S. Corson
Chief '
Studies and Methods Branch
-------
9441.1984(33)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARIES
NOVEMBER 84
2. Solid wastes that result frcn the extraction, beneficiatlon, ana process in,
of ares and minerals (including coal) are excluded from the RCRA regulations
per S261.4(b)(7). Solvents are often used to clean the equipment used for
such extraction, benef iciation, and processing. Are these cleaning solvents
also exempted per $261.4(b)(7) or are they RCRA hazardous wastes?
The S26l.4(b)(7) exenption is for wastes which are generated in direct
association with the extraction* benef iciation, and processing of ores
and minerals. The cleaning of equipment with solvents is not directly
associated with these processes. Therefore* solvents used in cleaning
the machinery would be RCRA hatarrtcus wastes if they are listed or meet
a S261 Subpart C characteristic.
Sourcei Alan Carson (382-4770)
Research: Hilary Somer
-------
9441.1984(34)
JUSTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A
* ^ IU I I If ILJt
DATE:
JCCT
UNI
28 NOV 1984
Empty Container Rule
John R. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
T0 Karl J. Klepitsch, Jr., Chief
Waste Management Branch
This is in response to your October 24, 1964, memorandum
in which you requested a clarification of the Headquarters
position on emptying tank cars. Let me reiterate the position
Alan Corson took during his conversation with Gary Victorine
and relate it to the information included in your memorandum.
At that time, Gary did not emphasize that the tank cars had
bottom valves.
Alan told Gary that if only top unloading is available, the -
tank car is empty only if as much has been removed as possible
and no more than an inch or no more than 0.3% of the total capacity
- (weight) remains. However, the Agency expects bottom valves to
be used, when present, if they provide maximum removal of waste.
Likewise, a 55-gallon drum should be emptied as completely
as possible. If pouring from an inverted drum removes more
residual than a hand pump does, then pouring is obligatory. Of
course, removal must be performed to achieve maximum possible
removal, not just to the one-inch level or 0.3% capacity, in order
to produce an empty container according to 40 CPR S261.7(b) (1).
40 CPR S261.7(b)(l)(i) states in parts "All wastes have
been removed that can be removed using the practices commonly
employed ..., e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating....* The
August 18, 1982, preamble says that one inch of waste can be left
in an empty container only if it remains after performing normal
removal operations. Taken together, these citations support the
interpretation that all commonly employed emptying methods
have to be employed to empty a container. •Commonly employed*
refers to the normal practice of industry, not to what a given
person does. Thus, containers that have not been subjected to
all commonly employed methods of emptying are still subject to
regulation.
If you have any further questions on this issue, please do not
hesitate to contact Alan Corson of my staff at PTS-382-4770.
ccs Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions X-X
••A
-------
9441.1934(35)
u£w 7 ':rS4 7
V*
o»
KJ
Q9
•»•»,
OB
MKK3RAN3UM 5
H
SUBJECT: November 20cb Meeting vich Texas Department of Water "J
Resources (TDWR) and Texas Mid-Concinental Oil «
and Gas Association (TMOGA) ^
/s/ Jack V. UcGrav ^
FROM: Jack KcGrav -i « . i
Deputy Assistant Adainistrator m
u»
TOt Dick Whit ting ton .- 7^
Regional Administrator. Region VI i
P\w
*»
•• , •' N*
I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with you, Charles M
Nealr, and his associates from TIWR, and the representatives 7
from TMOCA on November 20* Hopefully, our conversaciona g
clarified any confusion that nay have arisen with respect i
to the scope of current regulation of oil/water eaulsions 5
generated by refinery vastewater systeas. In Che way of a ^
follow up to the aeetlng. I thought that it might be useful —
to sunmarize the aain points that were aade. £•
• - - . «
First, with respect to the question of which eaulsions o
are hazardous wastes, the answer is relatively straightforward. o
Slop oil caulsion solids are generated in the first vessel *
where the oil/water emulsion is allowed to stratify. The
caulsion layer that forms is the listed hazardous waste
(K049-Slop oil emulsion solids from petroleum refineries)
independent of the subsequent treatment, storage, reclamation
or disposal steps to be applied to the waste. Consequently,
whether K048 (Dissolved air flotation float) is added to
this mixture ia irrelevant, since the material is already a
listed hazardous waste. On the other hand, the oil reclaimed
in a slop oil or other oil recovery system is a reclaimed
product and is not currently regulated. Consequently,
petroleum refinery production units are not hazardous waste
treatment facilities.
Turning to the subject of regulations applicable to
the on-site management of K049, the oil reclamation process
is presently exempted from regulation with two exceptions.
Efeulsion breaking in surface iapoundmcnts or other earthen
devices would constitute storage of a hazardous waste.
-------
Such unitr"would require * permit since there is no 90 day
exemption for atorage in those unicc. On the other hand,
eaulsion bracking or storage in tanks would b« subject to .
permitting only if storage exceeded 90 days (provided the
requirements of 1262.34 are coaplied with). -
#
C«neratora of K049 also need to be aware that the
ahipoent of oily emulsions off-ait* constitutes crimport
of a hazardous waste, regardleaa of the intended recipient
or their plan*'for the waste. • Furthermore, although it —"
was not an issue at the meeting, any final mixture of ••- \
esulsion and solids that is not reclaimed la regulated as
a hazardous waste.
/ »
.. . Burning to-the off-site recipients'of the emulsion/
they are receiving a hazardous waste* .Therefore, they Are •-,;•
required to notify, complete the manifests, and obtain permits
for storage tanks and any other devices that are'not directly
involved in the reclamation process* However, the reclamation
process is not currently regulated. -Ron-reclaimed emulsion ••:
(even if it is .reclaimable) is a hazardous waste**:
s .
In closing, let me again say that we were pleased_to.
be'of assistance. ,Do not hesicato to concacc'me-'or •<&*•*
Matt Straus of our staff, if you should require further
In ' "'' '' •• *•-
ccs • Regional Administrators I-X.
John Skinner
Matt Straus
Francine Jacoff
Ben Smith <. .
-------
9441.1984(36)
1? 1934
n
O
SUBJECT t RCRA Implications of Treating Gases
Vented Prom Compressed Cylinders
PROM: John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid waste (WH-562B)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
This is in response to your November 28, 1984, memorandum
regarding a facility built to treat fluorine (P056) and other
gases vented from compressed gas cylinders. You are- correct
in your application of the response to the letter to the
Compressed Gas Association from Christopher Capper, dated
November 6, 1981.
According to that letter, customers return cylinders to gas
suppliers for refilling, not for disposal, and no waste is involved
If the gas supplier decides to discard the contents of the returned
cylinders, any liquid or physically solid wastes removed from
the cylinders are ii^h^t; »r> prpi if they are hazardous waste.
0
»
c
Cylinders containing regulated quantities of hazardous waste
would need to be manifested to off-site facilities for treatment,
storage, or disposal. However, the letter goes on to say that
the handlin&-a£- gaseous res-ldues removed from the cylinders and
neutralization or scrubbing of "gases" prior to release are not
subject to RCRA regulation. Any liquid or physically solid
wastes derived from the treatment of hazardous compressed gas
is still subject to RCRA regulations, if it is derived from listed
waste or if the residual Is hazardous under Part 261 Subpart C
(characteristics) .
Therefore, your conclusions are correct. The facility is not
a RCRA treatment facility for any handling of the gases removed
froa the cylinders. Any liquid or solid residues derived from
the cylinders or from treatment of cylinder contents that are
listed in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D or are hazardous under Part 261
Subpart C are subject to Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact Alan Corson or Irene Horner, of my staff, at 382-4770.
cc: Hazardous waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-III and V-X
-------
9441.1984(37)
Management of Precipitation Run-off from Land Treatment Units
John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Hazardous Waste Division Directors,
Regions I-X
INTRODUCTION
In the attached April 10, 1984 memo addressed to David
Wagoner of Region VII, I described OSW's policy on the management
of precipitation run-off from active, inactive, and closed portions
of hazardous waste management units* The April 10 memo focussed
primarily on scenarios applicable to waste piles and landfills.
This memo clarifies some of the important concepts discussed in
the Aoril 10 memo and describes how OSW's policy on management of
run-off applies to hazardous waste land treatment units.
w SUMMARY
^ Under 40 CPR 261.3(c)(2), precipitation run-off is not
- presumed to be a hazardous waste. In contrast, leachate generated
T. from the treatment/ storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste
jjj- is a hazardous waste by definition (5261. 3(c) (2) ). A mixture
2 of precipitation run-off with a listed hazardous waste is a
™ hazardous waste unless the mixture is delisted, and a mixture of
2 precipitation run-off with a characteristic hazardous wast*e is
-------
In all cases, the owner or operator must still collect all
run-off in accordance with the Part 264 and 265 requlations anrt
is still responsible for determining whether the run-off exhibits
any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste defined in Subpart
C'of Part 261.
DISCUSSION
Clarification of April JO memo
My April 10 memo explained the key definitions and concepts
regarding the management of run-off from land-based hazardous
waste treatment, storage/ and disposal units. In understanding
that policy/ it is important to recognize the relationship between
leachate and run-off, and the applicability of the mixture rule
-------
•leachate" broadly refer to any liquid that has made significant
contact with a hazardous waste by draining from it or passing
through it. Although leachate varios in quality, it typically
contains sinnificant levels of solubilized waste constituents.
EPA is particularly concerned about liquid that has passed
downward through the wastes in the waste management unit and
emerges from the bottom or side of the unit.
. •
Under the 'derived from* rule, leachate from a hazardous
waste is defined as a hazardous waste. Leachate derived from a
listed hazardous waste is considered a listed hazardous waste,
and it must be handled as such unless (1) it is delisted pursuant
to 40 CPR 260.20 and 260.22, or (2) in the case of the few
listed wastes listed soley because they failed a characteristic
of Part 261, Subpart C, it no longer neets the characteristic
($261.3 (a)(2) (iii)). Leachate derived from characteristic
wastes is presumed to be a hazardous waste until it is shown
that the leachate does not exhibit any of the characteristics
of a hazardous waste defined in Subpart C of Part 261.
• Mixture of Precipitation Run-off and Leachate
The mixture rule in S261.3(a)(2)(iv) states that a solid
waste is a hazardous waste if it is a mixture of solid waste
and one or more hazardous wastes listed in Subpart D. (Haste
mixtures containing characteristic hazardous wastes art treated
just like any other solid waste, i.e., they will be considered
hazardous only if they meet the characteristics.]
The mixture rule applies to precipitation run-off (and
indeed any other solid, nonhazardous waste or material that
is mixed with a listed hazardous waste). Because leachate
from hazardous waste is named as a hazardous waste under
5261.3 (c)(2), a mixture of precipitation run-off and leachate
is a hazardous waste. The key factor in determining whether
precipitation run-off has mixed with leachate is the unit
desirm. The evaluator must determine if the design allows
leachate to migrate from the bottom or aide of the unit and
mix with precipitation run-off in a common collection facility.
Figure 1 in the appendix to my April 10 nemo illustrates a
typical landfill scenario In which leachate and precipitation
run-off mix. In this scenario, leachate percolates downward
through the waste and then moves laterally along an underlying
intermediate cover. This leac.hate then seeps from the active
face and accumulates in the same areas as the precipitation
run-off from the active area.*
Because of the usual design of landfills and waste piles,
it is highly likely that in the active portions of these units
the run-off and leachate will mix. (An exception would be a
pile or landfill operated under a roof). Because Parts 264 and
265 require collection of the run-off, the collection unit will
-------
likely contain a mixture of procipitation run-off and leachate.
Due to the mixture rule, this run-off will likely be a hazardous
waste.
Because the generation of leachate is minimized in
properly closed portions of these units, it is much less likely
that leachate and run-off will commingle in properly closed
and maintained portions* This run-off, therefore, is usually
not a hazardous waste because it is unlikely that the precipitation
run-off has mixed with leachate.
Policy for Land Treatment Units
My April 10 nemo did not specifically describe how the
Above policy is applied to hazardous waste land treatment units.
However, references to land treatment units were made in the
appendix to the memo. Several of these references need further
clarification, misleading. These references suggested that the
run-off from active and closed portions of these units should be
presumed to be a hazardous waste because the run-off would in most
cases come into contact with surface-applied wastes*
*
The regulations and preamble discussion on run-off from
hazardous waste land treatment units do not specifically address
whether precipitation run-off and leachate will usually mix
in the active or closed portions of these units. To clarify,
the Agency will not initially presume that this mixture will
occur in the active or closed portions of typical land treatment
units. Therefore, run-off from these units will generally not be
considered a hazardous waste (unless it exhibits a characteristic).
The following discussion explains the basis for and possible
exceptions to this general policy.
The same general concepts described above for landfills and
waste piles apply to land treatment units. First, the "derived
from" rule does not apply to precipitation run-off (i.e., unlike
leachate from a hazardous waste, precipitation run-off is not
presumed to be a hazardous waste). Limited contact of precipitation
run-off with the waste on the soil surface does not automatically
render the run-off a hazardous waste. Second, run-off is a
hazardous waste if it (1) exhibits any of the characteristics of
a hazardous waste, or (2) mixes with a listed hazardous waste or
leachate. Third, the most important factor in determining whether
run-off and leachate have mixed is the design of the unit.
The design of land treatment units is fundamentally different
from landfills apd waste piles. Land treatment units rely on
successful treatment rather than physical barriers to prevent
escape of waste components. They are "open systems" in that
they are not required to have liners for containing waste. At a
typical land treatment unit* wastes are treated in the treatment
zone and treated soil pore liquid (or 'leachate")* is then allowed
to move out of the bottom of the unit (see Figure 1 in attachment
-------
2). The absence of restrictive layers in the treatment zone of
a land treatment unit, such as intermediate covers for lifts in
a landfill, limits the lateral movement of "leachate." Also, most
land treatment units are relatively flat, which decreases the
chance for "leachate" seeps out side slopes should any lateral
movement occur. Because of this design, it is unlikely that
"leachate" will move laterally and mix with run-off from active or --"
closed portions of typical land treatment units. Therefore, t.he
run-off from typical land treatment unit! will not be presumed to be
a hazardous waste* The issue of "soil pore liquid" versus "leachate'
(see footnote) does not affect the run-off policy for this cane.
i *
There are certain land treatment unit designs that
may allow the mixing of *leachate" with run-off, and for which the
run-off policy is still unclear. For example, certain units may
be designed to include a liner system that promotes the lateral
movement and commingling of "leachate" and run-off. Figure 2
in attachment 2 illustrates this case. Another example is where
the ground water at least periodically discharges to a run-off
collection ditch or impoundment, e.g., where the run-off collection
ditch or impoundment is constructed below the water table and
downaradient of the facility. In this case, "leachate" and
run-off would mix, as illustrated in Figure 3 of attachment 2.
The run-off policy for these two cases (i.e., figures 2 6 3)* as
well asT&esiqns that may be used to lower the water table (e.g.,
drainage systens), is dependent on the resolution of the leachate/
soil pore liquid issue. When we complete the evaluation of this
issue, additional guidance addressing these cases will be Provided.
petitioners in the Part 264 regulation litigation recently
questioned whether treated soil pore liquid should be considered
•leachate.* It may be arqued, for example* that soil pore licrui*-
should no longer be hazardous alter it is "treated* and eii«r«**
from the bottom.of the treatment «on« «•»* n pro^jtiv *»-*»r«tina land
tr««tf»ent unit-, if such liquid is deemed to be "leachate", any
ground water or other liquid with which the leachate mixes would
also be a hazardous waste. Thus,' any ground water withdrawn to
artificially lover the water table (to comply with.the one meter
separation requirement under $264.271) would have to be managed as
a hazardous waste. OSW is currently'evaluating this issue, and
its ramifications on LT unit designs, particularly in high water
table areas. Additional guidance will be provided on this issue
when this evaluation is completed.
-------
Please contact Ken Shuster, Chief of the Land Disposal
Branch, at FTS 382-3345, or Art Day at 382-4G80 if you have any
questions or additional information is needed.
Attachments
•
cct John Lehman
Eileen Claussen
Bruce v;eddle .
Dov Weitraan
Nancy Hutzel
-------
9441.19 8.5 (01)
H. Lanier Hickaan
Executive Director
GRCDA
P.O. Box 7219
Silver spring, Maryland 10910
Dear Lannyi
In your letter of November €, 198 4^ and our subsequent
•••ting on November 27, 1M4, you requested our interpretation
of the impact of the RCRA regulations on landfill gaa condensete.
This latter reflects our discussion and sumarises our position
on this issue* As you recall, we did review this issue for you
in soeie detail*/and presented our interpretation at your landfill
gas symposium last April*
X think the re-cap of this issue can best be stated by looking
at the several landfill scenarios that can apply — household waste
only, normal municipal waste, undefined (but not listed) hatardous
wasta,41 isted hazardous waste (including any mixtures of other
wastes, and listed hazardous waste). The household waste exclusion
applies through its entire management cycle, from collection
through final disposition including treatment and resultant residues.
Landfill gas condensate derived from a fill that contains household
waste exclusively is net s hazardous waste*
Condensate derived from landfill gas processing from a fill
that contains municipal waste or undefined (not listed) hazardous
waste is a hazardous waste only if it exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of hasardous waste (i.e., ignitabiity, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure toxicity). on the other hand,
eondensate derived from a landfill containing listed waste is always
a hazardous waste, unless specifically excluded in response to a
•delisting* petition. Of course, the other exewption-frow-regulation
provisions still apply —• those for snail quantity generators and
recycling.
This synopsizes the Federal position on whether landfill gas
condensate is hazardous. As you know, RCRA is intended to be
-------
implemented through a State prooran. When a State has been given
authority, its rules apply in lieu of the Federal regulations. You
should, therefore, investigate the State controls in those States
of interest to you. Zf you have any further question* please do
not hesitate to call. Alan Corson (382-4770), or Can Shutter
(382-3345) can answer definitional or land disposal questions,
respectively.
Very truly yours,
John a. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Haste
-------
9441.1985(02)
I
tr
a-
K.
X
»•
0
w
Mr. Hershel Cutler ^
Executive Director *
Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel, Inc. 3
1627 K St., NW £
Washington, DC 20006 ^
Dear Mr. Cutler: £
Your letter dated December 10, 19B4, was referred to my j,
office for response. You expressed concern about the hazards ^
posed by air bags that contain sodium azide, particularly as it =
affects the recovery of ferrous scrap from recycled automobiles. £
The Department of Transportation addressed these issues ^
in a study released July 11, 1984, called Final Regulatory s.
Impact Analysis, Amendment to FMVSS <20R, Passenger Car Pront ^
Seat Occupant Protection that explored many issues related to ~
the use of air bags. A NHTSA staff member provided EPA with a a
copy of the section that discusses sodium azide. Page 111-20 *
of that report explains that the gas generants consist mainly ~
of sodium azide and oxidizers. Page 111-12 explains that upon *
ignition, the solid propellent begins to burn, producing 5
nitrogen gas that inflates the air bag. Based on this -
analysis of the mechanics of air bag deployment, the sodium c
azide containing initiator would not be regulated as a ccrtmercial
chemical product regulated by the hazardous waste regulations
of the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA regulates commercial
chemicals which are pure or technical grade and formulation*
in which the chemical is the sole active ingredient. Air baq
propellant cartridges contain, as active ingredients, both
sodium azide and oxidizers. The gas is generated through the
action of both materials. Thus, the Resource Conservation anrl
Recovery Act would not define the sodium azide in air bag
canisters of obsolete automobile hulks as a listed hazardous
waste.
The Agency has not established de minimi* concentration
levels of toxicants below which wastes listed under $261.33
would cease to be regulated as hazardous wastes. Rather,
exemptions are granted on a case-by-case basis in response to
petitions. Again, the sodium azide that is in air bags would
-------
not be subject to RCRA regulation •• a hazardous waste because
it is not a-sole active ingredient.
' • • 4 * * * * '
EPA i« preparing a new regulation that would regulat*
certain mixtures of cora-nereial chemical product*. Under such
a regulation* it is conceivable that the propel lant cartridges
could be classified as a hazardous waste. However, as we now
envision such a regulation, auto hulks contaminated with either
sodium axide or the propellent cartridges would not be so
classified. In addition, if the air bags are deployed within
the auto, the sodium aside is destroyed and there would be no
question of even the spent canisters alone being considered ' u
subject to regulation. If the canisters were reclaimed, they
would also not be regulated. The only case which may be regulated
would be canisters which are removed and disposed of, which • '.-
appears to be an unlikely scenario at the present time.
The DOT study on sodium axide propellents concluded that
non-deployed inflator modules can be deployed, that an electrical
deployment system is available now, that technical inspections
for non-deployed nodules are available, that a new retrofit
air bag system is easily removed (and should haw reasonably
high salvage value), and that about 0.1 pound of sodium axide
per site would be landfilled each working day. This study
used a conservative estimate for the amount of sodium azide
expected in each car, end CPA does not believe this management
of sodium axide to be a problem at this ttae. Moreover,
EPA understands that auto manufacturers have expressed an
interest in providing incentives for removal and collection of
air bag canisters, which would further reduce the environmental
dispersion of sodium axide.
DOT regulation of deployment of inflator modules and
reclamation of air baj canisters appears to pose no environmental
concerns that EPA jurisdiction should address at this time.
If you have any further questions, please contact Alan Corson
or Irene Homer of my staff at (202) 382-4770 for assistance.
Sincerely yours.
Jack w.
Acting Assistant Adninistrator
bcc: Ruth Bell, OGC
Joyce Dain, TSCA
William Panj, NHTSA
-------
9441 . 198 5(03)
Mr. Vincent J. Tersegno
2749 Delk Road, S.E.
Marietta, Georgia 30067
Dear Mr. Tersegno:
Mr. Mitch Dubensky of the Office of water Regulations
and Standards-forwarded your letter dated December 7, 1494, to
the office of Solid waste since the exclusion you discussed in
40 CPR $261.4(d) applies to hazardous waste regulated by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
As you know, the laboratory waste exclusion insures that
waste samples are not subject to all the hazardous waste regula-
tions while the waste is being handled by the sample collector,
transporter and laboratory for the purposes of waste character-
ization. The amendment specifically avoided using the word
•generator* since the exclusion intended to designate any
person collecting a potentially regulated sample.
The enclosed copy of the September 25, 1981, Federal
Register notice provides further explanatory material in
the preamble. On page 47426, the first full paragraph of the
•iddle column explains that samples are sent for testing to
determine whether or not the waste is hazardous, furthermore,
testing to identify the composition or characteristics of a
sample is not treatment as defined in C260.10(a) as stated in
Section C on page 47428. The first sentence at the top of th«
right column on page 47428 says any laboratory that treats or
stores hazardous wastes prior to disposal must comply with
applicable RCRA regulations since these activities are hot
covered by the exclusion.
The waste is excluded from RCRA regulations as long us it
meets the 5261.4(d) terms. At the site where a waste is produced,
the storage and transportation prior to shipment to a testing
laboratory is not rejulated. The tern "generator" is define-!
in $260.10(a) as the person at a given site whose act or process
produces RCRA hazardous waste or whose act first causes a
hazardous waste to became subject to regulation. Therefore,
in many cases, waste covered by the laboratory exclusion has
had no generator as long as the waste is covered by the
'laboratory exclusion. If the waste is sent back to the site
it cane fron, the waste would be subject to regulation th»n,
and the generator would be at the original site. If the wast*
was kept by the laboratory for disposal, the laboratory is the
-------
generator. If the vast* was sent back to A third party who
collected the vast* for analysis, that collector la generator.
(Of course, sone of thaaa parti* a may be avail quantity generators
subject to §261.5.) Tha aacond aantanea in tha aacond paragraph
of Saction II on paga 47426 of tha praanbla aaya tha sanples
ara shipped from tha ganarator or aanpla collector, but tha
ragulation only rafars to a amp la collactora. Tha ragulation
ia worded appropriataly bacauaa tha sample collector nay not
ba tha parson who ia ultinately considarad to ba tha ganarator
of tha waste. • =
enclosed ia a copy of tha October 30, 19*0, Federal Raqiatar *-
which specifies that several paopla nay qualify aa tha ganarator \
of waste. Although tha apacific examples in Saction III £
on pagaa 72026-7 do not apply diraetly to your inquiry, tha ^
•ultipla dafinition idaa naans that tha tern aanpla collector 3
could ba tha paraon vho owna tha waata or tha paraon who actually v
ramovaa tha waata aliquot for analyaia. No doubt your laboratory ^
haa nada contractual agraananta with your euatonara ragarding *
tha diapoaition of aanplaa that apacifiaa ra turn ing waata to \
tha aita it caiaa frost* in which caaa aanpla eollactor rafara *j*
to tha company that paid you to taka allquota of waata) for than* M
• . ••• . •'•'. - ....-•- . • _ y
A* you can aaa, tha praamblaa and Agancy axplanatlona •
acnetittaa clarify tha intant and covaraga of tha ragulations, v.
Tha Offica of Solid Waata and Emergency Raaponaa aponaora tha *
RCRA/Suparfund lotlina which can ana war many of thaaa kinda of ^
quaationa toll fraa on a routina basis at 800-424-9346. Of x.
coursa, «any Statas hava authorittd haxardoui wattt programs 2.
which hava takan tha placa of tha RCRA program* Statas «ay hava •
nor a atringant raquiranants, ao you should confar with than ^
ragarding spacific Stata raquiranants* Tha Hotlina can provida =
you with a list of tha Stata Agancy contacts* 5
•
If you hava any othar questions about this issua, plaase »
do not haa it ate to contact me at (202) 392-4404.
Sincerely yours,
Irene S. Homer
Environmental Protection Specialist
Studies anrt Methods Branch
Enclosures
-------
9441.1985(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 84
A treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) has agreed to accept "empty
containers" per 5261.7. Upon receiving Che containers (55 gallon drums), the
TSDF found that although the containers held less than one inch, the containers
could be and were emptied further by inverting the container and pouring out
additional hazardous waste. According to S261.7(b)(l)(i), a container that
has held hazardous waste is empty if all wastes have been removed that can be
removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from that
type of container/ e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating. If the TSDF further
empties the container by pouring, was the container "empty" when received even
though it held under one inch of material?
No; the container was not empty. Preamble language to the August 18, 1982
Federal Register (47 fjl 36093) states that "it should be clear that one
inch of waste material is an overriding constraint and may remain in an
empty container only if it cannot be removed by normal means.* This
indicates that a container must be emptied by pouring, pumping, and
aspirating. Then, if the container holds less than one inch, the container
is empty per $261.7.
fli/if/.OW CfS)
Source: Alan Corson (202) 382-4776 ^ ' '
Research: Bill Rusin
-------
9441.1985(05)
2
T
a
-. .-<*«&;..»..,..-•_
i ^\ i A»' 1 t-lTl S -*^ ^3 •" £» »
SUBJECT: Applicability of RCRA Subtitle C to the £
T»l«d7n* Vah Chang Albany Facility -- c
. • ••
PROni . John H. 6Jcinn.tr, Director . 7
Office of Solid Waite (HH-562) ^
TO; Charles F. Fiodley, Director
Air and Vaatt Hanagenent Division, Region 10
On August 8, 1*84, you requested that the Part B application -
submitted by Teledyne Vah Chang Albany (TWCA) be reviewed to
determine whether the treatment of certain waste* at the facility r:
is subject to the re quire e»nts of Subtitle C of RCRA. TWCA's =
Part • application has been reviewed by the MITRE Corporation £
(report attached) to assist in the clarification and resolution _
of two issues t . •>".•••-. .- v. : 1:
' • Whether the hazardous wastes produced by f«CA • --•: t
and burned in the saokehouse facility and - «-. K
crucible burn pots are exenpt fro* BCRA by
the aiininq waste exclusion in Section 3001(b)
(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
• Whether the combustion processes used by
TWCA constitute incineration, or thermal
treatment other than incineration, as
defined in 40 CFR 260.10.
I. APPLICABILITY OF MIHI!TG WASTE CXCLUSIOM
A. Introduction
TWCA enqaqes in the iximary production of zirconium,
hafnium, and titanium. Production of these netals consists of:
-------
- - a - - .-•
1) Preparatory »*epj to transform the metals into
a form that can be reduced." I/ .
2) deduction and distillation steps to product'
a vireonlom, hafnium, or titanium aponge. '
3) Crushing, blending, alloying, a r\d melting of
the sponge to form an ingot.
....'..*•..>..' . • & C- t-.
4) Fabrication and finishing a taps.
a .* . , .x fe» > • . • -* • . .,.•..!»„.•
Por each of the three metals, the following waste streams
ere generated by the reduction and distillation atepa used to
produce the lirconium, hafnium, or titanium sponger and, therefore,
are uniquely associated with the processing of these aetalss
1> Crucible jolting ring Material* •- • -,- — -
^«..-t 1) Crwelble dusip station Mlt»*
• » » » ..i ^ f* -^** ^ • ^ •% ^" i • * •
5 - .— -- — - >.«».t« i W-
ftognesiim chloride salt vortiagt, and ^ - •
»«— "f .-l2t.:-.'i. af Cr<;.t9-,=;r..- ... f ^ . ,. .. . . ^ -- - -
4> NagnesittB chloride salt and rntal.
C. '.}''".• W \ ' • ' ' - '
LC? -» fifth waste streaa^eponoe handling salt, is generated
during the production of an ingot froa the sirconiun, hafnium,
or titaniua sponqe. Ingot production involves breaking op and
crushing the sponge*. blending crushed sponge Material froa
dif fit rent production runs, adding alloys, and aelting the
•ixture to for* an ingot. The sponge handling salt is generated
by the breaking and crushing steps. TUCA sose tines purchases
tltanitm ecrapto for* ingots as veil. The five wastes fron
the *bove processes are treated in the saolce house facility.
tixs J»-=w*. ?*r~, . -••• •«. . • •
lrtv< " Additional wastes are generated during the fabrication and
finishing steps. They are treated in the crucible burn pots.
• • » »«r:
B. Regulatory Status of Waste Streams
IT Hastes Treated in Smokehouse Facility
The reduction and distillation processes used to produce
the sirconiuB, hafnium, and titanium sponges are essential to
the separation of these metals from the ores and minerals in
I/ In the past, rather than performing this step on titanium
ore Itself, TWCA has purchased titanium chloride. This
does not affect our analysis of the status of the wastes
generated by processing titaniua chloride in the subsequent
three steps.
-------
- 3 >
jfa T-hey occur. Therefore, the four wastes streams listtd
yfcore which an generated by these processed are excluded from
'regulation under Subtitle £ of RCKA.
The'format ion of sirconiom, hafnium, and titanium *
ingots from sponge material or scrap (in the can of titanium)
does not constitute 'extraction, beneficiation, or processing
of an ore or mineral* because tbe metal has already been.separated
fron the or* or mineral before this step. In otter words, -the
feedstock for tbe ingot formation process is neither aa on aor
a mineral. Therefore, the sponge handling salts generated by
ingot formation art not axcluded from regulation under Subtitle
C of RCRA.
• • . "' -- '- ••;-.<
2. Wastes Treated in Crucible Burn Pots
• :•'• • •;'•-• ..•..'.
The waste streams treated In the crucible burn pots are
generated by tbe fabrication and consolidation of sirconium,
hafnium, titanium, niobium, tantalum, and vanadium. Tbese
processes simply snaps the metal after it has been extracted
from tbe ore or mineral? they do not constitute •extraction, .
beneficiation, or processing of an ore or mineral.* Therefore,
the fin*s, turnings or chips, floor sweepings, grinder sludge*
and other wastes generated by these processes* do not qualifty
Sor.the mining waste exclusion*
'.._„_».•..».• •• »
....-.„ - - ..»-.-'..-•' -
• IX» APPLICABILITY OF RCRA IHCINERATOR REGULATIONS % .
We conclude that both the smokehouse facility and crucible
burn pots are incinerators under the definition in 40 CFR
260.10. Both are enclosed devices and use crude forms of
controlled flan* combustion to break down waste. Therefore,
tbe RCRA permit for TWCA should regulate these eonbustion
devices as incinerators.
»
Attachment
-------
9441 . 1985( 06)
CO
3
ifl
FEB I 3 1985
Mr. H. Bzura »
Madison Xndusries, Inc.
P.O. Box 175
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857
Dear Mr. Bzurai
This letter is response to our telephone conversation on
January 24 and your letter dated January 25, 1985 regarding
the regulatory status of the baghouse flue dust and zinc-oxide
sludge which you are considering recycling at your plant, in
addition, you also requested confirmation of the effective
date for various provisions dealing with use/reuse in the
definition of solid waste rulemaking. In particular/ you
indicated that you are interested in purchasing baghouse flu*
dust from manufacturers of brass as well as a sine oxide sludge
generated from air pollution control equipment* These secondary
materials as veil as hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid will
be mixed and pumped into a reactor where either zinc chloride
or xinc sulfate will be produced. These solutions are then
purified. You further indicated that no reclamation is
carried-out as part of the operation, but rather these
materials are used as a raw material in the manufacture of
zinc chemicals. ...-.-
Based on this description, you are correct that the
baghouse flue dust and zinc oxide sludge are not solid wastes
provided that these secondary materials are not accumulated
speculatively (as defined in the January 4, 1985 rule) or at*
not used to produce a product that is placed on the land for
beneficial use^l/ In addition, you are also correct in your
reading of the regulations that the effective date for this
provision of the rulemaking— 'that is, the use/reuse provision—
is December 20, 1984. Please give me a call if I can be of
any further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Strau*
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
I/ It should be noted that even if the zinc were reclaimed,
£ ~~ these secondary materials would not be defined as solid
i
wastes since they are unlisted sludges.
-------
9441. 19 85(07
13 1985
a
00
I
at
so
c
\
L. A. Whittig, Ph.D.
Supelco, Inc.
Bellefonte, PA 16823-0048
Dear Dr. Whittigt
Thank you for your letter of January 21, 1985, and your
further telephone conversation with Dr. Judith Bellin, of my
•taff, on January 21. Aa you itatt in your letter, your
company is a commercial manufacture of capillary columns used
in gas chromatography. As part of quality control considerations*
you Indicated a need to test these columns with a dioxin
standard prior to sale. As a result, you generate a vaste
(primarily activated carbon) containing 700 nanograms of •
mixture of seven tetrachloro dioxin insomers per year. Zn
addition* you also indicated that you generate between 1 to 2
grains of both 2, 4, 6,-tricblorophenol and pentachlorophenol
from similar activities (i.e., production of chromatoqrapoic
columns and analytical standards). Aa a generator of these
wastes, you question.whether these wastes would be covered
under the recently promulgated dioxin regulations published
in the federal Register on January 14 (see attachment).
Upon our review, we believe that these wastes are not
covered by the dioxin rulemaklng since these wastes (as well
as most laboratory wastes) do not result from the manufacturing
processes described in the rule. Therefore, you are not required
to comply with the dioxin rule. However, due to the hazardousness
of these wastes, we would strongly encourage you to manage these
wastes very carefully. They should not be mixed with other
hazardous wastes, since these could contain solubilizing solvents.
Please cive me or Dr. Bellin a call If you have any further
questions. We can be reached at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
c
a
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch (W1-562B)
I
A
ccs Judith S. Bellin
JL
x
-------
9441 . 19C5(08)
X
T
m
9>
KJ
22 1985 |
Placid P*£inlng Oos*>eny 8j
3900 Thanksgiving B»er ff
Dallas, IX 75201 3
This letter is written in response to your February 14 correspondence r
which requests that EPA clarify whether a particular refinery vastewatar £
treatnent sludge is a listed hazardous vasts (KD48). The waste in question ^
is generated by a dissolved sir notation device in use st the Placid Refinery 3
in Port Allen, Louisiana, that is used as pert of the eecondary wastewatar Y
eyetee. to rescve biological solids ffcosi an activated sludge unit.
in
.'.'..• ' - • " ' *••
pi a recent Federal Register notice (see Enclosure), the Agency bss M
maintained that the KD4B and KOS1 listings ware intended only to address K»
oil/sol ids/water separation froa primary treataenL. The word 'secondary* *f
was used in the background document and subsequently in the K048 listing 5
to describe configurations where bo prisscy wastawater treatment svthode o
were used consecutively as cornered to secondary treatment consisting of oT
biological oxidation. The sludge fren this unit is not currently a listed _
us waste because the dissolved air flotation unit at the Placid
Refinery if uaed to renove biological sludge froa ths treated effluent.
Therefore, under the Federal hazardous waste mm>aj>iiiaiit system, this
would be hazardous only if it exhibita one or sore of the hazi
characteristics.
At the sane tine, you should also be aware that EPA is concerned about
secondary sludges fron biological treatnent ot refinery wastewatara.
Consequently, we are currently evaluating these wastes as part of ths
petroleur. refining industry studies to detemine whether they should be
listed as hazardous. Please feel free to give ne a call at (202) 475-8551
if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Hatthew A. Straus, Chief
Mate Identification Branch
Enclosure
-------
9441.1985(09)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 85
2. Drainage from an active coal mine is collected in a large
pond to be treated. The drainage is quite acidic due to the
high concentration of iron sulfides (pyrite) in the coal.
Both bacterial action and rain oxidize the pyrite material
to form sulfuric acid. The coal mine owner has developed a
sodium hydroxide (caustic) feeder system to neutralize the
acid mine drainage prior to discharge. At one point,
however, the feeder system added too much caustic to the
pond. This caused a caustic sludge layer to form on the
bottom of the pond. The pH of the sludge is generally above
12.5. The facility wants to remove the sludge and dispose
of it. Would such removal be considered generation of a
RCRA hazardous waste?
The sludge meets the characteristic of corrosivity
(D002) due to its pH being above 12.5 (§261.22) and its
aqueous, semi-sludge state. A corrosive solid is not a
hazardous waste unless it exhibits another
characteristic or contains a listed waste (see 45 FR
33109, May 19, 1980). Section 261.4(b)(7) excludes
wastes from the "... extraction, beneficiation and
processing of ores and minerals (including coal)..."
Pollution control residues from the treatment of mining
wastes are also exempted. Since the caustic sludge is
a pollution control residue from the treatment of a
mining waste, its generation and management is exempt
from RCRA. Even though the waste is excluded from
regulation, however, it should still be managed
properly.
Source: Meg Silver (202) 382-7709
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1985(10)
Lloyd R. Cress
Greenebaum, Doll and McDonald
1400 Vine Center Toner
P.O. Box 1808
Lexington, Kentucky 40593
Dear Mr. Cress:
In your recent letter of March 19, 1985, you requested
confirmation of an earlier opinion that a distillation
residue containing perchloroethylene and surfactant is not
a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) when discarded. You stated that the unused per-
chloroethylene and surfactant were inadvertently mixed.
Subsequent to that, the material was sent off-site for recovery.
The waste in question is the unreclaimed portion of the
perchloroethylene-surfactant mixture.
In considering your request, we have concluded that the
residue from the recovery of the contaminated perchloroethylene
is a hazardous waste. Your argument that the perchloroethylene
detergent mixture is not covered under the requirements for
commercial chemical products listed in 40 CPR 261.33 because
it contains several active ingredients is not applicable to
this waste. (Those 'mixtures* not covered under S261.33 are
commercial chemical product mixtures where the listed chemical
is not the sole active ingredient.) In your case, the listed
commercial chemical product is perchloroethylene which became
contaminated with surfactant. At no time was the perchlorc—
ethylene-detergent mixture considered a commercial chemical
product mixture. Therefore, the adulterated perchloroethylene
is considered a listed hazardous waste when discarded. You
were correct, however, in stating that the perchloroethylene
was not a hazardous waste when shipped off-site for recovery.
Chemicals listed under 40 CPR 261.33 are not considered
hazardous waste until they are intended to be discarded.
-------
* w ^*v
0 X
I hopo tfei» lottor adoqoataly addrooaoo tho rogulatory = J.
ototoo of wast* parodlorootliyloao froa yo«r facility* Should n »
you havo qooatioaa, ploaoa eall Jaoquolino talo§» of oy staff* 2-S
at (202) Jf2-47TO. z^-
0 BJ
O •
CO •
I
Jofca H. SkliMr i
Di root or co
offloo of solid Ntoto »
M
OB
X
I
r
8
91
-------
94 41 . 198 5 (1 1)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 85
D1ox1n Lab Sample
1. The January 14, 1985 Federal Register (SO ft 1978) published a final
rule listing as hazardous wastes certain wastes containing particular
chlorinated tf1ox1nt. • dlbenzofurins. ind • phenols. A prlviti
analytical laboratory has the capability of Uttlng for dloxln
coopounds 10 hazardous wastes. Section 26l.4(d) excludes fro* RCRA
regulation the Management of staples that arc transported to a lab
for the purpose of testing to determine Its characteristics or
cooposUlon. Does this exclusion apply to this lab, and what oust
the lab do 1f 1t generates dloxln waste froa Us analytical procedures?
As long as the lab 1s testing samples for characteristics or composition
to determine 1f the waste 1s a hazardous waste, then the §261.4(d) lab
sample exclusion applies. If the sample 1s known to be hazardous waste
and 1t 1s shipped to the lab to be analyzed for treatab111ty, for example,
then the sample and Us management are subject to regulation.
If the lab generates dloxln waste from Its analytical procedures 1n
quantities greater than one kilogram per month, the lab must notify EPA
or the state, 1f authorized, that 1t 1s a generator of hazardous waste.
If the lab has previously notified as a generator for other hazardous
wastes, 1t must renotlfy EPA or the authorized state of 1tf$ dloxln
generation activity no later than April 15, 1985, as discussed 1n the
January 14, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 1978).
Source: Alan Corson (202) 382-4770
-------
9441.1985(13)
'f* 15
Mr. R. Chudacek
Power Systems Division
McGraw-Edison Company
Post Office Box 28
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
Dear Mr. Chudaceks
I an writing in response to your letter of April 3, 1985
concerning the regulatory status of waste electrolyte from
rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries containing a
potassium hydroxide electrolyte.
Two questions must be asked in order to determine If
disposal of a given waste is regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These arei
1. Is the waste or its disposal considered to be 'solid
waste disposal" within the meaning of RCHA?
2. Does the waste meet the definition of a hazardous waste
(i.e., exhibits one or more characteristics of a
hasardous waste or is a listed hazardous waste)?
In the ease of the situation you described* disposal of
the spent electrolyte into a municipal sanitary sewer does not
constitute disposal under the RCRA. Such disposal is,
however, subject to regulation under other environmental reg-
ulations and the disposer would have to check with their local
sewage treatment authority for specific disposal restrictions.
Spent electrolyte disposed of in any other manner would be
solid waste disposal within the meaning of the RCRA* Furthermore,
fron the Information you presented, the spent electrolyte would
likely exhibit characteristics of hasardous waste. Zn
addition to being a corrosive waste (40 CPR 261.22), the
spent electrolyte is likely to exhibit ths characteristic of
Extraction Procedure Toxiclty (40 CPR 2.1.24). While
neutralisation would eliminate the waste*s oorrosivity, it
may not change its status under 40 CPR 261.24.
-------
:N
o
§
I hope L have answered your questions to your satisfaction.
Unfortunately, these answers may not be identical to those you
might receive from State officals. Many states have been
awarded authorization to conduct their own hazardous waste
regulatory programs in lieu of the RCRA program. I thus urge
you to contact those states in which disposal of the batteries
might occur, in order to ascertain their status under the applicable
state programs. If the State is unable to help you, I recommend
contacting the applicable EPA Regional office. For your con-
venience, I am enclosing a list of State and EPA hazardous
waste management offices and officials.
Sincerely yours,
David Pried«an
Manager
Methods Prograa (WI-562B)
Enclosure
-------
9441.1985(15)
MAY 2 0 1985
Mr. Stanley L. Johnson Q
Division of Lictniing and Enforcement g
Department of Environmental Protection *
State douse station 17 \
Augusta, Maine 04J33 <
\
Dear Mr. Johnsons a
Alan Corson asked me to respond to your letter dated
April 10, 1985, because we previously collaborated on the £
paper bag issue. Section 261.33(c) considers a container that ^
held a hasardous waste listed in S261.33(e) (P*listed waste) i
to be hasardous waste until the bag is empty as defined in o
S261.7(b)(3). Section 2*1.7
-------
to reaove aa« dMtroy the vaatea.. .Theee proceaaea wet the RCRA.
definition o£ 'treatment1 and are thus subject to the require-
•enta of F«rT 2*4 and 265.* Unl«s« th« gan«rator Mt th«
••all quantity generator r«quir«Mnts, generating !••• than
one icilograja of P-liated waatea in the given calendar »onth,
burning the baga would be aubject to RCRA treatment standard*.
X tiope this Ittttr anawera your qutition for tvptying
paper baga. If you have any queationa, pleaae feel free to
contact a» at (202) 382-2550.
Sincerely yours,
Irene 8. Horner
BnTironmental Protection Specialist
Studiee and Hethoda Branch (MH-S62B)
Enclosure
cct Alan S. Coraon
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
-------
9441.1985( 18 )
'MAY 2 I 1953
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Lime Stabilized Waste Pickle Liquor Sludge
fron SIC Code No. 331 and 332
PROM I Matthew Straus, Chief
Wast* Identification Branch (WH-562B)
TOi Michael J. Sanderson* Chief
RCRA Branch
Region VII
•In your memorandum of March 5, 1985, you requested guidance
on whether line-stabilised waste pickle liquor sludge (LSWPLS)
generated by Valmont Industries Inc., (Valley, Nebraska) qualifies
for the exclusion for LSWPLS from iron and steel industries
promulgated on June 5, 1984. (Valmont was classified under SIC
Code 331 for the purpose of acquiring a NPDBS permit.) Also,
your request guidance regarding the types of facilities and
processes included in SIC Code 331 and 332.
Before addressing the items raised in your memorandum, one
point should be clarified. That is, the RCRA inspection report
for Valnont Industries indicates that the facility treats
pickle liquor with anhydrous ammonia to raise the pH to €.5 or
above. The waste is then puaped from the pickling tanks into
lagoons. However, Wayne Kaiser* of your staff, has informed
us of Valmont's intent to pump the neutralised waste frcai the
lagoons to the wastewater treatment system for treatment with
lime. It is at this point, that lime stabilised waste pickle
liquor sludge is generated.
In determining the primary SIC code for a facility* the
Agency considers the principal product or process. Thus, a
facility that is primarily engaged in the manufacture or
processing of steel (i.e., SIC code 331 or 332) qualifies
for the "exclusion.* The following types of operations are
included in these SIC codess
3312 - blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills
3313 - electrometallurgical products
3315 - steel wire drawing and steel nails and spikes
-------
-2-
.4J16 - cold rolled steel sheet, strip, and bars
J317 - atoel pipe and tubes
J321 - -jray iron foundries
J122 - malleable iron foundries
JJ24 - steel investment foundries
J325 - steol foundries (not classified elsewhere)
In considering Valmont for a NPDES permit, State and
Keg tonal officials designated the facility as SIC code 331.
according to the 'Rationale For NPD6S Permit For Valmont
Industries, Inc.,* the Regional Water Management Division
categorized the three wastewater generating processes at
Valmont Industries (acid pickling, galvanising, and tube forming)
as belonging to the iron and steel subcategory since these
operations normally are associated with iron and steel mills.
This designation, however, is inconsistent with the way
tne Agency normally classifies the various industry segments.
In particular, many industries other than iron and steel are
engaged in acid pickling and may generate spent pickle liquor
(see Notice of Availability of Data, January 4, 1904). The
galvanizing operation at Valmont Industries it integrated into
tne various product lines and should not be considered under a
separate SIC category. The tube forming operation it the only
process at Valnont which falls under the iron and steel
subcategory. Since the principal product it pivot irrigation
system*, wa believe the primary SIC code to be 3523 • Farm
and Garden Machinery and equipment.
In resolving this matter* the Agency it faced with three
major options — we could re-open the permit application for
Valmont Industries and assign the correct 8ZC code)* we could
consider Valmont as non-iron and steel only for purposes of
determining whether the exclusion for L8MPL8 it applicable*
or we could stand by the 8PDBS SIC code detlgnatlon and consider
Valmont covered under the exclusion for LSWPLS.
We realist that re-evaluating the permit application at
this time would be resource intensive and impose additional
costs to Valmont and the Agency. A decision to elatslfy Valmont
under dlf ftrtnt SIC codes for purpotet of tCRA and CWA would
oe viewed at contradictory and unjustifiable. Since we believe
it prudent to maintain conslatency in attigning SIC eod«t for
regulatory purposes* it it our recommendation that the Agency
maintain itt earlier SIC code designation for Valmont. As a
practical matter* this means that Valmont Industries would
continue to be designated at SIC coda 331* and at such, would
be covered under the exclusion for LSWPLS.
-------
we oelieve that the situation regarding V«lf*ont Industries =
represents an isolated incident. The Agency will continue to w»
ma'ice decisions regarding applicability of the exclusion for £
L3WPLS based on the rationale set forth earlier in this memorandum. ^
c-
If you have further questions or require additional information »
regarding this guidance, pleas* call Jacqueline Sales, of ay staff, £
at PT» 382-4807. ^
&4
CA
\
i
CO
I
KJ
00
N)
I
OB
wn
CA
N-
o
-------
9441.1985(19)
1985
Mr. Frank w. Schaller
Inco Limited
Park 30 West-Plaza Two
Saddle Brook, New Jersey 07662
Dear Mr. Schaller:
In your letter of Nay 8, 1985, you request an Agency
determination regarding the regulatory status of empty drum
that contained either metallic nickel or nickel oxide.
Under the current hazardous waste regulations* netallie
nickel and nickel oxide are not listed hazardous wastes nor are
they constituents covered by the BP Toxicity Characteristic.
CM Thus* empty drums that contained these compounds are likewise
= not a hazardous waste.
•«*
rf Although these waste are not covered under th« Federal rules*
you should consult with State officials to determine whether State
requirements differ from the Federal. In many cases* State rules
are more stringent.
3
o If you have questions or require additional information*
£ contact Jacqueline Sales* of my staff* at (202) 382-4807.
*r
fN Sincerely*
cc
X
Alan S. Corson
Branch Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
•33
I
7 Branch Chief
u
x
.o
jj
X
-H
(0
75
c
r>
I
-------
9441.1985(20)
June 5, 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Use/Reuse Exemption as Applied to Spent Pickle Liquor
FROM: John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
This memo is in response to your memorandum dated May 10,
regarding the use/reuse exclusion as it relates to spent pickle
liquor that is used as a wastewater conditioner. In particular,
U.S. Steel uses spent pickle liquor as a substitute for ferric
chloride (as a wastewater conditioner) and adds it to their
wastewater treatment system; however, the Region and the State of
Alabama question whether the use/reuse exclusion applies if the
spent pickle liquor is discharged to a wastewater that is
contained in an open unlined ditch. Furthermore, you expect the
build-up of EP sludge/precipitate on the bottom of the unit. You
question whether you can regulate the unit as a hazardous waste
surface impoundment.
While we agree with your conclusion that you can regulate
the unit as a hazardous waste impoundment, we do not agree with
the logic that led you to that conclusion. The sludge that forms
in the impoundment is a solid waste and if it is hazardous (i.e..
exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste),
it is subject to regulation; thus, the impoundment would be
subject to hazardous waste control.
However, we do not agree with your logic concerning the
use/reuse exclusion. The January 4 regulations (and preamble) to
these regulations indicates that spent pickle liquor that is used
as a wastewater conditioner is considered to be covered under the
use/reuse exclusion, provided that the material is not
speculatively accumulated. See, for example, Part I, Section
III.B. (Secondary Materials That Are Not Solid Wastes), pg. 619
and Part II, Section II.N. (Section 261.2(e): Secondary
Materials That Are Not Solid Wastes When Recycled), pg. 637. We
also address this point indirectly in footnote 15 (pg. 628) where
it states:
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
"We note, however that we do not consider secondary
materials that are used as wastewater conditioners to be
within the scope of this provision (use constituting
disposal provision). The activity is not similar to land
disposal because the secondary material is chemically
combined as part of a conditioning process and is subsumed
as an ingredient in the conditioned water."
We, therefore, cannot agree with you (or the State of
Alabama) that this activity constituents land disposal (under the
Federal program). Rather, the January 4 rules indicate that the
spent pickle liquor (if beneficially used as a wastewater
conditioner) would be excluded from control under RCRA. However,
as indicated above, the impoundment would still be regulated if
it contains a characteristic hazardous waste or any other listed
hazardous waste. Please give Matthew A. Straus a call if you have
any further questions.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
9441.1985(21)
June 6, 1985
Mr. Bruce Bzura
Vice-President
Madison Industries, Inc.
Old Waterworks Road
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857
Dear Mr. Bzura:
This letter is in response to your letter dated May 3, 1985,
concerning the regulatory status of brass dross skimmings that is
to be recycled by a domestic or foreign refinery or a domestic or
foreign processor. First, let me apologize for not getting back
to you sooner; I have been very busy and hope my lateness has not
created a problem for you. With regard to your questions, I will
answer them in the same order as you presented them in your
letter.
• Is the brass dross skimmings a by-product or a scrap
metal?
These skimmings would be defined as a by-product. (See
preamble discussion on pg. 624 of the January 4, 1985
Federal Register (c. Definition of Scrap Metal and
Regulatory Distinctions Between Scrap Metal and Other Metal-
Containing Wastes That Are Recycled for a detailed
explanation.)
• If this material is sent to a domestic refinery, does
it have to be manifested?
These skimmings (defined as a by-product) under the rules
would be sent for reclamation (as you correctly noted in
your letter). Since this material is not currently listed
as a hazardous waste, it must be hazardous due to its
exhibiting one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics (i.e.. if this material were not hazardous,
the hazardous waste rules would not apply). Under the
rules, the reclamation of a nonlisted by-product would not
be defined as a solid waste (provided the material is not
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
speculatively accumulated.- As a .result, this material
would not be a hazardous waste and, thus, need not be
manifested or subject to any of the other applicable
requirements. This answer is the same if it is sent to a
foreign .refinery.)
• A processor processes the brass skimmings by separating
the metal from the oxides. If the oxides are said to
be a domestic or foreign fertilizer company, does the
material have to be manifested?
Yes. Under the rules, any material (whether it is a spent
material, sludge, by-product, commercial chemical product or
scrap metal) that is placed directly on the land or
incorporated into a product that is placed on the land is
defined as a solid waste and if hazardous, a hazardous
waste. Thus, the oxide material (assuming it exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic) would need to be manifested
to the fertilizer company and the domestic fertilizer
company would need to get a storage permit for this
material. (The processor also would have to comply with the
other applicable regulatory requirements.) It should also
be noted that the brass skimmings would have to be
manifested from the brass mill to the processor and the
processor would need a storage permit if the ultimate
destination of this material (i.e.. the oxides) is to be
placed on the land or incorporated into a product that is
placed on the land.
• If the oxide material were used as an ingredient to
make a new product, would the oxides have to be
manifested?
Under the rules, any material that is used or reused as an
ingredient to make a new product would not be defined as a
solid waste, provided the material is not speculatively
accumulated. (The exception to this is when the material is
used as an ingredient in waste-derived fuels or in waste-
derived products that will be placed on the land. In these
situations, both the material being incorporated and the
waste-derived product remains subject to RCRA jurisdiction.)
Subsequently, this material would not have to be manifested
or subject to any of the other applicable requirements.
A material would be speculatively accumulated if: (1) it is
being accumulated for recycling but no recycling market
exists (or no feasible recycling market exists), or (2) 75%
of the material is not recycled within a one-year period.
See 40 CFR 261.l(a)(8).
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
(The answer is the same if it is sent to a foreign chemical
processor.)
I hope this letter responds to your questions. Please give
me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone
number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1985(23)
June 27, 1985
Mr. N. Ray Clark
Universal Manufacturing Corp.
200 Robin Road
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Dear Mr. Clark:
This letter is in response to your letter dated April 30,
1985, regarding the disposal requirements of scrap (off-
specification) DEHP and small capacitors which contain DEHP.
First, let me apologize for taking so long in getting back to
you; I have been very busy and hope my delay has not created a
problem for you. Concerning your specific questions, I generally
agree with the answers given by Mr. Travis Wagner of the RCRA
Hotline. More specifically:
Contaminated or unusable DEHP which is generated in the
normal course of the manufacturing process and becomes
a waste which must be disposed of is subject to the
RCRA hazardous waste rules (i.e.. if shipped-off-site
must be manifested, must go to a facility with interim
status or one which is fully permitted, etc.)
Capacitors which are found to be unusable for
electrical or mechanical reasons are presently not
defined as a listed hazardous waste (i.e.. U028).
Therefore, these wastes would only be hazardous if they
exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics (i.e.. ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity).
With regard to your third question, you ask whether rags,
gloves, and other miscellaneous solid materials which have
absorbed some DEHP are RCRA hazardous wastes. The answer to this
question is yes and no; that is, if the solid material has become
contaminated as a result of waste management activities (i.e..
clean-up of spills or leaks or from mixing waste DEHP with other
wastes), these contaminated materials would be defined as RCRA
listed hazardous wastes. On the other hand, if the contamination
is a result of its use during the manufacturing process (i.e..
gloves become contaminated as a result of handling during the
manufacturing process), these solid materials would not be
defined as listed hazardous wastes, these materials, however,
would be a hazardous wastes if they exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further
assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1985(24)
.UN 2 - —
^
Nr. Dan summers
Senior Corporal* Attorney
McDonnell Douglas Corporation
Saint Louit, Hiaaouri 63166
Dear Mr. Summersi
Thia letter ia in response to your latter dated April 15,
IMS, concerning the regulatory atatua of equipment, aueh
aa a solvent atill, which ia uaed to legitimately recycle
hasardoua waste, in particular, you indicate that in
amending the regulations on January 4, 1985 regarding
recycle/reuae, the exemption from regulation for unita
(treatment unita) which are conducting legitimate recycling
had been deleted, except for thoae facilities "managing
recyclable materiala deacribed in |261.6(a)(2) and (3)...'
Subjecting these unita to full regulation under Subtitle C
of RC1A« you believe, would be a substantial impediment to
the continuation of on-aita recycling activitiea. Therefore*
yen request clarification aa to whether the actual recycling
unit (i.e.* aolvent atill) ia aubject to regulation under
the reviaed aolid waate rulea.
As we diacuaaed during our telephone conversation, the
Agency normally will not regulate the actual recycling
process itself (i.e., a distillation column in which aolventa
are) reclaimed or a smelting furnace in which metala are
recovered)! the only exception to thia ia when the recycling
activity ia analogoua to land disposal or incineration.
Although thia point may not be entirely clear in the rule,
we believe the preamble to thia rulemaking clearly atatea
this point. See, for example, 50 ft €43, 1st column, where
we stats •** in the proposal (and aa under current
re9ulatism*4« hasardoua wsstes to be recycled—called
*i si jiilsfcJpTmmiei !•!•" in the regulation—are ordinarily
aubject taf*mm«lation under Parta 262 and 263 of the
regulatioamtHwfce* generated and transported) and to the
storag* facility requirements in Parts 264 and 265 (when
stored before recycling). Me usually do not regulate the
recycling process itself, except when the recycling is
analogous to land disposal or incineration*i aee alao
50 PI 650, 2nd column, where we atate 'These provisions
state that persons generating, transporting, or atoring
recyclable materials, who are not explicitly addreaaed in
-------
12(1.((a), are subject to all of the applicable requirement*
of FartSJ*J*?, 2O, 2M, and 265 of the regulation*, aa well
aa to affzHeaole permit requirements.*
le permit requlr
Therefore, under the January 4, 1985 aolid waste rulea,
your solvent atill would not be subject to regulation.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistances sy telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straua, Chief
waate Identification Branch
H8»0207
-------
9441.1985(25)
July 1, 1985
Mr. John A. Quinlan
Legal Assistant
Evans, Kitchel, and Jenckes, P.C.
2600 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099
This letter is in response to your letter dated May 1, 1985,
regarding the scope of the term "abandoned" under revised 40 CFR
§261.2. In particular, you indicate that §261.2(a)(2)(i)
provides that a material may be discarded by being abandoned and
§261.2(b)(i) defines abandoned to mean disposed of. You further
state that disposal (as defined in §260.10) includes the "placing
of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or
water..." Therefore, you are concerned that read together, these
sections would state any material that is placed on the land is a
solid waste, and that if the material is hazardous (i.e.. if
listed in Subpart D of Part 261 or exhibits one or more of the
characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261), the regulations
relating to hazardous wastes would apply.
As we discussed previously, the Agency generally does not
intend to regulate those secondary material that are bona fide
products (e.g.. secondary materials used as ingredients or
feedstocks in production processes or as a substitute for
commercial chemical products) even though they may be temporarily
stored on the land. Thus, a listed emission control dust that is
stored in piles on the land and is used as an ingredient in a
production process would not be defined as a solid waste,
provided that the material is not speculatively accumulated.-
This position is supported (as you stated in your letter) by the
parenthetical comment in the preamble, "By saying "abandoned," we
do not intend any complicated concept, but simply mean thrown
away." See 50 FR 637, January 4, 1985.
A material is considered speculatively accumulated if it is
being accumulated without having a known recycling market or
disposition, or no feasible means of recycling, and during a
one-year calendar period, 75 percent of the material is not
recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
On the other hand, if the material were to escape from the
unit (i.e., leach from the waste and contaminate groundwater),
this action would constitute disposal and meet the definition of
abandoned and, thus, would be defined as a solid waste. In
addition, if the material is hazardous, pursuant to §261.3, the
material would be subject to the hazardous waste regulations.
This point is discussed in the preamble to the regulations where
we indicate "In addition, we note that black liquor that is
disposed of and not recycled is a waste, and if hazardous, a
hazardous waste. This includes black liquor that leaks, leaches,
or overflows from an impoundment and is not recycled." See 50 FR
642, 1st column.
I hope this letter adequately responds to your question.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further
assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
This document has Jbeen retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1985(26]
July 5, 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Dioxin-Containing Laboratory Wastes
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Dennis A. Huebner, Chief
State Waste Programs Branch
Region I
This memo is in response to your memorandum dated May 28,
1985, regarding the regulatory status of laboratory wastes which
contain dioxin. In particular, you question whether laboratory
wastes which contain dioxin and which also are radioactive are
subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
rules or some other set of regulations.
First, you ask whether radioactive laboratory wastes are
excluded from the definition of solid waste since they are under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. C14 is a naturally-occurring
radioisotope. EPA has authority, under RCRA, to regulate a
material containing it. (See the February 21, 1984, memorandum
from Lee Thomas to Ernesta Barnes, which you cited.) Such a
material, therefore, is a solid waste, and is a hazardous waste
if it meets one of the hazardous waste characteristics or is a
RCRA-listed waste.
You further question whether the particular laboratory waste
you describe is a hazardous waste listed in 40 CFR 261.31.
Laboratory wastes, in general, are not regulated under Subtitle C
of RCRA. Laboratory wastes such as chromatographic columns,
discarded solutions, filter material, etc., are not currently
listed. In the case of a laboratory which analyzes a RCRA
hazardous waste, the unused portion of the waste being analyzed
as well as any residue or sample from the analysis is a RCRA
hazardous waste, and is subject to RCRA regulation. The
particular laboratory wastes which you describe are, therefore,
not regulated under RCRA. The January 14, 1985, dioxin
regulations did not change this determination.
With respect to the laboratory wastes you described in your
May 28, 1985 memorandum, one can calculate an average TCDD
concentration of 2.5 ppb (1.5 mg/25 x 12 x 2 kg). Material of
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
this degree of contamination should be safely disposed. These
wastes are subject to NRC regulations for the disposal of
radioactive wastes which should ensure that they are disposed in
a satisfactory manner.
If you have any questions regarding the dioxin listings,
please call Dr. Judith S. Bellin of my staff. She can be reached
at 382-4789.
Attachment
cc: Judy Bellin
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED ST' ES ENVIRONMENTAL I^OTECTION AG' :Y
9441.1985(27)
MEMORANDUM J U L 1 6 1985. [
r
SUBJECT: Status of Spent Pickle Liquor Used in the £
Production of Ferric Chloride •
c
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) c
5
TO: Harry Seraydarian, Director ^
Toxics and Waste Management Division c
Region IX (T-l) *
This memorandum responds to your inquiry of June 18, 1985,
regarding the status of spent pickle liquor used in the production
of ferrous and ferric chloride at Chem West Industries, Inc.
(Fontana, CA) and Imperial West Chemical Company (Pittsburg, CA).
The information attached to your memorandum indicates
the Chem West Industries, Inc. receives spent pickle liquor
(by pipeline) from Kaiser Steel Corp. The spent material is
piped into tanks containing steel scrap to neutralize the
free hydrochloric acid to below a certain percentage. The
material is then discharged to lined surface impoundments to
concentrate (recover) the ferrous chloride. After neutralization
of the acid and concentration of the iron, the material is
chlorinated and sold as technical grade ferric chloride.
A similar situation exists at the Imperial West Chemical
Company. Spent pickle liquor received at this facility is
treated with ferric oxide and lime to decrease its acidity;
this treatment also has the effect of increasing the concen-
tration of ferrous chloride.i/ The material is concentrated
(recovered) in a surface impoundment and sold directly as
ferrous chloride or further processed to produce ferric chloride.
I/ For both Chem West Industries, Inc. and Imperial West Chemical
Company, the process of mixing the spent pickle liquor with
scrap iron or ferric oxide produces ferrous chloride. Thus,
it could be argued that this material is used as an ingredient
However, based on our understanding of the process, the primary
purpose of this mixing is to reduce the acidity in the spent
pickle liquor; in addition, if the acidity (HC1 concentration)
is below their level of concern, this activity would probably
not be conducted. Thus, we believe that any ferrous chloride
that is generated is incidental and not a major purpose of
this particular activity.
-------
-2-
The process conducted at these facilities in which
usable ferrous chloride is first recovered from the spent
pickle liquor before it is used to produce ferric chloride
is considered a reclamation activity. According to the
revised definition of solid waste/ "spent materials/ listed
sludges, and listed by-products that are processed to recover
usable products, or that are regenerated..* are solid waste..."
(50 FR at 633-634, January 4, 1985). As such, these materials
are subject to regulation under RCRA prior to the reclamation
operation. Once the ferrous chloride is recovered, the material
would no longer be a waste. Although it may appear that the
exclusion for secondary materials used as ingredients to make
new products would apply in this case/ it is clearly stated in
the preamble that if the material is to be put to use after it
has been reclaimed, the material is still a solid waste until
reclamation is completed. Thus, the fact that wastes may be
used after being reclaimed does not affect their status as
wastes before and while being reclaimed.
Consequently, in the case of Chem West Industries, Inc.,
and Imperial West Chemical Company, the spent pickle liquor
used in the production of ferrous and ferric chlorides at
these facilities is regulated under RCRA prior to the reclamation
operation. Thus, the generators of the spent pickle liquor
must comply with Part 262 and both Imperial West Chemical
Company and Chem West Industries, Inc. must comply with Parts
264 and 265 for any storage of the pickle liquor prior to
recycling. The recycling activity itself (i.e., the reclamation
operation), however, is exempt from regulation; thus/ the
tanks and surface impoundments used as part of their recycling
process are currently exempt from regulations. If, however/
the material were to escape from the unit used in the recycling
process (i.e., leach from the waste in the surface impoundment
and contaminate ground water), this action would constitute
disposal and would be subject to regulation under RCRA. (See
50 FR 642, January 4, 1985.)
I hope that this memorandum adequately responds to your
inquiry. If you have questions or require additional information,
please call Matthew Straus or Jacqueline Sales/ of my staff/ at
(202) 475-8551.
cc: Regions 1-X
-------
UNITED -ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
4.'
9441.1985(28)
16 085
Jean Summers Stinson
R.W. Summers Railroad Contractor, Inc.
P.O. Box 1456
Bartow, Florida 33830
Dear Mr. Stinsonj
This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1985, in
which you asked whether the disposal of cross ties treated
with creosote is subject to regulation by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recycling Act (RCRA), EPA has issued regula-
tions listing only the commercial product creosote, when
discarded, and two manufacturing process wastes (Bottom
sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewaters from wood
preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
(K001 ) and Wastewater treatment sludges generated in the
production of creosote (K035)) as hazardous under RCRA.
Creosote treated cross ties are not covered by any of
these listings. These ties also could be considered hazardous
if they exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity); however, it is unlikely that the
creosote treated cross ties would exhibit any of these characteristics
Therefore, the treated ties are likely not defined as a
hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA and, thus, not
subject to the hazardous waste regulation.
The disposal of creosote treated cross ties are subject
to some regulation under the recently promulgated rules
developed under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), however. In particular, on July 13, 1984, the
Agency issued its Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration
(RPAR) for the three major wood preservatives—namely, inorganic
arsenicale, pentachlorophenol, and creosote. Among other
things, these rules require that wood which has been treated
with pentachlorophenol and/or creosote should not be burned
in an outdoor fire or in stoves or fireplaces; rather this
wood should be buried in a landfill. This requirement was
-------
included to ensure that no toxic contaminants would be released
as a result of the burning process* (For more information
on the FIFRA rules, please contact Carol Langley at 557-7400.)
I presume this information provides sufficient answers to
your question. If you need further clarification, please feel
free to telephone Dr. Judith S. Bellin at 202-382-4789.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Waste Identification Branch
WH-562B/JBELLIN/ecm/382-4789/6-28-85 disk JB8401-42
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 94 41.1985 (2 8a)
JULY 85
.clanation, and the Manifest .
A photography lab generates betveen 100 kg/month and 1000 kg/month of a spent material
which is EP toxic for silver. The lab does preliminary reclamation of the silver and
then sends the recyclable material off-site for further reclamation, a) Since the
lab is generating between 100 kg/toonth and 1000 kg/month, must it keep the records
prescribed in $266.70(c) for persons who store recyclable precious metals? b) Must
the partially reclaimed precious metal be shipped with a manifest if the material is
sent off-site for final reclamation?
a) No; the lab is not currently subject to the recordkeeping requirements of
$266.70(c). A SOG that beneficially uses or re-uses, or legitimately recycles or
reclaims the waste is not subject to regulation according to $261.5(g)(3)(v)(A).
Therefore, the photography lab reclaiming silver fron the spent material would
not have to keep the records required by $266.70(c) until the lab exceeds the
1000 kg SOG accumulation limit.
The proposed SOG regulation dated August 1, 1985, (50 FR 31278) was published
pursuant to $3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) as amended by $221 of
P.L. 98-616. Section 3001(d) requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate
standards by March 31, 1986, under Sections 3002, 3003, and 3004 of SWDA for
hazardous waste generated between 100 kg/month and 1000 kg/month.
This proposed rule would require generators between 100 kg/month and 1000 kgAonth
to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of $266.70(c).
b) Yes; the partially reclaimed material which is sent off-site for final reclam-
ation is subject to the reduced manifest requirements per $3001 of SWDA, as amended
by $221 of P.L. 98-616, effective August 5, 1985. The requirements are less
stringent compared to the requirements applicable to generators of 1000
kg/month or more.
Generators between 100 kg/month and 1000 kg/month need only complete certain
portions of the Unifonn Hazardous Vtoste Manifest (Manifest). Section 3001(d)(3)(A)
through (E) states that the Manifest shall contain the following infonnation:
o the name and address of the generator of the waste;
o the united States Department of Transportation (DOT) description of the
waste, including the proper shipping name, hazard class, and identification
number (UN/MA), if applicable}
o the number and type of containers;
o the quantity of waste being transported; and
o the name and address of the facility designated to receive the waste.
These Manifest requirements will change effective March 31, 1986.
Section 3001(d)(8) of SWDA states that additional information will be required
unless the EPA Administrator promulgates standards by March 31, 1986. Specifi-
cally, this "hammer provision" trill require genera tors between 100 ta/faonth and
o include the name of the waste transporters and the name and address of the
facility designated to receive the waste;
o treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste at a facility with interim
status or a RCRA permit (except for on-site storage subject to reduced
requirements);
o file manifest exception reports; and
o retain copies of the manifest signed by the^designated facility that has
received the waste for three years.
The SOG proposed rule dated August 1, 1985, (50 FR 31278) specifies Manifest
requirements for generators between 100 kg/month and 1000 kg/month. These gene-
rators are subject to reduced requirements when reclaiming hazardous wastes in
compliance with $262.20(e).
Sourae: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
-------
9441.1985(29)
UNITED S' ,BS ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTION AC CY
AUG 23 1985
S-EMOKAMDUM
SUBJECTS Applicability of the 'Mixture' and 'Derived From*
Rules t: Petroleum Refinery wastevater Systems
PROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of solid waste
TO: Director, waste Management Division
Regions I-X
Over the past year, we have received several request*
from R«yion« VI and VIII for interpretations relating to the
conditions under which sludges generated in refinery surface
impoundments are hasardous. Many of those questions should
have been answered by our December 7, 1984 memorandum to Robert
Duprey, a copy of which is attached. The Administrator has
recently received a petition from the Texas Mid-Continent
Oil and Gas Association (TMOGA) that raises the question of
whether the "mixture" and "derived from' rules provide a basis
for the regulation of these units, we hope that this letter
provides sufficient guidance on this issue to insure the proper
application of the 'mixture' and "derived from" rules to refinery
wastewater systems.
Five waste streams generated by petroleum refineries are
currently listed in 40 CFR 2C1.32. Based on a review of the
American Petroleum Institute's 1982 survey of refineries, we
expect that as many as 40% of all refineries are performing
some treatment of these wastes (primarily API Separator Sludge,
DAT Float, or Slop Oil toulsion Solids). Generally, the treat-
ment involves some form of dewatering by sedimentation, filtration,
or centrifugation. A literal reading of 40 CFR 2*1.3(c)(2)li),
the "derived from" rule* would suggest that the resultant
liquid stream is a hasardous waste and remains one until delisted.
Since refiners generally return the aqueous stream to the refinery
wastewater system, the mixture rule (40 CFft 2C1.3(a)(2)(iv))
would then define the combined water stream and all subsequent
residuals as hasardous wastes. (Mote, however, that the etfluent
at the point of discharge from the wastewater treatment system
would not be a solid waste by virtue of the industrial wastewater
r§e exclusion, 40 $£R 3«>.4(s) (3) .) —
-------
After cartful consideration of the characteristic* of the
currently lilted refinery wastes, the waste management practices,
and the disposition of the recycle streams, we have concluded that
the "derived from" rule is not uniformly applicable to the aqueous
stream generated in a sludge dewatering process. Our interpre-
tation is based on the preemption that properly conducted dewatering
of a waetewater treatment residual will insure that nooe of the
listed waste is returned to the system, while simultaneously
reducing the total amount of waste generated. It is our opinion
that dewatering of the currently listed refinery wastes can be
conducted in a Banner that insures the return of only the
non-listed wastewater which caae into contact with, but was
not mixed with, the listed waste. This interpretation leaves
a burden of proof on the facility to establish that they are
•properly conducting" dewatering.
We believe that the demonstration of properly conducted
dewatering can be made by the plant by conducting waste analysis.
Specifically, if the refinery can show, to your satisfaction,
that the return water stream is chemically equivalent to the
non-listed wastewater influent to the wastewater treatment
device that originally generated the listed waste, then the
return water stream is not 'derived from* the hssardous waste.
Zt should be noted that this demonstration cannot be) made if
the influent to the waste treatment unit itself contained a
listed hazardous waste. In this case, all waste derived from its
treatment would be hasardous since the original wastewater was
hazardous.
As an example, consider a refinery that generates an API
separator sludge; suppose that the refinery pumps this listed
hazardous wastes to an impoundment for sludge dewatering,
after which the sludge is sent to a landfarm and the water
supernatant is sent to the influent to the API Separator. If
the returned water stream is similar in composition of Appendix
viii hazardous constituents and total suspended solids (TSS)
to the influent wastswstsr to the API Separator, then only the
non-listed wastewstar is being returned and the return wastewater
is not a hasardous vasts. On tha othar hand, if ths Isval of
sons Appendix VIII constituent or tha TSS is significantly
higher than ths- level in tha API saparator influent, than
hazardous waste is being returned to the wastewater treatment
system and the.mixture rule is triggarsd for tha antira waatewatar
system.
What constitutes a aignificantly higher constituent level
ia obviously a case-by-case determination that is functionally
dependant upon tha amount of sampling data available. Ha will
be glad to provide an opinion for any specific case if you
forward the required information on the waate streams. Zt
-------
should be noted, in passing, that the dewatering impoundment
is a regulated unit regardless of th« regulatory status ot the
water stream since this unit is being used to treat and store a
hazardous waste.
Application of the above rules has major implications for
refineries that are returning hasardous waste to their wastewater
treatment systan. At these facilities, til downstream units
are hazardous waste management units. Beyond that, all
residuals generated downatrean are hasardous wastes, unless an
upstream or influent wastewater mixture, or the residual
itself, has been delisted by the Agency. We are concerned
that the net effect of these rules, when coupled with the
closeness of the Part B submission deadline, may cause major
problems for refiners who were practicing the desirable
activity of waste minimization, but were not operating in a
systematic fashion. We cannot, however, justify a blanket
exemption front the mixture rule for all of the recycled liquid
streams.
Our hesitation to grant a blanket exemption is based on
the fact that the Halted data vnich we have available at
this time (data supplied by the American Petroleum Institute)
suggest that the liquid streams can contain appreciable amounts
of Appendix VIII hazardous constituents from the hazardous
waste. Calculations performed by my staff further suggest
that major portions of the constituents found in downstream
wastewaters can result from the introduction of the recycle
stream.
Nevertheless, we do believe there are cases where a rigid
application of the two rv'es results in a less desirable out-
come, unfortunately* ou~ procedural options are rather limited.
The rules have been final for several years ana revision at this
point would require issuing a proposal, along with providing an
opportunity for public comment. Me could not justify starting
such an effort until we receive meaningful data from TMOGA
or other petitioners. In the interim, the sole available
mechanism for regulatory relief is through the delisting
process.
Fortunately, some refineries have correctly interpreted .
the subject rules end sre working to submit their Part B's in
November, ss required. Me believe, however, that s much larger
contingent of refineries may not be exerting- any effort, due to
a misinterpretation of the rules or the hope that EPA will
ignore the rules. Since those facilities would lose their
interim status for the affected units, it is imperative that
your stsff notify the* of their responsibilities at the
earliest possible oats. Facilities which fail the test on
the return water stream will need to submit a delisting
petition if they hope to receive an exclusion for their
recycled liquid streams.
-------
Sine* there in potential for significant •conoaic impact,
we will perform an expedited review of all complete petitions
that are received. The 1984 amendments, however, do not leave
us the option to grant a temporary exclusion under 40 CFR
261.22(m). Bee also SO PR 28, 737, July IS, 1985. Specific
information that it required of s deliating petitioner is
described in the guidance manual for delisting petitions;
petitioners should take extra care to insure that Appendix
VIII characteritationa are provided for all wastes that are
being treated, the recycled liquid streams, the waatewaters
receiving the recycled streams, and the non-recycled residuals
of treatment, it it also iaportant that all analyses be
representative of tne long tenu variations in the quality of
tne recycled stream and factors that contribute to that variation
Complete volumetric and phase characterisations for all streams
and data defining their variability are also essential. Due
to the tight time constraints involved, petitioners may want
to contact Jim Poppiti of my staff, at (202) 475-8551, before
making their submissions.
In the way of guidance to your staffs, it is also
••••ntiftl that they understand and consistently apply the
definitions of the wastes to insure that facilities are
not erroneously categorised. Clearly, recycled streams
are not regulated if the haiardous waste has not been
generated. It may be useful to clarify the point of waste
generation and associated applicability of the rules. They
are as follows:
K048 (DA* Float) - Generated at the moment they are
formed in the top of the unit. Any liquid stream deriving
front the concentration of K048 could be derived from
a hazardous waste.
K049 (Slop oil ttulsion Solids) - This waste, sometimes
referred to as middle layer emulsion, is generated at
the first instance where the eaulsion layer is allowed
to fore. The layer will form in the first vessel to
which slop oils are pumped from the. wastewater system.
with one exception, the wastewater fro* this first tank
need not be evaluated for the "derived from* test. The
case where, it would require testing is where a hasardous
waste, such as DAP Pleat, was introduced into the emulsion
breaking tank. Mater phase derived from any subsequent
emulsion breaking or emulsion storage is subject to the
•derived from • teat.
K050 (Bundle Cleaning sludge) - Mixtures containing this
hasardous waste which are part ot the refinery wastewater
system are exempted from the mixture rule (40 CPU 261.3(a).
(ivHO).
-------
K051 (API separator sludge) - Generated at the moment
of deposition in the API separator. Note that deposition
is defined as a condition where there has been at
least a temporary cessation of lateral particle
movement. Liquids derived from the management of API
Separator Sludge after its removal from the separator («.g.,
centrifuging) must be evaluated to establish whether/ or
not, they are 'derived from' the hasardous waste.
K052 (Leaded Tank Bottoms) - Generated at the moment of
deposition in the gasoline storage tank, section 261.4(c)
excludes the tank from regulatory requirements. Any
portion returned to the wastewater systems aust be
tested under the 'derived from* rule.
This aemorandua should clarify (when applied in concert
with our previous guidance on scouring, slop oil systems, and
waste reactivity) the regulatory status of aost refir ry
wastewater impoundments. Do not hesitate to contact ^en Saith
of ay staff (FTSi 382-4791), if you have any additional questions
on this or other refinery related aatters. we will keep you
apprised of our progress with the TNOGA petition and our waste
listing efforts.
Attachment
cci John Queries
WH-562B/BSMITH/pes/475-855l/8-20-85/Disk BS0825
-------
9441.1985(30a)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 85
Battery Regeneration
6. In the January 4, 1985 Federal Register (SO HI 665), $261.6(a)(3) excludes certain
recyclaDle materials fron 40 CFR Parts 262 through 270. $261.6(a)(3)(ii) excludes
"used batteries (or used battery cells) returned to a battery manufacturer for
regeneration." (a) Is this exclusion only applicable to battery manufacturers or
dees it atv? cover any facility that regenerates batteries? (b) Are spent lead-
acid batteries also covered under this exclusion, or are they specifically subject
to Part 266 Subpart G?
(a) This battery exclusion under $261.6(a)(3)(ii) was not meant to be appli-
cable solely to battery manufacturers. Any facility that regenerates
batteries but does not recover the lead from then can be covered under this
exclusion, (b) Only if a spent lead-acid battery is sent to reclaim the
lead (i.e., crack the battery and recover the lead), is it then subject to
$266.30.
Sources Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
-------
3441.1965(31)
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
3 |9flO or net. or
SOLID WASTE AND EMEMOCNCV RESPONSE
Mr. Carl J. Schafer, Jr.
Director
Environmental Policy
Acquisition and Logistics
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Washington,/^>.C. 20301
Dear
In your letter of July 25, 1985, you requested EPA concurrence
on the proposed DoD policy regarding the applicability of the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations to the demilitarization of military
munitions. These are munitions which have not yet been used and
which now may be recycled or disposed. Your request raises two
•>ues: 1.) are such military munitions subject to RCRA prior to
.lilitarization and 2.) can DoD directives be applied in lieu of
requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
te?
Military Munitions Subject to RCRA
RCRA Section 6001 requires federal facilities to comply with
all Federal, State, and local laws pertaining to the management of
hazardous waste. RCRA hazardous waste regulations apply from the
time and at the point that the material (e.g., military munitions)
becorties a hazardous waste. The identification of munitions subject
to RCRA must be based on the definition of solid and hazardous
waste as presented in 40 CFR Part 261.
Under 40 CFR $261.33, unused commercial chemical products
become hazardous wastes only when discarded or intended for
discard. Recycling (i.e., use, reuse, or reclamation) is ordi-
narily not considered to be a form of discard. Similarly, unused
munitions ordinarily would not be considered to be wastes unless
and until there is an intent to dispose or destroy them, and they
would not be wastes when recycled in lieu of disposal. We thus
agree that the mere assignment of munitions to the Special Defense
Property Disposal Account does not automatically subject munitions
to RCRA. It is not until DoD decides to handle the material in a
•mer which classifies it as a hazardous waste that its storage
j transportation must be in accordance with RCRA rules.
-------
-2-
You should be aware, however, that burning of these munitions
in military deactivation furnaces is considered to be incineration
because the main purpose of the activity is waste treatment. Like-
wise, storage of these wastes prior to incineration would also be
considered management of a hazardous waste.
The DoD strategy for identifying those munitions subject to
RCRA appears to be in accordance with the RCRA regulations with
the exception of the exclusion of hazardous waste storage. Your
letter states that military munitions are never waste until
demilitarization occurs. We interpret "demilitarization," as
used in the DoD policy, to encompass all activities regulated
under the RCRA rules except storage. Once there is an intention
to dispose or destroy munitions, their storage as well as trans-
portation would be regulated since they are hazardous waste.
Therefore, the storage and transportation of military munitions
that are hazardous waste are subject to RCRA prior to demilitari-
zation.
RCRA Applicability to DoD
Your letter suggests that because DoD directives provide
a^pquate protection of human health and the environment and
"conform" to RCRA requirements, that DoD facilities may comply
with DoD directives in lieu of the RCRA requirements. Our initial
review of your directives indicates that in many respects, the DoD
directives adequately address the corresponding RCRA requirements.
However, we have also identified several deficiencies. For example,
RCRA Subpart I S264.175 requires a containment system for container
storage, whereas your directives do not. Under RCRA Subpart G
$264.113, a closure plan is required for all hazardous waste facil-
ities "whether or not the facility plans to close. Your directives
inaccurately state that this requirement does not apply*
Enclosed is a checklist which identifies all of the RCRA
regulations promulgated prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA or the "Amendments"). This checklist is
used by the States during the State authorization review process to
determine the equivalency of State standards to RCRA requirements.
We believe the checklist will be useful to you, as a first step,
to identify major omissions in the DoD directives when compared to
EPA's "base" (pre-HSWA) program. Unlike State programs, however,
the DoD directives must do more than achieve an equivalent level
of environmental protection to EPA's program. DoD facilities must
meet EPA's standards promulgated under RCRA, and thus the DoD
•" ctives would need to be revised accordingly. We would be
J to help you determine whether specific parts of RCRA apply to
b (e.g., closure requirements).
-------
-3-
We are currently revising the checklist to reflect the
Amendments and we should Be able to provide a copy of the draft
revised checklist in approximately one month. The Amendments will
primarily require additions to the checklist; however, a few of
:he current provisions of the checklist may also need to be revised
slightly. Please contact Chaz Miller (382-2220) of the State
?rograms Branch, Office of Solid Waste, with regard to the use of
:he checklist and its revisions.
We are confident that the final DOD directives will facilitate
:he permitting of DOD facilities and should reduce the need for
authorized States to impose requirements other than those prescribed
in your current directives.
Sincerely yours,
I i
Tack W. McGraw
Deputy Assistant Administrator
V
Enclosure
-------
.vi.m^n i Mk rr\w i cv. i 1C
9441.1985(32)
OCT 1
Mr. Prank J. Pox, Jr.
Jones, Day, Reavis, and Pogue
2300 LTV Center
2001 Rose Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Fox:
This letter will confirm our previous telephone
conversations and is a response to your letter aated July 19,
1985, in which you request an interpretation of the mixture
rule of the hazardous waste regulations. In particular,
you indicate that a characteristic hazardous waste and a
listed hazardous waste (which is listed solely because it
exhibits the ignitability characteristic) are mixed before
they are combusted} the mixture is ignitable. The ash resulting
from the incineration of this ignitable waste does not exhibit
any of the hazardous waste characteristics, however. 'Based
on your reading of the rules, you believe the ash is not a
hazardous waste and thus, does not need to be delisted, even
though it is derived from a listed waste.
I agree. Section 261.3(a)(2)(iii) of the regulations
indicates that once a listed waste (that is listed solely
because it exhibits a characteristic) has been mixed so that
the mixture no longer exhibits any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, the waste would no longer be considered
hazardous.I/ Therefore, the ash is not hazardous provided it
does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
You shoulo be aware, however, that this provision may be
modified. In particular, the Hazardous and Solid waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) requires, among other things,
that the Agency in evaluating delisting petitions
consider all factors (including additional constituents)
I/ Although the waste is not considered to be non-hazardous
~~ until the waste is incinerated, we believe the same policy
applies.
-------
other than those for" which the waste was listed to determine
the hazardousness of these wastes. This requirement applies
fc*» .11 1 J ._ ^ ,**. *4 1.4 * » * A 0 4n/^liiHlnn ^ K J*N a A * K * * A *• A 1 * A te «t «J ^ _ 1 _. 1 * *
other than those tor wnicn tne waste was listed to determine
the hazardousness of these wastes. This requirement applies
to all listed wastes, including those that are listed solely
because they exnibit a characteristic. Therefore, we believ
*261.3(a)(2) (iii) is inconsistent •-•«••* *•*•- <--— * ~« -•--
amendments'. Until this rule is aj
characteristic. Therefore, we believe
with the intent of the new
__ amended, however, the ash
combustion process (as described above;
amendments. Unti
generated from the COTIVDUSCJO
is not subject to regulation.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone numoer 13 (202) 475-8551*
Sincerly yours
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Wast* Identification Branch
-------
.... . *.,. I r>w I CV. | Hjp
9441.1985(33)
?CT 2 3 1985
Ms. Carlene Bassell, P.E.
Manager, Environmental Technology
Lederle Laboratories
Division of American Cyanamid Company
Pearl River, New York 10965
Dear Ms. Bassell:
This letter is in response to your letter/ dated October 10
1985, and with regard to our telephone conversations concerning
the regulatory status of reclaimed methanol produced at
Lederle Laboratories and sent to American Cyanamid. As
your letter describes, Lederle Laboratories generates a
spent solvent (methanol) as part of their pharmaceutical
manufacturing operations; this solvent is reclaimed on-site
to a minimum of 99*5 percent purity. The reclaimed methanol
is then sent to American Cyanamid at their willow Island
facility; the Willow Island facility uses methanol in
various manufacturing processes. However, the methanol
must be reclaimed before it is used for a number of reasons
(i.e., methanol sometimes has too much color for direct
use). The question you raise is whether the methanol
reclaimed by Lederle Laboratories and sent off-site to
American Cyanamid is a commercial chemical product or a
waste. You believe (based on discussions with Mr. James Ginley
of the RCRA/Superfund Hotline) that Lederle's reclaimed
methanol is a commercial chemical product and therefore,
not subject to the Subtitle C regulations.
I agreei that is Lederle'a reclaimed methanol is a
product, not a waste. Although the methanol that is sent
to American Cyanamid needs to be reclaimed before it can be
used and normally such materials are still defined as wastes
(see 50 PR 633, January 4, 1985), we believe Lederle*s
reclaine
-------
Therefore, Lederle's reclaimed methancl need not Do
manifested to the Willow Island facility, nor does American
Cyanarnid need a storage permit to store the reclaimed
methanol. I hope this letter answers your questions.
Please teel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste identification branch
-------
9441.1985(34)
Maurice Golden
456 Kilbourn Road
Rochester, NY 14618
Dear Mr. Golden:
I have been asked to respond to your letter of October 17, 1985, requesting
information on proper handling of small quantities of laboratory wastes, and
on the amended hazardous waste management regulations in general.
As you indicate in your letter, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA) do set new requirements for generators of small quantities of
waste (between 100 and 1000 kilogram in a calendar month), and snail laboratories
are among those likely to be affected by these changes in the law. As you may
know, a number of • interim* requirements—primarily use of the Uniform Hazardous
wast* Manifest when shipping waste off-site for treataent or *««r-^y., J-—-T.»
effective August 5, 1985. The HSM also directs EPA to proeulgate final
regulations for generators of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste
in a calendar month by March 31, 1986.
EPA's Office of Solid Waste has developed a new !>rochure to assist affected
businesses in complying with the "interim" requirements that went into effect
in August. A copy of this brochure is enclosed. 1 have also included a
"Laboratories* insert to the brochure which provides information that labs may
find heloful in completing Item 11 of the Manifest, the Department of
Transportation proper shipping description. If you feel that the brochure and
insert will be helpful to your classes, you can obtain additional copies from
ETA Regional Offices, or by calling toll-free either the RCRA Hotline (800-424-
9346) or Snail Business Hotline (800-368-5888).
EPA is currently working to issue final rules for small quantity generators
by the March 31 deadline. Proposed rules were published for public comment
in the August 1, 1985 Federal Register? a copy is enclosed. The cement period
closed September 30, 1985, and staff is now analyzing and addressing comments
lived.
So that you can stay abreast of the changes made in RCRA and of regulations
that may affect laboratories generating small quantities of hazardous waste,
I have added your name to cur mailing list of those interested in RCKA
-------
ithorisation and avail quantity generator isauea. You can expect to receive
periodic updates and other intonation m it \m\-rmm available.
I hope X-h*wa addressed your question* and the encloeed information will
b» of assistance. Than* you for your interact in the anall quantity generator
prorjran*
Sincerely yours,
Deborah Rutherford
Office of Solid Maste
EncloBure
-------
3441.1985(35)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 85
1. Mining Waste Delusion Re interpret at ion
Are wastes fron secondary slag anelting operations presently excluded (ran regulation
by $261.4(b)(7), the mining waste exclusion?
EPA has never interpreted the RCRA mining waste exclusion to apply to any
secondary anelting wastes. See the attached June 19, 1984, letter from the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Bnergercy Response to Senator Long.
In fact, the Agency currently lists two wastes front secondary sue It ing operations
as hazardous wastes. See 40 CFR 261.32, Waste Nos. K069 (emission control
dust/sludge) and K100 (waste leaching solution fron acid leaching of emission
control dust/sludge). Significantly, these listings, which were originally
pronulgated as part of EPA's May 19, 1980, list of hazardous wastes, were
retained when EPA temporarily deleted other listings in response to the October
21, 1980, enactment of the RCRA mining waste exclusion. See the Nay 20, 1981,
Federal Register (46 PR 27473).
The re interpret at ion of the mining waste exclusion which EPA proposed in the
October 2, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 40292) would not affect the status of
wastes fron secondary slag anelting operations. Wastes from secondary slag
anelting operations would remain subject to Subtitle C (if hazardous).
Source: Dexter Hi nek ley (202) 382-3388
-------
9441.1985(38
NOV 20 1965
Mr. Jeffry Spear
Quality Control
Fountain Powerboat!/ Inc.
P.O. Drawer 457
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Mr. Speart
The purpose of this letter in to respond to your letter
to Mr. James Popoiti, dated October 24, 1985, regard!no a
exclusion for the waste generated at your facility (listed
as CPA Hazardous Waste No. F003). At the present time an
exemption exists under $ 261.3(a)(2)(iii) of the RCRA hazar-
dous waste regulations that readsi
•a solid waste...is a hazardous waste if...it
is a mixture of a solid waste and a hazardous
waste that it listed in Subpart 0 soley because •
it exhibits one or more of the characteristics
of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C,
unless the resultant mixture no lonqer exhibits
any characteristic of hazardous waste identified
in Subpart C.*
Fountain Powerboats must determine whether this exemotion
would apply to the generated waste (i.e.* is it a mixture
of hazardous waste and solid waste?). You supplied data
to demonstrate that your waste does not meet any of the hazar-
dous waste characteristics. Therefore, if this exemption does
aoply to your waste, then the waste is not defined as hazardous,
and an exclusion under SS 260.20 and 260.22 of the regulations
is not necessary.
If you have any additional Questions, please do not hesitate
to call me, or Mr. Poppiti, at (202)382-4519.
Sincerely,
Ann Burke Sarno
Environmental Protection Specialist
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
UNITEL -ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.. 9441.1985(39)
NOV 2 5 1985
tIs. G. Mahoney
Environmental Engineer
bndyoyort drass Corporation
P.O. Box 51519
Indianapolis, Indiana 46251
Dear MS. Mahoney:
This letter is in response to your request for an
interpretation of the January 4, 1985 hazardous waste regulations,
concerning the regulatory status of two characteristically
hazardous sludges that are recycled. (The specific examples
you are interested in are described in your letter dated
August 14, 1985, and in our telephone conversation.) in
your letter, you indicate that both of these materials are
recycled in such a manner that you believe they are not
soiia wastes and thererore not subject to the hazardous waste
regulations under RCRA. However, based on the January 4
rules, one of the materials—the zinc oxide dust—would be
aetined as a solid waste and woulo be regulated under the
hazardous -waste regulations. The remainder of the letter
will describe how these materials are covered under these
rules.
First, I would like to apologize to you for my delay in
getting back to you. My schedule has bean very busy and hope
my delay nas not caused you any problems. With respect to
your specific examples:
0 A zinc oxide dust (a characteristic hazardous slud.je) is
sold to a facility where it is processed into zinc sult'att;
the resulting zinc sulfate in then sold to bulk fertilizer
blenders who use the zinc sulfate as an ingredient in
fertilizers. The fertilizer is then sold to smaller
distributors.
'Under the example, the zinc oxide is processed
to produce zinc sulfate (as tnis is described in
the attachment to your letter). Under the rules,
such activities do not normally constitute solid waste
management. However, when the material (that is, the
zinc oxide dust) is to be .incorporated into a product
that is placed on the land, we would detine the entire
rocvclina activity as "use constituting disposal.*
-------
Under the January 4 rules, .all sludges that are hazardous
-(whether or not they are listed) are aefined as wastes
if they are placed directly on the land for bonefical
use or incorporated into a product that is placed on
the land tor benfical use. (See 40 CFR Part 261.2(c)(l)
and Part 266 Subpart C; see also preamble discussion
at 50 F_R 627 and 646.) Therefore, the zinc oxide
dust is subject to the hazardous waste regulations
(i^e^, the generator of the zinc oxiae dust is subject
to the requirements of Part 262, transporters of this
dust are subject to the requirements of Part 263, and
the facility that processes the zinc sulfate would be
subject to the storage requirements of Parts 264 and
265). You should also be aware that if the zinc
sulfate is hazardous (i_i«_*./ exhibits any of the charac-
teristics of hazardous waste), it would also be subject
to the hazardous waste regulations.
• A characteristic hazardous sludge is generated from an
air pollution control device. This sludge can be reclaimed
to recover its copper content; in addition, any lead
recovered can be produced into a low grade lead solder.
Under this scenairo, the hazardous sludge would not
be defined as a waste (and thus not be subject to the
hazardous waste rules) as you have correctly indicated in
your letter. In particular, unaer the January 4 rules,
sludges that are reclaimed are only defined as solid and
hazardous wastes if they are specifically listed;
since the sludge is not listed (but is hazardous solely
because it exhibits the characteristic ot CP toxicity),
the material is not defined as a solid waste, see 40
CFR Part 26l.2(c)(3): see also preamble discussion at
50 PR 633. (This material may still be subject to
regulation it it is accumulated speculatively.)
I hope this letter responds to your request. Please
feel tree to give me a call if you have any questions or
comments. My telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours.
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste identification Branch
-------
9441.1985(41)
December 12, 1985
Daniel R. Cookey
Mobile Tank Care Services
8007 Asabottom Road
Louisville, Kentucky 40213
Dear Mr. Cookey:
This letter responds to your inquiry of November 15, 1985,
regarding the applicability of 40 CFR 261.7 — the exemption of
residues of hazardous waste in empty containers — to "empty"
tank cars that contained commercial chemical products.
As stated in your letter, the definition of "container"
applies to tank cars in which hazardous wastes were stored,
transported, treated, disposed, or otherwise handled. You are
correct in stating that the residue in the tank cars you clean
and the rinse waters are exempt from Federal regulations. The
exemption applies in your case because the amount left in the
tank cars is less than 0.3 percent of the tank volume. Since the
residue is exempt, the rinse waters are like-wise exempt if they
do not exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste (i.e., ignitability, EP Toxicity, reactivity or
corrosivity).
You may, however, still be regulated under state hazardous
waste regulations. Since state regulations must be at least as
protective of human health and the environment as the Federal
regulations, in many cases these rules are more stringent. As
stated in your letter, Ohio maintains a stricter interpretation
of the rule. In such cases, the State rules pre-empt the Federal
rules.
I trust that this letter adequately responds to your
inquiry.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1985(42)
DEC 1 3
SOBJYCTi Regulatory Interpretation for Peetlcide Applicator
Washing Rinse Water
PK)Mt Marcia I. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waate
TO: Harry Seraydarian, Director
Toxics and Naata Management Division
•PA Ration XX
Thia is in response to your memorandum dated September 16,
1M5, regarding the regulatory atatua of vaalHratara that ara
generated by waahing tba exterior ef a pesticide aarial
applicator'a airplane. To« aipraaaad aooeara tkat tfca
intarpratation aat forta ia a«r July 22 BMaoraa*a> d««a ac*
conaidar tha ultiaata diapiaal and ta« aasard praaantad ay
th«sa vaahwatara and th« •fifereaaant profelaM tHat a«di aa
intarpratation would cauaa. In particular* in tha study that
vaa aubaittad with your aaaw, tha data appaar to auggaat that
thara ia a potential for Migration of pesticide realduaa raaultiag
in conta»ination of ground water. Therefore, you request that
we re-viait thia laaue. In addition, you also raquaet that we
expedite the regulation a deaigned to cloae the current loop-hole
concerning mixtures of spent solvents and other coasMrcial
producta.
Although I understand your coneerna and generally agree
with you that theae rinae waters stay preaent a hasard if they
ara not properly managed, X »uet agree with Dr. Skinner in hie
interpretation of tha) nilasi any other reading of the rulea
would argue that any chemical that la releaaed into the environ-
ment an a rejaajlt of ana would be dlapoeed and regulated under
•CRA. In pavtioular, the mixture rule states that if a aolid
waata and a haaiardoua waate are mixed, the entire mixture is
defined an basardoua. At iaaue here ia whether the peaticide
that adhere*, to the exterior of the airplane is defined as a
•ROU hasardoua waste." To be defined an a RdA hasardoua
-------
w ,, eft* peaticide would have to be an unuaed discarded
~j*£,rcial chemical product. See 40 C.P.R. 1241.33. 81ne«
^ peetieide ha» been sprayed from/the airplane, it technically
„«• been use* and, therefore/ ia not" defined aa a 2il.33 commercial
chemical prejtoct. (On the other hand, the pesticide residue
that remains in the apray tanka aftar tha apraying operation
haa not taehnieally been uaad and/ thua, would b« dafinvd aa
a $261.33 cowttrcial chaalcal product.) Any othar intar-
pratation would go bayond tha intant of RCRA and tha i»plamenting
ragulationa. Thaaa paaticida waahwatars, tharafora, ara not
daflnad aa hasardoua bacauaa of tha Mixture rula.
Navarthalaif, it ahould be noted that the interpretation
ahould not be taXan to mean that we have evaluated theaa waataa
and have determined that they are non-haaardoua. Aa Z already
indicated/ these waahwatera may be hasardoua (aa evidenced by
the study you attached with your »e»o) and aay preaent aa auch
of a hasard aa the rinaate fro* apray tanks (which are currently
subject to regulation). In fact/ we have begun a atudy to
try to define the levela at which theae waahwatera aiay preaent
a hasard if theae washwaters are mismanaged (i.e./ placed in
unlined surface inpoundments). The study is expected to be
completed (at least as a draft) by the end of this year and we
will keep you apprised of the results. Based on the data/ as
well as any other information that is collected/ we may take
further action to control these washwaters.
With respect to your other request to close the current
loop-hole concerning solvent mixtures and other cosBSsiclil
products/ the solvent mixture rule is expected to be promulgated
in December/ while the commercial chemical product mixture
rule is expected to be proposed very shortly.
Please feel free to call Matt Straua if you have any
questlone or comments; his telephone number is (8) 475-8551.
cc: Attm Division Directors (Regions I-VIII and X)
S. Shatsow
-------
9441.1985(43)
DEC I 7 BBS •
Mr. Gary H. Baiae
beverage end Diamond, p.C.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Mr. Robin Horse
Baker and Botts
One Shell Plata
Houston, Texas 77002
Dear Gary and Robint
This letter is in response to your request Cor a
determination of the regulatory status of the wastewater
treatment system at Dow's Battleground Road plant (LaPorte,
Texas) that was described in your letter (date* September 26*
1985) to Messrs. Barry N. Diion and William Ihea. km you
outline in your letter, this plant uses monochlorooensen*
(MCB) in a number of processes, in none of the uses described
in the letter is MCB used in a chemical reaction, or otherwise
function as a chemical feedstock, reactant, or process intermediate;
rather MCB is used as a solvent as it is defined/Interpreted
under the hazardous waste rules. The MCB used in theee
processes then undergoes further processing, including the
recovery of MCB in a recovery column.I/ The bottoms from
the MCB recovery column are then sent to an on-site thermal
oxidixer where they are incinerated along with several other
wastes, which are characteristically hasardous. The scrubber
liquor from the incinerator (which contains MCB) is then
sent to the wastewater treatment system. (The wastewater
treatment system consists of several interconnected basins
and tanks.) In addition, as you indicated in your letter, the
concentration of HCB at the headwords of the treatment system,
is variable, but exceed 25 ppm.
I/ I attempted to exclude all confidential information from
this letter.
-------
Based on this description, the wastewater entering the
waatewater treatment system is not covered under the mixture
rule exemption of $261.3(a)(2)(iv)(B) and thus, the wastewater
treatment system is subject to the hazardous waste rules,
unless specific units are otherwise exempted ( i ,e., tanks
that are part of a wastewater treatment system are exempt
from regulation). My basis for this is two-fold:
0 The mixture rule exemption applies to solvents that
are used as part of the manufacturing process that
find their way into the wastewater treatment system
via leaks from pumps, valves* from normal cleaning
operation, etCt It does not include the discharge of
still bottoms into the wastewater treatment system
nor the discharge of spent solvents or still bottoms
that are treated and then discharged into the wastewater
treatment system. The raonochlorobenzene still bottoms
at the plant are treated in an on-site thermal oxidizer
before being discharged into the wastewater treatment
system; therefore the scrubber liquor is not covered
under the mixture rule exemption. (This point was
•noted by Dow Chemical in their comments to the Agency
when the mixture rule was promulgated interim final
on November 17, 1981, a copy of which is enclosed.)
0 The mixture rule exemption is to be applied at the
headworks of the facilities wastewater treatment or
pro-treatment system. Since the concentration of MCB
at the headworks of the treatment system is above the
specified level—namely 25 ppm—the mixture rule
exemption does not apply.
Consequently, as we have discussed previously, the impoundments
that are part of the wastewater treatment system at Dow18
battleground Road Plant are currently subject to regulation
under the hazardous waste regulations.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance} my telephone number (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
cc: Barry W. Dixon
William Rhea
-------
D SI JS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC N*
3441.1985(44)
ff
Mr. Charles A. Licht, p.E.
President
Charles Licht Engineering Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 315
Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461
Dear Charles:
Its nice hearing from you again. I haven't forgotten about
you and expect to answer all your questions. However, as you
nay expect, I have been very busy and have not been able to
anbwer the questions you raise in your letters. In this letter,
I will answer the questions you raise in your November 21, 1985 *
letter; I will answer the rest of your questions in the near
future. The remainder ot this letter will respond to the four
questions you asks
1. You asked whether the Agency has any plans to expand the
regulations as they apply to spent lead-acid batteries.
At this point in tine, there are no plans to amend the
regulations as they apply to spent lead-acid batteries.!./
However, as we discussed in the preamble to the January 4th
rules, the Agency will be investigating intermediate
collection sites to determine whether additional regulation
is necessary to control the storage of spent lead-acid
batteries at these sites. I will keep you informed when •
such a study is begun.
2. You ask whether precious metal containing scrap metal is
exempt frost regulations.
Yes. All scrap metal (as it is defined in the regulations)
is exempt from regulation, bee 40 CPR 261.6(3)(iv).
I/ spent lead-acid batteries are defined as hazardous at the
~~ point they are generated. However, generators, transporters,
and persons who store these batteries (but do not reclaim
them) are not subject to the hazardous waste regulations.
-------
3. -You ask whether the gold that is recovered from cyanide
solutions is still considered hazardous? In addition,
you request whether the cyanide solution from which the
gold has been reclaimed (and which the cyanide content
has been so substantially reduced as to fall well below
the criteria for cyanide in a reactivity test) must be
dcslisted before they are considered non-hazardous.
Gold, silver, or other precious metals that are
reclaimed from a solia/hazardous waste and that are suitable
tor direct use of that only have to be refined to be
useable are products, not wastes. See 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2);
see also 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985. Thus, reclaimed,
metals (as described above) are not subject to the KCRA
Subtitle C regulations. Kith respect to the remaining
solutions, they must be delisteo (it they are listed
wastes) before they can be handled as non-hazardous.
(Ot course, if the cyanide solution is not a listed
waste, but is hazardous because it exhibits a characteristic,
the solution becomes non-hazardous when it no longer
exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics).
4. YOU further request clarification of the regulatory status
of neutralized acid solutions that are generated in the
processing of reclaiming gold.
As indicated in No. 3, the neutralized acid solutions
would need to be delisted (before it could be considered
non-hazardous) if the acid solutions were listed wastes.
On the other hand, if the acid solutions are character-
istically hazardous, these wastes become non-hazardous
when they no longer exhibit any of the hazaroous waste
characteristics.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further
assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Wate Identification Branch
-------
ri i At. fKU I tl •«
«
9441 . 1986 (0 1)
JAN 6
Mr. John Robbins
Project Chemist
Kohler Co.
Kohler, Wisconsin 53044
Dear Mr . Ho&Oins:
This is in response to your letter dated November 25,
1985, regarding the regulatory status of foundry sands that
are recycled. In particular, you indicate that the molding
and casting sar.dsl/that are generated from your foundry
casting operations may potentially be recycled by running
them through a foundry sand reclamation process. The reclamation
process removes the deactivated clay binders and concentrates
of metals, and results in a sand that is suitable for reuse
as a foundry sand.
As you may be aware, the Agency promulgated on January
4, 1985, a set of rules which dealt with the question of
which materials b«ing recycled are solid and haxrdous'wastes.
see so FR 614, a copy of which is enclosed. Under those
regulations, foundry sands that are generated from your
casting operation would be defined as a solid and hazardous
waste and thus would be subject to regulatory control under
RCRA.V See 40 CFR 26l.2(c)(3). Therefore, the generator of
the sands is subject to 40 CPR Part 262 while the transportation
of these materials are subject to 40 CFR Part 263; in addition,
any person that stores these sands prior to reclamation would
be subject to the appropriate storage standards (i.e., owners
or operators of facilities that store these materials would
be regulated under all applicable provisions of Subparts A
through L of Parts 264 and 265 while generators of these
materials would be subject to 40 CFR 262.34 provided these
materials are stored in a tank or container for no longer
than 90 days). The actual reclamation process, however,
I/ These sands (as generated) are hazardous due to the EP
"~ toxictty characteristic of lead.
2/ Foundry sands are defined as a spent material—materials
~~ which have been used and are no longer fit for use without
being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed.
Wi.l. flR lW-4»?-ll)
-------
is exempt from regulation. Moreover, tne sands thax are
regenerated fron the reclamation process are no longer
considered solid wastes and thus are no longer subject to
regulation, even if the sands are shipped off-site to a
foundry sand coater for coating.
please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; ray telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
(footnote'2 cent.)
Spent materials that are hazardous (whether listed or exhibiting
one or more of the characteristics) and reclaimed are defined
as a solid and hazardus waste. See Table 1 at 50 FR 619;
see also preamble to regulation at 50 FR 618, 624, 633.
-------
9441 .1936(0
UNITED STATE' NVIRQNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JAN 71986
Mr. John L. Cherill
Corning Manufacturing & Engineering
Division
Corning Glass Works
Corninq, New York 14831
Dear Mr. Cherillt
This letter confirms our discussion and your letter of late
November with regard to Coming's use of a vacuum truck to filter
the dust and the regulatory status of the "empty" truck.
While the RCRA regulations are not specific in this regard,
you are correct in your assessment that the definition of "empty",
as applied to containers in 40 CPR 262.7, is also applicable to
other situations, such as your truck. Generally, we have supplied
the interpretation that the emnty container definition may be
applied to tanker vehicles as well as to containers. Thus, if
you have emptied your vacuum truck by means normally used for
such vehicles, the vehicle is considered "empty" if no more than
one inch of material remains, or an equivalent volume (as defined
in 40 CPR 261.1).
You should be aware that RCRA is intended to be implemented
by the States, when a State has been authorized to conduct the
hazardous waste management program in that State, their rules
prevail in lieu of the federal standards. You should check with
the appropriate State office in the jurisdictions of concern
to you for their interpretation of the regulatory status of your
operations. The interpretation given above is only pertinent to
those State* where federal regulations prevail.
If you have any further questions or need additional helo in
the RCRA regulations please call our hotline at 800-424-9346. I
can be reached at 202/382-4770.
Sincerely,
Alan 8. Corson
-------
l AL fKOTEC 'N *, HCV
JA!i ? 198-3
MS. Elizabeth Rose (6H-CE)
EPA Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
D*ar Ms. Rose:
This letter is in response to your recent telephone
conversation with Mr. David Topping of my staff. Specifically,
you requested information concerning the definition of hazardous
waste contained in 40 CFR Part 261 and the delisting criteria
related to leachate levels.
«261.3(a)(2)(iii) the deals with wastes which are included
in Subpart D solely because they meet the characteristics of
hazardous waste described in Subpart C (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity* or EP toxicity). Thus, a mixture of D002
waste (included solely for corrosivity) and a solid waste would
not be hazardous if the mixture no longer exhibits the characteristic
of corrosivity, nor any other hazardous waste characteristics.
However, waste which are listed in Subpart D because of the presencs
of specific hazardous constituents (e.g., K048, K049, and K051,
all of which are listed for hexavalent chromium and lead) remain
hazardous unless thy are excluded from the list under $§260.20 and
2-60.22 (i.e., delisted).
The delisting criteria include a sliding regulatory scale
which dictates allowable leachate levels for specific volumes of
wastes. For wastes which are typically disposed of in a landfill,
thift scale is described at SO PR 7882, February 26, 1985 and 50
FJR 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 yd3). Also, as required by the Hazardous and solid
waste Amendments of 1984, the Agency's evaluation of petitioned
wastes ie 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.
For example, oily petroleum refinery wastes are typically subjected
rn iMe f.f £ui.- eili Haate Dreee.dur.«t.satheg •***» -**e- standard
-------
evaluation criteria for wastes that are 8ub}ect to disposal
other than" in landfills (e.g., land treatment or management in
surface impoundments) are currently being developed; in fact, the
evaluation criteria for waste that are land treated was proposed
on November 27, 1985 (50 FP 48943). While these models have not
yet been made final, it is expected that the allowed leachate
levels for these disposal scenarios will be aore strigent than
those described above for landfilled wastes.
Should you have any further questions concerning the hazardous
waste definitions or the delisting program, please contact me or
Mr. David Topping of my staff at (202) 475-8551,
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
9441.1986(0
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JAN 7 1986
Dale D. Parker, Ph.D.
Executive Secretary
Utah Solid and Hazardous Wastes
Committee
3180 State Office Building
P.O. Box 45500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0500
Dear Dr. Parker:
This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1985, in
which you inquire as to the regulatory status of hazardous wastes
remaining in "empty* containers. Specifically, you ask whether
burning of the residue in empty drums constitutes incineration
(treatment) as defined in the RCRA regulations.
The regulations, at 40 CPR 261.7(a)(l), clearly state that
•(a]ny hazardous waste remaining in ... an empty container... is
not subject to regulation under ... RCRA.* Since the residue is
not regulated, its management does not constitute hazardous waste
management. In your referenced example, the burning of residue
by a drum recycler would not b« considered incineration of
hazardous waste and would not require a permit. The management
of the ash and waste from such burning as hazardous is not required
by the federal regulations; the drum recycler is probably taking
this approach as being environmentally preferable.
I believe this confirms the answer given to you by the RCRA
hotline. Of course, State regulations, in authorized States,
would prevail in lieu of federal regulations and may be more
stringent* If you have further questions please let me know.
Sincerely,
ccs Connie S. Nakahara
Alan S. Corson
Branch Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
-------
UN I ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC' v ,ENCY 9441.1986(0
J/fl 1 6 1SS6
Mr. John Sle!wner
Environmental Manager
Solid Tek Systems* Inc.
5371 Cook Road
P.O. Box R88
Morrow, Georgia 30260-0888
Dear Mr. Sleramer:
This is ir. response to your letters dated November 27
and December 27, 1965, concerning the identification ot
residues generated from the treatment of hazardous wastes.
In particular, you ask whether the identifiction numbers that
go or. the manifest that accompanies the treated waste should
be based on the hazardous waste characteristics of the treated
waste, the composition of the treated waste, or both.
The answer to this question depends both or. which wastes
are being treated And the characteristics of the treatment
residue, if the TSD facility is treating only characteristic
hazardous wastes, the Identification number that goes on the
manifest for the treatment residue would be that number tnat
is assigned to the characteristic for which the waste still
exhibits (i««.» if the treated waste exhibits the characteristic
of ignitability, the identification number would be D001).
Of course, if the treatment residue no longer exhibits any
of the characteristics of hazardous waste* the waste would
no longer be hazardous and subject to Subtitle C control.
If, on the other hand, the treatment facility treats both
listed and characteristic hazardous wastes or just listed
hazardous waste, the identification number that goes on the
manifest for the treatment residue would be that of the
untreated listed waste and that number that corresponds to
the characteristic for which the waste exhibits, it any.
Thus, in the example provided in your letter, you are correct
that the identification number for the treated residue is
U012. You are also correct that the TSD becomes a generator
of the treated waste.
•CM. 90 H8i-««T-4JJ
-------
I hope this adequately responds to your request. If I
can he ot any further assistance, please feel free to give me
a call at (2H2) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH562B)
-------
9441. 1936(06
JAN 2 I 1986
Mr. D. P. Gol'lsrdr.h
D. F. Golasnit/-- Chemical
ar.d Metal Corp.
9nq purer Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 6020
near Mr. Goldsmith:
This letter is ir. response to your request of August 2,
1905, concerning the reyulatory status of the scrap mercury
that is refined at you facility in Chicago. First, X would
like to apologize for taking so long in responding to your
request; I hope this delay has not caused you any problems.
with regard to your specific request, you indicate that scrap
mercury, in the form of free-flowing mercury, is shipped to
your facility in 76 pound flasks for refining. The scrap
mercury purchased by your facility comes from a variety of
sources, including the followings scrap dealers that accumulate
small quantities of mercury; manufacturers or reclaimers of
instruments and electric switches* private citizens who have
accumulated mercury; and firms who dismantle chlor-alkali
facilities. The mercury, as received, Is at least 99 percent
pure mercury; this material if distilled to instrument quality
(over 99.99 percent pure mercury). Based on your reading of
the January 4, 1985 recycle/reuse regulations, the scrap
mercury that is refined at your facilitiy is not a solid
waste and, thus, would not be subject to the RCRA hazardous
waste rules.
in general, I agree with you that the free-flowing mercury
that is received and r«fined at your facility is not a solid
waste (although X do not necessarily agree with all the
arguments you present in your letter).!/ in particular, we
have stated (which you note in your letter) that metals that
are suitable for direct use, or that only have to be refined
to he usable are products, not wastes. See 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2);
I/ it should be noted that this regulatory interpretation
~ reflects the federal hazardous waste rules. The State
of Illinois may take a different interpretation.
-------
see also preamble discussion at 50 £R 634, January 4, 1985.
Thus, the scrap mercury—that is the 99 percent free-flowiny
mercury—that you receive is not subject to any of the hazardous
waste regulations (i.e., the material does not have to be
manifested to your facility, you need not comply with the
storage requirements, etc.),2_/
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
waste Identification Branch
2/ It should b» noted that If you receive electrical switches,
~~ instruments, scrap batteries* or other forms of spent
materials from which you recover/reclaim the mercury and
these spent materials are hazardous (i.e., they exhibit
one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics),
these materials would be solid ar.d hazardous wastes
and would be regulated under 40 CFR 261.6(b) and (c).
-------
94 41.199 6 (
JAN ?3
StrajECTi Regulators Interpretation with Pesr»«ct to Leaks,
Spills, and Illenal Discharges of Listed Wastes
to Purface waters
FRDMt Harela P. Williams, Director
office of Solid waste
TOt David stringham, Chief
Soli-1 Waste Branch, 5RA-13
Region V
This Is In response to your memoranda, dated August i
and December 24, IMS, in which you request clarification of
the Mixture rule as it aoplles to leaks, spills, and illegal
discharges of listed wastes to surface waters, resulting in
contamination of the sediment* First, let *<» aoologlse for
taking so long in getting back to you. I hone this delay
has not caused you any DrobIems.
In your memoranda, you indicate that the Corpe of
Engineers In carrvlno out their resDonsibiliea to maintain
the navigability of Astabula Harbor found that the bottom
sediments of the harbor were severlv contaminated* subsequent:
investigation suggested that the source of the contaminants
is primarily from Fields Rrook, a tributary to the harbor.
Upon further investigation, it appears that some of the
contamination may have occured as a result of sol11s or
leaks from treatment, storage, and disposal units. Therefore,
you surmise by aoplication of the mixture rule, that the
contaminated sediments would be hasardeus under PCPA and
subject to toe) appropriate management standards. You believe
such a reading of the rules was never intended, but rather
the contaminated sediments should only be considered hazardous
if they exhibit one or store the characteristics of hasardous
waste. Unless such an interpretation is taken, you believe
that all sediments contained in the industrialised harbors
on the Great Lakes (a total of 109) should be manaoed as
listed wastes*
-------
The regulation of contaminated material* depende in large
oart upon the) regulationa baing applied and upon the aourca
of tha contamination. Aa written, tha Mixture rula would
not cauaa tha eediaents in tha harbora on tha Graat Lakea
(nor in any othar harbora or rivara) to ba conaidarad hasardoua.
Mora aoecifically, tha Mixture rula atataa that any mixture
of a hatardoua waata with a eolid waata cauaaa tha antira
mixtura to ba hasardoua. Therefore, in ordar for tha mixture
rula to ba triggered, wastes nuat ba mixed or sonahow combined
toqathar. In tha example citad in your letter, however,
wastes ara not baing mixed (i.e., we would not normally
conaidar sadimants in rivara aa waataa). Rather, a waata ia
baing dinoosed of with a non-waste material. Tharafora, tha
mixture rula ia not causing thaaa aedimants to ba hasardous.
However, application of the-mixtura rula la not diaoositiva
of tha iaaue of whether tha mixture of a haiardbua waata and
another substance ia regulated. A part fro* tha mixture
rule, the mixture of a hatardoua waata and a non-waata Material
ia atill aubject to Subtitle C control* for example, ground
watar contaminated with a hasardoua waata ia currently aubjaet
to tha appropriate raouiremanta in 40 CPR Parts 2(4 and 265*
In addition, if liatad hasardoua waataa ara baing discharged
into aurfaca watara, thia could eonatituta disposal reguiring
regulatory control under Subtitle C of *CRA. The aajor
quaation to anever is whether tha discharge reaultad fro*
illegal discharges or frost point aourca dlach*rqaa aubjaet
to regulation undar the Clean water Act.
Aa vou are aware, 40 CPR 2(1.4(a)(2) anacifically exemnts
industrial waatawater discharoea that ara point source
diaehargaa subject to regulation undar Section 402 of tha
Clean Watar Act (CWA), as awanded. (Thia authority covers
the addition of any pollutant to w*ter of tha nnitad States
from any diacernibla, confined, and discrata conveyance,
excaot discharoaa of dredged and fill material ranulatad
undar Saction 404.) Tha point of tha wastawater »xclualon ia
to avoid potentially dupllcativa regulation of ooint aourca
dlschargaa undar RCtA and CWA. Thus, once waatawater flows
from an NPDBS discharge) point into watars of tha United .
Statee, that waatewater is exasmt frot PTtA regulation.I/
I/ This is true even if tha discharge could ba regulatad
"" undar $402, but is not.. A ooint source) dlscharoa
without an NPOE9 oarsiit would be a violation of tha CWA,
and should ba subject to an enforcewant action undar
the Act*
-------
Therefore, it is important to know the source of the
contolnatlc*. If* for example, thsrs it evidence to
demonstrate tlMt hazardous wastes have been dumped Into the
surface water in a Banner that does not trigger Section 402
of the CWA, this constitutes dieposal under RCRA and would
be subject to the appropriate regulatory controla. (If these
hasardous wastea were illegally disposed of, enforcement action
should also be undertaken.) If thia occurs, that sediment
which ia contaminated by these dischargee would be subject to
regulation. On the other hand, if the source of the oollutants
ia from a point source discharge, then you should assume
that hasardous wastes have not been discharged into surface
waters. Under this situation, these sediments would be
regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA only when they are dredged
from the surface waters and only if they exhibit one) or more
of the hasardous waste characteristics. Thus* I cannot
agree with your suggestion that contaminated sediment should
not be categorised as listed wastes, no matter the source of
contamination. Such an interpretation could invite abuse by
persons who illegally dispose of hasardous wastes,
Please feel free to contact Matthew A* Straus at
8-475-8551 if you have any guestions.
-------
'_ UNi CtO jrATZS E:JVl*C.,:.:t:ri TAi. f^OT'ZC ' i -i AOw
w ASmrj , -OM j .: •••;;,, 5
24 1986 S441.1986(08)
Mr. Earle F. Young, Jr.
Vice President
Energy and Environment
American Iron and Steel Institute
1000 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Young:
This is a follow up to our December 13, 1985 meeting when
we discussed the information EPA would need in order to consider
classifying the waste-derived fuels produced at iron and steel
mills as products rather than exempt hazardous waste fuels.
Our decision as to whether coke or coal tar produced from
the recycling of a listed hazardous waste, coal tar decanter
sludge, should be classified as a product rather than a waste-
derived fuel turns on whether the recycling significantly
affects the composition and, thus, the risk that coke or coal
tar may pose during transportation, storage, or use as a fuel.
Specifically, we must determine whether hazardous constituents
in the recycled decanter sludge significantly increase levels
of those constituents in the coke or coal tar.
To determine whether levels of toxic organics or toxic
metals in the coke and coal tar are significantly increased by
recycling the sludge, we need triplicate analyses of the levels
of particular metals and organics ,(see the enclosed table) in the
coke and coal tar materials produced with and without sludge
recycling.
The metals listed in the enclosed table were selected for
evaluation because they are present in coal, and either cause
carcinogenic or other nonthreshold health effects, or are fairly
volatile* or both.
The detection limits suggested are about an order of magnitude
lower than the average levels of these metals in coals. Our
concern with metals levels in the coke is that some of the more
volatile metals may become concentrated in the sludge and could
conceivably be reintroduced into the coker in a less volatile
form, thus increasing levels in the coke product. Similarily,
if volatile metals are concentrated in the sludge, mixing the
sludge with the coal tar could increase metals levels.
-------
The organics were selected for evaluation because they are
typically produced from thermal treatment of coal, they are less
volatile than phenol and napthalene already shown not to be
carried over into the coke at significant levels, and they are
representative of polyaromatic molecules (POMs), many of which
are considered to be carcinogens. Our concern with organics in
the coke is that some of the less volatile, difficult to crack
POMs that are likely to be found in the sludge could conceivable
be carried over into the coke product. Similarily, if POMs con-
centrate in the sludge, mixing the sludge with the coal tar could
increase POM levels.
If you have questions, please contact Matt Straus or Bob
Holloway.
Sincerely,
•M
Steve'n Silverman
Attorney
Office of General Counsel
Enclosure
-------
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
(See SW-846 for description of methods.)
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Method*
6010, 7060,7061
6010, 7130, 7131
6010, 7190, 7191
6010, 7420, 7421
6010, 7471
Detection Limit
1 ppm
0.1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
0.1 ppm
* Use acid degestion method 3050 for preparation of coal tar
samples.
Organics
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Benzo(a)anthracene/
chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Pluoranthene
Pyrene
Napthalene-f
Phenol+
Method
8100
8100
8100
8100
8100
8100
8040
Detection Limit
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
+ Napthalene and phenol levels in the coke as well as the coal
tar should b« determined for comparison with previous data.
-------
9441.1986(09
CERCLA and RCRA Liability of Municipal Sponsor* of Household
Hazardous Vasts Collection Programs
P. Lemman, Director
Waste Management and Economics Division (WH-S6S)
Basil G. Constantelos, Director
Waste Management Division
Region V
I am responding to your October 29, 1985, memorandum
requssting an Agency policy statement concerning the liability
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of municipal sponsors of household
hacardous wasts collection progrtmt, In addition, this
memorandum clarifies the issue of potential liability under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
following interpretations are based on discussions of these
issues with the Office of General Counsel (OOC) and the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OKM).
In a June 7, 1984, memorandum to the Deputy Administrator,
Lee Thomas (then Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Solid waste and Emergency Response) clarified the issue of
RCRA liability. This memorandum, which is attached, stated
that household hazardous wastss are by definition exempt from
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA, Section 2«1.4(b)(l)
unconditionally exempts household wastes from being designated
as hazardous even when accumulated in quantities that would
otherwise be regulated or when transported, stored, treated,
disposed, recovered, or reused. However, when household
wastes are mixed with hazardous wastes from small quantity
generators, this reeulting mixture is subject to the small
quantity generator rules (Section 261.5(h)). In addition,
when household waste is mixed with other regulated hazardous
wastes, the entire mixture becomes subject to full hazardous
wasts regulation (Section 2«1.3(a)(2)). For this reason,
sponsors of household hazardous waste collection programs
should be) careful to limit the participation in their programs
to households to avoid the possibility of receiving regulated
hazardous) wastes from commercial or industrial sources.
With regard to CIRCLA, we cannot offer relief from long-
term liability. CCTCLA does not contain any type of exclusion
for household waste or any type of exclusion based on the
amount of waste generated. As a general matter, any waste that
qualifies as a hazardous substance under CIRCLA is subject to
the liability provisions of Section 107. Hazardous substances
are both defined under Section 101(14) and designated under
Section 102(a). Therefore, if a household waste contains a
substance that is covered under either section (whether or not
-------
it is * RCRA hasardoua waste), potential CBRCLA liability
would apply regardless of whether the material vaa picked up
as part of a community's routine traah collection service or
was gathmrert, as part of a special collection day program.
With re«pe«t to household hacardoua wasta, such watte would
clearly qualify as a *hasardoua substance* if they contain
any substance liated in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302. See
50 Federal Regiater 13474 (April 4, 1985).
With regard to enforcement under CERCLA, you noted that
John Skinner, former Director of thia office, recently cited
a policy statement in a May 4, 1984, letter (attached) from
Region I Administrator, Michael DeLand, to Dana Duxbury of the
Maaaachuaetta League of Woven Voters. This policy statement
relied on enforcement discretion in indicating that EPA had no
intention of taking enforcement action againat a Massachusetts
town that sponsored a contracted collection day, if problems
arose in the transportation or disposal of the household
hasardoua waste collected during the collection program.
Further clarification was offered by Courtney Price (OBCM)
in a memorandum dated May 11, 1984 (attached), to Alvin Aim,
former Deputy Administrator. For the specific eaae of that
Maaasachuaetta town, the company collecting and transporting.
the waates and the disposal facility owner or operator would
be considered the responsible parties.
While you are correct in atating that the Agency'a general
policy is to not give "no action* aaaurancea in enforcement
matters (see attached Courtney Price memorandum of November 16,
1984), Ms. Price addressed a specific household hasardoua
waate collection program in the May 11, 1984, memorandum and
explained their position in the Region I caae in Massachusetts.
The decision of "no action* in the Massachusetts caae was
baaed on the facts about that specific program. An important
feature was limiting collections to household hasardoua wastes.
Ho wastes from aaall cosjmercial businesses were accepted.
Courtney Price indicated that OBCM would have to look at the
apecific facts of any aituation involving wastes from small
businesses to determine whether an exerciae of enforcement
discretion would be appropriate.
Xa our recent discussions with OBCM, we have considered
the coooept of •mo action* as a possible general policy for
sponsors of household hasardoua waste collection programs.
OBCM ha* not yet completed their analysis of this issue. They
expect to complete their analysis in the next several weeks
and will supply their policy statement in a separate memorandum.
Zf you have any questions regarding the iaauea addressed
in this memorandum, please contact Michael Plyna of my staff
at 382-4489.
-------
w
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
5441.1986(10)
SOLID WASTE AND CMf MCESCv •ESPQNSE
Honorable Stewart B. McKinney
Member/ United States
House of Representatives
Federal Building
915 Lafayette Boulevard
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Dear Mr. McKinney:
This is written in response to your letter of January 21,
1986, requesting a reply to an inquiry from Mr. Vern Sielert.
Mr. Sielert wishes to know whether there are federal regulations
classifying wood treated with creosote as a hazardous waste.
Creosote treated wood is not likely to be defined as
hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA and, thus, not .subject to
the hazardous waste regulations. Under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), wastes are
defined as hazardous if they are listed or exhibit any of
the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity).
CPA has issued regulations listing only the commercial product
creosote, when discarded, and two manufacturing process
wastes (i.e., bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol (ROOD and wastewater treatment
sludges generated in the production of creosote (K03S)) as
hazardous under RCRA. Creosote treated wood is not covered
by any of these listings. In addition, it is unlikely that
creosote treated wood would exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics. It should be noted that wastes not
defined as hazardous under EPA's regulations may still be
hazardous under an authorized State program.
The disposal of creosote treated wood, however, is
subject to regulation under rules developed under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In
particular, on July 13, 1984, EPA issued its Rebuttable
Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) for the three major
wood preservatives—namely, creosote, pentachlorophenol, and
inorganic arsenicals. Among other things, these rules require
-------
that wood which has been treated with creosote should not be
burned in an outdoor fire or in stoves or fireplaces; rather,
this wood should be buried in a non-hazardous waste landfill'
unless otherwise required by the State. This requirement
was included to ensure that no toxic contaminants would be
released as a result of the burning process.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9441.1986(11)
Mr. Will!an F. O'Kaefe
Vice President
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. O'Keefei
This is in response to your January 24, 1986, letter regarding
applicability of our November 29, 1985, "burning and blending"
regulations to petroleum refinery fuel products derived from
recycled used oil.
As Bob HoiIoway explained to you on January 28, the exemption
we provided for hazardous waste-derived refinery fuel products —
based on data you provided us — also exempts refinery products
when both hazardous waste and used oil are introduced into the
process. Had we been aware that crude oil petroleum refineries
typically recycle used oil as well as their hazardous wastes, we
would have explicitly addressed the issue in the preamble. *
When both oil-bearing hazardous wastes and used oil are
Introduced into the crude oil refining process, the fuel products
are exempt from the November 29 rule. This is because mixtures
of used oil and hazardous waste are subject to regulation as
hazardous waste, and hazardous waste-derived refinery fuel pro-
ducts are exempt from the rule.
Although we understand that virtually all refineries reint.ro-
duce their process-generated, oil-bearing hazardous waste into
the refining procees, if a refinery were to recycle used oil but
not. its hazardous waste* the November 29 rule would not explicitly
exempt the refinery fuel products from regulation ae used oil
fuel. As you note, however, CPA did not intend for used oil-
derived refinery products to be subject to regulation as used oil
fuel. It in fact there are refineries that recycle used-oil but
not hazardoue waste, pleaee let me know so that we can take
-------
whatever actic . is necessary to ensure that their products are
no*-, subject t regulation.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: Lehman
Del linger
Holloway
Walker
Silverman
-------
9441.1986 (14)
FEB 251386
Mr. Christian Volz Lsq.
McKenr.r:, Conner, and Cuneo
1575 Eye Streot
Washington, O.C. 2C460
Dear Mr. Volz
This in response to your letter dated January 9. 1986, in
which you request an interpretation of the hazardous waste rules
regarding the regulatory status cf the Torpedo Propulsion Units
that are shipped tor recycling to the San Tan facility of the
G«rr.?tt Pneumatic Systnras Division (GPiiD). As we understand
the process, GPSD designs, manufactures, and supplies to the
Honeywell Unaerseas Division the afterbody of the MR 50 Torpedo.
Contained in the afterbody of the torpedo is a chemical energy -
Propulsion system (referred to as the "boiler") that generates
the thermal energy used to propel the torpedo. (Keat cor the
process is caused by a chemical reaction between two reactive
compounds — lithium and sulphur hexafluoridc.)
After a torpedo has been run and tested, it is disassenblod
and the boiler (as well as other componcts) is shipped back
to GPSD's San Tan facility for reuse. Before the boiler can be
reused, however, it Bust be cleaned to reoove any unreacted
chemicals and the residues left by those chemicals that did
react. This cleaning operation appears to be carried out in
two steps:
* tho boiler is first flushed with a mixture ot water and
•thylene glyeol this mixture reacts with any unreacted
lithium metal to torn lithium hydroxide in an aqueous
solution. These rinsewaters may be corrosive when it
leaves th« boiler. The rinscwater is collected in a
sump, from which it is then pumped into a 10,000 gallon
holding tank. As the rinsewater is punped out of the
•unp, sulfuric acid is added in line through an educator
and mixed to neutralize the excess alkalinity in the
rinsewater as well as convert the lithium hydroxide in
the rinsewater to lithium sulfido; at thie point, the
rinsewater no longer is corrosive nor do*a it exhibit
any other hazardous waste characteristics. The lithiun
sulfide settles.out in the holding tank. After a sutficivnt
amount has settled out, the material will b* filtered and
-------
_sf.>nt to a roMnery of lithiun ore for use in its orocess.
You indicate that the lithiun sulfide dops not exhibit
any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
9 any ronaininc lithium salts (i.e., products ot the reaction
when the torpedo is run) are then removed with a high-velocit-
water jet. The lithiun salts are collected and placed
in drurs for eventual return to a refiner of lithiun ore.
You also indicate that the lithiun salts also do not
exhibit any or the hazardous waste characteristics.
Based on this recycling process, you believe that the used boilers
(and the used torpedoes and afterbodies ot which the boilers are
apart) are not subject to the hazardous waste regulations, eith&r
at the Federal or State level.
As you arc aware, on January 4, 1985, CPA promulgated its
final rule? dealing with the question of which materials are
solid and hazardous wastes when they arc recycled. Among other
things, these rules state that materials that are directly used/
reused are not solid wastes. See 40 CFR 261.2(e). Although
the boilers are shipped to the San Tan facility to be reubed,
the boilers must be regenerated before they can be- reused
(i.e., they nust be decontaminated before being reused). Since
three boilers would be defined as scrap r.otal, these boilers
would b? defined as solid and hazardous wastes when reclaimed. I/
See 40 CtR 201.2 (c)(3). However, hazardous scrap nctal
that is recycled is currently exempt from regulation. See 40
CFR 261.6(a)(3) (iv). Therefore, the transportation and storage
of the boilers prior to processing is exempt fror. the hazardous
waste regulations.!/
With regard to the cleaning operation, these activities
generate materials that also need to be evaluated with-regard to
their regulatory status. The lithiun salts that are removed
fron the boiler with the high-velocity water jot would not bo
sublect to Subtitle C control since these salts arc not hazardous.
The other rinsate (i.e., ethylone glycol/water mixture), howover,
is hazardous (or nay be hazardous) when first generated and nay
be subject to the hazardous waste rules.
In particular, this rinsing solution is placed in a sunp
prior to neutralisation. While we agroo with you that the
neutralization of this rinscwater is exempt fron regulation and
]_/ This assumes, of course, that the boilers exhibit one or rorc-
of the hazardous waste characteristics.
^/ This interpretation represents tho regulatory status ot these
~" boilers under tht Federal regulations anu r«ot necessarily
under St»tc law. i.'owevr-r, sinco the San Tan iacility is on
Incian lands, the federal regulations wouJLc.' apply in this cs?-
-------
th«= hafffllinq of this material after neutralization is also extmpt
iron regulation (since the rinsewater is no longer hazardous),
the regulatory status of the rinsewater in the sump is still
at issue. More specifically; in November, 1980, EPA exempted
trom regulation those vastewaters that are stored/treated in
tanks; however, this exemption only applies If the tanks are
part of a wastewater treatment system that are subject to
regulation under either Section 402 or Section 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act (CV.'A). Therefore, it the sump (which I assume
would be defined as a tank) is part of a wastewater treatment
system that is subject to regulation under the CWA, the storage
ot the hazardous rinsewater would be exempt from regulation.
If, however, the surp is not part of a wastewater treatment
system that is subject to regulation under the CWA, the sump
holding the hazardous rinsewater would be subject to the appropriate
standards (!_•-!.•' the sump would be subject to 40 CFR 262.34 or
40 CFR Parts 26*4 and 265). It should be noted that if the sump
is not a tank, but rather a surface impoundment, the sump would
b*» subject to regulation no matter whether this unit is part ot
a wastewater treatment facility that is subject to regulation •-
under the OVA. See 40 CFR Parts 260.10 (definition of wastewater
treatment unit and tank) and 264.Kg)(6) for specific regulatory
language.
I hope this letter adequately responds to your request.
Please teel free to contact Mr. Matthew A. Straus, or my start,
if you have any other questions; Mr* Straus can be reached at
(202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office or Solid Waste
-------
9441.1986(16)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 86
4. Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Exclusion
A coal conbustion process produces a mixture of fly ash and bottom ash, a
waste that is deemed non-hazardous in 40 CTR $261.4(b){4). Vten quench
water cones in contact with the ash to cool it, the water sonetiraes becomes
alkaline to the point of corrosivity. A pipeline transfers this mixture to
a dewatering facility, and the dewatered ash is placed on a truck. Is this
corrosive quench water a hazardous waste, even though it is from an excluded
ash?
Fly ash, bottcn ash, slag and flue gas emission control wastes generated
primarily iron the burning of fossil fuels are exempt fron hazardous
waste regulation under RCRA according to 40 CTR 5261.4(b)(4) and Section
3001(b)(3) (A)(i) of RCRA. The quench water becomes corrosive solely as
a result of contact with the ash. Because the hazardous waste charac-
teristic of the quench water is derived from an exempt waste, the resul-
ting corrosive quench water retains the exempt status of that waste. In
other words, whatever makes the water corrosive is already exempt, so the
water is also exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste.
Source: Ephraia King (202) 382-7709
-------
9441.1936(17)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 86
5. Definition of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Section 261.2(e)(1)(i) was promulgated on January 4, 1985, (50 FR 664) as
part of the new definition of solid waste. It states v.au materials are net
solid wastes when they can be shown to be recycled by being used or reused
as ingredients in an industrial process to make a product, provided the
materials are not being reclaimed. This is significant because materials
that are not solid wastes per $261.2(e)(l)(i) are not hazardous wastes, and
therefore, are not subject to RCRA regulations.
A chemical manufacturing plant generates spent sulfuric acid. The spent acid
is reintroduced into the production process, where it is decomposed into its
constituents (e.g., SC>2). These constituents can then be used to produce
more sulfuric acid. Would the process of reintroduction and decomposition
constitute reclamation, thus precluding the plant from the exemption?
Spent sulfuric acid is frequently used as a feedstock in the production
of virgin sulfuric acid. Accordingly, EPA has promulgated a specific
exclusion stating that spent sulfuric acid recycled in this way is not
a solid waste ($261.4(a)(7)). The recycling process more closely resemoles
a manufacturing operation tnan a reclamation process. Note that: (1)
spent sulfuric acid is subject to the speculative accumulation provisions,
as defined in $261.1 (c); and (2) the spent acid would be a hazardous
waste if disposed (assuming it is corrosive or exhibits another hazardous
waste characteristic) and could be a hazardous waste if recycled in
sane other manner (see the January 4, 1985 Federal Register (SO FR 642)).
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-855:
-------
U
9441.1986(19)
Jr. .'.-icJiarl weaver
Aero Sport» Inc.
St. Aurjustin* Airport
P.O. Drawer 1989
St. Auqustine, Florida 32085
Dear Mr. ">Jeaveri
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1996, concerning
the regulatory classification of off-specification jet fuel when
it is burned as kerosene. Under the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) rules (40 CFR S261.2(c)(2)(ii)), an off-specifica-
tion commercial chemical product is not a solid waste as long as
it is used for its original purpose. In this case the product,
jet fuel, although not used to propel jets, is still being used
as a fuel and, therefore, is neither a solid waste nor a hasardous
was te.
Sincerely,
Marcia B. Williams
Director
Office of Solid N'aste (UH-562)
-------
9441.1986(21)
March 13, 1986
Mr. George D. Culotta
Vice President-Sales
Progressive Recovery, Inc.
1020 North Main Street
Columbia, Illinois 62236
Dear Mr. Culotta:
This is in response to your letter of February 21, 1986, in
which you requested that we review your interpretation of the
applicable regulations for in-house liquid solvent recovery
units. In addition, you asked for the Environmental Protection
Agency's position regarding recycling of spent solvents by
generators.
The spent solvents that you described in your example are
RCRA hazardous wastes. F001 through F005 are listed hazardous
wastes (40 CFR 261.3) and DOOl exhibits a hazardous
characteristic (40 CFR 261.21). As a result, the storage,
treatment, and disposal of these and other hazardous wastes are
regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. However, exemptions from
general permitting regulations are provided for certain types of
tanks, small quantity generators and operational units reclaiming
o_r recycling hazardous wastes. In your example, no Subtitle C
treatment permit is required under Federal regulations for in-
house solvent recovery equipment as long as the wastes meet the
definition of a recyclable material, and owners or operators of
treatment facilities are in compliance with 40 CFR 261.6
requirements.
As part of 40 CFR 261.6 regulation, operational units are
exempted from permitting regulations when those operations
involve recycling of hazardous wastes. However, there is no
exemption for certain recycling practices constituting disposal.
Additionally, the storage, transport and generation that precedes
this activity are regulated without any special considerations
for recycling activities. In your spent solvents example the
wastes meet the definition of a recyclable material. If the in-
house solvent recovery equipment are in compliance with 40 CFR
261.6 requirements, no RCRA Subtitle C treatment permit is
required for the activities of recycling these particular
hazardous wastes.
Although storage is subject to regulation as described in
the previous paragraph some general exemptions from the storage
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
regulations exist. These exemptions apply when the wastes are
either accumulated on-site less than 90 days as stated in the 40
CFR 262.34 requirements, or are accumulated on-site up to 180
days by small quantity hazardous waste generators (less than
1,000 kg per month) as stated in the 40 CFR 261.5 requirements.
I also would like to emphasize that the proposed rule for
small quantity hazardous waste generators is scheduled to be
promulgated later this month. Although changes might occur in
the final rule, the proposed rule for small quantity hazardous
waste generators would exempt generators that store wastes for
180 days if they do not accumulate more than 6,000 kg of
hazardous wastes during that period. In addition, the August 1,
1985, proposal (50 FR 31304 and 31305) would allow accumulation
for 270 days if the waste is being shipped 200 miles or more for
off-site treatment, storage, and disposal. I would suggest that
you also contact the State authorities of your clients because
States may regulate recyclable materials in a different manner.
I also am enclosing the January 4, 1985, final rule defining
a solid waste (40 FR 14 through 668), as well as the August 20,
1985, technical corrections to this rule (50 FR 33541 through
33544). These notices provide detailed information on our
rationale in defining a solid waste. If you have additional
questions, please contact Matt Straus, Chief, Waste
Identification Branch, at (202)475-8551.
Finally, I would like to point out that the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 establish as national policy the
minimization of hazardous wastes. It is EPA's policy to
encourage environmentally sound techniques that reduce the volume
or quantity and toxicity of hazardous wastes generated. The
recycling of spent solvents is one of the most frequently used
practices for volume reduction. We believe that properly
designed and operated solvent recovery can provide effective
reduction in the volumes of solvents requiring disposal as
hazardous wastes.
Sincerely,
Marcia B. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
This document has Jbeen retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1986(22)
MAR I 9 !93V
Ms. Joan Keenan
91 Harvard Avenue
Rockville, N.Y. 11570
Dear Ms. Keenan:
This is in response to your letter dated February 21, 1986.
In your letter, you requested a declaratory ruling and advisory
opinion on a number of questions concerning the regulatory status
of a gasoline/water mixture and a fuel oil/water mixture that
is recycled. Our response to these questions are as follows:
First State of Facts
1. Where the separated gasoline is being legitimately recycled
for use as a fuel, does EPA consider the gasoline and water
mixture a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its attendant regulations?
•
No* The gasoline/water mixture is considered a
mixture which contains a commercial chenical product
(CCP). CCPs that are reclaimed are not considered
•solid wastes" (i.e., it's not "discarded* because
it's normally a fuel and not being abandoned). Since
hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste* this mixture
is not defined as a hazardous waste (i.e., it must be
a solid waste before it can be a hazardous waste).
2. Does the Agency consider the unused (virgin) gasoline a
solid waste under RCRA and its attendant regulations?
No. See explanation to previous question.
3. Does the Agency consider the unused gasoline an industrial
commercial waste under RCRA and its attendant regulations?
No* Since gasoline is typically burned as a fuel,
we would not consider it a waste when recycled in the
manner described in your letter.
4. Has the gasoline 'resulted from* an industrial or commercial
process to justify a determination of the virgin product
as a waste?
-------
Additional information is needed betore we can respond
to th_i« question. Please contact Matthew A. Straus at
(202) 475-8551.
5. Does the Agency require that ABC Company obtain any permits
or other letters of authorization of any kind from the
Agency?
No. Since the qasoline/water mixture is not a solid
and hazardous waste, this mixture is not subject to the
Federal regulations under RCRA. This mixture may still
be subject to State law and to the transportation rules
promulgated by the Department of Transportation.
6. If the virqin qasoline is incinerated to recovery energy,
does the Agency consider it to be a waste?
No. Since gasoline is typically burned as a fuel,
it is not considered a wast* when burned to recover
energy under Federal regulation (see 40 CFR 261.33).
Second State of Facts
1. Where the separated oil is being legitimately recycled for
use as a fuel, docs the Agency consider the oil and water
mixture a hazardous waste under RCRA?
No. The fuel oil/water mixture is considered
a mixture which contains a CCP. CCPs that are reclaimed
are not considered "solid wastes" (i.e., it's not "discarded1
because it's normally a fuel and not being abandoned).
Since hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste, the
mixture is not defined as a hazardous waste.
2. Does the Arjency consider the unused (virgin) oil a solid
waste under RCRA?
No. See explanation to previous question.
3. Does the Agency consider the unused oil an industrial-
commercial wast* under RCRA?
No. Sine* fuel oil is typically burned as a fuel,
we would not consider it a waste when recycled in the
manner described in your letter.
4. Has th<9 oil "resulted from" an industrial or commercial
process as that term -is used in $27-0303 of the New York
Environmental Conservation Law?
-------
Since you are requesting for an interpretation of State
law, you ihould contact thr New York Department of Environ-*
mental Conservation for an answer to this question.
5. Do««* the Anency require that ABC Company obtain any permits
or other letters of authorization of any kind fron the
Department?
No. Since the fuel oil/water mixture is not a solid
and hazardous waste, this mixture is not subject to Federal
regulation under P.CRA. This mixture may still be subject
to State law and to the transportation rules promulgated
by the Department of Transportation.
6. If the virgin oil is incinerated to energy recovery* does
the Denartw»nt consider it to be a waste?
No. Since virgin fuel oil is typically burned as a
fuel, it is not considered a waste when burned to recover
onercv under Federal regulation (see 40 CPR 261.33).
Please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew A. Straus if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely*
farttM signed by
Marda E. William*
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1986(23)
211966
Mr. Thomas J. Jackson
Thorp, Reed, and Armstrong
One Riverfront Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Dear Mr. Jackson:
This is in response to your letter dated/ February 28,
1986. In your letter, you requested an interpretation of the
Federal hazardous waste rules concerning a mixture of methanol
and a non-hazardous waste which does not exhibit the ignitability
characteristic. Under the Federal hazardous waste rules,
this mixture would not be defined as a hazardous waste,
provided the waste does not exhibit any of the other hazardous
waste characteristics (i.cr*, corrosivity, reactivity, and
extraction procedure (EP) toxicity). In particular, a mixture
of a characteristic hazardous waste, including wastes (hat
are listed solely because they exhibit one or more of the
hazardous waste characteristics and a solid waste is not
hazardous if the nixture does not exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics. In the example described in your I/
letter, methanol (a hazardous waste due to its ignitability)"
is nixed with a non-hazardous wastestream; the resulting
mixture is no longer ignitablc. Therefore, this mixture
would not be considered hazardous (as long as the waste does
not exhibit any of the other hazardous waste characteristics)
under the Federal hazardous waste rules (i.e., a dellsting
petition is not necessary). States* however, may have rules
that are more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal
rules. Therefore, this wast* remains hazardous under
Pennsylvania law, unless it is exempted in accordance with
State law.
I/ If th« methanol is being used as a solvent, the spent methanol
would be defined as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F003.
-------
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
cc: Bob Allen, EPA Region III
David Friedman, Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC 9441.1986(24)
MAR 2 I 1985
Pohert Winlow, Mrector
Pyrnont
110 Serpentine Road
Albany
western Australia 6330
AUSTRALIA
Dear Mr. winlowi
In response to your inquiry of March 4, 1996, the environmental
Protection Agency regulates wastes containing chromium, in cart,
by use of the Extraction Procedure Toxicitv Characteristic which
does not differentiate between the tri- and hexavalent oxidation
states, but rather regulates on the basis of total chromium.
* •
As you are aware, EPA had pronosed to change the regulation
to classify only hexavalent chromium wastes as hazardous. However,
preliminary studies by Dr. Clifford, of the University of Houston,
indicated that, under conditions prevalent durino drinking water
disinfection using chlorine, oxidation of the trivalent chronlun
might occur. Since chlorine disinfection is a oooular method of
ground water treatment in the United States, EPA decided not to
finalize the change pending further study.
Our research laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, has the responsi-
bility for determining the conditions under which trivalent chromium
will undergo conversion to the hexavalent form; Mr* Thomas Soro
leads thi* activity* I have sent him a copy of your letter an*
requested he contact you directly once he has completed his
studies*
However* with respect to regulation of tannery wastes, EPA
continues to exempt from regulation as hazardous waste those
tannery wastes which are hazardous solely by reason of trivalent
chroraiun* EPA expects to continue this exemption until the
chromium toxlcity and environmental behavior questions have been
resolved*
-------
One final point relative to the paraqranh on naoe 72031 :
in the October 30, 1980 Federal Register, the Extraction Procedure
Toxicity Characteristic regulatory thresholds are 100 times the
corresponding drinkinq water standard. Thus, since the drinkino
water standard for chromium is 0.05 mo/1, the CP level is set at
5.0 mq/1.
Sincerely,
Eileen B. Claussen
Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
cc: Marcia Williams
Alan Corson
Kenneth Shuster
Thoaas Sorg
Environmental Research Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
9441.1986(25)
March 26, 1986
Kevin Bromberg
Small Business Administration
Office of Advocacy
1725 I Street, N.w.
Washington, D.C. 20416
Dear Kevin:
Enclosed for your information is a table (see Enclosure 1)
that summarizes the dominant risk constituents associated with
small quantity generator (SQG) waste streams in the hazardous
waste tank risk analysis. This table, title Dominant Risk
Constituents for SQG Waste Streams, presents the constituent that
dominates the risk for each SQG waste stream that is listed in
Exhibit 4-14 (see Enclosure 2).
For comparative purposes, this table presents a relative
ranking of the magnitude of risk each constituent poses in
relation to the other constituents. This summary table presents
the information necessary to evaluate Exhibit 5-27 (see Enclosure
3), by providing the relative levels of risk associated with the
SQG waste stream constituents.
As explained in the risk analysis report, we summarize the
risk associated with each waste stream by using the dominant risk
constituent as the measure of relative risk. The computer
printout that you specifically requested examining includes all
the risk estimates for each of the constituents associated with
all of the SQG waste streams. Because it is difficult to
interpret these printouts straightforwardly, we have provided you
with the enclosed summary table. However, if you would still
prefer to examine the computer printout I will send you a copy
immediately.
In addition, I apologize for the confusion that resulted
from Exhibit 4-15 (see Enclosure 4) regarding the number of SQG
tanks represented in this analysis. Exhibit 4-15 is inadequately
labeled, understandably leading to misconceptions of what we
assume about the number of SQG tanks affected by the hazardous
waste tank regulations. I hope to clarify this problem by making
the following points.
First, the purpose of Exhibit 4-15 is to present the SQG
survey data results indicating the waste streams associated with
SQG tank facilities. Thus, the data does not represent the
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
estimated number of SQG tanks, since SQG facilities may have more
than one tank apiece. Second, this data is not weighted to
represent the secondary standard industrial classification
industries. Thus, the number of SQG facilities with tanks
presented only represents the primary SIC industries.
Finally, the waste streams listed in this exhibit are those
that we chose to represent waste streams contained in SQG tanks.
The enclosed computer printout (see Enclosure 5) provides the
complete list of waste streams associated with SQG tank
facilities according to the SQG Survey. As you can see form this
printout, the representative SQG tank waste streams used in the
risk analysis do not include all of the waste streams that the
survey data associates with SQG tanks. The risk analysis has
excluded such SQG tank waste streams as empty pesticide
containers and heavy metal solutions due to their low frequency
of occurrency.
For the final draft of the risk analysis report, we will
clarify the headings for exhibit 4-15 to ensure that readers
understand that this data was used to choose representative SQG
tank waste streams, not to determine the number of SQG tanks or
SQG tank facilities.
Sincerely,
Betsy Tarn
Economic Analysis Branch (WH-565)
Enclosures
cc: Hazardous Waste Tank Risk Analysis Docket File
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
Enclosure 1
Dominant Risk Constituents for SOG Waste Streams
Waste Stream
Spent Solvents/Ignitable
Paint Wastes/Ignitable
Wastes
- halogenated
- non-halogenated
Strong Acid or Alkaline
Wastes
Waste Ink with Solvents
or Heavy Metals/Ink
Sludge with Chromium
or Lead
Filtration Residues from
Dry Cleaning
Photographic Wastes/Sol-
utions or Sludges with
Photo Silver
Waste Pesticides/Pesticide
Washing and Rinsing Sol-
utions
- persistent, hal-
ogenated low
mobility pest-
icides
- non-persistent,
"modern" high
mobility pest-
icides
Wood Preserving Waste-
waters
Heavy Metal Wastewater
Sludges/Spent Plating
Wastes/Cyanide Wastes/
Other Reactive Wastes
Dominant Risk
Constituent
Contribution*
to Risk
Carbontetrachloride
Benzene
Lead
Toluene
High
High
Low
Low
Tetrachloroethylene
Methanol
Low
High
Lindane
Aldicarb
Acenapthene
Cadmium/
Nickel/
Chromium
High
High
High
Medium**
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
* As illustrated in Exhibit 5-27, risks are either relatively
high (10~4) or very low for this tank technology. Thus,
waste stream contribution to risk is designated as "high" or
"low".
** This waste stream is not included in Exhibit 5-27, but for
the above ground SQG tank, it presents moderate (i.e.,
"medium") risk (on the order of 10"6) .
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1936(26]
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Carbon Regeneration Facilities
PROM: Marcia Williams, Director o--i~;
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) ,-:
TO: stAohen R. Wasserauq, Director
Hazardous Waste Management
Division (3HWOO)
This is in response to your March 11, 1986, Memorandum
regarding the applicability of the RCRA hazardous waste rules
to carbon regeneration facilities. In particular!
1) Zs the spent carbon a solid waste?
In general, yes. As you correctly state in your
letter, spent carbon can be defined as a spent material or a
sludge (i.e., spent carbon would normally be considered a
spent material, unless it results from pollution control in
which case it is considered a sludge). Spent materials
(whether or not they are listed or contain a listed hazardous
vasto) and listed sludges being reclaimed are solid waste.
In addition, if the spent carbon contains a characteristic
spent material (and the spent carbon itself exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic), it also is a solid waste. On the other
hand, if the spent carbon contains a characteristic sludge
or by-product, it is not defined as a solid waste (even if th«
spent carbon exhibit* • hazardous waste characteristic).
2) Is the spent carbon a hazardous waste?
Yes. That spent carbon defined as solid waste (as
described above) is also hazardous if it contains a listed
hazardous wasta or exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic.
3) Which Part 264 standards apply?
If the spent carbon is a solid and hazardous waste,
the owner or operator of the facility must conp)y with the
-------
storace facility requirements, including receiving a pemit.
Tn<-- actual regeneration facility, including th* afterburner,
is exonpt trom regulation, however. In particular, recyclable-
materials other than those used in a manner constituting
disposal are currently subject only to transportation and
storage standards.!/ The recycling facility itself, including
emissions trora the facility, arc- not currently subject to
regulation. (You should note that if the tacility did not
(voluntarily) use an afterburner to minimize organic emissions,
the question ot RCRA applicability would not even have been
raised.) In the future, wo intend to look at other recycling
operations such as carbon regeneration to determine if standards
are warranted.
Your concern that a determination that the otf-gas is an
unregulated emission would have adverse ramifications tor incin-
eration facilities do«.s not appear to be a major problem. You
expressed concern that an incinerator operator could vaporize
his waste in a nontlame device prior to injection in an incinerator
and claim that tho unconfined gas is an unregulated treatment
emission, Such a claim is not likely to be successful bncauso the
operator would need to show that the vaporization constitutes bona
tide recycling not integral to the incinerator. We don't believe
such a showinq can be made.
It you havo further educations or conracnts, contact Katt
Straus at 475-8551 or Robert Holloway at 3fe*-7936.
I/ Recyclable material* burned for energy recover are only
~~ subject to the transportation and storage rules. The actual
burning itself will bo regulated in the future (i.e., we
plan to firopose this suaoor standards that would control
emissions iron boilers ami industrial uurnacos burning
hazardous waste ami ott-spocification usod oil tuuls).
-------
9441.1936(27)
APR 2
Mr. Lean E. Lataille
benior Lnvironraental Scientist
Maobett, Capaccio, and Associates, Inc.
2007 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
Dear Hr. Lataille:
This is in response to your letter dated March 12, 1986,
concerning the regulatory status of off-spec and broken
mercury thermometers that are reclaimed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste rules. In
general, these otf-epec and broken mercury thermometers arc
not subject to any of the hazardous waste regulations. In
particular, the hazardous waste regulations indicate that
commercial chemical products!/ that are reclaimed are not
solid wastes. Since a material must be a solid waste in
order that it be hazardous, they are not defined as a hazardous
waste. The mercury thermometers (as X understand) are unused
products that are either off-spec or are broken during tho
manufacturing process; thus, these thermometers are defined
as commercial chemical products. Therefore, these mercury
thermometers are not subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
rules.
You should be aware, however, that States may choose to
regulate these materials when they are sent for reclamation.
Therefore, you need to contact a representative in the State
hazardous waste program to determine the regulatory status of
these off-spec and broken mercury thermometers under the
State hazardous vast* rules*
Please foel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if
I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
-------
i Ak r*W I K UI-. M
9441.1986(23)
Dr. Tom Tseno REt CJ1305
Conservation and Protection
Ontario Region
Environment Canada
25 St. Claire Ave. F.
Toronto. CA
M4 Tl f!2
Dear Dr. Tseng:
Current U.S. EPA regulations control environmental releases
fron wood preserving and surface protection facilities under several
Concessional statutes, includinq the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Water Act (CUA). Zn addition,
exposures of workers and consumers to the preservative formulations
during application and usage of the treated wood is controlled by
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The current apolicability
of the authorities to environmental releases is summarized below,
along with a description of our present investigations under RCRA.
Wastewater Effluents under the CWA
Process wastewaters effluent discharges from wood preservinq
facilities which use arsenical/chromates* creosote, and/or penta-
chlorophenol are reaulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
final regulations wero promulgated in 1981 (46 PR 8260-8295) and
vary according to whether a facility was in existence at the tine
of the regulation (pretreatnent standards for existing sources,
PSES) or for new plants (new source performance standards, NSPS).
The release of pentachloroohenol and creosote in wood preserving
wastewaters is controlled by the use of the Indicator pollutant,
oil and grease. The effluent standard for arsenic, chromium, and
copper is based on specific concentration Units. No discharae of
any vantewaters is mandated for Boulton processes and non-pressure
processes*
Process wastewaters for the wood preserving subcstegory of
timber products is defined as all wastewater sources excepting
noncontact cooling water* material storsge yard runoff (either raw
material or processed wood storage) and boiler blowdown (46 PR
*?n7 eoK Z* r 4)« Hoj*ft3L*r. nrt»einit«tion falling in the 1/4 to
JJ12 4CTA. •**"** ti?* tCCA&lfid cylinders and txnk area* in defined
is a process wastetoater whicn must 9« collected and treated.
for -Effluent
-------
Point Source Cateqory (EPA Publication No. EPA-440/1-81/023, p.
82), which'states:
"Rainwater that falls on or in the immediate vicinity of the
retorts and work tanic area—an area of from about on-quarter
to one-half of an acre for the average plant—becomes contaminated
and can present a treatment and disposal problem at any plant,
but especially at plants in areas of high rainfall. For
example, a plant located in an area that recieves 152 cm (60
in) of rain annually must be equipped to process an additional
1.5 to 3.0 million liters (400,000 to 800,000 gallons) per
year of contaminated water."
Current Dioxin/Puran Chlorophenolic Regulations under RCRA
Certain associated wastes from oil or water based Chlorophenolic
formulations used by wood preserving or surface protection facilities
(either at sawmills or at wood treaters before air seasoning) may
be subject to regulation as acutely hazardous wastes because of
their contamination with polychlorinated dioxins and furans under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The hazardous .
waste listings which may apply are found in Part 261.31, Volume 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations as Hazardous Waste Nos. P020,
P021, F026 or P027.
•
If a facility mixes Chlorophenolic formulations on-slte, then
it may be covered by either the P020 (tri- or tetrachlorophenol)
or P021 (pentachlorophenol) listing if wastes are generated during
the process. An example would be filtering the unused formulation
before storage, thus generating a filter residual"!
If a facility discards an unused (not spent) formulation
containing chlorophenolics the associated wastes and formulation
itself are covered by Hazardous Waste No. P027.
If a waste is generated from the use of eguipnent (tanks, etc.)
that previously was used to mix ehlorophenollc formulations, then
these wastes would be covered by Hazardous Wast* No. P026. An
example would be mixing t-butyl tin oxide in the same tank that
was used for chlorophenoTics previously, and generating a filter
waste when the TBO formulation was transfered to the process or
storage tank.
A container or an inner liner removed from a container that
that has held an acute hazardous waste such as P020, P021, or
P027 must be either "triple rinsed" with an appropriate solvent or
cleaned by another established scientific method or the inner
liner must be removed and discarded (as a hazardous waste).
Otherwise, this container itself is considered to be the hazardous
waste itself, either P020 or P021. This regulation may be fqund
in the Code of Pederal Regulations, Vol. 40, Part 261.7(a)(3>.
Examples would be a storage tank taken out of service that previously
-------
contained. unused formulation, a formulation taixino tank, or empty
chloroohenolic drums or kraft baas.
Wh«»n a waste is listed as "Acutely Hazardous* under Part
261.31 (Hazard Code "(H)"), then special manaqement standards
apply under RCRA over those normally imposed for other hazardous
wastes. For example, under Part 261. S(a), generators of less than
1000 kilograms of hazardous waste a month would normally be exempt
from the management standards contained in Parts 262-265 and Parts
270 and 124 (surface impoundment specifications, ground water
monitoring, hazardous waste manifesting, etc.). Part 261.5(e)
instead states that the generation of 1 kilogram of acutely waste
generated a month or a total of 100 kilograms of contaminated
soils subjects the generator to the full management standards of
Parts 262-265, 270, and 124.
(As described below, we are currently investigating the addition
of other wood preserving wastes to the acutely hazardous waste
categories because of their contamination with polychlorinated
dioxins and furans.) -
Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Creosote and PentachlorophenoT
under RCRA \
At the present time, wafttewater treatment sludges from
preserving processes which use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
are regulated as Hasardous Waste No* K001 under Part 261.31. This'
includes oil/water separator sludges, the sludges which form at
the bottom of surface impoundments used to treat or dispose of
wastewater (percolation or evaporation ponds)* filter media (carbon •
sand, soil), spray irrigation fields (considered land treatment
units), sludge dewater ing/drying beds, etc.
There has been a lot of activity over the past years in "closin o
unlined lagoons, ponds, etc. used for process wastewaters. The
issue of "how clean is clean* for removing the sludges and contamlnat ••
subsoils (much leas pumping and treating contaminated ground water)
is decided on a caae by case basis. The criteria to be used for
closure of waste management units such as surface impoundments,
land treatment units* waste piles are given in Parts 265 -and 267.
I,f all contaminated materials cannot be removed, then post
closure ears as specified under Part 265.310 is required. This
wouW include Maintaining a cover for the unit, leachate collection,
etc/
/
The RCRA management standards would not aoply to wastewater
treatment sludges (or wastewaters if they are listed as hazardous
/wastes in the future) while they are managed on-site in tanks
which meet certain design rocruiroments (Part 264.1(n)(6) and Part
265. l(c) (10) ). However, as soon as the slud-jos are removed from
these units, the full RCRA permitting requirements annly. Many
facilities have therefore chosen to install wastewat«r treatment
trains in structures that meet our tank specifications, rather
than surface impoundments, to avoid ground water monitor! no and
other RCRA permittina reguirerwnts.
-------
Creosote or Pentachlorophenol Wastewators under RCRA
In 1980, wo proposed to add wastewaters thcnselves from creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol facilities to the list of hazardous wastes
under Part 261.31 (45 PR 33137). In 1984, we started obtained the
necessary analytical data by site sampling missions to support
this proposed hazardous waste listing. He have been obtaining
analyses of the wastewaters themselves as well as documenting
ground and surface water contamination with polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorophenols, and polychlorinated dioxins/furans
Since wastewaters are typically managed in the same units
that manage the currently regulated wastewater treatment sludges
(Hazardous Waste No. ROOD, few additional controls of wastewater
units under RCRA would occur. However, if wastewaters were listed,
we would have the authority of controlling such waste nanaqcment
practices as their "treatment" by evaporation in the treating
cylinder or the plant boiler.
Any RCRA authority over wastewatera would be limited to their
management on-site at a facility (Part 261.4(a)(2)[Comment]).
when released to the navigable waterways or sent to a publically ~
owned treatment work (POTW), the statuatory authority becomes the .
Clean Water Act (CWA). This means that it is oossible to .have
different toxic substances of concern or "action levels".for a
wastewater while it is managed on-site under RCRA than after release
off-site under the CWA. For example, under RCRA we may be considering
wastewater contamination with polychlorinated dioxins and furans,
yet the CWA standards currently only consider the indicator pollutant,
oil and grease.
Inorganic Arsenical and Chromate Wastes (Wastewaters, Sludges,
Contaminated Soils) under RCRA
At the current tin*, any wattes generated by a wood preserving
facility that fails the "Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test" (EP
Toxic) is a regulated waste. This test procedure (described in
Appendix II of Part 261) involves extracting the waste with 20
times its weight with water, adjusted to s pH of 5 with acetic
acid* The extract is analyzed, thus yeilding the "EP Toxicity"
value. If the sample is an aqueous liquid, then the sample itself
is analysed* giving the "EP Toxicity*•
The naxinun allowable concentration for netallics in the "EP"
extract is compared to the values given in Table 1 of Part 261.24.
If either the total arsenic or chromium in the "EP" extract exceeds
5.0 parts per million* then the waste is classified as either EPA
Hazardous No. D004 or 0007, respectively.
Thus many inorganic salt wood preserving wastes are controlled
by the RCRA management standards of Parts 262-265, 270, and 124.
This would include contaminated soils in the treated wood drippaqe
area, process wastewaters, sludges, snilled formulations, etc.
-------
We are currently investigatinq whether or not to specifically
list inorganic salt wood preservinq wastes under Part 261.32.
This would qive th* Aoency the additional a<1vantaqe of oversight
of treatment of all the wastes qenerated throuoh its delistinq
process under Part 260.22. Currently, for "EP Toxic" wastes, the
facility has the ability to determine on its own whether or not a
waste is hazardous and whether or not treatment is adequate.
Corrective Act_ion under RCRA
As the result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1934 (HS'.JA) (Conqressional Records of Oct. 3 and 11, 1984), the
authority of RCRA has been extended to other solid waste management
units (SMUs) at facilities, even if these units do not not manaae
a waste that is listed in Part 261. This is the corrective action
requirement for continuing releases At permitted facilities under
Section 3004(u) and (v) of HSWA.
This requirement for permitting all solid waste management
units applies only to facilities that current have hazardous waste
management units subject to the permitting standards of RCRA.
Since few facilities, if any, have final permits, any plants with
surface impoundments manaqino K001 wastew«ter treatment sludges
must also obtain a permit for the treated wood drippaqe/storage
area, process areas, and any landfills.
If there is any contamination in these areas (release) corrective
action must be undertaken. A release from a solid waste management
unit is defined in terms of whether or not the unit is designed
for adequate containment. For example, treated wood drippaqe
(currently a "solid waste" but not a "listed hazardous waste*) is
typically managed by land disposal (dripoage to the ground). This
qround usually does not have a clay liner, runoff containment,
etc. Therefore, disposing of this drippage on the open ground
constitutes a release for the purposes of corrective action.
Leakage from a tank would also be a release.
Current Efforts under RCRA to List Additional Wastes
At the present time* our branch is involved in investigating
whether or not to add additional wastes from wood preserving and
surface protection facilities to the list of hazardous wastes
under Parts 261.31 and 261.32. New wastes which are being considered
are listed below, and apply to either wood preservation or surface
protection facilities and to any of the preservative formulation
types, whether creosote, chlorophenolics, or araenical-chromates:
•Storage tank, treating tank, retort, dip tank, spray booth
sludges
•Treated wood drippage/storaqe residuals
•Fugitive emissions, drinnage in the process and tank aroa
•Maintenance area, shop area wastes
-------
•Wastewaters (including storn water runoff)
•Wastewater treatment sludges from arsenical-chromate processes
or chlorophenolics frora surface protection processes
All of these wastes, where applicable, are beinq studied to
deternine whether or not they should be listed as acutely hazardous
waste because of contamination with polychlorinated dioxins and
furans. This includes any wastes that can be cross contaminated
with chlorophenolics, such as wastes generated frow a creosote process
where a conmon oil/water separator it used for both creosote and
pentachlorophenol, sludqes from an arsenical process that uses
pentachlorophenol make-up water, wattes from a non-chlorophenolic
dip tank that previously held chlorophenolics. etc.
As described in previous sections, all of these wastes are
covered under the RCRA authority at some wood preserving facilities,
especially because of the corrective action provisions under HSWA.
Very little coverage under RCRA currently exists for sawnills
practician sapstain control, however* Adding new waste streans to.
the list of hazardous wastes would make hazardous waste management
standards uniform at all facilities, and ease the burden .to State
and Regional enforcement personal In formulating a regulatory authority
rationale.
If you have any guestions, please*do not hesitate to
call me at (202)382-4786.
Sincerely,
Cat* Jenkins, Ph.D.
Project Officer, wood Preserving
and Surface Protection
Waits- Identification Branch
Hail Code WH-562 B
-------
9441.1986(29!
SCBJFCT: Determination of Status of Waste Produced by
Hells Aluminum Corporation, North Liberty, Indiana
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Pranch
TO: v/illiam H. Miner, Chief
Hazardous Waste Enforcement Branch
EPA Region V
Rased upon your description of the Almecolor process used
by wells Aluminum, it has been determined that the resulting
wastewater treatment sludge is exempt from the P006 listing, as
ner exemption II — sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum. As
you noted in your "iemo, the background document expands this
excluded process to specifically encompass coloring and sealing
steps whereby "unsealed anodic coatings on aluminum are colored
by i-inersion in a solution of organic or inorganic dyes," after
which sealing is accomplished by "i'mnersion in a hot solution
of nickel or cobalt acetate* • The Alnecolor process you
Described appears to meet this description and is, therefore,
excluded from the listing and would be regulated only if
the resultant sludge meets the characteristics of a hazardous
waste described in Subpart C. Even though this specific process'
nay not have been evaluated when the exclusion was developed,
the exclusion is still applicable, just as other electroplating
processes which nay have been developed after the listing was
nade final are included in the listing.
Should you have any guest ions regarding this interpretation,
please contact me or David Topping of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
-------
9441.1986 (30)
APR I 6 1966
Mr. Jack A. Russell
501 East 79.th--Street, Apt. 8F
New York, New York 10021
V
Dear Mr. Russell:
I am responding to your letter, dated March 11, 1986, to
George Lord of the EPA's Office of the Small Business Ombudsman.
In that letter you asked a number of guestions regarding
the regulatory status, under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), of a planned business for reprocessing
waste solvents. Your service would involve the use of a truck-
mounted distillation unit which would be operated at your
customer's site, that is, at the site of hazardous waste
Generation.
You also stated that both recovered solvent and any
generated solvent still bottoms would be left at the customer's
site. Under this arrangement your "vehicle will enter and depart
from [your] customer's sites containing no hazardous wastes."
You asked three specific questions renardinn: use of
hazardous waste manifests: the need for a federal permit: and
insurance reguirements.
Since the States you prooose to ©cerate in, that is, "the
New York metropolitan area", are each authorized to inclement a
RCRA hazardous wast* proaram ir\ lieu of the U.S. EPA, you
must comply with those States' rules and regulations* not U.S.
EPA's. I am sorry that I am unable to tell you what those States'
requirements are, except that they must be at least as stringent
as federal requirements.
As a means of providing you with some information, however,
I can offer you the following:
- If your vehicles do not transport hazardous waste over
public roads you would not, under federal reguirements,
be required to register as a hazardous waste transporter
or use the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest.
-------
- Fe_deral requirements do not apply, currently, to actual
reclamation activities. Federal requirements apply only
to transportation and storage associated with recycling
not to actual recycling units.
I hope that these answers will be of some value to you.
Respectfully,
Bernard J. Stoll
Program Manaqer
Financial Responsibility and
Assessment Branch
cc: Georqe Lord (A-149C)
-------
9441.1986(31)
APR 2 I 1986
G.N. Weinreich, P.E.
environmental Manager
ANG Coal Gas it teat ion Co.
P.O. BOX 1149
Beulah, NO 58523
Dear Mr. Weinroicht
I am responding to your letter of March 18, 1986, in which
you request a clarification of whether precipitation which contacts
coal gasification ash waste resulting from the processing of coal.
and becomes corrosive is subject to the hazardous waste provisions
of RCRA. As you state in your letter, the ash is currently exempt
from regulation under RCRA pursuant to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4). See
also Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i) or RCRA. The precipitation becomes
corrosive solely as a result of contact with the ash. Since the.
hazardous- waste characteristic of the precipitation is derived
froa an exempt waste, the resulting corrosive water retains the
exempt status of that waste (i.e., the water is also exempt from
regulation as a hazardous waste).
I hope the above clarifies your concerns regarding the proper
classification of this aqueous waste. If you have further questions,
pleas* contact Mr. Edwin ?• Abrans of my staff at (202) 382-4737.
Sincerely
Marc* £. V.-ii'ama
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1986(32)
2 I I9B6
Mr. Thomas J. 'ronaofel, T
waste Management Section
Division of Environmental
Protection
State of Nevada ^enartwent
of Conservation and
Natural Pesources
Capitol Comdex
Carson City, Nevada 19710
^ar Mr. Pron»nCel:
To follow uo on our recent conservation, and In resnonse
to your letter of Aorll 2, 1906, tMs confirms that wastes fro*
dry-cleaning services and maintenance services at hotels and
motels are not excluded as household wastes under the exclusions
of 40 C»P 261.4.
The exclusion cited above was Inter <*$ to remove normal
households from regulatory control under the Resource Ponvervat ion
and Recovery Act (POP*). This wa« exten^l to normal householoi-
tyne waste frotr hotels, motels, etc. For exa^ole, e^oty containers
^nd tne IKe resuitlnn froi« normal roow rlesnlnn or r>estlcl'1e
vlnn of the room could he exclude'*. r|owev*r, drv-cl*anlm
vehicle fleet or equipment maintenance »re not routine
household ooerstlonst wastes resulting ft-n-^ such activities at
hotels and motels. If hazardous, *re «uMect to PC!»A regulatory
control.
This Interpretation is fcr the Federal »TPA nronra«. clnc*
has final authorization for the vr»A ni"vn**«, it i« their
rules which will apply In this case? in accordance with t»« stat
your regulations or standards nay he Tore stririent than the
Federal rules. If you have any other nuestlons, nlease call our
at 800/424-«S46 or call »"e direct at ?02/n«?-*77n.
Alan Tovson
nenutv director
-------
9441.1986(33)
£3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT. Anolication of. RCSA to Calqon Carbon
Regeneration facility
v7
FROM. Marcia Williams, Director r-. ; r.
Otrice of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO. Thomas w. Devine, Director
Wast* Management Division, Region IV
In response to your memorandum of March 11, we have reviewed
the information relating to the Calgon facility. Based on that
review and additional discussions with Calgon personnel, we have
concluded that the August 23 memorandum from John Skinner is not
directly applicable- to the Calgon case. Nevertheless, Calgon
does believe they can demonstrate that no ruxinq has occurred
in the solids transport system. As a result, some of the
principles underlying the August 23 nemoranourn may apply to
th*ir case. In the following paragraphs, *r will elucidate
our position on the Calgon case and then suqyest what data is
probably needed ror the demonstration.
Th« Calgon system of interest is a solids handling system that
is used to transport haiardoua wastes (spent carbon contaminated
with various listed wastes) and solid wastes (spent carbon
applied to streanc other than those currently rnqulatcome a
solid waste until discharged iron the sump (i. j., whon used to
-------
transport the spent carbon, the water ia not defined as a
solid waste). It is at that point where Calgon must establish
the stream ie not a mixture of a solid and hazardous waste.
Calgon's position is that they should be allowed to make the
demonstration after treatment of the water in the clarifier
and carbon columns based on an extrapolation of the interpretation
oresented in the Auqust 23rd memorandum.
We can not agree with the Calaon position. First of all, the
Auqu*t 23rd memorandum is strictly confined to additional, on-site
dewatering to remove non-regulated wastewater unintentionally
comminoled with the waste at the point of waste generation. Key
to the exemption is the return of the wastewater to the system
from whence it came and a clear demonstration that the hazardous
waste ia not present in the returned stream. The exemption
applies only for a waste generator who is continuing to remove
the non-listed material at the site of generation. The Calgon
case, on the other hand, is related to treatment of a mixture
after the addition of a large volume of material to a hazardous
waste.
The sole question in the Calgon case is whether or not mixing
has occurred. Mixing may not have occurred if Appendix VIII
constituents are kept on the carbon and the spent carbon solids
containing the hazardous constituents do not escape the sump.
Under those conditions, the river water will not have become mixed
with the hazardous constituents, and would not contain hazardous
waste. If Calgon can demonstrate two points, they may have a
basis for application of the Auoust 23 guidelines. First, they
must analyze any solids escaping the sump during the unloading and
feeding of the spent carbon to show that they are not the regulated
waete. Secondly, Calqon must show that the hazardous constituents
have not desorbed from the carbon into the water. This demonstration
may be made by providing mass flows and constituent concentrations
for the carbon, the influent water, and the sump effluent. Do
not hesitate to contact Ben Smith of my etaff at (202) 382-4791
if you have questions relating to our response or other questions
relating to the August 23rd memorandum.
-------
Mb I <\W I CV. I |-». ' /
9441.1986(34)
28
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT; Regulatory Interpretation Concerning the MCI/MCL
Material Generated by PMC at its Middleport Facility
FKOP.: Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
TO: Richard M. Walka, Chief
Solid Waste Branch (2AWM-SW)
This is in response to your memorandum dated March 18, 1986,
concening the regulatory status (under the Federal hazardous
waste rules) of a mixture of methyl isocyanate (MCI) and
methylene chloride (MCL) that is to be shipped to another
facility for recycling. Based on the information provided in
the attachnents to your memo!/ and as I have discussed previously
with Mr. Paul Ingrisano, of your staff, this material would
not be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. In
particular, as described in the letters from Mr. Kennedy,
the MCI/MCL is a mixture of unused commercial chemical products
that FMC intends (or at least would like) to ship to its
Institute, West Virginia facility for recycling into the
carbofuran manufacturing process. In order to determine
whether this mixture is a hazardous wast*, one must first
determine whether the material is a solid waste. Pursuant
to 40 CFR 261.2(c), when a commercial chemical product (or a
mixture of commercial chemical products) is reclaimed or
used tor its originally intended purpose, it is not a solid
waste and» therefore, cannot be a hazardous waste. This
material can thus be shipped to its carbofuran manufacturing
facility in Institute, West Virginia without a manifest; in
addition, the plant in West Virginia does not need a storage
permit. This material would be subject, however, to all
state regulations.
\_/ See letters dated March 5 and 10, 1986, from Rick W. Kennedy
~~ of Hodgson, Kuss, Andrews, and Goodyear.
-------
Please fool free to give me a call if you have any
additional questions, my telephone number is 8-475-8551.
-------
9441.1986(37)
May 1, 1986
Mr. Mike Rinehart
Operations Analyst
Continental Pipe Line Company
P.O. Drawer 1267
Ponca City, Oklahoma 74603
Dear Mr. Rinehart:
Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1986, concerning the
status of crude oil tank bottoms. In your letter (question
"l(a)M), you used the term "recyclable material." This is the
term the Environmental Protection Agency uses to describe
hazardous wastes that are recycled (i.e., used, reused, or
reclaimed) in some manner. In order to determine whether you
have a hazardous waste, however, you must first determine whether
the material is a solid waste. Crude oil tank bottoms are
considered a by-product. When a non-listed by-product is
reclaimed, or used as an ingredient or a substitute for a
commercial product, it is not a solid waste and, therefore,
cannot be a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR §261.2). If, however,
the non-listed by-product is used to produce a fuel or disposed
of, then it would be a solid waste; if it also exhibits a
characteristic of 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, it is a hazardous
waste. If the crude tank bottoms are used to produce a fuel at a
petroleum refinery, the fuel would be exempt from regulation; if
the tank bottoms are disposed of, you would be required to comply
with all applicable hazardous waste rules in 40 CFR Parts 262-
266, Part 270, and the notification requirements of RCRA Section
3010. In all cases, you are subject to all applicable state
regulations.
With respect to your second question, if the crude oil
bottoms are not a solid waste, as described above, then their
transportation is not regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. If,
however, the tank bottoms are used to produce a fuel at a
refinery, the transportation and storage of these bottoms would
be regulated (as long as the bottoms are hazardous). The
generator must determine whether the material he produces is a
solid waste (and if so whether it is a hazardous waste) and this
determination depends on how the material is to be managed. That
is, if the crude oil bottoms are to be reclaimed or used or
reused as described above, then it is neither solid nor hazardous
waste. If it is used to produce a fuel or disposed, it is a
solid waste and it may be a hazardous waste. In any case,
This document has Jbeen retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
however, you would remain subject to any applicable U.S.
Department of Transportation and state regulations.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to
contact Matt Straus of my office.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
i AI CJ en»iKuNMcNTAL PROTECTION AC
9441.1986(38;
wr-i
Mr. ijeor.-jtf *'. Hardinrj
i'rssident
?oly-Jo.nn Enterprises Corporation
iJ4S 12L> street
uniting, Indiana 46394
Dear rtr. Hardings
In response to your recent letter to Dr. John Skinner, the
recent changes tnat nave been made in the KCRA regulations woul^
not have any impact on tne use of formaIdehyde-basud toilot
deodorants.
Use of fornaldehyde-containinq toilet deodorants consti-
tutes the intended use of the product* The normal use of these
products requires that the/ be poured into toilets, ultimately
entering sowers and cesspools. This action does not constitute
dis-xjsal, as defined by the hazardous waste regulations, nor is
tne product considered a solid waste* Under the hazardous waste
regulations, a product becomes a waste only if discarded at tor
serving its intended purpose, or discarded without beinq used.
since using the product for its intended purpose destroys the
,jrouuct (i.e., it ceases to retain its original identity but
rather just becomes part of the nixed sewage), a toilet deodorant
would only lx» considered as a solid waste, oun^ect to potential
regulation under KCKA, if it was to be discarded unused. Only
under such conditions would a toilet deodorant consistin? of
formaldeiiyde as its sole active ingredient be identified by the
regulations as a hazardous waste, and, at that point* the provi-
sions yt the 10U kg/month small generator exclusion cone into oliy.
You should also keep in mind the fact that RCiiA is a State
administered program in those States which have annliecl -for and
received authorization* In such States, it is tho State program
that muse he adhered toj some States havo more stringent renula-
tions than those of the Federal program. Thus, while disposal
of a specific toilet deodorant may not be regulated under the
federal program* it may under a .State program. However, I an
not awara of any State which currently regulates such oroducts.
-------
For information on any future renulatory changes that -.ay
att'ect your industry, I recom-nend that you contact the RCKA/
ouperfund Hotline at (3JO) 424-9346.
Sincerely yours,
Eileen B. Claussen
Director
Characterization & Acsessnent
Division (V/H-562D)
bcc: M. Williams
A. Corson
Hotline
K. Conners
M. Straus
u. Friedman
-------
3441.1986(39)
UNI". STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIC «G
Mr. William R. Blackhurn
Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
Deertield, Illinois 60U15
Dear Mr. Blackburni
This rs in response to the letters you nave submitted
to the Agency in which you raise a number of questions tor
our consideration, first/ let ne apologize for the tine it
has taken to respond to your letters; I hope this has not
created any problems for you. You first request that we
confirm that the deionization (01) acid that is generated
at Travenol 'a plant in Cleveland, Mississippi is not a
waste. Based on the information provided,!/ we agree with
you that the 01 acid is not a waste and, therefore, is -not
subject to the federal hazardous waste rules. In particular,
before a material can be a hazardous waster one oust tirst
determine whether the material is a solid waste. In general,
corrosive materials that are neutralized are normally considered
wastes. However, where such corrosive materials can be
shown to: (1) meet relevant specs with regard to contamination
levels, (2) be as effective as the virgin material for which
they substitute, and (3) be used under controlled conditions,
we believe such materials may not be wastes. The information
provided in your letters clearly indicate that the OI acid
generated at your Cleveland plant is benefically reused and,
therefore, is not a watte. As a result, this material is
not subject to the Federal hazardous waste rules. This
material would be subject, however, to any State regulations.
With respect to your request regarding the exclusion
and whether it applies retroactively under the old regulations,
we believe that since the UI acid has always lM«n benefically
i/ See letters dated* November 14, 1985, from William R.
Blackburn to Jack Lehman I December 5, 1985, trom Michael Sir.ith
to Robert Tonettii January 13, 1986, trom Michael Smith
to Matthew Straus; February 6, 1985, frojo William K. Blackburn
to Matthew Straus; and April 17, 1986, trom Michael Smith
to Matthew A. Straus.
-------
recycled and since this acid is neither listed nor a sludge,
this material is not now (and has never been) subject to
regulations. Therefore, Travenol does not need to go through
closure for this impoundment; we have discussed this inter-
pretation with our Oftice of General Counsel and they agree.
Finally, you requested written explanation as to why no
hazardous waste permit is required to dispose of the alcohol
to the drain; a verbal response was provided to you by
Ms. Irene Horner. A written response, however, has been
prepared and should bo sent to you shortly.
Please feel free
further questions.
to give me a call if you have any
Sincerely,
Marcia C.
Director
Office of
Williams
Solid Waste
-------
9441.1986(40;
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTt Used Oil Regulations
FROMi Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TOi David Wagoner, Director
Waste Management Division
Kegion VII
This is in response to your July 11, 1986, msmorandun regarding
the used oil regulations published on November 29, 1985. We are
considering a range of options regarding the regulation of used
oil and it is possible that the final regulations will differ
substantially from the proposed listing.
We are aware that the used oil recycling Industry is
undergoing major changes and share your concerns about impacts
on'the industry and the ultimate disposition of used oil. We
have received a number of calls and letters, primarily from used
oil processors, expressing the concern that many industrial
burners are no longer willing to burn used oil if it exceeds the
November 29 specification. la addition* we are now developing
a response to three rulemalcing petitions requesting that we delay
the effective data) of the lead specification. Attached for your
information is an interim response from Win Porter to one of the
petitioners, the National Oil Aecyclers Association.
As you may note from Win's letter, we believe a large part
of the problem is that there is a serious misunderstanding of the
federal requirements. Zt appears that many burners ars equating
the acceptance) of off-specification ueed oil fuels (and the re-
quirement to notify EPA to obtain an identification number) with
becoming subject to the KCKA hazardous waste management rules.
This confusion was probably caused by our proposing to list used
oil as a hazardous waste on November 29, 1985, and our euggestion
that marketers and burners of off-specification used oil fuel
notify IPA using the standard form entitled, "Notification of
-------
Hazardous rVaste Activities." Actually, the November 2? -final rule
siraply requires a ourner of off-specification used oil fuel to
notify LPA and comply with two other minor paperwork requirements.
Further, on March 10, 1986, EPA requested comments on the option
of regulating ua«*i oil recycling without a listing (50 fVR olGG),
so burners of off-specification fuel may never have to oecone
hazardous waste facilities.
Another factor having a major impact on the industry is ths
dramatic drop in fuel oil prices since our rules were published.
The drop in virgin fuel oil prices has apparently led many burners
to the decision not to contend with any EPA regulation for a fuel
that is only sdldly discounted (5 to 10 cents per gallon lees
than virgin fuel oil according to one processor), especially when
their total fuel bill is substantially lower than in previous
years because of the drop in virgin oil prices.
To get burners to continue burning off-specification used
oil fuel, it appears thatt (1) they need to understand that they
are not handling a hasardous waste; and (2) in light of the
depressed virgin fuel oil prices and IPA's paperwork requirements,
used oil fuel must be discounted more heavily than in the past.
To get the meesage to the public, we are sending copies of win
Porter's letter to the Regions, States, and those used oil
•utrketers that have expressed concern. We also have developed
an information bulletin (copy attached) for general distribution
that summarises the points covered in Win's letter. Finally, we
will also discuss these issues in a Federal Register notice
responding to the rulamaking petitions.
We do realise, however, that the drop in virgin oil pricee
coupled with the paperwork requirements of the November 29 rule
are causing painful changes in the industry. To enable processors
to offer burners a greater discount to accept off-specification
used oil fuel, the processors (and independent collectors) may
have to charge generators a fee to pick up their uaed oil. This
ia now apparently a common practice, while a year ago, generators
oomld have thmir oil picked up at no charge or were even' paid for
their oil. 9Ji do not expect major problems with generators
dumping their mil becausei (1) they can increase their fees for
an oil change to cover the coatsr and (2) there was an active
uaed oil recycling industry prior to the increase ia virgin oil
prices in the early 1970s when generators either received nothing
or paid to have their used oil picked up.
Of greater concern, however, is the disposition of used oil
generated by do-it-yourselfers who take their oil to a service
station for ultimate recycling. ' Obviously, we can expect service
stations and other generators to stop accepting do-it-yourself
oil if the generator must pay to have the oil picked up. we
-------
don't nave a good answer to this proulen. ,
-------
9441.1986(41)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SOLiO WASTE AND
RESPONSE
Honorable Frederick Boucher
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Boucher:
Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1986 regarding
your constituent's concern about fees assessed on the generation
of hazardous waste. There is currently no such fee assessed
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
My staff checked with officials in the State of Virginia,
which is fully authorized to run its own RCRA program. The
State indicated that it, too, does not impose a fee such as
the one described by your constituent.
Your constituent nay be referring to the waste management
tax approved by the House as part of its CERCLA reauthorization
bill. See the December 10, 1985 Congressional Record, p. H11666;
see also H.Rep. No. 99-253, Part 2, pp. 9-16. The proposed
wast=» managanent tax actually includes two different taxes: a tax
on hazardous waste received at RCRA Subtitle C facilities, and a
backup tax on RCRA generators if their waste is not received at
a Subtitle C facility within 270 days. As explained below, it
appears that your constituent would not be subject to the first
tax, i.e., the tax on RCRA Subtitle C facilities. However, your
constituent may be subject to the second tax, i.e., the backup
tax. We agree that such a tax may serve as a disincentive for
recycling. The Administration did not include a backup tax in
its CCRCLA reauthorization proposal.
Given your description of your constituent's waste, it
appears that these used solvents are a hazardous waste under
RCRA; see 40 CFR $261.31. The solvents are then sent fo a second
company where they are stored prior to recovery. Presumably the
storage unit would meet the House bill's definition of a "qualified
hazardous waste management unit", which is provided in proposed
S4675(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (IRC). If so,
the waste would be subject to the first tax at a rate of $4.15
per wet weight ton. However, the second company would receive a
credit or refund for any tax paid for such waste. The credit
for certain qualified solvents is outlined in proposed $4673(c)
of the IRC. This credit .was specifically designed to avoid
creating a disincentive for solvent recycling.
-------
Your_-letter states that after cleaning the used solvents,
the second company returns the recovered solvents to your
constituent for future use. Presumably this "cleaning" of the
wastes is actually reclamation. If so, then these recovered
solvents are not wastes. See 40 CFR §261.3(c)(2 ) . This issue
is specifically discussed in the preamble of our January 4, 1985
revised definition of solid waste (50 Fed. Reg. 614, 634).
Since these solvents are not wastes under RCRA, they would not
be subject to the first tax, which is imposed only on certain
RCRA hazardous waste. See proposed IRC §§4671(a)(l) and 4675(a)(l).
The second company must properly manaqe the spent solvents
that were not reclaimed. Such spent solvents are typically
blended with oil and then sold as fuel. Such waste-derived
fuel is still considered a hazardous waste under RCRA. See
40 CFR $261.2(c) (2). The fuel may be burned in an industrial
boiler or furnace, or a RCRA Subtitle C incinerator. If so,
then the second company may receive a credit or refund under
the incineration provision. See proposed IRC 54673(b).
As noted above, your constituent may be subject to the
proposed backup tax. That tax is imposed on hazardous waste
which is not received at a qualified hazardous waste management
unit within 270 days of its generation. See proposed IRC
§4674(a). Thus, your constituent's potential liability under
this tax would depend on whether one of the second company's
RCRA units fits the House bill's definition of a "qualified
hazardous waste nan.ngement unit." If not, then your constituent
would be liable for the backup tax. Until the Treasury Department
promulgates regulations, the waste would be taxed at the
disposal rate.
Let me reiterate that the Administration did not include
a backup tax on generators in its proposal to reauthorize CCRCLA.
In designing a waste-end tax* we decided that the tax ought to
be on the management of the waste, not the generation.
Finally, I agree with you that EPA should encourage recycling
as a means of reducing the amount of hazardous waste requiring
land disposal. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, of 1984
established as national policy the reduction of hazardous waste.
In particular, Section 224 of the 1984 RCRA amendments requires
EPA to submit a report to Congress by October 1, 1986, on the
desirability and feasibility of establishing waste minimization
regulations to implement this national policy. As part of
this effort, the Agency has identified incentives and disincentives
currently affecting the utilization of waste minimization
practices such as recycling. The report to Congress will
discuss possible actions to alleviate some of the disincentives
associated with recycling-and to promote further use of recycling
and other waste minimization practices.
-------
3
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
cc: Robert L. Allen, Branch Chief
Waste Management Branch
Hazardous Waste Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region III
William F. Gilley, Director
Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
Virginia Department of Health
-------
9441.1986(42)
Mr. Paul B. Guptill
Missouri Hospital Association
P.O. Box 60
4713 Highway 50 West
Jetferson City, Missouri 65102
Dear Mr. Guptill:
This is in response to your letter dated April 14,
1986, regarding the regulatory status of used x-ray film
being sent to refiners tor silver reclamation. In order
to answer this question, one must first determine whether
the used x-ray film is considered a solid waste. Under
the hasardous waste rules, all spent Materials, and listed
sludges and listed by-products that are sent for reclamation
are defined as solid wastes, (see 40 CPR 261.2(c)> used
x-ray film would be defined as a spent material.!/ Therefore,
used x-ray film would be defined as a solid and hazardous
waste if it is listed or exhibits one or moro of the hesardoue
waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity).^/
Since these films are not specifically listed, they~"would
only be defined as hasardous if they exhibit any of the
hazardous waste characteristics. Based on test data provided
by the National Association of Photographic Manfacturers (NAPM),
I/ A spent material is any material that has been used and
as a result of such use can no longer serve the purpose
for which it was produced without processing.
2/ In your letter, you argue that used x-ray tilm going
to a refiner should not be considered hazardous,
regardless of their hasardous levels. However, the
Agency has always defined the hazardousness of the
waste based upon the characteristics of the waste
and not how it is managed.
-------
these films, _in and of themselves, do not appear to be
hazardous under RCRA. Therefore, used x-ray tilras are
probably not subject to th« Federal hazardous waste management
regulations (sec enclosures).
You should b« aware, however, that although the data
provided by NAPM appears to suggest that these tiiras are
non-hazardous, each generator is still responsible tor
making this determination. It the generator determines
that their used x-ray films are hazardous, they would be
subject to the hazardous waste rules. However, the only
requirements under the Federal regulations that would be
imposed upon the generator would be to get an identirication
number and to comply with the unitonn hazardous waste
manxtest. I, therefore, question the cost figures estimated
by ths Missouri Department Ot Natural Resources (DNR) tor
hospitals to comply with the hazardous waste rules.
Please feel tree to give me a call if I can be of any
turther assistance my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A.
Chief
Wast* Ident itication Branch
Enclosures
-------
um i E.W •• i CJ cn»iKU«mCN I AL f KOTECTION A
9441.1986 (43)
Mr. Bruce J. Lawrence
President y.y 3ft HB6
Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc. Wl ww ^"^
Hellertown, Pennsylvania 18055
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
This is in response to your February 26, 1986, letter in
which you request confirmation that the mercury that is sent
to your facility to be triple distilled is not a waste.
First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in
responding to your request; I hope this delay has not caused
you any problems. With respect to your specific request, I
agree with you that mercury (which is at least 99 percent
pure) that is received and refined at your facility is not a
solid waste.I/ In particular, we have stated that metals
that are suitable for direct use, or that only have to be
refined to be usable are products, not wastes. See 40 CFR
261.3(c)(2); see also preamble discussion at 50 FR 634,
January 4, 1985. Thus, the mercury—that is 99 percent free-
flowing mercury—that you receive at your facility is not
subject to any of the hazardous waste regulations (i.e.,• the
material does not have to be manifested to your facility, you
need not comply with the storage requirements, etc.).
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification
I/ It should be noted that this regulatory interpretation
reflects the Federal hazardous waste rules. The State of
Pennsylvania may take a different interpretation; you,
therefore, need to contact the state for further information
on the status of this material.
MS860133
•V.S. WU l»»»-««'-«,J
-------
i iwr» A
9441.l9o6(44)
Air
MAY 3 0 SB6
George i.'. Rambo, Ph.D.. R.P.E.
Director, Researen, Education,
and Technical Resources
National Pest Control Association, Inc.
8100 Oak Streot
Dunn Lorinr;, VA 22027
Dear Dr. Ramon:
Thank you for your letter of May 16, 1986, requesting an
interpretation ot the applicability of the hazardous waste
regulations to washwaters generated from washing the exterior
of trucks and service vehicles.
As you are aware, in a July 22, 1985 memorandum to our
Region VI office, we indicated that washwaters generated, by
washing the exterior of an aerial pesticide applicator's airplane
would not be considered hazardous via the mixture rule. (See
enclosure.) Since the Agency sees no difference between washvaters
from aerial versus ground application equipment/ it is logical
that the interpretation issued in July 1985 should also extend to
the washwaters from ground equipment.
Consequently, this rinsewater would not be considered a
hazardous waste under the mixture rule and would only be considered
hazardous if the rinsewater exhibited one of the characteristics
of a hazardous waste identified in Subpart C ot' Part 261 (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity).
If you have any further questions on this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact Matt Straus at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
•V.J. IdO HI5-447-J5]
-------
cc: Air and- Water Management Division Directors (I-V and VII-x)
Air and Waste Management Branch Chiefs (I-X)
S. Scatzow
P. Gray
B. Weddie
J. Lehman
O.K. Ehart (State of Wisconsin)
-------
MAY 86 9441.1986(45a.
3. Treatment Without A Permit
A facility generates a waste that is in powder form and which exhibits
the characteristic of EP toxicity. The waste is stored in a tank
pursuant to the standards specified in 40 CFR 262.34. When the tank
is partially full, the generator pours in sand, and mixes the contents
of the tank until a homogeneous mixture is formed. The sand dilutes
the original waste. The resulting mixture no longer exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste. How is the generator regulated
under RCRA? Can the State in which the facility is located require
the facility to get a permit?
Under federal law, if the facility did not accumulate the waste
for longer than the applicable time period specified in §262.34
(90 days), then the facility would only have to comply with the
applicable provisions of $262.34. Rendering a characteristic
hazardous waste non-hazardous by dilution is treatment; however,
such treatement does not require a permit if $262.34 is followed.
The EPA clarified this interpretation in the March 24, 1986
Federal Register which states, "Of course, no permitting would
be required if a generator chooses to treat their hazardous
waste in the generator's accumulation tanks or containers in
conformance with the requirements of $262.34 and Subparts J or I
of Part 265. Nothing in $262.34 precludes a generator from
treating waste when it is in an accumulation tank or container
covered by that provision. Under the existing Subtitle C
system, EPA has established standards for tanks and containers
which apply to both the storage and treatment of hazardous
waste...the Agency believes that treatment in accumulation
tanks or containers is permissible under the existing rules,
provided the tanks or containers are operated strictly in
compliance with all applicable standards." (51 FR 10168)
States with existing standards may administer and enforce them
as a matter of State law. Further, a State with the appropriate
authorization could require a generator that treats hazardous
waste in a tank to operate under a RCRA permit or interim status
if the requirement was incorporated in the State's approved
program.
Of course, a non-listed characteristic hazardous waste that is
treated so that it no longer exhibits a characteristic of
hazardous waste need not be disposed of at a RCRA Subtitle C
facility, instead, the waste could be disposed of at an approved
State or local facility according to applicable Subtitle D
standards.
Source: Mark Greenwood (202) 382-7703
Research: Kevin Weiss
Charlotte Mooney
-------
9441.1986(45)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 86
1. Small Quantity Generators/Parts Washers/Waste Counting
An owner/operator (o/o) of a service station leases a parts washer
containing mineral spirits fron the Safety-Kleen Corporation. The
o/o uses the mineral spirits on a daily basis to degrease parts
on-site. The spent mineral spirits exhibit a Clash-point less
than 140° F. The o/o's written contract with Safety-Kleen requires
Safety-Kleen to collect the mineral spirits for reclamation and to
deposit regenerated or new mineral spirits at the service station
every eight weeks. The o/o is a "100-1000 kg/ho generator" of
hazardous wastes.
When, if ever, do the o/o's mineral spirits become regulated as a
hazardous waste? According to the revised small quantity generator
regulations which appeared in the March 24, 1986 Federal Register,
are the mineral spirits counted in determining the amount of
hazardous waste generated?
Section 261.4(c) exempts "[a] hazardous waste which is
generated...in a manufacturing process unit or an associated
nonwaste-treatment-manufacturing unit" fron regulation under
Parts 262 through 265 and the notification requirements of
Section 3010 of RCRA. The material is only subject to
regulation when it is removed from the unit in which it was
generated or if the material remains in the unit for more than
90 days after the unit ceases to be operated for manufacturing
purposes. In this specific case, the parts washer leased from
Safety-Kleen is functioning as a manufacturing process unit.
The parts washer is a containerized unit used in degreasing
operations. Therefore, the mineral spirits will not be subject
to regulations under Parts 262-265, 270, 271, 124, and Section
3010 until they are emptied from the parts washer container
or until they remain within a nonoperational parts washer for
more than 90 days, whichever occurs first.
Under the March 24, 1986 rules, waste exempt from some regulations
under $261.4(c) are not counted. As long as the waste is exempt
under S261.4(c), it need not be counted. However, the mineral
spirits would be counted in determining the amount of hazardous
waste generated on-site as soon as the mineral spirits are
removed from the parts washer unit or after they remain in the
non-operating unit for more than 90 days. If the mineral
spirits remain within the parts washer unit for 90 days or
less after the unit ceases operation, then they will not be
counted towards the quantity determination of the service
station o/o.
Sources Maureen Smith (202) 382-7703
Matthew Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Margaret Kneller
-------
9441.1986(46)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN 21986 OM.C.O,
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of Byproduct Material
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Waste Management Division
Region IV
In response to your memorandum of March 12, 1986, we have
outlined below how you and the State of South Carolina can proceed
with permitting and/or enforcement actions leading to issuance of
a RCRA permit at the Savannah River Plant (SRP).
Universe of Mixed Waste
EPA has seen and reviewed some of the waste stream booklets
prepared by DOE facilities. We reviewed the one for SRP several
years ago, but we understand that it was since revised. The
booklets do not provide definitive lists of wastes that are and
are not regulated under RCRA. They merely provide a starting
point for negotiating with the facility to determine which
wastes are regulated under RCRA.
The definition of "byproduct material" in the Atomic Energy
Act (AEA) does not explicitly resolve the question of which wastes
are, in their entirety, byproduct material, and are thus exempt
from RCRA, and which are mixtures of byproduct and hazardous
waste and are thus regulated under RCRA. The definition of
byproduct in 10 CFR 20.3 which you referenced in your memorandum
is merely • restatement of the statutory definition and, thus,
does not provide definitive guidance to determine which byproduct
wastes are -regulated and which are excluded.
DOE recently proposed a revised definition of byproduct
material (November 1, 1985, 50 FR 45736). The proposal did not
meet with favorable public- comments and it is unlikely that they
will finalize the rule in the near future. The only way States
will be able to judge which waste streams at any DOE facility
•hould be regulated is to work directly with the facility to
make case-by-case decisions based on the AEA definition.
-------
However, EPA considers all mixed waste streams to be subject
to Federal regulation under RCRA. We would expect that-States
with the same radioactive waste exemption as EPA would also
include all mixed wastes in their regulatory universe. However,
until the States are authorized for mixed wastes, it is possible
that their interpretations of their statutes may differ from
EPA's interpretation of RCRA.
Use of RCRA Authorities
The Savannah River Plant should provide to the State of
South Carolina a permit application for all waste units regulated
under State law. Based on that information, the State should
proceed to process and issue a RCRA permit covering all RCRA-regu-
lated units at the facility. Units containing mixed wastes (or
suspected of containing mixed wastes) are currently not covered
under the authorized RCRA program in South Carolina. However,
if the State regulates mixed wastes under State law, units
containing such wastes may also be addressed within the State
permit.
The State should obtain security clearances, where
necessary, and use its full range of enforcement authorities
to gain access to the site and to require sampling and analysis
by the facility to determine whether units should be regulated.
Headquarters DOE has assured full cooperation in obtaining
security clearances for State personnel.
EPA can also use its RSWA authorities to supplement an auth-
orized State's authority over RCRA-regulated units. Under $3004(u),
EPA can jointly issue a permit with the State and impose corrective
action requirements on hazardous waste management units and solid
waste management units (SWMU's) at facilities that contain RCRA-
regulated units. Although mixed waste units are not RCRA-regulated
under authorized State RCRA programs, mixed waste will be considered
to be a "solid waste" for purposes of corrective action at solid
waste management units.
The Federal definition of "solid waste" is to be used in
determining what units are SWMU's, because State definitions were
not scrutinized in evaluating applications for State authorization
(except as was necessary to assess the adequacy of the State's
universe of hazardous waste).* Because mixed waste is considered
a solid waste under the Federal RCRA program, units containing
mixed wastes are SWMU's and are subject to corrective action j^f
there is another unit requiring a RCRA permit at the facility.
* Therefore, in order to obtain authorization for corrective
action, States must obtain authorization for their definition
of solid waste, which may not exclude mixed waste.
-------
- 3 -
Ac noted earlier, a mixed waste unit is not a RCRA-regulated
unit in an- authorized State. Therefore, there must be it least
one non-mixed, hazardous waste unit at a facility in order for
EPA to subject mixed waste units to corrective action requirements
under §3004(u).
Similarly, EPA may issue an order under §3008(h) requiring
monitoring, investigation of releases and corrective action, but
the order can apply to mixed waste units only if there is one or
more unit subject to interim status requirements at the site.
Response to Specific Questions
In response to the three bullets and the three numbered
items on page 2 of your memorandum, we have the following
answers:
* If you suspect that Part B's have not been submitted
for all RCRA units, EPA and/or the State should take
immediate enforcement action. You and the State should
determine who ehould appropriately take enforcement
action. If there are mixed waste units in question,
EPA cannot enforce submission of the Part B's in an
authorized State. While EPA cannot issue penalties to
another Federal agency, the dispute resolution process
described in the revised Federal Facility Compliance
Strategy may be used.
* Review of the Part B submitted by SRP nay provide you
and/or the State with sufficient information to make
such a determination. However, if it does not, then
EPA and/or the State should require SRP, through enforce-
ment action, to make such a determination through
sampling and analysis or whatever other method (e.g.,
application of knowledge of waste generation process)
may be appropriate.
* As stated earlier* the booklets only provide a starting
point for negotiations. EPA HO will not be reviewing
or approving the individual facility booklets.
1. The May 10 letter to DOE did not delegate any authority.
Therefore, it need not be withdrawn.
2. The AEA definition of byproduct is the only appropriate
and legally enforceable definition that can be used.
You should use that definition to make case-by-case
decisions, as described on page 1 of this memorandum.
3. There is no documentation available of the EPA review
of the SRP waste -stream booklet.
-------
I hope this sufficiently clarifies your and the'State's
current authorities with respect to permitting and enforcement
actions you might take at SRP. We will continue to work with
you to resolve any remaining issues, and would appreciate
being kept informed about the progress you and the State of
South Carolina are making in resolving these issues with SRP.
cc: Jim Scarbrough, Region IV
Richard Campbell/ Region IV
Joe Freedman, OGC
Tony Baney, OWPE
Peter Guerrero, OSW
RCRA Division Directors, Regions I-III, V-X (with incoming)
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-III, V-X (with incoming)
-------
9441.1986 (47)
* ^ •
\5SZZ
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20460
/
;c= CS OP
SOLID AASTE -JVD s
Honorable Robert S. Walker
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Walker:
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 1986, on behalf of your
constituent, concerning his questions pertaining to three
chemicals which he uses in his trade as a painting contractor.
Specifically, he requests information on any federal regulations
relating to the disposal, sewage treatment, and neutralization
of methylene chloride, muriatic acid, and isocyanates, as well'
as information on any health hazards associated with their use.
We are reading the first two chemicals in your letter to
be methylene chloride and muriatic acid. Methylene chloride
is used as a solvent and is a listed hazardous waste — EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F002. The listing includes the following
spent halogenated solvents: tetrachloroethylene, methylene
chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichlorothene, 1,1,2-tri-
chloroethane, chlorobenzene, l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane,
ortho-dichlorobenzene, and trichlorofluoromethane. Unused methylene
chloride that is discarded is also defined as a hazardous waste.
Muriatic acid is also likely classified as a hazardous waste
based on its corrosivity (i.e., it likely has a pH less than 2).
The third chemical, isocyanates, in a class of chemicals; thus,
before we can respond to your request, we would need to know
specifically which compound or compounds your constituent is
using in order to address his concerns.
If your constituent generates more than 100 kilograms
(220 pounds) of methylene chloride, muriatic acid, or any other
hazardous vasts in a calendar month at his place of work or
at individual work sites, he is classified as a hazardous
waste generator and thereby subject to the hazardous waste
regulations. New regulations were just promulgated for generators
of between 100 kilograms and 1000 kilograms per calendar month
of hazardous waste. (Ses enclosed brochure and Federal Register
notice. These requirements become effective on September 22,
1986.) If your constituent generates less than 100 kilograms of
waste in a calendar month, good disposal practice would dictate
that he use an off-site hazardous waste storage, treatment, or
-------
disposal-facility for his waste, although he may legally dispose
of such waste at any state approved solid waste facility.
Your constituent should contact the organization at the address
listed below for additional information pertaining to small
quantity generators.
Ms. Eleanor W. Winsor, Executive Vice-president
Pennsylvania Environmental Research Foundation
Mezzanine—Lewis Tower Building
225 South 15th Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
(215) 735-0966
With respect to the question relating to neutralization
of these chemicals, it is our opinion, that it is not possible
for your constituent to neutralize methylene chloride at his
place of business. Muriatic acid, however/ can be neutralized.
With respect to the potential health hazards associated
with methylene chloride and muriatic acid/ he should be aware
that methylene chloride is a potential carcinogen. Muriatic
acid, on the other hand, while a corrosive chemical is not
highly toxic. For further information on the proper use and
storage of these chemicals in the workplace/ he should
contact the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) at the address given below.
Dr. James Melius
NIOSH/DSHEFSS
Mail Stop R12
Rm 40A Ridge Bldg.
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati Ohio 45226
(513) 841-4428
I also strongly recommend that your constituent contact
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources at the
address listed below to discuss these issues in greater detail.
Depending on the specific nature of his business activities/ he
may be subject to aore stringent state regulations pertaining
to hazardous waste disposal.
.Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg/ Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-6239 .
-------
Please feel free to write me if you have any further
questions.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
9441.1986(48)
June 10, 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Regulatory Interpretation Assistance
Request-Application of Mining Waste Exclusion
to a Ferroalloy Facility
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: David Wagoner, Director
Waste Management Division
Region VII
In your memorandum of May 13, 1986, you sought guidance on
the regulatory status of a ferroalloy facility and the wastes it
generates in the production of ferrosilicon (silvery iron). The
ferrosilicon alloy is produced by mixing quartzite ore,
metallurgical coal, and steel scrap in submerged arc electric
furnaces. Based on telephone conversations between our
respective staffs, I understand that steel scrap is the
predominant input. Wastes generated by this process are kish
reclaim system rejects, venturi scrubber sludge, and baghouse
dust. The scrubber sludge has been identified as being EP toxic
for lead.
The ferroalloy sector was included in the studies supporting
the reinterpretation of the mining waste exclusion. Most
ferroalloys are produced from various combinations of ores, metal
oxides, lime, and coke or other reducing agents. However,
ferrosilicon is made from scrap steel and quartzite in the
presence of metallurgical coal as the reducing agent.
As you know, the Bevill exclusion for mining waste only
applies to wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and minerals. The Agency has consistently
held that metal scrap is neither an ore nor a mineral.
Therefore, if the predominant input to the process is steel
scrap, the waste from the ferroalloy facility does not qualify
for the mining waste exclusion. This ferroalloy facility would
be in the same category as a secondary lead smelter, reclaiming
lead from old batteries, or other secondary processes; their
wastes are not excluded from regulation either. (In fact, there
This document has Jbeen retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
are two listed hazardous wastes (K069 and K100) generated by
secondary lead smelters.)
As you also know, last October the Agency proposed to
reinterpret the mining waste exclusion as it applies to
processing wastes so only large-volume wastes would qualify for
the exclusion. Under this rulemaking, all ferroalloy facilities
using ore (rather than scrap) and generating hazardous waste
would become subject to the Subtitle C regulations because none
would qualify individually or collectively as generators of
large-volume processing wastes. Altogether, the 10 plants
producing ferrosilicon in 1984 generated about 18,000 metric tons
of slag; 36,000 metric tons of furnace emission control dust;
3,000 metric tons of product crushing and sizing emission control
dust; and unknown quantities of emission control sludge. The
sludge quantities are believed to be in the 3,000 - 36,000
tons/year range. It should be noted that the emission control
dust tested EP toxic for selenium at one ferrosilicon facility
(not at Keokuk).
In summary, it would appear that the facility in question is
currently subject to RCRA requirements. Its status will be
further clarified by promulgation of the final rule on the
reinterpretation of the mining waste exclusion.
This document has Jbeen retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1986(49)
JUN I 6 I9S6
Mr. G. N. Weinrsich, P.E.
Environmental Manager
ANG Coal Gasification Co.
P.O. Box 1149
Beulah, North Dakota 58524
Dear Mr. Weinreich:
This is in response to your May 13, 1986, letter requesting
further clarification on the proper classification of residual
water that acquires a high pH front a waste that is exempt
from regulation. Like the precipitation run-otf discussed in
my letter of April 21, 1986, the residual water (which becomes
corrosive due to its contact with coal ash) is also exempt
trom regulation pursuant to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) (i.e. , since
the residual water is derived from an exempt waste, the
resulting corrosive water retains the exempt status of the
waste) .
Please feel free to write me if I can be of any further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
WH-562B/MSTRAUS/pes/475-8551/5-30-86/Congre««ional 0419
OSW-2U9 DUE DATE: 6/6/86
-------
9441.1986(51)
2 1986
Honorable John Paul HamTterschTiidt
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Hammerschmidt:
Thank you for your Hay 27, 1986, Inquiry on behalf of your
constituent, Mr. n«an Dunaqan of Cove, Arkansas. The Agency is
unaware of any order issued in August of 1985 regarding the
hazards of used batteries. We can apprise you, however, of the
current Federal regulations affecting Mr. Dunaqan's business of
rebuilding batteries for resale.
Used batteries are not specifically listed as hazardous
wastes. The Agency, however, considers them hazardous because
of the corrosive nature of the battery acid and their ability to
leak the toxic metal, lead. Nevertheless, the Agency also has
exempted used batteries that are regenerated from regulation
under the Federal hazardous waste rules. (See 40 CFR 261.6 (a)
(3)(ii)) Regeneration includes those activities where the electro-
lyte is drained and replaced or one or more bad cells are replaced.
Batteries that cannot be rebuilt and are sent to junk dealers
and battery manufacturers are considered hazardous but are also
exempted from regulation. The Agency has exempted these activities
from regulation since they present minimal environmental risks.
With respect to the reference regarding the hazard of used
motor oil, the Agency did propose to list used oil as a hazardous
waste on November 29, 1985. However, the Agency has received
well over 600 comments, moat of which opposed the listing of
used oil because it was too broad and would seriously impact the
recycling of used oil* Thus, until such time that the Agency is
able to fully evaluate all of the comments received, we will not
be in a position to make any final determinations on regulating
used oil.
If you have need of further assistance, nlease contact this
office.
Sincerely,
Porter
fet
-------
r«U I CCI ION A ,Y
9441.1986(52)
Mr. Richard T. Boulwarc
Vipont Botanical Laboratories
2403 E. Kivett Drive
High Point, North Caroline 27260
Dear Mr. Boulware:
This is in response to your May 27, 1986 letter, requesting
an interpretation of the Federal hazardous waste rules as they
apply to the wastes to be generated in your extraction process.
As you state in your letter, this process uses the solvent
methylene chloride to recover alkaloids from plant matter.
The two wastes t'or which you request specific information on
are: (1) the solid cake remaining in the basket centrifuge,
and (2) the wastewater stream discharged to a POTW.
Solid Cake - I agree with your understanding that the
solid cake in the basket is not a listed hazardous waste,
namely, a spent solvent—and would only be hazardous it
it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(i.e., iqnitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity); in addition, when the TCLP is
promulgated, you will also need to determine whether the
solid cake exhibits this characteristic*
Wastewater - This wastestream, as you state in your
letter and as we discussed on June 27, comes off the
centrifuge as a wastewater that contains methylene
chloride; the methylene chloride is then stripped off to
be reclaimed while the wastewater is discharged to a
POTW. Under this scheme, the wastewater also is not
considered a listed waste (nor does it contain a listed
waste). Therefore, this stream also would only be.
hazardous if it exhibits any of the existing or future
hazardous waste characteristics.
Finally, although you did not request an interpretation
of the status of the spent methylene chloride under the
federal hazardous waste rules, you should be aware that the
spent methylene chloride that comes otf the liquid extractor
is considered a listed hazardous waste and may be subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. (See the Final Definition
-------
or Solid.Waste Rulenaking, 50 FR 614, January 4, 1*85 and
t'u Final Tank Rules that were signed by the Aaninistrator
en Juno 30, 1986, to determine the actual regulatory status
ot the solvent spent methylene chloride.)
Please feel tree to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A, Straus
Chiet
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1986(53)
JUL 3 1986
Mr. Nicholas J. Lardisri
start Vice President
Environmental Resources
Scott P«o«r Company
5cor.t Plaza
Philadelphia. PA 13113
noar Mr. Lardiori:
Thank you Cor your letter of May 30, 1936, recruesting an
interpretation of the application of tho hazardous waste
r"»nul*tory prograw under the Resource Consorvation and Rscovory
Act (RCRA) to recyclable cloth vipers and disposable industrial
win^rs, renooctively. As noted in your letter, the Aaoncy *akos
r.o r'j'julatory distinction betwoen wipers which are disposed of
and wipers which are recycled.
Under the existing rules, both disposable industrial wlners
and cloth towels which are r*cycl»d are regulated as hazardous
waste i* the rpnerator of th«» wipers or cloth towels produco*
quantities of hazardous waste that exceed the snail auantity
nen«rator levels cited in 40 C?R 261.5 and if the wipers or
towels are either: (1) used to clean up a listed hazardous
was to or (2) u*ed to clean-up a characteristic hazardous wist?>
and th» mixture of the wiper and the waste exhibit that
characteristic* In both cases, ultimate responsibility for
proper management of the waste remains with the generator and,
in that respect* both disposable and recyclable wipers are treated
tho sjme way under RCRA*
Under the current regulatory scheme, whether or not the
resultant hazardous waste is shipped off-site for disposal, as in
the case of disposable wipers/ or whether it is shipped to an
industrial laundry* both must be accumulated on-slte prior to
shipment in compliance with Section 262.34 of tho hazardous waate
rules and must be manifested when shipped off-site. Aqain, the
obligations of generators managing hazardous wastes are the saraa,
regardless of the way in which the waste is ultimately managed.
-------
-2-
Despito the accuracy of your interpretation of the RCRA
rules, however* it should be noted that the wanner in which th«
waste is ultimately managed may greatly affect a harardous waste
oenerator's potential lono ter^t liabilities under Superfund. For
exanple, disposal of hazardous waste contaminated wipers in a
landfill may create more significant potential liabilities as a
practical matter than would incineration or recycling.
Finally, you may be interested to know that we aro currently
examining the larger issue of the appropriate regulatory status
of wipers, whether disposable or recyclable, which are brouaht
into the hazardous waste regulatory system as a result of being
used to clean UP a hazardous waste. Specifically, we are
considering whether th« existing regulations, as they apply to
industrial vipers, result in the most effective and appropriate
regulatory outcome.
If I can be of any further assistance, pleaso do not
hesitate to contact either myself or Matt Straus, of my staff,
who may he reached at 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED S'. S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC .Y 9441.1936(54)
I 5 1986
Mr. Grenory J. Harvoy
Industrial Hygenist
Occupational Medical Services
Air force Station, OH 43057-5000
Dear Mr. Harvey:
This letter is written in response to your request that
determine whether certain activated carbon canisters that are
saturated with spent solvents should be managed as hazardous
wastes under RCRA. More specifically, these canisters ar« used
to collect vapors of the solvents Freon 113, 1 ,1,1-trichloroethane;
and methylene chloride that are generated during their use as
cogreasing agents in paint spray booths.
As you are aware, the Agency has listed these compounds
as hazardous wastes when they are used as solvents and have
become contaminated with physical or chemical impurities and
are no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed,
or otherwise re-processed. Use as a solvent is detined as being
used tor their solvent properties, that is, to solubilize
(dissolve) or mobilize other constituents; this includes use as
a degreasing agent. (See 51 PR 6538, February 25, 1986.)
However, solvent vapor is not a solid waste (see Section
1004(27) ot the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, where
the term "solid waste" is defined to include, among other
things, contained gaseous material). Since these solvent
vapors are not contained, they are not defined as a solid or
hazardous waste. Furthermore, when the solvent vapor is
adsorbed onto activated carbon, it would not be covered by
the listing or by the mixture rule. Rather, these wastes'
would only be hazardous if they exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics. At this time, we do not know whether
these cannisters would be defined as hazardous. However, you
should be aware that on June 13, 1986, the Agency proposed a
new extraction procedure (TCLP) to be used in the toxicity
characteristic and also proposed to expand the toxicity
characteristic to include, among other constituents, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and methylene chloride. (See enclosure.)
Should this rule become final in its present form, your
-------
(Pee enclosure.) Should thi« rule become final in: it*
7res«nt forr, ycur spent Activated carbon ray exhibit the
characteristic of toxicity, if the canisters are not already
hazardous for some othrr reason.
In sunnary, the subject waste is not currently a listed
hazardous waste under RCRA an* woul«1 only be hazardous if it
exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste; however,
this waste nay soon be subject to the regulation as hazardous,
if it is not already hazardous, due to the toxieity characteristic,
Since you recognize that these canisters p.ay pose a substantial
present or potential threat to human health or the environment,
I urge you to Manage then appropriately.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
-------
9441.1936(55)
JUL 1 6 1986
Clayton Yeutter
The United States Trade
Representative
Uashinnton, D.C. 20506
Dear ^r. Yeutter:
Thank you very much for your June 20, 198<5f letter exoressino
concern about the impacts of potential mining waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Speci-
fically, you requested that the Aoencv very carefully examine
the effects such regulations might have on the competitiveness
of the U.S. mining industry.
As vou may know, I have determined that regulation of
mining waste under the Subtitle C (hazardous waste management)
provisions of RCRA is not warranted at this time. .The deter-
mination of June 30, 1986r published July 3, 1986/^(cony
enclosed) imposes no immediate reguirements on industry.
The Agency plans to develop criteria for mine waste
sites through a State-administered program under Subtitle D
(solid wast* management) of PCRA. The Agency will work closely
with mining States* mining associations, and other interested
oroups in the development of these criteria. EPA will avoid
duplicating existing regulations and will analyze costs,
imoacts, and benefits, complying fully with Executive Orders
12291 and 12498 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
I can assure you that the Agency ia aware of the
economic conditions prevailing in many sectors of the U.S.
mining industry and will strive to develop the least burden-
some program possible that will adequately protect human
health and the environment.
Thank you for your interest.
. Sincerely,
I*t tf.
-------
UNITED ST ... ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC .f Q... iaac,.,,
9441.1900(56)
JUL 28 1985
Mr. Robert D. Westbrook
Westbrook and Williams, Inc.
402 N. 3rd Street
Sterling, Colorado 80751
Dear Mr. Westbrook:
This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1986,
in which you request that I confirm that your recycling
business (i »e., the purchasing of used junk lead-acid batteries
tor recharge and resale as a reconditioned battery) is
currently exempt from the federal hazardous waste rules.
First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in
responding to your request; I hope this delay has not caused
you any problems.
*
With respect to your specific request, I agree that the
way you regenerate used batteries is exempt from the federal
hazardous waste rules (see S261.6(a)(3)(ii))•!/ The Agency
believes that this practice presents minimal environmental
risk and is very similar to the reclamation of commercial
chemical products, an activity not currently regulated.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475*8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
I/ It should -be noted that this regulatory interpretation
reflects the federal hazardous waste rules. The State of
Colorado may take a different interpretation under their
regulations.
CPA F.m. M2C-1 (1J-70)
-------
9441.1986(57)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 86
6. Spent Solvents
A company uses methylene chloride to remove varnish fron pieces of
equipment. The varnish is stripped off in clumps and is collected
in a container with the methylene chloride. The clumps of varnish
are removed from the methylene chloride, and the methylene chloride
is used again for more stripping. Mould the clumps of varnish be a
hazardous waste when disposed?
When methylene chloride is used as a solvent/stripper and
becomes spent through use, then it is a listed hazardous waste,
F002 ($261.31). vtien the clumps are removed from the methylen-?
chloride (F002), they become a new solid waste. If intended
for disposal, the clumps would be considered F002 because of
the "derived from rule" in $261.3(c)(2)(i), which states that
any solid waste generated from the treatment of a hazardous
waste is still a hazardous waste. Once the clumps are removed,
the once-spent methylene chloride would then be reclaimed and
would no longer be regulated as F002.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Jim Ginley
-------
3441.1986(58)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 86
1. Treatment Studies and Permits
A generator of hazardous waste would like to send hazardous waste
samples to a facility that will perform innovative treatment studies
on the samples. These "treatability studies" involve investigating
new methods or techniques to change the physical, chemical, or
biological character or composition of the waste and render the
waste less hazardous, or non-hazardous, that regulations must a
facility comply with if the facility accepts hazardous waste samples
for treatability studies and the facility uses technology for which
Parts 264, 265 and 266 standards have not been promulgated to date?
On September 25, 1981 (46 FR 47426), EPA excluded samples of
hazardous waste fron RCRA regulations in Parts 262-270 when
stored, transported and tested for hazardous waste characteristics
or composition. This lab sample exclusion is codified as
S261.4(d). Samples of hazardous waste collected for "treatability
studies" are not included in the $261.4(d) lab sample exclusion.
Therefore, "treatability studies" are subject to RCRA interim
status or permit standards in Parts 264, 265, 266 and 270.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) added
Section 3005(g) to provide EPA the authority to issue research,
development and demonstration (RD&D) permits for treatment
activities. The purpose of RD6D permits is to authorize
experimental testing of new hazardous waste treatment technologies
or processes. This new authority has been codified in 40 CFR
$270.65 (50 FR 28752, July 15, 1985). The statute and $270.65(a)
authorize EPA to issue permits for innovative and experimental
hazardous waste treatment technology or process activities,
including those which are not yet subject to RCRA Parts 264.
The EPA is developing Part 264 permit standards for miscellaneous
units (Subpart X) and experimental facilities (Subpart Y). The
Subpart X regulations will provide permit authority for units
that are currently not regulated in 40 CFR Parts 146 and 264.
These units include deep mines, silos, salt mines, thermal
treatment units and open detonation units. The Subpart Y
regulations may replace 5270.65 authority and will provide
permit standards for experimental facilities. Proposed regulations
for Subpart X are scheduled for publication in the Federal
Register by the Fall of 1986; Subpart Y is expected to be
proposed at a later date.
Source: Ken Gray, Office of General Counsel (202) 382-7700
Research: Caroline Dane*
-------
9441.1986 (59)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 86
5. Regulation of Sludges When Reclaimed
Why are sane RCRA sludges considered solid wastes and others are
not solid wastes when reclaimed?
To be subject to RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction, a material must
meet the regulatory definition of a solid waste. Sludges are
defined in RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 260.10 as residues from
treating air or wastewater, or other residues fron pollution
control devices. 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3) defines sludges which are
listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or 261.32 as solid wastes when reclaimed,
and states that unlisted sludges that are reclaimed are not
solid wastes even if they exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous
waste, provided they are not being accumulated speculatively.
The EPA has structured the regulations so that the EPA must
evaluate sludges individually before determining whether they
are subject to RCRA jurisdiction when reclaimed (see 50 FR 619,
January 4, 1985). The definition of solid waste is limited to
listed sludges to avoid including sludges that are routinely
processed to recover useable products as part of ongoing production
operations. The October 2, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 40297)
states that: "Nevertheless, sludges can be listed and thus be
solid wastes if they are more waste-like than product-like. EPA
will make this determination on a material-by-material basis
considering:
1) How frequently the material is recycled on an industry-
wide basis,
2) Whether the material is replacing a raw material and the
degree to which it is similar in composition to the raw
material,
3) The relation of the recovery practice to the principle
activity of the facility, and
4) Whether the secondary material is managed in a way designed
to minimize loss."
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Kevin Weiss
-------
9441.1986(61)
AUG f 8 1986
Mr. Randall F. Andrews
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
Route 2
Box 521-C
Red Springs, North Carolina 28377
Dear Mr. Andrews:
This is in response to your letter of May 27, 1986,
regarding the regulatory status of the spent pickle liquor
that your company picks up and processes at your facility.
First/ I would like to apologize for my delay in getting back
to you; I hope this has not caused you any problems. With
respect to your specific reguest, I agree with Ms. Kneller
and Brock of the RCRA/Superfund Hotline that the spent pickle
liguor that is processed at your facility is not a solid-and
hazardous waste. In particular, the processing of the spent
pickle liquor that occurs at your facility does not constitute
reclamation, as that term is defined in the hazardous waste
regulations. Rather, the spent pickle liguor is being
used/reused (as defined in 40 CPR 261.1(c)(5)) and, therefore,
is not a solid waste (provided it is not speculatively
accumulated) and is not subject to the hazardous waste rule.I/
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
I/ It should be noted that this regulatory interpretation
reflects the Federal hazardous waste rules. The State
•
-------
cr...*uriMfcNTAt PROTECTS ,EHCY
9441.1986(62)
AU6 | 9 (986
••'r. '•••'illiar P. Blackburn
Counsel
Travenol Laboratories Inc.
Deerfield, Illinois 60015
Dear Mr. Blackburni
This letter Is in response to your letters dated July 19,
and August 26, 1985, and your August 28, 1985, telephone
conversation with Alfred W. Lindsey, then the Deputy Director of
the waste Management and Economics Division, and additional
conversations with members of my staff. Your questions concerned
the treatment of characteristic hazardous waste in pipelines that
lead to a privately-owned wastewater treatment plant.
In a letter dated July 27, 1981, Mr. Lindsey responded to
related inquiries made by Mr. Ronald E. Meissen of your company.
This response included a copy of a seven-page regulatory clarifi-
cation statement on the definition of 'Totally Enclosed Treatment
Facility." A copy of this statement is enclosed for reference.
In your letter dated July 19, 1985, you stated that '...If
these characteristic hasardous wastes are poured to the sewer
from a laboratory, such disposal would be permissible so long as
the one-percent rule of 40 CPU 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E) is met." This
is an inaccurate interpretation of the rule. The rule does -not
refer to the permissibility of disposal but rather to whether the
wastewater containing listed wastes is a hazardous waste or not.
The provision does not apply where characteristic wastes are
involved, even if the waste is from a laboratory. Mixtures con-
taining only characteristic and nonhaxardous wastes are hasardous
only if the mixture exhibits the characteristic according to
«261.3(b)(3). In SUB, 40 CFR 261,3(a)(2)(iv)(E) is not relevant
to the issues you raise. At this time, there is no on-qoinq
effort to create a de minimis mixture rule for characteristic
hasardous waste*.
From your description of the process, small parts are
dipped into a 50% alcohol/50% water mixture in small trays. This
is a batch operation that occasionally recuires the operators to
carry the trays with spent dip solution to the drain. About
12 gallons per day of the waste are poured down the drain that
-------
leads to .an industrial waatewater treatment plant that handles
1.8 million gallons a day. You have atated that your biological
treatment plant biodegradea the alcohol prior to discharge.
The following are specific responses to the questions in
your letters:
Issues from the July 19, 1985 latter
(A) Does the dilution of noncorrosive, unlisted/ characteristic
hasardous waste to a nonhatardous condition constitute
hasardous waste treatment if the dilution occurs in a sewer
line leading to an industrial wastewater treatment plant
after the waste is poured to the drain from a container?
Treatment is defined in f260.10 as '...designed to change
the physical/ chemical/ or biological character or composition of
any hasardous waste...to render such waste nonhasardoua/ or less
hasardous; safer to transport/ store/ or dispose of....* Pouring.
the 501 water/50% alcohol ignitable waste down the drain renders
the waste nonhasardous by the time it reaches the treatment
plant. In this case/ pipes are designed and used to convey/ not
treat/ wastes to the biological treatment plant that degrades the
alcohol. Thus/ the dilution ie incidental to the transport of
the waste to the wastewater treataent plant where treats*nt takes
place. Therefore/ in this case the dilution is not treatment;
and/ if properly handled/ this practice can be environmentally
•ore acceptable than storing drums of the igni table waste for
Off-site treatment or recycling.
(B) If the answer to (A) is "yes* (dilution is treatment)/ does
the sewer line in which the waste is treated serve as (1) a
•wastewater treatment unit;* (2) a "totally enclosed treatment
facility;* or (3) any other type of exempt hasardous waste
treatment facility?
Since dilution is not considered to be treatment when the
characteristic waste is diluted while being conveyed to acceptable
treatment/ these questions are not applicable, furthermore/ once
the waste stream is so dilute as to be rendered nonhatardous,
treatment of the nonhazardous waste stream that occurs in the
wastewater treatment plant is not subject to RCRA regulations.
(C) If the answer to (A) is "yes" (diluting characteristic waste
in a sewer line is treatment)/ and there is no exemption for
tne treatment in (B), what provisions of 40 CFR 264 and 26?
govern t.ie pipeline treatnent?
Tne question is not applicable tor the reasons explained
a.^ove.
-------
(D) If the waste is diluted in the sink prior to discharge down
the drain, is the sink a "wastewater treatment unit?"
If hazardous waste is diluted in the sink, it is hatardous
waste treatment, since the dilution is intentional, rather than
merely incidental to conveyance to the treatment plant. Inten-
tional dilution of waste prior to discharge to decrease its
incOBpatiDility, ignitability, reactivity* etc./ in the pipelines
constitutes treatment.
Since your 50% water/50% alcohol waste is not a wastewater
by our guidance of a few percent contaminants (see the February 2,
1982, notice, 47 PR 4707), the sink is not a wastewater treatment
unit*
Issues from the August 26, 1985, letter
(A) If corrosive hazardous waste fro» water deionization units
travels through an open channel within the building to the -
sewer leading to an industrial wastewater treatment plant,
does the neutralization of that waste in the sewer mean
that the sewer is: (1) a totally enclosed treatment facility;
(2) an elementary neutralization unit; or (3) a wastewater
treatment unit? (4) Does the answer change if the channel
is enclosed?
(1) No* An open sewer is not totally enclosed on all sides
in accordance with Agency guidance*
The issue you raise is whether or not an open sewer in a
building can be a totally enclosed treatment facility. Spills
within the building can release hazardous constituents into the
sir or cause a release that leaves the confines of the building.
Therefore, systerna that can release hasardous constituents
within buildings are not considered totally enclosed.
(2) Tanks are defined in $260.10 as* "a stationary device
designed to contain an accumulation of hazardous waste which is
constructed primarily of non-earthen materials...which provide
structural support." According to the preamole of the proposed
pernit-by-rule in the November 17, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR
76078), the elementary neutralization unit "...is intended to
include...tanks as well as devices such as flum»s, gutters,
throuqhs [sic] and pipes which are not commonly considered to
hJ rx»mit-ftv-rule regulations, the Aaency
is ^polyina this int^r^ratat ion of tank to th«? exclusions in
*:?.2fi5.l(c)(lO), 26«.J(rr)(C), .=»'id 270. l(c) (2) (v) as well.
-------
Fronrthe information you provided, the sewer qualifies for
the elementary neutralization unit exclusion. The in-line neu-
tralization system adds caustic to wastes that are only hazardous
on the basis of corrosivity, and it meets the definition of an
elementary neutralizatior nit (as defined in 5260.10) for the
reasons described above. ,n this case, neutralization is treat-
ment rather than dilution incidental to the transport of waste as
described in the July 19, 1985 letter.
Althouqh the open channel is upstream of the neutralization,
the channel is not subject to RCRA regulation as a tank, because
it is part of the neutralization system. Elementary neutraliza-
tion units may consist of a series of tanks, just as wastewater
treatments may involve a series of connected tanks.
(3) The sewer is possibly a wastewater treatment unit if
it meets the three criteria outlined in 40 CPR $260.10. First/
the waste is a wastewater for RCRA purposes (i.e., contains at
most a few percent materials other than water* 47 PR 4707). You
said that the corrosive waste is 95% water and 5% total dissolved
solids, so the corrosive waste appears to maet the Federal cri-
teria of a wastewater for the RCRA wastewater treatment exclusion.
Second, the facility is subject to control under Section 402 or
307(b) of the Clean Water Act. And third, the units meet the
definition of tank in $260.10. For the purposes of the exclusion,
the pipes are tank like for the same reason that pipes can be part
of an elementary neutralization unit. Since Mississippi has
jurisdiction over your facility, you must ask the State if your
facility is eligible for a wastewater treatment exclusion.
(4) Enclosing the channel would possibly change the answer
to (1), i.e., whether or not it is a totally enclosed treatment
facility. However, enclosing the channel may not be sufficient
to create a totally enclosed treatment facility unless you
comply with the enclosed guidance and any additional guidelines
from the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources.
(B) If the corrosive hazardous waste in (A) is piped directly
from the deionization units to an enclosed tank where it
is pretreated to bring the pH near, but not to, the non-
hazardous ranrje and then discharged via pipe to the sewer
for final neutralization by dilution with wastewater, does
the p.ipinq, tank, and sewer constitute a totally enclosed
treatment facility?
Possicly. Tht* .-'.ississippi Department of Natural Resources
woulu have to review tne details or design and operation of tne
system to conduce that it -.toes ne'it their criteria tor totally
Sc-J treatment •
-------
According to further discussions you had with ay staff, the
corrosive" waste frore the deionization units will for the short
tern be managed according to scenario "A" in your August 26,
1985, letter, which meets the EPA criteria for either elementary
neutralization or wastewater treatment. (However* the facility
is subject to State regulation.) Por the purposes of determining
the applicability of the small quantity generator exclusion of
5261. 5, our regulatory approach does not count waste until it is
subject to regulation. The waste is not subject to regulation
in the deionization unit in which it was generated according to
$261. 4(c) nor in the exempted neutralisation process* Since
there is no hazardous waste leaving the sewer* the corrosive
waste from the deionization unit is not counted towards the waste
exceeding 1,000 Kg a month. This policy ii explicitly outlined
in the $261. 5(c) small quantity generator regulations promulgated
March 24, 1986 (56 PR 10174).
The additional information you provided by telephone leaves
serious questions about whether you can design a totally enclosed
system and still meet your Food and Drug Administration require-
ments. However, scenario "B" still qualifies as an elementary
neutralization unit and, as explained above, the corrosive waste
does not count towards the small quantity generator limits,
because the waste has not yet become subject to regulation. In-
other words, you do not have to be a totally enclosed treatment
facility in order to qualify for small quantity generator status.
I appreciate your patience for the length of time it took
EPA to address the policy issues raised by your request. Please
address any questions on this response to Irene Borner of my
staff at (202) 382-7917.
Sincerely,
John P. Lehman
Director
Waste Management and
Economics Division
Enclosure
cc: James Scarbrouqh, Region IV
Jack McMillan, Mississippi DNK
-------
9441.1986(64)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMHARY
AUGUST 86
6. SQG Quantity Determinations
The new small quantity generator (SQG) regulations, effective
Septeitoer 22, 1986, establish standards under 40 CFR 261.5(c)
and (d) for counting hazardous waste generated on a monthly
basis. 40 CFR 261.5(d)(3) states that an SQG need not include
spent materials that have been reclaijned and subsequently reused
on-site in the quantity determination, provided they have already
been counted once. The regulation does not specify, however,
Aether this allowance applies only within a month or applies
to all taste counting. For example, if an SQG counts and
reclaims a solvent on-site in October and uses it again in
November, must the SQG include the spent solvent in the
quantity determination for November?
Yes; the SQG must include the reused material in the quantity
determination for the subsequent month, assuming that it becomes
a spent material, and hence, a hazardous waste again in November.
All counting occurs on a manth-to-ronth basis, so the "multiple
counting" exemption only applies within one month. Therefore,
a SQG would only count a material once if the SQG reclaims and
reuses it more than once within one month. In addition, the SQG
should note the allowance in 40 CFR 261.5(c) (51 FR 10174) which
excludes from monthly counting wastes that are subject only to
waste identification, RCRA $3010 notification, recordkeeping and
biennial report requirements. The SQG must count wastes that are
subject to the rest of Part 262 (manifesting, on-site accumulation,
exports), §261.6(b) or (c), or Part 266 Subparts C, D, or F.
Source: Bob Axelrad (202) 382-4769
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1986(65!
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
SEP 31986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY «ESCONSE
Mr. Ernest J. Corrado
Vice President
American Institute of Merchant Shipping
1000 16th Street, N.W., Suite 511
Washington/ D.C,, 20036
Dear Mr. Corrado:
Thank you for your August 6, 1986, letter in which you set
forth the maritime industry legal analysis on the aoplication of
the Resource Conservation and Reovery Act (RCRA) regulations to
vessel wastes. While I do not agree with a number of the conclu-
sions you have drawn regarding Congress1 intent to limit RCRA
jurisdiction to land disposal, I do agree that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) did in fact promulgate an exemption from
RCRA regulation for raw material and product transport vessels.
In my February 5, 1986 letter to Vice Admiral Rots of" the
Coast Guard, we concluded that different types of wastes generated
in vessels were regulated differently under the hazardous waste
rules. This conclusion was based on the intent underlying EPA's
exemption of hazardous waste generated in product or raw material
transport vessels until the waste is ourposely removed from the
vessel. 40 CFR S 261.4(c). We believe that the exemption was
intended to cover only those hazardous sediments and residues
produced in the units containing valuable product or raw material.
As articulated in the preamble to the rule, EPA judged that:
[Tlhese hazardous wastes are contained against
release into the environment . . . and the risks
they pose to human health or the environment
are very low and are only incidental to the
risks posed by the valuable product or raw
Material with which they are associated (emphasis
added).45 Fed. Reg. 72024,72025 (Oct. 30, 1980).
Since) wastes generated on other parts of the ship,
including engine room wastes, are not directly associated with
the storage or transport of valuable product, we did not deem any
other hazardous wastes generated aboard the ship to be covered
by the S 261.4 exemption. However, as a result of the points
that you raised in the June 6, 1986 meeting with members of my
staff, we have taken another look at this issue.
-------
The language of $ 261.4(c) refers to hazardous waste
generated in a product or raw material transport vessel as beinq
exempted, rather than the product-containing unit itself. EPA
defined the term "vessel" in $ 260.10 to include "every descriotion
of watercraft...," which describes the whole vessel rather than
any particular tank or unit in the vessel. Thus, we believe that
there is a regulatory basis for considering all waste generated
in the vessel to be exempt from regulation until it is purposely
removed. In addition, we understand that the regulated community
has relied on this broader view of the exemption since 1980. Given
the fact that there has been substantial reliance for some time
on a legitimate, although unintended, reading of the regulatory
language, we have become convinced that it is reasonable to view
the exemption as extending to all hazardous waste management
activity on the product or raw material transport vessel. However,
as specified in § 261.4(c), all hazardous wastes generated in the
vessel become subject to RCRA regulation as soon as the waste is
removed from the vessel (anywhere within U.S. waters) or within
90 days after the vessel is no longer operated as a product or
raw material storage or transport vessel.
Therefore, when any hazardous waste is removed from the
vessel, the owner of the product or raw material, the operator of
the vessel, and the person purposefully removing th*e hazardous
waste from the vessel would all be considered."generators", as
defined in 5 260.10 of the regulations. Any of those parties
deemed to be a "generator" of the waste, therefore, could perform
any or all of the duties of the generator* As EPA pointed out in
the October 30, 1980 preamble to the rule, the Agency would look
initially to the operator of a central facility operated to
remove sediments and residues from the vessel to perform the
generator duties, which includes obtaining an CPA identification
number. Of course, this should not be construed as requiring a
central facility or terminal to remove hazardous waste from a
vessel. In situations where hazardous wastes generated in the
vessel are not removed at a central facility, the Agency would
look to the vessel operator to perform the generator duties. See
45 Fed. Reg. at 72027.
While we have some concern that the literal reading of
$ 261.4(c) exempts from regulation some hazardous wastes that
were not intended to be exempt when EPA promulgated the regulatory
amendment (!••*, wast* generated aboard vessels in other, than
product or-raw material cargo tanks), we believe that such a
literal reading of S 261.4(c) poses low risk to human health
and the environment for several reasons. First, as indicated in
the February 5 letter, we do not believe that generation of
hazardous wastes in units not related to product or raw material
storage or transportation, such as bilges, to be a serious problem
while aboard the vessel since the ship itself is designed
to prevent leaks. Second,- to the extent that oily residues from
propulsion systems are not contaminated with listed wastes, such
as spent solvents, the oily wastewater now required to be discharged
-------
to shoreside reception facilities under MARPOL would not meet the
definition of hazardous waste, y Finally, as noted above, any'
hazardous wastes generated in oroduct or raw material transport
vessels are subject to RCRA when they are discharged from or
otherwise exit.the vessel. Thus releases to the environment
would still be regulated under RCRA.
I hope that this has been responsive to your concerns.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further
questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
V As you correctly point out, EPA has proposed to list used
oil as a hazardous waste; however, EPA is reconsidering the
entire used oil issue. Should the Agency move forward in finalizing
rules in this area, those rules would take into consideration the
special problems of shipboard wastes.
-------
9441.1936(67)
UN • 0 b ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 8
OMICE Of
•OLIO WAJTI AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Frank H. Murkowski Re: Pile 115579
United States Senate
Washington, D.C* 20510
Dear Senator Hurkowski:
Thank you for your August 8, 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent, Mr. George Kelly, regarding the potential
impact of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regu-
lations on the dry-cleaning industry.
Unfortunately, the article which Mr* Kelly enclosed
provided an incorrect explanation of our Small Quantity
Generator (SQG) rule issued under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA rules actually require
dry cleaning hazardous wastes to be counted for purposes of
determining a dry cleaner's regulatory status only when
they are physically removed from the dry cleaning process
as wastes.
The two types of hazardous wastes typically generated
by dry cleaners are filter cartridges containing listed
spent solvents and still bottoms from solvent reclamation.
Under our counting rules, these wastes are only counted as
hazardous waste when they are removed from the dry cleaning
process for subsequent management, including accumulation,
transportation, treatment, or disposal. Under no circumstances
are these materials regulated under the hazardous waste
rules while they are in the dry cleaning machine.
The.so-called single counting system referred to in
the article actually simplified the counting of hazardous
waste by eliminating the need to count the same waste more
than once in a calendar month. It is intended to apply to
regulated materials which are used and reused over and over
during a .calendar month. However, this rule only comes
into play if the hazardous waste is subject to counting.
Since the solvents in the dry cleaning machine are not
considered to be solid or hazardous wastes while part of a
closed loop reclamation process (see 51 Federal Register
25422, July 14, 1986), they are not subject to counting
while in the dry cleaning machine. However, when the spent
-------
-2-
solvents contained in filter cartridges are removed from
the dry-cleaning machine, they are no longer exempt from
regulation. The still bottoms from solvent reclamation,
while solid and hazardous wastes, are not required to be
counted until they exit the unit and become subject to
substantive regulation (see 51 Federal Register 10152,
March 24, 1986 and 40 CFR 261. 5(c) ).
I trust that this explanation will clarify the confusion
that exists over the article that Mr. Kelly attached. For
additional information, I have enclosed a copy of a handbook
we have developed for small businesses to help them comply
with the new statutorily mandated regulations for small
quantity generators. Should Mr. Kelly have any additional
questions on the hazardous waste regulations, he should
feel free to contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, at (202)
382-4761. If I can be of further assistance, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
9441.1986(68)
Mr. Carl E.
Executive vice-President
Frit Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 850
Ozark, Alabama 363-0850
Dear Mr. Schaubie.
Thank you for your letter of May 12, 1986, regarding the
regulatory status of commercial fertilizers that contain
emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel
in electric furnaces (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K0t61) under the
Federal hazardous waste rules.
As you are aware, the Agency received a similar request
from The Fertiliser Institute (TFI). In response to that
request, a letter was sent to Mr. Gary Meyer (a copy of which
is enclosed) which indicates that zinc micronutrient fertilizers
(i.e., those in which the zinc flue dust has been reacted
with sulfuric acid, granulated, and sized) are exempt from
regulation under the Federal hazardous waste provided they
are being produced for the general public's use and provided
this material is handled in a manner commensurate with- the
management of zinc fertilizers (see enclosure for specifics).
Therefore, if the fertiliser you produce is reacted with the
sulfuric acid, granulated, and sized, and if it is produced
for the general public's use, it is exempt from the federal
hazardous waste regulations.
Pleas* feel tree to call Matt Straus, oc my staff, if
you have any further questions; Mr. Straus can be reached at
(202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcla E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9441.1996(69)
.•»0 >'4>
i *SL \ UNITED STATES ti* . IRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 ^^f-J WASHINGTON, 0 C 20480
•*•
SOLID WAST£
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Wood Treatnent Cylinder
Creosote Surps
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director . -A^^ ^ -1"'/v
Office of Solid Waste /
TO: Patrick M. Tobin, Director
Waste Management Division, Region IV
Your memorandum of July 9 requests a determination of
the RCRA regulatory status of underground sumps which collect
waste creosote from production pipelines and treatment cylin-
ders at wood treatment facilities. Based on our understanding
of the case presented, and after discussions with your stiff,
we offer the following guidance.
As we understand the sump described in your memo, it is
routinely used to collect drippage, leakage, or other spillage
of creosote from wood treatment cylinders and associated
piping, and the material is not collected for recycling. The
creosote appears to qualify as a solid waste as defined in sec
tion 261.2(a)(2) as, among other things, any material which
is discarded by being abandoned. Section 261.2(b)(3) defines
abandoned material as that being accumulated, stored, or
treated (but not recycled) before or in lieu of being disposed
of, burned or incinerated. Since the creosote is not
a hazardous waste, the sump would not oe a unit requiring
interim status or a permit.
Fran the description provided in your memorandum, it
appears that the sump in question is a discernible unit
(presumably a tank) in which solid wastes have been managed.
As such, the sump would be considered a solid waste management
unit (SWMU) for purposes of implementing corrective action
under RCRA §3004(u) or §3008(h). (See the discussion of SWMUs
at 50 FR 28712, July IS, 1985.)
-------
-2-
Please be aware, if you are not already, that the Agency is
currently developing a proposed regulation (expected to 2e
published in :ne Federal Register in the spring of 1987) which
may list as hazardous wastes certain wood preservation and
treatment wastes. Such a listing may affect the regulatory
status of the sump in question. (For additional information
contact Dr. Gate Jenkins at FTS 382-4786.) In addition, you may
also wish to review a draft memorandum entitled "RCRA Regulatory
Interpretation Assistance Request - Cleanup of Residues of
Commercial Chemical Products Within a Warehouse Storage Area,"
which was circulated to the Regions for review on June 3, and
which deals with issues related to those posed in your memorandum.
The recent decision by Judge Yost in In re Brown Wood
Preserving Co., Inc. (RCRA-84-16-R) does not require EPA to
publish this memorandum. That decision takes the position
that the Administrative Procedure Act requires the Agency to
publish policy memoranda and interpretive statements that set
out new rules or substantially modify existing rules. This
memorandum merely offers an opinion as to whether the facts you
have outlined for this facility fit the existing definitions of
"solid waste/" "hazardous waste," and "solid waste management
units." It does not establish a general policy of treating all
process sumps at wood preserving facilities as "solid waste
management units." Nor does it create or change any other
rule or policy.
I appreciate that we need to be careful to go through
notice and comment on decisions that might be interpreted as
expanding regulatory controls beyond what is evident from
existing rules or statutory language. For example/ if we list
certain wood preservation wastes we may want to discuss in the
Federal Register the regulatory status of areas in which en-
vironmental releases from treated wood are routine and expected.
However, publishing statements of general policy would
not solve the entire problem presented in the Brown case. The
Regions also need to ensure that the facts of each case show a
violation of the statute or regulations. Complicated scientific
or technical issues may require you to use experts to present or
explain the evidence*
Applying these ideas to the facility described in your memo-
randum, to regulate the sump as a SWMU you would have to collect
facts demonstrating, for example, that the creosote in the sumps
-------
-3-
in fact "discarde-i, " and that the surp is a "discrete" un:
This rerr.or'andur. cannot s-ibstitute for fim factual evidence
concerning the specific facility at issue.
If you have additional questions, Tle.ase contact
Michele Anders at FTS 332-4534.
cc: Gene Lucero, OWPE
Attachnent
-------
9441.1986(72)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
SEP I Q 1986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Ed Herschler
Governor
State of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
Dear Mr. Herschler:
Lee Thomas has asked me to respond to your letter of August 14,
1986, in which you welcomed our decision to regulate mine waste as
non-hazardous but expressed concern that a Federal program for mine
waste would not recognize and encourage State programs.
I can assure you that EPA is strongly committed to the
development of a Federal program that will reinforce and support
State programs where necessary, not duplicate them. I plan to
work closely with representatives of all major mining States to
draw upon their experience with the regulation of mine waste.
EPA may also be able to help transfer information on successful
State approaches from one State to another.
ThartX you very much for sharing your views with us. I look
forward to close cooperation with the States in the development of
a reasonable and efficient program for non-coal mine waste that
protects public health and the environment.
Sincerely,
incerely
LL^
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9441.1986(73}
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
--n 0 c \fv^i OFFICE OP
it. f- 3 Yj&iP SOLlO WASTE AND EMERGENCY B6SPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Truck or Rail Shipment of Hazardous Wastes to A POTW
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste branch, Region V
This memo is in response to your September 8, 1986 request
for clarification of the POTW exemption in 40 CFR $261.4(a) (1) ( ii ) .
As you correctly note in your memo, materials which are
directly mixed with domestic sewage that pas«es through a
sewer system to a publicly owned treatment system for treatment
is neither a solid waste nor a hazardous waste. Whether or
not the material would otherwise be a "listed" or "characteristic"
hazardous waste under other circumstances, however, makes no
practical difference. In addition, the POTW exemption has
no bearing on whether or not the POTW treatment residues are
considered hazardous waste by virtue of exhibiting a characteristic.
The POTW exemption is, in fact, limited to the specific
conditions of 261. 4(a) (1) (ii). Therefore, the exemption only
applies to the actual mixture of domestic sewage and other materials
while they are in the sewer ays ten. Consequently, any activities
occurring prior to the actual introduction of the material
to the sever system is. not covered by the exemption. In
particular, any material that is either listed in Part 261,
Subpart D or which exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste
and which is accumulated, transported, or managed via any other
regulated activity prior to introduction into the sewer -
system, would still be subject to regulation as a solid and
hazardous waste.
As you know, the accumulation of hazardous waste on-site
in tanks or containers is regulated under $262.34. Accumulation
in other types of units is considered storage subject to
permitting. To the extent that any hazardous waste is
accumulated or otherwise stored prior to transportation to a
POTW, it would be regulated exactly as if it was eventually
to be, for example, landfilled or incinerated. Similarly,
the transportation of any hazardous waste is regulated under
Part 263, regardless of the destination. Therefore, a facility
-------
which generates a hazardous waste and which subsequently
ships the waste to a POTW for treatment must comply with all
appropriate accumulation and transportation requirements,
including appropriate use of the manifest system. Since under
S270.60(c), a POTW is deemed to have a RCRA permit provided
they comply with a limited set of requirements, including
notification and compliance with the manifest system, we see no
regulatory obstacle to a facility shipping its waste to a
POTW for subsequent management.
I hope this interpretation is responsive to your concerns.
If you have any further questions on the issue, please feel
free to contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, on FTS 382-4769.
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs
Regions I-IV and VI-X
-------
9441.1986(74)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARx
SEPTEMBER 86
1. Hazardous Wastes Listed Solely for Subpart C Characteristics
Certain listed hazardous wastes (e.g., F003, K044, K045, and K047)
are listed solely because they exhibit a characteristic specified in
40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. The Subpart C hazardous waste characteristics
are ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and EP toxicity.
(a) If analysis indicates that a mixture of one or more of these
listed wastes with a non-hazardous solid waste does not exhibit a
Subpart C characteristic, can the mixture be managed as a non-hazardous,
solid waste based on language in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)7 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iii) states that a mixture of a solid waste and a hazardous
waste that is listed in Subpart 0 solely because it exhibits a Subpart C
characteristic is a hazardous waste unless the resultant mixture of
a solid waste and a hazardous waste no longer exhibits any characteristic
of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C.
(b) Is the resultant mixture subject to the delisting requirements
of 40 CFR 260.22(c)7 40 CFR 260.22(c)(2) requires that the EPA
determine whether additional factors (including additional hazardous
constituents listed in Part 261 Appendix VIII) other than those for
which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous
waste.
(c) If a waste which is listed solely because of a characteristic
dilute when generated that it does not exhibit a subpart C
characteristic, can it be managed as a non-hazardous waste based on
40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) or is it subject to the delisting requirements
Of 40 CFR 260.22(C).
(a) Yes; the mixture of a non-hazardous solid waste with a listed
hazardous waste, listed solely for a Subpart C characteristic,
is not regulated as a hazardous waste if the resultant mixture
doss not exhibit any Subpart C characteristic.
(b) No; the more stringent delisting criteria of 40 CFR 260.22(c)(2)
do not apply to mixtures of solid and hazardous wastes where 40
CFR 261,3(a)(2)(iii) applies.
(c) Ins dilute waste is subject to the delisting requirements
of 40 CFR 260.22(c).
Source: Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7706
Research! Betty Wilson
-------
9441.1986(76)
3d 3 :-fc
Honorable John Glenn
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
;0ear Senator Glenn:
Thank you for your September 8, 1996, letter enclosing
correscondence from Mr. Goodman (1. Liber. Mr. Liber raised
several ooints concernino the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) requlation of hazardous wastes that are recycled.
The Agency is aware that recycling of hazardous waste is
increasing and encourages this practice when it provides
environmental benefits and protects human health, we are
attemotinq to investigate what impediments «xi«t to further
recycling and are trying to identify alternatives to alleviate
these imoed intents. The EPA and the States could have potential
roles in assisting organizations, individuals, and, specifically,
small businesses interested in recycling. In addition to
evaluating various methods of recycling, EPA encourages the
recycling of hazardous waste for those oractices that minimize
risk relative to other methods of managing hazardous waste.
For your information, persons transporting and storing
hazardous wastes before recycling are similar to persons
transporting and storing hazardous wastes before disposal:
there is nothing about the) waste that makes it so valuable
that safe handling is assured absent regulation. A company's
decision on how carefully wastes are handled before recycling
activates a rang* of factors — principally the value of the
wastes beins} recycled and the value of the end products of
recycling vejsjBtM the cost of purchasing additional raw mater-
ials, the profit margin of the facility, and the cost of
improving the) integrity of the facility. Unless the wastes
are extremely valuable, there is no incentive to properlv
manage the waste. In fact, there have been a large number
of mismanagement incidents relating to hazardous waste being
recycled? nany of these sites are on the Suoerfund National
Priorties List. Therefore, we believe such regulation is
necessary.
-------
It should be noted, however, that such reoulation only
applies to those wastes that are defined as hazardous under
RCRA. To~make this point clear, w« included a provision in
the reaulations to ensure that the regulatory definition is
not used in unintended contexts, for example to justify
regulation of non-hazardous wastes. In addition, we specifically
determined not to regulate scrap metal that in reclaimed,
whether or not such scrap metal is defined as hazardous under
RCRA. Thus, any scrap reetal that is reclaimed is exempt from
the hazardous waste regulations.
In 1984, as a result of the passage of the Hazardous and
Solid waste Amendments (HSWA), Congress established a national
policy regarding the minimisation of hazardous waste.
Specifically, Congress states that the incineration of
hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiouslv
as possible. The EPA believes that recycling can be a ma-Jor
component in fulfilling thiw national policy* Recycling as
part of an overall waste minimization strategy is one way to
eliminate the amount of waste requiring management at hazardous
waste facilities.
EPA is currently preparing a report to Congress on waste
minimization in which the Agency will evaluate options to
further promote recycling. One option being evaluated is
financial assistance for waste management activities. The
report will be submitted to Congress on October 1, 1986.
In addition, I am enclosing a folder containing information
compiled by EPA's Small Business Ombudsman office describing
assistance programs for long-term financing of pollution
control eguipment. The information is Intended primarily to
help small businesses identify potential sources of financing
for eauipment. Several federal, state and private financing
programs are available and are briefly described in the
folder. I hope this information will be useful to Mr. Liber.
Mr. Liber suggests the formation of a financial pool,
funded largely by wealthy generators* to help recyclers comply
with RCRA regulations. As you may be aware, EPA does not
currently have the statutory authority to establish such a
pool. Mr. Liber's suggestion does have certain parallels
with the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund better known
as the Superfund. Congress intended that Suoerfund's resources
he used to -fund certain response actions, not provide assistance
to businesses in regulatory compliance.
-------
I hope that this information clarifies EPA's regulation
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
9441.1986(78:
?1r. ?.R. Gilezan
fianaqer
Manufacturing Engineering
and Environmental Planning
Chrysler Corporation
P.O. Box 1919
Detroit, Michigan 48288
oear Mr. Gilezani
This is in response to your letter of September 10, 1986
regarding the Agency's interpretation of the hazardous waste
listing for F006 wastes* You requested confirmation concerning
coverage of the P006 listing and the implications of this coveraqe
for Chrysler Corporation.
The Agency has re-evaluated the scope of the P006 listing
and determined that chemical conversion coating,!/ electrolesn
plating, and printed circuit hoard manufacturing?/ are not included,
U'astes resulting from corunon and precious netal electroplating,
anogizing, chemical etching and milling, and cleaning and stripping
processes associated with these processes are included in the F006
listing* Thus* the fourth bullet in the list on page 2 of your
letter is in error. Wastewater treatment sludges from anodizing
and etching processes are still covered by the POOS listing, and
are, therefore* hazardous wastes and nust be nanaged as such in
compliance with the RCRA regulations.
I/ CheaicaJ. conversion coating includes chroaatina, phosphating,
~ inversion plating, and coloring. Wastewater treatment sludge
from the conversion coating of aluaiinun, however* is listed an
EPA tiasardous Waste No. P019.
2/ Wastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board nanu-
"" facturing operations that include processes which are within
the scope of the listing (e.g., chemical etching) are regulated
mm PDA U»9mri4r*um \l»m + + M/% fftnA.
OMICUL ^'LE COP
-------
-2-
To acdresa your ticst concern, the central implications; ot
A'isncy's decision upon the r-oulatetJ community are as tollcws.
'.'aste*. resulting from tne -xclucied FQfife ,.recesses mentioned atcvp
jc*> not ^etined as hazardous, and are considered to have
ho--*:! induced in me ="006 listing. Facilities which ren
treat, =ror«^, or ^isoose or these wastes exclusively are net
"iincline Kd/3rcoos wastes,
-------
-3-
call Mr. Myle. Morse at (202) 382-4788. ° netition9' Please
Sincerely,
Williams
Director
Office of Solid waste
cc: Alan Debus, Region V
"lllian Muno, Region V
Pa/e Sandburg, Region VII
Michael Sanderson, Region VII
-------
9441.1986(79)
October 20, 1986
Mr. J. Mark Morford
Stoel, Rives, Boley, Fraser, and Wyse
900 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Suite 2300
Portland, Oregon 97204-1268
Dear Mr. Morford:
This is in response to your letters of August 14 and
September 26, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of the
materials—namely, zinc bar, nickel plate, cadmium plate, and
steel scrap that are removed from spent alkaline batteries. In
particular, you request confirmation that the materials removed
from these batteries are scrap metal, and that they are exempt
from the hazardous waste regulations. As we discussed, scrap
metal (as defined in §261.1(c)(6))^ is currently exempt from the
Federal hazardous waste regulations whether or not the scrap
metal exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics. See 40 CFR §261.6(a)(3)(iv). In looking at the
samples you sent me, I agree with you that these materials are
scrap metal, and if recycled, would be exempt from regulation
under the Federal hazardous waste rules.2/
I must make you aware, however, that if these materials
(i.e., zinc bar, nickel plate, cadmium plate, steel scrap) when
removed from the battery are mixed with non-scrap metal type
material, the mixture would not be considered a scrap metal, and
would be subject to regulation if the mixture itself exhibits one
or more of the hazardous waste characteristics. (This would not
be the case if the scarp metal only contained as oily film.)
"Scarp metal" is bits and pieces of metal parts (e.g., bars,
turnings, rods, sheets, wire) or metal pieces that may be
combined together with bolts or soldering (e.g., radiators,
scrap automobiles, railroad box cars), which when worn or
superfluous can be recycled)
As you are aware, the State of Oregon's hazardous waste
regulations may be more stringent than the Federal program.
Therefore, you need to check with the State regarding the
regulation of these materials.
This document has Jbeen retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
For example, when spend lead-acid batteries are cracked to
recover the lead, the material removed from the battery is a
mixture of scrap plate and a lead oxide sludge type material.
The mixture, we have determined, is not scrap metal; in addition,
we have also determined that this mixture is hazardous since it
exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics.
Therefore, the lead material recovered from spent lead-acid
batteries is subject to the hazardous waste rules. If, however,
the material removed from spent alkaline batteries is just "scrap
metal," this material (if recycled) would be exempt from the
Federal hazardous waste rule.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further
questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matt Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
cc: Jan Whitworth (Oregon DEC)
Ken Feigner (EPA Region X)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1936(30)
OCT 2 0 f986
Mr A L. Hornor
Environmental Specialist
Albright t Wilson. Inc.
F 0. Box 26229
Richmond. VA 23260-6229
Dear Mr. Homer:
I am writing in response to your request tor a written
determination as to the regulatory status of 3d phosphoric
acid that is generated as part of the chemical polishinq of
aluminum.I/ In your letter, you state that this material is
an eftcctTve substitute for 75% technical grade phosphoric
acid and a variety of other potential nutrient materials
used in wastewater treatment plants. In addition, you also
state that it can bo a substitute tor 54% P2°5 wet acid
used in specialty fertilizer producers.
As you know 40 CKR 261.2(e) specifics which materials
are not solid wastes when they are recycled Among oth<*r
thinos, materials that ar« used or reused as effective
substitutes tor commercial products, or materials that are
ust-d or reused as ingredients in an industrial process are
not solid wastes provided! (1) that these materials are not
used in a manner constituting disposal (or used to product-
products that are applied to the land). (2) they are not
burned tor energy recovery (or used to produce a tuel or
contained in fuels)/ or (3) they are not accumulated speculativeLy
Thus, 36% phosphoric acid used as wastewater conditioners
arc not solid waste. (See 50 PR 628, FN 15, January 4,
1985.)
I/ As described in your letter, the process which generates the
~ 36% phosphoric acid involves the submerging ot aluminum
parts in phosphoric acid to increase the brightness of
aluminum. Attsr the phosphoric acid bath, the parts are
rinsed with water; s specifically designed rinse operation
is utilized to produce 36% phosphoric acid.
-------
This is also th* case (as provided below) for 361
phosphoric acid used to produce fertilizers however, we
think this is a more difficult call. In particular, the
general principle in the Agency's regulations is that hazardous
secondary materials ultimely applied to the land are hazardous
wastes, as are the waste-derived products in which they are
contained (See 40 CFR §261.2(c)(1).) However, if the anodizing
phosphoric acid is purer in acid content, and no more contaminated
than virgin phosphoric acid (as it has been described to
us), we do not believe 361 phosphoric acid generated as part
of the chemical polishing of aluminum that is used to produce
fertilizers can be viewed as a secondary material. Thus.
such acid would not be considered a solid or hazardous waste
under RCRA when used in the same manner as virgin phosphoric
acid.
It should be noted that there is a provision in 40 CFR
$261.2(f) associated with this exclusion more specifically,
you must be able to demonstrate that the 36% phosphoric acid
is being used as cited above, and not merely capable of such
use or that it has been used tor such purposes in the past.
I suggest that you keep documentation to support your claim
that the 36% phosphoric acid is being used in a manner that
is within the scope of this exclusion.
Please feel free to call mo if you have any further
questions my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1986(81,
NOV 3 1986
Mr. Robert E. Schleiruner
President
United States Ceramic Tile Company
10233 Sandyville Road, S.E.
East Sparta, Ohio 44626
Dear Mr. Schlenuner:
In your letter of October 14, 1986 you asked whether
the exclusion from hazardous waste regulation under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) embodied in
40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) applies to your operations. As you
noted, this exclusion, also known as the Devill Amendment,
covers "solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation,
and processing of ores and minerals (including coal)
including phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of
uranium ore".
Since 1980, EPA has consistently maintained that the
Bevill exclusion applies only to mining, beneficiation, and
primary processing of ores or minerals, not to subsequent
shaping, alloying, or fabrication of materials derived from
ores and minerals. See 50 Federal Register 40293 (October 2,
1985).
The minerals you use in the production of tiles undergo
varying degrees of primary processing before being shipped
to your facility. For example, ball clay is processed by
shredding, drying, pulverizing* and air separation or
slurrying. Pyrophyllite and talc are processed by crushing,
screening, and air or water classification. The wastes
generated by these primary proceesing stages are covered by
the exclusion.
Your operation uses materials produced by the primary
processing of various minerals* including talc, pyrophyllite,
ball clay, and wollastonite. As you indicated in your letter,
the. tile production sequence includes alloying (blending),
fabrication (pressing), coating* and firing stages. As
stated earlier these stops are not considered "processing
of ores and minerals" as the phrase is used in RCRA and the
Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, wastes generated
by your tile production operation are not within the scope
of the exclusion.
-------
It also should be noted that the industrial waste water
exclusion (40 CFR 261.4(a)(2)) "does not exclude industrial
waste waters while they are being collected, stored or treated
bef ore discharge . "
If you have further questions, please contact Dan Derkics
(202) 382-3608, in the Special Wastes Branch.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: Bill Constantelos, Region V
-------
9441.1986(82
Mr. H. Bzura
Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc.
Old Waterworks Road
P.O. Box 194
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
Dear Mr. Btura:
This Is In response to your letters of October 15 and
16, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of the etchants */
that are used by Old Bridge to manufacture various copper ~
salts. Since I wrote you in August 1983. the regulations
defining which materials are solid and haiardous wastes when
they are are recycled have been amended. See 50 PR 614,
January 4, 1985* Aa we're discussed previously, the wended
definition adopta the approach that for Materials being
recycled, one nust know both what the material Is and how it
Is being recycled before detent InIng whether «r not it is a
Subtitle C waste. Thus, under the regulations, any aaterlal
that is used in a manner constituting disposal (or used to
produce a product that is placed on the land); used as a fuel
(or used to produce a fuel); or speoulatlvely accumulated, 2/
Is defined as a solid waste, and if haeardoue, a hazardous waste;
in addition, certain materials when reclaimed would also be
defined as solid and hacardous wastes. At the same tine,
materials that are used/reused (either as an ingredient or
feedstock in a manufacturing operation where reel A/nation
does not occur, or as a substitute for ccncercial products)
are not defined as solid waates.
j/ The etehants include copper chloride and copper annonlur
~" chloride.
£/ Speculative aeeunuolation means accumulating waates tftat
~ are potentially recyclable, but for which no recycling
market (or no feasible recycling market) exists, or
accumulating wastes before recycling, unless 75* of the
accumulated material la recycled during a one-year period
]/ Commercial chemical products are not solid wastes If
~ speculatively accumulated.
-------
-2-
In applying the definition to your situation, I agree
with you that when etchants are used/reused ae raw materials
in the manufacture of various copper salts (and where reclamation
does not occur), these materials would not be defined as
solid wastes, and therefore, not be subject to the haiardous
waste rules. In reviewing your May 31» 1983 letter, the use
of etchants to produce basic copper aulfate (the first process
described In your letter) would not constitute solid waste
management; that is, these materials are not subject to the
Subtitle C rules. However, the process to produce a copper
aulfate solution (the second process described in your letter)
would constitute reclamation, and therefore, if the etchant
la hazardous (I.e.. is listed In Subpart D of Part 261 or
exhibits one or more of the hasardous waste characteristics
Identified In Subpart C of Part 261), the transportation and
storage of these etchants would be subject to the hasardoua
waste rules.3/ with reapeet to the use of the other "copper
by-products""and their regulatory status, I would need to
have more Information before making a determination.
Please feel free to give ne a call If you have any
further questions; my telephone nunber is (202) 175-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
waste Charaterlzatlon Branch
V Etohants would be defined as spent materials (i.e..
~" naterlals that have been used are no longer fit for use
without being regenerated, reclalaed, or otherwise re-
processed). Spent materials being reclaimed are defined
as solid wastes. See 10 CPR 26l.2(e)(3).
-------
9441.1986(83)
November 13, 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Regulatory Status of Contaminated Ground Water
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid waste
TO: Patrick Tobin, Director
Waste Management Division, Region IV
This is in response to your memorandum of September 18,
1986, regarding the regulatory status of ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate. To answer this
question, one first has to determine the status of ground water
Under the regulations, ground water contained in the aquifer" is
not considered a solid waste, since it is not "discarded" in the
sense of being abandoned, recycled, or inherently waste-like as
those terms are defined in the regulations. See 40 CFR 262.2(a)-
(d). Therefore, contaminated ground water cannot be considered a
hazardous waste via the mixture rule (i.e., to have a hazardous
waste mixture, a hazardous waste must be mixed with a solid waste
(see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)). Nevertheless, ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate is still subject to
regulation since it contains a hazardous waste. Therefore, the
treatment, storage, or disposal of ground water contaminated with
hazardous waste leachate must be handled as if the ground water
itself were hazardous since hazardous waste leachate is subject
to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.-7 However, if the ground
water is treated such that it no longer contains a hazardous
waste, the ground water would no longer be subject to regulation
under Subtitle C or RCRA.
17 This memo more precisely explains the position on ground
water contamination presented in John Skinner's memo dated
December 26, 1984.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Taking this interpretation and applying it to the example in
your memorandum, the ground water containing a listed hazardous
waste, once collected, is subject to regulation under the
hazardous waste regulations. However, if as a result of
treatment, the ground water no longer contains the hazardous
waste leachate, the ground water would no longer be subject to
the hazardous waste rules.
Your letter also raises the question of treatment of ground
water within the context of corrective action. If the corrective
action is taken at an interim status facility in compliance with
a §3008(h) order, treatment can take place. We are considering
the possibility of amending the regulations to clarify the
relationship between corrective action and the reconstruction ban
(§270.72(e)). More broadly, the Agency is currently examining
the issue of whether permits should be required for any
corrective actions. We are also developing rules for corrective
action under RCRA §3004(u). Until this analysis is completed, if
the corrective action takes place at a permitted facility, it can
be handled as a permit modification.
Please feel free to call Matt Straus, of my staff, if you
have any further questions; his telephone number is 475-8551
(FTS).
cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors,
Regions I-III and V-X
Gene Lucero, OWPE
Lloyd Guerci, OWPE
Mark Greenwood, OGC
Steve Silverman, OGC
This document has Jbeen retyped from the original
-------
9441.1986(85)
November 19, 1986
Markus K. Straume
Colonel, USAF
Director, Directorate of
Environmental Protection
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service
Federal Center
74 N. Washington
Battle Creek, MI 49017-3902
Dear Colonel Straume:
This is in response to your letters of April 23, June 20,
and September 30, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of
certain precious metals that are recycled through the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service. First, I would like to
apologize for taking so long in responding to your request; I
hope this delay has not caused you any problems. With respect to
your specific requests, I will respond to them in the same order
that they are presented in your April 23 letter.
• Management of solid items such as buttons, eyeglass
frames, insignia from uniforms, and electronic scrap.
To the extent that these materials are not hazardous
(i.e.. do not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics—ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity), I agree with
you that these materials are not solid wastes and,
therefore, are not subject to the Federal hazardous
waste rules. If, however, these materials are
hazardous, and they do not meet the definition of scrap
metal, they would be subject to regulation under
Subpart F of Part 266 of RCRA, since they would be
defined as spent materials.
• Management of silver recovery cartridges
Although the silver recovery cartridges are used to
recover silver, the reclamation operation is not yet
completed (as I understand the operation); rather the
cartridges are further processed to recover the silver.
Therefore, I do not agree with your assessment. As we
stated in the preamble to the final rules, "The Agency
proposed a clarifying amendment to §261.3(c)(2) (the
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
"derived from" rule) to indicate that commercial
products reclaimed from hazardous wastes are products,
not wastes, and so are not subject to the RCRA Subtitle
C regulations....The principle also does not apply to
wastes that have been processed minimally, or to
materials that have been partially reclaimed but must
be reclaimed further before recovery is completed."
See 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985; see also 40 CFR
261.3(c)(2) where it says "...materials that are
reclaimed from solid waste and that are used
beneficially are not solid wastes..." Therefore, the
silver recovery cartridges are solid wastes and subject
to regulation under Subpart F of Part 266 if they
exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics. You should be aware that some
preliminary data provided to the Agency by the National
Photographic Manufacturers Association indicates that
silver recovery cartridges may not be EP toxic.
Therefore, I suggest you test these cartridges to
determine their hazardousness.
Management of batteries containing silver
For the same reasons described in the previous
paragraph, the residues from the burning operation are
defined as solid wastes and are subject to regulation
under Subpart F of Part 266, provided they exhibit one
or more of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e..
the burning operation only partially reclaims the
silver; the burning residue must be further processed
for silver recovery). In addition, you also should be
aware that if the batteries are hazardous and if the
unit they are burned in is an incinerator (i.e.. it is
neither a boiler (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10) nor an
industrial furnace (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10), the
burning device is subject to regulation under Subpart 0
of Parts 264 and 265. As we stated in the preamble to
the proposed rule,11.. .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...whether
or not energy or material recovery also occurs...In our
view, any such burning (other than in boilers and
industrial furnaces) is waste destruction subject to
regulation either under Subpart O of Part 264 or
Subpart 0 of Part 265. If energy or material recovery
occurs, it is ancillary to the purpose of the unit —
to destroy wastes by means of thermal treatment — and
so does not alter the regulatory status of the device
or the activity." See 48 FR 14484, April 4, 1983.
Finally as you stated in your letter, States may choose to
regulate these materials differently under their State hazardous
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
waste programs. Therefore, you need to contact representatives
in the various States to determine the regulatory status of these
materials under the State hazardous waste rules.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if I
can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1986(86)
November 20, 1986
SUBJECT: RCRA Status for Treatment of Contaminated Ground Water
and Volatiles from Air Stripping
FROM: Bruce Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
Jack Lehman, Director
Waste Management Division
TO: Lloyd Guerci
Office of Waste Program Enforcement
This memorandum is in response to the questions you received
from Region III concerning treatment of contaminated ground water
at RCRA sites. The first part of the memo deals with the general
issues raised in the inquiry; the second with specific facts of
the Uniform Tube Facility situation. The Characterization and
Assessment Division of OSW, the Office of General Counsel, and
Ginny Steiner, of your office, were consulted during the
preparation of this response.
Issue 1; Is ground water contaminated with hazardous waste or
hazardous waste constituents considered hazardous waste, and are
air stripping units and holding basin surface impoundments used
during treatment of contaminated ground water RCRA units?
Ground water is not a hazardous waste, since it does not fit
the criteria for being either an "abandoned" or "discarded"
material which would define it as a solid waste (see 40 CFR
$261.2). However, when ground water contains hazardous wastes,
treatment, storage, or disposal of it must be handled exactly as
if the ground water itself were hazardous waste since the
contaminants are subject to regulation under Subtitle C. Ground
water no longer containing the hazardous waste would no longer be
subject to Subtitle C regulation.
The air stripper may fit the definition of a tank (see 40
CFR §260.10). if so, it is subject to the hazardous waste tank
standards, including the secondary containment provisions
recently promulgated (July 14, 1986, 51 FR 25422-25488). Unless
the unit is eligible for the 90-day accumulation exemption
available to generators (see 40 CFR §262.34), is a wastewater
treatment unit (§260.10), or is otherwise exempt from regulation,
it requires a permit or interim status. The holding basin
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
surface impoundment would be subject to standards for storage
under Subpart K of Part 265 or Part 264, and the land treatment
unit would be subject to Subpart M standards. Note that neither
of these units is eligible for the ninety day accumulation
exemption, which applies only to tanks or containers.
Units such as the ones described in the Region's inquiry
may, in some cases, operate without a permit under provisions of
40 CFR S270.72 (changes during interim status). This would be
the case where the construction and/or operation of such units is
necessary to prevent threats to human health and the environment
because of an emergency situation (see §270.72(c)(1)), or it is
necessary to comply with Federal, state, or local regulations (40
CFR 270.72(c)(2)). In general, units added t comply with a
§3008(h) order or an approved closure plan would be considered
necessary to comply with Federal regulations and therefore could
be constructed and operated as a change in interim status,
without triggering a RCRA permit requirement. However, in any
case, the cost of the unit should not exceed the limit
established in §270.72(e). At this time, we are considering
proposing an exemption to the fifty percent of reconstruction
cost limitation established in §270.72(e) for actions taken to
comply with corrective action orders at interim status
facilities.
Issue 2; Are the volatile organic contaminants released to the
atmosphere via air stripping considered hazardous waste under
RCRA? Should a risk analysis be made to consider the trade-off
between removal of a hazardous constituent from ground water and
its release to air?
Volatile organics released to the air are not hazardous
waste because they are not solid wastes. (They do not fit the
definition established in §1004(27) of RCRA as "contained gaseous
materials.") Nevertheless, releases of hazardous constituents to
the air from hazardous waste management or solid waste management
units at facilities with interim status are subject to corrective
action under the authority of §3008(h).
No policy has been set concerning tradeoffs of releases of
hazardous constituents from one medium to another. The statute
requires that contamination of either or both the ground water
and the air resulting from waste management at the facility be
addressed to protect human health and the environment. Future
proposals under §3004(n) will address air emissions for TSDFs.
Use of a carbon unit on top of the air stripper would
significantly reduce or eliminate the release to air.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
Issues Specific to the Uniform Tube Facility;
Turning to the facts of the specific case, several issues
came up during our discussions which need to be brought to the
attention of the Region.
1. If the organics spill which occurred in 1977 was from a
leaking underground storage tank containing a regulated
substance (as defined in §9001(2)), and if that spill is
subject to corrective action under §9003, RCRA §3008(h) is
not applicable.
2. Spray irrigation of land with waste materials which have
been treated through air stripping and/or stored in the
holding basin impoundment constitutes land disposal. Land
disposal of the wastes described will be restricted under
the land disposal restrictions regulation in the future.
How soon disposal at this facility will be affected depends
on whether the spill is of spent solvents (F001-F005) or of
a discarded commercial chemical product. Restrictions will
be imposed for F001-F005 this November; other solvent
disposal will come later.
3. How will the corrective action order address the chromium
release? As the clean up progresses, the Region should
follow development of land disposal restriction regulations
for the California list, since chromium is included on that
list.
4. The Superfund program has had several experiences with
successfully applying carbon units to the top of air
strippers to eliminate air releases of VOCs. If you are
concerned about these releases, you may want to contact
Nancy Willis at FTS 475-6707 for further information.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1986(8?)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 86
1. Hazardous Waste Fuel in Incinerators
In general, according to 40 CFR 261.2(c)(2), off-specification commercial
chemical products listed under 40 CFR 261.33 are hazardous wastes when
burned for energy recovery. One exception to this rule is if the com-
mercial chemical product is itself a fuel or normally a component of
fuel (S261.2(c)(2)(ii)). For example, benzene, listed as (J019, is
normally a component of gasoline, and may be burned for energy recovery
without being considered a hazardous waste (see 50 FR 49168, footnote 8
and 50 FR 629, footnote 16). would off-specification product benzene,
therefore, be an acceptable start-up fuel for use in an incinerator if
it is not regulated as a hazardous waste?
NO, the off-specification benzene would not be acceptable
as a start-up fuel in an incinerator because in that
situation it is a hazardous waste. By the definitions in
40 CFR 260.10, industrial furnaces and boilers burn
materials for energy recovery. The primary purpose of
an incinerator, however, is to burn for destruction (see
50 FR 625). Therefore, hazardous materials burned in
incinerators are always considered to be hazardous wastes
per 40 CFR 261.2(b)(2), EPA holds that burning in an
incinerator cannot constitute burning for energy recovery.
Additional policy on the nature of incinerators and use of
wastes aa auxiliary fuels appears in a memorandum from Karen
walker to Michael Sanderson (Region VII) dated June 27, 1986.
Therefore, an off-specification product listed under 40 CFR
261.33 that is burned in an incinerator is regulated as a
hazardous waste even if it is used as a start-up fuel.
40 CFR 264.345(c) and 265.345 state .that hazardous wastes must
not be fed to an incinerator during start-up or shut-down
unless the incinerator is operating within steady-state
conditions or conditions specified in the permit. Therefore,
it would not be possible to use hazardous waste as a start-up
fuel. Non-hazardous wastes or virgin fossil fuels are normally
used instead.
Source: Bob Holloway (202) 382-7938
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
9441.1986(88)
Truck or Rail Shipment of Hacardoua Waatee to a POTV
PPCM: larcia Williams, 0 1 rector \L\ \(.J(U\
Offict of Solid Vaate (^yU^v
TO: 0%vM A. 3trin«haa, Chief
Waste branch, Region 7
This •••o ie a follow-up response to your September 3, 1986,
requeet for clarification of the POTW exclueion in 40 C?R
As noted In u ataorandua to you of September 25, 1986, tbt
POTV exclusion IB llaittd to the circuaatancee and eonditiona
of $261.4(a)(1)(ii). ?huav a aattrial la not a aolld vaata
if It la "Any mixture of doaaatio aavagt anthe dichotomy which regulating a eaterlal
on the baa la of Its aode of conveyance (i.e., by truck or
newer) appear* to-preaont. This situation waa discussed in the
Agency 'a "February 1986 Report to Con«r*ae on the Olachar/re of
**2ardoua Vaatea to Publicly Owned Treat ajent Works (Domestic
-------
-2-
Sewage Study; P*. $-*5). However, at present this implies that
T?\ CPU11 exempt trucked or railed waste without & statutory
change - highly 4ubioe legally. *utee which are shipped to
?CTV« by truck, rail, or dedicated pio* would not be covered
by the $261.4(a)(l)(ll) exclusion nor would the residues
froi the treatment of a Hated hazardous waste at that ?OTV
be excluded froo regulation.
cc: 'etflonal branch Chiefs
Regions I-IV and VI-X
-------
9441.1986(89)
!!r. David Haves
Horan &ni Hartson
815 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, DC 20006-4072
Dear Mr. Hayes:
This is in response to your letter of October 6, 1986,
rerurdin? the regulatory status under the federal hazardous waste
rules of solvent reclamation operations conducted at semiconductor
firms. Based on the discussions we had on September 10, 1966,
and based on your letter, I agree vith your interpretation of
the Federal hazardous vaste rules aa it applies to solvent
reclamation. In particular, the actual reclamation operation,
which qualifies as treatment, is exempt from regulation. See
40 C7R 261.6(c)(1)s see also 50 CFR 643. January 4, 1935 where
it states "We usually do not regulate the recycling process
itself, except when the recycling is analogues to land disposal
or incineration." In addition, the spent solvents would be
subject to the standards for generators (Part 262) and transporters
(Part 263 )j persons who "store" spent solvents prior to recycling
are also subject to the storage facility requirements. However,
if the spent solvent is accumulated in a tank or container for
lese than 90 days (or 180 or 270 days for generators who generate
between 100 and 1000 kg/calendar month of hazardous waste), a
RCRA permit is not required, provided the generator fully conplies
with 40 C7R §262.34.
Tou should be aware that States may choose to regulate the
materials differently under their State program. Therefore, you
will need to contact States representatives in the various States
to determine the regulatory status of the spent solvents under
the State hazardous waste rules.
Pleaae feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551) if I
can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus
Chief
PY
W.I. 90 ;»t»-«»~-»il
-------
-2-
. . . - .. . .. . .
OP ~~ <'l ''' '* "** s t « ~r uf e s f>
Since the refractory brleKs ape not aolld wastes (I.e., they
ape usert/reuaed), the answer to this question Is not germane.
Therefore, It's not necessary to deal with this particular Issue.
•How a r«P.r.«8.*n.t*£lT.e,.l£2E\e..8.--'iVIJ>e obtained?
An la stated In your memo, the apent refractory bricks are
stored In a 'waste pile prior to recycling. Guidance has been
provided on how to collect representative samples froe waste
piles In the guidance manual, "Petitions to Dellst Hatardous
Was tea. "v In aumary, the pile should be divided into
quart rant a, and each quadrant aanpled using a two-dlnenslonal
grid and random vertical core sample collected. You
should refer to this document for further information in
collecting representative sanples.
As Indicated earlier, based on our understanding of the
processing of the refractory bricks, these naterlals are not
reclained, but rather are used/reused. As we discussed in
the preamble to the January 4, 1085 Definition of Solid Waste
rulenaklnc, processing steps that do not themselves regenerate
or recover material values are not reclamation. Examples of
operations that do not constitute reclamation that are provided
In the pre*"ibl« refer "to brlquetting or sintering operations
which are agglomerating type processes; crushing/grinding
are similar types of processes. Therefor*, we do not see
the processing operations conducted by Universal Materials,
Tno. as constituting reclamation.
?/ This manual in available through the Department of Connerce,
National Technical Information Service (PR 85
Port loyal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
-------
-3-
Whether or not the refractory brieka are accumulated
speculative!? will depend on the hacardouaneas of these bricks
and the percentage of the refractory bricks that are recycled
within the calendar year. These questions cun only be
addressed baaed on the facts In this case.
Ple%se feel frte to contact Matt Straus at R-475-8551 If
you have any further questions.
cc: Solid Waste Branch Chiefs (»PA Regions I-IV ft VI-X)
-------
9441.1986(92)
DEC 5 096
Or. Gerald Spiegeloan
"£hviro.«ental Control*
Intarwasta Services Co*
w*at Market Street
Campbelltown* Pennsylvania 17010
J*jar Ur. Spiegelraant
•fnis is in response to your latter of S«pt«ab«r 17, 1986,
reyardia-3 the applicability of the hazardous waste regulation*,
•pacifically 40 CPH 261 and 40 CFK 2o8, to still aotto«s generated
froa distillation of spsnt xylene froa the oanu fact ore of sodiua
xylenesulfonats. I ;ipologize for the delay in responding to your
letter* During the recent toonths we have been using all availably
resourcee to develop the land disposal restrictions final rule (Si FR
40572, Moveober 7, 1986).
A process waste containing solvents where the solvent is a
reactant in the formulation of coooercial chanical products are
not covered by tne spent solvent listings (£?\ Ilasardous Watte 9os.
*'0(J1, K002, F003, P004, and POOS). According to the information
provided in your letter* zylene is used as a reactant ia the
aanufacture of sodiua xyleuesulfonate, therefore* you are correct
in noting that excess xylsne frora this jurocesa .fould not be
covered under the ?003 solvent listing. Still bottoms generated
from the distillation of the excess xylsne would not be a hazardous
waate unless they exhibit one or toore of the characteristics of
a«izardous waste (i.e. * corrosivity* ignitability* EP toxicity,
or reactivity)* Purtheroore, as you correctly stated* spent
xyiene and still oottoas from tne recovery af xylene used in
your process does not Met the listing description for EPA hazardous
waste nuuber U239, since it is not a discarded commercial chanical
product, off-epecification species* or other naterial identified
under 40 Cfft 261.33.
The flsvt class of wastes subject to the land Usposal re-
strictions) effective November d, 1986, include the F001-F005 solvents
and certain Jloxin-containing wastss. Therefore* the xylene
still bottosMi generated frcsi your process would not be subject
to these rules)* If these wastee exhibit one or no re of the
cnaractaristics of hasardous waste* they will be subjsct to the
land disposal restrictions' when the Agency prcsuilgatea treatment
standards for ctvaractaristic wastes oy the May 1990* statutory
deadline*
-------
I hop* this information «d«quAt«ly *ddr««c«c your concern*,
• f»«i <*•• to contact Bill fortiaa, of ay «t*ff «t (202i
475-4713, if jou OAT* further qu««tion«.
Sinc«r«ly,
J4cqu«lin« W. 5al««, Chl«f
R«9Ul4tioo D«v«lopfl»nt Section
-------
1986(94)
t-ir. Robert b
2jju Clay Strejt
, Kuntjcxy 42001
:lr.
letter resijondo to your iiiquiry regarding tlia ro^ulatcry
status of radioactive and c'nenical wastes fron hospital laboratories
that are uiacnar^ed to tne sswcc system.
not rayulate radioactive wastes, per se. These
wastes *re reyulatel lay tne 'Jucloar Regulatory Conmis*ion (••ir'C).
cijwevor. certain low level uixed radioactive wastes that are land
dia^caaJ or incinerated (e.g., scintillation cocktails containing •
.la/.arcious chemicals such as xylene or toluenu) are re-gulatod under
\..\Q LPA nasarlouo waste re^ulatioas (sec Title 40 of tne Co^e of
r'uderal Regulations* Part 261 )• You toay contact MRC dir.ectly at
(2J2) 4V2-70JO. for U«t.aileJ inforaat.ica o;i the dis.-xaacil of r.i.lio-
active wauteu. Also, in ao.nc cases, radioactive wastes fron
iio«-tJitdls are regulated by tne State or local -Jot^rtnient of Vicilfi.
You ma/ contact these agenciwa for more specific information.
Several of ta«a dienicals you listed ar« re"ulat«d un
-------
Also .:uy bu intcrastdu in a recant publication a
.o- Conjress on tns Discharge or Hazardous ,»aste to
•J«/4ie-J fre.-*t:.'ieut Worka," (February, !9oC.). It is available through'
t/vs National Teciiaicdl lafornation Service (NTIS) for $34.95.
(TJ order, call UTIS at (703) 4i;7«-455U and jive the title a:i'.
oraer nurnbor — Paa6-184017/AS).
Fur any specific question* concerning chenical wastes, you
:.iay call tne HCR.\/Superfund Hotline (toll-free) at (800) 424-9346.
I£ you have rurther questions, contact Mitch KiJwell of my staff
at (2J2) 332-4305.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Sales, Chief
Regulation Oevelonrnent Section
Enclosures
-------
9441.1986(95)
DEC 2 3
Mr. Francis L. Corden
Technical Consultant
Enviropact of Tampa Bay
Environmental Consulting and Analysis
11161 43 Street north
Clearwater, Florida 33520
Dear Mr. Cordent
This Is in response to your Vovanber 6, 1986, letter
requesting confirmation that waste petroleun products with a
flash point below 100*F that are burned for energy recovery are
not solid (or hazardous) wastes*
As Mike Fetruaka has indicated to you, off-specification
or contaminated commercial chemical products that are burned for
•n«rgy r«eov«ry ar« not. solid wastes (and, thus, not hazardous
wastes) if they are themselves fuels* For commercial chemical
products listed in (261.33, the rules state explicitly that
they are not wastes if they are themselves fuels and if the
off-specification or contaminated product is burned for energy
recovery. 8m* 40 CFR 261.2(c)(2)(ii). The same principle
applies to off-specification commercial products that exhibit
one of the hacardous waste characteristics (see the April 11,
1985, Federal Register, p. 14219, col. 1).
You mention that your client will mix the waste petroleum
products with used oil prior to marketing to incinerators for
use as a fuel. You should be aware that, under RCRA regulations,
materials are burned for energy recovery in either boilers or
industrial furnaces, fee 40 CFR 260.10 for definitions. Materials
burned in incinerators are considered to be burned for destruction
rather than energy recovery (see the January 4, 1985, Federal
Regieteri p. 627* col* 3). Incinerators are defined in §260.10
as any enclosed device using controlled flame combustion that
neither meets the definition of a boiler nor ie designated as an
industrial furnace. Thus, if your fuel mix is burned in an
incinerator* it would not be burned for energy recovery and would
be subject to regulation as a hacardous waste assuming the fuel
etill haa a flash point lower than 140*F (the characterietic of
an ignitable hazardous waste). The hacardous waste transpor-
tation and storage standards would apply.
•u.i. 00 im-«»t-tii
-------
If, however, by mixing the waste petroleum products with used
oil, the mixture no longer exhibits & characteristic of hazardous
waste (e.g., the flash point is higher than 140*P), the fuel nix
would no longer be subject to regulation as hazardous waste.
Nonetheless, the waste petroleum products would be regulated ae
hazardous waste prior to such treatment to make them nonhacardous.
Finally, if, in fact, your client markets the fuel mix to
boilers or industrial furnaces for energy recovery and if the
fuel nix has a flash point below 100'P, the fuel would be regulated
as off-specification used oil fuel under the November 29, 1985,
rule. In this situation, you would be subject to regulation as
a marketer of off-specification used oil fuel an£ would have to
comply with the notification and recordkeeping requirements of
that rule. Further, the off-specification used oil fuel could
not be burned in nonindustrial boilers (e.g., residential,
commercial, or institutional boilers).
1 hope this addresses your concerns. If you have other
questions, please contact Bob Holloway at (202') 382-7917.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1986(96)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
1. Masteg Generated in Process Units
When, if ever, is waste which La generated in a Safety-KLeen parts
washer regulated under RCRA?
In a May 1986 memorandum "Monthly Report-RCRA/Superfund Industry
Assistance Hotline Report for May 1986", EPA addressed the
regulatory status of parts washers leased fron the Safety-fdeen
Corporation. At that time, the Agency viewed these parts
washers as manufacturing process units. Consequently, the
wastes generated in the parts washers would be subject to the
exclusion in §261.4(c) and thus would not be regulated unless
removed from the unit or until they had remained in the unit
more than 90 days after the unit ceased to be operated.
Since tiiat tune, the Agency has studied this issue further
and has determined that Saf ety-Kleen parts washers cannot be.
viewed as manufacturing process units. It is the Agency's
understanding that Safety-Kleen parts washers usually consist
of some sort of cleaning apparatus attached to the top of a
drum of. solvent material. Solvent is drawn up into the cleaning
apparatus for us* and is discharged back into the drum afterward.
Following a period of use, the solvent in the drum becomes too
contaminated to clean effectively. Periodically, someone from
Safety-Kleen exchanges a fresh cleaning unit for the spent
unit, which he will then transport to a Safety-Xleen facility
for recycling. In other situations, the cleaning apparatus
is removed at the operator's site and placed atop a fresh drum
of solvent. Frequently, an operator will accumulate several
drums of spent solvent in this manner before the Safety-Kleen
worker arrives to replace the spent solvent drums with fresh
drums.
then the solvent can no longer be used effectively, it is
classified as spent material. A spent material sent for
reclamation is regulated as a solid waste under 3CRA, §261.2(c).
Furthermore, if the waste is listed in Subpart 0 of Part 261 or
exhibits any of the characteristics identified in Subpart C of
Part 261, then the waste is also regulated as hazardous waste
'. under RCRA. Consequently, when the operator decides the solvent
has became too contaminated for further use, it beuauss regulated
as hazardous waste. The operator will thus become a generator
of hazardous waste when the cleaning apparatus is removed fr=n
the drum.
Sourcet Bob Axelrad (202) 475-8551
Matt Straus (202) 475-6551
Maureen Snith (202) 382-7703
Research: Kris Andersen
-------
9441.1986(97)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
16. Dilution of F003 Wastea
May wastes designated as F003 in §261 ..31 be treated by dilution?
Yes, although §263.3 of the final rule (See 51 FR 40572)
specifically prohibits the
------- |