United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-SW-91-062D
Environmental Protection Emergency Response August 1991
Agency (OS-343)
® E PA RCRA Permit Policy
Compendium
Volume 4
9441.1987 - 9441.1990
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste (Part 261)
• General
ATKl/1607/3c
-------
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.
-------
9^1.198?
**«»
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON 0 C 204SO
61987 OFB1CEO,
SOUO *fAST£ AND
Mr. Thomas Dufficy
Executive Vice President
National Association of
Photographic Manufacturers, Inc
600 Mamaroneck Avenue
Harrison, NY 10528
Dear Mr. Dufficy:
This is in response to your letters of September 15,
October 24, and November 4, 1986, regarding the regulatory status
of properly washed chemical recovery catridges (also referred to
in your letters as steel wool cartridges), flake silver from
electrolytic recovery cells, and silver-containing ion-exchange
resins, under the federal hazardous waste rules. These units
(i.e., chemical recovery cartridges, electrolytic recovery cells,
and ion-exchange resins) are used to recover silver in a number
of operations in the photographic industry.
Based on the data and information provided in your letters
(i.e. , analytical test data and discussions regarding the
representativeness of the data), it appears that when 'these
units are properly washed (in accordance with the instructions
provided in your letters), they do not exhibit the characteristic
of EP toxicity for silver. You also state that these recovery
units do not exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corro-
sivity, and reactivity, and I presume that these recovery units
are not EP toxic for any of the other toxic contaminants. Thus,
those recovery units that are properly washed appear not to be
hazardous wastes and, therefore, are not subject to the federal
hazardous waste regulations. However, each generator is still
responsible for determining whether or not the wastes contained
in the recovery units are hazardous. See 40 FR $262.11.
In addition, as we've discussed previously, to the extent
that these recovery units would be defined as a sludge (i.e., a
pollution control residual), they would not be subject to the
federal hazardous wast* rules when they were sent for reclamation,
since they would not be considered a solid waste. Thus, if any
of these devices was used to treat wastewater (for example, to
comply with the new BAT/PSES rules), the residues contained
in the units would be considered a sludge; if the sludge is sent
for reclamation, it would not be considered a solid waste. See
40 CFR §261.2(c)(3).
-------
Finally, as you are aware, States may choose to regulate
these recovery units under their State hazardous waste progra-r.
differently than under the federal program. Therefore,
representatives in the various States will need to be contacted
to determine the regulatory status of these recovery units under
the State hazardous waste rules.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if I
can be of any further assistance.
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
January 7, 1987 9441.1987(03)
M. J. Carricato, CAPT. CPC, USN
Acting Director
Environmental Policy
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Department of Defense
Washington, DC 20301-8000
Dear Captain Carricato:
We have reviewed the final draft DOD Instruction on the
Applicability of RCRA to demilitarization of munitions.
Agreement between EPA and DOD on this issue is being achieved at
a critical time. Review of RCRA Part B permit applications for
the proposed incinerators to destroy munitions containing
chemical agents would have been delayed if the demilitarization
issue had been left pending.
As you know, due to recent developments at Camp Edwards,
Maine, open detonation of discarded munitions on training grounds
and impact ranges continues to be a subject of discussion between
DOD and EPA. Until issues posed by some of the military's open
detonation activities are analyzed and resolved to our mutual
satisfaction, we recommend deleting paragraphs 6 and 7 from the
final Instruction. Deletion of these two sections does not
appear to jeopardize the value of the rest of this Instruction.
If you consider it advisable to modify the references to open
burning or detonation made elsewhere in the Instruction, we would
be happy to review any revisions DOD proposes. Paul Connor
(475-7066) is available to assist your staff, as necessary, in
this regard.
We have noted a minor inaccuracy regarding RCRA coverage in
the draft Instruction. The exclusion referred to in paragraph 8
is only for off-specification small arms ball ammunition. There
are other ammunition types of similar caliber that are subject to
RCRA.
We also want to offer some comments that would ease
implementation of this Instruction, both by DOD personnel and by
EPA and State RCRA staffs:
There should be a clear identification of munitions that
have already been declared a waste by the various DOD
branches. For example, EPA understands the M55 rockets
are not affected by this Instruction. For administrative
ease, a list of all such munitions already designated as
wastes (not only those containing chemical agents) should
be attached to the final Instruction.
An indication of how the Instruction applies to "leakers"
should also be included in the final version. The text
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
(or, alternatively, accompanying guidance) should clarify
whether leakers—which are not commonly thought of as
being amenable to further use—are covered by this
instruction to the same extent as all other munitions.
All DOD field personnel must clearly understand that as
soon as munitions are declared to be hazardous wastes, it
is important to clearly distinguish them from other items
also scheduled for demilitarization. The RCRA
requirements apply to the hazardous wastes even when they
are co-mingled with other munitions. The designated
wastes must, for instance, be accompanied by the Uniform
National Manifest if shipped to a demilitarization site
together with other munitions.
My staff is willing to assist DOD to prepare guidance on
interpretation of the final Instruction, especially concerning
"leakers" and situations where hazardous wastes and other
munitions are co-located or mixed in the same shipment. Please
contact Paul Connor to arrange for prompt review of any DOD
implementation guidance.
I hope our comments are useful in finalizing the DOD Instruction.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1987 (C-
JNI3W
Mr. James £. (Jim) Nugent, Chairman
Railroad Commitsion of Texas
Capitol Station, P.O. Drawer 12967
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Chairnani
Thank you for your letter dated October 21, 1986. As
discussed below, the Agency has made some decisions concerning
issues you raised in your letter. Because these tentative
determinations are preliminary, however, we invite further
discussion on them.
The legislative history of Section 3001(b)(2)(A) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sheds some
light on the identity of oil and gas and geothermal energy
wastes subject to exemptions1
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» It
would cover such substances as hydrocarbon-bearing
soil in and around facilities; drill cuttings;
materials (such as hydrocarbon, water, sand and
emulsion) produced from a well in conjunction with
crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy; and
the accumulated material (such as hydrocarbon, water,
sand, and emulsion) from production separators, fluid
, treating vessels* storage vessels, and production
impoundments*
The phrase "intrinsically derived from the primary
field operation ..." is intended to differentiate
exploration, development, and production operations
from transportation . (from the point of custody
transfer or of production separation and dehydra-
tion) and manufacturing operations.
-------
Given the above background, EPA intends to employ four criteria
to assist in determining whether a waste is exempt, pending
completion of our Report to Congress next yean
1. Only waste streams intrinsic to the exploration
for, or development and production of, crude oil,
natural gas, or geothermal energy are subject to
exemption. Waste streams generated at oil, gas,
and geothermal energy facilities that are not
uniquely associated with exploration, development,
or production activities are not exempt (one
example would be spent solvents from equipment
cleanup).
2. Exempt waste must be associated with "extraction"2
processes, which include measures (1) to remove
oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy from the
ground or (2) to remove impurities from such
substances, provided that the purification process
is an integral part of normal field operations.3
3. The proximity of waste streams to primary field
operations is another factor in determining the scope
of the exemption. Process operations that are
distant from the exploration, development, or
production operations may not be subject to
exemption.
4. Wastes associated with transportation are not
exempt. The point of custody transfer, or of
production separation and dehydration, may be
used as evidence in making this determination.
As shown on the enclosed table, EPA has used these criteria
to tentatively designate various wastes as exempt or not exempt.
This table was taken from our October 31, 1986 Technical Report
on wastes from the extraction of oil, gas and geothermal energy
(copy enclosed). The Agency is aware that this list does not
include all waste streams found at oil, gas, or geothermal energy
extraction facilities. Therefore, EPA invites commenters to
specifically describe other pertinent waste streams and to artic-
ulate, in terms of the above criteria, whether they believe
these additional streams are exempted by Section 3001(b)(2)(A).
EPA also invites comment on the criteria themselves and on
the appropriateness of the tentative classification shown on
2 The term extraction is defined to include exploration,
development, and production activities for oil, gas,
and geothermal energy.
3 Thus, wastes associated with such processes as oil refining,
petrochemical-related manufacturing, or electricity
generation from geothermal energy are not exempt.
-------
-3-
the table. However, we believe this interpretation it consis-
tent with the final "Small Quantity Generator" regulation
promulgated on March 24, 1986 (51 JPR 10146, copy enclosed;
see especially page 10162 for a discussion of the applicability
of that rule to offshore oil rigs).
Consistent with the Small Quantity Generator regulation,
EPA's Region 6 office in Dallas has distributed "notices of
hazardous waste registration requirements'. They are being
distributed only as a result of inquiries or requests in
order to aid parties in fulfilling responsibilities which
they consider to be theirs under the law. Because EPA did
not seek data from these facilities requesting information
on our Small Quantity rule, we are unable to determine whether
their waste streams meet the four criteria discussed above.
I trust this clarifies the Agency's current assessment
of the scope of the exemption. If I can be of any further
assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
/•/ Jack W. McQrat
Enclosures (3)
V.
\"
Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED S. . ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION At ,CY
9441.1537'. 06
JAN 271987
Paul ?. "•i'-'i^r, Lircctrr
rur-"!3U of" SoliJi '-'aste ':?.Ti'.:R:":p.t
'..'isconsin 9*!partr.ent of Natural
Resources
Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Dear Paul:
Thank you for your letter of December 9, 1986, requesting
an interpretation of 40 CFR §261.3(a)(2)(iii), regarding the
regulatory status of listed wastes which were listed solely
because they exhibit a characteristic and whether they oust
go through the delisting procedures of $260.22 in order to
become non-hazardous.
Your interpretation of this provision is largely correct.
The existing regulations do allow wastes which are listed in
Subpart D solely because they exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste identified in Subpart C to be mixed with
solid waste and become unregulated, provided that the resultant
mixture no longer exhibits any characteristic of hazardous
waste. The provisions of $260.22 notwithstanding,
§261.3(a)(2)(iii) is, in essence, a form of self-implementing
delisting.
In the case of still bottoms produced from the distillation
of waste acetone (P003), those still bottoms would remain
hazardous waste unless nixed with another solid waste such
that the resultant mixture no longer exhibited a characteristic.
Such a mixture would not currently be required to go through
the delisting procedures. Despite the apparent contradiction,
however, this provision only applies to mixtures of solid
wastes and hazardous wastes. Thus, these still bottoms would
technically remain hazardous until formally delisted unless
they were mixed with a solid waste, even if the still bottoms
did not exhibit a characteristic on their own.
-------
-2-
tfhile the mixing of a solid waste and a hazardous waste
would technically treat the definition of treatment/ you should
be aware that generators may perform treatment in their
accumulation tanks or containers without a permit provided
that it is performed strictly in accordance with 1262.34.
The enclosed memorandum provides additional detail on this
policy interpretation.
Zt is also worth noting that we- perceive a nuabtr of
problema with the mixture rule provision and are considering
proposing a change to the regulations. However, no such
proposal is likely in the near future due to other priorities.
I hops that this has been responsive to your request, if
we can be of any additional help on this issue« please do not
hesitate to contact Katt Straus, of «y staff, on (202) 475-6551.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: Dave Stringhan, Region V
-------
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 204«0
"*s f
"*** 28 1987 ^41.1987(08)
January 28, 1*
f Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. David M. Friedman
Environmental Chemist
Bureau of Waste Management
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Dear Dave:
This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1986,
regarding the scope of the final rule exempting lime-stabilized
waste liquor sludge (LSWPLS) from the presumption of hatardousness
in 40 CFR 261.3. As we discussed on the telephone, the exemption
applies to LSWPLS generated by plants in the iron and steel
industry (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) C0<2«e 331
and 332), whether or not the spent pickle liquor hae been mixed
with other non-listed process wastes generated by the iron
and steel industry.W In reaching this conclusion, th« Agency
evaluated both the Residue generated by the lime-stabilization
of spent pickle liquor as well as the lime-stabilatation of spent
pickle liquor that has been mixed with other process wastes
generated by the iron and steel industry. In both instances,
we determined that the LSWPLS was not hazardous after considering
the original basis for the listing (i.e., corrosivity and
the presence of lead and hexavalent chromium) as w«ll as
considering other toxicants that may reasonably be expected
to present in the waste. Thus, the LSWPLS generated by Bethleham
Wire Rope at their facility in Williamsport, Pennsylvania
is covered by the exemption in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii).
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if
you have any questions.
As you are aware, LSWPLS would be considered hazardous if
it exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction
procedures (EP) toxicity).
Sincerely, t „
/
Matthew A. Straus, Branch Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
fCB 9 Wf 9441.1987(09)
Mr. Gregory A. Hemker
Vice President, Environmental Engineering
QSource Engineering, Inc.
Suite 300
228 Byers Road
Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
Dear Mr. Hemker:
This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1987,
requesting clarification on the proper hazardous classification of
discarded inks, paints, and adhesives that contain certain solvents.
These waste inks, paints, and adhesives are process wastes that are
not currently listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261, and therefore,
not subject to Subtitle C regulations unless the waste exhibits any
of the four hazardous waste characteristics defined in 40 CFR
261.21-261.24 (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP
toxicity).
In the event that fresh or commercial grade solvents are
present in the product or added to these products as an ingredient in
the formulation, the resulting product (or discarded product) is not
within the scope of the spent solvent listings. This point is stated
in the preamble to the so'vent rules as well as the listing
background documents. However, should a spent solvent (one that can
no longer used for its original purpose without reclamation) be added
to the discarded product, then the resulting mixture is a hazardous
waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv).
In your case, you claim the discarded products fail the
ignitability te«t and, therefore, are lifted am 0001 ignitable
hazardous waste. I agree with your interpretation of the hazardous
classification of this waste.
Also, I agree with your interpretation of the hazardous
classification of the waste* in the two scenarios enclosed in your
letter. If you have further questions regarding the proper
classification of solid wastes, please contact Mr. Ed Abrams of my
staff at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441. 19="'' I-'
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 87
i. Snail 'Quantity Generator Determination
A recycler regenerates listed spent solvent (F005) that he receives
1 from off-site. The recycler burns the still oottoms and a portion
of the reclaimed solvent on-site in an industrial furnace. He
sells the remaining reclaimed solvent to two companies: one that will
burn ic as fuel and one that will use the solvent for its solvent
properties. How does the recycler count the still bottoms and
reclaimed solvent for the purpose of small quantity generator monthly
quantity determinations?
The recycler mast include the still bottoms in his quantity
determinations because they are hazardous waste generated on-
site and burned for energy recovery. As a hazardous waste
fuel, they are subject to 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart D. According
to §261.5(c)/ a generator must count wastes subject to Part 266
subpart D in his monthly quantity determination. The reclaimed
solvent fuels that are burned on-site and marketed off-site are
suoject to Part 266 Subpart D and the counting requirements.
The only waste quantity that the recycler does not include in
his quantity determinations is the reclaimed solvent that will
be used for its solvent properties. 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)
exempts reclaimed materials that will be used beneficially from
regulation as wastes as long as they are not burned for energy
recovery or used in a manner constituting disposal. Because
the reclaimed solvent will be used as a solvent and not a fuel
or product applied to the land/ it would not be included in the
monthly quantity determinations.
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475-8551
Specialist: Jennifer Brock (202) 382-3112
-2-
-------
9441.1937 ill!
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 87
2. F006
F006 is specifically electroplating wastewater treatment sludge.
If a corrosive electroplating wastewater is druntned op and shipped
off-site without treatment it is classified as D002. This waste
goes to an acid waste treatment facility where it is mixed with
other various types of acid wastes. Is the sludge from this treatment
process going to be classified as F006?
Yes, since some of the waste is electroplating wastewater, the
sludge is partly derived fron the wastewater and will meet the
definition of F006.
Sou, :e: Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7706
Specialist: Randy Eicher (202) 382-3112
-------
9441.195-.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 204«0
MAR 31987
e of
Jerry Hubbard SOUD W*STE AND EMERGENCY «ESPC\S=
Colonel, General Staff
Deputy Chief of Staff, Enginner
Department of the Army
Headquarters, US Army Material Development
and Readiness Command
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333
Dear Colonel Hubbard:
This letter in a response to your November 6, 1986,
letter requesting clarification on the hazardous waste
classification of ash residue generated from the incineration
or thermal treatment of EPA Hazardous Waste No. K045 (spent
carbon from the treatment of wastewater containing explosives).
My interpretation of the classification of this* waste
is somewhat different than that presented by Luetta Flournoy
of EPA Region VII in her December 16, 1985 letter to you.
That is, the ash resulting from the incineration of the listed
waste K045 is still considered to be a hazardous waste even
if it doe.6 not exhibit the reactive characteristic. 40 CFR
§ 261,3(a)(2) (iii) of the regulations only applies to
mixtures of solid wastes and wastes listed soley because
they exhibit a characteristic and does not apply to residues
generated from the treatment of such wastes. However, if prior
to incineration you mix K045 with another solid waste and
this mixture no longer exhibits a characteristic or after
incineration you mix the treatment residue with another solid
waste and this mixture does not exhibit the reactivity
characteristic, the waste will no longer be considered
hazardous. This presumes, of course, that the material does
-------
-2-
not exhibit any other hazardous waste characteristic (e.g.,
ignitability, corrosivity, or extraction procedure toxicity).
I hope the above helps to clarify any concerns you have
regarding this waste. If you have any additional questions
or wish to discuss the matter in more detail, do not hesitate
to contact me.
'Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
-4
Mr. Michael Piznar
Neptune Water Meter Company
Route 229 South
Tallahassee, AL 36078-1799
Dear Mr. Piznari
Thank you for your letter of January 19, 1987, confirming
our telephone conversation. As I explained by telephone, EPA'a
hazardous waste regulations have special requirements for wastes
that are recycled. You should review Part 261.2 and 261.6.
Based on the information you provided in our conversation
the treatment process necessary to recycle your foundry sands
beck into your foundry would appear to be ezempt from the need
for a RCRA treatment permit. However, you should be aware that
you will need to comply with the generator storage requirements
if the wastes are stored in a tank or container for less than
90 days (40 CFR 262.34) or will need a storage permit if the
wastes are stored on site for greater than 90 days. X ae en-
cloelng a copy of Parts 261.2, 261.6, 262.34 and the regulation
for hazardous waste storage in tanks for your information.
Sincerely,
James R. Berlow, Chief
Treatment Technology Section
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
cci Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
March 6, 1987 9441.1987(14)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Status of Automotive Fluids
FROM: Marcia E. Williams
Director, OSW
TO: Michael J. Sanderson
Chief, RCRA Branch
EPA Region VII
This is to provide guidance on the questions raised in your
February 19, 1987 memo. First, no automotive fluids have been
listed as hazardous under Subtitle c of RCRA; therefore, the
question of whether these fluids are subject to the hazardous
waste regulations depends on whether the fluid in question
exhibits one or more of the RCRA hazardous waste characteristics.
Although we do not have studies in this area, we have been
informed that some brake fluids and automatic transmission fluids
are ignitable under 40 CFR §261.21. Used crankcase oils may also
be ignitable (because small amounts of gasoline are added during
or after use), and may exhibit E.P. toxicity for lead.
However, for those automotive fluids that are used oils and
are recycled, the hazardous waste regulations would not currently
apply, even if the fluid exhibits a characteristic; rather all
used oils that are recycled are subject to 40 CFR Part 266,
Subpart E (See 40 CFR §261.6 (a)(2)(ill).) Currently, Part 266,
Subpart E only regulates the recycling of used oil as fuel. All
other recycling methods are exempt from regulation. Those
automotive fluids that are either not a used oil, or are used oil
that is disposed of, are subject to the hazardous waste
regulations if they exhibit one or more of the characteristics.
Currently, we define "used oil" in §266.40(b) very broadly.
Brake fluid, power steering fluid, and automatic transmission
fluid would all be considered used oils. On the other hand,
antifreeze and windshield washer fluid, because they are not
"oils" as the term is commonly used, would not be used oils.
As a practical matter, our understanding is that brake,
steering, and transmission fluids are typically mixed with
crankcase oils and recycled. Therefore, the hazardous waste
characteristics are not relevant and Part 266, Subpart E applies
if the oils are recycled as fuel. Used anti-freeze is not a used
oil and is not likely to exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics; consequently, it may be disposed of as a solid
waste in Subtitle D facilities. Similarly, windshield washer
fluid is not used oil, and is not likely to exhibit a
characteristic; thus, it may also be disposed of as solid waste.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Please feel free to call Mr. Mike Petruska at 8-382-7737 if
you have any further questions.
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs (EPA Regions I-IV and VII-X)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
?441.195-<
m i :
Georoe '•/. °^-bo, Ph.H . , P.o.E.
Director, Pesearch, Education
and Technical Resources
"ational Pest Control Association, Inc.
8100 Oak Street
r>unn Loring, VA 22027
Dear Dr. Pambo:
I am writing in response to your letter of February 9, 1987,
reauestino an interpretation of the hazardous waste rules as they
apply to the practice of treating homes and apartment complexes
for termites with the pesticides, Chlordane and Heptachlor. You
also specifically request that we discuss the relationship of the
June 13, 19Q6 Federal Register notice, proposed to^icity charac-
teristic, to the practice of termite treatment.
As you are aware, Subtitle C of RCRA controls the management
of hazardous wastes. The soils described in your letter are not
considered hazardous wastes under the Federal hazardous waste
rules since contamination which results from normal pesticide
use is not covered by the hazardous waste regulations. This
interpretation would not change under the proposed toxicity
characteristic.
However, you should be aware that States may have differing
regulations which may affect this interpretation. In particular,
state regulation may be more stringent than the Federal hazardous
waste rules. (See section 3009 of RCRA.) Therefore, you will
still need to discuss your concern with the Arizona Department of
Health Services as it relates to their regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact my office, if you have
any further questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
March 17, 1987 9441.1987(16)
Dr. Wladimir Gulevich, Ph.D., P.E., Director
Bureau of Hazardous Waste Management
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Waste Management
llth Floor, Monroe Building
101 N. 14th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Dr. Gulevich:
This letter is in response to the various conversations we
have had and your letter of January 15, 1987, in reference to the
U.S. Navy salvage fuel boiler plant in Norfolk. I have also
received from you EP tox data which indicate some ash from this
plant exceeds EP concentration levels for lead and cadmium. I
understand the U.S. Navy has proposed that the residues from this
plant be exempted from hazardous waste regulation by way of two
regulatory exclusions.
The exclusion at 40 CFR, Section 261.4(b)(4) applies to
residue primarily from combustion of coal or other fossil fuels.
There is insufficient information to determine whether residue
from the Norfolk facility qualifies for this exclusion. On
January 13, 1981, the Agency offered an interpretation (copy
enclosed) on the question of whether this exclusion extends to
combustion wastes that result from the burning of mixtures of
fossil and other fuels. In that interpretation, the exclusion
was defined to include all wastes generated in the combustion of
coal-waste mixtures where coal makes up more than 50% of the fuel
mixture. This interpretation is still operative.
The "household waste exclusion" of 40 CFR 261.4(b)(l) turns
not on the composition of the waste, but on whether the
particular source of the waste can properly be characterized as a
household. Based on the information you have provided, we see no
basis for a conclusion that the Navy salvage fuel boiler plant is
a household. In addition Section 223 of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 modified RCRA to provide an exemption
for wastes at certain resource recovery facilities handling
municipal solid waste. Based on the information available at
this time, we do not believe there is a basis for excluding these
boiler plant wastes under this provision.
The Agency is vigorously investigating the issue of disposal
of residues from municipal waste combustion. We are aware of the
growing concerns involved, and we are moving as rapidly as is
prudent to acquire the data necessary for regulatory strategy
development. I would be happy to meet with you, per your
request, to discuss this issue. We can arrange a mutually
convenient time following your receipt of this letter.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Thank you for your continued communication and cooperation,
I look forward to seeing you soon. With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Gerry Dorian
Environmental Scientist
cc: Truett DeGeare
Mark Greenwood
Pat Pesacreta
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 3 I 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Reuse of Spent Pickle Liquor
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPO'
FROM: Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch, OSW (WH-562B)
TO: William H. Miner, HWEB Chief
EPA Region V
This .is in response to your memorandum of January 14, 1987,
in which you request a regulatory interpretation regarding the
"reuse" of spent pickle liquor for purposes of neutralization.
In particular, you askt (1) whether the treatment (reuse) process
conducted at a specific facility would be considered "USA
constituting disposal" and (2) whether the recycling of spent
pickle liquor for purposes of neutralization would be considered
re-use as an effective substitute. The answer to these two
questions is as follows:
(1) Is the treatment (reuse) process conducted and described
in your memorandum considered to be used in a manner const
tuting disposal?
No. The "Use Constituting Disposal" regulations applies
to those wastes or waste-derived products */ that are
applied to or placed on the land for benefTciel use
(i.e., those materials that are recycled by being placed
on the land). Wastes that are stored or treated in units
(i.e., surface impoundments) that are on the land are not
considered within this provision (i.e., they are not
being applied to the land for beneficial use). Rather,
these units and the wastes they contain would be evaluated
based on other aspects of the Subtitle C regulations to
determine their regulatory status.
L/ A waste-derived product is defined as those products which
contain hazardous waste that are applied to the land that are
themselves hazardous.
-------
-2-
(2) Is the recycling of spent pickle liquor for purposes
of neutralization considered to be reuse?
The answer to this question depends on a number of
factors. As we state in the preamble to the final
rules, corrosive materials that are neutralized are
normally considered wastes. However* where such corrosive
material! can be shown tot (1) Beet relavent specifica-
tions with regard to contamination levels; (2) be as
effective as the virgin material for which they substitute
(i.e., th"e same amount of waste acid would generally be
needed as the virgin acid for which it replaces); (3)
be used under controlled conditions (i.e., stored in a
manner commensurate with its alleged status as a new
material, which storage in an impoundment rarely or
ever would be; 50 PR 652 n. 44 (January 4, 1985)); and
(4) that in a two party transaction, there be considera-
tion (usually monetary) for use of the material, we
believe such materials may not be wastes. See 50 FR
638, January 4, 1985. Based on the information provided
in your memorandum, I would question whether 'the neutra-
lization process is a reuse process; rather it appears
to constitute waste management. However, whether
or not the use of spent pickle liquor as a neutralizing
agent is excluded from regulation in the particular
situation decribed in your memorandum will need to be
evaluated based on the particular facts. (See attached
letters for successful demonstration with respect to
this provision.) Pickle liquor stored without being
used for neutralization is indisputably a solid waste.
48 FR 14488 n. 32 (April 4, 1983).
With respect to the argument made by the company (who
I assume is Dundee Cement) that the language of the
preamble cannot change the effect of the regulatory
language, we belive that both the rule and the preamble
are consistent. In particular, the rule specifically
excludes from being solid wastes those materials that
are reused as "effective substitutes." The question
therefore, is what is meant as an effective substitute;
the preamble discussion lays out what the Agency considers
to be an effective substitute where neutralization is
occuring. As the Agency's contemporaneous interpretation
-------
-3-
and explanation of its own regulation—in fact dealing
with the precise point at issue—the preamble is entitled
to, and would receive great deference from any reviewing
court (see, e.g., Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin,
444 U.S. 555, 566 (1980); General Electric Co., v.
Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 129 (1976)).In addition, the
preamble language is detailed and well-reasoned, draws
on the Agency's technical expertise, and is in accord
with the general statutory scheme, all further factors
which would lead a court to consider the interpretation
with great deference. Skidaore v. Swift fc Co., 323
U.S. 134, 140 (1944); Ford Motor Co., sypraT"4"44 U.S. at
568-69. Therefore, we do not agree with the company
that the preamble is inapplicable to this situation.
You also ask, to what degree does the preamble influence
the interpretation of the regulations from an enforcement stand-
point and to what extent can it be used to support an adminis-
trative or other enforcement action. As we've indicated previously,
your primary argument in any administrative or enforcement action
must be based on the language of the rule.£/ However, the language
of the preamble or any other document can and should be used where
it supports the language of the rule; in this case, the language
in the preamble can be used as explanation and interpretation of
the term "effective susbtitute."
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further
questions.
Attachments
cci Solid Waste Branch Chiefs (EPA Regions I-X)
Gary Geunther (Mich. DNR)
Larry Aubuchan (Mich. DNR)
77In addition to the language in 40 CPR §261.2(«), you can
also refer to 40 CPR $260.10 (definition of treatment and
elementary neutralization unit); 40 CFR 264.Kg)(6); and
40 CFR 265.1{c)(10).
-------
9441.193" ( IB )
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 87
« .
2. Solvent Mixture Rule
How will the 3pl lowing mixtures be classified under RCRA?
The concentrations of the various conponents before use are indicated
below.
1) Solvent containing 15% xylene (F003), 15% toluene (F005) and 70% water.
2) Solvent containing 80% xylene (F003), 5% methylene chloride (POOD and
15% water. - - _
3) Solvent containing 80% xylene (F003) and 20% water.
The preamble of the "Solvent Mixture Rale" published in the
Federal Register on December 31, 1985 (50 FR 53315) states that
since the Agency haa not evaluated the F003 solvents for their
toxicity, and no determination could be made as to the
ignitability of an F003 mixture, the 10% threshold applies to
them in a modified form. According to the Solvent Mixture
Rule, mixtures containing F003 solvents are covered under the
listings only under two conditions: 1) the mixture contains
only F003 constituents, or 2) the mixture contains one or more
P003 constituents and 10% or more of the other listed solvents
prior to use.
Therefore, the first mixture when spent would be a listed
hazardous waste under RCRA. For the purposes of notification
and manifesting, the generator would designate this waste as
F005/F003.
The second mixture is not a listed waste because the methylene
chloride (FOOD concentration prior to use is less than 10% and
it contains constituents other than F003. This mixture, however,
will probably be ignitable and therefore classified as 0001.
The last mixture is not a listed waste unless it is considered to be a
commercial or technical grade xylene solution. If it is not
technical or caimercial grade, the mixture should be tested for
the characteristic of ignitability.
Source: Jacqueline Sales (202) 382-4770
Research: Robyn Neaville
-------
9441.19S~il9
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 87
3. Solvent Drippings for Decreasing Operations
A ball-bearing manufacturer dips metal parts in a decreasing tank of
pure 1,1,1-tJ^chloroethane. Once the parts have been dipped, they
are ground. ^he.cooling system (either oil or water is used as the
fluid) picks up the grinding sand, metal flakes, and traces of
solvent left on the part. The fluid is then filtered fox reuse, and
the sand-metal-solvent mixture is discarded. Are the traces of
solvent left on the parts after degreasing classified as P001? Is
the sand-metal-solvent mixture regulated as a hazardous waste when
discarded?
The small amount of solvent remaining on the part after it has
been dipped will not be regulated as POOL The solvent is not
spent. If the sand-metal-solvent mixture exhibits any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste aa defined in Subpart C of 40
CFR Part 261, then the mixture would be regulated as a hazardous
waste.
Source: Steve Silverman 382-7706
Research: Becky Cuthbertson
-------
9441. 195'.;:j
APR 81987
K. Seller
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
7272 Cleanwater Lane, LU-11
Olympia, Washington 98504-6811
Dear Ms. Seller:
I recently received your letter of February 26, 1987, in which
you requested clarification as to whether excavated soils,
contaminated with 2,4,5-T, Simazine, 2,4-D, Dicambia, and Bromacil,
are F027 wastes. The site in question was a county public works yard
where a pesticide product was mixed with water as a carrier, prior to
application on the county roadsides. Contamination occurred from
spillage of both unused and used pesticide solutions.
The F027 listing designates, as acute hazardous waste (H),
formulations containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorphenol or
discarded unused formulations containing compounds derived from these
chlorophenols. Whether the contaminated soil contains a listed
hazardous waste is dependent on: (a) whether the 2,4,5-T got onto
the soil through the use of the chemical or by being discarded, and
(b) whether the 2,4,5-T was in fact a discarded formulation as stated
in Sec.261.31.
Soil, which is contaminated with unused 2,4,5-T, that had been
discarded, would contain a listed hazardous waste, namely F027. This
contaminated soil, which contains a hazardous waste, is therefore
subject to the Subtitle C regulations.
Soils, which are contaminated with 2,4,5-T, as a function of its
use, would not be considered to contain a hazardous waste. These
contaminated soils may, however, be hazardous if they are excavated
to be discarded, and if they meet the hazardous waste
characteristics, i.e.. if the EP leachate concentration exceeds the
levels specified in Sec.261.24(b).
-------
To my knowledge, there are currently no commercial treatment or
disposal facilities permitted to accept listed dioxin wastes. You
also questioned whether any treatment standards have been established
for dioxin wastes. According to 40 CFR 264.343, incinerators burning
hazardous wastes F020-F023, F026, and F027 must achieve a destruction
and removal efficiency of 99.9999% for each principal organic
hazardous constituent specified in its permit. Effective Nov. 8,
1988, these same wastes are restricted from land disposal if an
extract of the waste or the treatment residual of the waste (using
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)) is equal to or
greater than 1 ppb of dioxin.
Please feel free to call Doreen Sterling, of my staff, at
202-475-6775, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9 4 4 1 . 19 3 ' ' Z 4 ;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR I 5 1987
OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMEBGENCv R
Mr. Ronald D. Conte
Operations Coordinator
Pecrosvill Chemical*, Inc.
2523 Mogadore Road
Akron, OH 44313
Dear Mr. Conte:
Thank you for your letter of March 27, 1987, concerning
the regulatory ttatua of virgin and recycled chemical! being
placed in and removed from storage tanks. From the facts you
provided, the only material that appears to be a solid waste at
all and so potentially subject to the hazardous vaste regula-
tions, is the recycled zylene. My understanding is that your
normal operation involves blending of reclaimed zylene to
produce a marketable solvent. In this situation* EPA only
regulates storage and transportation of the spwnt solvent, not
the reclamation or blending process or the reclaimed material.
(See 40 CFR §261.6(c)). However, you indicated thet you produced
a batch of material not suitable for solvent u*t, and that you
sent this for fuel use. EPA does regulate a reclaimed solvent
that is used to produce a fuel. (See 40 CFR f26 1 <6(a)(2)(11),
and Part 266, Subpart D.) Therefore, it was cotrect for you to
manifest the blended solvent/chemical mixture that you were
sending for fuel use.
Because your operation normally produces reclaimed solvent,
the mixture actually became a hazardous waste at the tine you
determined that It was not suitable for solvent use (and that
it therefore had to be marketed as fuel). As referenced above,
EPA does regulate the storage of hazardous waste fuel as well
as fuel blending tanks. In your case, however, it appears that
the tank was really a product (solvent) blending tank, and
so not subject to regulation. This determination is based on
your assurance that the fuel production was an isolated incident,
and that your original intent in placing reclaimed xylene in
the tank was to produce solvent, not fuel. The fact that you
normally produce solvent and that you actually did market some
of the material from the tank as a solvent (as well as fuel)
-------
-2-
aupports such a conclusion regarding your intent. Let me reiterate
however, that EPA does normally regulate tanks used to store or
blend hazardous waste fuel, and your tank was not subject to regula
tion only due to the special circumstances described above.
If you have questions concerning the determinations outlined
above, contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director of Solid Waste
cc: Regional Waste Management
Division Directors
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTF HO JENCY
9441. 1
APR 17
Vs. Sue Vedantham
Fnvironmental Fnaineer
Solvent Service, inc.
102] Berryessa road
Can Jose, California 95133
Dear Ms. Vedantham:
This letter responds to your March IP, 1?Q7, correspondence
requesting a written statement addressing the regulatory
status of "clean" solvent from recycled solvent-containing
wastes that are subject to the land disposal restrictions.
According to the provisions in 40 CFP 2€l.?(c)(?) (i),
"materials that are reclaimed from solid wastes and that are
used beneficially are not solid wastes and hence are not,hazardous
wastes under this provision unless the reclaimed material IP
burned for energy recovery or used in a manner constitutinn
disposal." Therefore, the clean solvent from your recovery
process is not a solid waste, and as such, is not a hazardous
waste which is subject to the land disposal restrictions, Powever,
the still bottoms from the recovery of spent solvents are hazardous
wastes listed in 40 CFP ?fil.31. For example, the recycling of
spent carbon tetrachloride from a metal cleaning operation
results in "clean" carbon tetrachloride solvent that nay be sold
as a product or otherwise reused and still bottoms which remain
listed hazardous wastes and subject to the land disposal re-
strictions.
If you have additional questions, you may call me at
(202)387-4770.
Sincerely,
jacoueline W. Rales, Chief
Pegulation rtevelopwent Section
-------
944;. i?5
ED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 30BOT
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY ME:
Mr. Terry Gray, Chief
Plan Review and Permit Section
Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Solid and Hazardous Waste Managenent
State of Indiana
Department of Environmental Management
105 South Merdian Street
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Dear Mr. Gray:
This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1987, in
which you request written confirmation concerning a specific
aspect of the mixture rule exemption that was promulgated on
November 17, 1981. In particular, you ask if solvent that is
lost via volatilization once it is discharged to the plant sewer
is excluded from the mixture rule calculation in §261.3(a)(2)
(iv)(A) and (B).
As I discussed with Ms. Jayne Browning of your staff, the
regulation and the preamble to the November 17, 1981 Federal
Register makes is clear that once a waste (i.e., spent solvent)
is discharged to the wastewater, it must be included in the
calculations to determine whether or not a facility exceeds the
mixture rule exemption levels. See, for example, 40 CFR
§261.3(a)(2XlV)(A) where it states "... provided that the
maximum total weekly usage of these solvents (other than the
amounts that can be demonstrated not to be discharged to
wastewater)... 7" see also footnote 24 at 46 PR 56585 where it
statess
-------
-2-
However, if a facility can demonstrate by means of
appropriate records that any portion of solvents used
at the facility are not disposed to wastewater, that
portion is to be excluded from the calculation. That
portion of solvents which is volatilized may not be
excluded from the calculation of solvent usage."
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
94'
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 3 0 !S3V
E OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY «ESPC
Mr. Gordon Davidson
Project Manager for Environmental
Affairs
IT Corporation
600 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
Dear Mr. Davidson:
This is in response to your April 9, 1987, letter in
which you request authorization to transport laboratory
samples and associated laboratory wastes contaminated with 2,
3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin from your Knoxville
laboratory back to the Diamond Shamrock Lister Avenue site.
You state that the samples originated from the clean-up
associated with this site.
It is my understanding, from a telephone conversation
between you and Doreen Sterling of my staff, that you are
unsure if the waste in question ie actually covered by the
Dioxin Listings* You are, however, handling your waste as
if it were hazardous. Our response, therefore, assumes that
the waste in question is a "hazardous waste".
According to 40 CFR 261.4(d), a laboratory may transport
a sample, which is collected for the sole purpose of testing
to determine its characteristics or composition, back to the
sample collector. No approval from the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) is required for this action. However,
once the sample is received at the Lister Avenue site, it
must be managed as a hazardous waste.
You also stated in your telephone conversation with
Doreen Sterling that the associated wastes in question include
lab solvents, protective gear, etc. which were used during
analysis. These wastes are not covered by the provisions of
Section 261.4(d). Rather, these materials either are listed
hazardous waste (i.e., spent solvents) or contain a listed
hazardous waste (i.e., protective gear) and must be managed
-------
as if it were an acute hazardous waste. However, if the
materials that contain listed hazardous waste are decontaminated
such that they no longer contain the listed waste, they are
no longer subject to Subtitle C regulations. Any rinsate,
generated during cleaning would, however, be an acute hazardous
waste via application of the mixture rule (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2).
If you have any further questions, please contact Doreen
Sterling of my staff at (202) 475-6775.
Sincerely,
K
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
|TE0
9441. 19
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
<;R 3 o 95"
Ti Scop* of Tenporary exclusion for ;,onroe Autc
Cozao, Nebraska
i'arcia v/illiains
Li rector, Office of Solid v;nste (UJI-562)
70i Lavid A. Wagoner
Director, Waste Mana<}eir,»»nt Division
P«c.ion VII
you for your April 1C, 1937 memorandum concerning th«s
scope Of Monroe Auto Equipment'* December 27r 1982 temporary
exclusion. Specifically, you asked if the temporary exclusion
issued December 27, 1982 covered (1) the POO 6 sludges dispose-:} of
at the Sandhills Landfill during 1961 and 1982; and (2) the roC6
sludges generated at Monroe Auto Equipment prior to the temporary
exclusion.
The Agency believes that Monroe's temporary exclusion did
not apply to any of the wastes disposed at their Sandhills disposal
site. First, exclusions are granted to a facility for specific
wastes. If the wast* will be managed on-site, sampling data for
the waste contained in each on&it* management unit must be provided.
.-.cnroe's initial petition (submitted 9/20/81) was limited to the
impounded waste at the Second Street facility. It did not mention
the Sandhills site* nor was analytical data characterizing th«
sludge at the Sandhills disposal site submitted until August 1985,
nearly three years after the date of the temporary exclusion.
The August 1985 submission providsd incomplete information for
the landfllled sludge at Sandhills. Subsequently, Monroe discon-
tinued UM of the two impoundments at the Second Street facility
and bsgaa «sing a vacuua filter press to generate dewatered
sludge fro* their production process. Due to trichloroethylene
contamination found in ground water at the Second Street site,
and trichloroethylene found in the sludge contained in the inactive
surface impoundments, at the Second Street site, Monroe attempted
to re-treat the impounded wastee by aeration. On October 18,
-------
a second oetition seekinn to exclude their
(aeratcd) surface ir-poundrent sluclnes, t>>e Sandhills
sludge, and tneir actively cenerated process vacuum
filter cake. This further demonstrates that Monroe's first
.-etition was only for the sludge contained in their two on-site
•surface i-.coundnents at their Second Stre«t facility, and that
their temporary exclusion did not apply to the waste disposed at
the Sandhills landfill site. Therefore, since no temporary
exclusion applied to the Fandhills landfill, and it contains
•-[-.characterized listed waste cenerated prior to the issuance of
t'r.e temporary exclusion, it is and has been hazardous waste sir.ce
Because the waste disposed at the Sandhills disposal site
was never covered by iionroe's December 27, 1982 temporary exclusion,
Monroe does not have the six rronth period (normally qiven to
petitioners having had a temporary exclusion revoked) in which to
bring the Sandhills disposal site into compliance with all of the
applicable AC HA regulations. This area has contained hazardous
waste since 19bO and, as a result, Monroe must comply with all
appropriate requirements under 40 CFR Parts 262 through 265 and
40 CFR Part 270.
HC are going to publish a final denial decision in the
Federal Register. This notice will both explain th« Agency's
position regarding the scope of Monroe's previous temporary
exclusion and how the Agency inadvertantly omitted reference to
Monroe's Sandhill disposal site sludge in our final decision to
deny iionroe's surface impoundment sludge and vacuum filter cake
published November 14, 1986 in the Federal Register (see 51 PP.
41320).
I hope that we have responded to your questions* Should
you require more information or further clarification, please
call Mr. Myles Morse* of my staff, at (202) 382*4732.
-------
MONTHLY SUMMARY 34 4 i . '95
APRIL 87
4. waste Derived from Treating Exempt or Excluded Wastes
Residues from treating, storing, or diposing of hazardous waste
are included in the definition of hazardous waste (§261.3(c)(i)).
Can residues resulting from incinerating the following wastes
wnich are exempt or excluded from regulation meet the definition
of hazardous waste?
(a) Ash produced by incinerating hazardous waste generated by
less than 100 kg/mo snail quantity generators whose waste
is exempt from full regulation by §261.5(b).
(b) Ash produced from incinerating only household waste which is
excluded from the definition of hazardous waste per
§261.4(b)(l).
(c) Ash produced from incinerating EP toxic arsenical treated
wood which is excluded from the definition of hazardous
waste und^r §261.4(b)(9).
(a) Yes, Although §261.5(b) exempts wastes from small
generators producing <100 kilograms per month from
regulation under Parts 262-266 and Parts 270 and 124,
it does not exempt the waste from being classified as
hazardous, nor does it imply that the waste is not
hazardous. A discussion in the preamble g.f the August 1,
1985 Federal Register mentioned that any hazardous waste,
regardless of its point of origin, is hazardous waste.
This logic could only apply to < 100 kg/mo generators',
waste, as well as to > 100 kg/mo generators' waste
(50 FR 31299). The incinerator would not be required
to have a RCRA permit in order to receive hazardous
waste from < 100 kg/roc generators per S265.1(c)(5)and
§264.Kg) (1), but the incinerator could itself generate
a hazardous waste ash that would be subject to
regulations under Parts 262-266.
(b) No. Section 261.4(b)(l) excluded household waste that
has been recovered (e.g., refuse-derived fuel) from
regulation as a hazardous waste. The preamble of the
May 19, 1980 Federal Register stipulated that residues
remaining after treatment (e.g. incineration) of household
waste are not subject to regulation as hazardous waste
(45 FR 33099).
(c) Yes. The exclusion for arsenical treated wood, as
discussed in the preamble of the November 25, 1980
Federal Register, pertains to arsenical-treated wood
that is land disposed by someone who uses the wood for
its intended end use, (45 FR 78531). This exclusion
doe not extend to EP toxic waste generated by the
incineration of the wood. The incineration of the
wood may be subject to regulation if the wood exhibits the
characteristic of EP toxicity.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Kim Gotwals
-------
9441.193
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
A 1987
Barbara J. Zellmer
Hazardous Waste Regulatory Unit
Departaent of Natural Resources
Box 7921
Madison, VI 53707
Dear Ms. Zellmer:
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY HE
This is in response to your April 22, 1987 letter in which you
request clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulations governing the management of waste containing
dioxins (2 ,3,7 , 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)). In particulai
your question relates to a notification received from the University
of Wisconsin regarding research projects Involving injection of
dilute solutions of TCDD into birds and bird eggs. The University
has inquired about the proper disposal of these carcasses containing
small quantities of TCDD.
The waste which you described is not listed under 40 CFR
$261.31, nor is its disposal currently regulated under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Rather, these wastes would more
appropriately be characterized as infectious wacte, "... laboratory
wastes, such as pathological specimens (e.g., all tissues, specimens
of blood elements, excreta, and secretions obtained from patients or
laboratory animals) and disposable fomltes (any substance that may
harbor or transmit pathogenic organisms) attendant thereto... "see 4
CFR I241.101(h). To date, EPA has not promulgated criteria for
Identifying waste as infectious under 1261 Subpart C.
The Agency haa, however, developed a manual to provide guidance
on the managment of infectious waste. A copy Ic enclosed for your
reference. You should be aware that typical Infectious waste
incinerators are probably not satisfactory devices for disposal of
material* highly contaminated with TCDD. TCDD decomposes above 800"
Therefor*, If the waste is to be incinerated, the wastes which you
describe should be managed by high temperature Incineration.
-------
-2-
I hope this adequately answer* your
further questions, please contact Doreen
475-6775.
questions. If
Sterling of my
you have
staff at
a ay
202
Sincerely,
cia
fie*
Williaas, Dire
of Solid Waste
rf?*~
ttoi
Enclosure
-------
May 18, 1987 9441.1987(37)
Mr. Dennis M. Burchett
V.P. Regulatory Affairs
Clean Crop
419 18th Street
P.O. Box 1286
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Mr. Burchett:
This is in response to your inquiry of April 21, 1987. From
information in your letter and from your phone conversation of
May 8, 1987, with Mike Petruska of my staff, we have concluded
that your spent carbon contains the listed hazardous waste
Phorate (P094). Therefore, the contaminated carbon is subject to
the hazardous waste regulations. In particular, your company
must comply with the hazardous waste generator requirements,
including compliance with the manifest. See 40 CFR 261.6(b). In
addition, the facility that regenerates the carbon must also
comply with the appropriate hazardous waste rules. See 40 CFR
261.6(c)
The reasoning behind this determination is as follows:
The packaging of the finished Phorate product releases
Phorate to the air. In effect, Phorate is being
"discarded;"
EPA regulations at 40 CFR §261.33 identify certain
commercial chemical products (among them Phorate) as
hazardous waste when they are discarded;
EPA continues to regulate a listed waste even when it is
contained in another material, i.e., in this case the
spent carbon.
The first point above, concerning the Phorate being
discarded, is critical to your situation. Even though you
capture the Phorate released to the air in carbon scrubbers and
send the spent carbon for regeneration, the Phorate contained in
the carbon is not recovered but rather is destroyed during carbon
regeneration. This leads us to conclude that you are discarding
Phorate. You should note, however, that if you were reclaiming
or reusing the Phorate, your regulatory situation would be
different. In this case, the Phorate would not be solid waste,
and so would not be hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR §261.2.)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike
Petruska of my staff at (202) 382-4765.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Regional Hazardous Waste
Division Directors
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441. 193~i29)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
'«.
MAY 2 0 £37
QfflCt Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY «ESPOr-
Or. Peter Russell
President
Russell Resources Inc.
25 Oak View Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Dear Dr. Russell:
I am responding to your letter of May 8, 1987, requesting the
regulatory interpretation of used pickle liquor generated at the
USS-POSCO Project in Pittsburg, CA. Specifically, you requested
responses to three questions concerning the regulatory interpretation
of the pickle liquor.
Your first question asks when the pickle liquor becomes a
hazardous waste. The pickle liquor becomes EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K062 as soon as it exits the pickling line baths and is sent to the
regeneration operations; at this point it is considered to be a spent
material (see 40 CFR 261.1(c)(1)). Thus, the spent pickle liquor is
subject to the appropriate requirements in 40 CFR 261.6(b) and (c).
Your second question asks whether the regulatory interpretation
for question 1 above is affected by the hydrochloric acid
concentration in the waste. The answer to this question is no.
Whether or not the pickle liquor can continue to be used does not
affect the regulatory status of the pickle liquor at the subject
facility; the fact that the pickle liquor is being regenerated ri.e..
reclaimed) before reuse makes it a spent material. Therefore,
pickle liquor is a spent material (cannot be reused without being
regenerated) when it is taken from the pickling process for
regeneration and its status would not change baaed on the
concentration of the acid.
Your last question asks if the regulatory status of the spent
pickle liquor is dependent upon whether it is used again in the same
pickle line after on-site processing in a high temperature
"reactor/separator" to remove iron as ferric oxide. Reuse on site
after regeneration does not affect the regulatory status; however,
reuse without the pickle liquor first being regenerated or use as an
effective substitute for a commercial product would change the
regulatory status because the spent pickle liquor would no longer be
considered a solid waste (see 40 CFR 261.2(e)).
-------
If you have further questions, please call Ed Abrams at (202)
382-4787.
_ ,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.193'.41
I
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
WASHfNCTOH. D.C. 20440
I, H,
JUN -
E Of
SOLID IWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPON-
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determination on Issues Pertinent to Mixed Waste
Regulation in Colorado
FROM: J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator
TO: James J. Scherer
Regional Administrator
This is in response to Alexandra Smith's March 25, 1987,
memorandum in which a number of issues were raised regarding
the applicability of RCRA to high-level, transuranic and
low-level mixed waste.
Th* Agency published a Federal Register notice on July
3, 1986 which clarified the applicability of RCRA to radioactive
mixed waste. The notice stated that "radioactive mixed
wastes are wastes that contain hazardous wastes subject to
RCRA and radioactive wastes subject to the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA)," and that the hazardous component of such wastes are
subject to RCRA regulation. The scope of radioactive materials
defined by the AEA includes source, special nuclear, and
by-product materials. Radioactive mixed waste may include
any AEA radionuclide, regardless of further subclassif ieation
of the radioactive waste as highlevel, transuranic or low-level
waste.
Although the Nixed Energy Waste Study (MEWS) was commis-
sioned by Lee The*uas to examine the viability of a DOE proposal
for exempting high-level and transuranic mixed wastes from
RCRA jurisdiction, a final determination on this option has
not been made* However, the July 3, 1986 Federal Register
notice provides for States to receive authorization to regulate
mixed wastes, regardless whether it is high-level, transuranic,
or low-level. Therefore, even though the Rocky Flats Compliance
Agreement does not specifically include high-level or
transuranic mixed wastes, Colorado's authorization for radio-
active mixed waste gives the State the authority to regulate
those wastes. You should note, however, that based on infor-
mation given to EPA's MEWS task force, no high-level wastes
are generated or managed at Rocky Flats. I have enclosed a
copy of the final MEWS report as requested by Mr. Smith for
further information.
-------
Furthermore, I will keep you and the other Regional Admin-
istrators apprised of any developments that could potentially
affect the administration of the mixed waste program. For
example/ DOE finalized its rulemaking on the definition of
"byproduct material" on May 1, 1987 (52 FR 15937). DOE's
final rule which defines byproduct materTal as interpreted
by EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, stipulates
that the nonradioactive "hazardous component" of wastes
which heretofore may have been construed as byproduct material
is now subject to RCRA regulation. The implications of that
notice are quite far reaching since waste streams which may
have been excluded from RCRA jurisdiction under the proposed
rule are now clearly included in the RCRA system. Staff are
currently preparing an interpretative memorandum addressing
the potential implications of DOE's byproduct rule which
will be available to you in the near future.
If I can be of further assistance in clarifying issues
pertinent to mixed waste regulation, do not hesitate to
contact me.
Enclosure
-------
June 9, 1987 9441.1987(42)
Hubbard
Colonel, General Staff
Deputy Chief of Staff for
Engineering, Housing and
Installation Logistics
Department of the Army
Headquarters, U.S. Army Material Command
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333-001
Dear Colonel Hubbard:
This letter is in response to your letter (dated May 4,
1987), the letter from David Eaton (dated March 3, 1987) and my
discussion with Major Cabellon on May 12, 1987, regarding the
applicability of the use/reuse exclusion (40 CFR 261.2(e)(l)) to
red water (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K047) that is recycled. As I
explained to Major Cabellon, the use/reuse exclusion does not
apply to the red water that is generated at the Radford Army
Ammunition Plant (RAAP) and sold to the Champion Paper Company
located in Canton, North Carolina, since it is not directly used;
rather, as I understand the process, sodium sulfite that is
contained in the red water is first recovered before it is
used/reused. In addition, as it is stated in Mr. Eaton's letter,
the red water is also used for its calorific properties (i.e., as
a fuel). Under the hazardous waste regulations, any spent
material, sludge, or by-product that is listed and reclaimed
and/or used as a fuel is considered a solid and hazardous waste.
See 40 CFR §261.2(c)(2) and (c)(3). Thus, the example described
on page 2-152 to 2-153 of the EPA "Guidance Manual on the RCRA
Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Wastes" appears to be incorrect.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8851 if you
have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Branch Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
cc: Solid Waste Management Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.!9a'U5!
J* 16
Mr. Fred Kamienny
Vice President
PP^l Service, Inc.
1210 Morse
Royal Oak, Michioan 4P067
Dear Mr. Kamienny:
This responds to your letter of April 13, 19*7, recording
the regulatory status of chemotherapy drugs and related supplies.
In particular, you questioned whether the weight of the "emntv"
vial should be included in determining the amount of drug residues
to be disposed.
As you pointed out, several chemotherapy drugs are listed in
40 CFR 261.33(f) (commonly known as the U-list). An such, these
wastes are regulated under the FPA hazardous waste reoulations
(unless subject to the small quantity Generator e*clusion).
in the listing are the following discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification species, container residues, and spill
residues:
1) chlorambucii (U035)
2) cyclophosphamide (U053)
3) daunomycin (U059)
4) melphalan (U150)
5) mitomycin C (U010)
6) streptozotocin (U206)
7) uracil nustard (U237)
Under EPA regulations governing the management of hazardous
wastes, any container used to hoi* these chemicals (such an vials)
are considered hazardous wastes unless these container* meet the
criteria of an "enpty container." Under the ermty container
provision «uch vials are excluded front regulation if the material
has been removed by pouring, pumping, and aspirating, and no nor*
than 1 inch of residue remains in the bottom of the vial or no
more than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container
remains in the container. (See 40 CFP 261.7)
The Agency is aware, however, that prudent practice dictates
that materials contaminated with these chemicals (such as syrinoes,
vi a 1 a . a 1 ovo* r -y o»jn« f «p^*<^n« f ^»<-» . J j^at be ^JkAdXe^
-------
Agency recommends that the entire volume o* waste N» weighe* an*
that there be no attermt to remove any residue from the vial
before disposal.
Chemotherapy drugs that are not listed hazardous wastes are
not reculated by ?PA. "owever, you should contact your State or
local Government regarding the management of these chemicals.
Also, the National Institutes of Eealth (NIT*) provides Guidance
on handling and management of antineoplastics. Contact Tarvev
Rogers, at NIH for further information. Mr. Rogers may be reached
at (301) 496-7775.
If you should have any further questions reoarding reoiilatory
requirements for specfic wastes, you may call the PCRA Hotline at
(8.00) 424-9346, or contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (20?)
382-4805.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline W. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
9441. 195'(4ol
UNITED Sr>^ Ti= ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
WASHINGTON D ~ 20460
O*elCE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT; Methanol Recovery System; Clarification of Waste status
FROM; Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
TO; Clifford Ng, Engineer, Region II, AWM-HWF
This is in response to your memo of February 18, 1987, in which
you request our interpretation of the waste streams associated with a
specific methanol recovery process. First, I apologize for taking so
long in responding to your request. I hope this delay has not caused
you any problems.
with respect to your specific questions, the following is our
interpretation of how this process is regulated under the hazardous
waste rules:
1. Stream A, the methanol-laden air from the drying and granulation
step of the process, does not meet the definition of a solid
waste under RCRA because it is in vapor form and not confined in
a container.
2. The carbon beds that both condense and adsorb the methanol from
the air contains an F003 waste when the condensation of methanol
occurs. Therefore, stream B, the carbon/methanol mixture is to
be handled as a listed hazardous waste.
3. The solvent stripper is used to recover the spent carbon.
Therefore, this process is not subject to regulation. See 40 CFR
261.6(c)(l). However, any residues (stream C) derived from it is
considered an F003 waste. The spent carbon, which is the
recovered product, is not a solid waste.
4. Stream C, the condensed steam/methanol mixture is a hazardous
waste because it was derived from treating a hazardous waste (see
40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)) and stream C would remain a hazardous
waste, unless it is delisted under the provisions of 40 CFR
Sections 260.20 and 260.22 or is mixed with another solid waste
(see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii).
-------
5. Since stream C is hazardous (unless it is delisted or has been
mixed with a solid waste), then downstream tank 4 would be
subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Stream F is also
derived from the treatment of a hazardous waste and, therefore,
would be a hazardous waste. As you are aware, if stream F were
sent to a POTW or discharged under an NPDES permit, then it would
not be subject to RCRA regulations.
I hope this clarifies your concerns about the waste streams from
this process. If you require additional information, please feel
free to call Ed Abrams at FTS-382-4787.
-------
June 26, 1987 9441.1987(52)
Mr. Terry Husseman
Chair, Northwest Interstate
Compact Committee
Washington Department of Ecology
PV-ll
Olympia, Washington 98504
Dear Mr. Husseman:
Thank you for your letter of May 28 in which you requested
guidance on treatment and disposal methods for low-level waste
that contains uncontaminated lead used as shielding, surface
contaminated lead and activated lead.
First, I would like to address activated or radioactive
lead. As you know, lead is not a naturally occurring
radionuclide. Lead may become radioactive or activated as a
result of neutron bombardment while being used as shielding in
nuclear power plants, for example. Such activated lead, if
short-lived, may be stored to allow radioactive decay prior to
disposal. The resultant non-activated or elemental lead may be
disposed of as hazardous waste in a hazardous waste disposal
facility. If storage for decay is impractical, the activated
lead must be managed as mixed waste. You should note, however,
that in States authorized to administer the Federal mixed waste
program or in States with Federally administered hazardous waste
programs, any storage of mixed waste in excess of ninety days for
generators and ten days for transfer facilities would require a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit. Similarly,
designated storage facilities must obtain a RCRA permit.
Lead which is contaminated on the surface may be
decontaminated by a number of commercially available processes.
However, because lead is malleable and easily gouged or pitted,
radioactive contamination is often not limited to the surface and
may be imbedded in the lead itself. Where decontamination is
incomplete or contraindicated because of occupational health
considerations, the lead must be managed as a mixed waste. Also,
EPA's Office of Radiation Programs is developing a standard which
will delineate levels of radiation which are below regulatory
concern (BRC). Once BRC levels have been established, it may be
possible to dispose of lead which exhibits BRC levels of
radioactive contamination as a hazardous waste.
Lead containers or container liners which are used as
shielding in low-level waste disposal operations pose a unique
problem. Containers or container liners are not regulated by the
Agency (See 40 CFR 261.7) nor would they be a waste because they
are fulfilling intended uses. ((CF 40 CFR 261.2(c)(1)(ii)). In
this instance, containers or liners may be analogous to
commercial chemical products (e.g., pesticides) where as a
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
product, their normal use is placement on the land. Therefore,
lead whose primary use is shielding in low-level waste disposal
operations is not subject to Federal hazardous waste regulations
when placed on the land as part of its normal commercial use.
Encapsulation represents a viable mechanism for mitigating
the hazardous waste characteristic lead may exhibit upon EP
toxicity testing only in specific circumstances. The EP toxicity
test procedure requires grinding the waste into pieces not
greater than one square centimeter in size prior to extraction.
Therefore, encapsulation would result in a non-hazardous waste
only in those instances where it could be demonstrated that the
encapsulation process results in a product that would not degrade
after disposal, (i.e., is resistant to degradation or fracturing
when placed in the land disposal environment). In such
instances, you could petition the Agency to waive the EP toxicity
test requirement. Additionally, the Agency is revising existing
EP toxicity test procedures. Work is underway to develop
procedures for evaluating a waste's long term physical stability.
These procedures may then be used to demonstrate that the
encapsulated material will not degrade and allow testing of an
intact lead brick or the like, for example.
The Agency has not evaluated specific technologies for
encapsulation of lead or other wastes, nor has the Agency
performed specific laboratory analyses of materials to determine
their resistance to the EP toxicity test. However, a polymer or
some other material which maintains its integrity under
environmental stress would seem to be suitable.
In view of the urgency of the lead issue, it may be prudent
to explore the feasibility of obtaining both a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission license and an EPA permit to provide for the disposal
of mixed waste.
If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Alan Corson
Floyd Galpin
Ken Shuster
bcc: Jim Michael
Betty Shackleford
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
i AL r j\u I cu i lOH AUchCY
9441. 19 67(53;
JUN29I98T
Mr. Curtis J. 3alc«r
Safety Environmental Specialist
Moore Business Forma fc
Systems Division
3100 North Husband
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075-2199
Dear Mr. Baker:
In your letter of May 27, 19R7, you requested Agency
guidance on whether the provisions in 40 CFP. 261.4(cj pertain to
wastes subject to Part 268 (i.e., the Land Disposal Restrictions).
According to the provisions in 40 CFR 261.4(c), hazardous
wastes that are generated in a manufacturing process unit or an
associated non-waste-treatmant-manufacturing unit, are not subject
to regulation under Part 262 through 265, 270, 273. and 124 or
the notification requirements of nection 3010 of PCRA until it
exits the unit in which it was generated. In the Movenber 7,
1986, solvents and dioxins final rule, the Agency revised 40 CPR
Part 261.4(c) to include a reference to Part 26B. Therefore,
wastes generated within a manufacturing process unit likewise
are not subject to Part 268 until they exit the manufacturing
process.
The Agency has stated in its June 11, 1987, Notice of Data
Availability (52 FR 22356) that for purposes of determining
conpliance with land disposal restrictions, the initial generator
of the waste (i.e., before the waste is treated) determine*
whether the waste is subject to the 2-year national capacity
extension. Therefore, a hazardous waste which meets the requirements
in 40 CFR 261.4(c) are subject to the 2-year national variance
if it meets one or more of the following criteria (in A 266.30):
1) The generator of the solvent waste is a small quantity
generator of 100-1000 kilograms of hazardous waste
per month; or
2) The solvent is from a response action under the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CEPCLA) or any corrective action
taken under th« Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) _i •. • i or
-------
3) The solvent waste is a sol vent-water mixture, solvent-
containing sludoe, or solvent-contaminated soil (non-
CEP.CLA or RCPA corrective action) containina less than
1 percent total P001-P005 solvent constituents liste*
in Table CCWE of $ 268.41.
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns.
If you have additional questions, you may call me at (202) 382-
4770.
Sincerely,
Steohen R. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
cc: Region VI
-------
9441.193-J54
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
JUL 131957
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENC* HES?'
Mr. Wayne E. McCoy
Pfizer, Inc.
Minerals, Pigments and Metals Division
640 North 13th Street
Easton, PA 08042-1497
Dear Mr. McCoy:
This letter responds to a request from Pfizer to provide an
interpretation on the regulatory status of the lime-ammonia
stabilized iron oxide sludge that is generated at Pfizer's
Valparaiso, Indiana facility. In particular, it was asked Whether
this sludge is exempted from the hazardous waste regulations under
40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii) (i.e., exemption for lime-stabilized waste
pickle liquor sludge). Based on ay understanding of the process,
spent pickle liquor (K062) is the only waste that ia received at
the Valparaiso facility; in the course of recycling the spent
pickle liquor1/, solids are generated which are treated with
ammonia ar ' lime to produce a stabilized sludge. Under this set
of conditions, the iron oxide sludge that Pfizer generates at its
Valparaiso plant is covered under the lime-stabilized waste
pickle liquor sludge exemption. Thus, I agree with the State of
Indiana in their interpretation of the hazardous waste rules.
However, you should be aware that this waste may still be hazardous
if it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics, and
Pfizer is still responsible for making this determination.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if you
have any further questions.
I/ The spent pickle liquor is first neutralized with scrap iion.
Waste from the liquor consists of tramp dirt and foreign mate-
rials from the scrap iron and the steel mill liquor. The liq-
uor is clarified prior to using for iron oxide manufacturing
by settling out the solids. The solids are then treated to
generate the line-ammonia stabilized iron oxide sludge.
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1987(57)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL3I 1957
OFFICE OP
EM6BGESCV
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Facilities Previously
'^ ^ lV
Granted Temporary Exclus^ions/L/
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Regional Division Directors,
Management Divisions
. __ /
Hazardous Waste
Between 1980 and 1982 the Environmental Protection Agency
issued 150 temporary and informal exclusions for delisting
petitions. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) established a November 3, 1986 statutory deadline for
taking final action on these petitions. If a final decision was
not promulgated by the November deadline, the exclusions were
automatically revoked effective November 9, 1986. This memorandum
summarizes, by Region, the status of all previous temporary
exclusions in light of the November 8, 1986 statutory deadline.
Only three (Lederle Laboratories, NY; Faultless Hardware, KY ;
and Rock Island Refining, IN) of the 150 temporary exclusions
were not issued final decisions by the HSWA statutory deadline
of November 8, 1?86. Those three facilities automatically lost
their exclusions »s of November 9, 1986 and should be handling
their petitioned wastes as hazardous until a final delisting
decision is promulgated. It should also be noted that the
effective date of the final denial decisions for ail temporarily
excluded wastes has now passed and, therefore, all facilities
that had temporary exclusions for their wastes and that were denied
final exclusion, should be handling the petitioned wastes as
hazardous unless the unit closed prior to the effective date of
the final decision.
The attached status list indicates whether petitions with
temporary or informal exclusions were issued fin&l grant or denial
decisions or whether the petition was withdrawn, moot, or is still
being processed. The list also provides the effective date for
each final decision. These dates vary depending on: the type of
decision made, the basis for the decision ( i*e. , failure to submit
necessary information or results of the technical evaluation),
and the date that the final decision was published in the Federal
Register. The Federal Register citations for proposed and final
decisions are also given.
-------
-2-
The Agency notes that all final decisions that have been
promulgated pertain only to the waste(s) cited in the promulgation
notice. Any other waste management activities not included in the
delisting decision are still subject to RCRA Subtitle C or authorized
State requirements.
As a general rule, the petitioned wastes generated before
the granting of a temporary exclusion were considered hazardous
and, therefore, subjected the units handling the wastes to
Subtitle C control. The granting of a temporary exclusion for
the waste only temporarily removed the waste unit from Subtitle
C regulation. It should also be noted that the petitioned
wastes (that had been granted a temporary exclusion, but then
denied final exclusion), that were generated during the time the
temporary exclusion was in effect, are now considered hazardous
wastes. However/ if these wastes remain in the disposal unit
identified in the petition, the wastes are not subject to Subtitle
C management requirements unless they are disturbed in such a way
so as to trigger Subtitle C regulation (e.g., removed, excavated,
or mixed with other wastes). The following discussions clarify
the regulatory status of wastes that were previously granted
temporary exclusions.
Final Exclusion Granted
o The facility may continue to handle the petitioned
waste as non-hazardous within the constraints of the
granting notice and any other applicable requirements.
Final Exclusion Denied Based on the Results of the Technical
Evaluation (i.e.,the petitioner failed to show the waste to be
non-hazardous")
If the waste is disposed off-site:
o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary
exclusion is six months after publication of the Agency's
final decision in the Federal Register.
o Starting on the effective date, new waste that is generated,
as described in the petition and that would have previously
been included under the temporary exclusion, is subject to
all applicable RCRA Subtitle C or authorized State program
requirements (e.g., the facility must insure that the waste
is shipped to a RCRA hazardous waste management facility).
o While a temporary exclusion was in effect, the petitioner
was not liable for compliance with hazardous waste regula-
tions. Petitioned wastes generated while the temporary
exclusion was in effect could have been disposed of off-site
as non-hazardous. All wastes in the off-site unit must
-------
-3-
be handled in accordance with Subtitle C requirements if,
at a later date, they are managed in such a way as to
trigger Subtitle C regulation (e.g., removed from the
unit or considered to be "stored1 rather than "disposed").
If the waste is managed on-site:
o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary
exclusion is six months after publication of the Agency's
final decision in the Federal Register.
o Starting on the effective date, new waste that is generated,
as described in the petition and that would have been included
under the temporary exclusion, is subject to all applicable
RCRA Subtitle C or authorized State program requirements.
o Between 1980 and the granting of a temporary exclusion,
there was some period of time that the waste was considered
to be hazardous. Therefore, all units covered by temporary
exclusions have or should have interim status.
o If an on-site land disposal unit that received wastes
covered by a temporary exclusion, continues to receive
hazardous waste after the effective date of the final
decision, Attachment 1 provides guidance on compliance
requirements for those units.
o If an on-site land disposal unit that received wastes
covered under a temporary exclusion stops receiving all
wastes prior to the effective date of the final decision,
(and receives no other hazardous wastes), Part 265 closure
must be initiated within 90 days of the revocation of the
temporary exclusion.
o If an on-site land disposal unit that received wastes
covered under a temporary exclusion stops receiving hazardous
waste prior to the effective date of the final decision
but continues to receive solid waste, Part 265 closure must
be initiated within 90 days, and completed within 180 days,
of the revocation of the temporary exclusion. However, the
Agency intends to propose, in the near future, a rule which
may change these requirements.
o If prior to the effective date of the final decision,
waste covered under a temporary exclusion is disposed in
an on-site solid waste£/ unit, the solid waste unit is not
subject to hazardous waste regulations other than would
typically apply to a solid waste management unit. All
"Solid waste" is defined in 40 CFR 261.2(a)(l).
-------
-4-
wastes in that unit are considered hazardous and must be
handled in accordance with Subtitle C requirements i_f they
are managed in such a way as to trigger Subtitle C regulation
at a later date (e.g., they are removed and are shipped
off-site or receive further on-site treatment).
o If a unit containing only a waste covered under a temporary
exclusion closed prior to the effective date of the final
decision, the unit is not subject to hazardous waste
regulation unless later disturbed (e.g., removed, excavated).
Final Exclusion Denied Based on the Failure to Provide Information
Needed to Evaluate the Petition
o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary
exclusion was November 9, 1986. As of this date, the
waste must be managed in accordance with applicable RCRA
Subtitle C or authorized State program requirements.
o Attachment 1 provides guidance regarding LOIS compliance
requirements for petitioners with on-site land disposal
units that contain wastes once covered by a temporary
exclusion.
o Starting on the effective date, new wastes that are
generated, as described in the petition and that would
have previously been included under the temporary exclusion,
that are disposed off-site must be shipped to a RCRA hazardous
waste management facility.
The status list also shows petitions that have been withdrawn
or are considered moot.
o Petitioners that have withdrawn (i.e., the facility has
submitted a letter to the Agency requesting that its
petition be withdrawn) have lost their temporary exclusions
and should have handled their waste(s) as hazardous as of
the date the petition was withdrawn.
o Petitions that are considered moot may be moot for a variety
of reasons, including: disposal of a specific volume of
waste under a previously granted "one-time" exclusion;
cessation of production activities that generated the
waste being petitioned for delisting? or reclassification
of a particular listing. The status list identifies the
reasons a petition is considered "moot" and the date that
the petition was determined to be moot by the Agency.
-------
-5-
I hope that the attached status list and regulatory
compliance guidance is useful in coordinating the ongoing
efforts of both the Regional and State programs. Should you
have any questions regarding the attached material or require
more information on the Federal delisting program activities,
please feel free to contact Suzanne Rudzinski of the Office of
Solid Waste at FTS 382-4206. If guidance is needed in determining
appropriate compliance actions, please contact Steve Heare of
the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement at FTS 382-2207.
Attachments
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X Jeff Denit (OSW)
Enforcement Section Chiefs, Regions I-X Bruce Weddle (PSPD)
Permit Section Chiefs, Regions I-X Susan Bromm (PSPD)
Jack McGraw (OSWER) Steve Hirsch (OGC)
Gene Lucero (OWPE) Ed Reich (SSCD)
Suzanne Rudzinski (PSPD) Myles Morse (PSPD)
Steve Heare (OWPE) Delisting Staff (PSPD)
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Guidance On Compliance Requirements For Facilities That Lost
Their Temporary Exclusion But Continue To Manage The Waste On-si
-------
Guidance on Compliance Requirements For Facilities That Lost The:
Temporary Exclusion But Continue To Manage The Waste On-site
I. Requirements for facilities that had interim status, and had
other units that handled hazardous waste during the time That
the temporarily excluded waste was handled:
If the facility filed a Part A permit application, and did
not modify it to exclude the unit handling the temporarily
excluded waste, and the facility has not filed a Part B
permit application, and no decision on its permit has been
made, no further action is required by the facility.
If the facility revised its Part A permit application to
exclude the unit handling temporarily excluded waste (which
should mean that that unit handled no other hazardous waste
then the facility must make the necessary change during int
status to include this unit, under Section 270.72 or its st
analog.
- If the facility has filed a Part B permit application, but
decision on its permit has yet been made, no further action
required. The facility may need to revise its Part B permi
application, however, if the units containing the petitione
waste were not included as part of their permit application
It must also request a change in interim status as descibed
above.
If the facility received its permit, it must file for a maj
permit modification for the unit handling the temporarily
excluded waste under Section 270.41 or its state analog.
Under the existing regulations, the facility may not handle
that wast* until the permit is modified. However, the
Agency intends to propose, in the near future, a rule that
will simplify the procedures for obtaining approval to
handle new hazardous wastes.
If the petitioned waste is disposed of in an on-site surfac
impoundment, and that impoundment continues to receive the
petitioned waste four (4) years after the date of promulgat
of the final denial decision, the petitioner must comply
with Section 3005(j)(6) of RCRA which requires that the
impoundment be retrofitted to meet minimum technological
requirements of Section 3004(o)(1)(A) of RCRA. Accordingly
the deadline for complying with the minimum technological
requirements for surface impoundments is four (4) years
after the date of promulgation of the final denial decision
-------
-2-
II. Requirements for facilities that may have lost interim status
because of failure to certify compliance:
If other units handling hazardous waste at the facility
required certification on November 8, 1985, but did not
certify/ those units lost interim status. However, if a
unit handled only temporarily excluded wastes, that unit
did not lose interim status. (See 50 FR_ 38946, September
25, 1985.) We recommend that you inspect these units to
verify that they are in compliance with all applicable
regulations.
III. Requirements for facilities that handled only temporarily
excluded wastes;
- If the facility had interim status and has filed a Part A
permit application, and did not modify its Part A to exclude
the unit handling the temporarily excluded waste, no further
action is required by the facility.
If the facility withdrew its Part A permit application,
the facility still has interim status, however, the facility
must reinstate its Part A under Section 270.10(a) and (e)
or their state analogs.
- If the facility has filed a Part B permit application,
but no decision on its permit has yet been made, no
further action is required by the facility. The facility
may need to revise its Part B permit application, however,
if the units containing the petitioned waste were not
part of their permit application (i.e., if the permit
application addresses only new units that are yet to be
constructed). We do not believe that any facilities
which handled only temporarily excluded wastes have
received a permit.
- If the facility handled only temporarily excluded waste,
it wa« not required to do anything to retain interim status
under Section 3005(e)(2) of RCRA. (See 50 PR 38946, Sep-
tember 25, 1985.) The facility is not subject to Section
3005(e)(3) of RCRA.
-------
9441.1987 (56)
UNIYEF ^TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 204«0
JUL 3 I 1987
w SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Regarding Briquet ting
of Flue Dust
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director.
Office of Solid Waste (W&-
TO: Judith Kertcher, Acting Chief
Solid Waste Branch, Region V (5HS-13)
This is in response to your June 25, 1987, memorandum
in which you asked for a regulatory interpretation regarding
flue dust (K061) that is nixed with sodium silicate binder
and pressed into briquettes for use in steel production by
the original waste generators. The regulatory provision that
covers this situation is 40 CFR §261.2(e)(i)(i), which provides
that a material is not a solid waste whew it is v>**d or reused
as an ingredient in am industrial process to make a product,
without first bcift? zttelt.i&edU (See 50 CFR 638-63$;
January 4, 1985.) X» th* Dehli industrial Products, Inc.
case/ you have indicated that the briquette*® sad* fsom the
flue dxist are returned to the original generators (under
batch toiling agreements) who use them in &teel production.
As explained below, .our conclusion is that the flue dust is
not a solid waste.*./ The answers to your specific questions are
as followss
1. The fact that the flue dust is generated, removed
from the site of generation, and later returned
to the generator does not alter the regulatory
status of the recycled material. The storage of
the flue dust is not regulated either at the
generator's or the recycler's site provided that the
flue dust is not speculatively accumulated.
ITIn taking this position, we assume that the flue dust is
~ actually providing materials useful to steel production.
See the discussion at 50 FR 638-639, January 4, 1985, for
guidance on identifying "sKam recycling" operations.
-------
2. The fact that batch tolling agreements are in place
also does not affect the regulatory status of the
recycled material.!/ Such agreements would
probably help a generator satisfy the burden of
proof ($261.2(f)) to document that the generator's
material is not solid waste.
3. The addition of sodium silicate binder to the flue
dust does not change the regulatory status of the
recycled material. EPA has said that briquetting of
dry wastes to facilitate resmelting (and this would
include the addition of a binding material) is not
reclamation. (See 50 FR 639; January 4, 1985.)
4. The process in question is probably not a closed
loop system. The issue here is not whether the
waste is recycled on or off site, because nothing
in §261.2(e)(l)(iii) limits the closed-loop exemption
to on-site recycling. Rather, information available
to EPA indicates that facilities such at Dehli* (i.e.,
electric arc furnaces) typically use scrap steel as
feedstock. As such, the operation does not meet the
condition in $261.2(e)(1)(iii) that the recycled material
be returned as a substitute for raw material feedstock,
and that the process must use raw materials as princi-
pal feedstocks. In this case (scrap steel) the flue
dust substitutes for a secondary material, not a
raw material.
2]On April 4, 1983, EPA proposed a conditional exemption for
~~ hazardous waste recycled under batch tolling agreements.
(See 48 FR 14494-14495.) EPA rejected this exemption
in the final rule. (See 50 PR 643; January 4, 1985.)
-------
9441.193
AUG 7'987
Mr. William s. Harer
CHEM-CLEAR
992 Old Eagle School Road
Suite 915
Wayne, PA 19087
Dear Mr. Harer:
This is response to your letter of May 12, 1987, in which
you requested an interpretation regarding the regulatory status
of a waste generated by one of your clients. Specifically, the
waste in question is generated by caustic rinsing metal parts
that have been cleaned with a solvent containing over 10%, by
volume, trichloroethylene.
•
The Agency does not consider small amounts of solvent
carried over on the metal parts from solvent degreasing to meet
the listing description of a spent solvent. Therefore, if any
solvent is carried over into the caustic rinse w&tft*;, the
mixture rule would not be applicable. Thus, the caustic rinse
water would only be a hazardous waste if it exhibits one of the
hazardous waste characteristics [ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity]« Since your
caustic rinse water does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, as was demonstrated by your client's analytical
results, the caustic rinse water would not appear tcs be a
hazardous waste under the Federal hazardous waste regulations.
However, you should be aware that the State's ht-zerdous waste
regulations may be more stringent than the federal hazardous
waste rules. Therefore, you should contact a representative
from the State to determine the waste's regulatory status under
the State's hazardous waste program.
If you require additional information, please contact Ed
Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
"•"%
9441. 193T{ :i:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN<
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
AUG I 2 1987
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Roy Lee Tate
804 Sugarloaf Lane
Anniston, Alabama 36201
Dear Mr. Tate:
This is in response to your letter of July 17, in which you
requested an interpretation of whether and how the RCRA hazardous
waste regulations apply to a zinc oxide dust being recycled. The
dust is considered a sludge under 40 CFR S261.2. The status of
the sludge is as follows:
1.
If any material recovered from the sludge is sent for
fertilizer use, the sludge is subject to 40 CFR $261. 6(b)
and (c), the requirements for recyclable materials.
(When a sludge is used as fertilizer, it is a solid
waste. See 5261.2(3).
2.
The leach residues that are sent for metals* recovery f
once completely reclaimed, are not solid waste. (See
5261.2(e). )
In the case where a given quantity of sludge is reclaimed
both for metals recovery and for fertilizer use, the sludge would
be subject to 5261. 6(b) and (c) prior to reclamation because some
of the sludge was used in a manner constituting disposal.
Finally, you should note that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia reached a decision on July 31, 1987,
that calls into question EPA's authority to regulate certain waste
recycling activities. EPA is studying the opinion to determine
its scope. Because the Court has not yet issued its mandate, the
regulations currently in the Code of Federal Regulations defining
what is "solid waste," and establishing regulations for recycled
hazardous waste, remain in effect.
T7In contrast, if the reclaimed zinc oxide is sent to produce
zinc sulfate (and not for fertilizer), then the sludge is not
solid waste and is not subject to the hazardous waste regula-
tions. See S261.2(c)(3).
-------
-2-
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-6676.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441. 193" -;64'
.•*3'"%
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEZTi,.-, A^C
WASHINGTON 0 C 20460
AUG I 3 !98T
Mr. Lawrence H. Harmon
10804 Longmeadow Drive
Damascus, Maryland 20872
Dear Mr. Harmon:
This letter is in response to your July 24, 1987 inquiry
regarding the regulation and management of used cranJccase
oil. The EPA does not regulate disposal of used oil by
"do-it-yourselfers". In fact, in the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), Congress exempted all household
wastes from the hazardous waste regulations. We do, however,
have minimal regulations in place, and are considering others,
that will regulate the waste oil industry. We believe these
regulations will encourage recycling options. We are keenly
aware of the problems of disposal by the do-it-yourself
community, and are developing a program to address these
problems. An important component of this program will be
public education. Some States already have regulatory and
informational programs in place.
In the meantime, do-it-yourselfers do have alternatives to
throwing their waste oil in the trash. Many service stations
do accept waste oil from the public (sometimes charging a
small fee), while others do not. We believe this situation is
the result of market forces, and not the result of EPA
regulation of the industry. The Agency strongly encourages
service stations to provide collection facilities, and for
do-it-yourselfers to use those facilities (enclosure).
In response to your specific regulatory questions, we are
also enclosing copies of our current used oil regulations.
These regulations provide for controls on used oil fuel and
hazardous waste fuel (including contaminated waste oil) burned
for energy recovery. There are different regulatory
requirements for different categories of used oil. For
example, "clean" used oil meeting specifications would be
relatively free from regulation, while off-specification used
oil and hazardous waste fuels (including used oil that has
been mixed with a hazardous waste) would be subject to
increasingly greater degrees of regulation. No federal
permits are presently required for used oil collection,
transportation, recycling, or disposal activities.
-------
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact
David Tomten of my staff at (202) 382-3298.
Sincerely,
^ - AV^I /* '•
Marci'a S'Ti Williams
Director, Office of Solid Waste
<*>
Enclosures
-------
3441.I9S"(6 5
0 Sf P.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AJJ6 IT 667
Mr. E.H. Phillippe
ttanager, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs
Virginia Chemicals, Inc.
801"water Street
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Dear Mr. Phillippei
The Permits and State Programs Division (P6PD) has completed
a review of your petitions requesting exclusions under 40 CFR
§260.20 and §260.22 of the still bottoms from the recovery of
methanol (EPA Hazardous Waste No. POO3) generated at Virginia
Chemicals' Leeds, South Carolina (10668) and Bucks, Alabama
(10660) facilities.
We understand that these still bottoms are ultimately
sold as a co-product to users in the pulp and pap«r industry.
According to your letter of May 8, 1987, it is cle&F that
the delisting criteria are not applicable to your co-product at
the time of sale as a result of mixture with a solid waste.
Based on 40 CPR §261.3(a)(2)(iii), a mixture of a solid
waste (e.g., off-specification sodium hydroeulfite) with a hegardou's
waste listed solely because it exhibits a characteristic specified
in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C (e.g., your petitioned P003 wastes)
is not a hazardous waste if it no longer exhibits any hazardous
waste characteristic identified in Subpart C. The delisting
criteria of 40 CFR $260.22(c)(2) do not apply to mixtures of
wastes where 40 CFR §261.3(a)(2)(iii) applies. In such a case,
it is the responsibility of the generator to demonstrate to
themselves and to responsible state (or other) authorities that
the resultant mixture does not exhibit the hazardous waste
characteristics.
Although the co-product as sold is subject to 40 CFR
§261.3(a)(2)(iii), the still bottoms generated from the
recovery of methanol are still considered hazardous at the
source of generation. These still bottoms, therefore, are
subject to all applicable hazardous waste management regulation*,
unless delisted.
-------
V/e understand that you still wish to pursue a delistinc of
the ctill hot tons. Additional information, however, is necessary
before we can complete our review of your petitions. • We have
evaluated the analytical data of your petitions using the vertical
and horizontal spread (VHS) model (see 5C FK 48G86-4G9G7, November
17, 1935). We use this model to predict constituent concentrations
in the ground water at a hypothetical compliance point located
500 feet downgradient from the site. The VHS model uses the
maximum annual waste generation rats and the maximum leachate
concentrations as inputs to determine the amount of dilution
that may occur in an underlying aquifer. The results of the
moael (i.e., the calculated compliance point concentrations) are
compared with the Agency's level of regulatory concern for each
constituent.
The maximum allowable EP levels that could be exhibited by
the wastes without failing the VHS model evaluation would be
C.315 ppn for arsenic, chromium, lead, and silver; 0.063 ppm for
cadmium and selenium; and 0.0126 ppm for mercury. Any extract
levels above these concentrations would generate levels (at the
compliance point) greater than the National Interim Primary
Drinhing hater Standards of 0.05 ppm for arsenic, chromium, lead,
and silver; of 0.01 ppm for cadmium and selenium; and of 0.002
ppm for mercury. These constituents were not reported as detected
in any of the still hot ton samples, however, the analytical
detection limits exceeded the maximum allowable levels and were
higher then detection limits typically achieved for similar
waste matrices. Therefore, before we can complete our evaluation,
new test results (using detection limits which do not exceed the
maximum allowable concentrations) must be provided on a minimum
of four representative samples from each facility.
The new samples should be grab samples collected on a weekly
basis. Based on the analyses conducted as a result of the spot
check sampling visit at your Leeds, South Carolina, facility on
March 9, 1967, the sample from the distillation column contained
less than 0.5% filterable solids. The spot check analysis for
the EP metals and nickel, therefore, did not include EP toxicity
testing and instead included direct or total constituent analysis,
as directed by 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II. We recommend, there-
fore, that you collect two samples on each sampling occasion for
analysis of the t'P metals and nickel levels, one of which is not
preserved for the EP toxicity testing, and one of which is
preserved for the tot41 constituent analysis. If your analyses
of the unpreserved samples also indicate that the samples contain
leas than 0.5% filterable solids, then total constituent analyses
should be conducted on the preserved samples. When results are
submitted for these analyses, please indicate whether or not each
sample contained less than 0.5% filterable solids (i.e., whether
or not the samples were subjected to extraction or direct analysis).
If the samples contained less than 0.5% filterable solids, then
the total constituent data generated by the analyses will be
evaluated using the VHS model.
-------
• MM « % ««**••**/ I MA<4*« VWUWVIIte* «fc «WM« W» «WVJ A MM ••ALII •!«
known to cause substantial interferences when analyzed by ZCP
or AA furnace apectroscopy* based on previous analyses, your
waste »«y contain high concentrations of sodium salts and*
therefore, analysis should involve an Approach to alleviate
this problem* A possible alternative approach would include
handling the staples as "seawaters* and preparing the staples
by fcPA-approved seawater techniques to eliminate the high
sodium interferences (Method 9.2 in EPA 'Methods for Chemical
Analysis of fcater and Hastes', 1983). A full description of
analytical methods used should accompany your suhmittsl*
In addition* our review of your latest subvittala of October
22 and 24, 1986 and of April 1, 1987 Indicates that the following
additional information is also necessary!
1) For each facility, results of total constituent and CP
leachate analysis for cyanide on a minimum of four
representative sasples front each facility* Saraples
collected for tP tozicity analysis should not be preserved.
Distilled water instead of acetic acid should be used
during the analysis* The detection licit should not
exceed the »axinun allowable level of 1*26 ppm for cyanide.
*ethod 9012 found in Chapter 7 of 'Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste*, November 1986, EPA Publication
sw-846, Third Edition, should b*> followed for the deter*
mination of total cyanide. The appropriate approach for
alleviating interferences caused by suliides should be
followed because your waste contains these compounds.
2) The nanes and professional qualifications of those
personnel conducting any aaepling at each facility
and any analyses conducted in support of your petition
(a brief resume will suffice)*
3) For each facility, a statement of certification siqned by
an authorised representative and worded as indicated in
40 CPR 5260.22
-------
la »till necessaryi
1) For each feelii /, • •> e*r icit atatenent exr»lainin
-------
9441.193" '55'
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 87
6. Solid Waste Classification
An electronics manufacturer uses a wave soldering operation to imprint
circuit boards. A "hot tin pot" containing a large mass of molten tin-
lead solder is used as the source for the imprinting procedure. Solder
fron the pot is fed into the wave operation via a gulley or channel,
and residual or excess solder is fed directly back into the pot for
reuse. The solder becomes contaminated over time with copper and gold
fron the circuit boards and is no longer usable. The contents of the
pot are then solidified in a large block and sent for gold recovery and
solder reclamation. Would the block of solder be classified as a
spent material, scrap metal, by-product or off specification
commercial chemical product?
The contents of the "hot tin pot" would be classified as a spent
material. Spent materials, per 50 FR 618, are materi?ls that have
been used and are no longer fit for use without being regenerated,
reclamed or otherwise reprocessed. The material would not meet
the scrap metal classification because it is not a metal product
discarded after consumer use or metal turning or fine. It would
also be excluded fron the off specification commercial chemical
product category due to its prior use.
Source: Steve Silverman (202) 382-7706
Research: Andy O'Hare
-6-
-------
.«
T, 9441.1987(68
8 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE.,- .
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
August 19, 1987
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. G. Thomas Manthey
Executive Vice President
SW Incorporation
P.O. BOX B
Saukville, WI 53080
Dear Mr. Manthey:
This is in response to your letter of July 22, 1987, regarding
classification of mixtures of listed and characteristic hazardous
wastes. First, you asked how to classify two waste streams in the
"optional" block of the manifest. There are no EPA or other fed-
eral regulations mandating what wastes are to be placed in the
optional boxes of the manifest. These boxes were purposely left
blank so that each State could decide what should be included
there. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) does require
the EPA waste codes to be placed in the "U.S. DOT Shipping Descrip-
tion" box, along with the waste's proper shipping name, hazard
class, and ID number. (See 49 CFR Parts 171 and 172, and the
discussion at 52 FR 4824; February 17, 1987.) Each waste in a
waste mixture must be described, i.e., in your examples, you have:
(1) F003 and D001; and
(2) U239 and D001.
Your second question concerned whether you are conducting
treatment. From the information you provided, I do not think you
are conducting treatment. Merely placing different wastes into
the same tank truck is not treatment. Under RCRA Section 1004(34),
"treatment" means:
"... any method, technique, or process, including
neutralization, designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or composition
of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such
waste or so as to render such waste nonhazardous,
safer for transport, amenable for recovery ..."
-------
-2-
In your example, the different wastes that are blended together
each appears to be a fuel in its own right. The blending^does
not appear to accomplish any of the purposes set out in the
Statute, and therefore does not appear to be treatment.
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.ISjTi':,
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SOLID AASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
-------
-2-
The exact application of the above mentioned test to the
San facility will be discussed in our follow-up guidance. How-
ever, as was indicated to Gerald Lenssen of your staff several
months ago, the Sun tests should involve the evaluation of a
minimum of twelve samples of each of the streams under consider-
ation. If Sun has been advised of the Agency's information
needs and sampling has been conducted, we would appreciate your
forwarding the results to us for use as an illustrative example
in the final guidance. Regardless of the availability of the
sampling information, we will be providing guidance within a
month.
Ben Smith and Jim Craig of my staff have been assigned to
the preparation of the guidance. They may be reached on. PTS
numers 382-4791 and 382-2791, respectively. Do not hesitate to
contact them, if you require addtional information, in advance
of the final guidance.
-------
9441. 193T
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
Manufacturing Process Units
A nanufacturing process unit that holds methylene
chloride is located within a building that is slated for
demolition. If the owner/operator (o/o) of the unit
closes the building and ceases to operate the unit, how
long does the o/o have before the methylene chloride
must be shipped off-site7
F .r s t , the owner/operator of the unit should
determine if the mechylene chloride would be
regulated as a hazardous waste. If the methylene
chloride is a spent material it would be regulsced
as a solid waste if disposed of, used in a manner
constituting disposal, burned for energy recovery,
reclaimed, or accumulated speculatively (Section
251.2(c)(l), (2), (3), and (4)). If the spent
methylene chloride solution contained, before use.
ten percent (10T) or more methylene chloride, it.
would meet either the F001 or F 0 0 2 listings in
Section 261.31 and subsequently would also be
regulated as a hazardous waste, assuming the
methylene chloride regulated was utilized for its
solvent properties. If the methylene chloride is *
commer;ial chemical product and not a spent
material, it would be regulated as a solid waste if
used in a manner constituting disposal, disposed
of, or burned for energy recovery (Section
26l.2(c)(l) and (2)). If the product is reclaimed
or accumulated speculatively it would not be
regulated as a solid waste (Section 251.2(c)(3) and
(4)). If the solvent is disposed of, used in a
•nanner constituting disposal, or burned for energy
recovery it is a solid waste and, due to the fact
that it would meet the U 0 8 0 listing in Section
26l.33(f) it would also be regulated as a hazardous
waste.
-------
9441.1967
v r vi o 9 ^ \J 0 'J v
S'JSJECF: 9eaul.3t.orv Status of Spent Acids Used as a
Floccuiant in Irrigation Water
•
•POM: Robert Scarberry, Acting Chief
waste Characterization Branch
TO: Bill Taylor, Chief
Enforcement Section (6H-CE)
Region VI
This is in response to your memo of August 14, 1987, re-
questing guidance on the regulatory status of spent acids used
as a flocculant in irrigation water. Spent acids used in this
manner are essentially a type of water conditioner, and as such,
are not solid waste. (See 50 PR 619 and 628, January 4, 1985;
and 48 £R 14485, April 4, 1983.)
If you have additional questions in this area, please
contact Michael Petruska of my staff at PTS 475-6676.
-------
3441.1967CM:
1987
John J. McDonnell, P.E.
District Engineer
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.
P.O. Box 1309
Calumet City, IL 60409
Dear Mr. McDonnell:
This letter responds to a request from Waste Management of
Illinois to provide an interpretation on the regulatory status of
lime-stabilized sludge generated during the treatment of waste pickle
liquor from the iron and steel industry. In particular, it was asked
whether this sludge is exempted from the hazardous waste regulations
under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii) (i.e.. exemption for lime-stabilized
waste pickle liquor sludge). Based on my understanding of the
process, spent pickle liquor (K062) is received from the iron
steel industry at the CID-Calumet City facility and is stored
treated separately from other wastes. The treatment consists-, of
neutralizing the spent pickle liquor with lime and landfilling the
stabilized sludge generated. As you are aware, the treatment (&s
described above) of K062 waste requires a RCRA permit.
Under these conditions, the stabilized sludge generated by the
treatment of spent pickle liquor at the CID-Caluaet City facility is
covered under the lime-stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge
exemption. However, you should be aware that this waste may still be
hazardous if it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics,
and Waste Management of Illinois is still responsible for making this
determination.
Pleas* feel free to give Ed Abram* of my staff a call at (202)
382-4787 if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
.SSE
JM"D S'ATES ENVIRONMENTAL C.= OTECT!N A 94 41 ' 198 7 (7 5 >
AGENC
A s H : N c * - s 3 r : : 4 6 o
4 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Requlatory Interpretation Regarding Status of Coal Tar
Decanter Sludge waste Pile at Toledo coke Corp., Toledo, OH
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director (WH-562)
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Chief (5HS-13)
Solid Waste Branch
This memo is in response to your request for assistance in
interpreting 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii); as it applies to the storage of
coal tar decanter sludge in a waste pile prior to recycling at the
Toledo Coke plant in Toledo, Ohio. Toledo Coke is claiming that the
waste pile, which once existed on site, qualifies for exemption under
40 CFR 261.6(a) (3) (vii) . Region V does not concur with the claiv. for
exemption.
40 CFR 26l.6(a)(3)(vii) exempts the products coke and coal tar
made from recycled decanter tank tar sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste
K087) from Subtitle C regulation. This exemption does not perUaJn to
the decanter tank tar sludge stored for recycle* Furthermore, the
exemption under 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(iii) "Return*** to the original
process from which they are generated, without first being reclaimed
", also does not pertain to this wast* pile because the.
manufacture of coke is producing a fuel. This fuel is used as a
reducing agent during the production of iron. Therefore, in
accordance with 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2)(ii) the waste pile (EPA Hazardous
waste K087) at Toledo Coke's plant is subject to the federal
hazardous waste regulations.
If you require additional information, please feel free to
contact Ed Abraas of my staff at (202) 382-4787.
-------
9441.1987(76
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Applicability of Bevill Amendment to the
American Natural Gas Coal Gasification Facility
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Christina Kaneen
Assistant General Counsel for RCRA
Robert L. Duprey, Director
Region VIII, Waste Management Division
we have reviewed your memorandum of May 1, 1987, your undated
memorandum received June 17, 1937, and the Planning Research
Consultants (PRO report, regarding the applicability of the RCRA
mining waste and the combustion ash waste ('utility waste0) exclu-
sions (which are both part of the "Bevill Amendment*) to the
American Natural Gas (ANG) coal gasification facility. We have
also reviewed ANG's Kay 13, 1987, letter on this subject and our
staff met with Larry wapensky of your staff.
Regarding the applicability of the combustion ash waste
exclusion (Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i)) to the ANG operation, ANG's
operations include controlled oxygen-starved combustion of coal.
Coal ash produced in the gasifiers from this combustion is eauiva-
lent to coal ash (from the same co&l type) produced in utility
operations. In Gary Dietrich's letter to Paul Emler, dated
January 13, 1981, he stated that combustion wastes were excluded
from Subtitle C regulation by the Bevill Amendment providing
fossil fuel constituted at least 50 percent of the fuel mix.
Assuming that co&l constitutes at least 50% of ANG's fuel mix,
the combustion ash waste exclusion would apply to the ash from
the ANG operation.
Regarding the applicability of the mining waste exclusion
to ANG's operations, we agree with you that the exclusion for
"solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, And processina
-------
- 2 -
of ores or minerals' (the •mining waste exclusion") in RCRA Section
3001(b)(3)(A)(ii), applies to the coal gasification process. This
is consistent with the position taken in the January 21, 1981,
memorandum from Alfred Lindsey to Terry Thoem in which Mr. Lindsey
stated chat the lining waste exclusion clearly extends to retorting
of shale and "to direct gasification and liquefaction of coal or
the wastes produced by those operations.p
Analyzing ANG's wastes under the mining waste exclusion, we
agree with your conclusion that wastes from the following units
are generated from the primary beneficiation or processing of *
mineral (i.e., coal), and are, therefore, excluded from reaulation
under RCRA Subtitle C by the mining waste exclusion:
The Gasification Units
The Raw Gas Cooling and Shift
Conversion Units
The Sectisol Unit
The Methanation Unit
However, we disagree with your analysis of the regulatory
status of wastes resulting fro* operations that are not in the
direct line of producing synthetic natural gas. We believe that
the ANG operations that treat the gas liquor, the waste gases,
and the cooling tower blowdown are also exempt from Subtitle C.
we note that EPA has previously recognized that residues are
exc^ud^d from regulation if thev derive from treatment of wastes
generated from mining waste*For instance, EF4 suspended the
listings of several such wastes when Congress enacted the
raining waste exclusion. See 46 PR 4614 (January 16, 1981) and
46 F_R 27473 (May 20, 1931). See also the attached letter from
Janes Scarbrough, EPA Region IV, to John Stubbs.
we do not believe the wastes from these units become subject
to RCRA Subtitle C if the treatment yields a useful by-product.
Certain units at ANG's plant produce, from the liquid waste
streams, materials which are to varying extents reused in the
plant or sold. These include sulfur, tar oils, phenol and
ammonia. In hiS Hay 16, 1985, memorandum to Barry Seraydarian,
John Skinner stated that leachate generated from slag and clinker
wastes was exempt under the mining waste exclusion because the
leachate was derived from an exempt waste. He stated further
that "the situation would be different if the slag or clinker
were used as a raw material for some extractive process and a
listed or hazardous vaste resulted. Under this scenario, the
hazardous waste would fall outside the mining waste exclusion."
we feel that this position is contrary to waste reduction goals.
It is not environmentally beneficial to create a situation in
which treating a waste for recovery of useful materials is subject
to Subtitle C regulations whereas disposal of the untreated wastes
-------
would be exeBpt fro* RCRA. we believe that wastes from th«
following units art exempt fro* Subtitl« C because these opera-
tion* constitute treatment of mininq wastes:
The Stretford Unit
The Gaa Liquor Separation Unit
The Phenosolvan Unit
Th« Phosan M Unit
Similarly, we celieve the cooling tower Slowdown and related
wastes are also exempt as wastes fron ore processing. The
January 21, 1981, memorandum from Alfred w. Lindaey'renardins th«
RCHA status of wastes fro* synfuels processes, inciudir.c ccal
gasification, states that the mining waste exclusion 'extends to
wastes produced froa the process ... provided they are unique to
the 'ore' processing operation* (However the] ... exemption
does not extend to wastes... which are not unique to synfuels
operations like spent cleaning solvents, cooling tower blowdown,
ana ion exchange regeneration wastes.*
We believe Mr. Linasey's statement regarding cooling tower
blowdown is best interpreted as only applying to blowdown fror
industrial cooling apparatus which is incidental to raking
synfuels. The composition of the blowdown fro* such cooling
towers is not dictated by (i.e., is not 'uniquely associated
with") the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and
minerals. ANG's coolinq tower receives the liquid treated waste
stream fro* a mining process. The blowdowr procedure is used to
re*ove from the cooling tower contaminants contributed by this
liquid waste strea*. In the case,of the A»:a operation, the ANG
coolinij tower olowdown is a pollution control residue which is
derived fron waste produced in the coal gasification process (in-j
is thus "uniquely associated* with the coal gasification r.rccess).
\s such, it is excluded fron regulation.
1 This is consistent with our position on ether lane volume
wastes. For example, cooling tower blowdown fro* fossil-fuel
fired electric utility cooling towers is currently exempt *nd is
under study in a forthcoming Report to Congress. Thus, the A."^
units listed fcelow treat an excluded waste, i.e., ccollnr tower
blowdown, so the wastes froa these units are also excluded fro?
regulations
The Cooling Tower unit
The Hultiole Effect evaporator unit
The Liquid Waste Incineration Unit
The Gasifier Ash Handling System
Proc this analysis, we conclude that two of the ten wastes
you list on page 2 of your ray 1, 1987, *enorandu* attachment as
•potentially regulated* are not excluded froc potential regulation
under RCRA Subtitle C:
-------
1. wastes froB cleaning ooerationa, vehicle ealntenance
operation*, container atoraae areas and laboratory
area** and wastes fro? the otly water separation
systeie.
2. Spent aethanol catalyst froa the wethanol plant.
Regarding the flue gas and ash wastes froa the stean
generation syst**, insufficient data are available fron the ?«c
report to determine the status of these wastes.
Finally, you requested our view on the reinjection of the
multiple effect Evaporator liouid waste concentrate into th*
Tasifiers. Since the vast majority of the inout to the lasifier
is an ore or mineral (i.e. coal), the waste fro* this unit would
renain excluded from regulation even if the NC2 waste -ras were
net «xe»pt frc* Subtitle C* This is consistent with our position
in previous correspondence regarding the status of ore processing
witn .nixed feedstocks (e.g, neaorandu* from Mareia Williams to
Davic wagoner, dated June 1C, 19o6i aeaorandu* fro* John Lehman
to Phil Bobel, dated April 4, 1984) and letter from John Lehman
to O.M. Friedman, dated Aunust 22, 1983 (all attached)).
In conclusion, we recognize the ANG facility Is essentially
a aevill operation producing Bevill wastes which are currently
excluded froie RCRA Subtitle C regulations* The two exceptions
listed aoove ace still potentially subject to Subtitle C
regulation.
tee do want to stress that the exemption fro* Subtitle C
Kay be temporary. The exemption of any wastes froa processing
an oca or aineral can oe lifted ey *PA aft?r providing a *eoort
to Conoress that addresses the factors identified under Section
bOJ2(f) of PCRA. Purtr.er, we *.ave serious reservations as to
whether the operations at the ANG facility would remain exempt,
were the facility to te reconfigured tc conduct significant
organic chemical synthesis with'the synthetic natural Tat or
Wie 9as liquor as a feedstock.
<*hile we nope the aoove discussion clarifies cur review cf
tn« legal status of the various units at the facility, we r*coi-
nize that exempt wastes can be of envlronnental concern, ther?
are other autr.orities under RCBA for octal nine information and
for taking corrective actions as appropriate. 4e encoura-re vou
to use these authorities to investigate and address health or
environmental impacts.
12 you have any questions, please contact: aen
(PTS/475-7242) of OSW "or «eg Silver (PTS/382-770
-------
?441. 125
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMHARY
SEPTEMBER 87
3. Waste Identification
A company generates aerosol paint and solvent cans fron
painting and cleaning operations. The cans are empty as
per common industry practices used to empty such devices
to less than 3% by weight of the total capacity of che
container (40 CFR 261.7(b)<1(i) & (iii>>. The'cans nay
still contain propellant, making the cans reactive if
put in contact with a strong initiating force (i.e.,
intense pressure or heat). Since for all practicable
purposes the cans are free of contents that might have
been hazardous wastes, would this be regulation of the
aerosol cans themselves? RIL »43 specifically excluded
the regulation of the cans, and solely addressed only
the potentially hazardous contents. Therefore, would
aerosol cans free of hazardous waste, but still
potentially reactive because of contained propellant be
regulated as hazardous waste?
Irrespective of the lack of contained waste, che
aerosol cans would be a RCRA hazardous waste
because they demonstrate the hazardous
characteristic'of reactivity (40 CFR 261. 23(a><6> > .
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475-6676
Research: Andy o'Hare
-------
9441.1937(73:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
.-— 3 1567
>^v» . VJ
office of
SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Mr. J. Patrick Nicholson, Director
National Kiln Dust Management Association
P.O. Box 68106
Toledo, Ohio 43636
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1987, concerning
cement kiln dust. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
not conducted the study on cement kiln dust as described in the
1980 amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). We are aware, however, of the U.S. Bureau of Mines
Finding that dust poses a relatively low hazard.
In response to your question regarding the environmental
problems attributed to the burning of hazardous waste in cement
kilns, I would like to describe the following studies we have
conducted. In a June 3, 1V87, report, "Hazardous Waste
Combustion in Industrial Processes: Cement and Lime Kilns," LrA
studied the burning of hazardous waste fuel (HWF) in cement
kilns. Results show that as the metal content of HWF and the
amount of HWF increase, the moral levels in Kiln dunt increase.
The principal metal that exhibits this increase? iu lead.
however, the highly oxidizing environment of cement kilns
convert most metals to the oxide form, including lead to lead
oxide (PbO). The very low solubility of PbO, coupled with the
high concentrations of calcium compounds, result in. a minimal
leaching of lead from the kiln dust. Tests have shown that kiln
dust generated during the use of HWF contains elevated lead
levels, but the lead is not extracted to levels above the
maximum permissible concentrations specified by the Extraction
Procedure I-...city test. (See 40 CFR 261.24.)
EPA has also studied the impact on air quality by lead
emissions when HWF is used in cement kilns. From the
above-referenced report, EPA concluded the following:
"Lead emissions and the lead content of process dust
increase when hazardous waste, contaminated with
significant quantities of lead, are burned. However,
baseline emissions (no waste being burned) of lead are
very low to begin with and, although emissions do
increase with waste burning, more than 99 percent of
the lead emissions entering the process is captured by
the process materials, and the resulting emission rates
are not significant."
-------
Moreover, on May 6, 1987, EPA proposed a regulation to
control emissions of toxic metals, organic compounds, and
Hydrogen chloride from cement kilns and other industrial
furnaces and boilers that burn hazardous waste. The final rule
is scheduled to be promulgated in Fall, 1988.
With respect to issuing guidance on cement kiln dust, we do
not plan on issuing specific guidance because we still consider
this substance as non-hazardous and, therefore, out of the
purview of EPA hazardous waste regulations. However, we will
refer your letter to the Bureau of Mines for possible
assistance.
Thank you for your interest in cement kiln dust. If I can
be of any further assistance, please let me know.
^sincerely
Porter
'Assistant Administrator
\J
-------
9441.1937(83;
- 5 £67
Mr. Michael Mclaughlin
Vice President
SCS Engineers
11260 Roger Bacon Drive
Reston, VA 22090-5282
Dear Mr. Mclaughlin:
This is in response to your letter of September i, 1987, to
Matt Straus, concerning regulation of supernatant liquid resulting
from treatment of spent pickle liquor (EPA waste K062).
In the situation you have described, the impoundment would be
a regulated unit under RCRA if it stores any supernatant liquid
from the lime-stabilization of waste pickle liquor. The super-
natant forms during clarification of the lime-stabilized mixture.
The preamble to the June 5, 1984 Federal Register (49 FR 23284)
states that "... sludge from the treatment of spent pickle liquor
(K062) is generated by a well known technique involving lime
neutralization, flocculation, clarification, and, in most cases,
dewatering of the resultant sludge.
According to Agency policy (see OSWER Directive number
9441.12184) attached), the exclusion under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)
applies to the sludge generated from the treatment process, but not
the supernatant liquid. Because Section 261.3(c)(2)(ii) does not
address the supernatant portion arising from lime stabilization of
waste pickle liquor, that liquid portion would be derived from
K062, and thus a hazardous waste, per Section 261.3(c)(2)(i). A
surface impoundment holding this supernatant portion would be
subject to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C.
-------
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike
PetrusJca of my staff at (202) 382-7729.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9441.1937(96;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
SOLiO AASTE
0£C I 0 1987
Eric J. Dougherty
8409 H. Morven Road
ParJcville, MD 21234
Dear Mr. Dougherty:
This is in response to your November 13, 1987 letter to
Robert Scarberry concerning land disposal of solvents. The answers
to your questions are as follows.
First, you are correct that industrial wastewater discharges
subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) are excluded from the hazard-
ous waste regulations, and it does not matter how tfte wastewater
was generated. YOU should note, however, that only the discharge
is excluded. If hazardous wastewaters are collected, stored,
treated, or disposed of prior to discharge, this prior management
is subject to the hazardous waste regulations (including the- land
disposal restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268).
Second, EPA does not have groundwater discharge guidelines
per se. Facilities that have RCRA interim status or that s&efc a
RCRA hazardous waste facility permit are subject to a number of
requirements designed to protect groundwater in 40 CFR Parts 264,
265, 266 and 268, as well as the corrective action provisions of
RCRA Sections 3004(u) and 3008(h). Facilities that generate
hazardous waste but which are exempt from interim status and
permitting requirements under the accumulation provisions of 40 CFR
Section 262.34 (this is likely the case for the automotive mainten-
ance facilities you asked about) are subject to container and tanJc
management standards designed to prevent releases to groundwater.
When releases do occur, EPA or the appropriate State agency can
take enforcement action under RCRA Sections 3008(a) and 7003 to
require the facility owner or operator to stop the discharge and to
clean-up contaminated soil and groundwater.
-------
If you have .further questions in this area, plsase contac
Michael Petruska at 9202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1937(93)
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE
/ WASHINGTON, B.C. 204SO
3"~ 24 " SOLiO WASTE AND EMeSGENC-' "£S?C
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Regarding status of Coal
Tar Decanter Sludge Waste Pile at Toledo Coke
Corp., Toledo, Ohio * .i
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director (WH-562) (W*4"*
Office of solid waste V
TO: William H. Miner, Acting Chief (5HS-13)
Solid Waste Branch
This memo is in response to your request for an interpre-
tation of the status of Toledo Coke's coal tar decanter sludge
waste pile based upon the April 13, 1987 Federal Registar notice
which clarified 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vii), and the July 31, 1987
court decision (American Mining Congress v. EPA). Our
understanding of the situation at Toledo Coke (formerly Koppers
Corp.) is that at one time, they stored Hazardous Waste No.
K087, decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations, in a
waste pile. The material in question would be a solid waste per
40 CFR 26l.2(c)(2), and would meet the listing for K087 found in
section 261.32. Thus, it is a hazardous waste. The exemption
for hazardous wastes which are recycled, found in section
261.6(a)(3)(vii), extends to coke and coal products derived from
K087, when burned for energy recovery. It does not extend to
storage of the K087 prior to recycling. See SO KB 49171. The
April 13, 1987 Federal Register merely clarifies that section
261.6(a)(3)(vii) applies to coke and coal tar produced from K087
and not from other hazardous waste. The clarification there-
fore, does not have any impact on the situation at Toledo Coke.
With respect to the American Mining congress Court case, is
you are probably aware, we have been preparing a Federal
Registar notice which will provide the Agency's interpretation
of the court's opinion; this notice will describe those portions
of the rules that are unaffected by the opinion and will propose
to amend those portions of the rules that we believe are requir-
ed by the court's opinion. Based on this notice, the AMC deci-
sion also does not appear to have any impact on this situation.
-------
(We expect this notice to be issued in the near future.)
However, until this notice is signed by the Administrator, you
cannot tell representatives from Toledo CoXe of this position.
Therefore, you should just inform them that the Agency is
preparing a notice that will provide the Agency's interpretation
of the court's opinion and that it will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
I hope this clarifies the additional questions raised, if
you have any questions, please feel free to contact
Michael PetrusJca (202) 475-8551.
-------
9441.1987(102)
July 30 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: State Program Advisory #2 -
RCRA Authorization to Regulate Mixed Wastes
FROM: Bruce Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
Office of Solid Waste
TO: RCRA Branch Chiefs
Regions I- X
The purpose of State Program Advisory (SPA) #2 is fourfold.
One, it delineates timeframes by which States must obtain mixed
waste authorization. Two, it provides a synopsis of the informa-
tion needed to demonstrate equivalence with the Federal program
in order to obtain mixed waste authorization. Three, it presents
information about the availability of interim status for handlers
of mixed waste. And four, the SPA presents the Agency's position
on inconsistencies as defined by Section 1006 of RCRA.
BACKGROUND
On July 3, 1986, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register (see Attachment 1) announcing that in order to obtain
and maintain authorization to administer and enforce a RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste program, States must apply for
authorization to regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste
as hazardous waste. Mixes waste is defined as waste that
satisfies the definition of radioactive waste subject to the
Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and contains hazardous waste that either
(1) is listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part
261 or (2) causes the waste to exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. The
hazardous component of mixed waste is regulated by RCRA.
Conversely, the radioactive component of mixed waste is regulated
by either the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the
Department of Energy (DOE).
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
In addition, DOE issued an interpretative rule on May 1.
1987 to clarify the definition of "byproduct material" as it
applied to actual DOE-owned wastes. The final notice stipulated
"that only the actual radionuclides in DOE waste streams will be
considered byproduct material." Thus, a hazardous waste will
always be subject to RCRA regulation even if it is contained in a
mixture that includes radionuclides subject to the AEA.
Clarification of the implications of the byproduct rule was
previously transmitted to the Regions (see Attachment 2).
MIXED WASTE AUTHORIZATION DEADLINES
States which received final authorization prior to publica-
tion of the July 3, 1986 PR notice must revise their programs by
July 1, 1988 (or July 1, 1989 if a State statutory amendment is
required) to regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste.
This schedule is established in the "Cluster Rule" (51 FR 33712).
Extensions to these dates may be approved by the Regional
Administrator (see 40 CFR 27l.21(e)(3)).
States initially applying for final authorization after' July
3, 1987 must include mixed waste authority in their application
for final authorization (see 40 CFR 271.3(f)). In addition, no
State can receive HSWA authorization for corrective action
(§3004(u)) unless the State can demonstrate that its definition
of solid waste does not exclude the hazardous components of mixed
waste. This is because the State must be able to apply its
corrective action authorities at mixed waste units.
PROGRAM REVISION REQUIREMENTS
Applying for mixed waste authorization is a simple,
straight-forward process. The application package should include
an Attorney General's Statement, the applicable statutes and
rules, and a Program Description.
1. Attorney General Statement
The Attorney General will need to certify in the
statement that the State has the necessary authority to
regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste as
hazardous waste. Copies of the cited statute(s) and
rules should be included in the State's application. See
Item I.G., "Identification and Listing" in the Model AG
Statement in Chapter 3.3 of the State Consolidated RCRA
Authorization Manual (SCRAM) for additional guidance.
This document has Jbeen retyped from the original.
-------
-3-
2 . Program Description
The Program Description should address how the RCRA
portion of the mixed waste program will be implemented
and enforced, and describe available resources and
costs (see 40 CFR §271.6). The State must also
demonstrate that staff has necessary health physics
and other radiological training and has appropriate
security clearances, if needed, or that the State
agency has access to such people.
If an agency other than the authorized State agency is
implementing the RCRA portion of the mixed waste
program, then the application should include a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between that agency
and the authorized hazardous waste agency describing
the roles and responsibilities of each (see 40 CFR
§271.
Lastly, the Program Description should include a brief
description of the types and an estimate of the number
of mixed waste activities to be regulated by the State
(see 40 CFR §271. 6 (g) and (h) ) . Chapter 3.2 Program
Description, in the SCRAM provides additional
guidance.
INTERIM STATUS
In authorized states, mixed waste handlers are not subject
to RCRA regulation until the State's program is revised and
approved by EPA to include this authority. In the interim,
however, any applicable State law applies. Treatment, storage
and disposal facilities "in existence" on the date of the State's
authorization to regulate mixed waste may qualify for interim
status under Section 3005(e) (1) (A) (ii) (providing interim status
for newly regulated facilities) , if they submit a Part A permit
application within 6 months of that date. In addition, any such
facilities which are land disposal facilities will be subject to
loss of interim status, under Section 3005(e)(3), unless these
facilities submit their Part B permit application and two
required certifications (i.e., groundwater monitoring and
financial assurance) within twelve months of the effective date
of the State's authorization (i.e., within twelve months of the
date facilities are first subject to regulation under RCRA) .
Note: Federal facilities that handle mixed waste are not
required to demonstrate financial assurance.
With respect to facilities treating, storing or disposing of
mixed waste in unauthorized States, Headquarters is currently
developing a Federal Register notice that will clarify interim
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-4-
status qualification requirements under Section 3005(e) as they
apply to affected facilities that have not notified in accordance
with Section 3010(a) or submitted Part A and/or B permit
applications. We anticipate issuing the FR notice early this
Fall.
INCONSISTENCIES
Section 1006 of RCRA precludes any solid or hazardous waste
regulation by EPA or a State that is "inconsistent" with the
requirements of the AEA. If an inconsistency is identified, the
inconsistent RCRA requirement would be inapplicable. For
example, an inconsistency might occur where compliance with a
specific RCRA requirement would violate national security
interests. In such instances, the AEA would take precedence and
the RCRA requirement would be waived.
The EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducted a
comparison of existing regulations for hazardous waste management
and low-level radioactive waste management under 40 CFR Parts
260-266, 268 and 270 and 10 CFR Part 61, respectively, to
ascertain the extent of potential inconsistencies. None were
identified as a result of that effort. The comparison did
indicate that there were differences in regulatory stringency,
however. Thus, in issuing permits or otherwise implementing its
mixed waste program, States must make every effort to avoid
inconsistencies.
If you have any questions please contact Jim Michael, Chief,
Implementation Section, State Programs Branch (WH-563B) at
FTS/(202) 382-2231 or Betty Shackleford, Mixed Waste Project
Manager, State Programs Branch at FTS/(202) 475-9656.
Attachments
cc: Elaine Stanley, OWPE
Federal Facilities Coordinators
Regions I - X
Chris Crundler, Federal Facilities Task Force
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1988(03!
Mr. Gary D. Strassell
Environmental Manager
The Sheppard Color company
4539 Oves Drive
P.O. BOX 465627
Cincinatti. Oh^b1 "'54:5&'*6 £> esv:-.-o,
Dear Mr. Strassell:
This is in response to your November 20, 1987, letter to
Michael Petrusfca of my staff concerning the regulatory classifi-
cation of your chromium wastes. The remainder of this letter
explains the exclusions in 40 CFR Section 261.4(b)(6) for
chromium wastes, and answers the questions you raised.
The exclusion from tiie definition of hazardous waste
40 CFR 26l.4(b)(6) presently applies only to those wastes specifi-
cally listed in Section 261. 4 (b) (6) (ii) . Those wastes identified
in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of Section 261. 4(b) (6) (ii) are
excluded because members of the leather tanning and titanium
dioxide production industries submitted evidence to EPA tlia*.
successfully demonstrated that their wastes were not hazardous.
The October 30, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 7203*) describes this
exclusion in greater detail (see Enclosure).
The criteria for excluding a waste under Section 261. 4 (b) (6)
requires that the chromium in the waste must be trivalent or nearly
exclusively trivalent, that the industrial process producing the
waste use trivalent chromium exclusively or nearly exclusively, and
that the waste be typically and frequently managed in A non-oxidiz-
ing environment. See Section 261. 4(b) (6) (1) . Presently, the only
wastes that are included in the Section 26l.4(b)(6! exclusion are
those listed in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of paragraph (ii).
The only pigment manufacturing waste exclusion is in subparagraph
(H). This exclusion applies to wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of Ti02 pigment using chromium-bearing ores by the
chloride process. The chromium in this waste originates from the
entirely trivalent chromium in the rutile or ilmenite ores used as
-------
a raw material in the process (45 EB 72036). If your customer
generates a waste meeting the description in (H), then that waste
would be excluded under Section 261.4(b)(6) provided the waste does
not fail the EP toxicity characteristic for any constituent other
then chromium or does not fail any other hazardous waste character-
istic.
Any individual or group of generators whose vast^jF meet the
criteria under section 261.4(b)(6)(i), but are not specifically
designated under paragraph (iiMA)-(H) nay submit a rulemaxing
petition to EPA in accordance with Section 260.20(a) to demonstrate
that their waste is not hazardous. If EPA agrees with the peti-
tion, it will amend section 26l.4(b)(6) to exclude those wastes
from regulation as well. (As already indicated, wastes meeting the
existing descriptions in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of Section
26l.4(b)(6) is only non-hazardous if it exhibits no other hazardous
characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261.) If you choose to submit
a rulemaxing petition, you will have to submit data showing that
the waste or wastes in question is exclusively (Or nearly exclusi-
vely) trivalent chromium, that the industrial process producing the
waste use trivalent chromium exclusively or nearly exclusively, and
that the waste is typically managed in a non-oxidizing environment.
If you have additional questions in this area, please continue
to communicate with Mike Petrusfca at (202) 475-6551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
i••>**»•-•
-------
9441. 1983 (04)
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT
JAN U 1988
Mr. Paul 0. Sylvestri
Versar Inc.
6850 Versar Center
P.O. BOX 1549
Springfield, VA 22151
Dear Mr. Sylvestri:
This letter is a response to your letter of October 8, 1987
to Robert Scarberry. In it you request clarification of the
regulatory status of the waste generated by an incinerator trial
burn of sand spiked with reagent grade trichlorobenzene and
hexachloroethane. Specifically, you were concerned about the
hazardous waste status of the incinerator residue, since
hexachloroethane is a commercial chemical product that becomes a
hazardous waste when it is disposed (U131). ' *
In determining whether the incinerator residue is a
hazardous waste, the threshold question is whether the sand,
which was spiked with a commercial chemical product that is
listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (as U131), as part of the trial burn,
was a solid waste within the meaning of 40 CFR 261.2 at the time
it was spiked with the chemicals. When the sand was mixed with
the chemicals, the sand becomes a solid waste and the chemical
becomes a hazardous waste (U131) because the intent is to
incinerate the mixture. 40 CFR 261.2 clearly indicates these
materials are solid wastes, unless excluded by 40 CFR 261.4(a)
or by a variance under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, or 260.31.
Accordingly, the mixture of U131 with sand is a hazardous waste
by virtue of the "mixture rule", which provides that the mixture
of a listed hazardous waste with a solid waste constitutes a
hazardous waste., (flu. 40 CFR 26l.3(a) (2) (iv)).
As a result, the residue from the trial burn also would be a
hazardous waste (via the "derived-from" rule, 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i))
because ther-residue is derived from a listed waste.
If you require additional information, please call Edwin F.
Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
t
Marcia E. Willi
Office of Solid Waste"
:n r r" i
-------
, *L PHOTCCTION AGENCY
— 9 44 ^
2 2 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Wastes Containing
F001-F005 Constituents
FROM: Jeffery D. Denit
Actiftg Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Phillip L. Bobel
Chief, Waste Programs Branch
EPA Region IX (RT2)
This is in response to your memo of December 30, 1987, on waste
classification, as per Mr. Sandoval's request. I think the
confusion Mr. Sandoval is experiencing is due to imprecise use of
terms. A person should not classify a waste that contains an
F001-F005 hazardous constituent as an "F" waste for land ban
purposes, or on the manifest. However, if a person generates one
or more of the specifically listed "F" spent solvents e.g. . spent
trichloroethylene (FOOD and then mixes the spent solvent with
another waste, the mixture does in fact contain FOOil and therefore
is subject to the land disposal restrictions.
When an F001 waste is mixed with another hazardous waste, the
proper description of the mixture would include all applicable
waste codes. For example, F001 mixed with an ignitable waste
(DOOl) should be described as F001, DOOl, and the mixture would be
subject to the .treatment standard in 40 CTR Section 268.41. There
is no dJa minimus amount below which a listed waste need not be
identified,'^ (Of course, if the F001/D001 mixture does not exhibit
ignitability, the classification for the mixture would not have to
include th« -D001" descriptor. Further, you should note that when
a waste listed only because it exhibits a characteristic, e.g. .
F003, is mixed with a solid waste and the resultant mixture does
not exhibit a characteristic, the mixture is not hazardous waste.
See 40 CFR Section 261. 3 (a) (iii) . )
-------
9441.1933(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V.'ASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
0
•^ I w
CE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Proposed Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT)
for K061
FROM: Jeffery D. Denft ;yftcting Director
Office of Solid vffyste
TO: Robert' E^ftr eaves, Chief
Waste Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region III
This memorandum is in response to the concerns you raised
with respect to the determination of BDAT for K061 for the L;?.nd
Disposal Restrictions Rule (LDRR) and its possible implications
for Region III. There seems to be several points that have been
appareitly misunderstood by your s:aff.
EPA is not approving thf. Waelz :ciln as BDAT. The proposed
Land ;isposal Restrictions for K061 are performance standards
that v«9present a level of performance achievable by High
Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR). We have identified several
classes of HTMR systems; they include: rotary kilns (which
includes the Waelz Kiln as well as other types currently being
marketed), flame reactors, electric furnaces, plasma arc
furnaces, slag reactors, and rotary hearth kiln/electric furnace
combinations. Many of these systems produce metallic zinc,
metallic lead, both for direct sale, metallic iron to be
recycled back to the electric arc furnace, and slags requiring
land disposal. The restrictions ara concentrations of
constituents in the waste tha:: must be achieved prior to land
disposal of K061 in a Subtitle C facility. EPA is not requiring
any specific class of HTMR, ncr are we recommending any specific
class.
The data used for the development of the proposed Land
Disposal Restrictions for K051 were generated by the EPA
sampling of the Waelz Kiln process because it was convenient and
appeared to provide effective treatment. Your discussions with
Bill Kyers , our contractor's sar.oiing crew chief, failed to
reveal the full extent of our analysis in determining BDAT for
K061. Mr. Myers was not involved in the BDAT analysis for
K061. As the sampling crew chief or that trip, his
-------
responsibilities and knowledge were limited to taking
representative samples of trie materials generated by the Waelz
Kiln process. The flow diagram of the process considered by
EPA, which was not developed by Mr. Myers, is a complete diagram
or the K061 treatment system. The calcining process was
considered in our analysis of the treatment system prior to the
sampling visit, but was rejected because the crude zinc oxide
product that is collected in the baghouse is sold as a product.
We are aware that the crude zinc oxide product is frequently
refined further to remove the lead and cadmium to produce a
saleable American grade zinc. However, it also is sold for
direct use in product formulation by such industries as
fertilizer manufacturing. Therefore, the calcining process was
not included as part of the K061 treatment system, since at the
point the crude zinc oxide is collected in the baghouse it
becomes a product, and ceases to be considered derived from KC61
based on the "product rule" (40 CFR 261.3 (c)(2)(i)).
Furthermore, the calcining process historically has been
applied to other crude zinc oxides, including those produced by
the primary smelting of zinc bearing ores in the Waelz Kiln. If
K061 were not used as a feedstock, zinc bearing ores or other
scrap material would be necessary. Although calcining residuals
from refining of ores are exempted currently by the Beviii
Amendments, the calcining residuals from K061 wastes, under
certain circumstances, would be regulated as D006 (EP Toxic for
Cadmium) and/or D008 (EP Toxic for Lead). Treatment standards
for the "D" wastes are expected to be final by May 8, 1990,
three months before the effective date of the Land Disposal
Restrictions for K061.
In response to your concerns regarding the interpretation of
the waste as an "indigenous" waste, we have not interpreted K061
to be indigenous to that type of furnace. Instead, we have
determined treatment standards that the residual material must
meet prior to land disposal. We will be soliciting additional
comment on that subject in the proposal of the LDRR.
The current use of the K061 treatment residual from the
Waelz Kiln as roadbed and anti-skid material, however, is
considered to be "use in a manner constituting land disposal"
and is not exempt from regulation based on 40 CFR 261.2
(c)(l)(A). We have discussed this issue with the Region III
RCRA Enforcement Office. However, we do not think this issue is
germane to whether BDAT based on recovery is effective, since
placement of the residuals in a subtitle C landfill will
eliminate any compliance problems.
It is my hope that this additional information will
eliminate any concern about the BDAT we intend to propose for
K061. If your staff has any additional questions regarding this
matter, please contact Mr. John Keenan of my staff, at FTS
755-0356.
-------
9441.1933(0-;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
MAR I 0 '9°3 SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPQ'
Michel Bouchard, ing.
Industry Information
Centre de Recherche Industrielle du Quebec
333, rue Franquet
Case postale 9038
Sainte-Foy (Quebec) CANADA G1V 4C7
Dear Mr. Bouchard:
This is in response to your letter to Jon Greenberg dated
January 4, 1988 and your telephone conversations with Ron
Josephson on January 22 and 29, 1988. In particular, we aie
providing a regulatory interpretation concerning the management
of stainless steel production residues as they would be
controlled under the U.S. Federal hazardous waste regulations.
The regulations we are citing below can be found in the U. S.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 260 and 261
(abbreviated as 40 CFR 260 or 40 CFR 261).
Dusts or sludges from the emission control systems of
electric arc furnaces used in the primary production of steel,
where the furnace is not used solely for casting, are considered
listed hazardous wastes with the EPA code K061 under 40 CFR
261.32. Should this waste be processed through the chromium and
nickel extraction process that you describe in your letter, the
remaining residues are still considered hazardous wastes
because they are derived from a hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR
26l.3(c)(2)(i).) Other wastes from electric arc furnaces that
do not exhibit hazardous characteristics (see 40 CFR 261 Subpart
C) are not considered hazardous as long as they are not mixed
with dust or sludge from the emission control system.
If the generator feels that the residue from the chromium
and nickel extraction is not hazardous (i.e. does not exhibit
the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity described in
40 CFR 261.20-261.24), then he may apply for an exemption, or
"delisting petition." (See 40 CFR 260.20-260.22.) Should such
a petition be granted, the residue from these facilities would
no longer be considered hazardous.
-------
- 2 -
If you have any further questions, please contact Ed Abrams
on my staff at (202)382-4787.
Sincerely,
tfW^^enit
Vet ing^D! rector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1933133;
UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTK AGENCY
MAR 2 2 !988
Mr. Hyman Bzura, President
Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc.
P.O. BOX 194
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
Dear Mr. Bzura:
This letter is in response to your February 3, 1988, request
for a determination of the regulatory status of the copper
chloride and copper ammonium 'chloride which you purchase as by-
products from circuit board manufacturers. Under EPA's
hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR Section 26l.2(e)(i)
promulgated on January 4, 1985), secondary materials used
directly as an ingredient or feedstock are not so.lid waste.
This is distinguished from reclamation, where distinct
components of the secondary material are recovered as end
products; certain types of secondary materials are solid waste
when reclaimed. Id. (See 40 CFR Section 261.2(c).)
From the information you provided in your February 3 letter,
it appears that the copper-bearing secondary materials you use
in the production of copper sulfate and copper hydroxide are
being used directly, and so would not be solid waste. The
Office of Solid Waste cannot provide you a definitive response,
however, because solid waste determinations involve considera-
tion of a number of facility-specific factors. For example,
besides the question of whether the secondary materials are used
directly, i.e.. without prior processing, important questions
are whether the activity in question is bonafide recycling and
whether the Materials you purchase are speculatively
accumulator. See the discussion in the January 4, 1985.
preamble, ^••aaarily, these questions are best addressed by
EPA's Regi^^fe of flees or by authorized states. (Please note
that under^HfCTR Section 261.2(f) you are required to provide
all docunwflBfelon necessary to support any claim for a recycling
exclusion or exemption.) Also, under RCRA Section 3009, States
are free to adopt regulations more stringent than EPA's.
Consequently, a facility owner or operator's primary contact on
RCRA matters should be the State agency with RCRA
responsibilities.
-------
- 2 -
Accordingly, we have forwarded your letter to New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection. The contact person in
New Jersey for questions of this kind is Ms. Shiriee Schiffman
Chief, Bureau of Classification and Technical Assistance.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you
may contact Michael PetrusJca at (202) 475-9888.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I !!! 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!! I !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cc: Shiriee Schiffman, New Jersey DEP
Barry TornicX, Region II
Emily Roth
tfH562B/ERoth/tle/nnS242/3/8/88/382-4777/EROth-8701
DC/3/11/88
DC/3/16/88
DC/3/18/88
!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I !!! I !!! I I I I I!!!! I !!!!!!!!!!! I 1 !! I !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-------
UNITE&ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS^ N'CY
9441.1988(09
APR 6
R. Todd Grant
President
Tomar Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 233
Wexford, PA 15090
Dear Mr. Grant:
This is in response to your letter of March 14, 1988, to
Michael Petruska, concerning the recycling of nickel, copper,
and chromium-containing electroplating sludges. This is a
complex area of regulation, and you may have misunderstood some
of what Mr. Petruska explained in your March 2 meeting. My
understanding of your operation is that you plan to recycle
electroplating sludges by recovering certain metal values from
dried material produced from sludge dryers. The two key
questions in determining RCRA applicability are: (1) whether
the sludge is listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, and (2)
whether the material is processed before use, i.e.. "reclaimed".
Although the material will be fed to a metal smelting
furnace, please note that such smelters are considered
reclamation devices, and therefore the exclusions for direct use
or reuse at 40 CFR Section 261.2(e)(1)(i) and (eXIXii) do not
apply. (See 50 FR 633; January 4, 1985.) Listed sludges that
are reclaimed are solid waste, while sludges that are hazardous
only because they exhibit a characteristic are not solid waste
when reclaimed. Since electroplating sludges are specifically
listed wastes, these wastes when reclaimed (i.e., processed in a
metal smelting furnace) are subject to the hazardous waste
rules. In particular, the generator and transporter rules apply
when the material is shipped (40 CFR Parts 262 and 263) and the
reclamation facility is subject to 40 CFR Section 261.6(c).
Also, EPA has proposed rules for industrial furnaces in 40 CFR
Part 266, Subpart D. (See 52 FR 16982; May 6, 1987.)
-------
The dried material you plan to market to smelters would be
considered a partially-reclaimed material, because further
processing is required before the metal can actually be used.
If you believe the material is commodity-like after drying, you
may petition the Agency for a variance. (See 40 CFR Sections
260.30(c), and 260.31(c).) Under these provisions, the EPA
Regional Administrator (or, in an authorized state, the Director
of the State's RCRA program) with jurisdiction over the facility
producing the material may grant a variance from classification
of the material as solid waste.^/ The factors that are
relevant in granting the variance are in Section 260.31(c), and
are discussed at 50 FR 655 (January 4, 1985).
in summary, the process you describe would be subject to the
RCRA hazardous waste regulations if listed sludges are
reclaimed. If you seek a variance for the partially-reclaimed
material, you should contact the appropriate EPA Region or State
agency. Finally, I suggest you modify your certificate because
the material would be, as EPA defines the term, "reclaimed".
If you have further questions in this area, please continue
to deal with Mr. Petruska at (202) 475-9888.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
I/ The variance is only necessary for listed sludges. As noted
above, characteristic-only sludges are not solid waste when
reclaimed.
1 !!!! 1 I'!!!!!!!!! I I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MM! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
WH562B/MPetruska/tle/rmS242/3/21/88/475-9888/MPetruska-8701
-------
f
|
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
APR ' i 1933 OFF.CEOF
SOIIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY «ESPON5
Anthony R. Sinibaldi
Senior Vice President
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc.
Governor Lea Road
P.O. Box 319
Delaware City, Delaware 19706
Dear Mr. Sinibaldi:
This is in response to your December 21, 1987, letter to
Marcia Williams, the subsequent meeting here at EPA on
January 13, 1988, and your March 16, 1988 letter to Michael
Petruska concerning the regulatory status of your distillation
or fractionation column bottoms from the production of
chlorobenzene. This letter is also to correct certain errors
that were made in an October 16, 1987, letter from Marcia ^
Williams to Phil RetallicJc, Director of Delaware's Division of
Air and Waste Management, on the same subject.
K085 Listing Description
First, let me reiterate that we view the bottom stream from
chlorobenzene production as a secondary material, i.e. . a
by-product, not a co-product. The bottoms, although they may
have some economic value, must be processed before use. See the
discussion in the Federal Register of January 4, 1985, in which
EPA stated that:
"...by-products are materials, generally of a residual
character, that are not produced intentionally or
separately, and that are unfit for end use without
substantial processing. Examples are still bottoms..." (50
££ 625. )
The determination that the bottoms are a by-product ,
however, does not automatically mean that they are the EPA
listed waste K085. To meet the listing description, the bottoms
must first be a solid waste, defined by 40 CFR Section 261.2.
-------
- 2 -
As explained below, the determination of a material being a
solid waste depends on the disposition, or intended disposition,
of the material. Any material that is abandoned by being
disposed of, burned, or incinerated (or accumulated, stored, or
treated in lieu of being abandoned) is a solid waste. (See
Section 261.2(b).) Additionally, secondary materials are also
solid wastes if they are recycled, or accumulated or treated
before recycling, as specified in Section 261.2(c). Further,
materials may be designated as "inherently waste-like" by EPA
under Section 261.2(d).
The remainder of this letter provides EPA's determinations
regarding the processes you have described to us. Please note,
however, that these determinations are only accurate to the
extent we have all relevant facts. If the State needs further
information or documentation on these processes, you are
required to provide the information under 40 CFR Section
26l.2(f), even for processes that we say here are exempt from
regulation.
Thermal Oxidation Process
The first question to be answered is whether the gas-fired
thermal oxidizer, which we understand uses controlled flame
combustion, is an incinerator, a boiler, or an industrial
furnace. (See the discussions at 50 FR 625-627, January 4,
1985, for the Agency's basic approach to classifying combustion
devices.)
The classification of your oxidizer unit into one of these
three categories is central to determining its regulatory
status. If your unit is an incinerator, Table 1 in 40 CFR
Section 261.2(c) is not relevant, and the unit is not eligible
for any exclusions in Section 261.2(e)(l). This is because any
burning in an incinerator is waste destruction, subject to 40
CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart 0, even if material or energy
recovery also occurs. (See the discussion at 48 EB 14484, April
1983. ""If material or energy recovery occurs, it is ancilliary
to the purpose of the unit - to destroy wastes by means of
thermal treatment - and so does not alter the regulatory status
of the device or activity." An example involving recovery of
hydrochloric acid is then presented. Id.)
-------
- 3 -
Our determinations regarding your thermal oxidation unit are
as follows:
o The unit does not meet the definition of a boiler cited
in Section 260.10 (e.g.. it does not export thermal
energy);
o Based on the information that has been provided to EPA,
we believe the unit is not an industrial furnace. To
be an industrial furnace, the unit must be specifically
listed in Section 260.10 [cement kilns; lime kilns;
aggregate kilns; phosphate kilns; coke ovens; blast
furnaces; smelting, melting, and refining furnaces;
Ti02 chloride process oxidation reactors; methane
reforming furnaces; and combustion devices used in the
recovery of sulfur values from spent H2S04J;
o Therefore, since the gas-fired thermal oxidixer is
neither a boiler nor an industrial furnace, the unit is
classified as an incinerator. Thus, it would be
subject to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart 0.
EPA considers adding units to the Section 260.10 definition
of industrial furnace on a case-by-case basis. Persons may
petition the Agency under Section 260.20 to add units to the
definition. Dow Chemical, Inc., submitted such a petition in
July 1986 for their halogen acid furnaces (HAFs), and EPA
proposed to grant the petition on May 6, 1987. (See 52 FR
17018-17019.) Under the May 6 proposal, an HAF would be
considered an industrial furnace provided that the unit is used
for:
" ...production of acid from halogenated secondary materials
generated at chemical production facilities where the
furnace is located on-site and the acid product has a
halogen acid content of at least 6%." (See proposed Section
260.10, id., at 17033.)
Your thermal oxidation unit appears to meet these conditions.
Therefore, at such time as EPA finalizes this proposal, the
classification of your unit would change from an incinerator to
industrial furnace. The result of this change would be that the
unit would be subject to the Part 266, Subpart D, standards for
boilers and industrial furnaces, in lieu of the Part 264 and
-------
- 4 -
265, Subpart 0, incinerator standards. (See id., at 17019.) In
either case, the chlorinated by-product introduced to the unit
is the EPA listed waste K085.
Hydrodechlorination Process'
Based on the information you provided, your hydrodechlo-
rination process does not appear to involve controlled flame
combustion; therefore, the above discussion concerning boilers,
furnaces, and incinerators is not relevant. Since you are using
the chlorinated by-product as an ingredient in production of
Iqwer chlorinated feedstocks and muriatic acid, and since no
burning, reclamation, or use constituting disposal is involved,
the by-product appears to meet the terms of the exclusion in 40
CFR Section 261.2(e)(1)(i), and therefore it is not a solid
waste (i.e.. it is not K085.) Please note, however, that if the
by-product is accumulated speculatively as defined in Section
261.1(c)(8), it would then become solid waste (see Section
261.2(e)(2)(iii)) and would be K085. Further, your unit may be
affected by changes EPA is considering to the definition of
industrial furnace, discussed in the last section of this
letter.
Use in Titanium Dioxide Production
Your December 21, 1987, and March 16, 1988, letters state
that Standard Chlorine plans to sell a blend of the two higher
chlorinated benzene process streams to another company for use
in titanium dioxide manufacture. The process streams will be
"introduced to an oxidation reactor where titanium tetrachloride
is converted to titanium dioxide, and will, your letters state,
substitute for toluene in the production process.
The oxidation reactor would appear to meet the definition of
an industrial furnace in 40 CFR Section 260.10, i.e.. see
paragraph (8) in the definition. From the information you
provided, the chlorinated benzene stream will provide not only
chlorinated material but also energy value. The regulatory
status of material sent for this use currently depends on its
energy value. If the chlorinated benzene stream has significant
energy value, e.g., equal to or greater than materials used
commercially as fuel—generally around 5000 Btu per pound—and
the energy is used in the production process, then the material
-------
- 5 -
is considered to be burned at least partially for energy
recovery. Thus, the material is considered to be the listed
waste K085 and the standards of 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart D, for
hazardous waste burned for energy recovery would apply to the
furnace and the material sent to the furnace. The oxidation
reactor would also be subject to the standards for industrial
furnaces proposed on May 6, 1987. (See 52 FJR 16982.) If the
chlorinated material is burned without significant energy
recovery, however, then the material may not be a solid waste
because it is used as an ingredient to maJce a product. (See 40
CFR Section 261.2(e)(2)(i) and (e)(2)(ii).)
Chances Seine Considered for Certain Units
As the above discussion indicates, EPA's current rules
defining solid waste and the applicability of standards depend
on, first, the classification of the unit, and then whether the
material is burned (partially) for energy recovery. EPA is
considering modifications to this approach in the near future
that could affect your processes. First, we are concerned about
secondary materials that could be hazardous waste if burned for
energy recovery or destruction but that are excluded from
regulation when burned as an ingredient in a production
process. To deal with the potential health risk from burning
such materials as an ingredient, we are considering proposing to
designate materials introduced to HAFs, and perhaps other
furnaces (possibly including oxidation reactors used in titanium
dioxide production) as "inherently waste-like materials" under
40 CFR Section 261.2(d). This would mean that, if your proposed
thermal oxidation unit meets EPA's definition of an industrial
furnace, the standards proposed on May 6, 1987 would apply to
the unit whether or not any energy is recovered from the K085
chlorinated stream. The material sent for titanium dioxide
production could also be brought under regulation as K085 if we
promulgate such a designation.
Second, EPA is considering proposing to amend the definition
of industrial furnace to remove the condition that furnaces must
use "controlled flame devices" to accomplish recovery of
materials or energy. The impact of this change could be that
your non-flame hydrodechlorination unit could be designated as
an industrial furnace, and then would be subject to the
standards proposed on May 6, 1987.
-------
- 6 -
If you have general questions about this letter, please
contact Michael PetrusJca at (202) 475-9888. If you have
questions about the classification scheme for combustion
devices, please contact Robert Holloway at (202) 382-7917.
Finally, as stated above, your primary contact, on RCRA matters
should continue to be Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control (DNREC). We will be providing copies
of this letter to Delaware DNREC as well as EPA Region III.
Sincerely,
iwrance, Director
of Solid Waste
-------
9441.19S3(13)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 88
1. Notification Requirements for Recyclable Materials
A gold plating operation generates a spent cyanide solution. The solution is sent to a
reclaimer so that the gold content can be recovered. The recyclable material, because of
its free cyanide content, is a California listed waste. Does the generator have to send a
notification to the reclaimer per Section 268.7?
The requirements for recyclable materials from which precious metals are reclaimed in
Section 261.6(a)(2)(IV) subject the generator to regulation under Subpart F of Part 266.
However, Section 261.6(a)(2) does not specifically free the generator of Part 268
regulations. Only those recyclable materials specifically listed in Section 261.6(a)(3) are
not subject to Part 268 regulations.
Since this waste is a California listed waste, the generator must provide proper notifi-
cation to the reclaimer.
Contact Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4805
Research: Cheryl McNabb
-------
9441.1988(17
/ 8 i:
Mr. Mahmood Kapadia
Manager Ceramic Engineering
The Haeger Potteries, Inc.
Seven Maiden Lane
Dundee, Illinois 60118-9989
Dear Mr. Kapadia: J'
This correspondence is in response to your request for
information on the proper classification of waste colored glazes
collected as part of your pottery manufacturing operation.
Specifically, you referred to a mixture of different glaze
colors that are collected and treated by a "rotary vacuum11
filter. The resultant solid waste produced, which exhibits the
characteristic of EP Toxicity for lead (and possibly for cadmium
and chromium), is then disposed of at a high cost. I apologize
for the long delay in responding to your correspondence. The
Agency is under a very tight schedule to meet the statutory
deadlines applicable to the land disposal restrictions program.
As you stated in your letter (and have further described
during telephone conversations with my staff), it is your desire
to place the colored glaze solids into broken or good pottery,
fire it in your tunnel kiln, and sell this fired piece at your
retail sales outlet. In accordance with the definition of solid
waste (40 CFR 261.2), if the colored glaze solids are used in
the manner described, they would not constitute a solid waste,
and thus would not meet the definition of a hazardous waste.
The solid materials would not be a solid waste since the
material would be recycled by being "used or reused as
ingredients in an industrial process to make a product". 40 CFR
26l.2(e)(1)(i). The colored glaze solids in this case would not
be considered reclaimed, since you would be using the entire
material, and not reclaiming certain constituents from the
material.
-------
The information provided above reflects hazardous waste
management system regulations covered by Federal rules. Note,
however, that compliance with applicable Federal regulations
does not relieve an individual from compliance with applicable
State environmental requirements. I hope this information
adequately addresses your concerns. If you have any further
questions, please feel free to contact Wanda LeBleu-Biswas, of
the Waste Characterization Branch, at (202) 382-7392.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
944i.i9S3(19)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
MAY 26
OF
souo WASTE AND EMERGENCY HESPONS
Gary L. Ford
Assistant Director of Law
Stauffer Chemical Company
P.O. Box 0852
Westport, CT 06881-0852
Dear Mr. Ford:
This letter is in response to your April 5, 1988, letter
requesting clarification of the RCRA Subtitle C regulations.
These are Federal regulations. The States where your facilities
are located may have more stringent regulations which would
apply. Consequently, a facility owner or operator's primary
contact on RCRA matters should be the State Agency with RCRA
responsibilities.
As you note in your letter, spent sulfuric acid which is
accumulated speculatively does not qualify for the exclusion
in Section 261.4(a)(7). If the person accumulating the material
can show that it can feasibly be recycled, and that at least 75%
(by weight or volume) is recycled or transferred for recycling in
a calendar year, the material is not accumulated speculatively.
Once removed for recycling, materials are no longer considered to
be accumulated speculatively. The definition of speculative
accumulation is found in Section 261.He)(8).
Translating the regulations to cover your situation, spent
sulfuric acid which is accumulated speculatively is a solid waste
per Section 261.2(c)(4). If the acid is a listed hazardous
waste, or if it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, it
must be handled as a hazardous waste. If it is removed from
accumulation for recycling, it ceases to be accumulated
speculatively, and the exclusion in Section 261,4(a)(7) may
become- available. If it is actually recycled by being used to
produciftvirgin sulfuric acid, the section 26l.4(a)(7) exclusion
may b«MfB»rcised in States which recognize the exclusion.
Howeve*fc.--if it ia removed from accumulation for recycling, but
the recycling is not the production of virgin sulfuric acid, the
Section 261.4(a)(7) exclusion is not exercised, and the
regulations in Section 261.2 govern the material's status.
-------
- 2 -
It should also be noted that materials accumulated in
land-based storage units may leach into the ground, and thus
would be considered to be disposed, storage of spent sulfuric
acid in a surface impoundment, for instance, may result in some
portion of the spent acid being disposed. Although the material
stored in the surface impoundment might qualify for the exclusion
in Section 261.4(a)(7), the portion which leaches into the
ground, if not recovered, has been disposed. If the acid is a
listed or characteristic hazardous waste, the disposal/storage
unit is a hazardous waste management unit.
Please feel free to contact Mike Petruska at (202) 475-9888
if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and 'Assessment
Division
-------
9441.1935(23
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 88
1. Hazardous Waste Identification • Kill Listing
During the production of TNT (trinitrotoulene), DNT (dinitrotoulene) is
generated as an intermediate chemical via nitration of toulene. Does the Kill
listing (i.e., product washwater from the production of dinitrotoulene via the
nitration of toulene) cover the product washwaters generated from this
intermediate step or does the listing only cover those product washwaters
generated from final product DNT?
Product washwaters produced from the intermediate DNT chemical are
included in the Kill listing. The October 23, 1985 Federal Registry (!>0 £R
42937) states that the Kill listing includes "any wastes which meet the waste
description and are generated by the processes described in the background
document, regardless of the end product or industry in which it takes place."
In fact, 50 FR 42937 specifically states "product washwaters from the
production of DNT by nitration of toluene, as an intermediate to TNT
production, also are covered by this listing."
Source: Bob Scarberry (202) 382-4769
Research: Sue Brugler
-------
UNITED-.ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. .NCY 9^l.i955C3
JUN 6 1968
Ms. Margaret R. Tribble
Legal Department
American Cyanamid Company
One Cyanamid Plaza
Wayne, NJ 07470
Dear Ms. Tribble:
This letter is in response to your March 30, and May 3, 1988
request for clarification regarding the regulatory status of
used sulfuric acid. Specifically, you requested a clarification
of the applicability of the RCRA Subtitle C regulations to
certain recycling practices. Examples given in your letter are
secondary uses as a fertilizer, a metal oxide removal agent, a
scrap iron digester, an ingredient in the production of aluminum
sulfate, and using tne acid to acidulate phosphate rock. Below'
is an explanation of the regulations found in 40 CFR 261.2 and
261.4, which determine the regulatory status of a secondary
material. Please keep in mind that the discussion below is only
a general review of the existing regulations and preamble
discussions. Each generator must make his own determination as
to whether he has a solid and hazardous waste and must have
adequate documentation to support any exemption claims. (See 40
CFR Sections 262.11 and 261.2(f).)
In each of the recycling situations presented in your
letter, it is necessary to determine what the material is (spent
material, by-product, co-product) and how it is being recycled
to determine its regulatory status. The special case of spent
sulfuric acid which is recycled to make virgin sulfuric acid was
explained in the January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 642).
The exemption found in J26l.4(a)(7) refers to the special case
where spent sulfuric acid is not a solid waste unless
accumulated speculatively. The Agency never intended for the
regulated community to infer that because there is such an
exemption, all other spent sulfuric acid is always a solid
waste. Indeed, a careful reading of the regulations would lead
the reader from -"261.2(a) to -"261.4(3) and then to ^261.2(b) [if
•"261.4(3) (7) does not apply to the reader's situation].
-------
Section 261.2(a) states that materials which are abandoned
or which are inherently waste-like are always solid wastes.
Secondary materials which are recycled must be classified
according to the type of secondary material and the manner of
recycling. It is impossible to make an all-inclusive statement
concerning the regulatory status of used sulfuric acid; in
addition, insufficient information was provided in your letters
to provide a more detailed response. In some cases, used acid
is a spent material; in other cases, such as the sulfonation,
alkylation, and dehydration reactions described in your letter,
used acid is a by-product or a co-product. The regulatory
status of used acid will depend on whether the acid is a spent
material, a by-product, or a co-product, and the manner in which
the used acid is recycled. In general, hazardous secondary
materials used as ingredients in production of new products, or
as substitutes for commerical products, are not solid wastes.
(See 40 CFR Section 261.2(e)(1).) Please note however, that
under certain conditions, materials used in this manner are
still solid and hazardous waste, e.g., when the product being
produced is a fuel or a fertilizer. (See 40 CFR Section
261.2(e)(2).)
Each generator of used or spent acid should evaluate the
material in light of the Federal regulations as well as any
applicable State laws or regulations. If a generator needs
assistance in making a determination, or wishes an official
confirmation of his own determination, he should contact the
appropriate EPA regional office, or in authorized States, the
appropriate State regulatory agency.
Please feel free to contact Michael Petruska at
(202)475-9888 if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director, Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9441. 1933(25)
Mr. Fred Tidwell
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Safety Office, D-160
P.O. Box 25007
Denver, Colorado 80226
Dear Mr. Tidwell:
This letter is in response to Mr. William C. Klostermeyer's
request of May 20, 1988, to replace methylene chloride in EPA
Method 3510 with "...substitute chemicals, procedures, and
methods to perform the requested laboratory work".
At the present time, the Agency does not have any other
solvent system available for the extraction of semivolatile
organic compounds with the powerful solvating properties of
methylene chloride. Methylene chloride is sufficiently polar to
extract polar organics from a wide variety of matrices as well
as having the capability to extract relatively non-polar
compounds from these matrices.
Research into alternative solvent systems to replace
methylene chloride as a general solvent for semivolatile
organics is being conducted by our research laboratory in
Cincinnati. To date, no equivalent alternative solvent system
has been developed to satisfactorily replace methylene chloride
in removing hazardous substances from difficult matrices and
converting them to an analyzable form.
For specific compounds, however, it is possible to
substitute other extraction solvents for the methylene
chloride. An example would be the use of toluene as an
extraction solvent for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. We
would be happy to discuss, with you, potential solvents for
specific situations.
-------
The Agency will continue to strive to find a replacement
solvent system for methylene chloride as the general extraction
medium for semivolatile organic compounds. In the meantime, one
must continue to use this solvent following all proper safety
precautions in order to generate valid data. We will keep you
informed as to progress in this area of alternative extraction
media and method validation.
If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to
contact Barry Lesnik of my staff at FTS 382-4761.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WH-562B)
-------
9441. 1933 (2
„><« *>.>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20480
JUN 151988
3"'CE 3*
SOUO WASTE AND 6M|«G£NCY IESFQN
Mr. M. Yaori, Product Manager
Ferrous Raw Materials
Sumitomo corporation of America
2750 U.S. Steel Building
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Dear Mr. Yaori:
This is in response to your March 15, 1988 letter to
Matthew Hale concerning the recycling of electric arc furnace
dust, the EPA listed waste K061. EPA cannot provide a definitive
response as to your recycling system at this time. As referenced
in your letter, the U.S. court of Appeals ruled in AMC v. EPA
that EPA had exceeded its jurisdiction by regulating, or claiming
to regulate, certain in-process recycling streams. EPA proposed
regulatory changes on January 8, 1988 to comply with the court
opinion. (See 52 EB 519.) The comment period on the proposal
closed March 23. We have entered your letter as a comment on the
proposal. The remainder of this letter describes how EPA's
rules, and the January 8 proposal, apply to your situation,
Please note, however, that the following is based only on tfc®
limited information provided in your letter. If you actually
implement your plans, you should deal with the appropriate EPA
Region (or authorized State) to determine your facility's
regulatory status. Please also be aware that this letter only
addresses potential RCRA regulation of the K061 recycling; air
emissions from the cyclone and bag filter may be subject to State
or Federal air pollution regulations.
Our understanding of the K061 recycling process outlined in
your letter la that K061 would be collected from electric arc
furnace eaiaaions in a bag filter. The collected dust would be
conveyed to a hopper, mixed with coal or coke, pallatized, mixed
with a modifier, and dried in a rotary dryer. After drying, it
would be stored, than processed in a load cell reactor with
oxygen blown into the bottom. The exhauat from the reactor would
be. filtered in a bag filter, where the zinc rich metal oxide
would be recovered. In the load cell reactor, the process wastes
from the electric arc furnace would be combined with the
-------
- 2 -
coal/coke/modifier/K061 mixture; the resulting slag from the load
cell reactor would be further processed, and finally would be
granulated.
If the above described process is normally associated with
primary production of steel, it is possible that the electric arc
furnace dust would not be a solid waste. To successfully claim
the material is not a solid waste under 40 CFR 261.2(e)(l)(iii),
the material must be returned to the original primary production
process without prior reclamation; it must not be accumulated
speculatively, and it must not be used to produce something which
is applied to the land or burned for energy recovery. See the
conditions specified in Section 26l.2(e)(2) and Section 261.2(f).
Under the current regulatory system, K061 that is reclaimed
is a solid waste [Section 261.2(c)(3)], and, because it is listed
in Section 261.32, it is also a hazardous vastt [Section
261.3(a)(2)(ii)]. Until the point where the coal/coJce/modifier/
K061 mixture enters the load cell reactor, the storage of K061
would be regulated under RCRA [Sections 262.34 or 264.1]. The
reclamation processing steps are not regulated, per Section
26l.6(c)(l) [see 50 EB 643]. However, if the facility is located
in a State which is authorized to implement RCRA, more stringent
State regulations may apply.
At the point where the coal/coke/modifier/K061 mixture is
introduced to the load cell reactor, it might cease to be a solid
waste under the current EPA rules. The information provided in
your letter does not allow a definitive interpretation. However,
the principle is explained in the preamble to the January 4, 1985
Federal RMiatar (50 EB 630) and in the preamble to the November
29, 1985 fadaral Register (50 CB 49167). Briefly, if the load
cell reactor qualifies as an industrial furnace, the K061 mixture
may cease to be a solid waste at the point where the material is
introduce* into the load cell reactor, depending on its similari-
ty to materials ordinarily burned in the unit. It should be
noted th*fc the Agency has proposed to amend this interpretation
to exclude/ from RCRA jurisdiction secondary materials generated
and subsequently recycled in a process using the same type of
industrial furnace (52 EB 16990 and 17034, May 6, 1987).
-------
- 3-
if the K061 mixture does not qualify for exclusion from RCRA
jurisdiction under the above-mentioned interpretation, then the
status of the materials recovered from the load cell reactor is
dependent on several factors. The recovered zinc rich metal
oxide, if processed completely enough to be considered a
product, may no longer be a solid waste. See 40 CFR261.3(c)(2);
however, note that if the zinc rich metal oxide is burned for
energy recovery or is used in a manner constituting disposal, it
would remain a listed hazardous waste until delisted (Section
261.3(c) and (d)). The slag mixture likewise may cease to be a
solid waste (and also a hazardous waste) once it has been
processed to be considered a product. Some information
contained in your letter implies that the slag may be used as
base or sub-base course or sand material. If a material is
applied to the land, or is used to produce a product which is
applied to the land, it is a solid waste by section
26l.2(c)(l). As a solid waste derived from the treatment of a
listed hazardous waste, it remains a listed hazardous waste
until delisted (Section 261.3(c) and (d)). If our understanding
that process wastes from the electric arc furnace are mixed with
the K061 mixture in the load cell furnace is correct, all of the
slag removed from the load cell reactor, if a solid waste, is a
listed hazardous waste by Section 261.3U)(2)(iv). piease note
that under 40 CFR part 266, Subpart C, hazardous wastes recycled
by placement on the land are subject to extensive regulations,
unless the recyclable material has undergone a chemical reaction
in the course of producing the waste-derived product so as to
become inseparable by physical means.
Finally, the January 8, 1988 proposal to modify the
regulations in Section 261.2(0(3) may apply to your recycling
situation. The docket materials in support of that rulemaJcing
contain an Item t6 which summarizes the factors the Agency used
for deciding whether to list certain wastestreams in Section
261.32. K061 was listed because it is typically disposed, or
reclaimed in an unrelated process, and is frequently stored in
open piles* Tne proposed rule would allow case-by-case
demonstrations) by the generator that the material does not meet
the conditions] for listing, depending on several factors. It is
not possible to maJce a general statement regarding the status of
the electric arc furnace dust being recycled with your system.
The preamble to the proposed rule discusses the possibility that
the material is not discarded (53 Q 526 and 527, January 8,
1988). From the information in your letter, it does not appear
-------
- 4 -
that the load ceil reactor is closely related to the
production of steel.
Again, if you plan to implement your plan you may wish to
discuss the process as proposed with EPA Region or state
personnel with regulatory authority in the proposed location for
the plant. If you have further questions regarding this letter
please contact Michael Petruska at (202) 475-9888.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
UNITED STATIS EMVIRONMENTAL MOTfCTIOM ACIMCY 9441.1933(23!
JUN 2 4 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: USPCI Drum Shredder
FROM: Jim Michael, Chief
Disposal and Renediation Section (WH-563)
TO: Lawrence A. Wapensky, Chief
Utah/North Dakota Section
This is in response to your May 12, 1988 memorandum
addressing questions regarding a drua shredder at the USPCI,
Clive, Utah, sits. I would like to address your questions in
the same order as discussed in your memorandum.
Is the dr"» ahrsddina operation, as described in the
supplied information, raqulataa under RCRA?
Yes, the drua shredding unit is processina containers filled
with hazardous wastes in a manner that constitutes treatment of
hazardous waste. Since the drua shredder was not designed to
contain an accumulation of hazardous waste, it does not meet the
regulatory definition of a tank (40 CTR 260.10); this activity
will require a RCRA permit as a miscellaneous unit under 40 CFR
264.600 (Subpart X).
Since the operation of ths drum shredder poses risks of
hazardous wasts releases that are similiar to releases from
tanks (Subpart J)r certain requirements for tanks aay be
appropriate for inclusion in the Subpart X permit. We also
recommend that other requirements be Imposed to mitigate
potential safety and environmental hazards from this unit.
specific controls are suggested, where possible, to control the
potential for ths following problems:
* Explosions and fires within ths unit from ths accumulation
of ignitabls or reactive gasesi
* Generation of hazardous air emissions from the mixing of
incompatible hazardous waste during ths shredding
operation;
-------
-2-
* Releases to the air, including contaminated dust or
hazardous gases;
* Releases of liquid hazardous waste from an increase in
pressure on the hazardous waste being shredded. Hazardous
waste liquids absorbed by a material might pass the paint
filter test for free liquids under atmospheric pressure,
but release the liquid under pressurized conditions inside
the unit. This result (liquid/absorbent material
separation) is neither intentional nor desirable and,
therefore, should be minimized. Measures should be
planned and implemented to collect potential releases from
the unit; and,
* Releases from precipitation events since the unit is not
entirely covered with a roof and hazardous waste will
remain in the mechanism after each use. The unit is not
designed to trap and control this type of release.
Therefore, we suggest channelling releases resulting from
precipitation to a sump or other containment device. The
water should be analyzed before discharge or disposed of
as a hazardous waste.
If jit ia regulated, does it come under the permitting
authority of the State-delegated program, or under Subpart X?
As a Subpart X unit, the Region will be the permitting
authority. This authority is provided by 40 CFR 264.l(f)(2).
However, since the unit is a miscellaneous unit similar to a
tank, the Region may want to check with the State for more
stringent requirements under Subpart J that may be appropriate.
If the facility constructed or operated this unit without
having it on its Part A application, should EPA or the State
proceed with enforcement action?
Given the above determination (i.e., the shredder is a
Subpart X treatment unit), the Region was correct to instruct
the facility to cease operation of the unit. Operation of a
hazardous) waste unit without a permit or approval as a change in
interim status under 40 CFR 270.72 is not authorized. The
Region should call in the Part B application on this unit. The
unit can legally begin operation when the forthcoming permit for
the other units at the facility is modified to include the
shredder.
Since this is a Subpart X unit, Region VIII will maintain
enforcement authority after the RCRA permit modification is
issued. We recommend that the Region and State discuss their
enforcement priorities in order to make a final determination on
any enforcement action against the facility.
-------
-3-
If you have any questions regarding this information or would
like to discuss the issues further, please contact Nestor Aviles
at FTS 382-2218.
cc: Bruce R. Weddle, OSW
Elizabeth Cotsvorth, OSW
Sonya Stelaack, OSW
Chester Osznan, OSW
Kent Anderson, OSW
Frank McAlister, OSW
Fred Chanania, OGC
Nestor J. Aviles, OSW
Terry Brown, Region VIII
-------
9441.1933(30
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 88
3. Household Hazardous Waste
As a part of a consent decree, a firm which caused a plume of ground-water
contaminated with RCRA listed waste, is required to install carbon filters in
all affected homes with water wells. When the firm returns to change these
filters, they wish to collect and ship them for regeneration. Will these filters
be covered by the household hazardous waste exclusion in Section 261.4(b)(1)?
Yes, Section 261.4(b)(l) defines "household waste" as any material derived
from households. Since the carbon filter was installed in a home, it is
household waste when removed. There is no significant difference
between filters installed by the firm and ones installed by a homeowner on
his own initiative. The household hazardous waste exclusion would
apply to the filters when they are sent for regeneration.
Source: Carrie Wehling (202) 382-7706
Research: Randall Eicher
-------
9441.1988(31)
MEMORANDUM #24;
DATE: July 1988
SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities
FROM: David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WH-562B)
TO: Addresses
This memo will address the following topics:
o Method 3500- Clarification on Surrogate Standard
o Extraction System for PCBs in Soil
o Good Laboratory Practices Work Group
o Results on the recent Laboratory Proficiency Evaluation
Samples
o Test Method for Total Halogens in Used Oil
o Contract Laboratory Program - Participation as a
Surrogate for Laboratory Certification
o Methods Section Staff Responsibilities
o Call for Reviewers
Method 3500-Clarification on Surrogate Standard
We made an error in Method 3500 and a clarification is
needed of the direction given on preparing the terphenyl-d!4
surrogate standard described on page 2, of Memorandum No. 23. The
methanol specified as the dilution solvent is not appropriate.
The revised directions are as follows:
A. Weight out 10 mg terphenly-d!4 into a small beaker
(20-50ml) using an analytical balance.
B. Add 5 to 10 ml of pure carbon disulfide until the
terphenly-d!4 completely dissolves.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
C. Transfer this carbon disulfide solution to a 100 ml
volumetric flask.
D. Quantitatively transfer the residual carbon disulfide
solution from the beaker to the volumetric flask by
washing several times with methanol.
E. Dilute to the line with methanol. Mix well.
Extraction System for PCBs in Soil
We have reviewed the data package submitted by Joseph
Stewart of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in support of his
request for use of SOXTEC extraction system, in place of the
conventional Soxhlet extraction system (Method 3540), for
preparation of PCB samples for Method 8080 at ORNL. The PCB data
generated from split samples, run concurrently, using the
conventional Soxhlet and the SOXTEC extraction techniques for
sample preparation, shows that these preparative techniques are
equivalent, within allowable standard deviation limits. These
data also demonstrate that Method 8080, utilizing either
extraction technique, is appropriate for the analysis of PCB's in
soil and clay matrices at the low ppm level. The SOXTEC system
actually proved to be the superior technique when time
constraints were considered, taking only 2 hours for sample
preparation vs. 17 hours for Soxhlet.
From the submitted information, OSW believes that the SOXTEC
extraction procedure is suitable for determining the PCBs in soil
matrices. We recommend that where use of SW-846 methods is not
mandated by the RCRA regulations, permit writers approve use of
the SOXTEC extraction system for RCRA PCB soil analyses. OSWER
is in the process of using the ORNL data to develop a general
extraction procedure using the SOXTEC apparatus and after the
method has received formal review it will be added to SW-846.
GLP Workgroup Meetings
The RCRA Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) taskgroup, (part of
the QA Workgroup), has begun the process of developing GLPs for
the program. These practices are designed to apply to all
laboratories developing data in support of the RCRA program. The
second draft has been distributed to both the taskgroup and the
full Workgroup for their review prior to the July llth general
workgroup meeting.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
Test Methods for Total Halogens in Used Oil
The Federal Register Notice of November 29, 1985 (page
49189) recommended that ASTM D808-81 be used for total halogens
(as chlorine) in used oil until a method is developed for
inclusion in SW-846. On March 10, 1986 (page 8207) information
in a Federal Register Notice confirmed that the ASTM method,
cited previously, is inappropriate for measuring total halogens
at levels of regulatory concern. The Agency is working to
address this problem and a package of proposed test methods for
total halogens in used oil will be submitted for workgroup review
next month.
Until these new methods have been reviewed and formally
adopted, the Agency cannot give general approval for their use.
Pending such approval, however, the Agency will accept, on a
case-by-case basis, data using any technique, as long as adequate
QA/QC data has been gathered to validate the results.
We believe, based on the data that has been collected so
far, that several techniques will be suitable for determining
total halogens in used oil at levels of regulatory concern.
These include microcoulometry (using Dohrman instrument); Paar
bomb combustion with any of the following finishes: mercuric
nitrate titration, titrimetric silver nitrate, or ion
chromatography; x-ray fluorescence for samples not containing
water; and Dexsil's Clor-D-Tect 1000 test kit for pass/fail
determinations only.
For additional information, contact Barry Lesnik at
382-7459.
Use of Contract Laboratory Program Participation as a Surrogate
for Laboratory Certification
The Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) provides standardized
and specialized analytical services to support OSWER activities.
Firm, fixed-price contracts are awarded competitively to the
lowest responsible bidders through the Government's Invitation
for BID (IFB) process. Laboratories selected as contractors are
monitored for adherence to quality control and administrative
procedures and, as long as they receive a satisfactory rating,
continue to receive analytical work according to EPA needs and
the size of their contract. Laboratories not performing
satisfactorily, while they still remain in the program, are cut
off from further work.
Concerns have been raised by non-CLP laboratories that a
number of EPA Regions and States are requiring that facilities
conducting corrective action testing employ laboratories that are
participating in OERR's CLP program in the erroneous belief
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
that CLP participation constitutes EPA certification. OSW frowns
on this practice since CLP participation does not constitute
certification and, more importantly, that for financial or other
reasons, many of the nation's best testing laboratories have
elected not to be CLP contractors.
Methods Section Staff Responsibilities
Many times questions come up dealing with specific methods
or testing problems and people do not know who to call for
assistance. While calls can always be directed to our general
number (202/382-4671), I suggest contacting the subject matter
specialists directly for fastest service. You will find the
specialists responsible for the major testing and quality
assurance subject areas listed below.
Subject
SW-846
Quality Assurance
Inorganic Analysis
Organic Analysis
Mobility Prediction
(leachability
volatility)
Sampling
Reactivity
- Toxic Gas Generation
- Explosivity
Ignitability
Corrosivity
Bioassay Methods
Name
Charles Sellers
Florence Richardson
Charles Sellers
Barry Lesnik
Gail Hansen
Florence Richardson
Gail Hansen
Florence Richardson
Florence Richardson
Charles Sellers
Gail Hansen
Phone
382-3282
382-4778
382-3282
382-7459
475-6722
382-4778
475-6722
382-4778
382-4778
382-3282
475-6722
I want to emphasize that not only do we want to help answer
your questions, but also to hear your%ideas for new methods and
testing ideas, problems that we need to work on, and any other
suggestions or comments you may have to help us improve the
program.
Call for Reviewers
ASTM and EPA's Office of Solid Waste have a need for
qualified individuals to review papers presented at the OSWER
Annual Solid Waste Testing and Quality Assurance Symposium and
the D34 Symposia prior to publication in ASTM STPs. In order to
assist us in this effort, we have established a data base of
potential reviewers. If you would be willing to contribute a
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
few hours annually to this review process, please complete the
attached form and return it to me at the address below.
David Friedman
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste (SW-331)
Washington, DC 20460
A short list of general topics is given. Please indicate those
topics for which you have special expertise or interest.
Additional information concerning your specific areas of
expertise is also requested.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
9441.1953(32!
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Mr. Marshall R. Turner 5-..•:• .-.-.•i"-•.':. •:v\-"^-.:'
Vice President, Manufacturing
Racon Refrigerants
6040 South Ridge Road
P.O. Box 198
Wichita, KS 67201
Dear Mr. Turner:
This letter is in response to your February 1, 1988 petition
to change 40 CFR Part 261 to encourage chlorofluorocarbon
recycling. It is based on information contained in your
petition and in telephone conversations with Michael Petruska of
the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) and with our contractor, Becky
Cuthbertson of Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. This response is
based on the Federal RCRA regulations; individual states
implementing RCRA may have more stringent requirements, or
regulations which are broader in scope. The tentative
conclusion we have reached is that under Federal rules, the
refrigerants you are concerned about are probably not hazardous
waste. Therefore, your rulemaking petition may be moot. Our
conclusion is explained in detail below.
The Agency understands that the refrigerants manufactured hy
your company may become contaminated during customers' use. TJIC
contamination may occur because atmospheric moisture condense:;,
because lubricating oil from the compressor is released into the
refrigerant, or because the compressor's high temperature may
cause small amounts of hydrochloric acid to form. We understand
that when servicing the refrigeration system, the service person
may either vent the used refrigerant to the atmosphere, or
collect the used refrigerant in cylinders to transfer it for
reclamation.
\
Refrigerant that has been used and has become contaminated
through use fits the definition of a spent material (40 CFR
Section 261.He)(1)) if it must be reclaimed prior to its
reuse. Spent materials that are reclaimed are solid wastes pet-
Section 261.2(c). Your environmental engineer, Denise Pope,
indicated that the used refrigerant is collected from customers
in cylinders and transferred to your facility for reclamation,
and is not tested to determine whether it can be reused directly
-------
i.e., without processing. Thus, it would fall under the
definition of a spent material going for reclamation, which is a
solid waste.
The used refrigerant would not be considered a listed spent
solvent. The spent solvent listings in Section 261.31 apply to
certain materials that have been used for their solvent
properties and have become spent. See the December 31, 1985
Federal Register notice (50 FR 53315) which clarifies the scope
of the spent solvent listings.
The used refrigerant would not meet the listing description
in Section 261.33(e) for trichlorofluoromethane (U121) or
dichlorodifluoromethane (U075) because it has been used. The
listings in Section 261.33(e) and (f) apply to the commercially
pure grades of the listed chemicals, technical grades, and
formulations in which the listed chemical is the sole active
ingredient, but not to used chemicals.
If the solid waste is not identified as a listed hazardous
waste, the generator's responsibility is to test the waste or
apply knowledge to determine if the waste exhibits a
characteristic. See Sections 261.5(f)(l), 261.5(g)(l) and
262.11(c). "Generator" includes the person whose act or process
produces hazardous waste, or whose act first causes the waste to
become subject to regulation. In most cases, the generators
would be the owner of the refrigeration equipment, as well as
the service person who may be involved in determining whether
the refrigerant is still useful, or who may be collecting the
material for reclamation, i.e., there would be a co-generator
situation.
Based on the information available at this time, it seems
unlikely that the used refrigerant would exhibit any of the four
characteristics of hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or EP toxicity - see Sections 261.20 - 261.24).
Corrosivity may be a characteristic of concern, if hydrochloric
acid is present due to breakdown of the chlorofluorocarbons at
high compressor temperatures. However, the characteristic in
Section 261.22 refers to aqueous wastes with a pH less than or
equal to 2, or liquid wastes that corrode steel at a rate
greater than one-quarter inch per year. The Paint Filter
-------
Liquids test (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Method
9095) is the method that is recommended for generators to
isolate the liquid portion of their waste. See 50 FR 18372,
April 30, 1985. If the hydrochloric acid is present in the
liquid phase, and the waste does exhibit the corrosivity
characteristic, it is a hazardous waste.
The generator's responsibility includes determining whether
a waste is hazardous using the steps outlined in Section
262.11. If the waste is not listed, the generator has the
option of testing or applying knowledge to determine whether the
waste exhibits a characteristic. Enclosed is a portion of the
background document for the hazardous waste generator
regulations. The enclosed portion details the generator's
option to apply knowledge "in light of the materials or
processes used." Pages 1-2.11 and 1-2.12 explain that "If
operations at different facilities are sufficiently similar as
to provide the requisite basis, then nothing in the regulation
prevents the use of such information. Persons are cautioned,
however, that data from one facility are not necessarily
transferrable to another; that subtle differences in the
facilities or raw materials may significantly alter the
character of the resulting waste."
If your company is interested in testing the used
refrigerant that you would normally be reclaiming to see if it
exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, the data obtained
may be quite useful in that equipment owners or service
personnel could use the data to make their hazardous waste
determinations. If testing shows that these refrigerants never
exhibit any of the characteristics, they may be reclaimed
without complying with the EPA hazardous waste rules.
Finally, states authorized to implement RCRA are required to
have programs that are consistent with the Federal RCRA
program. These states' requirements may be more stringent or
more extensive than the Federal regulations (Section
270.1(i)(1)), as long as they are consistent according to the
criteria in Section 271.4. States may have requirements more
stringent than EPA's.
-------
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael Petruska at (202) 475-9888.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
J&rA. ft
\ I V-
'3
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of solid Waste
-------
9441. 1953(32:
Ms. Paige Murphy-Young
Assistant Attorney General
1275 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Ms. Murphy-Young:
This is in response to your letter of March 22, 1988, to Mary
Cunningham of my staff, requesting clarification as to how the
§261.2(c) (2) (ii) exemption for commercial chemical products
burned for energy recovery might apply to waste-derived fuel
products of a solvent regeneration facility operated by Bud's oil
Service (BOS) . We have also reviewed two other letters on this
subject sent to my staff—the February 19, 1908, letter from
Charles A. Peterson of BOS to Mike Petruska, and the June 21,
1988, letter from David Kimball, an attorney representing BOS, to
Bob Holloway. We have conferred with our Regional Office in San
Francisco, and they asked that we respond to you directly. We
are responding to both Mr. Peterson's and Mr. Kimball's letters
by copy of this letter.
BOS Solvent Reclamation
We understand that BOS regenerates spent solvents to produce
commercial gun wash solvent. We understand that BOS also markets
the regenerated solvent as a fuel. BOS asserts that the
commercial gun wash product is exempt under §261.3(c)(2)(i), and
that the waste-derived fuel is exempt under §261.2 (c) (2) (ii) .
These issues are addressed below.
Is the Reclaimed Solvent Excluded Under S261.3fclf21 fil?
The reclaimed solvent would be excluded under §261.3(c)(2)(i)
if the solvent is reclaimed from solid wastes and is used
beneficially and the reclaimed solvent is not reclaimed further,
burned for energy recovery, or used in a manner constituting
disposal. Thus, the solvent that is reclaimed by BOS and used as
a commercial gun wash solvent is not a solid waste.
-------
- 2 -
Are Products Produced by the Reclamation Process Exempt When Used
as Fuel?
Reclaimed materials burned for energy recovery are solid
waste, and, if hazardous by listing or characteristic, are
hazardous waste. See § 261. 3 (c) (2) (i) . See also 50 FR 634
(January 4, 1985). Thus, the exclusion at §261.2(c)(2)(ii) would
not apply to the solvents BOS reclaims for fuel use. Further, the
waste-derived fuel product that is produced by BOS is subject to
regulation under Subpart D, Part 266. Subpart D subjects
hazardous waste fuels to RCRA storage and transportation standards
and places administrative controls on marketers and burners.
Although the exclusion provided by §261.2(c)(2)(ii) would not
apply to the waste-derived fuel, the exclusion could apply to
solvent product that was off-specification and, in lieu of its
intended purpose, burned for energy recovery. To be exempt under
this provision, the off-spec solvent would also have to be a fuel
itself. The use of acetone-derived solvents, for example, would
be precluded by the fuel requirement.
We note that the statement that is quoted on page 2 of the
June 21 letter from Mr. Kimball to Mr. Holloway taken from the
"Guidance Manual on the RCRA Regulation of Recycled Hazardous
Wastes" is incorrect. That statement is an incorrect summary of
preamble discussion provided at 50 FR 634 (January 4, 1985)
regarding the regulatory status of reclaimed products. The
preamble states that the exclusion for commercial products
reclaimed from hazardous waste does not apply when the output of
the reclamation process is burned for energy recovery or placed on
the land. As discussed above, §261.2(c)(2)(ii) does not provide
an exclusion for the waste-derived fuel.
Finally, we think it is important to emphasize the underlying
policy of the Agency's rules. If a% person could simply purify a
waste (by settling, regeneration or blending) and then burn it
without being subject to RCRA, then the Agency's rules and
Congressional command to control burning of hazardous waste-
derived fuels would have little meaning. It was for this reason
that EPA explicitly stated that the exclusion in §261.3(c)(2) does
not apply to materials ultimately burned for energy recovery.
-------
I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have further
questions, please do not hesitate to call Mary Cunningham of ny
staff at (202) 382-7935.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Charles A. Peterson, Bud's Oil Service
David P. Kimball, Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, P.C.
Frances Schultz, Region IX
Steve Silver-man, OGC
Bob Holloway, OSW
Mary Cunningham, OSW
Mike Petruska, OSW
Matt Straus, OSW
bcc: Joe Carra, OSW
Dev Barnes, OSW
Jim Berlow, OSW
-------
ATES EMV1«OXV.*MTAL PtOTECTlOH )EHCY
JUL 29
Mr. Sol L. Colon . .
Environmental Quality Official
Western Fher Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. BOX 7468
Ponce, P.R. 00732
Dear Mr. Colon!
I aa writing in response to your letter dated June 13, 1988, in
which you requested our interpretation of the hazardousness of a
v^ste generated and treated at your facility in Ponce, P.R. Also,
you requested confirmation that your treatment process does not
require a RCRA permit.
Specifically, you treat a liquid waste containing about 18%
acid and 1% organic material by evaporating some of the water
(which is condensed and sent to the facility's vastevat«r tr«at»«nt
plant) and transferring the concentrated acid solution to a
concrete mixer where it is mixed with Jtiln dust to form a dry solid
for disposal.
On July 8, 1988, Ed Abrams, a member of my staff, telephoned
you to determine the composition of the 1% organic component of
your waste and the ..type of kiln dust. Your response identified the
organic materials .{s organic acids such as oxolic and tartaric
acids, and not organic solvents. Also, you identified the kiln
dust as cement kiln dust, a solid waste which is not a hazardous
waste (see 40 C/R 261.4(b)(8)).
Assuming that your liquid waste being treated is only
characteristically hazardous because of corrosivity, the dry waste
generated ffpm the treatment would hot be considered hazardous if
it does nof'exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste
(see 40 CFR 261.20-24), but your operation would be considered
treatment of a hazardous waste. However, since it is being done at
the site of waste generation in tanks, a RCRA permit would be
required only if you stored your waste for periods exceeding 90
days prior to treatment. If treatment was being done off site, a
RCRA storage permit would be required in any case.
-------
If you require additional information, please contact either
Mr. Angel Chang in EPA Region II, or Mr. Ed Abrams of my staff at
(202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director,
Characterization and Assessment
Division
cc: Mr. Angel Chang, (2AWM-SW Rm 1000)
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
-------
9441.1953(39:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
30LIO WASTE AND EMS"G£NCV =»E5PQN:
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulation and Permitting of Laboratories
» . fl
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, DirectorAA '^^ jrr<~-
Office of Solid Waste (OS-3T5TjJ
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
on July 19, 1988, EPA promulgated an exemption for samples used
in treatability studies (53 FR 27290). To help increase awareness
of the new exemption, and to clarify the regulatory and permitting
requirements for laboratories in general, we have prepared the
attached decision tree and a summary of the treatability sample
rule. This is intended to help lab managers and enforcement
personnel understand the regulations. Questions in this area may
be addressed to Stephen Cochran at FTS-475-9715.
v
Attachments
-------
i/f
DETAILED FACT SHEET
SMALL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDIES SAMPLE EXEMPTION
Status: Final Rule, effective July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27290)
OSW Contact: Paul Mushovic
1. Effect of the Rule
The final rule conditionally exempts small quantities of
hazardous waste being utilized in small-scale treatability
studies from the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Such testing
requires no prior EPA approval. Quantity limitations for
treatability studies are set per waste stream per treatment
process. Limitations are also being set for quantities shipped,
and for treatment rates and storage limitations per facility.
New paragraphs (e) and (f) to 40 CFR 261.4 accomplish the
following. First, persons who generate samples are exempted from
the generator and transporter requirements when samples are
shipped by the generator, or any other person who collects the
sample (the "sample collector"), to a laboratory or testing
facility for the purpose of conducting a treatability analysis,
or when shipped from the facility back to the sample collector,
provided that certain packaging and labeling requirements are
met. Second, any laboratory or testing facility that conducts
treatability studies may store these waste samples and residues
generated from the treatability study within the quantity and
time limits specified and not be subject to the requirements of
40 CFR, Parts 264, 265, and 270. Third, the actual testing of
the samples does not require a permit, provided the laboratory or
testing facility complies with the notification requirements in
the rule and meets the quantity and time limitations specified in
the rule.
Definition and Examples. A treatability study (newly-defined)
subjects a relatively small amount of hazardous waste to a
treatment process. Its purpose is to determine:
whether the waste is amenable to a treatment process;
- what pretreatment (if any) is required;
the optimal process conditions%;
the efficiency of the treatment process; or,
the characteristics and volume of residuals from a
particular treatment process.
A treatability study is not to be used for commercial
treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. Examples of the types
of treatability studies included in the exemption are:
- physical/chemical/biological treatment;
- thermal treatment (incineration, pyrolysis, oxidation,
combustion);
solidification;
sludge dewatering;
volume reduction;
toxicity reduction; and,
- recycling feasibility.
-------
-2-
The rule also allows the following types of waste testing
studies:
- liner compatibility studies;
- corrosion studies;
- toxicological and health effects studies; and,
- other material compatibility studies (e.g., relating to
leachate collection systems, geotextile materials, other land
disposal unit requirements, pumps and personal protective
equipment).
2. Purpose and Rationale of the Rule
A. Need for Simplified Procedures. The hazardous waste
regulations, when applied to waste samples used in small-scale
treatability studies, are more comprehensive than is necessary to
adequately protect human health and the environment. The Agency
needs to promote research and the development of innovative
technologies to manage hazardous wastes.
B. Factors Limiting Risk. The Agency believes that the
following factors combine to ensure that the risks to human
health and the environment are de minimise
- the various quantity and time restrictions contained in the
r u 1 e ;
- the high cost of collecting and shipping the sample and
conducting legitimate treatability studies;
- certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements that will
enable the Agency to conduct inspections and bring enforcement
actions against persons who abuse this exemption; and,
- Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Postal Service
(USPS), or other regulations governing the transportation of
hazardous materials.
The Agency also believes that sUvfficient professional and
financial incentives are in place to provide for the safe
shipment of samples to and from, and proper handling of samples
at, laboratories and testing facilities conducting treatability
studies.
3. Limitations Contained in the Rule
Specific limitations in the final rule ensure de minimis risk
to human health and the environment.
-------
-3-
A. Waste Quantity Exempted per waste Stream. There are
limits on the amount of waste that can be subject to a
treatability study evaluation per generated waste stream. The
rule exempts (per waste stream per treatment process):
- 1000 kg of non-acute hazardous waste; or,
- 1 kg of acute hazardous waste; or,
- 250 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated by acute
hazardous waste.
The rule also allows the Regional Administrator to grant
requests for waste stream quantity limits in excess of those
specified above, up to an a'dditional 500 kg of non-acute
hazardous waste, 1 kg of acute hazardous waste, and 250 kg of
soils, water, and debris contaminated with acute hazardous waste
when it can be demonstrated that an additional quantity of
hazardous waste is needed to complete a treatability study when:
- there has been an equipment or mechanical failure;
- there is a need to verify previous results;
- there is a need to study and analyze alternative techniques
within a previously evaluated treatment process; or,
- there is a need to determine final specifications for
treatment.
B. Transportation Shipment Limits. The Agency has set a
single shipment limitation as follows:
- 1000 kg of non-acute hazardous waste; or,
- 1 kg of acute hazardous waste; or,
- 250 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated with acute
hazardous waste.
These shipment limitations, covering the exemption from the
RCRA hazardous waste transporter regulations and manifesting
requirements, will apply when the materials are being shipped to
a laboratory or testing facility or returned to the generator or
sample collector.
C. Facility Treatment Rate Limit. The Agency has adopted a
treatment rate limit of 250 kg per day of as received waste for
the entire laboratory or testing facility. "As received" refers
to the waste shipped by the generator or sample collector as it
arrives at the laboratory or testing facility.
D. Facility Storage Quantity Limits. The Agency has also
adopted an overall storage limitation of 1000 kg of "as received"
waste per testing facility. This limitation can include up to
500 kg of soils/ water, or debris contaminated with acute
hazardous waste or 1 kg of acute hazardous waste. The Agency is
making it clear in this rule that the storage exemption only
applies to laboratories or testing facilities conducting
-------
-4-
treatability studies. The rule does not allow for intermediate
storage.
E. Facility Storage Time Limits. Any untreated sample and
any residue generated during the treatability study must be
returned to the generator within 90 days of study completion or
within 1 year from the date of shipment by the generator to the
laboratory or testing facility, whichever is earlier, otherwise,
these materials must be managed, by the laboratory or testing
facility conducting the treatability study, as a RCRA hazardous
waste (unless the waste is no longer hazardous).
MTUs conducting treatability studies may qualify for this
exemption. The requirements of the exemption apply to each
location where an MTU will conduct treatability studies.
When more than one MTU is operating at one location they will be
treated as one MTU facility for purposes of applying the
limitations.
4. Procedures for Compliance with the Rule
Facilities conducting small-scale treatability studies would
not be required to obtain the permit; and the shipment of samples
to and from facilities would no longer need to be manifested.
There are still certain procedures required to qualify for the
exemption.
A. General Reporting and Recordkeepinq Requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are being imposed to
facilitate inspector review, and if necessary, to take
enforcement action. The generator of the sample (who may also be
the shipper or sample collector) and the laboratory or testing
facility conducting the treatability study must keep copies of
contracts and shipping documents for a minimum of 3 years after
the completion of the study.
B. Generator-Specific Requirements. Generators and sample
collectors must also maintain records indicating the following:
- the amount of waste (per waste stream and treatment
process) shipped under the exemption;
- the name, address, and EPA identification number of the
study facility;
- shipment dates; and,
- whether or not any unused sample or any residue generated
from the treatability study was returned.
Beginning in 1989, generators must report this information in
their biennial reports. In addition, generators and/or sample
collectors who seek a variance to submit supplemental sample
material from a particular waste stream must indicate the reason
-------
-5-
for the request, support the additional quantity requested,
account for all sample material previously submitted from the
waste stream, and describe any technical or equipment
modifications and the corrected results.
c. Facility-Specific Requirements. Owners or operators of a
study facility must:
- notify the Regional Administrator or authorized State, by
letter, of the intent to conduct treatability studies at least 45
days prior to conducting any such studies;
- obtain an EPA identification number if it does not have
one;
- maintain records documenting compliance with the specified
time and quantity limits for treatment and storage for 3 years
from the completion of each treatability study.
Specific minimum information, by treatability study, that
must be maintained includes:
- the name, address, and EPA identification number of the
generator or sample collector;
- information on the quantities of and dates that waste
materials were received, stored, and tested; and,
- the date the unused sample and residue were returned to the
generator or, if sent to a designated facility, the name of the
facility and its EPA identification number.
By March 15 of each year, each facility must submit a
comprehensive report to the authorized State or Regional
Administrator that includes the above information for all studies
of the previous calendar year and an estimate of the number of
studies and the amount of waste expected to be used in
treatability studies during the current year.
Additionally, laboratories or testing facilities that do not
return the unused sample or the residues to the generator or
sample collector within the specified time limits are subject to
appropriate regulation. Facilities must determine if they meet
the SQG requirements of Subject 261.5 or the accumulation
requirements of Subject 262.34.
5. Impact of the Rule
This exemption will reduce the overall costs and economic
impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations by
eliminating permitting requirements for laboratories and testing
facilities intending to conduct treatability studies. Facilities
and laboratories will be spared the time (as much as 2 years) and
the costs (estimated to be between $100,000 and $200,000)
otherwise necessary to obtain a RCRA permit. The Agency
-------
-6-
anticipates that most of the estimated 400 facilities which will
be conducting treatability studies will include testing
laboratories, research organizations, colleges, universities,
technical institutes, and those facilities involved in solid and
hazardous waste management.
6. Effective Date of the Rule
The need for more effective hazardous waste treatment
alternatives and the fact that this amendment reduces, rather
than increases, the existing requirements for facilities that
handle waste samples provide good cause to make this rule
effective immediately upon publication notwithstanding Section
4(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section
553(d). This amendment takes effect immediately upon publication
in the Federal Register. The regulations will be applicable only
in those States that do not have final authorization. Because
these changes are less stringent or reduce the scope of the
Federal program, States are not required to adopt this
rulemaking, although EPA strongly encourages States to do so as
quickly as possible. EPA will expedite review of authorized
state program revision applications.
7. Agency Contact
For further information regarding the Treatability
Studies-Sample Exemption, contact Stephen Cochran at EPA
Headquarters telephone No. 202-475-9715 or FTS No. 475-9715.
-------
/a -ff- * c
Office of Solid Waste
Laboratory Decision Tree
STEP t.
Determine th« iyp»
of teetfng
STEP 2.
Determine If
material Is a waste
STEP 3,
Determine If solid
watt* ta • heurdoui
Witt*
Type of Testing
SampietchemcwizBtlon
fir compowtton testing
Is it solid waste
per §261.2?
STEP 4.
Testability
exemption
study
STEP 5.
Determine If exempt
recycling oocura
STEP 6.
Determine If special
recycling occurs
STEP 7.
Determine If otfia
recycling oocura
STEP 8.
Determine
occurs
If storage
STEP 1.
Determine If tr»*>
mint at olapoeeJ
occur*
STEP 10.
Verify that activity
requlree • permit
NO
YES
Is the waste listed in
§§261.31 -33 or does it exhibit
a characteristic of a hazardous
waste (§§261.20-24)7
YES
Is the activity something
other than a (Testability
study (defined in §260.10)?
YES
It the activity something
other than exempt recycling
specified in §261.6
-------
Guidance on Laboratory Testing and RCRA Permitting
This guidance addresses only the issue of whether materials
received by a laboratory must be handled as a hazardous waste
under the federal permit or interim status hazardous waste
management standards. It does not address the issue of the
laboratory which generates hazardous wastes and whether
permitting is required for the laboratory-as-generator.
Individual states (whether authorized under RCRA or not) may
also have requirements that are more strict than the federal
requirements. Thus, although this guidance may indicate that a
particular activity may be conducted without requiring a permit,
in all cases the laboratory director must confirm with the
appropriate state agency whether a permit is required.
Additional assistance on all aspects of the determination
process outlined in this guidance may be obtained by calling the
RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance Hotline ((800)424-9346,
commercial (202)382-3000; FTS-382-3000).
-------
Step 1. Determine the type of testing that will occur.
If the testing is solely to determine a waste, soil, water, or
air sample's characteristics or composition, the sample's
handling may be subject to reduced regulations under 40 CFR
$261.4(d).
Step 2. Determine whether the material is a solid waste per
§261.2 (or, in the case of contaminated soil or water, contains a
solid waste). [Note: The term "solid waste" does not refer to a
material's physical form, but to its legal status as a waste vs.
commodity.]
This step requires looking at both the status of the material as
it is handled in the "outside world" and as it is handled in the
laboratory. For instance, an EP toxic wastewater treatment
sludge which is landfilled in the "outside world" is a solid
waste and a hazardous waste; however, if it is being tested for
reclamation possibilities, it would be neither a solid waste nor
a hazardous waste until the experimental residues are discarded.
Another example would be an off-specification commercial chemical
product listed in $261.33. If, in the "outside world", it is
sent for reclamation, it is neither a solid waste nor a hazardous
waste. However, if the laboratory intends to incinerate it, it
is both a solid waste and a hazardous waste. Assistance in this
step may be found by referring to the Guidance Manual on the RCRA
Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Wastes (EPA 530-SW-86-015), or
by calling the RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance Hotline with
details about the specific situation.
Step 3. Determine whether the solid waste is a hazardous waste.
Refer to $261.4(b) to see if it is a "solid waste which is not a
hazardous waste." If it is not excluded by $261.4(b), refer to
$$261.31-261.33, to determine if it is a listed hazardous waste;
if it is not listed, refer to $$261.20-261.24 to determine if it
is a characteristic hazardous waste. For assistance, call
(800)424-9346.
Step 4. Determine whether the laboratory's activity qualifies
for the treatability study exemption at $261.4(e) and (f).
See the July 19, 1988 Federal Register (53 FR 27290). Individual
states may not recognize this exemption.
Step 5. Determine whether the laboratory will be performing any
of the recycling operations on wastes which are described in
$261.6(a) (3). If so, the activity is not subject to federal RCRA
regulation.
-------
-2-
Step 6. Determine whether the laboratory will be recycling
wastes in the manner described in §261.6(a)(2 ) .
(Note: Burning for energy recovery must be legitimate recycling.
Current enforcement guidance uses 5000-8000 BTU/lb as generated
(not as blended for burning) as the dividing point between
legitimate energy recovery and incineration.]
If so, the regulations in §261.6(a)(2) refer the reader to the
appropriate sections of Part 266. In some cases, these
activities will require permits.
Step 7. Determine whether the laboratory's activity is recycling
which may be (currently) exempt from regulation under §261.6(c).
A storage permit may be required.
Step 8. Determine whether storage of hazardous waste received
from off-site occurs. If so, a storage permit is required
(§270.l(c)) unless the activity is specifically excluded from the
permit requirement by S270.1(c)(2) and (3). Check Part 268 for
additional regulation of storage of certain hazardous wastes.
Continue to step 9.
Step 9. Determine whether treatment or disposal (as defined in
$260.10) occur. If so, a permit covering these activities may be
required ($270.l(c)). Research, Development, and Demonstration
activities may be covered by a special type of permit (see
$270.65). In addition, the laboratory must refer to Part 268 for
restrictions on placement of hazardous wastes on land (if land
placement is proposed).
Step 10. Verify that the activity requires a permit. Certain
activities are exempt from the permit requirement (see
$270.1(c)(2) and (3)). In addition, Part 268 contains the
restrictions on land placement of certain haazardous wastes.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL P*w, tv.» IUN AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
/ 9441.1988(40
V
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMtHGENCY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation
FROM:
TO:
Marcia E. Williams. Director (Wh-562
Office of Solid waste
Judy -Kertcher, Acting Director (5HS-3)
Solid waste Branch. Region V
Our office has
yoj: July 2*tn memo
4u Crn 261, as
the proauction
Marietta. OH.
in the process
FOOb hazarcous
spent toluene.
reviewea tne information you provicec in
in which you reqjested ar. interpretation of
it applies to a still bottom waste generateo cjrin:
of polystyrene at the Chevron Chemical Company.
we have deciaed tnat toluene is used as a solvent
tnerefore. tne tower 201 still oottoms are a
waste that is generated ojring the recovery of
The following information was used to make our decision
and to address the concerns outlined in your memo.
1. In a document submitted by Squire. Sanders, and Dempsey
on behalf of Chevron, it was stated that the toluene
is "added as a diluent" in the process. The toluene
is also useo as a carrier, or diluent, for the additives
which are used in the process. The property of a RCHA
solvent is the ability to solubilize. or to act as a
diluent.
\
2. Both styrene and toluene are recovered in Tower 201;
they are separated from the tars in this column. There-
fore; the waste generated at this point in the process
are still bottoms from the recovery of spent toluene.
an F005 waste.
3. The closed loop recycling process exemption does not
apply to this process. (See attacned discussion)
-------
- 2 -
4. Chevron made several arguments (e.g., the waste is not
ignitable and. consequently, not hazardous; the waste
does not contain toluene) that have not been addressed
by this decision. We feel that the three determinations
above resolve the issue of, whether the material in
question is hazardous waste.
Additional discussion on items l-4i
1. Peter pxenbol of Chevron Chemical Company commented
tnat the -term "diluent" had been used by them before
they realized that it has carried with it such a
weighty connotation (that use as a diluent constitutes
use as a solvent.) He suggested that a different
word or description coula be used wnich woula not be
as sensitive as the wora "diluent". Tne cefinition
of the wore "ciljert", however, is quite clear, anc
it was chosen previously as an accurate description
of the role that toluene plays in tne reaction.
Chevron wishes to use a different word now. but
toluene's function will not be changea by aoing so.
2. Of the feed that enters Tower 201, roughly 83% is
unreacted styrene and 4% is toluene. They are both
separated, together, from the tars in the column.
Toluene may not be the major component in the feed
stream to the column, out it is nonetheless being
recovered at this point in the separation from the
styrene.
3. The Federal Register excerpt on the closed loop recycl-
ing process reads as follows: "It should be notea that.
under today's rale, although secondary materials stored
in closed-loop reclamation processes that fit within
the exclusion of $261.4(a) (b)v are not solid waste;
wastes from their management are solid wastes. Tnus.
still bottoms from solvent reclamation, if an exclusion
applies for another reason, can be hazaraous wastes
if they are identified or listed. In this regard,
the Agency notes that many still bottoms from solvent
reclamation are listed wastes; as are the residual
spent solvents themselves (Hazardous wastes F001-005)."
(FR Vol. 51. NO. 134, 25443).
-------
Cnevron's otner arguments, tnat toluene is present in
tne waste in only ae minimis quantities, ana tnat
toluene "is an essential ingreaient in tne process
rrom a Kinetic stanapoint", etc., oecame moot points
oecause it was aeciaea tnat tne waste was tne listea
waste,
If you wish to discuss tne aoove in furtner aetail, please
call Yvonne Garoe on fIS <»7:>-bb7*.
-------
3-441
£P £ 1988
Xs. Jane Magee
Assistant Commissioner for
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
Dear Jane:
This is .n response to your letter on the applicability of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations to
shooting ranges. In your letter you indicated that the Indiana
University in Bloomington has received a preliminary notice of
intent to sue under RCRA, alleging that the university shooting
ranges are hazardous waste landfills, fully subject to the
requirement for an operating permit and all applicable facility
standards.
The discharge of ball and sport ammunition at shooting
ranges does not, in our opinion, constitute hazardous waste
disposal. This is because we do not consider the rounds to be
discarded, which is a necessary criterion to be met before a
material can be considered a solid waste and, subsequently, a
hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.3(a)). Rather, the shooting of
bullets is within the normal and expected use pattern of the
manufactured product. This interpretation extends to the
expended cartridges and unexploded bullets that fall to the
ground during the shooting exercise. The situation, in our
mind, is analogous to the use of pesticides whereby the
expected, normal use of a pesticide may result in some
discharge to the soils. This is a discharge incident to normal
product use and is not considered a hazardous or solid waste
activity falling under the jurisdiction of RCRA.
0
-------
wculd 1 i < e 13 discuss the . 3 s j e f u r t n e r , please call 11;:ace•
Cctswo'rtr. '222: 352-3122 or Thet Oszr.an .202' 332-4433.
S : nee rely,
\ /i
Sylvia K. Lowrarsce
Director
f Solid Waste
Elizabeth Cotsworth
.Matt Hale, OSW
"red Chanania, OGC
Karl Bremer, Region 5
Chet Oszman, OSW
-------
9441. 1933 (42
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 88
2. Oil and Gas Exclusion Applicability
A cavern beneath the earth's surface is used to store natural gas that is later
consumed for home heating during winter months. Several compression stations
that require movement of the natural gas are operated at ground level. A RCRA
hazardous waste is generated at each compression station. Is this waste exempt
from regulation as a hazardous waste?
Wastes associated with and unique to the exploration, development, or
production of natural gas are excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste as
per 40 CFR Section 261.4(b)(5). The natural gas stored in this specific instance
must be retrieved from storage in much the same manner as when it was
originally produced prior to storage, and the wastes generated in both cases will
be nearly identical. In EPA's "Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and
Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes," 53 FR 25446
(July 6, 1988), the Agency determined that wastes from subsurface gas storage
and retrieval are exempt from hazardous waste regulation under RCRA, except
for such of those wastes which are not intrinsically associated with the removal
of the gas; the Regulatory Determination also lists some of these wastes. See 53
FR at 25454. In addition, wastes associated with manufacturing or
transportation, including movement by pipeline off-site, are not exempt from
hazardous waste regulation, nor are wastes generated at the gas storage facility
that are not uniquely associated with the gas retrieval process.
Source: Mike Fitzpatrick (202) 475-6783
Research: George Kleevic
-------
October 27, 1988 9441.1988(44)
Mr. Jon Greenberg, Manager
Environmental Policy
Browning-Ferris Industries
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Greenberg:
This is in response to your August 11, 1988, inquiry about
the status of hazardous wastes that are generated at one site and
treated at another. Specifically, we are responding to the
question of whether treatment residuals of a characteristic
hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.20-261.24 can be a listed
hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.30-261.33.
Determination of the proper EPA Waste Code may be made by a
careful examination of the generator's production processes. It
is the generator's responsibility to determine if his waste meets
the listing descriptions for hazardous wastes listed at 40 CFR
261.30-261.33 or if they exhibit a hazardous characteristic.
(See 40 CFR 261.20-261.24.) If the owner/operator of a
transportation firm or waste treatment facility determine that a
listed waste had been improperly labeled as a characteristic
waste by a generator, then the generator should be advised to
correct the error (a) on the manifest or receipt of wastes from
the generator should be refused. Giving the requirements of the
Land Disposal Restrictions regulations (40 CFR 268) both the
generator and the treatment facility could face penalties for
improperly analyzing and managing a listed hazardous waste. (See
51 FR 40572).
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
According to the requirements in the derived-from rule (40
CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)), a residual generated from the treatment,
storage or disposal of a listed hazardous waste is itself a
listed hazardous waste. A residual generated from the treatment,
storage, or disposal of a characteristic hazardous waste (or a
waste that has been listed only because it exhibits a
characteristic, such as F003) is a hazardous waste only if it
exhibits a characteristic. However, if a listed spent solvent,
such as F005, is mixed with the characteristic spent solvent
before or during treatment (e.g.. solvent recovery), the mixture
"becomes" a listed waste when the listed waste is first added to
the characteristic waste. (See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR
261.3(b)(2).) Any residual generated from the treatment of this
mixture would be the listed hazardous waste F005.
In some cases, characteristic or nonhazardous wastes, when
treated, will have treatment residues that are listed hazardous
wastes. This will depend in each case on the scope of the
listing. An example is rinsewater from electroplating
operations. These rinsewaters are not listed and may or may not
exhibit the hazardous characteristic of extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity. However, once the wastewater treatment sludge
precipitates, it meets the listing description for F006 (with the
exception of precipitates from rinsewaters from certain excluded
electroplating processes). The listing applies whether the
sludge is generated at the electroplating facility or a
commercial waste treatment facility. Thus, a commercial waste
treatment facility must know the electroplating processes to
identify the wastewater treatment sludge correctly as F006. This
may require the treatment facility to obtain information from the
waste generator regarding processes that produced the waste to be
treated.
As pointed out in your letter, there is no specific
requirement for a generator to identify the processes that lead
to the generation of their waste. However, there is nothing to
prevent the treatment, storage, or disposal facility from
requiring such information before accepting the waste. Once a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility accepts the waste, it is
their responsibility to accurately characterize any residual
resulting from treatment. The Agency has no plans at this time
to change the regulations as they relate to this requirement.
This document has been retyped from the original
-------
-3-
If you have any further questions, please contact David
Topping at (202) 382-7737, or the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (202)
382-3000.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
?4 41. 1933'. i 5;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV a
Mr. Donald E. Stor.« SOL-O **S-E *N°o"S.«NCv
Manager, Environmental Compliance
CSX Chemical Services, Inc.
p. o. Box 210799
Columbia, SC 29221
Dear Mr. Stone:
This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of
October 19, 1988 and your follow-up letter dated October 20,
1988, both dealing with waste listings for commercial chemical
products.
When defining a material as a hazardous waste under RCRA
Subtitle C, the material must first be defined as a solid waste
in accordance with 40 CFR Section 261.3(a). A discarded
material that is recycled by being reclaimed may be defined as
a solid waste, depending on the type of secondary material (see
Table l. Section 261.2(c)(3)). Since you did not specify in
the examples in your letter the disposition of the mercury and
mercury-containing material, I am assuming that it is going for
reclamation.
In your first example, the mercury is contaminated before
being placed in the product (thermometer). If the contaminated
mercury is shipped off-site for disposal, it would be a solid
and hazardous waste identified as an off-specification
commercial chemical product (listed waste U151) in 40 CFR
Section 261.33. If, however, the mercury was sent for
reclamation, it would not be defined as a solid waste (see
40 CFR Section 261.2(c)(3)(Table 1)). Therefore, the mercury
would not be identified as listed waste U151 and a manifest
would not be required in this case because Subtitle C of RCRA
is not applicable to naterials that are not defined as a solid
waste (see 40 CPR Section 261.2).
In your second example, the broken thermometer has been
used and meets the definition of a spent material in 40 CFR
Section 261.1(c)(l). Spent material sent for reclamation is
defined as a solid waste in 40 CFR Section 261.2(c)(3)(Table
1). The broken thermometer (mercury and glassware) could then
-------
-2-
be further defined as a hazardous waste if it exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste (i.e., EP toxic, in which
case it is hazardous waste D009). This determination is made
either through the generator's knowledge of the characteristics
of the waste'or by subjecting the waste to the EP toxicity
leaching procedure (refer to 40 CFR Section 262.ll(c)).
Finally, in your third example, if the mercury-containing
batteries and switches can be defined as spent materials as
specified in 40 CFR Section 261.1(c)(l), the waste
identification process used in example two above would apply.
As is always the case, a RCRA authorized State might have
more stringent requirements so you should contact the
appropriate state'agency to determine what their regulations
require.
If you have any additional Questions, please contact Steve
Cochran at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Robert w. Dell^nger
Chief, Waste
Characterization Branch
-------
DftfTT* STATES EMVUtOMMENTAL PROTECTION AGEJ4CT 9 4 41.19 3 o (
NOT 7668
Mr. Glen Haling
Mid-Atlantic Regional Manager
Sun Environmental, Inc.
Building 11A
Industrial Highway
Eddystone, PA 19013
Dear Mr. Maiing:
Thank you for your letter dated June 22, 1988, requesting
the Agency to justify its reasoning of why your PCB
dechlorination treatment process does not qualify for the
totally enclosed treatment exemption. In our June 14, 1988,
correspondence to you, the Agency stated that your treatment
system would not meet the exemption because it was not connected
to an industrial process. In your letter, you stated that you
consider Phase I and Phase III of the PCBX treatment system and
transformers as industrial production processes. Also, you have
requested from the Agency:
(1) Original documents submitted by Grede Foundry which
shows a flow diagram of producing reusable metal from
scrap material; and
(2) Technical justification to differentiate between scrap
metal material versus the reclamation of mineral oil.
After further reviewing your letter and reviewing the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, the
Agency believe* that your treatment system would not be
regulated under RCRA because of section 261.6 (a)(3)(iii). This
section states that used oil that exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste but is recycled in some other
manner than being burned for energy recovery is not presently
subject to regulation under RCRA. Therefore, the question of
whether your treatment system could qualify for the totally
enclosed treatment exemption is a moot point.
-------
- 2 -
Also, you requested process flow diagrams of the Grede
Foundry's production of reusable metals. The Agency did not
receive any process flow diagrams from the Grede Foundry, only
the correspondence between Region V and headquarters that I
believe you have already received.
In summary, the Agency believes that the treatment system is
not subject to RCRA requirements and, therefore, the totally
enclosed treatment exemption would not be applicable for your
treatment system. I apologize if there was any inconvenience
due to our response to your first letter.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITI
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTlOl^^ENCY
2 I I9S8
MFMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Possible Applicability of RCRA Regulations to Fluff
FROM: Mitch Kidwell, Environmental Protection Specialist
Waste Characterization Branch
Office of Solid Waste (OS-332)
THRU: Robert W. Dellinger, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Office of Solid Waste (OS-332)
TO: Richard La Shier and Janis Johnson
Chemical Regulation Branch
Office of Toxic Substances
This memorandum is written to present the possible
applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulations to contaminated
"fluff residuals from ferrous metals recycling activities (in
particular, automobile shredding).
As stated in the background document that was discussed at
the October 28th workgroup meeting, the key constituents of
concern in the fluff are PCBs and lead. PCBs are normally
regulated under TSCA, and lead (and other hazardous metals which
may also be found in the fluff) is potentially regulated under
RCRA. Assuming the lead is in concentrations equal to or
greater than the extraction procedure (EP) Toxicity value of 5.0
mg/1 (see 40 CFR 261.24), the waste is a characteristic
hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C provisions. The waste may
also be characteristically hazardous for other heavy metals at
varying concentrations (e.g.. cadmium (1.0 mg/1) and chromium
(5.0 mg/1)). Once the waste has been determined to be
hazardous, it must either be treated until it no longer exhibits
the characteristic (at which time it may be disposed in a
Subtitle D facility), or it must be disposed in a RCRA Subtitle
C facility. There are no exemptions applicable to shredder
fluff.
-------
- 2-
We have been advised by Alec McBride, Chief of the Technical
Assessment' Branch, OSW, that for certain waste streams, a
sampling and analysis method that accounts for the variability
of constituents in the waste stream may be appropriate. One
such method is presented in the attached draft guidance document
for Municipal Refuse Incinerator Ash. This method, if adopted,
may be used to determine the average property of the waste to
assess whether the waste is hazardous by characteristic. We may
want to consider using such a method to characterize shredder
fluff because of the high variability of the constituent
concentrations, depending on the feed material for any
particular batch of fluff.
Also, should the fluff be determined to be hazardous, it may
be subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions under 40 CFR 268.32
if it were to contain halogenated organic compounds (HOCs).
Appendix III of Part 268 lists the HOCs (including PCBs) subject
to the California list prohibitions, provided that the total
HOCs are in concentrations of 1000 mg/kg or greater. Should the
fluff be determined to be a hazardous waste and contain HOCs in
concentrations equal to or greater than 1000 mg/kg, the fluff
would have to meet the applicable treatment standard prior to
placement on the land. The treatment standard applicable to
HOCs is incineration in accordance with the requirements of Part
264 Subpart 0 or Part 265 Subpart 0 (or 40 CFR 761.70).
Finally, it should be noted that the so-called "hard hammer"
for all hazardous wastes (listed and identified by
characteristic as of November 8, 1984) falls on May 8, 1990.
Under RCRA Section 3004 (g)(6)(C), unless EPA sets treatment
standards that are protective of human health and the
environment for a hazardous waste listed or identified (as of
November 8, 1984) by May 8, 1990, the waste is prohibited from
land disposal. Should the fluff be identified as a hazardous
waste, it would have to meet the applicable treatment standard
prior to placement on the land. (The treatment standard for
lead is expected to be proposed in the Fall of 1989, for the
last set of wastes subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions.)
Should you need further information, please contact me at
382-4805.
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ? 4 41. 1?5 5 ! 4 ?
DEC 6
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Solvent-Contaminated Wastestreams
from a Pharmaceutical Manufacturer
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: Arthur Moretta, UIC Control Program
Water Division, Region V (5WD-TUB-9)
This memorandum is in response to your request for
determination of the regulatory status of aqueous wastestreams
generated at an Upjonn company pharmaceutical facility in
Kalamazoo, MI. All answers are based on our best understanding
of the process flowsheets which you sent and the information
which you provided over the telephone to my staff.
The spent solvent listings cover those streams that are
used to solubilize or mobilize other constituents (e.g. r for
degreasing or fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants,
reaction and synthesis media, and similar uses) and through
such use, have become contaminated to the extent that they must
be reclaimed prior to further use or reuse. See 50 FR 53315,
December 31, 1985.
Use as a reactant or an ingredient in the manufacture or
formulation of a commercial chemical product is not classified
as a solvent use for the purpose of the RCRA hazardous waste
listings F001 - F005. Therefore, spent materials from these
"non-solvent" uses do not meet the listing descriptions for
spent solvents. Also, process wastes that become contaminated
with small amounts of solvents during processing are not within
the scope .of the spent solvent listings. An example of this is
an aqueous effluent from a liquid-liquid extraction step, in
which a solvent has been used to extract a product from the
water and the water becomes contaminated with small amounts of
solvent. In this example, the solvent is removed with the
product and the solvent-contaminated water is not a spent
oolvont. —
-------
-2-
Based on our review of the data submitted, we have made the
following determinations:
o All streams being sent to disposal wells from the acetone,
methanol, and methylene chloride recovery processes (pp. A,
B, C, and D) either meet the listing description for spent
solvents or are residuals derived from the treatment of
spent solvents and therefore should be designated as an EPA
hazardous waste (F001 - F005).
o Those aqueous streams which result from liquid-liquid
extraction steps involving solvents are considered process
wastestreams and as such, do not meet the listing
description for spent solvent streams (see above).
o Filter press effluents such as the one exiting the unit
designated "ST-110" (p. 2-1) are considered spent solvent
streams because they consist of a solvent that was used as
a carrier for the product in the filtration step. However,"
filter press effluents, such as the one exiting the filter
designated "VF-" (p. 4-2) are process wastewater streams,
not spent solvent streams, because water was introduced
into the production process as the carrier for the product
in filtration. In this configuration, the solvent was
removed prior to filtration; the small quantity of solvent
remaining in the system does not render the wastewater
filter press effluent a spent solvent.
o Rinse wastewaters, such as those from product or equipment
rinsing steps (pp. 1-3, 2-1) are not considered spent
solvents because they are process streams which may have
become contaminated with organic solvents.
Although a particular waste stream may not meet the listing
description for spent solvents, it may be hazardous if exhibits
one or more of the hazardous characteristics described in
40 CFR 261.20-261.24. Certain stages may also have special
restrictions on the disposal of solvent-contaminated
wastestreams.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions, please contact Ron Josephson at FTS 475-6715.
Attachments
CC: Eric Callisto, OW/ODW (WH-550)
-------
9441.1933(53
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC 7*988
0"'CE CF
SOLiO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Mr. Phillip D. Stapleton
Stapleton Company
1350 West 12th Street
Long Beach, California 90813
Dear Mr. Stapleton:
This letter is in response to your letter dated September
26, 1988 in which you asked several Questions pertaining to
your OMEGA EN Process.
In general, industrial plating operations vary greatly in
layout and processes utilized. Identifying wastes generated
from plating operations requires specific details on the
individual process steps, which usually include pretreatment of
the metal, application of the coating, and post treatment.
Identifying applicable RCRA regulations for materials generated
from reclamation of plating wastes is directly dependent upon
waste identification at the point of generation, as well as
specific information about further processing and the end use
of the reclaimed material. Determining the RCRA status of
units and facilities receiving the material is largely
dependent on similar information.
Your letter did not provide sufficient information to
specifically answer your questions. Even if you had provided
the requisite information, the Agency could only give you
hypothetical answers as to the general application of RCRA
regulations. For each individual facility, the appropriate
Region or RCRA authorized State wil%l have to make the final
determination as to the applicability of RCRA regulations based
on an analysis of the actual facilities and processes.
Regardless of their RCRA authorization status, States may
impose regulations more stringent or broader-in-scope than
those in 40 CFR Parts 260-270 as a matter of State law.
The following discussion outlines RCRA regulations that
might apply to the OMEGA EN process. Where crucial information
was not provided, I have made certain assumptions, which may
not properly characterize your process, and discuss the
applicable RCRA regulations for each assumption.
-------
-2-
whether the filter cake from the APU330 unit meets the F006
listing depends upon the particular plating process or
processes at a generator's facility. Assuming that the APU330
device receives only wastes (such as bath solutions and/or
rinse waters) from an electroless plating operation, the
filter cake will not meet the listing for F006 or any other
waste currently listed in 40 CFR Section 261.31 (51 £R 43351,
December 2, 1986). However, if the APU330 device also receives
bath solutions and/or rinse waters from an eletroplating
process, the filter cake-may meet the P006 listing description,
and its subsequent management is regulated under Subtitle C of
PCRA. Further, the filter cake may be a listed hazardous waste
if the cake meets other listing descriptions or is derived-from
listed hazardous waste per 40 CFR Section 261.3(c)(2)(i) (e.g.,
F008 plating bath residues). The generator of these hazardous
wastes must comply with Part 262 for each shipment of waste to
Unit 2, and the Unit 2 facility is subject to a RCRA storage
permit for hazardous waste storage prior to reclamation in unit
2 as specified in Section 261.6(c)(l).
Solid Waste Identification
In order to determine whether or not the filter cake is a
solid waste under Section 261.2, I have assumed that the filter
cake is either a sludge or a spent material. Each of these
assumptions is discussed below. Additional details are needed
to address the regulatory status of the filter cake.
a. Assume the filter cake is a sludge. If the APU330 unit
treats "dragout tank" wastevater, the filter cake may be a
wastewater treatment sludge. Sludge is defined in Section
260.10. If the sludge meets a listing description or is
derived from a listed waste, it is -classified as both a solid
waste and a listed hazardous waste. Listed sludges are solid
wastes even when reclaimed, per Section 261.2(c)(3).
Assuming that the sludge (filter cake) exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic but is not listed, it is classified as a
solid waste and is subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulation except
when it is being reclaimed (Section 261.2(c)(3), Table 1).
No information was provided as to whether the filter cake
exhibits a RCRA characteristic. If the filter cake exhibits no
characteristic of a hazardous waste and is not listed, RCRA
Subtitle C is not applicable. More stringent and
broader-in-scope State laws and applicable Subtitle D
regulations, however/ will apply to the waste. Reclamation of
-------
-3-
the filter cake in Unit 2 will generate new materials (other
than products) that may need to be tested to determine whether
Subtitle C applies.
b. Assume that the filter cake is a spent material, if
the APU330 unit filters the plating bath and not the rinse
waters, the filter cake may more properly be classified as a
spent material than a sludge. The bath solutions being
filtered are spent materials and the filter cake is derived
from the spent materials. If the solutions were listed
hazardous wastes, the calce would also be a listed hazardous
waste (50 FR 619, Note 7, January 4, 1985). Again, if no RCRA
characteristic is exhibited and no listing applies, RCRA
Subtitle C regulations are not applicable^ If the spent
material does exhibit a characteristic, or is listed, and is
sent for reclamation, it is identified and regulated as a
hazardous waste (Table 1, Section 261.2(c)(3)).
Regulation of Unit 2
If Unit 2 is a legitimate recycling unit, it will not be
regulated under Subtitle C when reclaiming sludges or spent
materials, unless the reclamation process is analogous to land
disposal or incineration (see 40 CFR 264.1(g)(2), 265.1(c)(6),
and 50 FR 643, January 4, 1985). If Unit 2 is an incinerator
and material is being recovered from a destruction process,
Unit 2 is subject to the incinerator standards in Subpart 0 of
Part 264 or 265 and to the requirement to obtain a RCRA permit,
Part 270. Generators and transporters of recycable materials
are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 261.6(b). Assuming
that Unit 2 is a recycling unit, Section 261.6(c) specifies the
RCRA requirements for the owner/operator.
Status of Calcium Phosphite/Calcium1 Sulfate
The regulatory status of the calcium phosphite/calcium
sulfate reclaimed from Unit 2 will depend upon whether further
processing of the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate must be
provided and whether it is a product (40 CFR Section
261.2(e)(ii)). Assuming that a fertilizer market exists, a
calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate fertilizer product generated
from Unit 2 would result in classifying the recycled materials
as solid waste by Section 261.2(c)(l) (use constituting
disposal). If Unit 2 were reclaiming a hazardous waste, the
waste-derived commercial fertilizer produced for the general
public's use out of Unit 2 would not presently be regulated per
40 CFR 266.23(a), provided they met the conditions of Section
266.20(b) (including any applicable treatment standards under
40 CFR Part 268).
-------
-4-
If the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate from Unit 2 were
converted to a cooling/heating system corrosion inhibitor, the
status of the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate would depend on
whether the material reauires further processing. (On the
distinction between a product and a waste see 50 £R 634,
January 4, 1985.) If the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate has
only been partially reclaimed and must be reclaimed further,
the calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate may still be considered a
solid waste and a recyclable material. The recyclable
materials reclaimed (or partially reclaimed) to form the
calcium phosphite/calcium sulfate should be analyzed as
described above for the filter cake.
Status of Nickel Hydrate
Based on the data provided, the nickel hydrate is partially
reclaimed material that may or may not be a waste. If it has
been reclaimed and only needs to be refined in the cook unit to
form a commerical product, it may be more like a product than a
waste (see 50 FR 634, January 4, 1985) and, thus, may not be
subject to Subtitle C reouirements unless used in a manner
constituting disposal or incinerated. If the nickel hydrate is
a waste, you may be able to apply for a variance from the
definition of a solid waste under Section 260.30.
The above discussion was intended to provide the context in
which the RCRA regulations may effect the operation of the
OMEGA EN process. Because insufficient information was
provided to make accurate determinations, a number of different
assumptions had to be made to address each of the relevant
issues. In addition, you asked that I respond to the following
specific Questions:
1) Can EPA issue a document stating that the material is a
solid waste?
I have answered this Question as best I can based on the
information provided.
2) will each generator of this filter cake reouire a
delisting from each State with more stringent regulations than
EPA?
The answer to this question depends on the individual
State's reouirements and their RCRA authorization status.
-------
-5-
Questions about the delisting process can best be answered by
referring to an EPA publication entitled Petitions to Delist
Hazardous Wastes--A Guidance Manual (EPA 530/SW-85-003). This
publication can be obtained by calling the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) at (703) 487-4650 and asking for
publication number PB85-194488. Specific Questions can be
answered by contacting Terry Grogan, Chief, Delisting Section
at EPA Headouarters, at (202) 382-4206.
3) What are the provisions for the filter cake to be
shipped as a hazardous waste to our facility in Illinois, which
is not required to have a hazardous waste treatment permit?
If the filter cake is identified as a hazardous waste,
shipment of a hazardous waste off-site for recycling will
subject the generator to 40 CFR Part 262 reouirements (40 CFR
Section 261.6(b)) The Illinois facility (Unit 2) will not be
required to have a treatment permit if Unit 2 is a recycling
facility (and not an incinerator or an industrial furnace).
However, if there is any storage of the hazardous waste
received from off-site prior to entering Unit 2, the facility
will have to obtain a RCRA storage permit under Section
261.6(c).
4) Will Stapleton be reauired to become a hazardous waste
treatment facility if it only processes its electroless nickel
material and returns all the nickel back to the process?
Again, facilities that recycle recyclable materials are not
subject to RCRA treatment permit requirements. The storage of
hazardous waste prior to recycling, however, subjects the
facility to the requirement to obtain a RCRA permit (40 CFR
Section 261.6(c)). If storage does not occur, then the general
rule is that reclaaation is regulated while recycling (wi-:-out
reclamation) is not.
Return of all nickel back to the process is a significant
effort in watte minimization/reduction but does not affect the
application of RCRA regulations in this instance. State
regulations that are more stringent or broader-in-scope than
the Federal regulations discussed herein should be addressed by
the implementing State agency.
-------
-6-
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the final
determination as to the applicability of RCRA regulations for
any specific facility must be made by the appropriate State
and/or EPA Regional Office.
If you have any further Questions or need additional
information, please contact Steve Cochran at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
x^ylvia K,
-------
?441.195?i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEB T !93S
Mr. Robert A. Gallaher
President
Allied Aircraft Sales, Inc.
P.O. Box 11816
Tucson, Arizona 85734-1816
Dear Mr. Gallaher:
This letter is in response to your letter dated October 27,
1988, in which you reauest confirmation that dross from
secondary aluminum smelting operations is not a so]id waste
when used as a feedstock in the manufacture of cement. I want
to apologize for taking so long to respond. The Questions you
asked are difficult ones to answer without fairly extensive
discussion.
As I understand your letter, you are interested in selling
aluminum dross, a by-product of secondary aluminum smelting,
for use in the manufacture of cement. The dross would be a
surrogate source of Al-O,, which is apparently a necessary
constituent in the formulation of cement. The normal source of
this Al-0, is alumina-bearing clays. As such, vour
oosition Is that the dross is not a solid waste, according to
40 CFR Section 261.2(e)(i) and (ii), because the dross is'used
or reused as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a
product and is not being reclaimed and/or is used or reused as
an effective substitute for commercial products. As vou
accurately state in your letter, if the dross is not a solid
waste, it is not regulated as a hazardous waste.
\
There are several factual considerations that must be
addressed before a determination can be made as to whether the
dross is a solid waste when recycled in this manner. They
include:
- the status of the secondary material (i.e., is the dross
a listed or characteristic by-product);
-------
-2-
- factors in section 261.2(e)(i) and (ii) that must be
considered, includina whether reclamation occurs before
use/reuse, whether the dross functions effectively as -i
raw material, and other factors indicative of legitimate
recycling; and
- the end use of the cement (i.e., is the cement used in a
manner constituting disposal by being placed on the
land).
Each of these Questions/factors will be discussed in the
following paragraphs.. Please be advised, however, that the
discussion is theoretical in the sense that a final
determination as to the regulatory status of the dross and
whether it is subject to RCRA regulation, must be made by the
aporopriate FPA Regional Office or State based on the
circumstances associated with the specific site(s) where the
activities occur. It may also be the case that an individual
State may have more stringent or broader-in-scope regulatory
reoui rements.
The aluminum dross is a by-product as stated in your
letter. There are no hazardous waste listings in 40 CFR Part
261 that would aoply to aluminum dross, including the recently
promulgated process mining waste listings (see 53 FR 35412,
September 13, 1988). The assumption made herein is that the
dross exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, orobably EP
toxicity for metals. If this assumption is not made, the dross
is not regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA and further
interpretation is not needed.
Regarding the existing mining waste exclusion in Section
261.4(b)(7) (i.e., solid wastes which are not hazardous
wastes), Allied Aircraft Sales, Inc. describes the dross as
being from secondary aluminum smelting. The existing
exclusion covers certain wastes from the processing of ores and
minerals, but only covers situations where the feedstock to the
smelter is at least 50% ore or mineral (see 53 FR 41290,
October 20, 1988). It is assumed that most of the feedstock is
scrap aluminum (greater than 50% scrap); therefore, the mining
waste exclusion would not apply to the dross.
In order for Allied Aircraft Sales, Inc. to claim that the
dross is not a solid waste per Section 261.2(e)(i) or (ii), the
dross must be directly used as an ingredient or substitute
without being reclaimed (see 50 FR 619, January 4, 1985). Since
you state that the cement manufacturer will "introduce aluminum
dross directly into the raw kiln feed", I assume no prior
reclamation will occur. Assumina that the dross is beina
-------
-3-
directly used as a feedstock, it must be determined if the
aluminum dross functions as an ingredient in the cement and if
use of the dross to produce cement yields distinct components
as separate end products, and thus constitutes reclamation.
You have indicated that the dross is used to replace Al-0,
used in the clay, but have not indicated whether distinct
.-opponents are formed.
Another consideration in determining whether Section
261.2(e) applies is how contaminated the dross is relative to
the clay for which it substitutes. An example of sham use may
be using sludges containing high concentrations of heavy metals
•to form'cement (see 50 FR 638). You provided no data on the
hazardous constituents in the aluminum dross. It would also be
important to know how much variability there might be in
different batches of dross and whether the dross is used only
in amounts necessary for the production process.
Assuming that the dross does not contain high levels of
hazardous constituents relative to the clays normally used, and
is used only in necessary amounts, I would likely conclude that
Section 261.2(e)(i) or (ii) applies (as claimed in your
letter), and that the dross is not a solid waste when so used.
However, EPA makes it clear that hazardous secondary materials
(e.g., spent materials, sludges, by-products, and scrap metal)
used as ingredients in waste-derived products that will be
placed on the land are solid wastes (Section 261.2(c)(l) and
50 FR 619). It is conceivable that Portland cement might be
used in situations where it is applied directly to the land
(e.g., building foundation materials, see 50 FR 628). A
characteristically hazardous secondary material would be
regulated as a solid and hazardous waste up until the formation
of product (50 £R 647).
It may be difficult to ascertain the end uses of the cement
each time a hazardous secondary material is used as an
ingredient. The preamble to the January 4, 1985 Federal
Register states clearly, however, that if a secondary material
is to be ultimately used in formulating a product to be placed
on the land, then it is a solid waste from the point of
generation/ through transportation, and including any storage
prior to being used in formulating a product. The Agency has
temporarily deferred regulation of these waste-derived products
applied to the land (SO FR 646), provided the product used in a
manner constituting disposal meets applicable land disposal
restriction standards (Section 266.20(b)). Although the
product is not regulated, the use as disposal on land continues
to subject the secondary material used to form the product to
regulation as a solid and hazardous waste/ notwithstanding the
fact that Section 261.2(e)(i) or (ii) would otherwise classify
qualifying dross as not being solid waste.
-------
-4-
As a final note, in your letter you referred to "fly ash as
a constituent in cement" (from 50 £R 619) as an example given
by FPA of using or reusing secondary materials as feedstocks in
production processes. According to the description aiven in
the May 6, 1987 Federal Register (52 FH 16987), cement kilns
produce large amounts of particulate emissions (flv ash) which
are often returned to the kiln. Not only is this ash probably
very similar to what is already in the kiln, it is specifically
exempt from RCRA as well (Section 261.4(b)(8)). Thus, the fly
ash example may not be directly applicable to the use/reuse of
aluminum dross.
In summary, Section 261.2(e) is likely to be applicable to
the dross if it is not reclaimed, if it is an effective
substitute, and if the product formed is not applied to the
land. NO data is provided on the amount or type of hazardous
constituents in the dross. If toxic metals are involved, you
should determine how the levels of toxic metals in the dross
differ from those found in the clays normally used.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the final
determination as to the regulatory classification of the dross
and the extent of regulation under RCRA, if any/ for a
particular site or operation must be made by the appropriate
EPA Regional Office or State.
If you have any additional Questions or need further
clarification, please call Steve Cochran at (202) 475-9715.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
fv Office of Solid Waste
\J
-------
9441.1939:34'
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRAURY 89
1. Coke and Coal Tar Recyclable Material Requirements
A facility owner/operator "blends" decanter tank tar sludge from coking
operations (K087) with purchased creosote (a diluent) to use as a fuel in an open
hearth furnace to produce steel. Since creosote is derived from coal tar, would
this K087/creosote fuel meet the exclusion in 40 CFR Section 261.6(a)(3)("ii) for
coke and coal tar from the iron and steel industry that contains K087?
No. The exclusion in Section 261.6(a)(3)(vii) applies only to the coke and coal
tar fuels that are derived from K087 waste. Coke is the residue from the
destructive distillation of coal. The coke serves as both a fuel and a reducing
agent in iron and steel production processes. Some coke plants recover by-
products given off or created during the coke production process. The
recovery of the by-products generates the tar decanter sludge, K087.
During the recovery of the volatile' organics in the by-product coke
production process, tar separates by condensation from coke oven gas and
drains into a decanter tank. The tar sludge settles to the bottom of the tank
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 89
1. Coke a^d Cfl^ Taj Recyclable Material Requirements (Cont'd)
and is ngulated as K087 (see Figure 1). K087 is considered hazardous because
of the high levels of phenol and naphthalene which are toxic to humans and
aquatic life (see Listing Background Document for K087).
Some coke plants use the decanter tank tar sludge (K087) as a raw material in
either the sintering process or open hearth furnace operations. The sludge
can be recycled by mixing it with coal before it is charged to a coke oven to
produce coke (Figure 1). The coke product is then used as a fuel in steel blast
furnaces. Additionally, the sludge is sometimes mixed back into the coal tar
by-product which is also frequently used as a fuel.
In the January 11, 1985 Federal Register (50 F£ 1684), the EPA proposed to
exempt coke and coal tar fuel derived from K087 if sufficient data was
provided to EPA to demonstrate that contaminants in the recycled waste did
not add significant concentrations of contaminants to the coke fuel product
(50 FR 1689-1690). The exemption was proposed to be applied narrowly and
only to fuel products containing hazardous waste that was generated by the
production process itself. The exemption would only apply to the coke and
coal tar hazardous waste fuel. It would not apply to fuels containing other
wastes and would not apply to wastes before they are reintroduced into the
production process. Thus, generators would have to comply with the storage
requirements of 40 CFR 262.34 or the facility standards per 40 CFR 264/265 (50
ER 1689-1690).
In the November 29, 1985 Federal Register, the EPA finalized the exemption
for K087 waste derived coke (a hazardous waste fuel) and the exemption of
coal tar produced from coal tar decanter sludge (see Figure 1). Coke and coal
tar fuels derived from K087 are excluded from regulation when used to
produce coke because the contaminants levels in the coke do not appreciably
increase by recycling the tar sludge (K087). Both of these waste derived fuels
are exempt per 40 CFR 261(a)(3)(vii) (see 50 £R 49170- 49171).
Therefore, in this situation, where the decanter tank tar sludge (K087) is
mixed or blended with purchased creosote, the exemption would not apply
becauM Goal tar is not being recycled and no coke fuel is derived (see Figure 2).
The owner or operator of the process in question is mixing hazardous waste
(K087) with creosote. The burning of this hazardous waste would be subject
to the incinerator regulations under 40 CFR Part 264/265 Subpart O.
Source: Dwight Hlustick (202) 382-7926
Research: Renee Pannebaker (202) 382-3000
-------
9441.1?39;C5)
RGRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 89
2. Drip Gas Exclusion.
Drip gas is collected from a natural gas line located at the production site. Is this
condensate exempt from being a hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5)?
According to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5), "Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other
wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude
oil, natural gas or geothermal energy..." are not subject to regulation as
hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, if the drip gas is
collected from lines that are associated with movement of the natural gas on-
site (i.e. the exploration, development, or production site) then the drip gas is
exempt from being a hazardous waste. An example is drip gas from gathering
lines on the production site that lead to an on-site central storage tank.
On the other hand, if the drip gas is collected from lines that are used for the
off-site movement of natural gas, the drip gas is not excluded under 40 CFR
261.4(b)(5). For example, drip gas collected from lines used to transport
natural gas from the production site to an off-site distribution center would
not be excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5).
The rationale behind this on-site /off-site distinction arises from the
legislative history of RCRA Section 3001(b)(2)(A) which is directed to
"...drilling fluids, produced waters/ and other wastes associated with the
exploration, development, or production of crude oil or natural gas...." The
legislative history discusses "other wastes" as follows:
The term "other wastes associated" is specifically included to
designate waste materials intrinsically derived from primary
field operations associated with the exploration, development,
or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy. It
would cover such substances as: hydrocarbon bearing soil in
and around related facilities; drill cuttings; and materials (such
as hydrocarbons, water, sand, and emulsion) produced from a
well in conjunction with crude oil, natural gas or geothermal
energy; and the accumulated material (such as hydrocarbons,
water, sand and emulsion) from production separators, fluid
treating vessels, storage vessels, and production
impoundments.
The phrase "intrinsically derived from the primary field operations" is
intended to differentiate exploration, development, and production
operations from transportation (from the point of custody transfer or of
production separation and dehydration) and manufacturing operations.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 89
2. Drip Gas Exclusion (Cont'd)
EPA hat outlined 3 criteria as a test of whether a particular waste qualifies for
the exemption.1 The criterion that addresses the on-site/off-site issue is as
follows:
Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes intrinsically derived from
primary field operations associated with the exploration, development, or
production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy are subject to
exemption. Primary field operations encompass production-related activities
but not transportation or manufacturing activities. With respect to oil
production, primary field operations encompass those activities usually
occurring at or near the wellhead, but prior to the transfer of oil from an
individual field facility or a centrally located facility to a carrier (i.e., pipeline
or trucking concern) for transport to a refinery or to a refiner.
With respect to natural gas production, primary field operations are those
activities occurring at or near the wellhead or at the gas plant but prior to the
point at which the gas is transferred from an individual field facility, a
centrally located facility, or a gas plant to a carrier for transport to market.
Primary field operations encompass the primary, secondary, and tertiary
production of oil or gas.
Wastes generated by the transportation process itself are not exempt because
they are not intrinsically associated with primary field operations. An
example would be pigging waste from pipeline pumping stations.
Transportation (for the oil and gas industry) may be for short or long
distances....
Thus, drip gas collected from lines associated with transport of natural gas
from the production site to an off-site distribution center would not be
covered by the exemption.
ISee "Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude Oil.
Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy," Report to Congress, December 1967, pp. 7-%. A listing of
wastes covered by the exemption appears in EPA's "Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and
Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes,* 53 f£ 25446 Quly 6,1988).
Source: Mike Fitzpatrick (202) 475-6783
Research: Kenneth Leigh Mitchell, Ph.D. (202) 382-3000
-------
9441. 19 39 ( 1C
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
'•*> -'•
MAR 2 T 1989
50^ 3 A-S" -NO !M? = G-
Ronald B. L. Jones
Environmental Consulting
15 Hollow Road
Watertown, Connecticut 06795
Dear Mr. Jones:
This letter responds to your February 13, 1989 letter (and
subsequent phone call) regarding the regulatory status of flue
dust and metal hydroxide sludge under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) . Specifically, you request
a clarification concerning the regulatory status of flue dust
and metal hydroxide sludge being recycled by two different
methods: 1) reclamation for metal content, and 2) use as a
micronutrient in fertilizer.
It is my understanding that your client, a brass mill,
generates two EP toxic characteristic waste sludges. These
are: 1) a flue dust generated by an air pollution control
device (defined as a "sludge1* in 40 CFR 260.10), and 2) a metal
hydroxide sludge generated by an on-site wastewater treatment
unit. Neither waste is a RCRA listed hazardous waste and your
client has concerns about the proper management for the
characteristic hazardous wastes.
As the table at 40 CFR 261. 2 (c) states, a characteristic
sludge is not a solid waste (and thus, not a hazardous waste)
when reclaimed. This status applies at the point of generation
(i.e., if the sludge is to be reclaimed, it is not a solid waste
and, therefore, not regulated under RCRA Subtitle C, unless it
is accumulated speculatively) . You should note that section
261.2(f) requires the generator to document his/her claims that
a certain material is not a solid waste.
On the other hand, the same table states that both listed
and characteristic sludges that are placed on the land or
incorporated into a product that is applied to the land (i.e.,
used in a manner constituting disposal) are solid wastes (and
thus are hazardous wastes). As section 261. 2 (e) (2) states, even
materials that are recycled by use or reuse as ingredients to
make a product are solid wastes (and if applicable, hazardous
wastes) when such recycling involves use constituting disposal.
This status applies at the point of generation (and, thus,
storage of the wastes prior to such use or reuse is subject to
-------
- 2 -
regulation under RCRA Subtitle C). [NOTE: For characteristic
sludges, if the product placed on the land no longer exhibits a
hazardous characteristic, the product would not be a hazardous
waste (a solid waste derived from the treatment of charac-
teristic hazardous waste, such that it no longer exhibits a
characteristic, ceases to be a hazardous waste).]
You should also be aware that State and local regulations
are also applicable, and may differ from Federal.regulations.
You should contact the State regulatory agency, as -well as the
appropriate EPA Regional office to determine the applicable
regulations.
Should you require further information, you may call the
RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or Mitch Kidwell, of my staff,
at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Derilnger
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED f TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION / "NCf 9441. 1939;-M
MH27I989
James E. Johnson
President
SAFCO Environmental
1255 South 188th
Seattle, Washington 98148
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This letter responds to your February 13, 1989 letter
concerning the regulatory requirement for a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) storage permit for
facilities engaged in hazardous waste recycling activities. In
particular, you ask whether a storage permit is required for
your recycling of hazardous wastes by blending, mixing, physical
separation, or distillation without prior storage of the
hazardous wastes.
The Agency does not require a storage permit for activities
where no storage occurs. For example, If a hazardous waste is
received at the recycling facility and immediately fed directly
into the recycling process (i.e., no storage occurs), then a
RCRA storage permit would not be required. In your letter, you
state that you have heard that a holding time of 24 hours is
allowed prior to the waste being directly fed into the recycling
process. Federal regulations do not specify an allowable
"holding time11 prior to the waste being introduced to the
recycling process; however, the appropriate EPA Regional office
or authorized State regulatory agency may specify such a holding
time on a site-specific basis, defining a time at which storage
begins. As you stated, some States and Regions do allow up to
-24 hours for the off-loading of a hazardous waste into the
recycling process before the waste is considered to be stored,
thus requiring a storage permit.
I should also point out to you that hazardous waste fuel
blending *"inlp are subject to storage>regulations. As the April
13, 1987 Federal Register notice specifically states, tanks
used for bleiiBlng hazardous waste fuels or for settling out
impurities af» subject to regulation as storage tanks, and are
not exempt recycling units (see 52 FR 11820).
In your letter, you also raised a question on the
possibility of case-by-case regulation of recycling activities
under 40 CFR 261.6(c). As you noted, case-by-case regulation of
-------
- 2 -
certain recycling activities is already provided for under 40
CFR 260.40. The Agency is not currently planning to modify
these regulations; however, EPA is reevaluating the regulations
applicable to recycling activities and may determine that
regulatory amendments are necessary to encourage environmentally
protective recycling.
Finally, you should be aware that local and State
governments may have applicable regulations that differ from
Federal regulations. You should contact your State regulatory
agency, as well as the appropriate EPA Regional office for
specific answers about your recycling activities.
Sincerely,
' -. • r_*.;
'-flatthew A. Straus
Deputy Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9441. 13 39(11)
Dr. Peter Landrum
Research Chemist
Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory
2205 Commonwealth Boulevard
Ann Arbor, MI 46105-1593
Dear Dr. Landrum:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 4, 1989
to Or. Southerland regarding the disposal of sediment samples.
As I understand, most samples are only tested with a bioassay,
and the chemical composition is often unknown.
According to 40 CFR 261.4(d)(l), samples collected for the
sole purpose of testing are not subject to any requirements under
the regulations for hazardous waste management. In addition,
under 40 CFR 261.5(a), if the waste generated is less than 100 kg
per month, the generator is conditionally exempt as a small
quantity generator and may accumulate up to 1000 kg of waste on
the property without being subject to the requirements of the
hazardous waste regulations.
These two exclusions are for the Federal regulations; state
regulations may be more stringent. In those cases, state
requirements must also be met.
I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have any
questions on this issue, please call Ossi Meyn at 202/382-6977.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization & Assessment
Division .
-------
50 I'D A AS" ANO tVS'CEVC '
944i.i939(14)
^to sr*f
>° ** *-
/ tSS* 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I XAJ^Z * WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
*'« *o
APR 2 1989
Wm. Roger Truitt
Schmeltzer, Aptaker and Sheppard, P.C.
2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20037-1905
Dear Mr. Truitt:
This letter responds to your April 4, 1989 request for
clarification of the regulatory status under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of your client's
metal galvanizing process residues.
As I understand your client's process, metals parts are
placed in a kettle of molten zinc (the first step in the
galvanizing process) and then placed in a chromic acid quenching
bath for chrome passivation. During this process, zinc and
charcoal residues are carried over from the molten zinc bath
into the chromic acid bath (the passivation solution). As a
result of this continuous process, fine particle* of
chrome-coated zinc and charcoal accumulate in the passivation
solution. These particles settle out of the passivation
solution and are then partially dewatered and reintroduced to
the molten zinc kettle as a substitute for raw material
feedstock for the process. These chrome-coated zinc and
charcoal particles would otherwise be considered hazardous
wastes because they exhibit a hazardous characteristic
(chromium).
You presented three different regulatory interpretations
that would exclude these secondary materials from regulation as
a hazardous waste. Based on the Information you supplied in
your letter, I concur that these secondary materials are not
solid wastes; however, I will only respond with the most
straighforvard regulatory provision that excludes these
materials from regulation as a solid waste, namely, 40 CFR
261.2(c)(3), which states that a by-product exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste that is being reclaimed is not
a solid
Based upon the information in your letter, the particles of
chrome-coated zinc and charcoal meet the definition of a
by-product found at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(3). The devatering process
of the accumulated by-product is defined as reclamation (see 40
CFR 261.l(c)(4)). Thus, the chrome-coated particles are
reclaimed from the liquid portion of the by-product to make
those particles available for use in the zinc kettle (or, as
-------
stated in your letter, more amenable for reintroduction into the
process). As 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3) states, a by-product, hazardous
solely because it exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous
waste, that is reclaimed, is not defined as a solid waste and,
therefore, is not a hazardous waste.
You should be aware that State and local regulatory agencies
may have applicable regulations that differ from the Federal
regulations. Also, you should contact the appropriate EPA
Regional Office or State regulatory agency for a more specific
determination regarding your client's facility. Should you have
further questions, please contact the RCRA Hotline at (202)
382-3000, or Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Dellinger
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
PROTECT Wf 'GEXCY
9 441.19 39i 15 )
APR 5
Adrienne J. Bzura
Corporate Counsel
Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc.
P.O. Box 194
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857
Dear Ms. Bzura:
This letter responds to your March 21, 1989 correspondence
requesting a written determination on the regulatory status of
material known as "drove" by the brass industry, specifically,
you requested a statement that drove is considered a "scrap
metal" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Based on the description of drove provided in the National
Association of Recycling Industries (NARI) Circular, I cannot
conclusively state that drove, in the generic sense, is a scrap
metal as defined in 40 CFR 261.He)(6), although some components
of drove may meet the regulatory definition of scrap metal.
Similarly, based on the NARI description and information
gathered in phone conversations, drove would not be considered a
"spent material" under RCRA. And, provided that the drove is
not derived from a pollution control device (e.g., the drove is
not mixed with bag house dust), it would also not be a
"sludge." Drove most clearly fits the description of either a
co-product or a by-product. Because the distinction between 4w
the two classifications -is not always clearly defined, I will
only address the scenario of drove being classified as a
by-product.
As stated at 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3), a non-listed by-product
(i.e., a by-product that exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste defined at 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C) that is reclaimed is
not a solid waste under RCRA. As you stated in our phone
conversation^ all of the drove is reclaimed and; therefore is not
defined as *£jK>lid waste (and, thus, not a hazardous waste).
[NOTE: Bec*p«e the regulatory status is the same whether a
material i*^"reclaimed non-listed by-product or a co-product,
the distinction ia moot.]
-------
- 2 -
You should note that State and local regulatory agencies may
have applicable regulations that differ from Federal
regulations. You should also contact your State regulatory
agency, as well as the appropriate EPA Regional office for
further information on the regulatory status of the drove.
For more information, please contact the RCRA Hotline at
1-800-424-9346, or the EPA Region II office. You may also call
me at (202) 382-4805.
Sincerely,
Mitch Kidwell
Environmental Protection Specialist
Review section
-------
-
'* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
t«'CE Z*
APR 14 1989 scuo WASTE AND
Elizabeth W. Rovers
Project Engineer
c.T. Male Associates, P.C.
50 century Hill Drive
P.O. BOX 727
Latham, New York 12110
Dear Ms. Rovers:
This letter responds to your March 15, 1989 request for
clarification of the regulatory status of your client's plastic
packing media removed from an air stripping tower that is
treating groundwater contaminated with the F001 solvent
trichloroethylene (TCE). In particular, you asked how the
"derived from" rule applies to the plastic media (i.e., is the
media a hazardous waste?) and whether the media, even when
treated to non-detectable levels, would have to be delisted to
lose its status as a hazardous waste.
The plastic packing media, when removed from the air
stripping tower for disposal, is considered a spent material that
is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste because it
contains a hazardous waste (i.e., FOOD. The "derived from"
rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)) is not directly applicable because the
plastic packing media is considered to be an integral part of the
treatment process, not a solid waste residue derived from the
treatment of a hazardous waste. Therefore, when the media no
longer contains the hazardous waste, it no longer is considered
to be a hazardous waste and may be disposed in a Subtitle D
landfill. The plastic packing media does not need to be
delisted; however, the burden of demonstrating that the media no
longer contains a hazardous waste remains.
You also stated that your client intends to treat the
TCE-contaminated plastic packing media to non-detectable levels
by volatilization. You did not provide enough information on
this aspect of the process for me to determine whether a permit
is required; however, I can state that volatilization does
constitute treatment, as defined at 40 CFR 260.10. I urge you to
contact the appropriate EPA Regional office, as veil as the State
-------
- 2 -
regulatory agency to determine whether a permit is required.
Also, you should be aware that State and local governments may
have applicable regulations that differ from Federal
regulations. You should contact the State regulatory agency to
determine whether other regulations are also applicable.
Should you need further general information, you may contact
the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-464-9346, or Mitch Kidwell, of my
staff, at (202) 382-4805. For questions specific to your
client's facility, you should contact the appropriate EPA
Regional office and the state regulatory agency.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Dellinger, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9441.1939!1=
STAGES ENVIRONi.VEMAI. PROTECTS AGENiC
'.','A S HI f \, G T QIV u C 20460
APR 26 I9SS
MEMORANDUM
—. / // (
SUBJECT: F006 Recycling / j i f || '.» /
' •' I ' ' •' ' !' ~f' ' **
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance-r-fii^^tor 1
Office of Solid Wastje (OS-300)
i
TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
It has come to the attention of EPA Headquarters that many
of the Regions and authorized States are being requested to make
determinations on the regulatory status of various recycling
schemes for F006 electroplating sludges. In particular,
companies have claimed that F006 waste is being recycled by
being used as: (1) an ingredient in the manufacture of
aggregate, (2) an ingredient in the manufacture of cement, and
(3) feedstock for a metals recovery smelter. The same company
may make such requests of more than one Region and/or State.
Given the complexities of the regulations governing recycling
vs. treatment and the definition of solid waste, and the
possible ramifications of determinations made in one Region
affecting another Region's determination, it is extremely
important that such determinations are consistent and, where
possible, coordinated.
Two issues are presented. The first issue is whether these
activities are legitimate recycling, or rather just some form of
treatment called "recycling" in an attempt to evade regulation.
Second, assuming the activity is not sham recycling, the issue
is whether the activity is a type of recycling that is subject
to regulation under sections 261.2 and 261.6 or is it excluded
from our authority.
With respect to the issue of whether the activity is sham
recycling, this question involves assessing the intent of the
owner or operator by evaluating circumstantial evidence, always
-------
a difficult task. Basically, trie determination rests on whether
the secondary material is "commodity-like." The main
environmental considerations are (1) whether the secondary
material truly has value as a raw material/product (i.e., is it
likely to be abandoned or mismanaged prior to reclamation rather
than being reclaimed?) and (2) whether the recycling process
(including ancillary storage) is likely to release hazardous
constituents (or otherwise pose risks to human health and the
environment) that are different from or greater than the
processing of an analogous raw material/product. The attachment
to this memorandum sets out relevant factors in more detail.
If the activity is not a sham, then the question is whether
it is regulated. If F006 waste is used as an ingredient to
produce aggregate, then such aggregate would remain a solid
waste if used in a manner constituting disposal (e.g., road-base
material) under sections 261.2(c)(l) and 261.2(e)(2)(i) or if it
is accumulated speculatively under section 261.2(e)(2)(iii ) .
Likewise, the F006 "ingredient" is subject to regulation from
the point of generation to the point of recycling. The
aggregate product is, however, entitled to the exemption under
40 CFR 266.20(b), as amended by the August 17, 1988, Land
Disposal Restrictions for First Third Scheduled Wastes final
rule (see 53 FR 31197 for further discussion). However, if the
aggregate is not used on the land, then the materials used to
produce it would not be solid wastes at all, and therefore
neither those materials nor the aggregate would be regulated
(see section 261.2(e)(1)(i)).
Likewise, cement manufacturing using F006 waste as an
ingredient would yield a product that remains a solid waste if
it is used in a manner constituting disposal, also subject to
section 266.20(b). There is an additional question of whether
the cement kiln dust, remains subject to the Bevill exclusion.
In order for the cement kiln dust to remain excluded from
regulation, the owner or operator must demonstrate that the use
of F006 waste has not significantly affected the character of
the cement kiln dust (e.g. , demonstrate that the use of F006
waste has not significantly increased the levels of Appendix
VIII constituents in the cement kiln dust leachate). [NOTE:
This issue vill be addressed more fully in the upcoming
supplemental proposal of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule,
which is pending Federal Register publication.]
For F006 waste used as a feedstock in a metals recovery
smelter, the Agency views this as a recovery process rather than
use as an ingredient in an industrial process and, therefore,
considers this to be a form of treatment that is not currently
regulated (see sections 261.2(c) and 261.6(c)(1)). Furthermore,
because this is a recovery process rather than a production
process, the F006 waste remains a hazardous waste (and must be
-------
r.anaged as such prior to i r. troduct ior. to t!~.e crore^s), ar.d tv.e
slag from this process would normally be considered a "derived
from" F006 waste. However, for primary shelters, the slag mav
be considered subject to the Bevin exclusion provided that the
owner or operator can demonstrate that the use of F006 waste has
not significantly affected the hazardous constituent content of
the slag (i.e., make a demonstration similar to the one
discussed above for the cement kiln dust), [NOTE: In the
supplemental proposal of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule
noted above, the Agency win be proposing a definition of
"indigenous waste" based on a comparison of the constituents
found in the waste to the constituents found in an analogous raw
material. Should the F006 waste meet the definition of an
"indigenous waste," the waste would cease to be a waste when
introduced to the process and the slag would not be derived from
a hazardous waste.]
Also, you should be aware that OSW is currently reevaluating
the regulations concerning recycling activities, in conjunction
with finalizing the January 8, 1988 proposal to amend the
Definition of Solid Waste. While any major changes may depend
on RCRA reauthorization, we are considering regulatory
amendments or changes in regulatory interpretations that 'will
encourage on-site recycling, while ensuring the protection of
human health and the environment.
Headquarters is able to serve as a clearinghouse to help
coordinate determinations on whether a specific case is
"recycling" or "treatment" and will provide additional guidance
and information, as requested. Ultimately, however, these
determinations are made by the Regions and authorized states.
Attached to this memorandum is a list of criteria that should be
considered in evaluating the recycling scheme. Should you
receive a request for such a determination, or should you have
questions regarding the criteria used to evaluate a specific
case, please contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at FTS
475-8551.
Attachment
-------
CKITEJUA FOK EVALUATING WHKTHKK A WASTE IS HKiNr; RKCYCi.K!)
The differ9r.c9 between recyciir.s and tr?atr.°r."
di f f ic1.: i ". to c; : st incu is" . Ir. scr".e cases, one is try:n~ tc
interpret intent from circumstantial evidence showing mixed
rot i vat ion , always a difficult proposition. The potential for
abuse is such that great care must be used when making a
determination that a particular recycling activity is to go
unregulated (i.e., it is one of those activities which is beyond
the scope of our jurisdiction). In certain cases, there may be
few clear-cut answers to the question of whether a specific
activity is this type of excluded recycling (and, by extension,
that a secondary material is not a waste, but rather a raw
material or effective substitute); however, the following list of
criteria may be useful in focusing the consideration of a
specific activity. Here too, there may be no clear-cut answers
but, taken as a whole, the answers to these questions should help
draw the distinction between recycling and sham recycling or
treatment .
(l) Is the secondary material similar to an analogous raw
material or product?
o Does it contain Appendix VIII constituents not lound
in the analogous raw material/product (or at higher
levels)?
o Does it exhibit hazardous characteristics that the
analogous raw material/product would not?
o Does it contain levels of recoverable material
similar to the analogous raw material/product?
o Is much more of the secondary material used as
compared with the analogous raw material/product it
replaces? Is only a nominal amount of it used?
o Is the seondary material as effective as the raw
material or product it replaces?
(2) What degree of processing is required to produce a
finished product?
o Can the secondary material be fed directly into the
process (i.e., direct use) or is reclamation (or
pretreatment) required?
o How much value does final reclamation add?
-------
j/ What is the value of the secondary material?
o Is it listed in industry news letters,
journals , etc.?
o Does the secondary r.aterial have economic value
comparable to the raw material that normallv enters
the process?
(4) Is there a guaranteed market for the end product?
o Is there a contract in place to purchase the
"product" ostensibly produced from the hazardous
secondary materials?
o If the type of recycling is reciamation, is the
product used by the reclaimer7 The generator? is
there a batch tolling agreement? (note that si :•.:•<=•
reclaimers are normally TSDFs, assuming they store
before reclaiming, reclamation facilities present
fewer possibilities of systemic abuse).
o Is the reclaimed product a recognized commodity?
Are there industry-recognized quality specifications
for the product?
(5) Is the secondary material handled in a manner
consistent with the raw material/product it replaces?
o Is the secondary material stored on the land?
o Is the secondary material stored in a similar manner
as the analogous raw material (i.e., to prevent
loss)?
o Are adequate records regarding the recycling
transactions kept?
o Do the companies involved have a history of
mismanagement of hazardous wastes?
(6) Other relevant factors.
o What are the economics of the recycling process?
Does most of the revenue come from charging
generators for managing their wastes or from the
sale of the product?
o Are the toxic constituents actually necessary (or of
sufficient use) to the product or are they just
"along for the ride."
These criteria are drawn from 53 FR at 522 (January 8, 1988); 52
FR at 17013 (May 6, 1987); and 50 FR at 638 (January 4, 1985).
-------
wnttt.*» »***u U»vt«MrMBCAlAl. nCUTCCTIO**
9441.1939(20
«2T«9
Mr. Gene Rideout
Systems Manager
Dangerous Goods Consultants
P.O. Box C.P. 283
Roxboro, Quebec H8Y 3E9
Dear Mr. Rideout:
This response addresses your letters dated August 30, 1988,
February 7, 1989, and March 15, 1989, regarding the lab sample
exclusion found in 40 CFR Section 261.4(d). It is our
understanding that you wish to transport via private or company
vehicle samples of hazardous waste from Canada into the United
States for analysis. You question whether the samples that you
are shipping must be managed as hazardous waste in the United
States. You would also like to know if it is acceptable to use
a personal or company automobile to transport the sample
material in the United States.
Based upon the information that you have provided, it
appears that the samples are being handled and shipped in a
manner that is outlined in the lab sample exclusion (40 CFR
261.4(d)). Therefore, these samples are exempt from the federal
hazardous waste regulations including the hazardous waste import
requirements as outlined in 40 CFR 262, Subpart E and 40 CFR
264.12. In addition, as long as each shipment is in compliance
with the lab sample exclusion, including the documentation and
packaging requirements of 261.4(d)(2)(ii), as well as U.S.
Department of Transportation regulations, that may apply, and
any other applicable regulations, the mode of transportation
used is at your discretion.
Please be aware that the applicability of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act in a particular State may be
different; therefore, you should contact any RCRA authorized
State through which you may travel. >
-------
- 2 -
If you have any further questions or need additional
information, please contact Emily Roth of my staff at
(202) 382-4777.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Deputy Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
! ! i I i i i i i j I i i i I i I i ; i i I i i i i I i i ; i ! i i i i i i j I i i I I i i i i i j j i i i I i i i i j j i
OSW-332-ED-RSCC-8801-LM-4/12/89-RIDEOUT
LM-4/14/89 RIDEOUT
LM-4/24/89 RIDEOUT
-------
UMfTED ST. '£S EMVWOHMEHTAL PROTECT10M AC CY 9441.1989(22)
Mrs. Phyllis A. Shay
3700 Petre Road
Springfield, OH 45502
Dear Mrs. Shay:
Thank you for your letter of April 7, 1989 to the
Administrator. We understand your concerns about the
disposal of scrap amalgam fillings from dentists in the
United states and the health effects of amalgam on dental
patients. We appreciate your bringing to our attention your
personal experience with amalgam.
The Agency defines as hazardous any solid waste which
has been listed as a hazardous waste or meets any of four
hazardous characteristics; ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity. Dental
amalgam contains mercury and silver. If discarded, dental
amalgam can be a hazardous waste if mercury and silver are
extracted by the EP test, and are present above certain
concentrations. The maximum permitted concentration of
mercury in^tfce extract is 0.2 milligrams per liter (Mercury
ytg
has been djpigned EPA hazardous waste number D009.). The
maximum permitted concentration of silver in the extract is
5.0 milligrams per liter (Silver has been assigned EPA
hazardous waste number D011.).
-------
UNITED ST. '£5 ENYUZONMEHTAL PROTECTION AC Of
- 2 -
The haliardous waste regulations (promulgated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)) also provided
special, reduced regulations for generators of small quantities
of hazardous waste. The regulations define "small quantity
generator" as one generating less than 1,000 kg of hazardous
waste in a month and "conditionally exempt small quantity
generator" as one generating less than 100 kg of hazardous
waste in a month. Most dentists would probably generate much
less than 100 kg (about 220 pounds) of dental amalgam a month
and be classified as a conditionally exempt small quantity
generator.
Thus, your concerns are about generators who are most
likely exempt from the hazardous waste regulations. Some
dentists presently send their unused and waste dental amalgam
to scrap metal dealers for recycling. I suggest that you
contact your local health department to see if they could
coordinate with dentists to send amalgam to a central location
or locations for recycling.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Dellinger
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Office of Solid Waste (OS-332)
cc: (AX)
Administrator's correspondence office
diskrf chau 8801:"amalgam":5/15/89
-------
UNITED S. fES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A HC
9441.1989(23)
MAT 31 1989
John R. Sims, Jr.
Sims, Walker & Steinfeld, P.C.
Suite 875
1275 K Street, N.W.
Washingtc-., D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Sims:
This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1989, in which
you ask for a determination of the regulatory status of the
absorbent rags that have been used to wipe up the crude oil
resulting from the spill of crude oil from the Exxon tanker
Valdez. We cannot conclude that the .rags are not a hazardous
waste from the information provided. We can advise you on the
process whereby you determine the status of your waste.
Furthermore, our Region X office in Seattle, Washington, may be
able to provide assistance in confirming your determination
should that be necessary.
As you mention in your letter, you discussed the contaminated
rags with Ms. Roth of this office via telephone on several
occasions. Ms. Roth referred you to the Code of Federal
Recrulations (CFR) governing the determination and regulation of
hazardous waste, specifically, 40 CFR Part 261 - Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste. The crude oil contaminated rags
are not listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, as a hazardous
waste; therefore, you must determine whether they meet any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste as presented in Part 261,
Subpart C. Ms. Roth indicated that the characteristic that the
rags would likely exhibit is that of ignitability as defined in
Section 261.21; however, you must determine if the rags meet any
of the characteristics as defined in Part 261, Subpart C. If
they do not exhibit any of the characteristics, then the
absorbent rags would not be considered a hazardous waste under
federal regulation.
You also indicate that you have discussed the regulatory
status of the rags with the appropriate authorities in each of
the three states involved in the transport of the contaminated
rags. If the waste is determined not to meet the definition of
hazardous waste according to the Federal regulations as described
above and is managed in accordance with all state regulations,
then the method of containment and transportation is at your
discretion.
-------
9441.1939(24)
^gl i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
XSJ2^T / WASHINGTON. OC
6 ~;
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Monthly Report—RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance
Hotline and Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know
Information Hotline Report for May 1989 "
FROM: Thea McManus, Project Officer^. ^ K"
Office of Solid Waste ^
TO: See List of Addressees
This report is prepared and submitted in support of Contract #68-01-7371.
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—MAY 1989
A. RCRA
1. Medical Waste-Household Medical Waste
According to Section 259.30(b)(l)(ii) of the Medical Waste Tracking regulations
(54 FR 12374), household waste is not regulated as medical waste. Would this
exemption apply to household waste generated by health care providers in
private homes?
Household waste, as defined in Subtitle C regulations (40 CFR Section
261.4(b)), is excluded from the definition of medical waste in RCRA Section
1004(40), and is not subject to the requirements of the demonstration
program. The November 13, 1984 Federal Register (49 £R 44978) stated that
the exclusion is limited to waste generated by individuals on the premises or
a residence, for individuals and composed primarily of materials found ;n
waste generated by consumers in their homes. Thus, if domestic waste ;s
generated by individuals at a residence, it is "household waste" and thus
excluded from this program. Medical waste generated in homes by hone
health care providers thus is "household waste." Because the household
wastestream is excluded, the waste generated by a health care provider :n
private homes would not be subject to the tracking or managemert
requirements even when the waste is removed from the home
transported to the physician's place of business.
Source: Becky Cuthbertson (202) 475-6713
Research: Kim Jennings (202)382-3112
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
6 jejpg
Julie Wanslow
Hazardous Waste Section
NMEID
1190 Saint Francis Street
Santa Fe, N.M. 87503
Dear Ms. Wanslow: '
In response to yoar phone conversation of March 22, 1989, '
with Mike Fitzpatrick of my staff, we have prepared the
following explanations to clarify the boundaries of the oil
field RCRA exemption as discussed in the December 1987 EPA
Report to Congress (RTC) and given final definition in the July v
1988 regulatory determination. ~ N
The scope of the exemption as defined in the RTC and
regulatory determination is based on the legislative history and
Sections 3001(b)(2)(A) and 8002(m) of RCRA. Using these sources \
the Agency has identified three separate criteria to be used
when defining specific waste streams that are exempt.
These criteria are listed on pages 11-18 and 11-19 of the RTC
(enclosed.) ^
In regard to pipeline or gathering line-related wastes, r
the following excerpts from the criteria in the RTC nay prove
helpful:
"Primary field operations encompass those activities ^
occurring at or near the well head, but prior to the
transport of oil from an individual field facility or \
a centrally located facility to a carrier (i.e., pipeline 1
or trucking concern) for transport to a refinery or to
a refiner.... Waste generated by the transportation
process itself are not exempt because they are not
intrinsically associated with primary field operations....
Transportation for the oil and gas industry may be for
short or long distances." [emphasis added].
According to the Manual of Oil and Gas Terms (sixth
edition) there are many terms in common usage within the
industry and applied to the various pipelines associated with
oil and gas production and transportation (see enclosed
definition of "pipeline"). Feeder lines may or may not be
exempt depending on the point of custody transfer or other
-------
- 2 -
site-specific factors relating to transportation from the
primary field operation as defined in the RTC. Although the
Agency used the term "gathering line" in the RTC in reference
to a generally small diameter pipe within a primary field
operation, the term "gathering line" itself should not be used
as the determining factor in defining the scope of the
exemption. Rather, the applicability of the criteria in the
RTC to the particular line in question should be used in
determining the scope of the exemption.
As for gas plant cooling tower wastes, the July 6, 1988,
regulatory determination identifies "cooling tower blowdown" as
exempt and "gas plant cooling tower cleaning wastes" as
non-exempt. The difference between the two is that blowdown is
comprised only of water, scale or other wastes generated by the
actual operation of the cooling tower; whereas cleaning wastes
include any solvents, scrubbing agents or other cleaning
materials introduced into the process solely to remove buildup
or otherwise clean the equipment and are not included as part
of the functional operation of the cooling tower. Since these
cleaning wastes can come from any cooling tower, they are not
intrinsically derived from primary field operations for natural
gas production. The determining factor for defining the
exemption is not the frequency with which the cooling tower is
blown down, either with or without cleaning agents, but whether
the resulting waste is solely derived from the normal operation
of the tower for natural gas production or from any added
cleaning materials.
I trust these explanations will enable you to better
determine the scope of the RCRA exemption as applied to the
specific waste streams within your jurisdiction. If you have
any further questions please contact Mike Fitzpatrick at
(202) 475-6783.
Sincerely,
Dan Derkics
Chief
Large Volume Waste Section
Enclosure
cc: Mike Fitzpatrick
Ivy Main, Office of General Counsel
-------
UNITED ^ATES WVWONMENTAL P*OTTCT»M JfGtMCT 9441.1989(29)
June 15, 1989
Michael Lodick
President
North Coast Associates, Inc.
361 Delaware Avenue, Suite 405
Buffalo, New York 14202
Dear Mr. LodicJc:
This letter responds to your March 20, 1989 letter to
Ms. Wendy Grieder in the Office of International Activities. In
your letter, you requested confirmation from U.S. EPA that the
export of a secondary material not deemed to be a waste is not
subject to notice requirements under the U.S.-Canadian Bilateral
Treaty. The secondary materials of concern in this case are
spent abrasives from sandblasting which may or may not exhibit
the hazardous characteristic for lead (D008) as found at 40 CFR
261.24. You claim that these secondary materials are used, \
without prior reclamation, as a substitute for silica, aluminum
and iron in the manufacture of Portland cement and that these
materials contain only contaminants that are similar to and no
greater than those found in the analogous raw materials.
The regulatory status of these secondary materials depends
upon several factors. If indeed these secondary materials are
legitimate substitutes for an analogous raw material, the next
consideration is how these materials are being recycled. In
this case, the secondary materials most likely are being used in
a manner constituting disposal (i.e., the Portland cement
manufactured from these secondary materials will be, or is
likely to be, placed on the land). As stated at 40 CFR
261.2(e)(2)(i), materials used in a manner constituting disposal
are solid wastes (and thus, if hazardous, hazardous wastes).
Therefore, if these secondary materials do, in fact, exhibit a
hazardous characteristic, they must be managed as a hazardous
waste, including manifest requirements.
dous waste requiring a manifest, such secondary
subject to the export notification requirements
under th.-Canadian Bilateral Treaty, even though such
materials may not be considered a waste in Canada. Were such
materials to be recycled in the same manner in this country, the
recycling facility (i.e., the cement manufacturer) would be
-------
- 2 -
required ^^B*« a RCRA storage permit. However, assuming the
cement narVptkr exhibited a characteristic, the cement would not
be a hazartBo* waste. If the cement did exhibit a hazardous
characteristic, it would be subject to 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart c.
On the subject of the responses you received from Michigan
and Pennsylvania, States are required to provide equivalent
(i.e., at least as stringent) regulations as the Federal program
to obtain authorization. Therefore, authorized State
requirements must cover, at a minimum, all hazardous wastes
covered by the Federal program. If the appropriate personnel in
the State regulatory agencies wish to discuss the conclusions
presented in this letter, I would be happy to accommodate them.
Also, should you have any further questions regarding the Federal
regulatory status of the spent abrasive material, you may contact
me at (202) 382-4637.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Deputy Director
Characterization and
T\4 .
-------
UNITED .TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9441.1989(30
JUN I 9 |989
Mr. Thomas C. Jorling
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
State of New YorJc
Albany, New YorJc 12233-1010
Dear Mr. Jorling:
I am writing in response to your letter of May 5, 1989, in
which you ask numerous questions concerning the regulatory
status, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
of environmental media (ground water, soil, and sediment)
contaminated with RCRA-listed hazardous waste.
As you point out in your letter, it is correct that the
Agency's "contained-in" interpretation is that contaminated
environmental media must be managed as if they were hazardous
wastes until they no longer contain the listed waste, or are
delisted. This leads to the critical question of when an
environmental medium contaminated by listed hazardous waste
ceases to be a listed hazardous waste. In your letter, you
discuss three possible answers (based on previous EPA positions
and documents) which you believe address this question, and
request the Agency to clarify its interpretation. Each of these
is discussed below.
The first possible answer you cite would be that the
contaminated media would be a hazardous waste unless and until it
is delisted, based on the "mixture" and "derived-from" rules. As
you correctly state in your letter, a waste that meets a listing
description due to the application of either of these rules
remains a listed hazardous waste until it is delisted. However,
these two rules do not pertain to contaminated environmental
media. Undsr our regulations, contaminated media are not
considered solid wastes in the sense of being abandoned,
recycled, or inherently waste-like as those terms are defined in
the regulations. Therefore, contaminated environmental media
cannot be considered a hazardous waste via the "mixture" rule
(i.e., to have a hazardous waste mixture, a hazardous waste must
be mixed with a solid waste per 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)).
Similar!]
-------
-2-
listed hazardous waste. These environmental media must be
managed a« hazardous waste because, and only as long as, they
"contain" a listed hazardous waste, (i.e., until decontaminated).
The second possibility you mention is that environmental
media contaminated with a RCRA listed waste no longer have to be
managed as a hazardous waste if the hazardous constituents are
completely removed by treatment. This is consistent with the
Agency's "contained-in" interpretation and represents the
Agency's current policy.
The third possibility you discuss comes from Sylvia
Lowrance's January 24, 1989, memorandum that you cited in your
letter. This memorandum indicates that OSW has not issued any
definitive guidance as to when, or at what levels, environmental
media contaminated with listed hazardous waste are no longer
considered to contain that hazardous waste. It also states that
until such definitive guidance is issued, the Regions may
determine these levels on a case-specific basis. Where this
determination involves an authorized State, such as New York, our
policy is that the State may also make such a determination.
Related to such a determination, you ask whether a risk
assessment approach that addressed the public health and
environmental impacts of hazardous constituents remaining in
treatment residuals would be acceptable. This approach would be
acceptable for contaminated media, but would not be acceptable
for "derived-from" wastes under our current rules. Additionally,
consistent with the statute, you could substitute more stringent
standards or criteria for contaainated environmental media than
those recommended by the Federal EPA if you determined it to be
appropriate.
The Agency is currently involved in a rulemaking effort
directed at setting de minimis levels for hazardous constituents
below which eligible listed wastes, treatment residuals from
those waste*, and environmental media contaainated with those
listed waste* would no longer have to be managed as hazardous
wastes. flM approach being contemplated in the De Minimis
program vottld be similar to that used in the proposed RCRA Clean
Closure Guidance in terns of the exposure scenario (direct
ingestion), the management scenario (not in a waste management
unit), and the levels (primarily health-based).
Your final question related to whether the "remove and
decontaminate" procedure set forth in the March 19, 1987 Federal
Register preamble to the conforming regulations on closing
surface impoundments applies when making complete removal
determinations for soil. These procedures do apply when one
-------
-3-
chocses to clean close a hazardous waste surface impoundment cy
removing th« waste. The preamble language states that the Ager.cy
interpret* the tern "remove" and "decontaminate" to mean removal
of all wastes, liners, and/or leachate (including ground water)
that pose a substantial present or potential threat to human
health or the environment (52 FR 8706). Further discussion of
these requirements is provided in a clarification notice
published on March 28, 1988, (53 £B 1144) and in OSWER Policy
Directive I 9476.00-18 on demonstrating equivalence of Part 265
clean closure with Part 264 requirements (copy enclosed).
I hope that this response will be helpful to you in
establishing and implementing New York's hazardous waste policies
on related issues. Should you have additional questions, please
contact Bob Dellinger, Chief of the Waste Characterization Branch
at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
OS-305/DELLINGER/D.BARTOSH - 382-4646/SLD/6-2-89/CONTROL
NO: AX891796/DUE DATE: 6-5-89/CONTROL #26(WORDPERFECT)/NAME:
JORLING
-------
PROTECTION -NCY
'M
Dr. William H. McBeath
Executive Director
American Public Health Association
1015 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Dr. McBeath:
Thank you for your letter of June 1, 1989, in which you
requested information regarding the disposal of dental amalgam.
More specifically, you requested that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) send you information on:
1. "a recent EPA ruling concerning dental amalgam";
2. how EPA determined that amalgam is a hazardous
substance;
3. the extent of improper recycling of amalgam; and
4. any plans EPA may be making to develop rules for
the disposal of amalgam and to educate dentists
about "the environmental technology that is
applicable and effective in the recycling
and disposal of dental amalgam."
First, va believe that your reference to a recant EPA ruling
concerning dental amalgam may be explained by the enclosed letter
of May 17, 1989, from Robert W. Dellinger of EPA to Phyllis A.
Shay.
As a secondary material that is being disposed of, amalgam
is definad am a solid waste under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA defines as hazardoua any solid waste
that has bean listed as a hazardous waste or that meets any of
tha four hazardous characteristics: ignitability, corroaivity,
reactivity, and extraction procedure (IP) toxicity. Dental
amalgam is not specifically listed as a haiardoua waste under
-------
Federal regulations. Therefore, the generator of wast* dental
amalgam is responsible for determining whether it exhibits any of
the four hazardous characteristics, since dental amalgam
contains mercury and silver, it may exhibit EP toxicity.
Please bear in mind that many State and local regulatory
agencies have their own hazardous waste regulations, which may
differ from Federal regulations. We strongly encourage
generators of waste to contact their State regulatory agencies to
determine what, if any, State regulations are applicable.
We have neither received information on nor examined the
extent of improper recycling of dental amalgam that may be
occurring. At this time, we do not plan to develop specific
rules for the disposal of dental amalgam. We believe that the
past enclosed guidance on the. hazardous waste regulatory
requirements provides sufficient information to enable small
quantity generators to comply with the requirements.
Thank you for your interest in hazardous waste management.
If you have further questions about the identification of waste,
you may call the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, Edwin Abrams, of
my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Adainistrator
Enclosures
OS-305/DELLINGER/J.OCALLAGHAH - 382-4646/LS/6-26-89/CONTROL
NO: AX892155/DUE DATE: 6-23-89/DISK 129/NAMZ: MCBEATH
FOLLOW-UP RESPONSE
-------
9441.1989(32;
15S22;
C '•".">
0 C-5
Michael S. Giannotto
Shea > Gardner
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Giannotto:•
This is in response to Magma Copper Company's petition ci
December 16, 1988, requesting a clarification of '.he !:->;4
hazardous waste listing, acid plant blowdov/n slurry/ :;i'.:d?G
resulting from the thickening of blovdov:n slurry from primary-
copper production. You contend that the K064 listing does not
apply to Magma's waste which is generated during primary
smelting operations.
In your petition you state that Magma's acid plant
blowdown (APB) is a wastestream that results from the
processing of off-gases from the flash furnaces and converters
used to smelt copper. The APB is piped to a totally enclosed
tank called a "tailings agitator" where it is mixed and
neutralized with large volumes of alkaline tailings from
Magma's beneficiation process. The tailings/blowdown mixture
is then piped to on-site tailings ponds. You state that there
is no stage or operation at Magma where acid plant blowdown is
thickened. Also, you state that the blowdown is never sent to
dedicated lagoons for settling and no portion of Magma's
blowdown becomes a slurry/sludge which is recycled back r.o the
smelter for processing. You further state that the APB does
not undergo any process that concentrates potentially hazardous
constituents in a sludge or slurry. Finally, although this
fact does not effect whether the waste in question meets the
listing description, you provided information on the
concentration of hazardous constituents in the APB and
APB/tailings mixture which indicate that these wastes do not
fail the EP toxicity test.
Based on the information provided in your petition as
described above, and assuring its accuracy the Agency does not
believe that Magma's APB or APB/tailings mixture meets the K064
listing description. Therefore, the Agency does not formally
need to rule on your petition. It is our understanding that
-------
petition tor review '.llz. 8 S -1 ? 6 ft > ::: t::e L':1. ited States
Appeals for the District c: 'Jol^~±ia Circuit.
I hope this letter has addressed your concerns.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
cc: Eldon D. Helmer, Magma Copper Company
Andrew A. Brodkey, Magma Copper Company
-------
41.1939(34)
- '" .j ' i -* _ ? t , V•<[..>,..-«,. r r. t; . ;. 'v, • • O *. -^k;U .•«'
'v'w — ~»r i • \ 1.1 i U *^ w L
JUL 6
Mr. Kenneth A. Rubin
Morgan, Lewis, and Bocklius
180,0 M Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Rubin:
This is in response to your letter dated May 22, 1989,
regarding Tri-state Mint, Inc. and whether the spent, cyanide
solution they disposed of onto C Avenue in an industrial park
area of Sioux Falls, South Dakota is EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F007 (Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating
operations). In making this determination, it is first
necessary to determine whether the process used by Tri-State
Mint in generating this waste is an electroplating operation.
*n a previous memorandum to the Denver Regional Office, it
was indicated that the process used by Tri-State Mint was an
electroplating process. However, upon further evaluation, we
believe that the process is not an electroplating operation
within the scope of the FOOT listing, but a metals recovery
operation. While the operation appears similar and the
residues contain similar constituents, it is materially quite
different. In particular, electroplating includes those
operations where the metal is plated or coated with a thin
surface onto a base material by electrode decomposition to
provide protection against corrosion, to increase wear or
erosion resistance, or for decorative purposes. The solutions
that are used generally contain low concentrations of the metal
ions'. At Tri-State Mint, the operation is not designed to coat
or plate a base material per se. but to recover silver ions
selectively from other impurities in the cyanide bath. These
solutions are usually more concentrated with metal ions than
those used in an electroplating process. In your letter, you
compare the process used at Tri-State Mint to electrowinning
which is a metal refining process defined as the recovery of
rather pure forms of metal from a solution by means of
electrolysis. To the extent that Tri-State in fact uses a
process for recovering silver, we agree that the operation used
by Tri-State Mint that generated the waste in question is not
electroplating within the scope of the F007 listing. As a
result, the waste that was disposed of by Tri-State Mint would
not be EPA Hazardous Waste No. FOOT.
-------
In making ',hic r!e'. °rn i nat. i o;1. , i r she1,:!:! ^e no'er.! -Mar '.'::n
waste in question may still te hazardous if it exhibits any of
the hazardous waste characteristics; if this is the case, "Me
disposal cf the cyanide solution onto C Avenue would have to
comply with the interim status or permit requirements of
Subtitle -C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). It should also be noted that the determination made
today is solely an interpretation of an existing listing
regulation ; EPA is not providing Tri-State with an exemption
from any liability under RCRA, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) , or the
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. Finally,
you should also be aware that States may impose regulations
that are more stringent than the Federal regulations. Thus,
the State of South Dakota may consider Tri-State Mint Inc's
cyanide solution to be listed hazardous waste.
If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free
to call Mr. Matthew A. Straus at (202) 382-4637.
Sincerely,
7
Jeffery Denit,, Deputy 'Director
Office .of Solid Waste
-------
3441.1989(3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
-JL 3
SOLID WAS'E AND EMERGENCY "ESPONS
Joe Haake
Hazardous Waste Coordinator
Dept. 441C, Mail Code 0801800
McDonnell Douglas
P.O. Box 516
Saint Louis, Missouri 63166-0516
Dear Mr. Haake:
This responds to your May 9, 1989 request for a regulatory
interpretation regarding the "recycling" of unused
off-specification jet fuels into new jet fuel. You state in
your letter that the waste fuel is not a spent material because
it has never been used, resulting instead from the overflow
during fueling and from fuel drained from tanks/lines following
testing. However, because of the stringent military fuel
specifications, it cannot be used as jet fuel without
reclamation or reprocessing.
Although you currently manage the off-spec fuel as a
hazardous waste (DOOl), you intend to sell the fuel to a
refining company as a feedstock to produce jet fuel. You
therefore believe that as an ingredient in an industrial
process, the off-spec fuel would not be a solid waste. However,
as I understand from your letter, the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) believes that as a material used to
produce a fuel, the off-spec fuel would remain a solid waste.
EPA Headquarters does not agree with either interpretation.
In particular, we believe that the "recycling" activity
described in your letter is not "use as an ingredient in an
industrial process." Although the off-spec fuel may go through
a manufacturing process, the activity is best characterized as
reclamation (i.e., the jet fuel that does not meet the purity
specifications is reprocessed into jet fuel meeting the required
purity specifications).
Also, MDNR's regulatory interpretation, as stated in your
letter, differs from the Federal interpretation. While MDNR
states that because the material is being used to produce a fuel
(i.e., burning for energy recovery) it remains a solid waste,
the Agency considers the material's original intended purpose
when commerical chemical products are involved. Under the
existing regulations, commercial chemical products (or off-spec
commercial chemical products) that are reclaimed are not solid
waste even if the material is used to produce a fuel if that is
the materials intended purpose. Thus, this off-spec jet fuel,
if used to produce let fuel, is not a solid waste (i.e., an
off-spec fuel is being reclaimed to be used as a fuel — its
intended purpose). Although the regulatory language found at
-------
- 2 -
40 CFR 261.2(c)(2)(ii), which states that in such cases a
commercial chemical product is not a solid waste if it itself is
a fuel, only addresses commercial chemical products listed in
section 261.33, it is implicit in the rules that the same
reasoning applies to commercial chemical products that are not
listed. A clarifying discussion of this Is found in the
April ll, 1986 Federal Register notice (50 FR at 14219), the
technical correction notice to the January 4, 1985 Definition of
Solid Waste final rule (50 FR 614).
The Agency's interpretation is that you are reclaiming an
off-specification commercial chemical product (which would
otherwise be a hazardous waste because it exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste) for its intended purpose
and, therefore, is not a solid waste. Although the reclaimed
commercial chemical product is burned for energy recovery, it is
not a solid waste because this was its intended purpose.
The state of Missouri is authorized to implement the
hazardous waste program under RCRA and may promulgate state
regulations or make regulatory interpretations that are more
stringent than Federal regulations or interpretations. You must
also comply with MDNR's regulations.
Should you have further questions of a more general nature,
you may contact the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or
Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551. For questions of
a more site-specific nature, you should contact the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources and the EPA Region VII office.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: Kenneth J. Davis
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Lynn Harrington, Chief
Permits Branch
Region VIZ
-------
9441.1939(40
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG 2
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
James T. Allen, Ph.D.
Chief
Alternative Technology Section
Toxic Substances Control Division
Department of Health Services
714/744 P Street
P.O. Box 942732
Sacramento, California 94234-7320
Dear Mr. Allen:
This letter responds to your February 6, 1989, correspondence
requesting written confirmation of the regulatory status of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as refrigerants under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
As a spent material being reclaimed for reuse, the spent CFCs
meet the definition of solid waste under Federal regulations (see
40 CFR 261.2). However, to meet the definition of hazardous
waste and, thus, be subject to Subtitle C of RCRA, the spent CFCs
must either be specifically listed as a hazardous waste, or must
exhibit one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste.
Certain CFCs that are used for their solvent properties are
listed as hazardous wastes when spent (see EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. FOOl and F002 at 40 CFR 261.31). Also, certain CFCs that
are unused commercial chemical products are listed hazardous
wastes when discarded (see 40 CFR 261.33). However, CFCs used as
refrigerants, do not seet any of the hazardous waste listings.
Thus, a used CFC refrigerant is a hazardous waste only if it
exhibits one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste.
On July 28, 1989, published a Federal Register notice
(54 FR 31335) that clarified the applicability of RCRA Subtitle C
regulations to CFC refrigerants (see enclosure). This notice
also announced the availability of data relating to whether CFC
refrigerants exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous waste. In
determining vhsther the CFC refrigerant to be recycled is a
hazardous vasts bscause it exhibits a characteristic of a
hazardous vasts, a generator »ay cits the Fsdsral Register
notice to dSBonstrata that such materials do not exhibit a
hazardous characteristic under normal operating conditions.
-------
- 2 -
Should you have any further questions regarding the
applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulation to the recycling of
CFC refrigerant*, you may contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff at
(202) 475-8551.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Michael J. Petruska
Acting Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITE TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO CEHCY
9441.1989(42)
4 1989
Donald G. Ever1st, P.E.
Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.
1015 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 703
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Everist:
Than* you for your letter of June 5, 1989, requesting a
finding on whether depleted mixtures of ethylene glycol and water
from heat exchangers are regulated by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). If these mixtures are intended for disposal, they
are regulated as "solid waste" by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Per authority provided by RCRA, EPA has developed a Federal
regulatory scheme for the proper treatment, storage, and disposal
of hazardous waste, a subset of solid waste. We have enclosed a
copy of the Federal hazardous waste regulations as found in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The waste coolant you have described is not listed as a
hazardous waste under EPA's hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR
261.30). However, as a generator of a solid waste, you are still
obligated to determine either fro* knowledge of the wast* coolant
or by appropriate testing of the waste (40 CFR 261.20) whether
your waste exhibits sufficient properties of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity to render them
characteristically hazardous and thus subject to control under
the Fed«rfjf»fca4ardous waste regulations.
It y^Hvasta coolant fails to exhibit one or more of the
hazardousfssspractaristics, then your wasta is deemed to be a
nonhazardwiat, solid waste. There are no Federal regulations for
nonhazardeua waste generators. You should, however, inquire
about State and local regulations that may apply to your waste
coolant.
-------
We appreciate your efforts to dispose of these wastes
responsibly. If you have any further questions about Federal
regulations applicable to the coolant mixture, please contact
Robert D«llinger of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
OS-305/DELLINGER/J.OCALLAGHAN - 382-4646/SLD/7-10-89/CONTROL
NO:SWER-89-0810/DUE DATE: 7-10-89/DISK 127/NAME: EVERIST
-------
UNtTID STATES EMV1ROMHENTAL PROTECTIOM AGENCY ^^ ,^^
AUG
Joseph E. Micucci, D.D.S.
Bellevue Medical Building
660 Lincoln Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15202
Dear Dr. Micucci:
This letter responds to your July 30, 1989, request for
information regarding the regulatory status of scrap dental
amalgam under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and potential liability under section 107 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). These issues will be addressed separately.
Dental amalgam is not specifically listed as a hazardous
waste under RCRA. The burden on the generator is to then
determine whether the amalgam exhibits a characteristic of a
hazardous waste. You indicated in your letter that the American
Dental Association (ADA) has conducted research that indicates
that amalgam does not exhibit the characteristic of EP
toxicity. If true, the amalgam would not be a hazardous waste.
However, the responsibility for determining the regulatory
status of a waste is borne by the individual generator (who may
cite the ADA research as applying knowledge of his waste in
determining the regulatory status).
You also state that your collections of amalgam for
recycling or refining are not expected to exceed 100 kg per
month. A generator (in this case, the dentist or dental supply
house) of less than 100 kg per month of total hazardous waste
(not any one particular hazardous waste) or 1 kg per month of
acute hazardous waste is considered a conditionally exempt small
quantity generator. The wastes generated by such a generator is
exempt from regulation provided the generator complies with the
provisions found at 40 CFR 261.5. If, however, the amalgam is
not a hazardous waste, this exempt status would not apply since
there would b« no need for the exemption.
Regardijfo your potential liability under section 107 of
CERCLA, tbjp liability is not dependent upon a material's RCRA
regulatory status. Rather, section 107 states that in the event
of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance,
any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for
disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for
transport for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances
owned or possessed by such person shall be liable for the costs
of response. This liability is based upon a person's
-------
UNITED STVTES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- 2 -
^fco the release or threatened release of hazardous
^Bjt necessarily "wastes," although hazardous wastes
are certa^^Kincluded) as defined under section 101(14) of the
CERCLA sti^Hpi. Should your dental amalgam be composed of any
constituent* that meet the definition of CERCLA hazardous
substances, and there is a release from the reclamation facility
(or disposal facility) that received your amalgam, you may be
subject to joint and several liability in an enforcement
action. However, each enforcement action is case-specific and
liability would be determined by the implementing agency in
coordination with the principle responsible parties.
The regulatory status of amalgam provided in this letter
applies to Federal regulations. State regulations may be more
stringent, and I encourage you to contact your State regulatory
agency for an interpretation of the applicable State
regulations. Should you have any further questions regarding
the status or CERCLA liability of your scrap amalgam, you may
contact the RCRA/CERCLA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or may
contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Petruska
Acting Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
!!!!!!!!! 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6s-332-MiTCH-PDisk-MK-8/i6/89-WCB623
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTK5N AGENCY
9441.1989(47.
AUG 251989
Mr. Jack H. Goldman
Manager, Environmental
The Aluminum Association, Inc.
900 19th Street, Northwest
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Goldman:
This is in response to your letter of August 4, 1989
concerning your request that the Agency: (1) adopt your
November 9, 1988 proposed exclusion for spent potliner in place
of the Agency's definition in the March 3, 1989 letter to
Kaiser Aluminum; and (2) adopt the characteristic test per your
November 1988 petition for those portions of spent potliner
that are not excluded from Subtitle C regulation by your
proposal.
In your letter you state that you partially agree with the
Agency'.s March 3, 1989 letter to Kaiser in which EPA determined
that only the carbon portion of the material contained inside
the electrolytic reduction cell constituted the "potliner" and
that the K088 listing did not include the six other materials
identified by Kaiser Aluminum as contained in the "pot" (i.e.,
the cell's, steel shell, steel collector bars, cast iron used to
place steel collector bars in pre-baked carbon blocks, thermal
insulation composed of insulating brick or alumina, the silicon
carbide brick side walls and end walls of the pot, and frozen
aluminum metal pad and electrolytic bath). However, you
indicated that by excluding the insulation from the scope of
the potliner listing, this material would "thereby not be
regulated as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA". It
appears that you have misinterpreted the March 3, 1989 letter
to Kaiser Aluminum.
The purpose of the March 3, 1989 letter was to clarify the
scope of the K088 listing only and provided no interpretation
regarding the regulatory status of these other materials under
Subtitle C. in fact, these wastes would be considered
hazardous if they exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous wastes as defined in 40 CFR 261. Specifically,
the Agency's clarification of the K088 listing would not
•it^ne nf +->io not- /-*/-\n4- a T n i rut »e •> mn i fi f^n*-
•PA FM IttW
OFFIOAl. PILE COI
-------
Your request for adoption of the Association's proposed
exclusion under §261.4 and a characteristic test for materials
not covered by the exclusion was made in your comments to the
September 13, 1988 final rule to list six smelting wastes as
hazardous. This request will be addressed in the near future
in a Federal Register notice in which we will respond to all of
the issues raised in petitions submitted on the smelting waste
listing rule. To address these issues, however, the Agency
must propose to grant or deny the petitions and take public
comment on our proposed response before a final action can be
taken.
I hope this letter has clarified our earlier determination
on the scope of K088 and the status of materials not covered by
the listing. Should you have any additional questions, please
feel free to call Denise Wright at 245-3519.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1939(43
S'A'ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC*
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Laclede Steel Company, Alton, Illinois
(ILD 006 280 606)
FROM:
-------
reclaimed material is not used to produce a fuel; and 6) the
reclaimed material is not used to produce a product that will
be placed on the land.
Laclede is not eligible for this exemption. The reason is
that the K062 is trucked (not piped) to the recycling site.
While the closed-loop exclusion does allow for the use of
"other comparable enclosed means of conveyance," the Agency
would not deem trucks to be comparable. The preamble
discussion found at 51 FR 25443 clearly states EPA's intent
that the closed nature of the process is a decisive factor and
further defines that "closed" refers to "hard connections from
point of generation to point of return to the original
process." Trucks do not meet this definition. In addition, if
the recycled materials are used to produce a product (such as
fertilizer) that is applied to the land (i.e. . used in a manner
constituting, disposal per Section 261. 4(a) (8) (iv) ) , the solid
waste exemption would not apply. There may also be some
question as to whether the storage unit Laclede uses meets the
definition of a tank or a surface impoundment. There was not
enough information provided to make that determination; the
Region or State must define the storage unit.
The second exclusion that Laclede is claiming is found at
section 721.104(a)(7) of the State regulation (which is assumed
to be equivalent to 40 CFR 261.2(e)(ii), involving use/reuse of
a material as a substitute for a commercial product). While
this exclusion may apply to the iron sulfate by-product from
the reclamation activity, it would definitely not apply to the
K062 waste. This exclusion applies to materials which are used
or reused without reclamation (see the January 4, 1985 Federal
Register notice, 50 FR 637, 638). The K062 is clearly being
reclaimed and, therefore, is not eligible for this exclusion.
Again, the exemption would not apply if use constituting
disposal is involved (see Section 261.2(e)(2)(i)).
The third exclusion Laclede claims is under section
721.I02(e)(l)(B) of the State regulation (which is assumed to
be equivalent to 40 CFR 261.4(a)(7), involving the exemption of
spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid from
the definition of solid waste). Apparently, Laclede is
confusing reclamation of a spent material with the production
of virgin Material. The K062 is definitely being reclaimed
(i.e. . contaminants are being removed to make it reusable).
The preamble discussion found at 50 FR 642 (January 4, 1985)
clearly describes the process of using spent sulfuric acid as
an ingredient in the production of virgin sulfuric acid.
Nothing in the reclamation process indicates that virgin
sulfuric acid is being produced with K062 used as an
ingredient. Therefore, this exclusion is also not applicable
to Laclede.
-------
The regulatory determination of concern associated with
the Laclede facility is that K062 is a hazardous waste being
reclaimed. The residues of the reclamation process (which
itself is not regulated) are also hazardous waste K062
(although the sulfuric acid that is recovered is an effective
substitute for a commercial chemical product) and must meet the
treatment standards (and notification requirements) under the
land disposal restrictions program (40 CFR Part 268) prior to
placement on the land (i.e. . before a fertilizer produced from
the iron sulfate can be applied to the land). Also, the iron
sulfate (after reclamation) may be demonstrated to be an
effective substitute for a commercial chemical product for uses
other than those constituting disposal and, if so, would cease
to be a K062-derived hazardous waste.
If you have any additional questions, please contact
Mitch Kidwell at FTS 475-8551.
-------
9441- 1939(49
UMITEO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP 28 1969
SOLID WASTE AND EVEflGENO RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Waste Identification for a Bottling Facility
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch (2AWM-HWC)
This memorandum is in response to your memorandum dated
September 11, 1989, in which you requested waste identification
clarification on two issues concerning Fisher Scientific, Inc.
The first issue revolves around the containerizing of
commercial chemical products. The facility takes product in
bulk form and containerizes it in smaller vessels via a process
line. During the process, some residual material from
commercial chemical product number one (e.g. , toluene) remains
in the process line after purging with pressurized nitrogen
gas. When the next bulk order is processed, which involves a
chemically different product (e.g., trichloroethylene)
commercial chemical product number one contaminates the first
few vessels of commercial chemical product number two. This
impure product is emptied into a common holding tank (i.e.,
becomes waste). You ask for the regulatory status of this
waste. This waste is an off-specification commercial chemical
product and as such is a listed hazardous waste. In the above
example, commercial chemical product number two clearly is not
used for its solvent properties and, because it is mixed with
commercial chemical product number one, the resulting mixture
would b« correctly designated as an off -specification
. chemical product.
TIM second issue concerns characteristic waste (nitric
acid). The characterization of solid waste as hazardous is
dictated by the regulations under RCRA and appropriate State
regulations. The Department of Transportation regulations do
not overlap in this particular instance; thus it is correct to
state that 49 CFR Section 172.101 has no correlation to, and
does not supersede, 40 CFR Section 261.21. If the waste meets
the description under Section 261.21, then the waste is
classified as Hazardous Waste No. 0001; if the waste meets the
-------
description under Section 261.22, then it is classified as
Hazardous Waste No. D002.
If you have any additional questions on these issues,
please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Cochran of my staff at
FTS 382-4769.
-------
UHITF~ wri3-Ejmjrow*ortti;PTOTECTT' ACTKCT 9441.1939(50)
OCT 20
Mr. Kevin Anthony
Environmental Assistant
MagneTeJc Ohio Transformer
1776 Constitution Avenue
Louisville, OH 44641
Dear Mr. Anthony:
ThanJc you for your letter of September 11, 1989, in which you
requested information concerning the handling of "F" series solid
wastes. More specifically, you requested that we send you
information on handlers and alternate disposal or reclamation
processes for rags and similar materials, which have absorbed
various volatiles and "F" wastes through wipe down and cleaning
processes. In general, the EPA Regional Offices are responsible
for this type of inquiry. However, because you have indicated that
Region 5 referred you to my office, my staff has coordinated with
them to prepare the following response for you.
Rags and similar materials may be incinerated and the residue
landfilled. Laundering these rags is an alternative to
incineration, for those rags which can be laundered. Dan Patulski
of Region 5 did not have any additional information on handlers and
alternate disposal or reclamation processes for rags and similar
materials.
If you have any further questions, you can contact
Mr. Patulski at (312) 886-0656. He has your letter and will be
given a copy of this reply.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ -W/- ' WASHINGTON. D.C
'^^ 9441.1989(51)
OCT 5 1989
Cj f- n c E O *•
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Travis P. Wagner
Labat-Anderson Incorporated
2200 Clarendon Boulevard
Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22201
Dear Mr. Wagner:
I an writing in response to your letter requesting written
clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) definition of a liquid as it applies to ignitable and
corrosive wastes.
There are •three RCRA definitions which include •the term
"liquid". The definitions vary depending on the specific
regulatory application. For hazardous waste identification by
means of the three relevant characteristics (Ignitability,
Corrosivity or Extraction Procedure Toxicity), the general term
liquid applies. "Liquid1* is defined as the material (liquid
phase) that is expressed from the waste in Step 2 of Method 1310
(the Extraction Procedure).
As Mr. Friedman indicated, only those wastes that contain a
liquid component are subject to testing against the flash point
criteria of Section 261.21. Therefore, if a waste does not yield
a liquid phase when subjected to Method 1310, it cannot be an
ignitable waste under the criteria of Section 261.21(a)(1).
Similarly, Section 261.22(a)(2) states that a liquid waste
is a corrosive waste if it exhibits a pH less than or equal to 2
or greater than or equal to 12.5. If a waste does not yield a
liquid when subjected to Method 1310, it is not evaluated against
this criteria and is not a corrosive waste.
A second definition of liquids which is applied to determine
whether a drummed waste is prohibited from land disposal because
it contains "free liquid", is found in Method 9095 (the Paint
Filter Test). If any material drips from the filter during the
test, the waste is deemed to contain "free liquid" and is banned
from land disposal.
-------
Many people have used the Paint Filter Test to evaluate
wastes for ignitability or corrosivity. This is done to save
time and effort. Since liquids that separate out of the waste
using Method 9095 are generally also liquids using Method 1310
wastes that contain ignitable or corrosive liquids using Method
9095 can generally be considered to be ignitable or corrosive
wastes.
The third definition of liquids was developed when the 1984
amendments to RCRA prohibited the use of adsorbents to solidify
liquid wastes if the adsorbents would release the contained
liquids under landfill pressures. Prohibited adsorbents are
those that contain "releasable liquids". While the Agency has not
yet promulgated a specific test procedure for defining when a
waste contains "releasable liquid", a draft procedure has been
developed and proposed - Method 9096 (the Liquid Release Test).
I trust that this explanation clarifies the RCRA
definitions. Please contact us if you need further assistance.
Sincer
ranee
Director b
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1989(52)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OCT 6
Mr. Daniel Threlfall
Chemviron, Inc.
P.O. Box 15598
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15224
Dear Mr. Threlfall:
This letter is in response to your letter of September 19,
1989 concerning the wastewater treatment sludges generated at
Witco's Petrolia, Pennsylvania facility. As I understand the
situation, these sludges are considered hazardous by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER),
because the sludges may contain small amounts of methanol. I
also understand that you are currently awaiting a decision from
PADER on a petition requesting the exclusion of these sludges
from consideration as hazardous waste. As part of their
decision-making process, PADER has requested that EPA document
its regulatory classification of these sludge wastes. Our
classifcation of these wastes, which assumes that the information
provided in your letter is correct, is discussed below.
EPA's listed hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific
sources are presented in 40 CFR Part 261.31 and 261.32,
respectively. The wastewater treatment sludges generated at
Witco's facility are not described in either of those lists.
Furthermore, the analyses you conducted on samples of the waste
indicate that the waste is not hazardous with respect to the
hazardous waste characteristics listed in 40 CFR Part 261.20.
Thus, EPA does not consider the wastewater treatment sludges you
describe to be listed hazardous wastes or characteristically
hazardous wastes. Please note, however, that a change in the
kind or concentration of hazardous constituents present in the
sludge could effect the determination as to whether the sludge
would fail one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous
waste.
As you are probably aware, however, the State of
Pennsylvania has been authorized by EPA to conduct its own
hazardous waste program. Any state authorized by EPA must
Conduct a program which is at least equivalent to the Federal
:ogram; states may, however, choose to operate a hazardous waste
program which is more stringent or broader-in-scope than the
Federal program. With respect to the sludges discussed herein,
it appears to be the case that State regulations classify these
sludges as hazardous waste.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMA""
OCTOBER 1989 9441.1989(53)
6. Clarification of FQTQ T.foting and Applicability to Other Wastewater
Treatment Sludges
A manufacturing process involves the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum. Wastewaters from this process are treated and a sludge results
that meets the F019 listing in 40 CFR Section 261.31. Treatment of the
wastewaters generates a less dense liquid supernatant overlying the listed
sludge. Will this supernatant carry the F019 waste code as well?
The resulting supernatant will not be considered F019 because it is the
wastewater from which the sludge was formed, and because the
wastewater is not itself listed. The F019 listing applies to the sludge
produced from treating wastewaters from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum. The hazardous constituents present in the
influent wastewater settle out and concentrate in the sludge.
Therefore, it is this sludge which the Agency regulates as listed
hazardous waste F019. The treatment of any wastewaters may
preserve an aqueous supernatant from the wastewater The
supernatant will be considered a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous waste set forth in 40 CFR Part
261 Subpart C, or if some relevant act of mixing of the wastewater
with the listed sludge occurs.
A discussion of F006 sludge and supernatant in the August 17,1988,
Federal Register (53 £E 31153) has direct applicability to this situation.
The discussion states that "filtrate from F006 sludges could be
hazardous under the derived-from rule" as could be the case with
filtrate from F019 sludges, and any other listed wastewater treatment
sludges. There may be cases during wastewater treatment in which
hazardous constituents that have settled out of wastewaters into a
listed sludge become recombined and resuspended in the
supernatant, resulting in a derived-from hazardous waste. This
uncommon situation will generally occur due to improper design or
malfunction of a wastewater treatment system. In these cases, the
burden of proof will be on the Agency to prove that hazardous
constituents in the sludge have become commingled with the
supernatant. The preamble goes on to say that if the filtrate is similar
in identity and constituent concentration to the influent wastewater
to the wastewater treatment process, it is not considered to be a
derived-from hazardous waste. Rather, it will be viewed as the
original influent wastewater. These situations will be addressed by
the Agency on a case-by-case basis.
Source: BobScarberry (202)382-4770
Denise Wright (202) 245-3519
Research: Jenny Peters
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1989 94^1.1989(54)
2. Manufacturing Process Unit
An owner/operator of a military facility manufacturing explosives is in
the process of cleaning out his manufacturing units (tanks). They are
cleaned by rinsing and then by flashing or torching the inside of the unit.
Is this tank required to be permitted under RCRA as a treatment tank, i.e.,
is this activity classified as open burning/open detonation?
This tank is classified as a manufacturing process unit and therefore
is not subject to RCRA regulation. Because it is not a hazardous
waste storage tank, it will not be regulated under the Subpart J
standards of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. The waste inside a
manufacturing process unit is not regulated until it exits the unit or
until it remains in the unit (which has ceased operation) longer than
90 days, per 40 CFR Section 261.4(c). In this case, once the waste is
removed by rinsing, it should be handled according to RCRA Subtitle
C regulations, if it is hazardous waste.
The subsequent activity of cleaning out the manufacturing process
unit by torching is not regulated under RCRA, if it takes place
promptly. Once the unit ceases operation, the removal of residues
must occur before 90 days are up; otherwise, removal could be
regulated. Also, regardless of timing, if the operator removes any
residues from the tank after burning, the residues may be subject to
regulation if they are hazardous per RCRA Subtitle C
Source: EdAbrams (202)382-4787
Research: Mary Stevens
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1989 9441.1989(55)
7. Clarification of Spent Solvent
A foam manufacturer uses 100% CFC -11 (trichlorofluoromethane) in the
production of flexible foam. The trichlorofluoromethane acts as a blowing
agent by physically opening the foam cell. It is then released into the
ambient environment and is captured by a vapor recovery system. Once
collected, the spent trichlorofluoromethane is sent off-site for recycling.
Should this material be managed as F002?
The spent trichlorofluoromethane is a solid waste because it is a spent
material being reclaimed. In order for the spent trichlorofluoro-
methane to be considered F002, the trichlorofluoromethane must
have been used as a solvent The December 31,1985 Federal Register
(50 FR 53316) clarifies that "only solvents that are used for their
'solvent' properties - that is, to solublize (dissolve) or mobilize other
constituents" would be covered by the F001 • F005 spent solvent
listings. Specific examples include "solvents used in degreasing,
cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants and reaction and
synthesis media." In the case of foam production, the trichloro-
fluoromethane is not being used to solublize or mobilize, rather, it is
simply opening the form cell by a physical mechanism. Therefore,
the spent trichlorofluoromethane would not meet the F002 listing.
Since the use of trichlorofluoromethane in this manner does not
meet a hazardous waste listing, this spent material would be a
hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA only if it exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic under 40 CFR 26121 - 26124.
Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475-6715
Research: Mary Beth Clary
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY 9441.1989(56)
NOVEMBER 1989
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—NOVEMBER 1989
A. RCRA
1. Treatabilitv Studies Sample Exemption
The treatability studies sample exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(e) and (f) conditionally
exempts generators of waste samples and owners or operators of laboratories or
testing facilities conducting certain defined treatability studies from Subtitle C
hazardous waste requirements. Is it within the scope of 40 CFR 261.4(e) and (f)
for the testing facility to return the samples to the generators of the samples after
the treatability study is completed?
Yes; 40 CFR 261.4 (0(10) states, as one of the conditions of the test facility
exemption, as follows: 'The facility determines whether any unused sample
or residues generated by the treatability study are hazardous waste under
Section 261.3 and, if so, are subject to Parts 261 through 268, and Part 270 of
this Chapter, unless the residues and unused samples are returned to the
sample originator under the Section 261.4(e) exemption." 40 CFR 261.4(e) is
analogous to the sample exclusion in 261.4(d) in that its intent is to exclude
samples from all regulations under Subtitle C as long as all provisions in
the exclusion are complied with. This is restated in the preamble to
Sections 261.4(e) and (f), July 19,1988 Federal Register (53 £R 27292,27295),
which states that, upon completion of the treatability study, the owner or
operator of the .laboratory can return the unused samples and residue to the
generator or.f-jnjle collector wh; u.r/»-.\aining .excluded from Subt;< • C
hazardous waste regulations.
Source: Michael Petruska, OSW (202) 475-8551
Research: Renee T. LaValle
-------
9441.1990(01
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9 1990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA status of Dinoseb Formulations
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
Office of Solid Waste (OS-330)
TO: Steve Johnson, Director
Field Operations Division
Office of Pesticide Programs (H7506C)
This is in response to your memorandum of July 7, 1988
requesting clarification of the RCRA status of four Dinoseb
formulations.
In order for materials to be hazardous wastes under the RCRA
program, and therefore subject to RCRA regulation, they must
first be classified as solid wastes. Materials become solid
waste when they are discarded or are intended for discard
(40 CFR 261.2). Thus, Dinoseb formulations which are disposed of
or are intended for disposal are solid wastes. They become
hazardous wastes if they are "listed* in 40 CFR Part 261 , Subpart
D, or exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics:
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity (40 CFR 261.20-261.24).
Based upon a consideration of the regulations identified
above, we have made a determination as to the regulatory status
of the four Dinoseb formulations identified in your memorandum
and these are provided below.
1.) DINOSEB TECHNICAL PRODUCT
In this formulation the compound (Dinoseb) is the major
constituent (95%). The compound known as Dinoseb is listed in
40 CFR 261.33(e) when it "consists of the commercially pure grade
of the chemical, any technical grades [emphasis added] of the
chemical that are produced or marketed, and'all formulations in
-------
When this material is discarded, or is intended for discard,
it may become a hazardous waste by virtue of exhibiting one or
more of the hazardous waste characteristics and must, therefore,
be evaluated with respect to the characteristics outlined in
40'CFR 261.20-261.24.
Formulations 1 and 2 listed above are acutely hazardous
wastes when discarded or intended for discard and generators must
comply with the requirements of RCRA with respect to generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal as provided in
40 CFR Parts 261 through 264. These sections identify the
specific requirements for generators, transporters, and operators
of treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities.
Formulations 3 and 4 above are not acute hazardous wastes;
however, they will be hazardous wastes if they exhibit any of the
hazardous waste characteristics specified in
40 CFR 261.21-261.24. If these formulations are found to be
characteristic hazardous wastes, they must be managed in
accordance with the RCRA regulations outlined above. If these
formulations are found not to be hazardous wastes, then they must
be managed and disposed of in accordance with the solid waste
regulations of the state in question.
If a holder or generator of the material elects to treat
and/or dispose of any hazardous Dinoseb formulations on site, he
will have to comply with the standards and requirements of 40 CFR
Parts 264, 265 and 270 for obtaining a permit to operate a TSD
facility, except to the extent that storage in containers or
tanks, and treatment in tanks is allowed for 90 days under
40 CFR 262.34. (See 51 FR 10168, March 24, 1986.^Further,
farmers may dispose of these wastes on site under 40 CFR 262.70,
subject to appropriate label instructions.
Finally, depending upon the amount of the waste generated, a
generator may be eligible for the small quantity generator
exemption(s) specified in 40 CFR 261.5. Under this section, a
generator who generates less than one kilogram per calendar month
of acute hazardous waste, or no more than 100 kilograms of
hazardous wastes per calendar month, may qualify as a
conditionally exempt small quantity generator. A conditionally
exempt small quantity generator's wastes are not subject to
regulation under 40 CFR Parts 262 through 266, 268, Part 270, and
the notification requirements of Section 3010 of RCRA provided
the generator complies with requirements specified in
40 CFR sections 262.5(f), (g), and (j).
If you have any questions pertaining to the above, please
contact Ron Josephson at 475-6715.
cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
-3-
-------
9441.1990(02
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE\CV
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
O^f ICE
SOuO /.-;*£ i-vC' E'.'E
Thomas A. Corbett
Environmental Chemist I
New York State DEC
600 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York
14202
Dear Mr. Corbett:
This letter is in response to your letter of October 31, 1989,
in which you requested clarification of the domestic sewage
exclusion of 40 CFR 261.4 (a) (1) (i) and (ii) as it may relate to
excavated sludge from a sewer line. We understand that you have
spoken with Region II personnel who referred you to the Office of
Solid Waste (OSW) . We have enclosed a copy of the memorandum you
mentioned in your letter from Marcia Williams to David Stringham
dated December 12, 1986. You have related to Emily Roth of OSW
your request for a written response from EPA on this issue.
The situation as described in your letter involves waste
removed from the low points of storm sewer lines by excavation.
Apparently, the sewer occasionally becomes blocked as a result of
the settling of solids from the sewage. The plan is to place the
waste material in waste hauling vehicles and transport it to the
publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) , where it will be discharged
into the system for processing. The waste is EP toxic for lead.
Your letter asks if the waste: (1) retains its non-hazardous
status under the domestic sewage exclusion after excavation from
the sewer line or (2) is subject to regulation as a hazardous
waste.
The domestic sewage exclusion of Section 261. 4 (a) (1) (i) states
that neither domestic sewage nor any mixture of domestic sewage and
other wastes that "passes through a sewer system to a publicly-
owned treatment works for treatment" are solid waste. In the
situation you describe, the sludge is removed from the sewer line
and, therefore, does not pass through the sewer system to the POTW.
The waste, upon removal, loses its "excluded" status under the
domestic sewage excluysion and becomes subject to regulation as a
solid waste. If the waste exhibits any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste as described in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart Cf it must
be regulated as a hazardous waste. In order for a POTW to receive
hazardous waste, the POTW must be in compliance with the
requirements of 40 CFR Section 270.60(c).
Printtd on Ktcyeltd Paper
-------
If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter,
you may contact Emily Roth of my staff at (202) 382-4777.
Sincerely
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1990(03
y^
3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
w* WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEE I 3 1990
SOi.i3 AASTF. AND E\'E«CENCV
MEMORANDOM
SUBJECT: Recycling of Electric Are, Furnace Dust (K061) as an
Ingredient in tht J!ajtff|cpirf of Cement
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowr
Office of Soli
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region VIII
This responds to your December 6, 1989, memorandum requesting
a regulatory determination regarding the use of K061 electric arc
furnace (EAF) dust as an ingredient in the manufacture of
cement. Included with your memorandum was a November 17, 1989,
letter from Mr. Stephen wistar of Ferrous American Company, which
claims that the EAF dust used in such a manner is excluded from
the definition of solid waste (and, therefore, not subject to
RCRA) under 40 CFR 261.2(e). In your memorandum you do not
specifically address the status of the EAF dust, but rather state
that such use of K061 waste may be legitimate recycling subject
.to regulation under 40 CFR 261.6(a) and 266.20(b) and you seek
our approval of this view. Several members of my staff also met
with Mr. Wistar on December 21, 1989 to discuss his plans to
"recycle" K061 wastes. The following is our evaluation of the
pertinent issues you should consider in making the case-specific
determination.
Mr. Wistar's claim that the K061 waste is not subject to RCRA
under the exclusion at 40 CFR 261.2(e) is not supported by any
information ve have seen. Cement is considered to be a product
that is typically applied to the land (although this is a
rebuttable presumption), and therefore the EAF dust is a solid
waste (and a hazardous waste — K061) under 40 CFR
261.2(e)(2)(i). This determination does not, however, address
the legitimacy of the use of K061 waste as an ingredient to
produce cement.
To determine whether the processing of a specific waste is
legitimate recycling or treatment, one must consider, among other
things, the fate of the constituents in the waste as they are
processed. In other words, do the constituents actually play a
part in the manufacture of the cement (i.e., are they
frinMrf M Kieytltd Paptr
-------
- 2 -
legitimately being used), or are they being treated/disposed by
incorporation into a product? Particular focus should be given
to the fate of hazardous constituents in the waste that are
incorporated into a product (it would be contrary to the intent
of RCRA regulation if regulatory determinations are made solely
on the use/reuse of nonhazardous constituents also contained in
a hazardous waste).
In evaluating the fate of the (hazardous) constituents in
the waste, one should use the fate of constituents in an
analogous raw material as a baseline. Insofar as the
constituents (and their concentrations) in the waste and the raw
material are similar, the processing may be legitimate
recycling. However, if the waste contains hazardous
constituents not present in the analogous raw material (or
hazardous constituents at significantly higher concentrations
than in the analogous raw material) that serve no purpose in the
manufacture of the product, the process would appear to «
constitute treatment/disposal rather than legitimate recycling.
Also, where incorporation of the waste results in detriment to
the quality of the end product, the procedure would appear to
constitute treatment/disposal. Finally, it should be noted that
the fact that a material can be inserted into a production
process without detriment to the quality of the end product does
not mean that the waste is actually being used as an ingredient.
There are several points that deserve particular focus. For
example, in the data that Mr. wistar supplied to us in our
meeting, the levels of hazardous constituents contained in the
K061 waste were several orders of magnitude greater than the
levels found in the analogous raw material. Because of this, we
would then question the role in the manufacture of cement of the
volatile hazardous metals (such as lead) that are typically
found 'in K061 wastes.
An additional concern is that the mixing of K061 waste with
millscale (a nonhazardous solid waste) could constitute dilution
of the hazardous constituents. Mr. Wistar states in his letter
that such blending is done "... specifically to ameliorate its
handling characteristics, and to make the iron content more
even." Such necessary adjustments to the hazardous waste could
indicate that the K061 waste is, in fact, not an effective
substitute for an analogous raw material. Furthermore, when
questioned on the possibility of using only the mill scale as an
-------
ingredient in the manufacturing of cement, Mr. wistar stated that
while the mill scale could certainly be used as an ingredient,
substituting for the iron ore currently used, it would be
uneconomical to transport the mill scale to the cement kiln
unless additional revenues provided by fees charged to generators
for the management of their K061 wastes were also received.
We reiterate that even if it should prove that the K061 waste
is being recycled legitimately, the waste-derived cement applied
to the land remains a hazardous waste, and in addition must meet
the land disposal restrictions treatment standard for waste K061,
as per 40 CFR 266.20(b). Presently, this treatment standard (see
40 CFR 268.43(a)) is based on the performance of stabilization,
but on August 8, 1990, the treatment standard for high zinc (15%
or greater) K061 requires metal recovery (see 53 FR 31162-4;
August 17, 1988). Thus, as of August 8, 1990, high zinc K061
could not be used as an ingredient to produce cement in any case
without an amendment of current rules.
f
By way of further guidance, I am attaching a copy of an
April 26, 1989, memorandum from me to the Regional Hazardous
Waste Management Division Directors concerning the recycling of
F006 electroplating sludges. Several aspects of the memorandum
are relevant in this case, especially the criteria to be used to
evaluate whether a recycling activity is legitimate or requires a
treatment permit. If you need further information or have any
more questions concerning the recycling of hazardous waste, your
staff should contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at FTS 475-8551.
Attachment
cc: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
EPA Regions I-VII, IX and X
-------
9441.1990(04
USE,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC ,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB I 4 1990
SOL. 3 •/.ASTS AMD EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Richard L. Feulner
Director, Regulatory Affairs
CIBA-GEIGY Corporation
P.O. Box 18300
Greensboro, NC 27419
Dear Mr. Feulner:
This letter is in response to your November 17, 1989 request for
a one-time exemption from RCRA requirements for end-users of
chlordimeform. In your letter, you outlined the voluntary
termination of FIFRA registration for chlordimeform, and Ciba-Geigy's
commitment to accept for disposal chlordimeform stocks turned in by
end-users. According to EPA's final decision regarding
cniordimeform, its use is prohibited after October 1, 1989 [54 FR
6246, February 8, 1989].
Your letter describes an assumption that Galecron 4E (a Ciba-
Geigy formulation of chlordimeform) is a hazardous waste, and
describes difficulties involved in obtaining EPA Identification
Numbers for the various chlordimeform users. You then requested that
EPA's Office of Solid Waste develop a program "that would, on a one-
time basis, exempt end users from manif esting "requirements. " You
also stated your belief that a certain interpretation of the
pesticide's waste classification may be necessary to exempt end-users
from manifesting requirements.
After reviewing the information you have submitted, I have
concluded that in most (if not all) instances the Galecron 4E is a
solid waste in the hands of end-users. Specifically, you stated in a
February 19, 1988 letter to EPA that Ciba-Geigy would "offer and
actively encourage the return of all inventory remaining after the
1988 use season regardless of the ownership or location of the
material. This material will be destroyed, at Ciba-Geigy expense, in
accordance with all appropriate state and federal regulations." In
your November 17, 1989 letter you also stated that "the exemption
from classification of Galecron 4E as waste would only last until '.r.e
material had been gathered for disposal. Once it has been collected.
it will be stored and disposed of as hazardous waste" and "We plan -o
have the chlordimeform incinerated at a permitted RCRA facility onre
it has been collected from the end users."
frvutd an Rttynt* >•**
-------
40 CFR Section 261.2(b)(3) provides:
Materials are--solid waste if they are abandoned by
being:
Accumulated, stored, or treated (but not
recycled) before or in lieu of being
abandoned by being disposed of, burned, or
incinerated.
Thus it is clear that end-users who are accumulating Galecron 4E
before it is disposed are managing wastes.
My June 23, 1989 memorandum on regulation of cancelled
pesticides, which you mentioned as stating that case-by-case
determinations must be made for determining the waste status of
cancelled pesticides, refers to the April 8, 1987 Federal Register
(52 FR 11332). That Federal Register notice states that "cancelled
pesticides are considered to be solid wastes subject to RCRA if they
have been "discarded" or are intended for discard. In this context,
"discarded" means either abandoned or used as a fuel..." Because of
the section 261.2(b)(3) regulation defining the term "abandoned", it
is clear that in the circumstances you have described, the end-users
are managing wastes.
Another factor affecting this determination is the fact that
chlordimeform use is banned in the United States as well as many
foreign countries. Thus it is unlikely that Ciba-Geigy would accept
unused stocks for resale. In the event Ciba-Geigy does find a legal
market and is able to accept the unused stocks for resale, the unused
chlordimeform may not be a solid waste under 40 CFR Section 261.2.
Another situation in which the material may not be a waste is if it
is a commercial chemical product that is being reclaimed (Section
261.2(c)(3)). However, in both of these situations, the burden of
proof would be on the parties claiming that the unused chlordimeform
is not a solid waste (Section 261.2(f)).
Assuming the unused chlordimeform is a waste (and the available
information indicates that it is), the end-users must determine
whether it is a hazardous waste. Although neither chlordimeform nor
chlordimeform hydrochloride appear on the lists of hazardous waste in
Section 261.33, you indicated that you believe that Galecron 4E is an
ignitable hazardous waste per Section 261.21. You indicated that
this determination is based on Galecron 4E's formulation with xyiene-
based solvents. We agree that the unused chlordimeform formulations
are not listed hazardous wastes; however, assuming the unused
formulation exhibits the characteristic of ignitability, it is a
hazardous waste. Thus, the end-users (who are the generators under
the circumstances you have described) are responsible for managing
their unused chlordimeform stocks consistent with the federal
hazardous waste regulations. These regulations have varying
requirements, depending on the monthly quantities of hazardous waste
-------
generated at a site. In some cases, an EPA identification'Number may
not be required for the generator, ahd there may be no manifesting
requirements. (See 40 CFR Section 2S1.5.)
For those situations where an EPA Identification Number is
required, EPA has established a system whereby generators can obtain
provisional identification numbers in an expedited manner (see 45 FR
85023, December 24, 1980). The telephone numbers listed in that
notice are somewhat outdated; I suggest that you contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline ((800) 424-9346) for the most up-to-date
numbers and assistance.
In addition, distributors acting as intermediate collection
points in the recall process may qualify as "transfer facilities,"
depending on the specific circumstances. In the federal hazardous
waste regulations, transporters who store manifested shipments of
hazardous waste under certain circumstances may store these wastes
for ten days or less without a permit for the storage. (See 40 CFR
263.12.)
Finally, the requirements described in this letter are the
federal hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260 - 272.
States may have additional requirements that are more stringent, or
broader in scope. I suggest that you contact the appropriate state
waste management agencies for further information on state
requirements.
fir el
Lowrance, Director
jffice of Solid Waste
cc: Paul Parsons, OPP (H7508C)
-------
9441.1990(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
26 :=?:
OMtCE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Kathleen Wolf, Ph.D.
Project Manager
Source Reduction Research Partnership
1052 West Sixth Street, Suite 432
Los Angeles, California 90017
Dear Dr. Wolf:
This is in response to your letter of October 12, 1989, in
which you requested clarification of the application of RCRA
Subtitle C regulations to waste chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from
the production of foam products. More specifically, these CFCs
act as blowing agents by physically opening the foam cell. This .
interpretation is based on your account of the production.
process.
in your description of the manufacture of the rigid
insulating and packaging foam product, the CFCs are retained
within the product. However, in the production of the flexible
foam, the CFCs open the foam cell and are then released to the
ambient environment. Once captured by the vapor recovery system,
the spent chlorofluorocarbons are then sent off-site for either
recycling or disposal.
Proper waste classification depends upon having sufficient
knowledge of the waste process and the source of generation. In
order for the spent chlorofluorocarbons to be regulated as RCRA
hazardous wastes, the material must first be classified as a
solid waste. In the case of the rigid foam production where the
chlorofluorocarbons are retained within the product, the RCRA
Subtitle C regulations are not applicable because the product is
not being discarded and thus is not a solid waste as defined in
40 CFR section 261.2(a).
At issue, in this case, is the question of whether use as a
blowing agent constitutes use as a solvent. The December 31,
1985 Federal Register (so FR 53316) clarifies that "only solvents
that are used for their 'solvent' properties - that is, to
solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents" would be
covered by the F001 - F005 spent solvent listings. Specific
examples include "solvents used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric
-------
scouring, as diluents, extractants, and reaction and synthesis
media." In the case of foam production, the chlorofluorocarbons
are not being used to mobilize or solubilize, rather, they are
simply acting to open the foam cell by a physical mechanism.
Therefore, the spent chlorofluorocarbons used in this manner
would not meet a hazardous waste listing. The spent CFCs would
only be RCRA hazardous waste if they exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic under 40 CFR 261.21 - 261.24. Waste not regulated
under Federal regulations also may be regulated under more
stringent State requirements.
Since the CFCs and methylene chloride used as blowing agents
do not classify as solvents, recovered vapors of these substances
also do not meet the spent solvent listing description. The
"derived from* rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)) does not apply in
this case because the recovered vapors are not derived from
hazardous wastes and by themselves do not meet any hazardous
waste listing description.
The Agency recently published a Federal Register notice
clarifying the applicability of RCRA rules to CFCs which are
spent or reclaimed (54 FR 31335, July 28, 1989). We are
enclosing a copy of this notice for your reference.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you should have further
questions please contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at
(800)424-9346 or (202)382-3000.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosure
-------
MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!. 9441.1990(06
MAR 191990
SUBJECT: Texas Industries' Use of Wastewaters Generated by Off-site Sources as ar
Effective Substitute for a Commercial Product
FROM: Joseph S. Carra, Director
Permits and State Programs Division (OS-340)
Susan E. Bronm, Director
RCRA Enforcement Division (OS-520)
TO: William K. Honker, Chief
RCRA Permits Branch
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H-P)
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify procedures for classifying
wastes under both 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(ii) [exclusion based on recycling] and 40 CFR
261.2(e)(2)(i) [inclusion based on final use].
On October 4, 1989, you sent a copy of an interoffice memorandum from a Texas
Water Commission (TWC) staff attorney to the TWC Executive Director, and a copy of
a letter from the Executive Director to the Environmental. Manager of Texas
Industries (TXI) (both dated September 18, 1989). As we understand, TWC had
tentatively approved the use by TXI of industrial wastewaters generated off-site
as an effective substitute for fresh water in their cement manufacturing process.
The basis for the decision was that the proposal appeared to fit the exclusion
provided in 31 Texas Administration Code 335.1 (40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(ii)). The
decision was subsequently overruled under the provisions of the Texas air program
because the wastewater was found to contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
the process neither met best available control technology nor demonstrated 99.99%
destruction of several of the organic compounds. You requested any views that we
may have on this issue. However, at this point, we will only address the issues
pertaining to the proper methodology for characterizing the waste stream.
•
The information provided states that TXI was using an off-site industrial
wastewater, containing VOCs, to produce the slurry in their cement production
process. The first determination to be made is whether the wastewater is in fact
a solid waste. Under 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2)(i), materials used to produce products
that are applied to the land are solid wastes. Cement is a product that is
-------
-2-
typically applied to the land. This clearly makes the wastewater a solid waste
(although the owner/operator of the cement kiln may document a claim that none of
the cement produced using this wastewater'is applied to the land, as provided in
40 CFR 261.2(f)).
Because the wastewater is a solid waste, for regulatory purposes, we must
next determine if this solid waste is either a characteristic or listed hazardous
waste. After reviewing the materials submitted by Region VI, we determined that
not enough information was supplied about the generation of the waste stream or
its constituents to make a decision on whether the waste was hazardous by
characteristic or listing. Therefore, at this time we can only classify this
wastewater as a solid waste.
In addition, also based on the information we have received, the "effective
substitute" classification would not apply because the product is being used on
the land (see 40 CFR 261.2 (e)(2)(i)). However, in such a case that the product
(i.e., cement) was clearly not applied to the land and was derived from a waste
which was hazardous by characteristic or listing, it might be helpful for us to
share with you our approach to the issue of effective substitute (legitimate
recycling) vs. treatment.
Determining whether a secondary material is an effective substitute for a
commercial product requires a comparison of the secondary material to the
commercial product that would otherwise be used. In this case, one would compare
wastewater to fresh water. Assuming the substitute (wastewater) is a hazardous
waste, the commercial product (fresh water) would probably contain significantly
fewer hazardous constituents or characteristics. Therefore^ the wastewater is not
likely to be an effective substitute. Note that this determination is not based
on the qualities of the final product (cement) but on the qualities of the water
sources. This approach determines whether the actual "secondary material" is an
"effective substitute". The State's approach, which compares the impact to the
environment posed by the use of the secondary material to the impact to the
environment posed by using the commercial product that would otherwise be used, is
in error. This would lead us to conclude that the assumed hazardous wastewater is
being treated, not legitimately recycled. Whether the constituents in the
wastewater are "bound" in the final product is not relevant to the determination.
The issue is whether the constituents in the substitute water source are a desired
ingredient of the final product or are being, in some fashion, treated.
Therefore, based on the material we received, the only determination that can
be made regarding the wastewater is that it is a "solid waste". As opposed to the
State's approach in characterizing the wastewater, we believe that the methodology
discussed above is the appropriate approach to determine the regulatory status of
a waste stream.
For your information, we are enclosing a copy of an April 26, 1989 memorandum
from Sylvia Lowrance to the Regional Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
regarding recycling vs. treatment for F006 wastes. This memorandum includes
criteria for helping to decide if a waste is being legitimately recycled.
-------
-3-
We hope our views are useful to you. If you have any further questions,
please contact either Dave Eberly, OSW, (PTS 382-4691) or Reggie Cheatham, OWPE,
(FTS 475-9360) of our staffs.
Enclosure
cc: Mitch Kidwell, CAD, OSW
Reggie Cheatham, OWPE
Ken Gigliello, OWPE
Scott Parish, OWPE
Dave Eberly, PSPD, OSW
Jim Michael, PSPD, OSW
Liz Cotsworth, PSPD, OSW
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9441.1990(07)
MARCH 1990
1. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—MARCH 1990
A. RCRA
1. Clarification of Bv-Product Versus Scrap Metal
A manufacturer of computer circuit boards sends unused off-specification
printed circuit boards and board trimmings from the production process
off-site for reclamation. The printed circuit boards are made of alternating
layers of thin copper and fiberglass plates coated with tin lead; containing
approximately 30% copper, 68% fiberglass, and 2% tin lead. How are the
unused boards classified under 40 CFR 261.2, and are the trimmings by-
products or scrap metal? Would these materials be solid wastes under
RCRA?
The unused circuit boards are secondary materials. Under 40 CFR
261.2, the Agency designates those secondary materials which are
RCRA Subtitle C solid wastes when recycled. According to Section
261.2(c)(3), unused off-specification commercial chemical products
listed in 40 CFR 261.33 are not considered solid wastes when sent for
reclamation. Although the Agency does not directly address non-
listed commercial chemical products in the regulations, their status
would be the same as those that are listed (see 50 FR 14219, April 11,
1985). The unused circuit boards are considered to be non-listed
commercial chemical products, and thus, are not solid wastes when
reclaimed. If, however, the circuit boards had been used and were no
longer fit for use, they would be considered spent materials and
defined as solid wastes when reclaimed.
The trimmings are inherently unfit for end use and will be
reclaimed. In the January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 625), the
Agency defines by-products as materials "that are not produced
intentionally or separately, and that are unfit for end use without
substantial processing." The printed circuit board trimmings meet
the definition of characteristic by-product rather than scrap metal, and
are not solid wastes when reclaimed under Section 261.2(c)(3).
Although the trimmings are physically similar to scrap metal, to
meet the definition of scrap metal, the material must have significant
metal content, i.e., greater than 50% metal. In fact, examples given in
the Preamble concerning scrap metal were virtually 100% metal.
Materials defined as scrap metal under Section 261.1 are solid wastes
when reclaimed, and, if hazardous, are presently exempt under
Section 261.6(a)(3)(iv) from Subtitle C regulation. The Agency has
deferred hazardous scrap metal from regulation until appropriate
information on types of scrap metal and industry management
practices is made available for study.
Source: Mike Petruska, OSW (202) 382-3139
Research: Wally Moon
-------
9441.1990(08
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
MARCH 1990
4. Used Oil Used for Dust Suppression or Road Treatment
A used oil exhibits the characteristic of EP Toxitity. Is the use of the used
oil for dust suppression or road treatment prohibited?
Yes. Used oil intended to be placed on the land is defined as a
material being used in a manner constituting disposal (Section
261.2(c)(l)(A)). Use of a material in a manner constituting disposal is
a recycling activity (Section 261.2(c)(l). All substances recycled in this
manner are considered solid wastes (see 40 CFR Section 261.2 Table 1).
Because the used oil exhibits the characteristic of EP Toxirity, it is
considered a hazardous waste. A hazardous waste which is to be
recycled is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 261.6.
Specifically, Section 261.6(a)(2)(i) requires recyclable materials which
are used in a manner constituting disposal to be regulated under
Subpart C of Part 266. Thus, the used oil is subject to the
requirements of Section 266.23(b) which states "the use of waste or
used oil or other material, which is contaminated with dioxins or any
other hazardous waste (other than a waste identified solely on the
basis of ignitability) for dust suppression or road treatment is
prohibited." This standard was incorporated directly from Section
3004(e) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. The
Agency interpreted this statement in a June 6,1985 memorandum
which states "... the prohibition to apply to hazardous waste (whether
or not it is part of a mixture). Under this interpretation used oil
exhibiting EP Toxicity, for example, must not be used as a dust
suppressant." Therefore, a used oil exhibiting the characteristic of EP
Toxicity is prohibited from use for dust suppression or road
treatment.
Source: Mitch Kidwell, OSW (202) 382-4805
Research: Kent Morey
Cynthia Hess
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY L 1990109
MARCH 1990
6. Applicability of the Household Hazardous Waste Exclusion to Waste
Generated bv Contractors
A homeowner hires a contractor to scrape old paint from his walls and
repaint them. Paint chips from the walls are EP toxic for lead and are
disposed of in the household's waste stream. How are the chips regulated
under RCRA?
The regulations at 40 CFR Section 261.4(b)(l) state that waste
generated at a household is excluded from regulation as a hazardous
waste. According to the November 13,1984 Federal Register, waste
from building construction, renovation and demolition, even if
generated at a household, is not covered under the household waste
exclusion. Household waste, to be excluded pursuant to 40 CFR
Section 261.4 (b) (1), must fulfill two criteria. Household waste has to
be generated "by individuals in their homes" and "the waste stream
must be composed primarily of materials found in the wastes
generated by consumers in their homes." (49 FR 44978; November 13,
1984)
EPA does not distinguish between waste generated at a household by
a homeowner and waste generated at a household by a person other
then the homeowner. (See the March 24,1989 Federal Register; 54 FR
12339 applying the household waste exclusion to medical waste
generated by home health care providers.) EPA determines the
applicability of the exclusion based upon the type of waste generated
and the place of generation. Therefore, solid waste generated at a
home as part of routine residential maintenance (as opposed to
renovation, construction or demolition) would be part of the
household waste stream and thus would not be subject to the
hazardous waste determination requirements of 40 CFR Section
262.il.
Source: Carrie Wehling, OGC (202) 382-7706
Research: Monica Genadio
-------
9441.1990(10
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
APR 10 1990
iCE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMEHGENC" «ES»ONSE
Richard G. Stoll
Friedman, L«vy, Kroll, and Simonds
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036-5366
Dear Mr. Stoll:
This letter responds to your January 15, 1990, request for a
regulatory interpretation of 40 CFR 261.7, as it applies to
vashwaters resulting from the steam-spraying of "empty" tank
cars. It is our understanding that "steam-spraying" involves
the use of water only, and not additional solvents.
You are correct in your interpretation that the provision
found at 40 CFR 261.7, governing residues of hazardous waste
remaining in an empty container, applies to such residues when
they are removed by steam-spraying. Section 261.7 does exempt
the resulting washwaters from RCRA Subtitle C, including the
requirement for determining whether a solid waste exhibits a
hazardous characteristic under Part 261 Subpart C.
It should also be noted that the exemption at 40 CFR 261.7
applies only to "empty" containers, as defined in that section.
If the steam-spraying is conducted on a container that is not
empty, or is done in order to render a container empty, the
residues are not exempted by 40 CFR 261.7, but rather are fully
subject to RCRA Subtitle C.
I should also note that this regulatory interpretation
applies only to Federal regulations. The appropriate State
regulatory agency nay have regulations that are more stringent
or that aay otherwise differ from Federal regulations. I
strongly encourage you to seek such regulatory determinations
from the appropriate State agencies.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
w STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROT
9441.1990(11
APR I 2 1990
Mr. Erik Hoygaard
State Pollution Control Authority
Statens forurensningstilsyn
P.O. Box 8100 Dep.
N-0032
Oslo 1, Norway
Dear Mr. Hoygaard:
Thank you for your March 27, 1990, letter (ref. 90/2887-1
682.031/2) asking for our assistance in identifying Federal
regulations applicable to cadmium wastes resulting from coating
materials and (spent) sacrificial anodes generated-by military
operations.
One of the Waste Management Division's (WMD) tasks is to
support the EPA's Office of Solid Waste to develop Federal
regulations that set standards for the storage, treatment, and
disposal of wastes deemed hazardous under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, (RCRA), P.L. 1976.
EPA has promulgated in the 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 261 a criteria listing particular industrial or
nonspecific source industrial wastes as hazardous under RCRA.
The wastes generated by the military operations described in your
letter are likely to generate wastes meeting the listing criteria
for electroplating wastes, heat treating, aluminum conversion
coating (F006, F019, F007, F008, F009, F010, F011 and F012) or
characteristic wastes for cadmium (Extraction Procedure Toxicity
Test level of 1.0 mg/1, referred by EPA as EP Tox for cadmium).
Enclosure 1 is a copy of pages from the 40 CFR Part 261
describing these wastes.
Another responsibility of the WMD is to set treatment
standards that allow the placement of hazardous wastes in land
disposal units such as landfills, underground injection wells, or
surface impoundments. These treatment, levels can be expressed
as maximum concentrations of specific hazardous constituents or a
requirement to use one or various treatment technologies. EPA
promulgates in the 40 CFR Part 268 land disposal restrictions
which include said treatment standards. Enclosure 2 is a speech
-------
- 2 -
entitled: "EPA's BOAT Development for the Land Disposal Restric-
tion Program," which provides a detailed review of the legal and
engineering technical framework for the development of treatment
standards.
On June 23, 1989, (see enclosed 54 Federal Register (£R),
26649) EPA promulgated treatment standards for electroplating
wastes. Cadmium is one of the regulated metal constituents in
the electroplating wastes. Nonwastewater forms of the electro-
plating wastes must meet a treatment standard for cadmium of
0.066 mg/1 (as measured by the Toxicity Characteristic Leachate
Procedure (TCLP) test). This treatment standard is based on
stabilization of F006 wastes. EPA did not regulate cadmium in
wastewater forms of the electroplating wastes because when these
treatment standards were promulgated, EPA lacked data for the
treatment of cadmium in electroplating wastewaters.
EPA is currently reviewing data documenting technical
difficulties found with the available analytical test methods to
comply with the free and total cyanide standards for. electro-
plating wastes. The review of these analytical test data can
result in revisions to the promulgated treatment standards or to
the analytical test methods currently being used. Enclosure 4 is
an EPA document entitled "Best Demonstrated Available Technology
(BDAT^ Background Document for Cyanide Wastes." discussing EPA's
engineering technical rationale and summarizing the data
supporting the promulgation of treatment standards applicable to
electroplating wastes.
On May 8, 1990, EPA will be promulgating treatment standards
applicable to all characteristic wastes. These final treatment
standards follow up the enclosed November 22, 1989, 54 FR 48372.*
This letter does not provide a discussion of the final rule, but
instead an overview of the proposed rule. The November 22, 1990,
Notice proposed several regulatory options for the development of
treatment standards for D006 wastes. The proposal identified
three subcategories of D006 wastes: wastewaters, nonwastewaters,
and cadmium containing batteries.
For wastewater forms of D006, EPA proposed two regulatory
options. One option is to set a treatment standard of 0.20 mg/1
cadmium based on chemical precipitation followed by filtration.
The other option is to set a treatment standard of 1.0 mg/1
cadmium based on the characteristic level, as measured by TCLP or
EP Tox.
For nonwastewater forms of D006, EPA proposed two regulatory
options. One is to set a treatment standard of 0.14 mg/1 (as
measured in the extract by the TCLP) based on stabilization. The
other one is to set a treatment level of 1.0 mg/1; based on the
characteristic level for cadmium wastes, as measured by TCLP or
EP Tox.
-------
- 3 -
For nonwastewater forms of D006 belonging to the cadmium
containing battery subcategory, EPA proposed the use of thermal
recovery of cadmium as prerequisite for disposal. Wastes
resulting from the thermal furnaces, e.g., clinkers or slags,
would not be prohibited from land disposal. However, wastes
resulting from the treatment of air pollution control devices
would be required to meet the wastewater and nonwastewater treat-
ment standards for D006; discussed in the above two paragraphs,
as a prerequisite for land disposal.
In your letter, you also asked if EPA has taken into
consideration the use of any substitutes for cadmium as an
anticorrosive-coating alloy. To the best of my knowledge, EPA
has not reviewed any data pertinent to the use of metal sub-
stitutes for cadmium in coating operations. However, Jose E.
Labiosa of my staff has requested from Infoterra a literature
search on this matter. Infoterra is an EPA's Library service
that had access to databases which include technical publica-
tions, research papers, hazardous waste treatment articles and
State and Federal regulations focusing on environmental problems
such as those described in your letter. It is our understanding
that Infoterra will mail to you any information available in our
database. Enclosure 5 is a brochure describing Infoterra
services.
If you should have any questions, please contact Jose E.
Labiosa at (202) 382-4496 for assistance. Jose is a senior
chemical engineer who has valuable experience in hazardous waste
treatment. Also, he is responsible for the development of final
treatment standards applicable to DO06 wastes.
I would like to wish you a lot of success in your regulatory
efforts to reduce the discharges of cadmium to the North Sea.
Sincerely,
David Bussard
Acting Director
Waste Management Division
Enclosures (5)
cc: Keith Chanon, Infoterra
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460 9441.1990(12
MAY 9 IS90
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Annetta Watson
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2008
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Dear Ms. Watson:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 2, 1990,
concerning the applicability of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) to the U.S. Army's Chemical Stockpile Disposal
Program, and asked for EPA's interpretation of how the hazardous
waste regulations apply in the event of a chemical weapon agent
release.
In your letter, you asked whether, in a situation where an
agent's release is great enough to cause fatalities, RCRA permitting
requirements must be satisfied before burial of any agent-
contaminated human remains or personal effects. You stated that you
understood that the agent was federally listed as a hazardous waste,
and was also listed by the states of Kentucky and Oregon.
EPA does not consider RCRA to apply to human remains that are
cremated or buried. For instance, under regulations implementing the
Medical Waste Tracking Act (RCRA Subtitle J), EPA excluded human
corpses, remains, and anatomical parts that are intended for
interment or cremation from the medical waste tracking requirements
(see 40 CFR 259.30(b)(1)(v)). Thus, the local communities may make
appropriate planning arrangements without considering how RCRA
requirements would apply to the human remains.
With regard to the personal.effects that are contaminated with a
listed hazardous waste, RCRA requirements may vary depending on the
location of the effects when they are discarded. There is an
exclusion for household wastes, generated by consumers in their
homes, that would be likely to exclude most personal effects from the
federal hazardous waste requirements. See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(l). Thus,
persons managing these effects need not comply with permitting or
other hazardous waste requirements when disposing of them.
-------
This letter has described the federal hazardous waste
requirements; states or localities can have stricter regulations, or
requirements that are broader in scope. I suggest that you contact
the appropriate state and local agencies to determine what their
requirements cover.
If you have further questions, please contact Becky Cuthbertson
at (202)475-9715.
Sincerely
Sv/vfa^towrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: EPA Regions 1-10
-------
9441.1990(11
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Off ICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPC
Lynn L. Bergeson
Fox, Weinberg & Bennett
750 17th Street, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Ms. Bergeson:
This letter is in response to your letter of November 1, 1989,
in which you describe a hypothetical situation involving a battery
manufacturer, ABC, Inc. You are asking for a determination of the
regulatory status of the nickel/cadmium batteries that are returned
to ABC Inc., the manufacturer, and subsequently, redistributed or
exported. You have stated that the batteries exhibit the
characteristic of EP Toxicity for cadmium.
Spent nickel/cadmium batteries returned to the manufacturer
for regeneration are excluded from regulation under 40 CFR Parts
262 through Parts 266 or Parts 268, 270 or 124, and are not subject
to the notification requirements of Section 3010 of RCRA (40 CFR
261.6(a)(3)(ii». The facts you have provided indicate that ABC,
Inc. does not regenerate the batteries returned; but rather, drains
the batteries of fluid and then exports them. Draining the
batteries does not constitute regeneration. Therefore, ABC's
customers are subject to the regulations of Parts 262 through 266,
268, 270 or 124, including the manifesting requirements, when
returning spent nickel/cadmium batteries to ABC, Inc.
ABC's customers must determine if their batteries are spent
before sending them off-site. A "spent material" is any material
that has been used and as a result of contamination can no longer
serve the purpose for which it was produced without processing (40
CFR 261.l(c)(1)). In the case of used batteries, if the customer
has used the battery and can no longer use it for the purpose for
which it was produced, it is considered spent. The battery does
not have to be contaminated to be considered spent.
Prinud on Kicycltd Faptr
-------
9/141.1990(14)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
2f990
E Of-
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Regulatory Status q
Co., AltaVista, V
Stes if I ora Piedmont Manufacturing
Sylvia K. Lowrance-^D
Office of Solid Wast
Stephen R. Wassersug7, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
US EPA Region III
As you requested, we have evaluated the process descriptions
for wastestream #4 at Piedmont Manufacturing Company. Our review
has included all of the materials provided by Sherman Latchaw of
EPA Region III to David Topping of my staff, as well as the
discussions in the December 8, 1989, meeting with representatives
of Piedmont Manufacturing and the State of Virginia held at EPA
Region Ill's offices. As a result of this review, we agree with
your determination that Wastestream 14 is EPA Hazardous Waste Mo.
F006.
The major issue is whether the Piedmont process is, in fact,
a "bright dip" (i.e., a chemical etching) process. While
Piedmont's previous correspondence describe the process as
"bright dip", they have subsequently stated that this was an
inaccurate characterization. Further, Piedmont has cited the
record for the F006 listing—in particular the Effluent
Guidelines Electroplating Document that was referenced in the
Listing Background Document—as evidence that the process is not
a "bright dipping" operation. Piedmont's discussion primarily
centers around the amount of material removed from the brass
parts during their operation (on the order of 1/10 mil) as
compared to a statement in the document that "...chemical etching
is the same as chemical milling except that relatively small
amounts (1-5 mils) of metal are removed."
frvdtd M Kteyeltd Paptr
-------
Ouc conclusion that the Piedmont process is an etching
operation is based upon the nature of the physical change that
occurs when the brass parts are dipped into the bath.
Specifically, metal is removed, or etched, from the surface,
resulting in changes in both the appearance (brighter) and
physical properties (better adhesion to rubber) of the surface.
We believe that this interpretation is consistent with the
background document citad by Piedmont (copies of relevant
portions attached).
The document begins with a general description of "chemical
milling and etching" and states that the general classification
includes the specific processes of "... bright dipping..." among
others. In the discussion of etching, the bright dipping process
is specifically described and is consistent with the process that
is used at Piedmont. Further, we believe that the process used
to alter the surface of the brass parts at Piedmont is commonly
understood to be a bright dipping/etching process. (The fact
that metal is being etched from the brass parts is somewhat
corroborated by Piedmont's indication that lead is present in
significant concentrations in the wastewater treatment sludge
from this operation and that the parts (360 brass) appear to be
the only source of lead in the operation.)
Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation,
please contact David Topping of my staff at (202) 382-7737.
Attachments
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE q/ul 1990(15
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 y*«±-
•
JUN I 4 1990
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Disposal of Personal Protective Gear
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Directo
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David Ullrich, Acting Director
Waste Management Division, Region V
This memorandum is in response to your letter regarding the
disposal of personal protective gear (PPG). As you noted,
discarded PPG may be considered a hazardous waste either due to
surface contamination or because it exhibits a hazardous
characteristic. Judging by the data that you presented, you have
suits that, when discarded, are a toxic hazardous waste (due to
lead) regardless of whether they were contaminated at a site.
For the purpose of compliance with the Land Disposal
Restrictions, treatment options for PPG were addressed in the Third
Third final rule's discussion of organic debris (55 FR 22555, June
1, 1990). For your immediate reference, I have attached the
pertinent pages of the final rule. While the final rule does not
preclude surface decontamination, organic debris will often have
to be incinerated prior to stabilization of the metal constituents
to comply with the treatment standards.
As you know, all wastes contained in the Third Third were
granted a 90-day national capacity variance. Thus, during the
variance, wastes not treated in compliance with the applicable
treatment standards may be disposed. However, if the waste is
disposed of in a surface impoundment or landfill, they may go to
such units only if they meet the minimus technological
requirements. Furthermore, wastes granted this variance must be
in compliance with the California list prohibitions if they are
applicable.
After the effective date, the only other option is to obtain
a treatability variance. This option is clearly not practical for
one set of PPG and probably the variance is not warranted given the
fact that the treatment standards are achievable—albeit at a
frinud 01 Htcycitd Paptr
-------
higher cost. My staff will contact OERR to see if they want to
pursue any generic solutions such as identifying a vendor of PPG
that has low levels of hazardous constituents or whether a generic
treatability variance for PPG is feasible. If I can be of further
assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.
ATTACHMENT
cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Russ Wyer
Dave Fagan
Paul Nadeau
Rod Turpin
-------
9441.1990(16
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN I 9 1990
Of * ICE Of
SOl'O WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Kenneth T. Bowman
Assistant Counsel
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources
1303 Highland Building
121 S. Highland Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206-3988
Dear Mr. Bowman:
I am writing in regard to your June 5, 1990 letter which
requests an interpretation of the exclusion for lime stabilized
waste pickle liquor derived from the iron and steel industry at 40
CFR 261.3 (c) (2) (ii) (A) (referred to hereafter as the K062
exemption) .
AS we discussed in our May 3lf 1990 telephone conversation/
the K062 exemption only applies to K062 waste generated by the iron
and steel industry, and not to commercial hazardous waste treatment
facilities. This interpretation was made clear in the May 28, 1986
final rule (see 51 FR 19320) . Any lime stabilized K062 sludge
which continues to exhibit a characteristic fails to meet the 40
CFR 261.3 (c) (2) (ii) (A) requirement for exemption. Therefore,
stabilized K062 wastes that continue to exhibit a characteristic
remain hazardous, and must continue to be handled as the listed
K062 hazardous wastes.
In your letter, you also request information on the November
1986 final exclusions granted to two commercial hazardous waste
treatment companies, Tricil Environmental and the Envirite
Corporation. Both companies were granted exclusions for residues
generated from the treatment of K062 wastes. The K062 exemption
did not apply to these situations^ because Tricil and EnyirTEe~are
commerclanjazargpus treatment "ifaciiit3.es , anSTnot irorT and steel
manufacturers ." — This 'Interpretation "is baseU on "the~May ~28, 1986
final rule.
We currently have four petitions under review which are
specifically requesting the exclusion of non-lime stabilized K062
wastes; none of these facilities is a commercial hazardous waste
:reatment facility. We are also reviewing a draft sampling and
malysis plan for an electroplating facility which generates
.eachate from closed surface impoundments containing K062 wastes.
In addition, we proposed decisions for non lime-stabilized K062
>aste petitions for Perox, Inc., and Bethlehem Steel Corporation,
< RtcjcUd feptr
-------
on January 12, 1989 (54 FR 1189) and July 31, 1989 (54 FR 31548),
respectively.
Finally, we recently received a petition from Mill Service,
Pittsburgh, PA, requesting the exclusion of filter cake generated
from the treatment of hazardous waste leachate. The waste codes
given for the listed waste did not include K062. In the petition,
however, Mill Service noted that the facility currently accepts
untreated K062 wastes, and performs lime stabilization of the K062
waste on-site. The lime-stabilized K062 waste is then managed as
a non-hazardous waste, per Mill Service's interpretation of the
K062 exemption at 40 CFR 261.3 (c) (2) (ii) (A) . Based on our
understanding of the K062 exemption, it is unclear to us how Mill
Service qualifies.
If you wish to pursue the Agency's interpretation of the K062
exemption, please contact Mr. John Austin at (202) 382-4787.
Should you have any questions or require any additional information
regarding delisting, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202)
475-9828.
Sincerely,
Linda R. Cessar
Variances Section
cc: Robert Kayser, EPA HQ
Lee Tyner, EPA HQ
Ed Abrams, EPA HQ
John Austin, EPA HQ
David Friedman, EPA Region III
-------
9441.1990(17
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
29 1990
Mr. John W. Sutton
Sterlington Plant
IMC Fertilizer, Inc.
Box 626
Sterlington, LA 71280-0626
Dear Mr. Sutton:
flLf
Copy
I am writing in response to your recent letter to
David Friedman requesting clarification of when and how to
agitate samples being evaluated for corrosivity using Method
1110.
As section 7.3 indicates, the purpose of agitation is to
ensure that the steel coupon is exposed to all the components of
the waste mixture. While it is probably critical that non-
homogeneous liquids be agitated by mechanical means during the
coupon exposure period, as the NACE Standard TM-01-69 indicates,
for homogeneous liquids of low viscosity, thermal currents may be
sufficient to maintain solution homogeneity.
We have not conducted any studies to determine, in a
quantitative manner, exactly when, and to what extent, agitation
is needed to ensure homogeneity during the exposure period. The
only guidance that I can offer is to use your professional
judgement and use the mildest agitation that is consistent with
the requirement of maintaining contact between the steel coupon
and all components of the waste mixture.
I hope that the above discussion is helpful to you. If you
have any quantitative data relating agitation rate to waste
corrosivity, I would urge you to send it to us so that we may
consider possible future revisions to Method 1110. If I may be
of further assistance, I can be reached at (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Hansen
Program Manager,
Miscellaneous Methods
Methods Section (OS-331)
cc: Hotline
Pri*u4 on Rtcycl*4 Pap*'
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
JUNE 1990 9441.1990(18)
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—TUNE 1990
RCRA
1. The Definition of F001-F005 Wastewater
The RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions treatment standards for spent
solvents listed in 40 CFR Section 261.31 are different for wastewaters and
nonwaste waters. What is an F001-F005 waste water? Is it the same as a
"solvent-water mixture" or an "aqueous solvent waste?"
The preamble to the "First Third" final rule (53 FR 31145; August 17,
1988) references 51 FR 40579 (November 7, 1986) regarding the
definition of a "solvent-water mixture." The citation is, however,
incorrect. On page 40579 of the November 7, 1986 Federal Register.
EPA discusses "solvent-water mixtures" for purposes of the expired
national capacity variance at 40 CFR Section 268.30(a)(3) but does not
define the term. The discussion also does not mention total organic
carbon.
For the purposes of the Land Disposal Restrictions, the terms
"solvent-water mixture," "F001-F005 waste water" and "aqueous
solvent waste" are equivalent. (51 FR 40613: November 7, 1986) The
terms refer to any F001, F002, F003, F004 and/or F005 waste which is
"primarily water and contains either (1) less than 1.0 percent total
organic carbon or (2) less than 1.0 percent total solvents." (51 FR
40613; November 7,1986; also 40 CFR Section 268.2(a)(6))
Source: Steve Silverman, OGC (202) 382-7706
Research: Monica Genadio
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9441.1990(19
JUNE 1990
2. Dyes used in Ink Formulation (K086)
An ink formulation company in New Jersey claims it only uses dyes and
emulsifiers in its production of ink. The dye contains small amounts of
lead and chromium. The ink company claims it uses no pigments, driers,
soaps or stabilizers in its ink formulation. The listing of K086 specifically
states that the waste is generated from ". . . pigments, driers, soaps, and
stabilizers containing chromium and lead." For this reason the generator
(ink company) feels it is not generating a K086 listed waste. Is the
generator correct in its assumption?
No. There is no clear distinction between "dyes" and "pigments,"
therefore the Agency feels that the term "pigment" used in the listing
is synonymous with the term "dye." In the background document for
K086, it is stated that the basis for listing K086 is because of the "raw
materials [used in the ink formulation] containing lead and
hexavalent chromium are listed as hazardous because they typically
contain significant concentrations of lead and (presumably
hexavalent) chromium." Furthermore, in the background document
it mentions that four types of raw materials are used in the ink
manufacture: (1) pigments and dyes, flushes and dispersions; (2)
chemical specialties (including driers, plasticizers, soaps and
stabilizers); (3) resins; and (4) solvents. A waste generated from an
ink manufacturer using any of these raw materials, containing lead
or chromium, meets the K086 listing. The generator may petition to
have its waste delisted if it feels the waste contains "insignificant"
amounts of chromium and lead.
Source: Ambika Bathija, OSW (202) 382-7438
Research: David W. Hacker
-------
9441.1990(20
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUl 3 !990
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Paul G. Burkholder
President, Bowyer Properties
400 South Washington Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Burkholder:
This is in response to your letter (undated) that I received
June 16, 1990, regarding the regulatory status of creosote treated
cross ties going for disposal and the applicable requirements and
standards for facilities disposing these materials.
First, I must clarify that the information provided in this
letter pertains to the regulatory status of creosote treated cross
ties under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). In your letter, however, you use the term "hazardous
materials." This is a specific term utilized by the United States
Department of Transportation (DOT), whereas, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) utilizes the term "hazardous waste" when
defining a material's regulatory status under the Subtitle C
program.
Under Subtitle C of RCRA, material that is disposed or
intended for disposal is defined as solid waste pursuant to 40 CFR
261.2. Once a material is identified as a solid waste, this waste
can be a hazardous waste if it meets a listing of hazardous waste
in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261, or if it exhibits a characteristic
of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. The
EPA has issued final regulations listing unused commercial chemical
product creosote, when discarded or intended to be discarded, and
two manufacturing process wastes (bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewaters from the wood preserving processes that
use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol (K001), and wastewater
treatment sludges generated in the production of creosote (K035))
as hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261. Additionally,
in the December 30, 1988 Federal Register (53 fB 53282), the EPA
proposed to amend its regulations by listing as hazardous, several
additional wastes from wood preserving operations that use
chlorophenolic, creosote, and/or inorganic (arsenical and chromium)
preservatives.
FriaHd at RtfftUd faptr
-------
Finally, please note that State and local regulatory agencies
may have regulations that are more stringent than those at the
Federal level. Should you have further questions regarding the
regulatory status of creosote treated cross ties at a specific
site, I encourage you to contact the appropriate Regional office
or State regulatory agency to determine what, if any, additional
regulations apply.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRl
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2C 9441.1990(21)
Honorable Richard G. Lugar
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Lugar:
Thank you for your letter of March 15, 1990 in which you
request information concerning Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) regulations that may be applicable to electric utility
poles. As I understand your constituent's concerns, the local
utility is no longer providing these used poles to area residents
and you are inquiring as to why this may be.
Subtitle C of RCRA requires that generators of solid waste
must determine if the waste generated is hazardous. Once
electric utility poles have served their original purpose and are
removed, they would meet the RCRA definition of a solid waste. A
solid waste can be defined as a hazardous waste if it is listed
as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR, Part 261, or if it
exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste identified in
Subpart C of 40 CFR, Part 261.
These used utility poles would not currently be classified
as a hazardous waste via a listing. Of the four characteristics
of hazardous waste—ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and
toxicity—the toxicity characteristic is the only characteristic
that may be directly relevant to these poles. This characteristic
identifies a number of toxic constituents that may cause a waste
to be identified a hazardous.
\
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently published
the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule which adds 25 organic
constituents to the list of constituents which generators of
solid waste must consider when making hazardous waste
determinations. The TC is designed to address the potential for
certain hazardous constituents to leach from waste into ground
water. Of concern here might be pentachlorophenol, which is used
in the treatment of some wood and wood products. If these poles
were treated with this chemical, they may fail the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) levels for this
constituent. Whether they fail the characteristic is determined
by how much of the chemical may leach from the poles. The TC
regulatory levels are set at 100 times the health-based level, a
concentration which is clearly hazardous. It is possible that
-------
these poles may fail the Toxicity Characteristic for this
constituent, in which case they would have to be managed as
hazardous waste once removed from the ground. You should
note, however, that the TC rule does not take effect until
September 25, 1990.
Another reason why these poles may no longer be available to
local residents may relate to changes in the State regulations
relative to the disposition of the poles once removed from the
ground. Your constituent would have to check with the
appropriate local officials about State regulations addressing
disposition of these poles. Even if used poles are not hazardous
wastes, State regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA may preclude
the utility from giving these poles to local residents.
A final reason why the utility may have decided not to
provide the used poles might be potential liability under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) . Although used poles may not be hazardous wastes, a
court could still hold the utility responsible for their cleanup
at some future date should health or environmental problems
ensue.
In summary, RCRA regulations and the CERCLA statute may
apply to used utility poles once they are removed from the
ground. The specific reason(s) why the utility is no longer
providing these poles can not be determined without more
information.
I hope this information is helpful. If I can be of further
assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Sylvia- Kl ;Lowrance, Director
6ffice of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1990(22)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OF
11 vs i •» ii-W-v SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
AU6 17 I99U
Mr. Gilbert H. Lewis
President
American Industries, Inc.
2166 Wisconsin Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20007
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Thank you for your July 26 letter, regarding clarification
on whether used oil filters will be classified as hazardous waste
as a result of the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule published in
the Federal Register on March 29, 1990 (55 IB 11798) and on the
applicability of the rule to military bases.
Under the hazardous waste program, each generator of a solid
waste must determine whether his waste is a hazardous waste,
using either his knowledge of the process or by running the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). To date,
there is no available data or testing methodology specific for
used oil filters relating to the TCLP. However, as the rule
states, if the waste extract (from a TCLP-tested used oil filter)
contains a hazardous constituent(s) at concentrations equal to or
above the regulatory level(s), the waste (used oil filter) is
considered a hazardous waste and subject to all applicable
subtitle C requirements. If the oil is drained from the filter,
it is less likely to be hazardous waste.
Additionally, you should note that a hazardous waste
generator is a "conditionally exempt small quantity generator" if
he generates no more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste in a
calendar month (see 40 CFR 261.5). Under this exemption, the
generator can generate up to 220 Ibs./month of hazardous waste
and not accumulate at any time more than a total of 2200 Ibs.
(1000 kg.) of hazardous waste. As long as these generation and
accumulation volumes are not exceeded, the generator is not
required to comply with the hazardous waste management
regulations.
As for the rule's applicability to military bases, pursuant
to RCRA section 6001, "Each department, agency, and
instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches of the Federal Government .... engaged in activity
resulting in the disposal or management of solid waste or
fnatd CM Ktejeltd faptr
-------
9441.1990(23
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ALJ6 2 I 1990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Applicability to Military Munitions
TO: James Reidy, P.E., Chief
Caribbean Facilities Section (2AWM-HW7)
FKOMs Sonya M. Sasseville, Chief
Alternative Technology and Support Section (OS-343)
Thank you for your memo of July 11, 1990 in which you
elaborate upon the previous conversation between Chester Oszman
of my staff and Mr. Jean of your staff regarding the point when
munitions become hazardous waste and are regulated under the RCRA
program. The Naval Ammunition Facility (NAF) at Vieques Island,
Puerto Rico does not, as you point out, conduct a regulatable
activity when storing "unserviceable* military munitions (e.g.,
damaged, outdated or possibly defective munitions) which have not
been designated for demilitarization.
EPA supports Dept. of Defense's (DOD) definition of the
point at which a munition or ordnance%becomes a hazardous waste
since that is DOD's responsibility as a generator. Unserviceable
military munitions become hazardous waste normally at the point
the transfer record (e.g. DD form 1348-1, DA Form 4508, or
equivalent) is signed by the last approval authority
acknowledging receipt of the munition or ordnance at a
demilitarization facility. This happens when the U.S. Atlantic
Fleet Weapons Training Area receives unserviceable munitions sent
by NAF to be demilitarized.
In your letter, you mention that NAF stores ignitable,
corrosive and reactive (other than serviceable or unserviceable
munitions) wastes. These waste streams are waste when there is
an intent to discard and are, in that case, fully regulated in
the RCRA system. All applicable requirements of 40 CFR Parts
260-272 apply.
-------
- 2 -•
I agree with your strategy that interim status for the
facility should not be terminated immediately even though the NAF
is withdrawing its Part B permit application. Before the
facility at NAF can become a less than 90 day accumulator, all
units that operated under interim status must be properly closed.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the
situation at NAF further, please feel free to call me, or Chester
Oszman at 382-4499.
cc: Chester Oszman
-------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Below Regulatory Concern; Policy Statement
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Policy statement
SUMMARY: This policy statement establishes the frame-
work within which the Commission will formulate rules or
make licensing decisions to exempt from some or all regu-
latory controls certain practices involving small quantities
of radioactive material. Opportunity for public comment
will be provided with each rulemaking and each licensing
action where generic exemption provisions have not al-
ready been established, The exemptions may involve the
release of licensee-controlled radioactive material either
to the generally accessible environment or to persons who
would be exempt from Commission regulations. Practices
for which exemptions may be granted include, but are not
limited to, (1) the release for unrestricted public use of
lands and structures containing residual radioactivity; (2)
the distribution of consumer products containing small
amounts of radioactive material; (3) the disposal of very
low-level radioactive waste at other than licensed disposal
sites; and(4) the recycling of slightly contaminated equip-
ment and material* As described in this policy statement,
NRC intends to continue exempting specific practices
from regulatory control if the application or continuation
of regulatory controls is not necessary to protect the pub-
lic health and safety and the environment, and is not cost
effective in further reducing risk. The policy statement
defines the dose criteria and other considerations that will
be used by NRC in making exemption decisions. The
policy establishes individual dose criteria (1 and 10 mrem
per year [0.01 and 0.1 millisievert per year]) and a collec-
tive dose criterion (1000 person-rem per year [10 person-
sievert per year]). These criteria, coupled with other con-
siderations enumerated in the policy statement, will be
major factors in the Commission's determination on
whether exemptions from regulatory controls will be
granted
The policy statement establishes a consistent risk frame-
work for regulatory exemption decisions, ensures an ade-
quate and consistent level of protection of the public in
their use of radioactive materials, and focuses the Na-
tion's resources on reducing the most significant radio-
logical risks from practices under NRC's jurisdiction. The
average U.S. citizen should benefit from implementation
of the BRC policy through (1) enhanced ability of NRC,
Agreement States, and licensees to focus resources on
more significant risks posed by nuclear materials; (2)
timely and consistent decisions on the need for cleanup of
contaminated sites; (3) increased assurance that funds
available to decommission operating nuclear facilities will
be adequate; (4) reduced costs and overall risks to the
public from managing certain types of slightly radioactive
waste in a manner commensurate with their low radiologi-
cal risk; and (5) increased assurance of a consistent level
of safety for consumer products containing radioactive
material under the Commission's jurisdiction.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3,1990
ADDRESSES: Documents referenced in this policy state-
ment are available for inspection in the NRC Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street, N. W. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The appropriate NRC Regional Office:
Region I - Dr. Malcom Knapp, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania; telephone (215) 337-5000
Region Q - Mr. J. Philip Stohr, Atlanta, Georgia; v
telephone (404) 331-4503
Region m - Mr. Charles E. Norelius, Glen Ellyn,
Illinois; telephone (708) 790-5500
Region IV - Mr. Arthur B. Beach, Arlington, Texas;
telephone (817) 860-8100
Region V - Mr. Ross A. Scarano, Walnut Creek,
California; telephone (415) 943-3700
Federal and State Government Officials may contact:
Mr. Frederick Combs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion, Washington, DC 20555. Office of Governmental
and Public Affairs, telephone (301) 492-0325.
Questions may also be directed to the following
individuals at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555.
Dr. Donald A. Cool, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research; telephone (301) 492-3785
Mr. John W. N. Hkkey, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards; telephone (301) 492-3332
Mr. L. J. Cunningham, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation; telephone (301) 492-1086
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statement of Policy
L Introduction.
Ionizing radiation is a fact of life. From the day we
are born until the day we die, our bodies are exposed to
-------
BRC Policy Statement
censing, inspection, and enforcement programs. For ex*
ample, the Commission may promulgate regulations that
would require some type of labeling so that consumers
could make informed decisions about purchasing a prod-
uct containing exempted materials. Such labeling is pres-
ently required by the Commission for smoke detectors
containing radioactive material (see 10 CFR 3236). The
NRC ensures that manufacturers label the detectors in
compliance with the labeling requirement through licens-
ing reviews and inspections. Specific source controls and
exemption conditions are not discussed further in this
policy because they will be more appropriately addressed
in developing the exemption requirements for specific
exemption proposals.
The concept of regulatory exemptions is not new.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes
the Commission to exempt certain classes, quantities, or
uses of radioactive material when it finds that such ex-
emptions will not constitute an unreasonable risk to com-
mon defense and security and to the health and safety of
the public. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Atomic Energy
Commission used this authority to promulgate tables of
exempt quantities and concentrations for radioactive ma-
terial. These exemptions allow a person or a licensee,
under certain circumstances, to receive, possess, use,
transfer, own, or acquire radioactive material without a
requirement for a license (30 FR 8185; June 26,1965 and
35 FR 6425; April 22,1970). The Commission currently
allows distribution of consumer products or devices to the
general public and allows releases of radioactive material
to the environment consistent with established regula-
tions. For example, regulations currently specify the con-
ditions under which licensees are allowed to dispose of
small quantities of radioactive material into sanitary
sewer systems (see 10 CFR 20303). These existing regu-
lations specify requirements, conditions, and constraints
that a licensee must meet if radioactive material is to be
"transferred" from a regulated to an exempt or unregu-
lated status.
More recently, Section 10,of the Low-Level Radio-
active Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) of
1985 directed the Commission to develop standards and
procedures and act upon petitions "to exempt specific
radioactive waste streams from regulation ... due to the
presence of radionuclide&. in sufficiently low concentra-
tions or quantities as to be below regulatory concern."
The Commission responded to this legislation by issuing a
policy statement on August 29,1986 (51 FR 30839). That
policy statement contained criteria that, if satisfactorily
addressed in a petition for rulemaking, would allow the
Commission to act expeditiously in proposing appropriate
relief in its regulations on a "practice-specific" basis con-
sistent with the merits of the petition.
Federal and State agencies have also developed and
implemented similar exemptions based on evaluations of
their risks to the public and the environment. The Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, has ap-
plied sensitivity-of-raethod, risk-based guidelines in con*
nection with the regulation of animal drugs, food con-
taminants, and trace constituents in some food additives.
Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
established exemption or threshold levels based on indi-
vidual risks in the regulation of pesticides and other toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. For example, EPA employs
such a concept in defining hazardous waste through the
new Toxkity Characteristic rule in 40 CFR Pan 261 [55
FR 11798; March 29,1990].
The Commission believes that the Below Regula-
tory Concern policy is needed to establish a consistent,
risk-based framework for making exemption decisions.
Specifically, this framework is needed to (1) focus the
resources of NRC, Agreement States, and licensees on
addressing more significant risks posed by nuclear materi-
als; (2) ensure that beyond the adequate protection
threshold potential benefits from additional regulation
outweigh the associated burdens; (3) establish residual
radioactivity criteria and requirements for decommission-
ing and cleanup of radioactive contamination at licensed
and formerly-licensed facilities; (4) ensure that licensee
decommissioning funding plans provide adequate funds
to cover the costs of cleanup of these facilities to protect
people and the environment; (5) ensure that the public is
consistently protected against undue risk from consumer
products that contain radioactive materials under the
Commission's jurisdiction; (6) provide decision criteria
for reviewing petitions to exempt very low-level radioac-
tive wastes in accordance with the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985; and (7) ensure
that existing exemptions involving radioactive materials
are consistent and adequate to protect the public.
The Commission's BRC policy establishes an ex-
plicit and uniform risk framework *or making regulatory
exemption decisions. This policy v.— also be used by the
Commission as a basis for Devaluating existing NRC ex-
emptions to ensure that they are consistent with the crite-
ria defined herein. In lieu of such a policy, the Commis-
sion could continue the current practice of evaluating
exemptions on a case-specific basis. Such an approach,
however, does not ensure consistent evaluation and con-
trol of risks associated with exempted practices. For this
reason and the reasons discussed above, the Commission
has established the BRC Policy Statement This policy
supersedes the Atomic Energy Commission's policy
statement on this subject [30 FR 3462; March 16,1965].
The Commission recognizes that Agreement States
will play an important role in the implementation of the
Below Regulatory Concern policy, specifically in the ar-
eas of developing and enforcing compatible State regula-
tions, regulating cleanup and decommissioning of certain
types of contaminated nudear facilities, and exempting
-------
BRC Policy Statement
processes. Underground ore bodies depleted
by these solution extraction operations do not
constitute "byproduct material" within this
"Collective dose" is the stun of the individual dotes
(total effective dose equivalents) received in a given pe-
riod of time by a specified population from exposure to a
specified source of radiation (or practice involving the use
of radioactive material). Note: The calculated collective
dose used to determine compliance with the criterion of
this policy need not include individual dose contributions
received at a rate of less than 0.1 mrem per year (0.001
mSv/year).
"Committed effective dose equivalent" is the sum of
the products of weighting factors applicable to each of the
body organs or tissues that are irradiated and the commit-
ted dose equivalent to those organs or tissues.
"Deep dose equivalent" is the dose equivalent at a
tissue depth of 1 cm.
"Dose" or "radiation dose" in this policy is the total
effective dose equivalent.
"Exemption from regulatory control" refers to a de-
cision process that may allow radioactive material to be
transferred from a regulated status to an unregulated
status, in which the material will no longer be subject to
NRC requirements. Decisions to grant exemptions will be
based upon findings by reason of quantity or concentra-
tion that the radioactive material poses a small risk to
public health and safety and the environment and that the
small magnitude of the risk does not warrant expenditure
of additional resources of regulatory agencies and the
regulated community in attempting to further reduce the
risk.
"Exposure" means being exposed to ionizing radia-
tion or to radioactive material.
"Uptr\sf4 material" means source material, special
nuclear material, or byproduct material that is received,
possessed, used, transferred, or disposed of under a gen-
eral or specific license iqped by the Commission or an
Agreement State.
licensee" means the holder of an NRC or Agree-
ment State license.
"Linear, no-threshold hypothesis" refers to the the-
ory that there is a proportional relationship between a
given dose of radiation and the statistical probability of
the occurreace of a health effect (such as latent cancers
and genetic effects), and that there is no dose level below
which there is no risk from exposure to radiation.
"Natural background dose" means the dose received
from naturally occurring cosmic and terrestrial radiation
and radioactive material but not from source, byproduct,
or special nuclear material.
"Practice" is a defined activity or a set or combina-
tion of a number of similar coordinated and continuing
activities aimed at a given purpose that involves the po-
tential for radiation exposure. Disposal of specified types
of very low-level radioactive waste; the release for unre-
stricted public use of lands and structures with residual
levels of radioactivity; the distribution, use, and disposal
of specific consumer products containing small amounts
of radioactive material; and the recycle and reuse of spe-
cific types of residually contaminated materials and
equipment are examples of practices for which this policy
will have potential applicability. (See Section ID for fur-
ther discussion of practice).
"Rem" is the special unit of dose equivalent (1 rem
- 0.01 sievert).
"Risk," for purposes of this policy, means the annual
or lifetime probability of the development of fatal cancer
from exposure to ionizing radiation and is taken as the
product of the dose received by an exposed individual and
a conversion factor based upon the linear, no-threshold
hypothesis. The conversion factor for dose to risk is taken
to be 5 x 10*4 fatal cancers per rem of radiation dose. The
fatal cancer risk is considered, in general, to be more
likely than other radiation induced health effects and to
be the most severe outcome to an individual While the
Commission recognizes that the risks from exposure to
radiation are greater for children than adults and that
there are increased risks from exposure to the embryo/
fetus, the estimate of fatal cancer risk for all ages and both
sexes is considered to be an appropriate measure of risk
from practices being considered for exemption in accor-
dance with this policy statement (see Appendix).
\
"Source material" means —
(1) Uranium or thorium, or any combination of
uranium and thorium in any physical or chemi-
cal form; or
(2) Ores which contain, by weight, one-twentieth
of one percent (O.OS percent), or more, of ura-
nium, thorium, or any combination of uranium
and thorium. Source material does not include
special nudear material.
"Special nudear material" means —
(1) Plutonium, uranium-233, uranium enriched in
the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any
other material which the Commission, pursu-
ant to the provisions of Section 51 of the Act.
-------
BRC Policy Statement
quireraents for further dose redactions or licensee re-
sources to comply with such requirements is no longer
warranted. These specific criteria include (1) values for
the individual annual dose reasonably expected to be
received as a result of the practice (e.g., an average dose
to individuals in a critical group) and (2) a measure of
radiological impact to the exposed population. In combi-
nation, these criteria are chosen to ensure that, for the
average dose to members of the critical population group
from a given exempted practice, individuals will not be
exposed to a significant radiological risk and that the
population as a whole does not suffer a significant radio-
logical impact
It is important to emphasize that, in this policy, the
Commission does not assert an absence or threshold of
risk at low radiation dose levels but rather establishes a
baseline level of risk beyond which further government
regulation to reduce risks is unwarranted. As described in
the Appendix to this policy statement, the technical ra-
tionale for the Commission's &RC criteria is explicitly
based on the hypothesis that the risk from exposure to
radiation is linearly proportional to the dose to an individ-
ual However, the presence of natural background radia-
tion and variations in the levels of this background have
been used to provide a perspective from which to judge
the relative significance of the radiological risks involved
in the exemption decision-making process.
The Commission notes that adoption of the individ-
ual and collective dose criteria does not indicate a deci-
sion that doses above the criteria would necessarily pre-
clude exemptions. The criteria simply represent a range
of risk that the Commission believes is sufficiently small
compared to other individual and societal risks that fur-
ther cost-risk reduction analyses are not required in order
to make a decision regarding the acceptability of an ex-
emption. Practices not meeting these criteria may never-
theless be granted exemptions from regulatory control on
a case-by-case basis in accordance with the principles
embodied within this policy, if (1) the potential doses to
individual members of the public are sufficiently small or
unlikely, (2) further reductions in the doses are neither
readily achievable nor significant in terms of protecting
the public health and safep^and the environment; and (3)
the collective dose from the exempted practice is
ALARA.
B. The Individual Dose Criterion.
The Commission has noted that, although there a
significant uncertainty in calculations of risks from low-
level radiation, in general these risks are better under-
stood than the risks from other hazards such as toxic
chemicals. Moreover, radiation from natural background
poses involuntary risks (primarily cancers), which must be
accepted as a fact of life and are identical to the kinds of
risks posed by radiation from nuclear materials under
NRC jurisdiction. These facts provide a context in which
to compare quantitatively the radiation risks from various
practices and make radiation risk especially amenable to
the use of the approach described below to define an
acceptable BRC level.
The Commission believes that if the risk from doses
to individuals from a practice under consideration for
exemption is comparable to other voluntary and involun-
tary risks which are commonly accepted by those same
individuals without significant efforts to reduce them,
then the level of protection from that practice should be
adequate. Furthermore, for risks at or below these levels
there would be little merit in expending resources to
reduce this risk further. The Commission believes the
definition of a BRC dose level can be developed from this
perspective.
Variations in natural background radiation appar-
ently play no role in individuals' decisions on common
matters such as places to live or work (e.g., the 60-70
mrem differences between average annual doses received
in Denver, Colorado versus Washington, DC). In addi-
tion, individuals generally do not seem to be concerned
about the difference in doses between living in a brick
versus a frame house, the 5 mrem dose received during a
typical roundtrip coast-to-coast flight, or incremental
doses from other activities that fall well within common
variations in natural background radiation. These factors
lead to the conclusion that differential risks correspond-
ing to doses on the order of 5-10 mrem (0.05-0.1 mSv) are
well within the range of doses that are commonly ac-
cepted by members of the public, and that this is an
appropriate order of magnitude for the Commission's
BRC individual dose criterion.
Although the uncertainties in risk estimates at such
low doses are large, the risk to an individual as calculated
using the linear, no-threshold hypothesis is shown in
Table 1 for various defined levels of annual individual
dose. The values in the hypothetical lifetime risk column
are based on the further assumption that the annual dose
is continuously received during each year of a 70-year
lifetime. To provide further perspective, a radiation dose
of 10 mrem per year (0.1 raSv per year) received continu-
ously over a lifetime corresponds to a risk of about 4
chances in 10,000 (3.5 x 10**) or a hypothetical increase of
about 0.25% in an individual's lifetime risk of fatal cancer.
The Commission prefers to use factors of ten to describe
such low individual doses because of the large uncertain-
ties associated with the dose estimates. The Appendix to
the policy statement provides a more complete discussion
of the risks and uncertainties associated with low doses
and dose rates.
-------
RC Policy Statement
should CTrlflInthesensitivity-of.
measure, risk-based guidelines used by EPA and FDA, a
10"4 lifetime risk of cancer hasbeen used as a quantitative
criterion of insignificance. Using an annual risk coeffi-
cient of 5 x 10"4 health effects per rem (5 z 10~* per
sievert), as ^snm^j in the Appendix, the 10"4 lifetime
risk value would approximate the calculated risk that an
individual would incur from a continuous lifetime dose
rate in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 mrem (0.0001 to 0.001
mSv) per year.
As a practical matter, consideration of dose rates in
the microrem per year range and large numbers of hypo-
thetical individuals potentially exposed to an exempted
practice may unduly complicate the dose calculations that
will be used to support demonstrations that proposed
exemptions comport with the criteria in this policy. The
Commission believes that inclusion of individual doses
below 0.1 mrem per year (0.001 mSv per year) introduces
unnecessary complexity into collective dose assessments
and could impute an unrealistic sense of the significance
and certainty of such dose levels. For all of these reasons,
the Commission concludes that 0.1 mrem (0.001 mSv) per
year is an appropriate truncation value to be applied in
the assessment of collective doses for the purposes of this
policy.
IV. Implementation.
The Commission's BRC policy will be implemented
principally through rulemakings; however, exemption
decisions could also be implemented through specific li-
censing
In the first case, a proposal for exemption, whether
initiated by the NRC or requested by outside parties in a
petition for rulemaking, must provide a basis upon which
the Commission can determine if the basic policy criteria
have been satisfied. The Commission intends to initiate a
number of rulemakings on its own (e.g^ to establish a dose
criterion for decommissioning) and may initiate others as
a result of NRCs review of existing codified exemptions
(e.g., consumer product exemptions in 10 CFR Parts 30
and 40). Rulemakings mayiaBo be initiated in response to
petitions for rulemaking submitted by outside parties,
such as a BRC waste petition submitted in accordance
with Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Pol*
icy Amendment Act of 1985. In general, rulemaking ex-
emption proposals should assess the potential health and
safety impacts that could result if the exemption were to
be granted.
The proposal should consider the uses of the radio-
active materials, the pathways of exposure, the levels of
radioactivity, and the methods and constraints for ensur-
ing that the assumptions used to define all _
appropriate as the radioactive materials move from a
regulated to an unregulated status. Any such rulemaking
action would follow the Administrative Procedure Act,
which requires publication of a proposed rule in order to
solicit public comment on the rulemaking action under
consideration. The rulemaking action would include an
appropriate level of environmental review in accordance
with the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 31,
which implement the National Environmental Policy Act
If a proposal for exemption results in a Commission
regulation containing specific requirements for a particu-
lar exemption, a licensee using the exemption would no
longer be required to apply.the ALARA principle to
reduce doses further for the exempted practice provided
that it meets the conditions specified in the regulation.
The promulgation of the regulation would, under these
circumstances, constitute a finding that the practice is
exempted in accordance with the provisions of the regula-
tion and that ALARA considerations have been ade-
quately addressed from a regulatory standpoint The
Commission in no way wishes to discourage the voluntary
application of additional health physics practices which
may, in fact, reduce actual doses significantly below the
BRC criteria or the development of new technologies to
enhance protection to the public and the environment
This is particularly pertinent in the area of decontamina-
tion and decommissioning, where the Commission antici-
pates that emerging technologies over the next several
decades should enhance existing *»H
-------
BRC Policy Statement
information may be useful in characterizing a practice on
a national basis.
3. As law as is nasonabty achitfobtt (ALARA). An
analysis should be provided that demonstrates that radia-
tion exposure and radionudide releases associated with
the exempted practice overall will be ALARA consistent
with the criteria in this policy. The ALARA principle
referred to in 10 CFR Pan 20 applies to efforts by licen-
sees to maintain radiation exposures and releases of ra-
dioactive materials to unrestricted areas as low as is rea-
sonably achievable. Appendix I to 10 CFR Pan SO de-
scribes ALARA for radioactive material releases from
light water reactors (nuclear power plants). Exemption
proposals should describe how ALARA considerations
have been applied in the design, development, and imp-
lementation of controls for the proposed practice. Licen-
see compliance with the ALARA principle must remain
in effect up to and including the point at which the materi-
als are transferred to an unregulated status in accordance
with an exemption granted under this policy.
D. Impact Analyses.
To support and justify a request for exemption, each
petitioner or licensee should assess the radiological and
nonradiological impacts of the proposed exemption. The
analyses should be based on the characterizations de-
scribed previously and should cover all aspects of the
proposed exempt practice, including possession, use,
transfer, ownership, and disposal of the material. NRC
consideration of the exemption proposal and any environ-
mental assessments and regulatory analyses required to
implement the exemption will be based on the impact
analyses and supporting characterizations.
1. Radiological impacts. The evaluation of radiologi-
cal impacts should clearly address the policy's individual
and collective dose criteria or provide a sufficient
ALARA evaluation supporting the exemption. In either
case, the following impacts should be assessed:
Average doses to the critical population group;
Collective doses to the critical population
group and the total exposed population (under
conditions defmed in Section HI); and
The potential for and magnitude of doses asso-
ciated with accidents, misuses, and recon-
centration of radionuclides.
The collective doses should be estimated and
summed in two pans: total dose to the critical population
group and total dose to the exposed population. The
critical group is the relatively homogeneous group of indi-
viduals whose exposures are likely to be the greatest and
for whom the assessment of doses is likely to be the most
accurate. Average doses to this group are the controlling
factors limiting individual doses and risk, and should be
compared with the individual dose criteria, as appropri-
ate. The critical group should be the segment of the
population most highly exposed to radiation or radioac-
tive materials associated with the use of radioactive mate-
rial under unregulated conditions. The second pan of the
population exposure is the general population exposure,
exclusive of critical group exposure. For this group, the
individual exposures should be smaller, and the assess-
ment will often be less precise. The impacts analysis
should present an estimate of the distribution of doses
within the general population. In situations where trunca-
tion of the collective dose calculation is done under the
provisions of this policy, the basis for applying the trunca-
tion provision should be provided.
The evaluation of radiological impacts should distin-
guish between expected and potential exposures and
events. The analysis of potential exposures in accident or
misuse scenarios should include all of the assumptions,
data, and results used in the analysis in order to facilitate
review. The evaluation should provide sufficient informa-
tion to allow a reviewer to independently confirm the
results. The potential for reasonable interactions be-
tween the exempted radioactive material and the public
should be
2. Othtr impacts. The analysis of other radiological
impacts such as those from transportation, handling,
processing, and disposal of exempted materials should be
evaluated. Nonradiological impacts on humans and the
environment should also be evaluated in accordance with
NRC requirements in 10 CFR Pan 51. The analysis
should also consider any adverse impact of the measures
taken to provide nonradiological protection on radiation
exposure and releases of radioactive material. Any NRC
action to exempt a practice from further regulatory con-
trol would not relieve persons using, handling, process-
ing, owning, or disposing of the radioactive material from
other requirements applicable to the nonradiological
properties of the material.
E. Cost-Benefit Considerations (as required).
A cost/benefit analysis is an essential pan of both
environmental and regulatory impact considerations. The
analysis should focus on expected exposures and realistic
concentrations or quantities of radionuclides. The cost/
benefit analysis should compare the exposures and eco-
nomic costs associated with the regulated practice and
alternatives not subject to regulation. Benefits and costs
should be considered in both quantitative and qualitative
terms. Costs of surveys and compliance verification dis-
cussed under Item V.G. should also be covered. Any legal
or regulatory constraints that might affect an exemption
decision should be identified. For example, one such con-
straint might stem from Department of Transportation
-------
BRC Policy Statement
APPENDIX-DOSE AND HEALTH EFFECTS ESTIMATION
L Dose Estimation
In estimating the dose rates to members of the pub-
lic that might arise through various practices for which
exemptions are being considered, the Commission has
decided to apply the concept of the "total effective dose
equivalent.'' This concept, which is based on a comparison
of the delayed health effects of ionizing radiation expo-
sures, permits the calculation of the whole body dose
equivalent of partial body and organ exposures through
use of weighting factors. The concept was proposed by the
International Commission on Radiological Protection
(ICRP) in its Publication 26 issued in 1977. Since that
time, the concept has been reviewed, evaluated, and
adopted by radiation protection organizations throughout
the world and has gained wide acceptance. The "total
effective dose equivalent" concept is incorporated in "Ra-
diation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Oc-
cupational Exposure-Recommendations Approved by
the President," that was signed by the President and pub-
lished in the Federal Register on January 27,1987 (52 FR
2822). The Commission recognizes that, in considering
specific exemption proposals, the total effective dose
equivalent must be taken into account
IL Estimating Health Effects From Radiation
Exposure
A. Individual Risks.
In the establishment of its radiation protection poli-
cies, the Commission has considered the three major
types of stochastic (i.e., random) health effects that can be
caused by relatively low doses of radiation: cancer, genetic
effects, and developmental anomalies in fetuses. The
NRC principally focuses on the risk of fatal cancer devel-
opment because (1) the mortality risk represents a more
severe outcome than the nonfatal cancer risk, and (2) the
mortality risk is thought to be higher than the risk associ-
ated with genetic effects and developmental effects on
fetuses.2 However, even though radiation has been shown
to be carcinogenic, the development of a risk factor appli-
cable to continuing radiation exposures at levels equal to
natural background3 requires a significant extrapolation
2 Further discussion of these sicja a provided in "Sources. Effects
and Risks of looaaurRadiation." United Nations Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
1988 Report to the General Assembly with Annexes.
3 Natural background radiation can vary with time and location. In
Washington. D.C. natural background radiation (grinding ra-
don) results in individual doses of about 90 mrem per year (0.9
mSv/yr), while in Denver, Colorado, the value is about 160 mrem
per year (1.6 mSvtyr). In both cases, naturally occurring radioac-
tive material in the human body contributes approximately 40
mrem per year. Radiation from inhalation of the daughterprod-
ucn of radon contributes an average additional dose of 200
mrem per yeart2 mSv/yr) to members of the VS. population
(NCRP Report No. 93, "lonixinf Radiation Exposure of the
ition of the United States'1),
from the observed effects at much higher doses and dose
rates.4 This results in significant uncertainty in risk esti-
mates as reflected by the views of experts in the field. For
example, the Committee on the Biological Effects of
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR m) of the National Academy of
Science cautioned that the risk values are "...based on
incomplete data and involve a large degree of uncertainty,
especially in the low dose region." This Committee also
stated that it "...does not know whether dose rates of
gamma or x-rays (low LET; low linear energy transfer
radiation) of about 100 mrads/year (1 mGy/year) are det-
rimental to man." More recently, the BEIR V Committee
of the National Academy of Science/National Research
Council stated that it "recognizes that its risk estimates
become more uncertain when applied to very low doses.
Departures from a linear model at low doses, however,
could either increase or decrease the [estimation of] risk
per unit dose." The Commission understands that the
Committees' statements reflect the uncertainties' in-
volved in estimating the risks of radiation exposure and do
not imply either the absence or presence of detrimental
effects at such low dose levels.
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the
Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) stated in their
1988 Report to the General Assembly that "...there was a
need for a reduction factor to modify the risks (derived at
high doses and dose rates)...for low doses and dose
rates....[A]n appropriate range (for this factor) to be ap-
plied to total risk for low dose and dose rate should be
between 2 and 10." This factor would lead to a risk coeffi-
cient value between 7 x 1O*5 and 3.5 x 1O*4 per rad (7 x 10~J
and 3.5 x 10"* per Gy) based on an UNSCEAR risk coeffi-
cient of 7.1 x 10"4 per rad (7.1 x 10*2 per gray) for 100 rad
(1 gray) organ absorbed doses at high dose rates. The
report also stated, The product of the risk coefficient
appropriate for individual risk and the relevant collective
dose will give the expected number of cancer deaths in the
exposed population, provided that the collective dose is at
least of the order of 100 person-Sv (10,000 person-rem).
If the collective dose is only a few person-Sv (a few hun-
dred person-remX the most likely outcome is zero
deaths."
In December 1989, the BEIR V Committee pub-
lished a report entitled "Health Effects of Exposure to
Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," which contained risk
estimates that are, in general, similar to the findings of
The health effects dearly attributable to radiation have occurred
principally among early radiation workers, survivors of the
atomic bomb ^"""B* at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, individuals
exposed for medical purposes, and laboratory animals. Natural
background radiation causes an annual dose that is at least two
orders of magnitude less than the dose received by human popu-
lations from which the cancer risks are derived, experiments at
the cellular level, however, provide similar indications of biologi-
cal effects at low <'
-------
BRC Policy Statement
Table 1
Incremental Annul D«M*
100 mrem (1.0 raSv)
10 mrem (0.1 mSv)
1 mrem (0.01 mSv)
0.1 mrem (0.001 mSv)
Hypotnctkal
Incremental
Annual Risk**
5xlO'5
Sxio-4
5xlO-7
5x10-*
Hypothetical Lifetime Risk
From Continuing Annual Dose**
3.5x10°
3.5 x 10-4
3.5 xlO'5
3.5 xlO-4
The expression of dose refers to the Total Effective Dose Equivalent This term is the sum of the deep [whole
body] dose equivalent for sources external to the body and the committed effective [whole body] dose equivalent
for sources internal to the body.
Risk coefficient of 5 x 10~*per rem (5 x 10~*per Sv) for low linear energy transfer radiation has been conserva-
tively based on the results reported in UNSCEAR 1988 (Footnote 2) and BEIR V (see also NUREG/CR-4214,
Rev. 1).
HL Dose and Risk Estimation
The Commission nw>gnjyj^ that it is frequently not
possible to measure risk to individuals or populations
directly and, in most situations, it is impractical to meas-
ure annual doses to individuals at the low levels associ-
ated with potential exemption decisions. Typically,
radionudide concentrations or radiation dose rates can
only be measured before the radioactive material is re-
leased from regulatory control Estimates of doses to
members of the public from the types of practices that the
Commission would consider exempting from regulatory
control must be based on input of these measurements
into exposure pathway models, using assumptions related
to the ways in which people might become exposed. These
assumptions incorporate sufficient conservatism to ac-
count for uncertainties so that any actual doses would be
expected to be lower than the calculated doses. The Com-
mission believes that this is an appropriate approach to be
taken when determining if an exemption from some or all
regulatory controls is warranted.
The additional views of Commissioner Curtiss and Chairman Cam's comments are attached.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this
of
1990.
For the Nudear Regulatory Commission.
Secretary of
a it*.
ie Commission.
-------
BRC Policy Statement
the individual and collective dose criteria can be desig-
nated below regulatory concern, it is unclear why the
Commission would then go on to say that it expects addi-
tional steps to be taken to keep exposures ALARA. As a
general matter, I do not object to the ALARA concept
Indeed, I support the notion that collective dose and
ALARA analyses should be performed in a manner that
is consistent with basic national and international radia-
tion protection principles. Bat in the- context of a Policy
Statement on Below Regulatory Concern, for the Com-
mission to say on the one hand that the individual and
collective dose criteria reflect levels below which no regu-
latory resources should be expended, while at the same
time encouraging voluntary ALARA efforts to achieve
lower doses, sends a confusing regulatory message.3 For
the sake of regulatory clarity, I would explicitly identify
the individual and collective dose criteria as floors to
ALARA.
Justification of Practice
On the issue of justification of practice, the Policy State-
ment is unclear as to when and under what circumstances
the justification of practice principle would be applied. At
one point, the Policy Statement provides that:
The Commission believes that justification
decisions involving social and cultural value
judgments should be made by affected ele-
ments of society and not the regulatory
agency. Consequently, the Commission will
not consider whether a practice is justified
in terms of net societal benefit.
At another point, the Policy Statement indicates that:
The Commission may determine on the ba-
sis of risk estimates and associated uncer-
tainties that certain practices should not be
considered candidates for exemption, such
as the introduction of radioactive materials
into products to be consumed or used pri-
marily by children.
This bifurcated approach to justification of practice,
which appears to distinguish practices involving children
• I to atao concerned that nV approach to ALARA set tor* ia
the Policy Sutemeat appears to oe motivated, in part, by a
concern that the Environmental Protection Agency may at lorae
future point set more itringent criteria far BRC Of particular
note • the statement that-
Thii [approach to ALARA] • particularly pertinent
in| .- where other federal agenda are in the process
of developing standards which may affect thoae re-
In my view, the ALARA one should he approached with the
objective of formulating a sound aad defensible policy, rather
tana with aa eye towards trying to anticipate what policy EPA
might establish ia the future.
from all other practices, will inevitably lead to confusion.
Moreover, this approach poses the very real potential
that the Commission could, on the one hand, reject a
practice involving children (e.g., baby food, pacifiers, and
the like) on the ground that the risk posed by such a
practice is too high, yet authorize a practice directed at
the general public that could, coincidentally, expose an
even greater number of children, even though the prac-
tice itself is not specifically directed at children.
In my view, this ambiguity should be resolved in favor of a
clear and unequivocal statement endorsing the principle
of justification of practice. While I acknowledge that the
principle of justification of practice calls upon the Com-
mission to make decisions involving so-called questions of
"societal value," that is an insufficient reason, in my view,
to step back from this widely accepted health-physics
principle. Indeed, the Commission already takes such
considerations into account, either explicitly or implicitly,
in many of the decisions that it renders.
Accordingly, in view of the central role that the justifica-
tion of practice principle has played in health physics
practice, as well as the complexity and confusion that will
invariably result from the approach set forth in the Policy
Statement, I would state explicitly in this Policy State-
ment that the Commission retains the prerogative to de-
termine that specific practices may be unsuitable for ex-
emption, regardless of risk, documenting such determina-
tions on a case-by-case basis.
Agreement State Compatibility
With one exception, I concur in the general approach that
this Policy Statement takes on the issue of Agreement
State compatibility. The one area where I disagree in-
volves the treatment of matters involving low-level radio-
active waste disposal.
As I understand the position of the majority, the approach
established in this Policy Statement, and to be imple-
mented in the context of subsequent rulemaking initia-
tives, will be considered a matter of strict compatibility for
Agreement State programs. As a consequence, the ap-
proach taken by individual Agreement States on BRC
issues must be identical to the approach taken by the
Commission. I disagree with this approach for the follow-
ing reasons:
When Congress enacted the Low Level Radioactive
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), it
vested in the States the responsibility for developing new
low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity. Indeed, the
Congress recognized at the time that the States were
uniquely equipped to handle this important responsibil-
ity. Accordingly* the States were given a great deal of
latitude in deciding how best to proceed with the develop-
ment, construction, and operation of new low-level waste
disposal facilities. To take one example. Congress
-------
BRC Policy Statement
Chairman Carr's Response to Commissioner Curtiss' Views on the BRC Policy
Statement
I am proud of the Commission's accomplishment in
completing a comprehensive Below Regulatory Concern
policy statement I appreciate Commissioner Curtiss' en-
thusiasm and strong support for the policy. Commission
deliberation of such views has helped to forge a compre-
hensive risk framework for ensuring that the public is
protected at a consistent level of safety from existing and
future exemptions and releases of radioactive materials to
the general environment The framework should also be
helpful in allowing NRC, States, and the public to focus
resources on reducing the more significant risks under
NRC's jurisdiction. I offer the following response to
Commissioner Curtiss' thoughtful views in the spirit of
the constructive process that has culminated in the BRC
policy.
As with many of the issues that the Commission
deals with, there were very few right and wrong solutions
to the issues associated with the BRC policy. The Com-
mission reached its decisions on the policy by selecting
preferred solutions from among a spectrum of possible
policy options. These decisions were made based on the
Commission's technical analysis of the issues associated
with regulatory exemptions, legal interpretation of gov-
erning legislation, and regulatory experience in approving
exemptions since the birth of civilian uses of nuclear
materials in the 1950's. I believe Commissioner Curtiss'
views on selected issues constitute pan of the continuous
spectrum of policy options. However, for the reasons
articulated below, I affirm the Commission's decision to
approve the policy statement in its present form and
reject the differing views put forth by Commissioner Cur-
tiss.
Commissioner Curtiss clearly endorses the policy
and the concept of establishing a comprehensive frame-
work for making decisions on regulatory exemptions.
However, he takes issue with five elements of the policy:
(1) the interim nature of the 1-millirem-per-year criterion
for practices with widespread distribution, (2) selection of
the 1000-person-rem-per-year criterion for collective
dose, (3) the manner in which the Commission views the
BRC criteria as a "floor" to ALARA, (4) omission of the
principle of justification of practice, and (5) making BRC
rales an item of compatibility for Agreement State pro-
grams. These issues were fully considered by the Commis-
sion and the NRC staff in the course of developing the
BRC policy. Indeed, Commissioner Curtiss voted in Sep-
tember 1989 to approve the BRC policy, the essence of
which is preserved in the final BRC policy in today's
notice,
Interim Individual Dose Criterion
On the first issue. Commissioner Curtiss would pre-
fer to establish the 1-millirem-per-year criterion as a final
criterion, rather than an interim value.
As stated in the BRC policy, the Commission is
establishing the 1-millirem-per-year criterion as an in-
terim value until after it develops more experience with
the potential for individual exposures from multiple li-
censed and exempted practices. The widespread practices
to which this criterion applies are primarily consumer
products, which could involve very small doses to large
numbers of people. The 1-millirem criterion was selected
specifically to address the possibility that members of the
public may be exposed to several exempted practices.
\
Simply put, exposure of an individual to a handful of
exempted practices could result in annual doses dose to
100 millirem if each practice were allotted individual
doses up to 10 millirem per year. This is highly improb-
able given the Commission's plans to closely monitor any
overlap of exposed populations from exempted practices
as well as the aggregate dose to the public from exemp-
tions. Nevertheless, NRC does not presently know how
many exemption requests will be submitted by the public,
how many will be approved, and what types of doses will
be associated with the exemptions. If few exemptions are
requested and granted, the probability of multiple expo-
sures from exempted and licensed practices exceeding a
substantial fraction of 100 raillirem per year is consider-
ably reduced. Therefore, the 1-millirem-per-year crite-
rion may be too restrictive and the regulatory resources
associated with its implementation may be better spent to
control more significant risks. Consequently, the 1-mil-
lirem-per-year criterion was selected as an interim indi-
vidual dose criterion to ensure that the sum of all expo-
sures to an individual from exempted practices does not
exceed a substantial fraction of 100 millirem per year.
This criterion will remain an interim value until after the
Commission gains experience with the potential for mul-
tiple exposures to exempted and licensed activities.
The initial rulemaltings to implement the policy,
particularly in the area of consumer product exemptions,
should provide valuable insights into the validity and ap-
propriateness of the 1-millirem criterion in terms of its
need to protect the public against multiple exposures to
nuclear materials. Although I agree with Commissioner
Curtiss that a final criterion would be desirable from the
standpoint of "administrative finality," it would be prema-
ture to establish the 1-millirem criterion as a final crite-
rion until after the Commission gains more experience
-------
BRC Policy Statement
deannp for contaminated sites. Specifically, does the col-
lective dose criterion apply genetically to the practice of
decommissioning or would it be applied on a site-ffpeafic
basis? Similarly, bow should the collective dose criterion
be applied in cases where nudear operations have con-
taminated grpundwater resources that could potentially
supply municipal drinking water systems? Resolution of
these and other issues could cause the Commission to
revise its selection of the magnitude of the collective dose
criterion through future ruleraaJdngs and development of
generic guidance. However, based on the technical infor-
mation and recommendations currently before the Com-
mission, 1000 person-remfyear appears to be an appro-
priate magnitude for the collective dose criterion.
For all of these reasons, the Commission established
a collective dose criterion of 1000 person-rem/year for
each practice.
ALARA
Commissioner Curtiss would prefer to define the
individual and collective dose criteria as "floors" to
ALARA, that is, that the regulated community and NRC
are relieved from the regulatory obligation to perform
further ALARA analyses below these levels if individual
doses are 1 millirem/10 miiiirem and the collective dose is
100 person-rem. Specifically, Commissioner Curtiss be-
lieves that the BRC policy sends a confusing message by
encouraging voluntary efforts to achieve doses below the
BRC criteria.
In responding to Commissioner Curtiss' view on this
issue, it is important to begin from the definition of the
term ALARA. ALARA is the regulatory concept that
radiation exposures and effluents should be reduced as
low as is reasonably achievable taking into account the
state of technology, and the economics of improvements
in relation to the benefits to public health and safety and
other societal and soaoeconomic rornKlfnir'nT1fi y™1 in
relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public
interest (10 CFR 20. l(c». The ALARA concept is one of
the fundamental tenets of radiation protection and has
been a keystone in NRC's regulatory framework. Public
comments on the proposed BRC policy statement and on
proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 20 urged the Commis-
sion to define "floors" tc* ALARA or thresholds below
which NRC would not require further reductions in doses
or effluents.
The Commission responded to these comments in
the policy by stating that"... a licensee using the exemp-
tion would no longer be required to apply the ALARA
principle to reduce doses further for the exempted prac-
tice provided that it meets the conditions specified in the
regulation" established for a particular exemption. In
other words, the BRC criteria and implementing regula-
tions will provide "floors" to ALARA for the exempted
practice. In this regard, I agree with Commissioner Cur-
tiss because the truncation of further efforts to reduce
doses is one of the principal regulatory motivations for
establishing the BRC policy.
However, I disagree with the rest of Commissioner
Curtiss' view on this issue. It would be inappropriate to
tell the regulated community that they cannot reduce
doses below the BRC criteria. In short, although we will
not require licensees to reduce doses further, we do not
want to discourage their efforts to do so either. This would
be tantamount to telling a licensee how to operate his or
her business regardless of whether any health or safety
issues are involved. Such a direction would be inappropri-
ate because it dearly falls outside of the health and safety
focus of the NRC.
In formulating the BRC policy, the Commission rec-
ognized that new technologies being developed today
promise to reduce doses, and therefore risks, at lower
costs than present technologies. Indeed, technological
and cost considerations are explicitly recognized in the
definition and application of the term "ALARA." Thus, I
believe it would be inappropriate to tell licensees that
they cannot implement new technologies and health
physics practices to further reduce doses if they want to.
Justification of Practice
Commissioner Curtiss would prefer to endorse the
principle of justification of practice (Le., whether the
potential impacts of a practice are justified in terms of net
societal benefits) and retain the prerogative to reject ap-
plications for exemptions regardless of the risk they pose.
I disagree with Commissioner Curtis' view on this
matter because it puts the Commission in a position of
making decisions in areas outside the normal arena of its
expertise, where the agency would be especially vulner-
able, perhaps justifiably so, to criticism. Consistent with
the mission of the NRC, the Commission should base its
judgments on an explicit, objective, and rational consid-
eration of the health, .safety, and environmental risks
associated with practices, rather than on what many
would perceive as personal preferences of the Commis-
sioners. Such an approach fosters long-term stability in
regulatory dedsionmaking on potential exemptions.
Decisions on justification of practice involve social
and cultural considerations that fall outside the Commis-
sion's primary focus and expertise for ensuring adequate
protection of the public health and safety from the use of
nudear materials. Such decisions should be made by af-
fected elements of society, such as residents near a con-
taminated site, potential customers, suppliers, and other
memben of the general public, rather than NRC. I be-
lieve that this position is consistent with regulatory prac-
tices of other Government agendes that generally do not
regulate on the basis of whether a particular practice is
-------
BRC Policy Statement
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Absent the
execution of a Section 274b Agreement with the NRC, a
State is preempted by Federal law from exercising regula-
tory authority over the radiological hazards of these mate-
rials. The Commission is authorized to enter into an
agreement with a State only upon a finding that the State
program is compatible with the Commission's program
for regulation of radioactive materials and adequate to
protect the public health and safety. Section 274d.(2).
The legislative history of Section 274 stresses throughout
the importance of and the need for continuing compati-
bility between Federal and State regulatory programs. In
comments on the legislation, the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy (JCAE) stated that
5. The Joint Committee believes it important to
emphasize that the radiation standards adopted
by States under the agreements of this bill should
either be identical or compatible with those of
the Federal Government. For this reason the
committee removed the language 'to the extent
feasible' in subsection g. of the original AEC bill
considered at hearings from May 19 to 22,1959.
The committee recognizes the importance of the
testimony before it by numerous witnesses of the
dangers of conflicting, overlapping and inconsis-
tent standards in different jurisdictions, to the
hindrance of industry and jeopardy of public
safety.
Sen. Rept. No. 870, September 1,1959,86th Cong., 1st.
Sess.
The potential problems from conflicting standards
identified by the JCAE in 19S9 are fully apparent in the
context of BRC and demonstrate why the scope of com-
patibility findings to be made by the NRC cannot be
drawn to exclude low-level radioactive waste disposal
For instance, the Commission intends to use the risk
criteria identified in the policy statement to establish
decommissioning criteria, that is, the level at which a
formerly licensed site may be released for unrestricted
use. If the States are permitted to require that low-level
waste streams designated BRC by the Commission be
disposed of in a low-level waste facility, it could result in a
site in one state being released for unrestricted use, while
soil or materials in an adjacent State at that level would be
required to be confined in a low-level waste facility. If a
patchwork of disposal criteria were to develop, it would be
virtually impossible to establish decommissioning funding
requirements that would be adequate to assure that all
licensed facilities will set aside sufficient funds over the
life of a facility to pay for decommissioning. The resulting
confusion from these conflicting standards could well re-
sult in delays in adequate decommissioning of contami-
nated sites and certainly in unnecessary concern on the
pan of the public. I continue to believe that reserving to
the NRC the authority to establish basic radiation protec-
tion standards, including designating which waste streams
are below regulatory concern, is fully justified to ensure
an adequate, uniform and consistent level of protection of
the public health, safety and the environment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT.«., ~
AUG2A1990
Mr. John Randall
Hi-Tech Industries, Inc.
17029 Devonshire Street, #124
Northridge, California 91325-1679
Dear Mr. Randall:
This is in response to recent inquiries by yourself and
Mr. Travis Cutter of your company concerning the regulatory
status of spent anti-freeze coolant (specifically, ethylene
glycol). If this material is intended for disposal, it is
regulated as a "solid waste" by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Per authority provided by RCRA, EPA has developed a Federal
regulatory scheme for the proper treatment, storage, and disposal
of hazardous waste, a subset of solid waste. These hazardous
waste regulations may be found in the Code of Federal
Regulations. Title 40, Part 261 (40 CFR 261).
The waste anti-freeze you have described is not listed as a
hazardous waste under EPA's hazardous waste regulations
(40 CFR 261, Subpart D). However, as a generator of a solid
waste, you are obligated to determine either from knowledge of
the waste coolant or by appropriate testing, whether the waste
exhibits any of four characteristics, namely ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity.
EPA has anecdotal information that spent anti-freeze often
contains lead levels sufficiently high to classify the waste as
EP toxic.
\
If your waste coolant fails to exhibit one or more of the
hazardous waste characteristics, then your waste is deemed to be
a nonhazardous, solid waste by Federal regulations. You should,
however, inquire about State and local regulations that may apply
to your waste anti-freeze.
-------
We appreciate your efforts to dispose of these wastes
responsibly. If you have any further questions about Federal
regulations applicable to this antifreeze, please contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)424-9346.
Sincerely,
David Bussard
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9441.1990(26
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP20B90
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
John Huber
Counsel
Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA)
1120 Vermont Ave., NW
Suite 1130
Washington, DC 20005
Dear Mr. Huber:
Thank you for your July 18, 1990, letter regarding the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule outreach and implementation
programs, and on clarification with regard to the date by which
small quantity generators must notify. As you know, the TC rule
will be effective on September 25, 1990. At that time all large
quantity generators (LQG) of hazardous waste must be in
compliance with all applicable Subtitle C standards under the
rule; small quantity generators (SQG) must comply by March 29,
1991. In order to reduce the burdens imposed by the TC rule
before the effective dates, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has developed and implemented TC outreach activities for
affected industries (enclosure). Specifically, our records
indicate that PMAA requested through our outreach program to
receive copies of: 1) SQG and LQG brochures which contain
industry-specific inserts (e.g., vehicle maintenance); 2) used
oil brochures; and 3) waste minimization booklets. Currently,
PMAA's orders are being filled through our Cincinnati warehouse.
We are pleased with your interest in helping with such outreach
and trust these materials will be helpful in that effort.
Regarding guidance from EPA on .whether a particular
substance handled by petroleum marketers should be characterized
as a hazardous waste and on whether used oil should be
characterized as a hazardous waste, EPA does not determine
whether a particular waste exhibits a characteristic. Such a
determination is the responsibility of the generator under the
hazardous waste program, and each generator of a solid waste is
responsible for determining if he or she is generating a
hazardous waste (40 CFR 262.11). We have, however, taken recent
samples of used oil. We will be releasing that data this fall in
a Federal Register notice. While individuals may still choose to
evaluate their specific used oil, this data should provide useful
information for those choosing to apply knowledge of typical used
oil characteristics. We will promptly notify you as soon as that
data can be released.
Prwud OK Rtcycltd Paper
-------
Fuel oil that has escaped from a tank may be subject to
regulation under the hazardous waste program if it is not
promptly cleaned up. However, the Subtitle C program (hazardous
waste) does not regulate "household waste" exempted under 40 CFR
261.4 (see 49 FR 44978, November 13, 1984). EPA would generally
consider leaks from household tanks to be "household waste11 and
thus not hazardous waste, regardless of whether the contaminated
material is removed by the homeowner or a contractor. Further,
reclamation of petroleum products from the contaminated material
(soil) and the burning of that material for energy value is also
exempted from the hazardous waste regulations.
With regard to clarification of the date by which SQGs must
notify to be in compliance with the TC rule, EPA has addressed
this issue in the correction notice (enclosure) published in the
Federal Register on August 2, 1990 (55 IB 31387). Due to the
inconsistences observed in the March 29, 1990 Federal Register
notice (55 ZB 11798), EPA is providing SQGs with an additional
three months to submit notifications. This extension applies to
SQGs only. Therefore, generators of 100 or more and less than
1000 kg/mo (SQGs) of total hazardous waste who are newly
regulated by the TC rule must notify the appropriate EPA Regional
office by November 2. 1990. not October 31, 1990. The
October 31, 1990 date printed in the August 2 notice was a
misprint at the Office of the Federal Register. A correction
notice correcting this misprint was published on August 10, 1990
(enclosure).
I hope this information is of assistance. For further
information concerning the applicability of the TC rule, please
contact Steve Cochran, Chief of the Characteristics Section, at
(202) 475-8551, or write me. If you are willing, we would also
like feedback you may be able to provide us on how your
membership reacts to the brochures and similar outreach
materials, and what other specific questions they most want
additional information on.
Enclosure
Sincerel
Lvia K. Lowrance.
Lrector
''Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT
9441.1990(27
301990
Mr. William A. Anderson, II
Bracewell and Patterson
2000 K Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20006-1809
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1990
concerning the applicability of the Agency's used oil definition
to your client's open-gear lubricant, "Gearite." This lubricant
is described as a petroleum-based, semi-solid material which
becomes liquefied when heated, and is sprayed onto the bull gears
of cement kilns for lubrication. The spent Gearite is collected
in drip pans at -the bottom of the enclosed gears and is
eventually piped back into the original product drums, where it
solidifies upon cooling. The Gearite is TC hazardous but can be
reused as a fuel in cement kilns.
You contend that Gearite fits the definition of "oil" and
not "grease11 because it lacks the saponification agent necessary
to classify it as a grease (as described in the Agency's
Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines). You
also referred to the Agency's November 29, 1985 definition of
used oil, which included spent "gear oils." Although EPA has not
yet finalized the used oil definition proposed on November 29,
1985, the Agency agrees with your interpretation that spent
Gearite should be classified as a used oil.
As you indicated, used oils that exhibit the characteristics
of hazardous waste are either exempt when recycled or subject to
special used oil standards under 40 CFR 266 Subpart E when burned
for energy recovery in industrial furnaces and boilers per 40 CFR
261.6(a)(3)(iii) and (a)(2)(iii). State regulations for used
oil, however, may be more stringent than the Federal standards
and should be consulted.
-------
Should you have any further questions on used oil, please
feel free to contact Ms. Denise Wright of my staff at
(202) 245-3519.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1990(28)
3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- * WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
F
OCT I 8/W
OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Status of Used Refrigerants under 40 CFR 261.2
FROM: Michael Petruska, Acting Chief (OS-332)
Waste Characterization Branch
TO: Docket for F-SO-CFIF-FFFFF
This memorandum documents EPA's position on the status of used
refrigerants under 40 CFR 261.2. Several parties have informally
petitioned EPA for a determination on whether used refrigerants can
be classified as commercial chemical products, rather than as spent
materials; if so classified, the used refrigerants would not be
"solid wastes" under 40 CFR 261.2, when reclaimed.
There are two scenarios that are at issue when a refrigeration
equipment servicer decides to remove used refrigerants from
refrigeration equipment. In the first scenario, the equipment
servicer collects the used refrigerant and then elects to reuse the
refrigerant directly (i.e., without any filtration or other
processing) as a refrigerant. (The equipment servicer could elect to
reuse the refrigerant either with or without conducting analyses or
tests - any such analyses may be recommended by the equipment
manufacturer, or possibly required under future Clean Air Act
regulations, but are not relevant to determining whether the used
refrigerant is a solid waste under RCRA,) This type of reuse is
similar to reuse of a solvent that has been used once, but can still
be used for its solvent properties. See the January 4, 1985 Federal
Register. 50 FR 624. In this situation, the equipment servicer is
not managing a waste, but is merely continuing to use a commercial
'chemical product.
In the second scenario, the equipment servicer collects the used
refrigerant for reclamation prior to reuse. Such reclamation could
range from simple filtration to reinsertion into a chlorofluorocarbon
manufacturing unit. The used refrigerants meet the definition of a
"spent material" in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(l), and are solid wastes when
reclaimed, according to 40 CFR 261.2. See 54 FR 31336, July 28,
1989, for an explanation of why used refrigerants are classified as
"spent materials" rather than "commercial chemical products."
A more detailed analysis of specific points raised by the
Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy is attached.
Attachment
frinttd a* KteyeUd Faptr
-------
Attachment
Definition of Solid Waste Arguments
Made by the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy
Point #1:
The Alliance states that "in many cases removed refrigerant may
simply be re-inserted in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment
after testing, without any processing."
Under the current regulations, used refrigerant that is re-
inserted into equipment for further use is not a solid waste
(and thus, is not a hazardous waste). Some, but not most, CFC's
would fall into this category.
Point #2:
The Alliance states that "in some cases removed refrigerant must
be processed — for example, to remove contamination — before re-
inserting in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment." The
Alliance argues that the removed refrigerant is not a "spent
material" but rather is a commercial chemical product, and thus is
not a solid waste when reclaimed.
Under the current regulations, a "spent material" is any
material that has been used and as a result of contamination can
no longer serve the purpose for which it was produced without
processing. Spent materials are solid wastes when reclaimed.
We stated clearly in a 1989 Federal Register notice clarifying
the applicability of RCRA to used refrigerants that used
refrigerants that are reclaimed are spent materials and not
"commercial chemical products."
The Alliance argues that the refrigerant has not been "used" the
way we define the term in the regulations, because it has not
been "employed in a particular function or application as an
effective substitute for a commercial product" but rather, is
the commercial product. When we said "used" in the definition
of spent material, we meant the ordinary, plain language
definition of "used." However, because CFC recycling is
analogous to very common hazardous waste recycling operations
(i.e., solvents, used oils, batteries), the interpretation
requested by the Alliance would have far-reaching implications.
-------
Point #3:
The Alliance points out that, if classified as "by-products,"
the used refrigerants would not be solid wastes when reclaimed.
However, in their analysis of the definition of by-product, they
conclude that the term does not apply to used refrigerants.
.Point #4:
Finally, the Alliance argues that a variance from the definition
of solid waste should be granted if EPA decides not to suspend the TC
rules and continues to consider the used refrigerant as a solid
waste. They propose a variance under Section 260.31(b).
There are two problems with this approach:
• These variances are case-by-case determinations for the
Regional Administrators to decide, rather than national policy
decisions for entire wastestreams.
• The variance under Section 260.31(b) is for materials that are
reclaimed and then reused as feedstock within the original
primary production process where they were generated, if the
reclamation is an essential part of the production process. The
vast majority of used refrigerants would not fall in this
category. (Any operations that do fall into this category are
of course eligible for the variance.)
-------
9441.1990(29)
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation Issues Arising from the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC)
FROM: Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
TO: Henry F. Habicht II
Deputy Administrator
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize five
issues/problems associated with implementation of the TC. A
brief summary of each of the issues/problems follows, along with
a general indication of the time frame in which we expect to
present a recommended solution or options to you for your
consideration.
1. Reinjection of contaminated (i.e., TC-hazardous) ground
water in association with petroleum product recovery and
remediation programs would be prohibited under the TC, thus
slowing or curtailing these activities. An interim final
rule has been published extending the TC compliance date to
January 25, 1991 for these activities. A proposal for a 2-
year extension, to allow time for further study, is being
finalized for the Administrator's signature. This proposal
will be forwarded to you within two weeks.
2. Certain CFCs contaminated with residual carbon tetrachloride
and/or chloroform would be brought under RCRA. This will
negatively impact ongoing efforts by OAR to implement
voluntary recycling programs. OSW is finalizing an interim
final rule that would suspend the TC compliance date for
these CFCs in anticipation of regulations OAR will be
required to promulgate in response to expected CAA
amendments. This rule will be combined with the above
proposal and will be forwarded to you within two weeks.
3. Large volumes of fluff generated by scrap metal processing
(primarily automobiles and appliances) could be TC-hazardous
and thus subject to RCRA. Regulation under Subtitle C may
be impractical and would involve significant economic
impacts. OSW is evaluating options. At present, I
anticipate a briefing for you in mid to late November to go
over the options.
Pruutd on Rtcycltd Paptr
-------
Mew York has petitioned EPA to exclude from the TC
contaminated media from above ground oil cleanups conducted
under state order/oversight. OSW has developed some options
which we plan to send to the Regions for review. A follow-
up teleconference is also planned. After receiving and
considering their positions, I anticipate a briefing for you
to review the options and the Regions1 views. This should
occur by the end of November.
As a result of EPA's definition of the scope of the oil
exploration and production (E & P) exemption, off-site crude
oil reclaimers fall outside of the exemption and, as a
result of the TC, will likely be subject to RCRA Subtitle C.
Essentially the sane operations at the well head are exempt.
Some reclaimers have shut down and insist that many more
will. Regulation under TC may discourage reclamation and
waste minimization. OSW has developed some options and is
collecting data. I anticipate a briefing for you on the
options before the end of November.
-------
9441.1990(30)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 3 0 1990
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Regulatory De
on/i Used Oil Filters
Sylvia Lowra
Office of Solid
/(/
Robert L. Duprey/, Director (8HWM-RI)
Hazardous Was'.e Management Division
EPA Region VIII
Thank you for your memorandum of August 30, 1990, requesting a
regulatory interpretation of the status of used oil filters under the
new Toxicity Characteristic (TC). In your memorandum, you inquired
about used oil filters that are crushed in vehicle maintenance shops,
where a certain portion of the residual used oil in the filter is
••parated from the filter. The answers to the specific questions you
ked are listed below.
1. The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) is
performed on used oil filters by crushing, cutting or grinding the
waste (filter plus contents) until the pieces are smaller than 1
centimeter in their narrowest dimension (and thus are capable of
passing through a 9.5 mm standard sieve). See Step No. 7.3 of the
TCLP. The surface area criterion referred to in Step 7.3 does not
apply to used oil filters. (Note: If the generator recycles both the
used oil and metal, you do not need to test because recycling of both
types of materials is exempted from hazardous waste regulation as
discussed below.)
2. and 3. Assuming a used oil filter exhibits the TC, you had
inquired whether the act of crushing filters is regulated treatment
or exempt recycling. Generally, the types of used oil filter
crushers you described would not be regulated if the used oil was
being recycled (see 40 CFR 261.6(a)(2)(iii) and (a)(3)(iii)). That
is, since the purpose of the crushing is to remove the used oil for
recycling, we view the crushing to fall within the used oil recycling
exemption. The crushing may be performed on- or off-site, for profit
or not. The determining factor is whether the used oil will be
recycled. The filter may be shipped off-site for crushing under the
used oil exemption, providing the oil is collected for recycling.
frinud
-------
4. Generally, automotive oil filters are not considered to be
ontainers because they are designed to filter particulates from oil
at circulates through them, not devices for the storage of oil. As
a result, a filter could not be an "empty container" under 40 CFR
261.7. However, as described next, a drained or crushed filter is
considered scrap metal, and scrap metal is exempt from regulation
when recycled.
Under the definition of "solid waste," EPA has determined that
"recycled hazardous scrap metal is a solid waste when disposed of or
recycled" (see 50 FR 624, January 4, 1985). However, pursuant to
section 261.6(a)(3)(iv), hazardous scrap metal is exempted from
Subtitle C regulation when recycled. The scrap metal recycling
exemption in 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iv) is applicable to used oil filters
(scrap metal) that are going to be recycled. However, an undrained
or uncrushed oil filter would contain too much oil to qualify for the
scrap metal exemption. The January 4, 1985 preamble provided
examples of items qualifying for the exemption, such as bars,
turnings, rods, sheets, wire (i.e., scrap metal that is going to be
recycled to recover their metal content) and examples that do not
qualify, including metal-containing waste with a significant liquid
component, such as spent batteries.
To increase the probability that the used oil filter (hazardous
scrap metal) will qualify for the scrap metal recycling exemption,
the generator or recycling facility should drain (gravity) the filter
for an amount of time sufficient to ensure that all free-flowing oil
is removed. The amount of drain time will vary based on a number of
variables, including the size of the filter and temperature (both
ambient and that of the filter). Alternately, the generator or
recycling facility could crush the oil filter using the most
appropriate crushing method that will force excess residual oil from
the filter. We will be examining this issue further, but we
currently have no information indicating that substantial amounts of
oil will remain in the filter after either sufficient draining or
adequate crushing. As a best operating practice, the Agency
recommends that the generator or recycling facility both drain and
crush used oil filters to be certain that the used oil filters would
qualify for the hazardous scrap metal recycling exemption.
If the crushed or drained filter will be recycled, it is
unnecessary to determine whether it exhibits the TC because the scrap
metal exemption is applicable. It would also be unnecessary to
manifest these used oil filters if they will be recycled. However,
if the filter will be disposed of, the generator must determine if it
is hazardous under the TC. If the filter is hazardous waste, the
Part 262 and 268 regulations apply to the generator, and Parts 264
and 265 apply to the treatment, storage and disposal facilities.
Non-hazardous waste filters may be disposed in a Subtitle D facility.
-------
Finally, in the sales brochures you sent, there was mention of
an open container used to accumulate the used oil after the filter
was crushed. (Currently, used oil accumulation by generators is not
regulated if the used oil is recycled, but EPA did propose that such
containers be kept closed. See 50 FR 49252, November 29, 1985.)
Storage or accumulation of characteristically hazardous used oil is
regulated if the used oil is to be disposed of; in that case, the
containers must be closed except when adding or removing the used oil
(per §265.173(a)), „
Please contact Daryl Moore at (202) 475-8551 if you have any
additional questions on the applicability of the Federal hazardous
waste regulations with respect to used oil filters.
cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - VII and IX - X
Jeff Denit
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Regional TC Contacts
-------
9441.1990(31)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1990
2. Regulatory Status of Petroleum Contaminated Media and Debris Under
the Toxicitv Characteristic UST Temporary Deferral
The owner/operator of a petroleum underground storage tank (USD Is
conducting a corrective action pursuant to Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 180.
During corrective action, sludges are removed from the inside of the
tank. These sludges exhibit the toxicity characteristic (TO for benzene.
Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261.4 (b) (10) N...(p)etroleum-contaminated
media and debris that fail the test for the toxicity characteristic of
Section 261.24 and are subject to the corrective action regulations under
Part 280 of this chapter..." are excluded from the definition of
hazardous waste. The preamble to the March 29,1990, Federal Register
does not explicitly define petroleum contaminated "media" and
"debris." (55 F£ 11836). Would the deferral apply to those sludges that
are removed from the tank, or is the deferral intended only for
environmental media such as soil and groundwater?
-------
RCRA/SDPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1990
Regulatory Stetu^of Petroleum Contaminated Media and Pqbris Under
the Toxieitv Characteristic UST Temporary Deferral (Cont'dl
In the March 29 preamble, the Agency stated that "further
evaluation of the impacts of applying the TC to soils and ground
water contaminated by petroleum from USTs and subject.to the
Subtitle I program is necessary in order to determine whether an
exemption for such materials is warranted...." (55 FR 11836) The
deferral only applies to contaminated ground water, soil and debris,
but not to wastes such as sludges generated in a raw material storage
tank. Section 261.4(a) states "(a) hazardous waste which is generated
in a product or raw material storage tank,...is not subject to
regulation under Parts 262 through 265, 268, 270, 271 and 124 of this
chapter or to the notification requirements of Section 3010 of RCRA,
until it exits the unit in which it was generated,..,." Therefore,
sludges removed from Underground Storage Tanks during
corrective actions pursuant to Part 280 Subpart F do not meet the
criteria of "media and debris" and, therefore, the deferral from TC
regulation does not apply.
NOTE: The June 29, 1990, Federal Register contains a clarification of
the deferral which states," (t)his exclusion applies only to
petroleum contaminated media and debris which exhibit the
TC for any one or more of the newly identified organic
constituents, and which are subject to corrective action under
Part 280." (55 FR 26986) Therefore, those constituents
previously regulated under the EP Toxitity rule (D004-D017)
and now regulated under the TC are not eligible for the TC
underground storage tank deferral even if they meet the
criteria of media and debris. A generator must still determine
if the media and debris is a characteristic hazardous waste for
the TC constituents D004-D017.
Source: Steven Cochran, OSW (202) 382-4769
Research: MicLeBel, GRC
-------
9441.1990(32)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOUO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Kathleen Ream
American Chemical Society
1155 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
•
Dear Kathy:
Thank you for your letter of November 5, 1990, requesting
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) give special
consideration to the impacts of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act's (RCRA's) regulations on laboratories. I am
pleased to be able to provide some insights on your very
thoughtful comments.
Some of the concerns identified in your White Paper appear
to relate to the Department of Transportation's (DOT's)
regulations that govern the transport of hazardous materials.
Thus, you may wish to contact DOT directly on those issues. A
contact there is George Cushmae at (202) 366-4488.
With respect to the RCRA regulatory issues, as you have
pointed out, some of the concerns your White Paper identifies as
problems do not require regulatory changes, and may result from
an incorrect reading of the regulations. For example, the
question of when a chemical becomes a waste is not addressed
directly in the regulations; EPA views commercial chemical
products as non-wastes until a decision is made to discard them.
Surplus chemicals that are intact and unused are classified as
commercial chemical products. In contrast to the statement made
on page 2 of the White Paper, 40 CFR Section 261.1(c)(8) does not
require that at least 75 percent of commercial chemical products
be recycled or transferred for recycling in a calendar year.
Under Section 261.2(c)(4), commercial chemical products that are
accumulated speculatively are not solid wastes, and thus are not
subject to the RCRA regulations. Your proposed solution,
"Guidelines for Chemical Exchange," is consistent with EPA's
reading of the applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulations for
reagent chemicals and solvents in their original condition and
original containers.
-------
Thank you once again for the useful information you
provided. It you need further assistance, please contact
Becky Cuthbertson of my staff at (202) 475-9715.
Sincerely yours,
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1990(33)
NOV
Mr. William A. Anderson, II
Bracevell and Patterson
2000 K Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20006-1809
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1990
concerning the applicability of the Agency's used oil definition
to your client's open-gear lubricant, "Gearite." This lubricant
is described as a petroleum-based, semi-solid material which
becomes liquefied when heated, and is sprayed onto the bull gears
of cement kilns for lubrication. The spent Gearite is collected
in drip pans at the bottom of the enclosed gears and is
eventually piped back into the original product drums, where it
solidifies upon cooling. The Gearite is TC hazardous but can be
reused as a fuel in cement kilns.
You contend that Gearite fits the definition of "oil" and
not "grease" because it lacks the saponification agent necessary
to classify it as a grease (as described in the Agency's
Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines). You
also referred to the Agency's November 29, 1985 definition.of
used oil, which included spent "gear oils." Although EPA has not
yet finalized the used oil definition proposed on November 29,
1985, the Agency agrees with your interpretation that spent
Gearite should be classified as a used oil.
As you indicated, used oils that exhibit the characteristics
of hazardous waste are either exempt when recycled or subject to
special used oil standards under 40 CFR 266 Subpart E when burned
for energy recovery in industrial furnaces and boilers per 40 CFR
261.6(a)(3)(iii) and (a)(2)(iii). State regulations for used
oil, however, may be more stringent than the Federal standards
and should be consulted.
-------
Should you have any further questions on used oil, please
feel free to contact Ms. Denise Wright of my staff at
(202) 245-3519.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 1990
9441.1990(34)
1. Mixture Exclusion
A generator meets the mixture rule exclusion of 40 CFR Section 2£U(a)(2)(iv)(A), by
proving that the concentrations of trichloroethylene in his waste sseam before it
enters th? hsadwcrks cf hoi wasiewater treatment facility is below one part per
million, "his wss*r.v*ter treatment facility produces a sludge which exhibits a
hazardous ch---^ -'-%.c Does the mixture rule exclusion also apply to the sludge
produced In the generator's wastewater treatment facility? Or is this sludge i newly-
generated hazardous waste subject to full RCRA regulation?
:.A_«judge generated from a wastewater mixture that meets all of the criteria
'• : :.:spedfiedin Section 261 -3(a)(2)(iv) would be exempted from the hazardous
waste listing because the original wastewater mixture became exempt at the
headworks of the WWTF. The exemption prevents the mixture and derived*
from rules from operating for certain listed wastes. (They can only apply
when the original material is a hazardous waste.) In addition, the mixture
rule exemption would noi apply if the wastewater met another listing
1. Mixture Ffocjusjpp fConf d)
Hie sludge, moreover, might be a hazardous waste for other reasons. For
example, the exemption criteria in Section 261-3(a) (2) (iv) are carefully
limited. They do not apply to any waste that exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic Consequently, as the question already states, the sludge would
be a hazardous waste if it failed any of the characteristic tests.
Source RonJosephson,OSW (202)475-6715
Research: Kenneth Sandier, GRC
-------
9441.1990(35)
xrs
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC 21 1990
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Earl F. Bouse
Vice President
Minerals and Environmental Services
Pacific Basin Resources
3480 Buskirk Ave., Suite 205
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
Dear Mr. Bouse:
This responds to your letter dated September 13,1990 to Mr. Bob Hplloway
concerning the regulatory status of using K048-K052 filter cake as an ingredient in the
manufacture of cement Specifically, you requested a determination regarding whether
such use will be allowed under the final rule for burning hazardous wastes in boilers and
industrial furnaces (BIF rule), which has not yet been promulgated.
I am unable to address whether the process described in your letter will be
allowed under a rulemaking that we are still in the process of evaluating and finalizing.
The proposal published in the October 26, 1989 FEDERAL REGISTER (54 FR 43718) is
the best guide available for you to use in making your assessment of what our final rule
may require until the final rule is promulgated. We currently expect the final rule to be
promulgated by January 1991.
As current Federal regulations provide at 40 CFR 2612(e)(2)(i), the filter cake
used to produce cement would meet the definition of a solid waste (and thus be
-classified as hazardous waste K048-K052) because it is being used as an ingredient (i.e.,
a substitute for raw materials) to produce a product that is used in a manner
constituting disposal (i.e., placement on the land). However, this does not answer the
question of whether such use of the filter cake is legitimate recycling. This regulatory
determination is made on a site-specific basis by the regulating agency (i.e., the State
regulatory agency or EPA Regional Office) in the State in which the activity occurs.
Additional, more specific information to supplement the information in your letter will
be required to make such a determination.
Some of the criteria used in evaluating such situations at the Federal level may
be of assistance to you in preparing your request for a regulatory determination should
you continue to seek such a determination. To evaluate whether a hazardous waste is
being legitimately recycled as a substitute for, or being used as, ail ingredient in a
manufacturing process, a comparison must be made between the x>nstituents contained
in the hazardous waste and the constituents in the analogous raw material. Because the
frinud M KteyeUd Paptr
-------
hazardous wastes and raw materials may change at each different site, this analysis is
required on a site-specific basis.
There are several factors to consider in determining whether a hazardous waste is
being used as a legitimate substitute in a manufacturing process. It is not enough to say
that became a hazardous waste can be used as an ingredient and still result in a
marketable product such-usage is legitimate recycling (rather, this is a demonstration
that the hazardous waste-derived product itself may be an effective substitute for a
nonwaste-derived product, not a demonstration that the hazardous waste is a legitimate
ingredient). Nor is it enough to say that such use of the hazardous waste does not have
an adverse impact on the environment (rather, this may be a demonstration of a good
hazardous waste treatment technology, not a demonstration of "legitimate" exempt
recycling). One key consideration is the extent to which a hazardous waste contains
hazardous constituents not otherwise found in analogous raw materials (e.g., volatile
organics), or contains hazardous constituents at levels significantly higher than those
found in the raw materials (e.g., lead and chromium). In such cases, the hazardous
waste is generally determined to not be used as a legitimate substitute for raw materials
in a manufacturing process, but rather is to be treated and/or disposed of by
incorporation into a product If such a determination is made, the process may require
a hazardous waste treatment permit (However, you may make a demonstration that the
hazardous constituents are useful to the manufacturing process such that the hazardous
waste actually functions better than the raw material it is replacing.) Again, this is a
site-specific determination that is more appropriately made by the regulating agency.
If you have further questions regarding the factors considered in evaluating
whether the use of the hazardous wastes is legitimate recycling under Federal
regulations, you may contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551. If you have
questions regarding the regulatory status of the use of K048-K052 as an ingredient in the
manufacture of cement, (or other site-specific regulatory determinations) you should
contact the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e., authorized State agency or EPA Regional
Office) in which the facility is located. For your information and reference, I am
enclosing a list of EPA Regional offices and telephone numbers.
Sincerely,
David Bussard
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosure
cc: Bob Holloway
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION DIRECTORS
EPA REGIONAL OFFICES
Region it
Merrill S. Hohman, Director
Waste Management Division
USEPA Region I
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
Region 6:
Allyn M. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management
Division, USEPA Region VI
First Interstate Bank Tower
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Region 2:
Conrad Simon, Director
Air & Waste Management -Division
USEPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New.York 10278
Region 7:
David Wagoner, Director
Waste Management Division
USEPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
Region 3:
tephen R. Wassersug, Director
,azardous Waste Management Division
IJSEPA Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Region 8:
Robert L. Duprey, Director
Hazardous Waste Management
Division
USEPA Region VIII
1 Denver Place, Suite 500
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Region 4:
Patrick M. Tobin, Director
Waste Management Division
USEPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Region 9:
Rich Vaille, P.E.
Assistant Director
Toxics & Management
Division
USEPA Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Region 5:
William E. Muno
Associate Division Director
Waste Management Division
USEPA Region V (5HS-13)
"30 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, 111 60604
Region 10:
Charles E. Findley
Director
Waste Management Division
USEPA Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1991(01)
JAN 3 1991
Mr. Lynn Cooper
Michelin Tire Corporation
P.O. Box 2846
Greenville, South Carolina 29602-2846
Dear Mr. Cooper:
This letter is in response to your November 7, 1990 letter
regarding modifications to Michelin's Sandy Springs wastewater
treatment system. According to your letter and our December 11,
1990 telephone conversation, you have already changed to a new
belt filter press which produces a higher percent solids and
processes higher rate of sludge production. In addition,
according to your letter and our telephone conversation, you will
soon institute other modifications to the current wastewater
treatment system to address greater capacity needs resulting from
ongoing production expansion at Sandy Springs. Specifically, the
planned modifications are:
o The existing turbocirculators are to be replaced by a
lamella clarifier and sand filter.
o The existing Diapac sanitary package plant will be
replaced by a pair of sequencing batch reactors (SBR)
for sanitary treatment and organics removal.
o The wastewater will be routed to the new SBR for
biological treatment prior to discharge.
When the original exclusion for the waste generated at
Michelin's Sandy Springs facility was granted by the Agency, it
was conditioned by stating that "the exclusion remains in effect
unless the waste varies from that originally described in the
petition (e.g., the waste is altered as a result of changes in
the manufacturing or treatment process)." Although you submitted
results of TCLP testing on the sludge conducted by RMT Laboratory
to show that the original exclusion should still apply to the
waste that is currently being generated, these data are not
sufficient for our evaluation. As discussed further below, we
cannot fully assess the impact of the modifications on the
exclusion of your wastewater treatment sludge without knowing
more details about these modifications and their impact on the
composition of t-ie filter press sludqe.
-------
We are concerned about the modification you have already
implemented (the new belt filter press) and the others you are
planning to implement. The increase in the amount of wastewater
treated, improved metals removal, higher degree of biological
treatment, and higher percent of solids in sludge may change the
chemical form/composition of the waste. In order to make certain
that the original exclusion still applies to the waste that is
currently being generated at Michelin's Sandy Springs facility,
we request that you submit the information specified below. If
you decide to not submit the information requested below, you
must notify the Agency within two weeks of the receipt of this
letter.
A. Process Information
We need more detailed information on the modifications
planned. Therefore, you must submit the following:
o A description of the Lamella clarifier, the sand filter, the
biological treatment (sequencing batch reactors), the belt
filter press (including the percent solids), and any other
process information that you believe might be pertinent.
The drawings referenced on page two of your letter (62005P01
and 62006P05) might provide some of this information but
they were not attached to the letter we received. A
description and revised drawing similar to those submitted
in the letter to Myles Norse on January 20, 1986 would be
appropriate (see Enclosure I).
o An estimate of the new average and maximum sludge generation
rates on a monthly and annual basis.
o If there are any other reasons, besides those already stated
in your November 7, 1990 letter, which make your planned
modifications necessary (e.g., NPDES permit requirements).
B. Sampling and Analysis Information
o An explicit statement explaining why the three samples
collected in June and July 1990 (and future samples
undertaken in response to today's letter) are representative
of any process or waste variability.
o Total constituent analysis results for at least four
representative samples collected over a one-month period for
the eight metals listed in 40 CFR §261.24 and nickel. We
request that you quantify total levels to support your claim
that the system modifications are minor and "will not change
the characteristics of the sludge".
o Total sulfide and total cyanide analyses for four
representative samples. You must also submit results from
-------
reactive sulfide and reactive cyanide testing if total
sulfide and total cyanide levels exceed 500 and 250 parts
per million (ppm), respectively, reachability analysis for
cyanide, using the TCLP, is also required if total cyanide
levels are greater than 100 ppm. When testing for leachable
cyanide, deionized water should be used in-place of the acid
leaching medium.
Total oil and grease analysis for four representative
samples. We are concerned that your waste may have an oil
and grease corftent above one percent because in your
original petition the filter press sludge had a maximum oil
and grease content of five percent. If the total oil and
grease content is greater than one percent, you must use the
Oily Waste Extraction Procedure (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330)
to analyze at least four representative samples for
leachable concentrations in lieu of the TCLP. When using
the OWEP, please substitute the TCLP for the extraction
procedure in Step 7.9 of the OWEP. Leachable nickel and
cyanide concentrations must also be quantified.
If total levels of oil and grease are less than one percent,
you must submit results of TCLP analyses for at least four
representative samples for the eight metals listed in 40 CFR
§261.24, nickel, and cyanide.
Total constituent and TCLP analysis data for all hazardous
organic constituents listed on 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix
VIII (including acetone, ethyl benzene, isophorone, 4-
methyl-2-pentanone, styrene, and xylene) which are likely to
be present in your waste. (Michelin initially identified
182 Appendix VIII hazardous constituents which could be
expected to be present or released during the facility's
operation, and provided total constituent analyses for these
Appendix VIII hazardous constituents.) We are especially
concerned about toluene, ethyl benzene, styrene, malaeic
anhydride, and thiuram (these were detected in samples
submitted in support of your original petition).
We recognize that the Appendix VIII list presents a number
of analytical problems for some constituents. For
analytical testing purposes, you must analyze the samples
for those compounds which can be accurately quantified using
appropriate SW-846 methods. It should be noted that SW-846
analytical test methods exist for all constituents listed in
40 CFR Part 264, Appendix IX. For any hazardous
constituents for which analytical results are not provided,
a rationale must be provided explaining why the constituent
is not expected to be present.
-------
In lieu of analytical testing, you may present mass balance
arguments that demonstrate that constituents cannot be
present in the waste at levels of concern.
You should submit the above requested process information
and any other information you believe to be pertinent to our
office as soon as possible. Please submit the sampling and
analysis information, along with the appropriate QA/QC
information, to our office within 90 days after the planned
modifications have been implemented. Following implementation of
the planned modifications, we suggest that you treat the waste as
hazardous until we have made a decision regarding the status of
your exclusion. This should be viewed as a 'precautionary measure
in case our evaluation of your new waste data results in a
decision that your original exclusion is no longer applicable to
the waste being generated.
If Michelin decides not to implement any of the proposed
changes to the process (or if these process changes are delayed),
you must still provide further sampling/analysis data to
demonstrate that the change in filter press has not adversely
affected the waste. Therefore, we may accept the TCLP data you
have already submitted (provided they are from representative
samples with total oil and grease levels of less than one
percent). However, even in this case, you need to supplement the
existing data to include total constituent and TCLP analyses such
that all of the above requested analyses are provided for at
least four representative samples.
If you have any questions about this correspondence, please
feel free to contact Narendra Chaudhari of my staff at (202) 382-
4770.
Sincerely,
Robert Kayser, Chief
Delisting Section
Enclosure
cc: Narendra Chaudhari, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
Doug McCurry, EPA Region IV
James Scarbrough, EPA Region IV
Sarah Bennett, SAIC
-------
MICHELIN - SANDY SPRINGS
WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
DIAPAC
1. SANITARY SrWACT (45.001 GP.DJ SANITARY __ (PArKACtDj
I»UT/ |
4 LATi'X AND IJLUC VASTE (3.300 OPD> *"Ve/
M W
1
A a rnMP ronri« - -" — | 'TLOTTA/UR
Al 1 /-. 1 MIXING 1 AIR I
1 ^^Ll. *H TAM>> ^illlArAIIHM •"
I I™)" '"- ' U*1M
a UUILI K HLuwuuwn «jyuu u--u« ^^^ TLOCCULATDR | ^("j-'\
f Hill "*• H1./IR HLptJDnw^i tANOrii.l.
(14000 Up.D.» '-IMr- r«'-«(
/ u r. pkDir>;s wAiirr. -.ivioo^ -i"!!1 put iLiiLiKiiLifi
EQUALIZATION 1 ^ff7 ,|c:5l>
TANK J
IHINSIMII 11 | HHIMARV
1 ..16HH ... I 1 ~1
CIRCULATORS 1 1 ' '*<
IliilfrlLNLk
L— vA£lf £UA»* vl-i°c ftp-ii;- M. l-i'xjIifIG
• A^ »
L— • vfl/ ^.
^ •_*/ _•-* ^^
•* WASff. llUJi.ANf 'jiJKTA.irANi -'MiU i-l'li.1- _l '''if.V.'!*' *-' ^°
Huni-DING (f) »-
r.w.k
ANnruAH
i.iw; i-ctr.j ,-
ria i'LI 1 X fkUL «• f C
* «
i vbni'"":i" . I
1 MUINI; 1 1 MKAI. | ATkAllON
RAPID MIXER L-^(| ) t
'\. *H rilMfAiT
•i/ii, rca :un is.ui nr
tl vW I/ li."ii >
I
-j :;,a-i j-^| r'i?!: (- ^jvBTij^r
•->.>— J jV,,, ^
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY *4A1'1991(02)
FB I 21991
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of the TC to Mixed Waste
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Regional Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
Purpose
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule on March 29, 1990 (55 FR
11798). That rule will bring a large number of waste generators,
including mixed waste handlers, under Subtitle C regulation for
the first time. However, the preamble to the TC rule does not ~
discuss mixed waste. Regional staff have indicated that there is
some confusion regarding the applicability of the TC to this
category of waste, and have requested a clarification statement
on the issue. The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the
applicability of the TC to mixed waste in authorized and
unauthorized States, as well as the Federal regulatory status of
those wastes.
Background
Mixed wastes are defined as wastes which contain both a
radioactive component subject to the Atomic Energy Act ((AEA)
i.e., source, special nuclear, or by-product material) and a
hazardous component subject to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Up until 1986, the applicability of RCRA to
mixed waste was unclear, in part because of uncertainty about the
effect of the exclusion in RCRA Section 1004(27) (the definition
of solid waste) for AEA-regulated materials, and because of
disagreements about the scope of the definition of "by-product
material."
-------
- 2 -
To clarify the applicability of RCRA to mixed waste, EPA
issued a clarification notice on July 3, 1986 (51 FR 24504). In
that notice, the Agency announced that the hazardous component of
mixed waste is subject to RCRA requirements and that the
radioactive portion of the waste (source, special nuclear, and
by-product material) is subject to AEA. EPA also required States
which had obtained RCRA-base program authorization prior to the
July 3 notice to revise their programs to clarify the regulatory
status of mixed waste (i.e., to include the hazardous component
of mixed waste in their program definition of solid waste), and
to apply for EPA authorization of their revised program. The
Department of Energy (DOE) clarified the term "by-product
material" in an interpretative rule on May 1, 1987 (52 FR 15937).
That rule stipulated that, in mixed wastes, only the actual
radionuclides are considered by-product material. DOE's
interpretative rule is consistent with EPA's earlier
clarification notice.
EPA's July 3, 1986 clarification notice described three
general regulatory scenarios for mixed waste based on the
authorization status of a State's hazardous waste program:
o In a State which is not authorized for the RCRA-base
program, mixed waste is subject to the Federal hazardous
waste management requirements, and EPA administers and
enforces the requirements for mixed waste until the State
receives mixed waste authorization.
o In a State with both RCRA-base program and mixed waste
authorization, mixed waste is subject to the hazardous
waste management requirements, and the State administers
and enforces its requirements for mixed waste (of course,
if the waste were newly listed or identified pursuant to
a Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) provision,
and the State was not yet authorized for that listing or
characteristic, EPA would administer the requirements).
o In a State which is authorized for the RCRA-base program,
but not specifically authorized for mixed waste, this
waste is not subject to the Federal hazardous waste
requirements until the State revises its program and
receives authorization specifically for mixed waste. (A
State may, however, regulate mixed waste under State law
under any of these three scenarios).
The chart in Attachment 1 shows the regulatory scenarios for
mixed waste in authorized and unauthorized States. The section
below describes the applicability of the TC to mixed waste in
these regulatory scenarios.
-------
Applicability of the TC to Mixed Waste
The status of mixed waste that fails the toxicity
characteristic (i.e., the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure) follows the scheme described above. Specifically, the
TC rule brings some additional mixed waste streams into the RCRA
Subtitle C system in States that are not authorized for the RCRA-
base program, and tn States that are authorized for mixed wastes.
However, in States that are authorized only for the RCRA-base
program, mixed wastes that fail the TC will not be considered
hazardous under Federal regulations. Once those States become
authorized for mixed waste, then this waste will be subject to
the TC.
The Agency's position on the applicability of the TC to
mixed waste is consistent with an earlier determination on a
related issue regarding the land disposal restrictions program.
EPA determined that HSWA's land disposal restriction provisions
in Section 3004(d)-(h) do not apply to mixed wastes in States
with only RCRA-base program authorization (see Attachment 2,
Mixed Waste Position Paper, Issue 3). The basis for that
determination is that the land disposal restrictions apply to
"solid waste" which is hazardous. As mentioned above, mixed
waste is not a solid waste in a State with only RCRA-base program
authorization. Therefore, the land disposal restrictions do not
apply to mixed waste in a RCRA-base authorized State until the
State revises its program (i.e., defines this material as a solid
waste) and receives EPA authorization for mixed waste.
Similarly, the TC, which was also promulgated pursuant to
HSWA, does not apply to mixed waste iri a State with RCRA-base
program authorization until the State revises its program and
receives authorization for mixed waste. This is because the TC
only applies to material included in the definition of "solid
waste," which is part of the authorized RCRA-base program. As
noted above, the definition of "solid waste," upon which HSWA
requirements depend, is determined solely by State law in
authorized States. Therefore, in scenarios 1 and 2 described in
the background section above, new HSWA requirements such as the
land disposal restrictions and the TC would apply to mixed
wastes. In scenario 3, however, new HSWA requirements like the
TC would not apply to mixed wastes until the State becomes
authorized for these wastes.
Current Regulatory Status of Mixed Waste
Currently, mixed waste is regulated as a Subtitle C solid
and hazardous waste in 33 States and territories (24 States and
territories have received authorization for mixed waste, 9 States
and territories are unauthorized even for a RCRA-base program).
-------
- 4 -
In these 33 States, mixed waste is subject to the TC (scenarios 1
and 2 above), and EPA administers and enforces the program for
toxicity characteristic mixed waste until the State receives
authorization for the TC program. In the remaining States and
territories, which have only RCRA-base program authorization
(scenario 3), mixed waste is not now a solid waste according to
the Federal hazardous waste management requirements, and this
waste is not subject to the TC. A list of States and territories
with mixed waste authorization as of January 31, 1991, is
provided in Attachment 3.
The effective date of the TC rule was September 25, 1990 for
large quantity generators and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities and March 29, 1991 for small quantity generators. The
key compliance dates for the TC rule, including requirements for
Section 3010 notification, submission of permit applications
(Part A's and B's), and permit modifications are summarized in
Attachment 4. These compliance dates apply to facilities which
handle toxicity characteristic mixed waste in States which have
mixed waste authorization and in States which have not yet
received RCRA-base program authorization.
In States which have only RCRA-base program authorization,
mixed waste is not subject to the Federal hazardous waste
regulations until the State becomes authorized for mixed waste.
Once a RCRA-base authorized State becomes authorized for mixed
waste, facilities in that State will be required to submit a
Part A permit application, amended Part A permit application, or
permit modification for TC wastes as well as other hazardous
waste no later than six months after the effective date of the
State's mixed waste authorization. In this type of situation, a
Section 3010 notice would not be required for newly regulated
generators and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
However", newly regulated generators and treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities are required to obtain an EPA identification
number, following the authorized State's procedures.
If you have additional questions regarding this matter,
please feel free to contact Jared Flood of my staff at
FTS: 475-7066. If you have questions about other specific issues
related to the TC, please contact Steve Cochran of my staff at
FTS: 382-4769.
Attachments
-------
9441.1991(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR I 9 13S!
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Melanie K. Pierson
Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Southern District of California
United States Courthouse
940 Front Street, Room 5-N-19
San Diego, California 92189
Dear Ms. Pierson:
This responds to your February 26, 1991 letter to
Ms. Becky Cuthbertson regarding the regulatory status of solder
dross generated by the periodic skimming of molten solder baths
used in the production of printed circuit boards to remove
contaminants acquired through use of the molten solder baths.
Your specific question concerns whether this solder dross meets
the description of a "by-product" or a "spent material" in the
context of the hazardous waste regulations.
Although it is not specifically defined, the term "dross" is
used as an example of a by-product in the January 4, 1985 Federal
Register preamble to the current definition of solid waste (see
50 FR 625). Further, there is an example in EPA's "Guidance
Manual on the RCRA Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Wastes"
(March, 1986) in which solder drosses generated in soldering
integrated circuits to printed circuit boards are determined to
not be solid wastes because they are identified as
"characteristic by-products that are reclaimed."
Typically, a "dross" is generated prior to using a metal or
alloy by melting the metal or alloy and skimming off the
contaminants and oxides that have developed since the metal or
alloy was refined. In the soldering of integrated circuits to
printed circuit boards (as in the example given in the guidance
manual), the dross is generated as a by-product (of the solder)
when the solder is melted during its use. However, although the
generator may claim that a secondary material is a "dross" (and
the material may, in fact, appear to be a "dross"), that does not
automatically mean that the material is a by-product rather than
a spent material.
The determining consideration in classifying a secondary
material is how the material is generated, not the term used to
describe it (e.g., "dross"). As a product that has been used in
the process, the solder skimmings, when removed (i.e., skimmed
Printed?•
-------
off) from the process due to contamination of the molten solder
bath during its use in the process, would more clearly meet the
definition of a spent material than a by-product. Rather than
being a by-product of the solder itself, the skimmings are spent
materials from the use of the solder.
As you know, this regulatory interpretation reflects the
Federal program. You should also contact the appropriate State
regulatory agency to determine the regulatory status of the
solder dross under their program.
I hope this has helped to answer your questions. Should you
have any further questions, you can contact Mr. Mitch Kidwell, of
my staff, at (202) 475-8551, or Ms. Jeannie Paige, of the EPA
Region IX office, at (415) 744-2073.
Sincerely,
David Bussard
Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
cc: Jeannie Paige
-------
UHITEO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Abewci
9441.1991(04)
MAR 2 6 1991
John E. Ely
Enforcement Director
Virginia Department^ of Waste Management
101 North 14th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Ely:
At the request of Carlyle C. Ring, Vice President and
General Counsel of Atlantic Research Corporation, I am sending
this letter to summarize the Agency's current position on the
"contained-in" interpretative policy. It is my understanding,
based upon Mr. Ring's letter, that there was some question as to
whether the "contained-in" interpretative policy applies to all
environmental media or only to ground water. Mr. Ring's letter
also suggested that a letter from my Office would help resolve
this matter. I hope this letter will answer this question and
further clarify the policy. I have also enclosed, for your
information, a memorandum from Jonathan Cannon to Thomas Jorling
dated June 19, 1989. I hope that you will find these helpful.
The "contained-in" interpretation addresses environmental
media (i.e., ground water, soil, and sediment) contaminated with
RCRA listed hazardous waste. Our federal regulations at 40 CFR
Part 261.3 identify hazardous wastes. Among other things, these
regulations state that a solid waste mixed with a hazardous waste
is a hazardous waste. However, these regulations generally do
not specifically address environmental media, which are not solid
wastes, mixed with listed hazardous waste. The Agency's position
continues to be that mixtures of environmental media and listed
hazardous waste (i.e., contaminated ground water, contaminated
soil, and contaminated sediments) must be managed as if they were
hazardous waste. This position is known as the "contained-in"
policy. EPA's application of the "contained-in11 policy to
contaminated media was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Chemical Waste Management. Inc. v. U.S. EPAf 869 F.2d
1526 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
Consistent with this approach, the Agency further interprets
the regulations to mean that environmental media contaminated
with listed hazardous waste must be managed as if they were
hazardous waste until the media no longer contain the listed
hazardous waste (i.e., until decontaminated), or are delisted.
-iha ftnanrv has not issued any definitive guidance aj to
-------
9441.1991(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 22 1991
Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Corinne A. Goldstein
Covington & Burling
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20044
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
This letter is in response to your correspondence to
Randolph Hill dated November 16, 1990, and December 13, 1990,
concerning DuPont's "chloride-ilmenite process." As you are
aware from telephone conversations with Mr. Hill and the brief
filed by the Agency with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Solite Corp. v. EPA, the Agency continues to believe
that wastes from this process are appropriately classified as
mineral processing, not beneficiation wastes. This letter
specifically addresses DuPont's proposed changes in the process
discussed in the November 16 and December 13 letters, and the
impact that these process changes would have on the Bevill status
of the new wastes produced.
The Agency's determination that chloride process waste acids
(including DuPont's chloride-ilmenite process waste acids) are a
processing waste was a one-time decision based on a "snapshot" of
the industrial processes in place at the time of the decisions.
It was, and remains impossible for us to address the Bevill
status of wastes from proposed changes in current processes. The
Agency clearly stated this in the September 1, 1989, Final Rule
(54 FR 36592). Such new wastes, unless determined to be either a
beneficiation waste or among the 20 temporarily exempt mineral
processing wastes (which DuPont's proposed wastes would not be),
would be non-exempt mineral processing wastes and would need to
be managed in accordance with RCRA Subtitle C if they are
characteristically hazardous.
If DuPont implements the changes it has proposed (or other
changes), the Agency will evaluate the resulting wastes to
determine if some portion is indeed a beneficiation waste. We
cannot, however, guarantee that a decision that these are
beneficiation instead of processing wastes would be made. Based
on process descriptions in your November and December letters,
-------
-2-
along with other information you provided in our November 20,
1990, meeting, the Agency already has some reservations as to
DuPont's ability to generate a waste only containing residues
from beneficiation. Operations producing combined beneficiation
and processing wastes are appropriately classified as processing
operations for purposes of determining whether or not they
produce wastes that are exempt mineral processing wastes.
*•
If you have further questions concerning this matter, please
contact Bob Tonetti at (703) 308-8426.
rlvia K.'
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1991(06)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MAY 2 9 1991
Mr. Philip S. Bell
Amerock Corporation
4000 Auburn St
P.O. Box 7018
Rockford, IL 61125-7018
Dear Mr. Bell:
This is in response to your April 5 letter regarding the
regulatory status of certain electroplating wastes and associated
waste management activities. Our responses to your specific
questions follow:
1. Anode baas
a. When, and under what conditions, do they become a
hazardous waste?
The anode bags become a solid (and hazardous) waste when
they are removed from the plating bath. At this point, they are
considered to be a "spent material" that is reclaimed (i.e.,
washed to remove the cyanide solution) prior to reuse.
b. If they are washed and reused, are they hazardous waste
during the time between removal and washing (if the washing does
not occur in the same process tank)?
As described above, during this period, they are a "spent
material" and a hazardous waste.
c. If and when they become a hazardous waste, when one
washes the bags to remove the plating solution, must one have a
RCRA Part B permit, or can one perform "treatment while
accumulating" by meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34 and 40
CFR 265 Subparts I and J?
Washing of the bags constitutes treatment of a hazardous
waste. However, a RCRA permit would not be required if this
treatment occurs in tanks or containers during the accumulation
period of not greater than 90 days and meets all of the
requirements of 262.34(a).
Printed on P-
-------
d. If and when they become a hazardous waste, is the proper
waste code for them solely D003 for CN content or do they also
become a listed waste (such as F007) by virtue of some
application of the mixture rule? (The assumption is that there
are no hazardous characteristics other than reactivity due to
cyanide.)
The waste would be considered both D003 and F007 (spent
cyanide plating bath solution from electroplating operations).
This is because the anode bag is both reactive and contains (has
been soaked in) spent plating bath.
2. Filtered residues from cyanide plating baths
When a filtering apparatus which has been filtering a
cyanide plating bath is opened for cleaning, is the residue and
filter media (if it is to be discarded) solely D003 or a listed
waste code (F0077/F008?) in addition to the D003?
These wastes would be considered both D003 and F008 (spent
plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths from
electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the
process). While any F008 waste would contain some of the F007
plating solution from the tank in which it was generated, the
F008 listing is the more specific description; thus, use of the
F007 designation would not be appropriate.
3. A detergent cleaner and rinse prior to a cyanide plating bath
a. Was it USEPA's intent to include the Detergent Cleaner
Solution (when spent) in the F009 listing?
The F009 listing applies to cyanide-containing cleaning and
stripping baths (i.e., "where cyanides are used in the process"
refers to the cleaning and/or stripping process). If the
cleaning solutions are not cyanide-containing, the F009 listing
is not applicable.
Should you have any questions regarding these
interpretations, feel free to contact David Bussard, Director of
the Characterization and Assessment Division, at (202) 382-4637.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1991(07)
MAY 30 19SO
Mr. T. S. Ary
Director
Bureau of Mines
2401 E. St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20241
Dear Mr. Ary:
•
Thank you for your letter dated April 6, 1990, concerning
iron and steel slags, and their status in the upcoming Report to
Congress (RTC) on Mineral Processing Wastes. EPA appreciates the
contributions that the Bureau of Mines has made to the RTC to
date, and we would be pleased to meet with you to discuss issues
related to these slags.
Although the RTC has not been completed yet, based on the
information the Agency has collected to date on iron and* steel .
slags it is likely that the Agency will recommend that these
wastes remain within the Bevill exclusion — that is, we believe
these wastes will become permanently exempt from regulation as
hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Iron and steel slags which are used in a manner constituting
disposal are currently considered "discarded* materials11 and thus
meet the definition of solid wastes under Section 1004(27) of
RCRA. See 40 CFR § 261.2 or 53 Fed. Reg. 31,198 (Aug. 17,
1988) for details. EPA is further considering, however, whether
such slags are similar enough to virgin .aggregate that they
should not be classified as solid waste. EPA will address this
issue in greater detail in the upcoming Report to Congress, as
already promised in the final "Bevill Rule" (54 Fed. Reg. 36,615
(Sept. 1, 1989)). In any event, if these slag materials were to
continue to be exempt from Subtitle C regulation, I would expect
the use of slag materials would continue. Please let us know,
however, if the Bureau of Mines has reason to believe that
continued classification of these slags as solid wastes would
cause market disruptions and harm to the slag recycling industry.
-------
9441.1991(08)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
.J.jM I 0 c ~-: OP SICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Jacqueline E. Schafer
Assistant Secretary
(Installations and Environment)
Department of the Navy
Washington, D.C. 20360-5000
Dear Jackie:
Thank you for your letter of April 12, 1991, regarding
issues concerning the Naval Air Station (NAS) in Pensacola,
Florida. Specifically, I understand that you are troubled by
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) interpretation
that volatilization of solvents must be counted as solvent use
in calculating a facility's ability to qualify for the solvent
exemption in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(B).
As you may be aware, current regulations establish that any
mixture of a solid waste with a listed hazardous waste renders
the mixture a hazardous waste. The purpose of this regulation
is to prevent hazardous waste generators from loading the
environment with pollutants by simple dilution. In 1981,
however, EPA promulgated a set of regulations designed to exempt
certain dilute mixtures of solvents or other listed hazardous
wastes from regulation as a hazardous waste when these mixtures
reach the headworks of the facility's wastewater treatment system
(46 FR 56582, November 17, 1981). The purpose of the rule was
to keep the large volumes of treatment sludges from falling
within the scope of the listing(s) when, in fact the wastewater
treatment system could handle the amount of solvents contained
in the wastestream as it entered the headworks of the treatment
system.
In the preamble to the rule, EPA outlined certain procedures
for calculating whether a facility meets the criteria for an
exemption (for example, containing no more than 25 ppm of
methylene chloride in the untreated wastewater stream). EPA
said that a facility must use its records of solvent consumption
(such as from invoices) to establish the amount of solvent in the
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
wastewater, but may subtract the amount of solvent that does not
flow into the headworks of the wastewater treatment system. In a
footnote to the preamble, EPA stated that the amount of solvent
volatilized may not be subtracted from the calculation. This
language was added to prevent facilities from qualifying for
the exemption by volatilizing their solvents, and thus causing
negative environmental impacts.
I appreciate very much the detailed information you have
provided, showing that the wastewater mixture entering the
headworks at MAS contains far less solvent than the 25 ppm
threshold described in the rule. However, according to the
information collected by EPA staff in our Region IV office and
at Headquarters, much of the solvent used at Pensacola MAS for
aircraft paint stripping volatilizes during use and is not
otherwise collected. Our current regulations do not allow me the
flexibility to permit a subtraction of the volatilized amount.
As a result, it appears that Pensacola HAS cannot qualify for the
exemption, unless the Navy can show that the solvents that do
not go to the wastewater treatment system are not otherwise
volatilized.
There is another important aspect to this issue. When the
25 ppm provision was promulgated, none of the solvents to which
it applies was considered a suspected carcinogen. Now, however,
methylene chloride is considered to be a probable human
carcinogen. Any reassessment of this regulatory provision would
necessarily reflect this new information and possibly further
restrict this wastewater exemption.
I realize that very little solvent goes to the wastewater
treatment system. The Navy has made an outstanding effort to
reduce the amount of such pollutants being managed as hazardous
wastes. I urge you to continue your efforts in this regard. We
will continue to work with the Navy as it addresses the next
steps for the Pensacola NAS.
Sincerely yours,
Don R. C]
Assistant-administrator
-------
9441.1991(09)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
UN 21 1991 '
SOLID WASTE AND EMEPGENC> RESPONSE
Mr. Basil G. Constantelos, Director
Environmental Affairs
Safety-Kleen
777 Big Timber Road
Elgin, Illinois OR0123
Dear Mr. Conservedlos:
Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1991, requesting
comments on a position paper on spent absorbent materials.
We have completed reviewing your paper and have included a
number of comments in the enclosure to this letter for you to
consider, as this is a complex area of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. Please note that these comments are of a
generic technical nature and are therefore not specific to a
given factual situation.
We appreciate the opportunity to review your position paper,
The Environmental Protection Agency is glad to help ensure the
safe and effective disposal of hazardous waste.
Sincere
Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ENCLOSURE
The opening statement (basis) of the paper states that
absorbents used to collect used oil, fuels, or solvents may not
be disposed of in a sanitary landfill when they are generated by
a small or large generator. This is not entirely correct. Under
federal rules, a conditionally exempt small-quantity generator
(SQG producing less than 100 kg/no.) in compliance with 40 CFR
261.5 may dispose of hazardous waste in a sanitary landfill if
that facility is permitted, licensed, or registered by the state
to manage municipal or industrial solid waste per 40 CFR 261.5.
In the discussion pertaining to mixtures of spent absorbent
and "F or U" listed hazardous waste, it says that these mixtures
must be shipped and manifested as "F or Un wastes. There is an
exception to this classification, however, for mixtures of listed
wastes that are listed only for a characteristic. If the listed
hazardous waste is mixed with contaminated absorbents (a solid
waste), and those mixtures no longer exhibit a hazardous
characteristic, the mixture rule exclusion in 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iii) applies, and these mixtures are not classified
as listed "F or U" wastes and are not subject to further
regulation. The deliberate mixing of absorbent and hazardous
waste to render the mixture non-hazardous may, however, be
interpreted as "treatment11 per 40 CFR 260.10 and may require a
permit and compliance with Part 268 land disposal restrictions.
The discussion of absorbents and non-listed waste mixtures
addresses mixtures involving flammable liquids. The discussion
on flammable liquids, test methods, and resulting classification
is hard to follow. A waste liquid or mixture containing a free
liquid phase (as defined by our paint filter liquids test-method
9095) is ignitable under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) if the waste (or liquid phase) has a flashpoint
< 140°F using the methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21(a)(1). If
the mixture has no free liquid phase, then it is considered a
solid. Solids that meet the criteria in §261.21(a)(2) concerning
.the ability to cause fire through friction, absorption of
moisture, or spontaneous chemical changes such that they ignite
and burn vigorously thereby creating a hazard are classified as
ignitable hazardous wastes. If a mixture of a characteristic
waste absorbent has a free liquid phase with a flashpoint
< 140°F, it is ignitable. If there is no free liquid phase,
then the qualitative criteria for solids apply; if the mixture
meets those criteria, it is classified as ignitable.
With respect to Department of Transportation (DOT)
classification of these materials, please note that the
definitions and criteria for hazardous materials under DOT are
often different from those of RCRA hazardous wastes. RCRA
hazardous wastes are, in fact, a subset of DOT hazardous
materials. However, the DOT hazard classes do not directly
correspond to RCRA hazard characteristics. For example, DOT
-------
classifies materials as "flammable" if the liquid has a
flashpoint < 100°F, and classifies liquids with flashpoints
between 100° and 200°F as "combustible." EPA classifies
hazardous wastes as "ignitible" with a flashpoint < 140°F
Therefore, some EPA ignitibles may be DOT flammable, and some
may be DOT combustible, depending on flashpoint. You should
consult DOT to further clarify its nomenclature and criteria.
In that same discussion of absorbent mixtures, there is also
a reference to liquids containing TCLP constituents. The mixture
would be classified as TC hazardous if it exceeded the regulatory
levels in §261.24.
In the discussion on used oil, there also seems to be some
confusion. The basis for the statement that "used oil is assumed
to exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste due to its use..."
is unclear. Such a blanket statement is not supported by
recently collected EPA data, which will be noticed and discussed
in an upcoming used oil proposal in September. Generators are
responsible for making a hazardous waste determination if they
plan to dispose of used oil. If the oil or oil/absorbent mixture
exhibits a hazardous characteristic, then disposal options depend
on the generator's status (i.e., conditionally exempt SQG waste
may be disposed of in municipal or industrial landfill that is
permitted, licensed, or registered by the state). If a used
oil/absorbent mixture is to be burned for energy recovery, then
40 CFR 266 Subpart E applies.
-------
USB
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN 2 I 1991
Of
SOLID WASTE AND EME«GENCV BESPONSE
Melanie K. Pierson
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of California
United States Court House
940 Front Street, Room 5-N-19
San Diego, California 92189
Dear Ms. Pierson:
This responds to your May 3, 1991 request for a regulatory
interpretation regarding the status of solder skimmings, based on
information supplied to you by Mr. Karl S. Lytz. In Mr. Lytz's
letter to you dated April 29, 1991, he presents more specific
information regarding the actual process used by a Fisher-Price *
facility that generates solder skimmings. The principal
determination focuses on whether the solder skimmings are defined
as "spent materials'* or "by-products.*1 This determination is
based on how the solder skimmings are generated.
As stated in our March 19, 1991 letter to you, EPA has
previously indicated in regulatory interpretations (including
Federal Register preamble discussions and guidance manuals) that
dross or skimmings are typically considered by-products.
However, because the terms "dross" and "skimmings" can refer to
secondary materials generated by a variety of processes, a more
studied assessment of how a specific secondary material is
generated is necessary to determine its actual regulatory status.
In other words, the term used to describe a secondary material
(e.g., dross or skimmings) is not necessarily determinative of
its regulatory status.
To the extent that a material has been used in a process,
and is subsequently removed due to contamination, the Agency
would consider the material to be "spent." The term "by-product11
refers to materials that result from a production process that
are not the intended product and are not fit for a desired end
use without substantial further processing (i.e., they are not
co-products), and are not otherwise classified as spent materials
or sludges. In very general terms, dross generated in the
production of solder is a by-product; dross generated in the use
of solder is a spent material. As stated in our March 19, 1991
letter to you, the Agency interprets "by-product" to also include
drosses (or skimmings) that are generated from solder that is
melted prior to use (which is analogous to the further refinement
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
of a product). However, drosses generated from the solder during
or after its use are defined as spent materials.
In Mr. Lytz's letter, he describes the various steps in the
process that generates the solder dross. It appears that "dross"
is generated both as a by-product and as a spent material. In
the reservoir, which is used "... exclusively for melting
solder rods to produce molten solder for use in the bath,11 the
dross generated would meet the Agency's definition of a by-
product. However, the dross generated by skimming the spider
bath and the wire tinning operations would'be considered spent
materials, because the solder has been used in these operations.
The basis of this differentiation is not a consideration of the
chemical composition of the material (e.g., whether it is
similar, or indeed identical, to the dross generated in the
reservoir), or in how the material became contaminated (e.g., by
oxidation with the air). The determining factor is that the
solder has been used, is contaminated, and is being removed from
the process. Athough Mr. Lytz states that the solder has not
been contaminated, but rather the oxides are "impurities" that
occur naturally through use (as opposed to being residual
contaminants from the parts that are soldered), the Agency would
nevertheless consider the oxides to be the contaminants that
cause the solder to be skimmed and removed from the process.
(The Agency notes that the entire solder bath is not considered
spent merely because the bath has been contaminated by the oxides
rather than the small portion that must be removed or skimmed
off. The "spent material" classification is only applicable to
those materials that are removed from the process, and are thus
"generated.")
Thus, all things being equal (i.e., the oxide contaminant),
the difference between the status of the reservoir dross and the
dross generated by the solder bath and the wire tinning
operations is whether or not the dross is skimmed from a used or
unused solder. For example, if the reservoir was to also receive
previously used solder for remelting (e.g., solder returned from
the solder bath) then this dross, too, would be classified as a
spent material. To the extent that the different drosses can be
segregated and managed without mixing, they would be subject to
different regulatory requirements. As Mr. Lytz stated, 95% of
the dross is generated by skimming the reservoir; this relatively
large amount would not be subject to regulation as a hazardous
(or solid) waste. The other drosses, however, would be subject
to the applicable regulatory requirements as a hazardous waste.
In reference to the confusion raised by the Electrum letter
(i.e., the July 20, 1989 letter from Mr. Devereaux Barnes to Mr.
Jack Douglas of Electrum Recovery Works, Inc.), our focus in
making the regulatory interpretation was whether the dross met
the regulatory definition of a scrap metal. Insufficient
information was provided on how the dross was generated to make a
-------
determination of its status at the point of generation. (Indeed,
the status of the dross as a by-product vs. a spent material was
never raised; had the same information been provided regarding
the generation of the dross, the Agency would have determined
that the dross was a spent material.) We took Mr. Douglas'
assessment that the "dross" was a characteristic by-product at
face value without evaluating how the material was generated and
.erroneously agreed with this classification in a letter written
for the purpose of.addressing his claim that the dross was a
scrap metal (see the enclosed June 5, 1989 letter from Mr.
'Douglas to Mr. Straus and the May 22, 1989 letter from Ms.
Deborah S. Kinburn to Mr. Matt Straus).
I hope this has helped to clarify the regulatory status of
the dross generated at the Fisher-Price facility. Generally, a
determination regarding the regulatory status of a specific
secondary material is made by the State regulatory agency or the
appropriate EPA Regional office because of the site-specific
factors that may warrant consideration. However, this letter
presents the factors the Agency would consider in making such a
determination. If you have any further questions regarding this '
issue, you should contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202)
475-8551. '
Enclosures
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characteristics and
Assessment Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1991(11)
JUN 28 1991
Mr. Rudy Leutzinger
Burns & McDonnell
P.O. Box 419173
Kansas City, MO 64141-6173
Dear Mr. Leutzinger:
This is in response to your April 10 letter to Steve Cochran
regarding the regulatory status of CCA treated wood when
disposed. Discarded wood and wood products that would be
hazardous only because they fail the Toxicity Characteristic for
the 14 hazardous constituents originally regulated through the EP
Toxicity Characteristic (i.e., D004-D017) are not hazardous
wastes, per 40 CFR 261.4(b)(9). When we promulgated the Toxicity
Characteristic, we modified the hazardous waste regulations to
replace references to the EP Toxicity Characteristic with
references to the Toxicity Characteristic. In the case 'of the
exclusion for wood, our rewording inadvertently narrowed the
scope of the exclusion to refer only to wood wastes that fail the
characteristic for arsenic (as opposed to failing the
characteristic for any of the 14 EP constituents). We are
currently writing a Federal Register notice to correct this
language.
.Should you have any further questions regarding this issue,
please feel free to contact Dave Topping of my staff at (202)
382-7737.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1991(12)
MEMORANDUM JU. 3 I
SUBJECT: Response to Request for TC Rule Hazardous Waste
Determination
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Stephanie Wallace
Region B? Montana Office
This memorandum responds to your February 8, 1991 memorandum
in which you requested guidance on five questions related to pulp
and paper mill operations under the Toxicity Characteristic Rule.
The scenario was described as follows: a pulp and paper mill
generates wastewater in its bleach plant which, at the point of
departure from the unit (for our purposes, assumed to be the
plant outlet), fails the TC for chloroform. This wastewater is
diluted with other wastestreams prior to entering a clarifier.
At this point the diluted waste no longer exhibits a
characteristic. The non-TC-hazardous wastewater then passes
through a series of surface impoundments for aeration and
settling prior to discharge to a surface water under a NPDES
permit. The surface impoundments are designed to infiltrate
greater than 50% of the flow to groundwater. The following are
answers to your questions.
Q: To determine whether the facility is managing a TC waste, is
the appropriate sampling point at the outlet from the bleach
plant (prior to the point where it mixes with any other
wastestrearn)?
A: Yes. The appropriate point to determine whether a material
is a solid waste, and if so, a hazardous waste, is at the
point of generation or prior to commingling (mixing) with
other wastestreams.
Q: If the waste is TC hazardous at this point (that is, at the
outlet from the bleach plant, prior to the point where it
mixes with any other wastestream), but not when it enters
the first surface impoundment, would the surface
impoundments be regulated? Why or why not?
A: The answer to this question is no, unless TC waste is
generated in the impoundment. Whether a TC waste is
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
generated depends on both the influent and physicochemical
activity within the surface impoundment. For example, if a
non-TC hazardous influent is pumped into an impoundment
which contains other non-hazardous wastes, a hazardous waste
could result even if constituent levels in the influent are
below TC regulatory levels (for example, from concentration
of the various hazardous constituents). Another example is
where solids settling out of the non-hazardous influent
result in the generation of a hazardous sludge, again from
concentration of the trace hazardous constituents. In each
case, the impoundment would become subject to all applicable
Subtitle C requirements (see September 27, 1990, 55 FR
39410). Furthermore, each surface impoundment in a series
of impoundments is treated separately for regulatory
purposes.
Q: Does the land ban allowance for dilution of toxic
characteristic wastes subject to a NPDES permit (providing
the treatment standard is not a method), allow mixing of the
bleach plant effluent with other dilute wastestreams before
treatment? (This is not an issue yet, but will be of
concern when treatment standards for TC wastes are
established. The preamble to the 3rd (Third Third) rule
indicates that EPA can apply LDRs at the point of generation
rather than at the point of disposal).
A: Yes. As discussed in the Third Third final rule (June 1,
1990, 55 £B 22665), dilution is considered to be an
acceptable method of treatment for most non-toxic
characteristic wastes. For toxic characteristic wastes,
including TC wastes previously regulated under the EP,
dilution is not acceptable. However, there are two
exceptions to this. The one that applies here is for
characteristic wastes treated for purposes of CWA compliance
(such as for NPDES permitting requirements), provided there
is no specified method as the treatment standard. Dilution
of TC organics will be evaluated during development of
treatment standards.
Q: If it is determined that the surface impoundments are
regulated, would they be exempt from the minimum technology
requirements of RCRA 3004(o)(1)(A) based on the exemption in
3005(j)(1)(3) for units which contain treated wastewater at
facilities subject to a CWA 402 [NPDES] permit?
A: Yes. Surface impoundments that meet the conditions of RCRA
(HSWA) § 3005(j)(3) are exempt from the minimum
technological requirements of RCRA (HSWA) § 3004(o)(1)(A).
Section 3005(j)(3) applies to units containing treated waste
water during the secondary or subsequent phases of an
aggressive biological treatment facility (as opposed to anv
treatment facility).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Q: Is the definition of "aggressive biological treatment1* in
this case the same as that laid out in the recent petroleum
refinery listings?
A: No. The petroleum listing definition of "aggressive
biological treatment" applies specifically and only to
petroleum refinery waste surface impoundments (see 55 FR
46354, November 2, 1990). A general discussion of the term
can be found in footnotes 7, 8, and 9 on p. 46357 - 58.
*•
X hope we have answered your questions. Additional
information is attached should you need to reference it. If you
have further questions, please call Steve Cochran of my staff at
FTS 382-4769.
cc Regional Waste Management Division Directors
Regional RCRA Branch Chiefs
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION
in a discussion on sampling points, the preamble of the TC
final rule (March 29, 1990, 55 £R 11830) reads as follows:
"The current rule requires that determination of whether a
waste is hazardous be made at the point of generation (i.e.,
when the waste becomes a solid waste). (A waste must be a
solid waste before it can classified as hazardous waste
under RCRA). EPA believes that determination of the
regulatory status of a waste at the point of generation
continues to be -appropriate, especially since the Agency is
not developing a separate mismanagement scenario or set of
regulatory levels for wastewaters."
EPA developed a TC clarification notice which includes
examples of regulated surface impoundments managing newly
identified TC wastes (September 27, 1990, 55 £B 39409). The
following language on page 39410 may be applicable to the
first surface impoundment you describe in question 2: "A
[third] example is where a TC waste is generated within the
unit from non-hazardous wastewater on or after the TC
effective date. This could occur where the hazardous
constituents in the wastewater become concentrated, or if a
new TC sludge is formed by settling. In these examples,
once the TC waste is generated and stored or disposed of in
the unit, the unit is subject to subtitle c." The
additional surface impoundments would be regulated in the
following manner: if the first surface impoundment
generated a TC hazardous sludge or wastewater, and the
hazardous effluent was received in subsequent surface
impoundments, then the subsequent surface impoundments would
also be subject to subtitle C requirements (see 55 FR 11830,
and 55 ZB 39410).
The dilution prohibition exception is codified in 40 CFR
268.3(b) and reads as follows: "Dilution of wastes that are
hazardous only because they exhibit a characteristic in a
treatment system which treats wastes subsequently discharged
to a water of the United States pursuant to a permit issued
under section 402 of Clean Water Act (CWA) or which treats
wastes for purposes of pretreatment requirements under
section 307 of the CWA is not impermissible dilution for
purposes of this section unless a method has been specified
as the treatment standard in Section 268.42."
In order to qualify for the WWTU exemption, the device must
meet three criteria: 1) be part of a wastewater treatment
facility that is subject to regulation under either section
402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act; 2) receive, and treat
or store influent wastewaters or wastewater treatment
sludges which meet the definition of a hazardous waste in 40
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CFR 261.3; and 3) meet the definition of tank or tank system
(see "wastewater treatment unit," 40 CFR 260.10).
*
Assuming that the first two criteria are met, an evaluation
needs to be made for the third condition. If the clarifier
meets the 40 CFR 260.10 definition of tank, then a
determination must be made on the conveyance structure (in
your letter, you marginally referenced the "means of
conveyance11). The 40 CFR 260.10 term "tank system" includes
the tank and i£s associated ancillary equipment and
containment system. In turn, "ancillary equipment" means:
"any device including, but not limited to, such devices as
piping, fittings, flanges, valves, and pumps, that is used
to distribute, meter, or control the flow of hazardous waste
from its point of generation to a storage or treatment
tank(s), between hazardous waste storage and treatment tanks
to a point of disposal on-site, or to a point of shipment
for disposal off-site (see "ancillary equipment," 40 CFR
260.10).
The conveyance structure may or may not meet the definition
of ancillary equipment depending on whether it is designed
to distribute, meter, or control the hazardous waste flow
between the generation point and a storage or treatment tank
(which is designed to contain an accumulation of hazardous
waste). For example, a conveyance structure which is simply
a ditch constructed of dirt would not meet the definition.
Determining whether a given conveyance structure meets the
definition of ancillary equipment is necessarily a site-
specific judgement, dependent on the circumstances and facts
at the facility in question. The state or regional
authority reviews the facts in question to determine whether
a specific conveyance structure meets the terms of the
exemption.
Finally, if an exempt WWTU renders the wastewater non-
hazardous, the storage of the wastewater in the surface
impoundments would not be under RCRA Subtitle C regulation,
unless conditions described in the answer to your second
question occur (i.e., the surface impoundment generates a
hazardous wastewater or sludge).
-------
9441.1991(13)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 1991
RCRA
1. Truck Transport of Wastewater for Purposes of Section 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A)
A treatment, storage and disposal facility manages a wastewater which is a mixture
of a solid waste and trichloroethylene in de minimis quantities as defined in Section
2613(a)(2)(iv)(A). If the facility transports the wastewater in trucks from an on-site
sump to its on-site NPDES-permitted wastewater treatment unit, does the waste still
qualify for the exemption from the definition of hazardous waste under Section
2613(a)(2)(iv)?
Yes, the waste still qualifies for the exemption. Section 2613(a)(2)(iv) does
not limit the means by which the wastewater may reach the wastewater
treatment unit in order to be eligible for the exemption from the definition of
a hazardous waste. The exemption requires only that that the wastewater be
treated in a wastewater treatment unit at a facility subject to regulation under
either section 402 or section 307(b) of the dean Water Act and the wastewater
must meet the dg minimis levels established in paragraphs (A) through (E).
Source Ron Josephson, OSW . (202)260-6715
Research: Melicent Brenner
-------
9441.1991(14)
RCRA/SDPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 1991
jf Off-Specification Circuit Printing Boards
Periodically, in a circuit board manufacturing process, individual circuit boards are
not considered to meet manufacturing specification standards. These units are
dismantled, and thernaterials are reclaimed for use in the construction of new
circuit boards. Assuming the circuit boards would exhibit a characteristic of 40 CFR
Subpart C, would the dismantling and recycling of the boards be subject to RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations?
No, reclamation of the off-specification circuit boards would not be subject to
the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations because the circuit boards
are not hazardous wastes.
By definition, for a waste to be a hazardous waste, it must be a solid waste (40
CFR. §2613). To determine whether a material is a solid waste when
reclaimed, it must first be determined whether the material is a spent
material, sludge, by-product, commercial chemical product, or scrap metii
(See 40 CFR §261.2(c)(3).) An ur.uaed circuit board is classified in the
chemical products category. Although the commercial in the chemical -
products category in Table 1 ot 40 CFR §261.2(c)(3) is labeled "commercial
chemical products listed in 40 CFK ^lol 33," as explained in a Federal Rtyiaa
notice published on April 11,19*?. < 50 PR 14219) the status of commeraai
chemical products not listed in 40 CFR §261 (Le., those that exhibit hazardous
wastes characteristics) is "the same as those that are listed in Section 26133."
These materials are normally solid wastes only if thrown away, and so are not
solid waste if reclaimed. Further, the Agency interprets commercial chemical
products to include all types of unused commercial products that exhibit
characteristics, whether or not they would commonly be considered chemicals
(e.g./ circuit boards, batteries, and other types of equipment).
Once it has been determined that the circuit boards are commercial chemical
products, 40 CFR §261.2(c)(3) indicates that they are not solid wastes when
they are to be reclaimed. Since the circuit boards are not solid wastes, they are
not hazardous wastes and the reclamation is not subject to the RCRA Subtitle
C hazardous waste regulations. It should also be noted that the 40 CFR
§261.2(0 requirement (persons who raise a claim that a material is not a solid
waste document must meet the terms of the exemption) may be applicable.
Source: Charlotte Mooney, OSW (202)260-6926
Research: Cynthia Hess
-------
9441.1991(15)
/ fi
USB
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Str- to 1391
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Mary R. White
Corporate Environmental Director
Quaker State Corporation
P.O. Box 989
Oil City, Pennsylvania 16301
Dear Ms. White:
Thank you for your letter of March 27, 1991, requesting a
delay in the imposition of the toxicity characteristic (TC) rule
on oil filters, because of its impact on the recycling of used
oil and oil filters.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has addressed
this issue in the enclosed used oil supplemental proposal
notice, which was published in the Federal Register on
September 23, 1991. The notice covers the used oil listing
alternatives and alternative standards for managing recycled
used oil. EPA will issue the final used oil regulation by
May 1, 1992.
For the following reasons, EPA does not believe a TC
exemption for used oil filters is needed at this time:
• the available TC data related to used oil filters suggest
that crushed filters may not exhibit the TC; and
• as I explained my October 30, 1990, memorandum to
Robert L. Duprey of EPA Region VIII, there are
existing exemptions for recycled used oil and recycled
used oil filters; no TC determination is necessary for
oil filters destined for recycling.
As discussed in the supplemental proposal (Appendix A
contains the pertinent portion of the proposal), analytical data
suggest that used oil filters devoid of free- flowing oil are
likely to be non-hazardous (i.e., they will pass the TC test).
In addition, the supplemental proposal requests comment on
specific issues on used oil filters, such as:
• what methods (e.g., draining, crushing, dismantling,
centrifuging, and cleaning with solvent) could be
employed to remove used oil from oil filters;
Printed on Pecvdee Paw
-------
• what criterion defines adequate "crushing";
• should the "one-drop" approach be used to determine when
a used oil mixture ceases to become "oil-free" solid
waste; and
• should oil filters containing insignificant quantities
of free-flowing oil be disposed of in municipal
landfills.
*•
Depending on public comments, EPA may finalize standards for
managing used oil filters when finalizing the used oil
regulation.
If the used oil rule becomes final as proposed, used oil
collected from oil filters would be subject to §3014 used oil
management standards; crushed or oil-free filters would continue
to be managed under the RCRA scrap metal exemption, or may be
disposed of in municipal landfills, provided the State allows
such disposal. In the interim, EPA may issue a directive
discussing management alternatives for generators of used oil
filters who are unable to recycle drained and crushed filters
under the .scrap metal exemption for economic or technical reasons
(e.g., reluctance of scrap metal handlers to accept oil filters).
If you have any further questions concerning the
supplemental notice, feel free to contact Ms. Rajni Joglekar
at (202) 260-3516. Thank you for your interest in the safe and
effective management of hazardous waste.
Sincerely
)irector
of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9441.1991(1*)
OCT 2 2 1991
Mr. Kevin S. Dunn
Project Manager
Environmental Policy Center
Lav Companies Environmental Group
1828 L Street, N.W.
Suite 711
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Dunn:
Thank you for your letter of May 28, 1991 regarding the
regulatory -status of industrial equipment which formerly
contained a hazardous waste. I apologize for the delay in
responding to your inquiry.
In your letter, you described a situation in which pumps
containing elemental mercury were taken out of service and used
as containers for temporary storage, transportation and handling
of the mercury before its treatment and disposal. You asked
whether the pumps could be regulated as non-hazardous wastes if
the mercury were removed from the pumps, in a manner consistent
with the requirements of 40 CFR 261.7 for empty containers.
It is our view that if the pumps meet the definition of
"container" in 40 CFR 260.10, thay are exempt from regulation
under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) after they are emptied in accordance with 40 CFR 261.7.
Section 260.10 defines "container" as "any portable device in
which a material is stored, transported, treated, disposed of, or
otherwise handled". If the pumps you describe are portable, they
may be managed as a non-hazardous waste under federal law.
This interpretation reflects the federal regulations
governing hazardous waste. States with authorized RCRA programs
may impose more stringent requirements. Such States also have
the authority to make regulatory determinations about the
materials which constitute hazardous wastes under their systems.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have
any further questions, please contact Mitch Kidvell of my staff
at (202) 260-8551.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9441.1991(17)
MOV 4 J99I
MEMORANDUM
*••
SUBJECT: Response to Region V Fuel-Blending Concerns
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS-300)
TO: David A. Ullrich, Director
Waste Management Division (SH-12)
This memorandum responds to your September 24, 1991,
memorandum requesting Headquarters views on the regulatory
interpretations made by Region V specific to hazardous waste
fuel-blending facilities. Your memorandum raised three issues
which will be presented separately along with our reaction to the
Regional interpretation.
ISSUE 1
A facility, in requesting a determination concerning RCRA
permit requirements, described its process as receiving waste
liquid and solid fuel stock, recycling the stock, and shipping
waste fuel to a kiln. The facility indicated that it considers
the fuel a recyclable material pursuant 40 CFR 261.6(a)(2)(ii)
and exempt from regulation.
ANSWER
We agree with the Region's interpretation that any unit that
meets the definition of a "tank" or a "tank system" is subject to
regulation. Blending or other treatment to produce a hazardous
waste fuel is not exempt. In fact, the facility seems to have
misread 40 CFR 261.6(a)(2)(ii) which states recyclable materials
such as hazardous wastes burned in boilers and industrial
furnaces (BIF): "... are not subject to the requirements of this
section [i.e. 261.6] but are regulated under Sections C through G
of Part 266 of this chapter and ... Parts 270 and 124." Thus,
these units are subject to permitting.
The facility's rebuttal of the Region's earlier
determination attempts to define the unit's purpose as different
from storage. The "purpose" of the unit is moot; if it^treating
-------
or storing hazardous waste, then it is regulated. The diagrammed
process, including grinders, filters, etc., appears to meet the
definition of a tank and its ancillary equipment. If the unit or
a component is not a tank or a tank system, or if it has
additional features that would potentially affect emissions or
releases to the environment, then it would be regulated under
Subpart X (miscellaneous units) or permit conditions may be added
based on the omnibus authority of Section 3005(c)(3) of RCRA, as
amended.
ISSUE 2
Considering the BIF rule, can a fuel-blending TSD accept
low-BTU (less than 5000 BTU/lb.) into its mixing program?
ANSWER
A marketer of hazardous waste fuel currently can, and has
previously been able to accept low BTU fuel. However, there are
certain factors which govern whether a BIF can accept waste fuel
originating from low-BTU waste. Under the sham recycling policy
BIFs have not generally been allowed to burn hazardous waste fuel
that had a heating value of less than 5000 BTU/lb. A low-BTU
fuel (as generated) had to be processed to increase the heating
value to greater than 5000 BTU/lb. by a means other than blending
(e.g., decanting aqueous liquids) before it could be burned.
Now that the BIF rule has been promulgated, the BIFs can
burn low-BTU waste after they conduct compliance emission testing
with low-BTU waste and certify compliance under the new interim
status standards. See section 266.103
-------
If you have any question concerning our interpretation of
these fuel-blending issues, please call Sonya Sasseville (260-
3132) or Chester Oszman (260-4499) of my staff.
Attachment
cc: Hazardous Waste Division Director, Regions 1-4 & 6-10
Regional Subpart X Contacts
Regional Incineration Contacts
Sonya Sasseville, OSW
Chester Oszman, OSW
-------
9441.1991(18)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
DEC -9 1991 OFF.CE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. James C. Brown
c/o American Electronics Association
1225 Eye St., N.W., Suite 950
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for your letter of October 2, 1991, describing
your concerns about our recent interpretation of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations that apply to
solder dross generated in manufacturing printed circuit boards.
To briefly restate the issue, you are concerned about a
March 19, 1991 letter from David Bussard that classifies solder
"dross" generated by the use of solder in printed circuit board
manufacturing as a spent material under the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations (and thus, as a solid and hazardous waste). The
March 19 letter was based upon the information that we had at the
time, and differentiates between spent materials and by-products.
As you noted in our October 16 meeting, previous EPA statements
about the status of solder dross and solder skimmings from
printed circuit board manufacturing were that skimmings and
drosses are by-products - and thus are not solid or hazardous
wastes when reclaimed, under the federal RCRA regulations (40 CFR
261.2).
The term "dross" is frequently used by industry to refer to
an oxide layer that forms on the surface of molten metal,
regardless of whether the metal is a virgin metal being reshaped
into a different form, or is a metal in use (such as solder).
Previous statements, and an example in the January 4, 1985
Federal Register preamble, have generally referred to "drosses"
as by-products under the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
Although some drosses are by-products under federal rules, the
language of the regulations and the circumstances of a material's
use, including whether the material becomes contaminated,
Printed on Recycled Psoer
-------
determine how it is classified. For example, when circuit board
manufacturers have to change their solder baths due to
contamination, the material removed from the bath is a spent
material.
It appears that our imprecise use of the term "dross" and
previous statements that solder skimmings or drosses are "by-
products" may have led to widespread practices in the electronics
manufacturing industries, where the skimmings have been managed
as if they were by-products (and thus, neither solid nor
hazardous wastes when reclaimed).
He think it is important to obtain additional information.
We are currently in the process of gathering information to
determine how the solder drosses or skimmings generated in
printed circuit board manufacturing should be regulated, if at
all, under RCRA Subtitle C. That information will include the
levels of contamination in dross and skimmings as solders are
used in circuit board manufacturing as well as a broader look at
information bearing upon the handling of dross and skimmings
after removal from the solder bath. The information, as well as
the issues raised about classifying dross in the future under
RCRA, are also relevant in the broader context of revisions to
the definition of solid waste. We hope to publish an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking discussing these revisions by the
end of the year, to engage public debate on these important
questions. Many of the issues you raised in your October 2
letter are part of larger questions, such as whether to use the
regulations as a tool to encourage safely conducted resource
recovery.
Therefore, until we have gathered more data on the
industry's practices (both at generator sites and recycling
facilities), we will continue to treat solder drosses generated
from soldering printed circuit boards as by-products, rather than
"as spent materials. As a result, solder drosses from printed
circuit board manufacturing that are reclaimed would not have to
be managed as solid or hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations
(40 CFR 261.2). Please note that this letter relates only to the
federal hazardous waste regulations. States may have
requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope; thus,
you would need to contact individual states to determine their
requirements in a specific situation.
With respect to the particular solder drosses in question,
this letter is based on specific factual circumstances, including
your reliance on prior Agency statements. Thus, this letter has
no application to other industries or materials.
-------
Thank you once again for your interest in this natter. If
you have further questions please contact David Bussard of my
staff at (202) 260-4637.
Sincerely yours,
S,,/ D
%*y A
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
-------
9441.1991(19)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 1991
1. Reclaimed Spent Wood Preservative
Exclusion in 40 CFR Section 261.4(a)(9)
In the December 6,1990, Federal Register (55
ER 50450), EPA promulgated hazardous waste
listings for three wastes generated from wood
preserving processes: F032. F034, and F035.
These listings include spent wood preserving
solutions which are often collected on drip pads,
reclaimed (usually by means of filtration or oil/
water separation), and reused again in wood
preserving processes. If a wood preserving facility
uses reclaimed spent preservative (F032, F034, or
F035) to treat wood products which are
subsequently placed on the land, would the
reclaimed spent preservative be regulated as a
hazardous waste under the derived-from rule (40
CFR §261J(c)(2)) since it is derived from the
treatment (reclamation) of a listed waste?
No. Although in the general case, materials
reclaimed from hazardous wastes that are used in a
manner constituting disposal continue to be
regulated as solid and. if hazardous, hazardous
wastes, an exclusion from regulation as solid and.
thus, as hazardous wastes was promulgated with
the new listings for reclaimed spent wood
preserving solutions that are reused for their
intended purpose.
Generally, the derived-from rule in 40 CFR
§261.3(c)(2) classifies any solid waste derived
from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a listed
hazardous waste as that hazardous waste. There is
an exception to this rule. In §261.3(c)(2)(i). a
material that is reclaimed from a hazardous waste
and used beneficially, e.g., used as a product, is
no longer considered a solid waste, and thus is
not a hazardous waste. This exception does not
apply, however, when a reclaimed material is
used, burned for energy recovery, or used in a
manner constituting disposal. Because in this
case the wood products treated with the reclaimed
wood preserving solutions are placed on the land
(used in a manner constituting disposal), the
§261.3(c)(2)(i) exclusion would not apply to the
reclaimed preservatives or to the treated wood
products. Thus, the preservatives and the wood
products would be regulated as derived-from
listed hazardous wastes. In the December 6.
1990. final rule, however, the Agency stated that
"regulating reclaimed spent preservative and
products made with reclaimed spent preservative
was not and is not EPA's intent" To implement
this intent, an exclusion from the definition of
solid waste was promulgated under §261.4(a)(9).
which excludes from the definition of solid waste
those spent wood preserving solutions and waste
waters that have been reclaimed and will be
reused for their original intended purpose. Thus.
under 40 CFR §261.4(a)(9), once spent wood
preserving solutions are reclaimed and have been
renamed to the process (i.e., the work tank), the
reclaimed solutions used for their intended
purpose (wood preserving) are not solid wastes
and thus not hazardous wastes.. Note that this
exclusion does not apply to the recycling process
(the recycling unit would be exempt from
permitting under §261.6(c)), or to any prior
management of the spent preservative. Also, note
that the wording of the §261.4(a)(9) exemption
was corrected in the July 1,1991,
notice. (56 £& 30192).
------- |