United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-SW-91-062E
Environmental Protection Emergency Response August 1991
Agency (OS-343)
RCRA Permit Policy
Compendium
Volume 5
9442.1980 - 9444.1986
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste (Part 261)
• Criteria for Identifying Hazardous Waste
• Characteristics of Hazardous Waste
• Lists of Hazardous Waste
ATKl/1607/4c
-------
Criteria For Identifying The
Characteristics Of Hazardous Waste
And Listing Hazardous Wastes
ATKl/1112/5sm
-------
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.
-------
---- •-- -i «• ta.i tn» mur»mcrii AL r-KUl t(.T IUN AGfeNC.Y
OATE :.ic .-. . SSBEC 2 6 1984
9442.1934(01)
RCRA Reguiatory Status of Contaminated Groundwater
FROM John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
James Scarbroughf Chief
Residuals Management Branch, Region IV
The memo dated July 20, 1984, which you retransmitted
December 7, 1984, explores the regulatory status of contaminated
ground water. Actually, the issue is not whether groundwater
that contains Appendix VIII constituents is a hazardous waste,
because generators do not use Appendix VIII tio» identify hazardous
waste. Rather, EPA designates solid wastes that contain Appendix
VIII constituents as listed hazardous waste after considering
the criteria listed in 40 CFR §261.11(a). Then a generator
identifies hazardous waste using the criteria listed in 40 CFR
S261.3U) and the decision matrix of 40 CFR S262.ll.
Thus, to answer the question: "Is ground water contaminated
by hazardous waste considered to be hazardous waste?" one uses
the criteria in $261.3 to see if the water was a solid waste,
and either derived from listed waste or hazardous by characteristics
identified in Subpart C. Note that S261.3(c)(2) says that any
solid waste generated from the treatment, storage or disposal of
a hazardous waste is a hazardous waste, and §261. 3 (d) says a
waste is no longer hazardous when it no longer exhibits the
characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C or
until a listed waste (or waste derived from listed waste) has
been excluded under the petitioning process.
Therefore a contaminated groundwater that is "collected"
and derived from listed waste or hazardous by characteristic
is a hazardous waste and subject to Subtitle C regulation.
However, the reauthorization bill allows underground injection
of contaminated ground water that has been treated to substantially
reduce the hazardous constituents.
Of 'course, the implications on permitting, interim status
compliance order corrective actions, and treatment of ground
water will need to be studied. If you have any further questions,
do not hestitate to contact Irene Horner of my staff at 382-4804.
cc Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I -III and V-X
Gene Lucero, Enforcement
T>A fmm 1320-ct (••«. J-74)
-------
9442.1985(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 85
Burning and Blending
8. A generator of used oil-burns the used oil on-site in an industrial ooiier.
The used oil neither exhibits a Subpart C characteristic of a hazarcous waste
nor exceed* any of the specification levels listed in §266.40(6) t^vemoer 29,
1385, Federal Register (50 FR 49164)). If the generator olends unused produc-
xylene (hazardous waste number U239) into the used oil, does he then nave a
hazardous waste fuel (per $261.6 (a)(2)(ID) which is subject to regulation
under Suopart D of Part 266?
Xylene is a coimercial chemical product listed in $261.33(f). U.S. EPA
has determined, however, that listed conmercial chemical products are not
solid wastes (or hazardous wastes) when burned for energy recovery if
they are themselves fuels or normal components of conmercial fuels per
$261.33 wnich states that such materials are not "discarded", and restated
in footnote 8 of the Noventoer 29, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 49168).
Xylene is a normal component of fuel. Therefore, the unused xylene is
neither a regulated solid wast* nor hazardous waste when burned for energy
recovery. The generator's used oil has not been mixod with hazardous waste
and is not a hazardous waste fuel. Therefore it will not be subject to
Part 266, Subpart 0 regulation per $261.33 and 261.6(a) (2)(ii). The
used oil, however, is being burned for energy recovery and so is regulated
under Part 266, Subpart E, per $266.40(a). Section 266.42 states that
generators who burn used oil are subject to $266.44. The burner must
notify under Section 3010 of RCRA for his used oil management activities
and maintain docunentation or analysis showing that the used oil meets the
specifications.
Source: Bob Holloway (202) 382-7917
-------
9442.1936(01
JAN I 6 B86
Mf. John SIearner
environmental
Solid T«k Systems, Inc.
5371 Cook Road
P.O. Box 888
Morrow, Georgia 30260-0888
Dear Mr. Slemmert
Thia ia in response to your letters dated November 27
and December 27, 1985, concerning the identification of
residues generated from the treatment of hasardous waates.
In particular, you aak whether the identifiction numbers that
go on the manifest that accompanies the treated waste should
be baaed on the hasardoua waate characteristics oK the treated
waste, the composition of the treated waste, or both.
The answer to this question depends both on which wastes
are being treated and the characteristics of the treatment
residue. If the TSD facility is treating only characteristic
hazardous wastes, the identification number that goes on the
manifest for the treatment residue would be that number that
is assigned to the characteristic for which the waste still
exhibits (i.e., if the treated waate exhibits the characteristic
of ignitabillty, the identification number would be 0001).
Of course, if the treatment residue no longer exhibits any
of the characteristics of hasardous waste, the waste would
no longer be hasardous and aubject to Subtitle C control.
If, on the other hand, the treatment facility treats both
listed and characteristic hasardous wastes or just listed
hasardous waste, the identification number that goes on the
manifest for the treatment residue would be that of the
untreated listed waste and that number that corresponds to
the characteriatic for which the waste exhibits, if any.
Thus, in that example provided in your letter, you are correct
that the identification number for the treated residue is
U012. You are also correct that the TSD becomes a generator
of the treated waste.
-------
......
Sinc«r«ly,
cni.f *• striu»
I0.ntinc.elon 8r.nch
-------
9442. 1986( 02)
rtEMORANDOM
SUBJECTi Oisoosal of Anti-Neoplastic Agents In Hospital Wastes
PROrti
TO I
Jeff Denit, Deputy Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief
EPA, Region X
Waste Management srancn
The issue regarding possible hazards DO sod by anti-neoplastic
drugs has been brought to our attention within the last couple of
years. Uith large increases in both the numbers of anti-neonlastics
available for use in chemotherapy and the number of patients being
treated with these drugs, hospital personnel have expressed con-
cern with handling and disposal of these chemicals (and materials
contaminated with these chemicals).
Anti-neoplasties, as a class of chemicals, are not regulated
under RCSA. 4o*ever, the following are list-vl as hasardous waste
under 40 CPR. 261.33(f)s
UOJb Chi or ambuc 11
U053 Cy c 1 op hoe ph amide
U059 Uaunonycin
ulSU Melphalan
•JOU Mito*iycin C
U206 Streptosotocin
U2J7 Jracll -austard
However, since these wastes are identifio'l only as 'toxic*
wastes, under S261.22(f) they are subject to the standard
snail quantity generator exclusion. As a nractical *nattar, thi?
means that unless large volumes of these chenicals are cUsc^rde^
( i,.e., 100 kg/no or *aore) which in nost canes is unlikely, or
tne facility is a large quantity generator* the majority of
these wastes will remain unregulated.
The Agency is aware that manufacturers and health care
facilities recoaaend incineration of anti-neoplasties and materials
contaminated with these chemicals. Although there is no concensus
among health care professionals as to the appropriate tenperature
-------
necessary for destruction/ many facilities art incinerating
these wastes at temperatures between 1800*-2200 *P. Sine*
the Agency has not investigated th« efficiencies of incineratino
these wastes/ we have not provided guidance or taken a DOS!tion
with respect to this issue.
At this tiae, we have no plans to comait resources to the
study of anti-neoplasties or to initiate any further rulemakinq
action. »Je recamend that State officials (in Seattle) contact
the manufacturers of these drugs to gather inforaation on recoo-
handling and disposal practices.
-------
944 2 . 198 6 (03
MEflORANDOH
SUBJECT! Carbon Regeneration Facilities
PROM: Marc la Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Stephen R. Wassersug, Director
Hasardous Waste Management
Division (3HWOO)
This Is in resoonse to your March 11, 1986* memorandum
regarding the applicability of the RCRA hasardous waste rules
to carbon regeneration facilities. In oarticular:
1) Is the spent carbon a solid waste?
In general, yes. As you correctly state in your
letter, spent carbon can be defined as a spent material or a
sludge (i.e., spent carbon would normally be considered a
spent material, unless it results from pollution control in
which case it is considered a sludge). Scent materials
(whether or not they are listed or contain a listed hazardous
waste) and listed sludges being reclaimed are solid waste.
In addition, if the spent carbon contains A characteristic
spent material (and the spent carbon itself exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic)* it also is a solid waste. On the other
hand, if the spent carbon contains a characteristic sludge
or by-oroduct, it is not defined as a solid waste (even if the
spent carbon exhibits a hasardous waste characteristic).
2) Is the spent carbon a hasardous waste?
Yes. That spent carbon defined as solid waste (as
described above) is also hasardous if It contains a listed
hasardous waste or exhibits a hasardous waste characteristic.
3) Which Part 264 standards apply?
If the spent carbon is a solid and hasardous waste,
the owner or operator of the facility must comply with the
-------
r*** frtK5L5**?trT**5*'At*cittdlft« rooaiwUg'a permit.
aotual •»!•• iratioa facility, including the aftarburnar,
is axoapt mm rogulatioa, nc4**ar. In particular, racyclabl«
•atariala ettar thaji tboaa u*od Jb a Mannar constituting
diapooal ara ovrraatly aubjaot only to traaaportatloa and
atoraga standards. I/ iba r •cycling facility itaolf, including
•alMleo* froa th« facility, ar« not oumatly aiabjact to
r*gulatlo«. (Io« should oot« that if th« facility did not
(voluntarily) ua« an aftarburncr to Blniaisa organic ••iaaioni,
tha ovcatloo of 1CIA applicability vould net «*«n hav« bMn
ralaad.) la tha futura, «• intand to loo* at othar recycling
oporatlona aach aa carbon raganoratloji to dotaralna if atandarda
ara war ran tad.
Tour coftcarn that a da t*r»l nation that tha off-ga* it an
uorayulttad aaiaaloA would har« adv«r»« raaUflcatioaa for incin-
aratioa facilltiaa doaa not appaar to ba a aajor proolaa. lou
•>pr«aa«d coacarn that aa incinarator operator eoald vaporl**
hla vaata la a nonflaaw davlaa prior to lajaetioa ia aa incinarator
and claim that tha uacoafiaod gaa la aa unrogalatod traataant
aaiaaion. Such a claia ia not llkaly to ba aaocaaaful bacauaa
operator would aood to ahov that tha vapor isatloa amutitutaa bom
fida r •cycling not integral to tha laclMrator. •§ OM'% baliarT'
auch a ahowing can bo aada. ^
If you hava further quaatioaa or coavanta* oontaot Hatt
Straua at 475-tSSl or Bobert Bolloway at 3§2-7tJ«.
ssrsSKrSKrK^lr
fl^fL JiJ. .«2r standards that would control
-------
9442.1986(04)
MAY 5 .*£
Honorable Richard G. Luqar
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Lugar:
Thank you for your latter oc April 9, 1986, concerning the
Union Carbide tacility in Henderson County, Kentucky. You askerl
about the location ot the plant and the listing ot Tf-1 under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). I would like
to tirst clarity my understanding of the proposed Union Carbide
operation.
Union Carbide has applied for a permit to recycle TP-1, used
as a flushing agent in electrical transformers, th«t has been
contaminated with PCBs. Solid wast* t'roa this recycling process
will bo transported oft-site to a permitted TSCA facility tor
incineration. The TP-1 will be processed at the Henderson facility
after Union Carbide drains and flushes the transformers at its
customer's site.
The State ot Kentucky issued Union Carbia-? a construction
permit under the authority ot the State's Air Pollution Control
Act in December 1985. Union Carbide also applied to EPA for a
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) permit. Union Carbide submitted
its application to EPA'a Region IV office in February 1986 and a
test demonstration plan in early April 1986. Both subreittals are
now under review by the Region. TSCA requires that EPA consider
location during this review to ensure that permit issuance would
not constitute an "unreasonable risk" to human health and tho
environment. In addition* due to citlsen and Congressional concerns,
EPA Region IV is voluntarily conducting a public health and environ-
mental assessment of the area surrounding th« facility.
Prior to operation, Union Carbide must successfully conduct
demonstration testing* and secure a TSCA operating permit ano a
Kentucky Air Pollution Control Act operating permit. Once in
operation, the facility must conduct routine testing to ensure
permit standards are continually met.
Secondly, I would like to clarify why the intonation presented
by Or. Howard E. Dunn is not sufficient in itself to list TP-1 as
a hazardous waste. The possible inclusion ot one or more ot the
-------
chemical constituent* of TP-i in 40 CFR 261.33 would not auto-
matically 0iake a mixture of these constituents a hazardous waste.
This "listing* refers only to the commercially pure grade of the
chemical, any technical grades ot the chemical that arc produced
or marketed, and all formulations in which the chemical is the
sole active ingredient. Thus, TF-1 could contain a constituent
listed in 40 CFR 261.33 and not b« a hazardous waste. I cannot
comment on the specific chemical composition of TP-1, due to
regulations concerning confidential business information.
In order for EPA to promulgate a rule listing a waste as
hazardous/ factors in addition to toxicity must be considered.
These include the concentration of the constituents, quantity of
waste generated/ the persistence and potential of tho constituents
to migrate from the waste and move into the environment, and the
plausible types of mismanagement to which the waste may be
subject. Based on these factors, a waste will then be "listed"
when the data allows the Agency to conclude that the waste may
pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health
or the environment when improperly managed.
Because of the absence of existing data in this area, EPA
has scheduled toxicity tests for several of th* TP-1 components.
Once this testing is completed, a determination can b« made on
whether these constituents are hazardous and whether the waste
should be listed.
If you should have specific questions on the permitting
process, you nay wish to contact Connie Jones, EPA Region IV
(404-881-2091), or J. Alex Barber, Kentucky Department of
Environmental Protection (502-564-6716). Please let me know
if you have any rurther questions.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
cc: J. Alex Barber
Connie Jones
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9442.1986(04a) :
Mr. i'.ichard T. Enander •
JaoU Harry Andrews Ko*J c
Uesc Greanwicn, Rhode Island 02816 [
c
Ooar nr. Enander:
four inquiry of April 22, 1986 has been referred to the
Cnaracterization and Assessment Division of the Office of Solid
has evaluated tne relative carcinogenic potencies anonq
54 suspect human carcinogens. These are published in niany of
the Hoalth Assessment Documents developed by the Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment (OHEA). I have enclosed a copy of
such a table from a recent Health Assessment Document for tetro-
ciiloroethylene. For further informacion concerning othe>r susoect
carcinogens, mutAge^a, or teratoqens, I sugqest you contact Mr.
Peter ireuss, Director of OHEA. He can be reached at (202)
JJ2-7315.
The Office of Solid Waste uses this health assessment
information along with other evaluations of potential exposure
ano mismanagement in making a regulatory decision on whether
a waste is hazardous. The criteria EPA uses are codified at
40CFH sections 261.10 and 261.11, a copy of which is alco en-
closed.
I hope these lists are useful to you.
Sincerely,
Eileen B. Clausnen
Director
Characterisation ft Assessment
Division (UH-562D)
Enclosures
-------
9442 . 198 6(0!
:'r. Neil Gingold
General Counsel
Snvirosure
333 Canson Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
Dear Mr. Ginqold:
This is in response to your letter of June 12, 1987, in which
you requested clarification regarding waste tracking and classifi-
cation. First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in
responding to your letter; I hope my delay hasn't caused you any
problems. The answers to your questions are as follows:
1. EPA's current policy on mixing low and high Btu wastes
is summarized in an enforcement guidance memo published
in the Federal Register of March 16, 1983. (Enclosure
1.) As the guidance memo explains, a deteraination of
what constitutes "•ham burning* depends on a number of
factors presented by the circumstances of a particular
case; the energy value of the wastes being blended or
burned is likely to be of primary significance in most
cases. Blending a low Btu wasts (i.e., less than 5000
Btu/lb.) with a higher Btu waste would not normally
change the "sham* character of the subsequent burning.
You should note that, as the guidance memo points out,
other fsctors are considered in distinguishing sham from
legitimate burning, and that BPA will sst a priority on
shaa burning in non-industrial settings. Also, as you
correctly point out, BPA has proposed a new fuels policy
ia tas) fora of revisions to the hazardous waste burning
resjalations. On May 6, 1987, BPA proposed standards for
btxBura and furnaces burning hazardous waste. (See Bn-
clss)Bre 2.) The proposed standards would apply to boll-
era smd furnaces burning hazardous wasts regardless of
whether the purpose was energy recovery or destruction,
so the "sham recycling* distinction would no longer be
relevant* (Id. at 16989.) BPA has accepted public com-
ments on ths May 6 proposal and we will be asking deci-
sions regarding the final rule within the next year.
Until this regulation is mads final, ths enforceaent
policy will remain in effect.
-------
-2-
^3 a final oont on burnino of wastes, you should note
that th« '.J.s. Court of Appeals for the District of Col-
u ibi.-i r-siched * decision on July 31, 1987, tnat calls
into question EPA's authority to reaulate certain waste
rscycling activities. SPA is studying the opinion to
Jetersine its scope, because the Court has not yet
issued its nandate, the regulations currently in the
Code of Federal Regulations defining what is "solid
waste," and establishing regulations for recycled
hazardous waste, remain in effect.
2. Listed wastes never "lost their identify." Hastes are
tracked on the manifest by waste code under U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation (DOT) regulations at 49 CPR Parts
171 and 172.I/ For mixtures, you Bust enter each waste
code in the mixture on the manifest. Further, you should
note that facilities in interim status must specify on
their ''Part A* permit application the hazardous waste
they will be receiving (see 40 CPR S270.13(j)) and must
amend the Part A to receive new wastes (5270.72(a)).
Also, a RCRA permit granted to a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility nay specify the specific haaardous
wastes the facility is authorised to accept. Finally, a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility aust keep an
operating record with very specific infornation on each
hazardous waste at the facility. (See SS264.73 and
265.73.)
3. All of the requirements referenced in answer nuaber 2,
above, require tracking of individual wastes by shipment
(and if necessary, by container).
4. The proper classification of waste treatsient residuals
(the filter cake in your caae) depends on the wastes enter-
Mag year treatment systea. Onder 40 CPU S2€1.3(c)(2)(i),
aay waste derived-from treating a hasardous waste is
its*If a hazardous waste. Such "derived-froa" wastes
I/ Please note a couple of points regarding waste shipment tracking.
~ First, the DOT rules referred to above do not require the EPA
wasta coda for *U* and "P" listed wastes. Thio is because o
and P cheaicals aust already be described by their specific
cheaical naaes undar 49 CPU Part 171. You should also note that
although EPA does not require the IPA wasta codas to be placed
on the hazardous waste manifest, SOBS States d& require BPA's
(or their own) codes to be entered on tha manifest in addition
to the DOT requireaents.
-------
-3-
?re ^ssi-^nerj the w/sste code(s) of the incoming (!:_*.•»
d) wastos. rh.js, ir ~ore than one listed wast-?
treated, the treated residue would be identified r,y
all the listed wastes treated.
If you have further questions in this area, olease contact
Mike Petruska of my staff'at (202) 475-6676.
Sincerely,
Sylvia Lowrance, Acting Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
9442.1986(07)
Mr. Richard T. Boulware
Vipont Bocanical Laboratories
2403 E. Kivett Drive «
High Point, North Caroline 27260 JUI
Dear Mr. Boulware.
This is in response to your May 27, 1986 letter, requesting
an interpretation of the Federal hazardous waste rules as they
apply to the wastes to be generated in your extraction process.
As you state in your letter, this process uses the solvent
metftylene chloride to recover alkaloids from plant matter.
The two wastes for which you request specific information on
are: (1) the solid cake remaining in the basket centrifuge,
and (2) the wastewater stream discharged to a POTW.
Solid Cake - I agree with your understanding that the
solid cake in the basket is not a listed hazardous waste,
namely, a spent solvent—and would only be hazardous it
it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction
procedure (£P) toxicity), in addition, when the TCLP is
promulgated, you will also need to determine: whether the
solid cake exhibits this characteristic.
Wastewater - This wastestream, as you state in your
letter and as we discussed on June 27, cones off the
centrifuge as a wastewater that contains methylene
chloride; the methylene chloride is then stripped ott to
be reclaimed while the wastewater is discharged to a
POTW. Under this scheme, the wastewater also is not
considered a listed waste (nor does it contain a listed
waste). Therefore, this stream also would only be
hazardous if it exhibits any of the existing or future
hazardous waste characteristics.
Finally, although you did not request an interpretation
of the status of the spent nethylene chloride under the
federal hazardous waste rules, you should be aware that the
spent methylene chloride that comes ott the liquid extractor
is considered a listed hazardous waste and may be subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. (See the Final Definition
-------
on June 30. 1986, t deern
of the solvent spent methylene choride )
Please feel free to give me a cal
rurther ...ist.n=e; ,ny t
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chiet
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
JTED • TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTw-flON A ^CY 9442.1986(08)
pjjG 2 !
Ms. Janet Matey
Chemical Manutacturers Assn., Inc.
2501 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Ms Matey:
I would like to sunrarize the information you discussed with Eileen Claussen
during your phone conversation regarding the Office of Solid Waste's program
for relisting hazardous wastes. Our goal is to amend the current hazardous
waste listings so that their applicability can be better detined; our current
thinking is to redefine the listings by setting concentration limits (either
in the waste or in the leacnate from the waste) for the various toxic constituents
currently identified or expected to be added in Appendix VII of Part 261.
That is, waste or leacnate from the waste that contains the toxic constituents
of concern below the levels to be set in the amended listings, would no longer
be designated as a listed hazardous waste; the waste would still tip hazardous,
however, if it exhibits one or more of the hazardous characteristics detined
in 40 CFR 261.21-261.24.
Based on a review of the available data, the Agency has identified the need
to obtain additional constituent concentration data for the currently listed wastes
in oraer to determine the level at which the constituents of concern could present
a hazard. Thus, wo plan to visit a number of facilities generating the listed
hazardous wastes, and collect samples of these streons for analyses. We are in
the process of identifying plants to visit and will contact those plants within
the next few weeks to make arrangements for sampling this fall.
We encourage your members to submit any available data on waste or leacnate
composition, ground water monitoring, and toxic effects that will help the Agency
establish appropriate concentration levels for toxic constituents in their wastes.
Your cooperation and assistance in this eftort will be appreciated. Should
you have any questions regarding this program or need additional information,
please contact me at (202) 382-4766.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
-------
9442.1987(02
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
... 24 -
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY PESPON!
Mr. Richard Ekfelt
Director of Regulatory Affairs
American Coke and Coal Chemicals
Institute
1255 Twenty-third Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Dear Mr. Ekfelt:
Jeff Denit and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with
you on June 3, 1987, to discuss the Agency's study to determine
whether additional residual streams from by-product coke plants
and coal tar refineries should be listed as hazardous wastes
under RCRA. This meeting helped us understand the concerns of
ACCCI members about the study; we hope that it clarified the
objectives of EPA's study of the coke industry. This letter pro-
vides additional information to address the questions and concerns
that were raised by ACCCI in your meeting with Ed Abxam's and
Dennis Wallace on May 14 and your May 26 letter to Mr. Abrams.
The responses below are organized to be consistent with your
letter.
la. To date, "trigger" levels for specific constituents pre-
sent in coke wastes have not been established. When
established, these "trigger" levels will be health-based,
not technology-based, and will be determined by first
developing exposure limits for human consumption via
drinking water and inhalation. Next, the exposure
limits will be used to calculate leachate and aiz
emission concentrations using models developed by the
Agency that predict transport through ground water or
dispersion through air. Finally, models that predict
rate of constituent release from the waste will be used
to calculate the regulatory levels in the residual stream.
Ib. The term "primarily aqueous", as used in Mr. Wallace's
letter to Mz. Eagle, referred to waste water streams.
Specific examples include wast* ammonia liquoz, waste
waters from direct contact final coolers and light oil
recovery operations, and tar refinery wast* waters.
The Agency has not established specific limits for solids
content, ozganics content, oz percent water to define
these streams; they essentially are the streams that
are commonly defined by the industry as waste waters.
The leachate procedure that will be used foz the streams
-------
-2-
is the same TCLP procedure that will be used for all
streams. The TCLP procedure is defined in Appendix I
to 40 CFR Part 268. (See 51 FR 40643 for a definition
of the procedure.) For residuals that have less than
0.5 percent solids (a condition that we assume will
hold for most waste waters), the residual stream is the
leachate per that procedure.
Any waste water discharges that are point source dis-
charges under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act are
excluded from the definition of solid waste (and con-
sequently are not hazardous wastes) per 40 CFR Part
261.4(a)(2). Further, persuant to 40 CFR Part 264.1
(g)(2), the requirements of Part 264 do not apply to
the owner or operator of a wastewater treatment unit
as defined in 40 CFR Part 261.10. Among other require-
ments, Part 261.10 defines waste water treatment unit
as a device which is Part of a waste water treatment
facility which is subject ot regulation under either
Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act; and meets
the definition of tank (also defined in Section 261.10.).
Thus, tanks may meet the criteria for the exclusion,
but the exclusion would not apply to surface Impound-
ments. As you are aware, some coke plant wastewaters
are treated in surface impoundments rather than tanks;
therefore, OSW is obligated to examine the need for
regulating these waste streams and treatment units
under RCRA. The samples that we are collecting are
necessary to determine the need to regulate these
streams.
The decisions related to listing additional coke plant
residuals as hazardous wastes will be based on the
criteria established in 40 CFR Part 261.11. These
criteria are based on the potential hazard posed by
the wastes and the potential for mismanagement of the
waste and, as such, are not related directly to waste
minimization concerns.
The listing of these wastes probably will not
require major changes in the recycling and recovery
practices that are used by many coke plants. The pro-
posed zule for burning waste in boilers and industrial
furnances (see 52 FR 17019), May 6, 1987), specifies
that the coke and coal tar produced when tar decanter
sludge (K035) is used as a feedstock are classified as
products not wastes. The rationale for this proposal
was that the residual and the normal feedstock or
product have common constituents and that the residual
streams and products are associated with the same
-------
-3-
process. Based on our understanding of the residual
streams that we are examining and the current recylcing
practices for those streams (use as a feedstock in the
coke ovens or combination with tar in the aecanter ) ,
these practices are likely to be deemed acceptable
under the rationale established for the K035 stream.
4. The "trigger" levels that will be established under this
listing/relisting study will not define technology-based
limits to whcih residuals must be treated; they will be
used to determine whether a waste stream is a "listed
waste." When a waste stream has constituents at or
below the "trigger" levels, or if it is treated to reduce
constituents to those levels, it will cease to be a
hazardous waste, unless it exhibits one of the hazardous
characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21-24. If the
residual stream has constituent concentrations above
the "trigger" level, it will be a hazardous waste and
must be treated, stored, and disposed in a manner that
complies with the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 262
through 266 and 270.
5. As a part of this study, detailed information on waste
management practices has been requested from most coke
plant and taz refinery operators. These data will be
compiled and summarized in the background documents that
form the basis for the listing decision. Based on the
recent proposal related to tar decanter sludge that was
described above, we anticipate that the information
presented in these background documents will enable the
Agency to make sound judgements on environmentally
acceptable management practices, as well as the potential
for a given waste to be improperly managed.
I hope that these responses have addressed the concerns that
you raised in your May 26 letter. If you have queotions about
the responses please call me at (202) 382-4769.
Sincerely,
Robert Scaberry
Chief, Listing Section
cc: Jeff Denit
Matt Straus
Ed Abrams
Dennis Wallace
-------
9442. 198 7(03
JIL 28B87
Ms. ShimAee Schiffman, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous Waste Regulation
and Classification
State of Me* Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
401 Bast State Street
Trenton, MY 08623
Dear Ms. Schiffmant
This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1987, in
which you requested our interpretation on several ioaues involving
electroplating rinsewaters. Specifically, you requested eonfiraatic
of your conclusions drawn as a result of, your telemfcoae converse^
tions with Mr. David Topping, of ay staff. In addition, you _ •: _
requested our answers to five specific questions relating to the *
hasardous waste/non*hasardous waste status of ueed iom exchange
resins that were used to treat electroplating rinsewaters.
First, Z would like to respond to the two questions you
discussed with Mr. David Topping. In particular, I agree with
your conclusions thatt 1) rinsewaters fro* electroplating opera"
tions were not meant to be included in the F009 listing (spent
stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating opera-
tions where cyanides are used in the process), and 2) residual
droplets of stripping, cleaning, or electroplating solutions
present on the metal would not sake the rinsewaters hazardous by
the •mixture rule* when the metal parts are rineed off. In the
first case, rinsewaters axe not considered spent stripping or
cleaning bath solutionsj ia the second case, trace amounts of
plating bath solutions that are carried over to rinse tanks are
not considered to be a solid waste mixing with another solid
waste. TmejM materials are ia use and axe not wastes until they
ore spent spi removed from the process. The reaaining questions
will be instated in the same order that they axe presented in your
letter s
1. Tour first question asks "can a wastewator treatment
system which only is treating a non-hasardoua electro-
plating waste (such aa riasewaters) produce an F006
listed hazardous waste?* The aaawer to this question
is yesi the sludge fro* the treatment of electroplating
waatewater contains toxic aetals at concentration many
times higher than their eonoeatration ia the wastewatars
taaaselvea. It should also be noted that although
electroplating rinsewaters are not specifically listed
-------
in 40 CFft 261 Subpart D, they may exhibit A hazardous
waste characteristic (EP toxicity) undez 40 CFR 261
Subpart C foz certain toxic metals.
2. Your ••cond question asks "would an ion exchange
canister which has been used to capture Mtala and
cyanide fzom non-hazardous electzopiating zinsewatezs
only, be considered to contain wastewatez treatment
sludges from electzoplating opezations (EPA Hazardous
Wast* No. P006)?* The answar to this question also is
yes. Section 260.10 of 40 CFR defines sludges as "any
solid* semi-solid, oz liquid waste generated from a
•unicpal, commercial, oz industrial wast«wat«r tr«atn«nt
plant, wataz supply treatment plant, oz effluent fto»
a wastewatez tzeatment plane." Thus, aay zesiduals
generated from treatment of wastewatezs fzom electro-
plating operations foz pollution control would be
considezed an F006 listed waste.
3. Your third question asks "is the ion exchange zesxn,
which is similar in function to activated carbon (i.e4,
used to remove pollutants from wastewaters), coosid^je<,
a 'sludge* in this situation? Once again* the answer
is yes for the same reaaon given above.
4. Youz fourth question asks "do zinsewaters from electro-
plating operations fall within the scope of any listed
hazardous wastes?" The answer to this question is no;
electroplating rinsewateza are not a listed hazardous
waste under 40 CFR 261, Subpart D. However, as I
indicated earlier* electroplating rinsewaters may
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic under 40 CFR
261, Subpart C.
5. Youz fifth question asks "does the 'mixture rule1
apply to rinsewaters from electroplating operations due
to the presence of 'residual droplets* of stripping,
cleaning, oz electroplating solutions?" This question
warn answered previously.
If yoa have further questions relating to this subject,
please feel free to call Mr. Edwin F. Abzams at (202) 382-47*7.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
•TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROT> JON AGENCV 9442.1987(06
: c -.-•'
Ronald J. Senna
Director - Environmental Compliance
International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc.
800 Rose Lane
Union Beach, N.J. 07735
Dear Mr. Senna:
This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1987,
concerning the regulatory status of your fragrance ingredients.
Based on the information you provided and the subsequent phone
conversation with our consultant, Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc.,
EPA's understanding of the waste generation process is that
Acetone, ethyl acetate, and xylene solvents are periodically used
to clean out the reactor vessel. The spent solvents generated
from that cleaning operation are drummed and sent off site for
proper management as F003 wastes. A light coating or residue
consisting of fragrance oils and trace amounts of solvent remains
on the walls of the vessel. IFF then washes the vessel out with
soap and water. This waste washwater carrying the oil and
solvent residue then flows to an oil/water separator for
treatment.
Based on this scenario, the Agency's interpretation is that
the solvent-contaminated washwater is not within the scope of the
Hazardous Waste No. F003 listing for spent nonhalogenated sol-
vent. The subject waste stream is generated from the washout of
a reactor vessel containing residues of solvent and fragrance
oils. Therefore, the waste is not a spent solvent, but a process
wastewater contaminated with solvent constituents. This waste is
very different from a solvent stream that has been used and as a
result of contamination can no longer be used as a solvent
without further processing (see section 26l.2(c)(l) and 50 EB
53316). It is not the Agency's intent to regulate water from
washout of a reactor vessel as F003.
-------
-2-
If the vashvater sent to the oil/water separator is ignit-
able, it would be classified as a DOOl hazardous va*te, and would
remain such for as long as it exhibits the ignitabilfety charac-
teristic. According to 40 CFR Section 261.3(c) and (d), any
residues resulting from treatment of DOOl are hazardous wastes
only if they continue to exhibit a characteristic found under 40
CFR, Part 261, Subpart C.
if you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael PetrusJca of my staff at (202) 382-7729.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director, Office of
Solid Waste
cc: Kurt Whitford, N.J. DEP
Sam EzeJcwo
EPA Region II
Air and Hazardous Waste Division
-------
9442.1988(01)
Alex "S. Gere, M.E., C.C«EL
Vice President ~ '-""^
STONIMPEX, Inc. ." --
24-16 Bridge Plaza South ..
Long island, NT 11101
Dear Mr. Gere:
I recently received your letter and accompanying information
about a patented process for sewage sludge treatment which STONIM-
PEX, Incorporated would like to market in the United States. I
appreciate receiving the information. However, the Agency is not
in a position to endorse or support specific processes. — —
While this may not be a problem, you should also be aware, that:
residuals generated as a result of your process must be evaluated
against existing requirements. Specifically, you must determine if
the residuals are characteristic hazardous waste prior to disposal
(see 40 CFR 261.11, 260 and 261 enclosed). This determination can
be made by testing the residuals or applying knowledge of the
hazard characteristic of the waste in light of the materials or the
processes used. --- -.-— -~ r ........ ----- — -
Additional requirements for the use and disposal of sewage
sludge are under development under the Clean Water Act. These may
require you to test sewage sludge residuals prior to use and
disposal. Please contact Mr, Alan Rubin (202) 475-7311 of the
Office of Water concerning current and future requirements.
Thank you for your interest in solid waste management. If I
can be of further assistance _to you, please contact, me. _ ..... .-_• . .
Sincerely,
Marc i a E. Williams
Director ------ -- •
Office of solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9442.1988(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAR 3 0 !S8>:
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Health-Based Level for Cyanide
FROM: Priscilla Halloran
Health Assessment Section
THROUGH: Alec McBride, Chief
Technical Assessment Branci^
TO:
Carolyn Bosserman, Regulatory Analyst
SAIC
In response to your letter dated March 14, 1988, I
recommended the health-based level of 0.7 mg/L for "free"
cyanide since this is based upon the Agency verified reference
dose (vRfD). (Please note, all vRfDs and unverified RfDs are
health-based numbers.) It is the Office of Solid Waste's policy
to use MCLs if one exists. If an MCL does not exist, then the
full value of the corresponding drinking water concentration
limit based on the vRfD is used.
In addition to the vRfD for "free" cyanide, there are
numerous other forms of cyanide for which there are vRfDs.
These are as follows:
Form (CAS number)
Corresponding
Drinking Water
Concentration Limits
based on the vRfD
Barium Cyanide (542-62-1)
Calcium Cyanide (592-01-8)
Chlorine Cyanide (506-77-4
Copper Cyanide (544-92-3)
Hydrogen Cyanide (74-90-8)
Potassium Cyanide (151-50-8)
Potassium Silver Cyanide (506-61-6)
Silver Cyanide (506-64-9)
Sodium Cyanide (143-33-9)
Zinc Cyanide (557-21-1)
1-6)
2.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
2.0 mg/L
0.2 mg/L
0.7 mg/L
2.0 mg/L
7.0 mg/L
4.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
2.0 mg/L
Date
RfD Verified
8/05/85
8/05/85
8/05/85
7/16/87
8/05/85
8/05/85
8/05/85
8/05/85
8/05/85
8/05/85
-------
Most of the verified cyanide numbers, except for barium cyanide
and copper cyanide are based on the Howard and Hanzal study
which measured the effects of HCN-fumigated-feed on rats for two
years. The differences in the numbers reflect adjustments for
the molecular weights of the metals or salts. The barium
cyanide number is based on a barium study. The copper cyanide
number is based upon the copper cyanide study sponsored by osw.
The RfD workgroup did not reject the copper cyanide study, but
merely deemed it applicable only for copper cyanide. A separate
study of potassium silver cyanide, also sponsored by OSW, was
presented at the same workgroup meeting but was rejected for
technical reasons. Again had this study been accepted it would
have been appropriate only for development of a potassium silver
cyanide number. In studies such as these, the metal
concentrations are such that they are believed to be the driving
force in the toxic effects observed. Thus, such studies are
only applicable for development of reference doses for those
specific chemicals. All of the health-based cyanide limits are
chronic, lifetime reference doses.
With regard to the health advisory used in setting the
Office of Drinking Water's advisory level of 0.154 mg/L, this
too was based upon the Howard and Hanzal study. Please note
that the Office of Drinking Water's procedure is to take 20
percent of a drinking water equivalence level, which is
developed using the same procedure used to develop a drinking
water concentration limit, in lieu of a site-specific exposure
assessment. The Variance Section uses the VHS model to estimate
exposure. Further note that health advisory numbers are not
enforceable standards, they are advisory limits for specific
exposure durations, in this case, lifetime. Other limits
(including one- and ten-day health advisories) address acute and
less-than-lifetime expsore durations.
Perhaps when referring to a cyanide number, the particular
compound should be stated, otherwise it will be assumed to be
for "free" cyanide, etc. Again, the "free" cyanide vRfD of 0.7
mg/L is peer reviewed by the RfD workgroup and verified by them.
I hope I have explained the apparent anomalies in the
cyanide limits. For your information, I have attached the IRIS
cover sheets for all the verified cyanide numbers. These are
difficult concepts. If I can be of further assistance please
call me at 475-6726.
Attachment
cc: Reva Rubenstein
Bob Kaiser
Terry Grogan
Jenny Utz
Mark Colangelo
-------
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9442.1988(03
MAY 2 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: California Authorization - Evaluation of the Waste
Evaluation Test
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Jeff Zelikson, Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division, Region IX
This memorandum is in response to your March 23, 1988
memorandum requesting a determination as to the technical • .
adequacy of California's Waste Extraction Test (WET) for
testing wastes to determine whether they meet the toxicity
characteristic. Based on the description of the test and the
results you have provided, we believe that, for any waste
matrix, the WET will extract at least as much of each inorganic
constituent as the EPA Extraction Procedure (EP) test. Also,
since this action is an authorization issue, the WET does not
need to go through the Part 260.21 petition process for equiva-
lency.
As you are aware, our Office of General Counsel (OGC) has
some concerns regarding the issue of possible Federal
enforcement of regulations based on the WET. Currently, OGC is
of the opinion that regulations utilizing the WET are broader in
scope (cover more waste) rather than more stringent (tighter
control of coveted wastes) than regulations utilizing the EP.
These concerns affect the overall authorization, and they still
need to be resolved.
Please contact David Friedman (FTS 382-4761) of my staff if
you have any questions on the technical evaluation of the WET or
Josh Sarnoff (FTS 382-7706) of OGC if you have any questions on
the legal review.
-------
If the washwater sent to the oil/water separator is ignit-
able, it would be classified as a D001 hazardous vajte, and would
remain such for as long as it exhibits the ignitabil&y charac-
teristic. According to 40 CFR Section 261.3(c) and (d), any
residues resulting from treatment of D001 are hazardous wastes
only if they continue to exhibit a characteristic found under 40
CFR, Part 261, Subpart C.
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael Petruska of my staff at (202) 382-7729.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director, Office of
Solid Waste
cc: Kurt Whitford, N.J. DEP
Sam Ezekvo
EPA Region II
Air and Hazardous Waste Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94105
2 9 MAR iCSS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: California Authorization - Determining the Technical
Equivalency of the Waste Extraction Test to the EPA
Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test
FROM: Jeff Zelikson,
Toxics & Waste Management Division, Region 9
TO: Sylvia Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste WH-562
As you may be aware/ California is in the process of amending
its hazardous waste management statutes and regulations for the
purpose of obtaining authorization to implement the RCRA program.
California would like to retain its Waste Extraction Test (WET)
for testing characteristic waste rather than adopting EPA's EP
Toxicity Test.
At this time we are requesting an official written determination
from your office as to the technical adequacy of the WET. We
requested this information previously and understand that David
F'reidman of the Technical Methods Section did some research on
this issue.
Based on previous discussions between Headquarters and
Regional staff/ we believe there is agreement between the Region
and Headquarters that the WET is at least as stringent as the EP
Toxicity Test required under RCRA and therefore, meets the
authorization requirement that the State program be equivalent to
or more stringent than RCRA.
California's regulation development schedule requires that
we give them a final decision on this issue within the next few
weeks. For this reason/ if we have not received a response by
April 30, we will inform California that the WET is as stringent
as the EP Toxicity Test and, therefore, will be acceptable for
the purposes of authorization.
-------
-2-
If you have any questions or need more information, please
call Kathy Papalia of my staff at FTS/454-8123. Thank you for
your assistance on this issue.
Attachment
cc: Susan Absher, WH-563B
David Freidman, WH-562B
Cindy Byron, WH-527
Lillian Bagus, WH-563B
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
216 Fremont Street
Sen Francisco, Ce. 94105
I 5 NOV 1987
Memorandum
Prom: Jeff Zelikson, Actirtafafc^tor
Toxics and Waste Manq^tneSrft Division
Region IX
To: Sylvia Lowrance, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division, SE-240
Office of Solid Waste /
Subject: California Authorization: Headquarters Assistance
in Determining the Technical Equivalency of the
Waste Extraction Test to the E.P. Toxicity Test
As you're probably aware, California is in the process of
amending its hazardous waste management regulations for purposes
of authorization. California would like to retain its Waste
Extraction Test (WET) in lieu of adopting EPA's E.P. Toxicity
Test.
We need your assistance in determining the technical adequacy
of the WET, and have enclosed two copies of the materials sent to
us by the state.
Given the regulation development schedule California is
attempting to meet, we'd appreciate a written analysis of the
WET's technical adequacy within three weeks of receipt of this
request. Please contact me if you feel that the review time
frame cannot be met.
If you have any questions, please call. If you need further
information, your staff may contact Karen Oeno at FTS 454-8128.
Thank you for your assistance.
enclosures
cc: with enclosures
David Friedman, Technical Methods Section (SE-240)
.Bruce Weddle, Permits and State Programs Division (WH-563B)
Susan Absher, Permits and State Programs Division (WH-563B)
'- '\ '• L \
-------
ID: EPA HBCZON DC T5CD II
not: nau#TBo CASTELLCK PA
-------
•f QtStvn'm O«p«rtm«m «f M««hh
M cm o ran d u m
TO : Mike Homer ^^ October 5. 198?
Toxic Substances Control Division
Alternative Technology Section S^b^-fcET/n* Coaparisor.
From •: Barton P.
Hazardous Materials Laboratory
Please find attached the WET/EP document which we have discussed. If
you have any questions, olease give me a call.
cc: Bob Stephens
Raiaund Roehl
Tom Li
Stan Lau. TSCD-TSU
Attachment
-------
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
AN EVALUATION OP THE WASTE EXTRACTION TEST (WET) PGR HAZARDOUS WASTE
IDENTIFICATION
I. The Problem
As part of the RCRA authorization process, the California
.Department of Health Services is evaluating its criteria for
hazardous waste characterization vis-a-vis the EPA system. . One
issue which has arisen is whether the California Waste Extraction
Test (WET) is at least as stringent as the EPA Extraction
"Procedure (EP) for the purpose of determining the extractable
Inorganic constituents.
A related issue is the comparison of the California system and the
Federal system for organic compounds. That issue will be
addressed in a future document separately from the Issue of
inorganic substances.
II. Comparison of the two detraction Tests
The WET procedure is desribed completely in Section 66700 of the
California Administrative Code. Title 22. A copy of that section
is included in Attachment A. The EP is 3es:ribed in 40CFR Part
261. Appendix II. and a copy Is include* as Attachment B.
Briefly, both of these procedures are batch extraction tasts. The
principal difference between the two tests is the choice of
extraction solution. The EP uses an acetic acid extraction
solution, while the WET uses a 0.2 M citrate buffer solution.
Citrate is recognized as a much stronger chela ting agent thar.
acetate. The stability constants for acetate and citrate
"complexes of selected metal ions are listed in Table l.
Table 1 - Stability of Metal Complexes (Krsgtan. 1978)
Metal Ion Citrate Complex Acetate Complex
Chromium (III) 7.69 1.80
Mercury (II) 10.90 5.30
(II) 6.30 2.20
. As shown in Table 1. the citrate is predicted to be a stronger
chelating agent than acetate.
III. Comparative Performance of the WET and EP
The prediction of greater stringency of the WET has been
-------
demonstrated over several years of testing a diverse collection of
solid wastes. Some examples of documented studies are given
below.
A. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (OWL) Leaching Study
The California Waste Management Board sponsored a study of
leaching tests, which was conducted at ORNL under the
management of C. W. Francis. The study included the WET. the
EP. and two leaching tests which were being considered to
replace the EP. These tests were used in the development of
the TCLP. • One conclusion of the ORNL Report was "Generally
speaking, concentrations of all the trace metals were higher
in the WET extracts than in other leach extracts...(Francis.
1984)" This was the result whether extracts were analyzed by
atomic absorption (AA) or inductively coupled plasma (ICP)
spectroscopy. Indicating that- the differences were due to the
extraction method. A copy of data from the ORNL study is
included as Attachment C.
B. Battelle Leaching Study
As part of the evaluation of leaching tests for hazardous
waste identification, the Battelle Columbus Laboratory
conducted a comparison of leaching tests on several solid
wastes. includlng_aqueous sludges, organic chemical wastes,
and inorganic solids. A conclusion of the study was: "Citrate
buffer was often much more aggressive ttv.n acetate buffer for
leaching metals (Warner. 1981)." This was in spite of the
fact that the highest concentration of ci-rate buffer used was
less than that required In the eminent WET.
C. Experience in Hazardous Waste Identification
The experience of the IMS over several years has been that the
WET is consistently at least as stringent as the EP for
hazardous waste identification. As an example. Isad smeltinq
slag from the Asarco hazardous waste site in Selby. California
was tested by both the EP and the WET. Although the site has
a documented source of arsenic contamination in the
groundwater, the EP identified it as nonhazardous by the EP
criterion, whereas it easily exceeded hazardous waste criteria
by the WET. This situation is typical of EP and WET
irisons (CHS HKL files).
IV. Quality of Data Generated by the WET
The WET and the EP have both several years of uss in the
commercial and Industrial laboratory community. The fomalization
of orocsdures in regulation has eliminated inconsistency problems
which formerly existed. Unlike the EP. the WET is included in a
mandated Hazardous Haste Laboratory Certification Program which is
conducted by DBS. This program includes requirements for
personnel, equipment, analytical methods, quality assurance oil
-------
performance testing. Interlaboratory tasting which has been
conduct.* to date indicates that the precision of th« WET is as
oood a«, or better than the precision of the corresponding
analytical procedures and is in general far better than the
precision of sampling procedures ( DHS HKL files).
Sunnary -
The experience of DHS. federal laboratories and commercial
laboratories is that the WET is at least as stringent as the EP
'for the purpose of identifying hazarous wastes by extractable
metals. The DHS certification program will help to assure that
the quality of data generated by the WET is adequate for the
California Hazardous Waste Management Program.
-------
Reference
Francis C. W.. Laaehing Characteristics of Resource Recovery Ash in
MumCiP«l Haste landfills. Oafc Ridge National Laboratory. DOE Pro;ect
No. ERP-83-289. 1984.
Kragten. J.. Atlas of Mgtal-Lioand Egullibri« in Aqueous Solution.
Jota Wley & Sons. "New Yortc. 1978.
Warner. J.S.. «t. tl., "Development of a Method for Determining the
of Ot^nic Compounds from Solid Wastes." Hazardgus |olid
waste Testing: First Conference^ XSTM STP 760. R.A. Conway and_B.C.
MiTlOYTldTTAmericin Society for Testing and Materials. 1981. pp.
40-60.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
TITLE & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH f<
in ni i ii > •. •*. *-M»m (p. 18DO.TT)
Calculated ortl or dermal LD* » 100
a %Aj -
IT
i»l Ax
where* Ai is the weight percent of etch component in the waste nurture and
T* a the acute oral or dermal LD» or tbe acute oral LDvaofeuch component
NOTE: Authority cited SKOOW DB. BUI and 8190. Hmltfe utd Safety Code. lUftr-
•ncr SMOG BUI. ttaltfc nd Stfety Code.
HISTORY:
1. EAtonil eamcfiea flM ItfrM: dnrutad «rchexeeed4
its listed total threshold limit concentration. _
(b) List of Inorganic Persistent and BioaccumuUtive Toxic Substances and
Their Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) and Tstal Threshold
Limit Concentration (TTLC) Values.
STLC TTLC
«*'*r
900
900
I
iati : loo looowf
0.75 7S
14 100
9 ' 900
«D t900
B 1900
MO 11000
94 1400
04 »
so un
•> uao
14 100
9 900
7.0 700
M 1«0
80 9400
• STLC and TTLC values are calculated on the concentrations of the de-
f la the cue of asbestos and elemental metal*, applies onlv if they are in a
friable, powdered or finely divided state. Asbestos includes
amoalte, crocidoite. tremobte, anthophyuite, and actinolite.
ft EKtudinf bahum sutfate.
-------
JWTOO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TITLE 22
(P. 1800.78) (*•»!•• r •. Ha. S-V04M
•(c) List of Organic Pcnutent and Bioaccumulabve Toxic Substances and
Their Soluble Threshold Limit Concentraooo iSTLC) and Total Threshold
Limit Concentration (TTLC) Values.
STLC TTLC
our/' «v*v
AUrin _ 0.14 1.4
Chtordifl . - ~. OJJ IS
DDT. DDE. ODD - - 0.1 10
t,4-Otchtoreph*noryae*oc and - 10 100
Oiddria _ - OJ 10
DtoBn (UJ.4-TCDD) 0.001 041
Eadnn 0.01 OJ
Hcpcaeaior..... _ ._ _.. 0.47 4.7
Kepooe _ _ J.J Jj
Lead compound*, orfanie _ - U
Lindkac _„ 0.4 4JD
10 100
2.1 SI
IT 17
OJ " 9
TrteaJoraMhyfane SJM 1040
S.4J-TncWorooo«noiypropK>«uc and 14 10
NOTE: Authority at**. SwOen «B. B141 and B130. Httlth and SW«tv Cod* IMcr-
me* SKttep BJ41. Kmteh mtd S^«y Code.
HISTORY
0700. W«t* Eitnetioa Ttrt (WET).
(a) The WET deacnbed in this MctionihaD be used to determine the amount
of estnctabte ubttance in a waste or other material as set forth in Section
esa»(a>.
(b) Except at provided in Section «700(d). the WET shall be earned out if
the total concentration in the waste, or other material of any substance listed
• Section 6BB9 equals or exceeds the STLC value, but does not exceed the
TTLC value, given for that substance. The total concentrations of substances
hsted in Section 6Gfl09 shall be determined by analysis of samples of wastes, or
other materials, which have been prepared, or meet the conditions, for analyst
as set forth in subsections (c) and (d) of this section. Methods used for analysis
for total concentrations of substances listed in Section «6B9 shall be those given
in the foQowinc documents or alternate methods that have been approved by
the Department pursuant to Section 66310:
(1) For metal elements and their compounds, the waste shall be digested
according to the indicated methods described in Test Methods for Evaluating
Sobd Waste. Physical /Chemical Methods". SW446. ted edition, US Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1982:
-------
TITLES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (CTOO
• m. M» a-MM) (p. 1fl00.79)
(A) All toted metal elements and tbeir compounds, esccpt henvaient chro-
mium: Method 3060. . _
(B) Heavalent chromium: Method 3060.
(2) For the following substances, the indicated methods as described in
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods". SW-
846, 2nd edition, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1982 shall be utilized:
(A) Antimony: Method 7040 or Method 7041.
' (B) Anenic Method 7060 or Method 7061. '
(Q Barium: Method 7080 or Method 7081.
(D) Cadmium: Method 7131.
(E) Total chromium: Method 7190.
(F) Hexaviient chromium: Method 7195, Method 7196 or Method 7197.
(C) Lead Method 7421.
(H) Mercurr Method 7470 or Method 7471.
(I) Nickel Method 7530 or Method 7321.
(I) Selenium: Method 7740 or Method 7741.
(K) Silver Method 7760 or Method 7761.
(L) Trichloraetfayienr Method 8010 or Method 8240.
(M) PeabchbrophenoL Method 8040, Method 8290 or Method 8270.
(N) Aldrin. Lmdane, Quordane. ODD. DDE. DDT. Dieldrin. Heptacblor.
Tozapbeoe and PCBS. Method 8080. Method 8290 or Method 8270.
(O) t4-Dicntoropbenoxyacettc acid and tO-trichloroptenon-pr
ackL Method ^
(3) For the foUowinf substances, the indicated methods as described in
•Methods for Cbemieal Analysis of Water and Wastes", EPA4DO 4-T94BO, US
Environmental Protection Afeacy, 19T9 shall be utilized:
(A) BeryOium: Method 110.1 or Method 210i.
(B) Cobalt Method 219.1 or Method 1191.
(C) Copper Method 220.1 or Method 220.2.
(D) MoMxJenum: Method 246,1 or Method 2412.
(E) Tfaautum: Method X79.1 or Method 2792.
(F) Vanadium: Method 2V.1 or Method 286M
(C) Zinc. Method 2*1 or Method 288.2.
(H) Fluoride: Method 340.1. Menod 3401 or Methoo^lftl
(4) For the fouowi&c •iinaiim.'es, the indicated methods at described in
"Manual of Analytical Methods for the Analysis of Pesticides in Humans and
Environmental sampler. EPA400/8-804Q8, US Environmental Protection
Aceacy. 1980 shaD be utifaad.
(A) brae: Section SA(SUa).
(B) U,7^Tetracfaiorod^eoi»tKi»onn: Section 9.C.
(Si) For aabeant, the indicated method as described in the Federal Register,
Volume 47. Number 103, Appendix A. pages 23376-23381, May 7. 1982 shall be
(c) Samples shall be prepared for analysis for total and cstnctabie content
substances listed in Section 86669 (b) and (c) as follows;
of substa
-------
ENvnoNMen-AL HEALTH TITLES
1800JO) ~
(1) Type i: If the waste or other material is • ««in«hu f^iid. the larnptf shall
be passeadirectly. or shall be nulled to MS, through a No. 10 (two miuaneter)
standard neve before it is analyzed. If the ttmple contains non-friable solid
particles which do oot pus directly throufh a No. 10 sieve and which are
extraneous and irrelevant as hazardous constituents to the waste or other
material they shall be removed to the extent feasible by mechanical means and
discarded. Solids which remain in the waste or other material after removal of
the aforesaid extraneous particles shall be milled to pass throufh a No. 10 sieve
and shall then be combined and mixed well witn the solids which passed
through the sieve without millinf . The reconstituted sample shall then be
analyzed as prescribed in this section.
(i) Type iilf the waste or other material is a filterable mixture of liquid and
solids in which the solids constitute five-tenths (05) percent by weight or
greater of die sample, the bquid and solids shall be separated by filtration
through a 0.45 micron membrane filter. The filtrate so obtained is to be desig-
nated as Initial Filtrate. Its volume is determined, and it is retained. The sepa-
rated solids shall be sieved in a No. 10 sieve and any nonfriabie extraneous
particles of the lands described in subjection (c) (1) which do oot pus through
the sieve shall be removed to the extent feasible b """•H««"«i means and
discarded The sotids which remain after removal of the extraneous particles
shall be milled to pass through a No. 10 sieve and shaD be recotnbined with solids
which passed through tbe-sieve without milling. This recombined solid material
shall be extracted following the procedure in subsection if A ratio of 10
miUiliten of extraction solution per gram of solid shaD be utilized with appropri-
ate modifications for extraction vessel size. After completion of solids extrac-
tion, the filtered extractant is combined with Initial FUtrate mixed thoroughly
and anlyzed as dcacribed in mibsectioo (f)(3).
(3) Tvpeu If dtewmsteorother inattrialisaiionfilterabk
sludge, slurry, or oily, tarry or resinous material, it shall be analyzed as received
uules it contains non-triable extraneous and irrelevant solid particles of the
lands described in paragraph (c) (1) of this section. If it contains such solid
and they are of such size as not to pass throufh a No. 10 sieve,
^^ A^A ^MA^^Bfr ^^^^UA IM« ^K^M^hMMa^^l Mh
n> me cn^u mime oy "*
The remainder of the Maple shall be analyzed as prescribed in this section.
(4) If it is nccessvy to dry a solid **"*p** or the solids lur fxm of a sample
before swing, ouuing or removal of extraneous loudi, or • a irnrnf o oried
Eto analysis, afi weight losses due to drying shaD be determined, and these
and ttx conditions of drying shafl be reported.
(d) ff tfcf waste or other material is a bquid ««»«»«»«««»g ttn than five-tenths
(03) percent by weight of undissolvedspMs.it shafl not be subject to the WET
procedure, but shafl oe analyzed direcuy for the :
w w ccs bsted in
The waste snail be classified as a hazardous waste tf the tool concentra-
tion in the waste of any substances listed in Section 6G699 exceeds the TTLC
value given for that substance. If. however, the total concentration is less than
q^ TTLC but exceeds d^STLC when eipt used on a mHlmmi per liter basts.
the waste or other material shafl be filtered through a 0.49 micron membrane
filter, the solids discarded and the filtrate shaD be analyzed directly for the
substances listed in Section 66699. The waste shall be dasafed as a KaTardnm
waste if the concentration in the filtrate of any of the substances listed in Section
66699 exceeds the STLC value given for that substance.
-------
TITLE IS DATBONMEXTAL HEALTH fgfTOO
(•nun a•*a-MMH (p. 1800J1)
(e) The WET extraction solution shall consist of 0.2 M sodium citrate at pH
S.O ± 0.1, which it prepared by titrating an appropriate amount of analytical
grade citric add in ozonized water with 4.0 N NaOH. except that the extraction
solution for the determination of chromium (VI) dull consist of deionized
wtter.
(f) The extraction procedure shall be as follows:
(1) Fifty frams of sample, or lea if it is a type ii ample prepared pursuant
to subsection (c) (1), obtained pursuant to subjection (c) or (d) of this section
shall be placed in a dean polyethylene or glass container designated the Treat-
ment, capable of physically withstanding the extraction procedure and which
was rinsed previously with, in succession, an aqueous 1:1 ratio by volume nitric
acid solution and deionized wtter. If the extract will be analyzed for any of the
organic substances toted in Section 66GB9(c), a fiaa container shall be used.
Furthermore, a container of the same size, shape and material shall be used for
an extraction designated as the BanK which snail be ^tiiipj ^"^itf* th* same
procedure as the Treatment, but without addition of the sample.
(2) Five hundred millib'ten of extraction solution, or less if the waste sample
is a type a sample prepared pursuant to subsection (e) (2) shall be added to the
Treatment and Bunk containers, which shall be then fitted with covered air
scrubbers extended well into the extraction solutions and flushed vigorously
with nitrogen gai for 13 minutes so as to remove and exclude atmospheric
oxygen from the extraction medium If the sample is to be aiulvzed for any
volatile substance, such at thchloroethylene, the sample shall W added after
detention with nitrogen to avoid volatilization Ion. Alter deaeution the eon*
tainers shall be quickly sealed with tightly fitting caps and agitated, using a table
maintain the sample in a state of vigorously agitated suspension, ioquiiud
equipment is described in test method 1310 in "Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods", SW446. 2nd edition. US Environ-
mental Protection Agency. 1981 The temperature during the extraction shaQ
he maintained between 20 and 40 degrees centigrade. After 48 hours of extract-
ing. thr itHtiftiti of *hf Treatment "^ Blank containers shall be either filtered
directiy or centriruged and then filtered Filtering shall be through a medium
poroatty prefihcr and then through a 0.45 micron membrane filter, using a
dean. duck-willed suction flask, for coarser solids, prefihration shaD not be
Preature filtration sfaaB be an otional alternative to vacuum filtra-
tion. If the eiliatti are first centriruged, glass or polyethylene botues shaD be
USBQ as prescribed for extraction. For very fine vMUli, centrirugmg at as high
a§ IQjOOO x C may be neceasary . After centrifugation, the liquids shall be dV
ca«tt«d,prefiliered if necessary, and then passed through a 0.45 micron mem-
brane after. Afl Steers shall be of low and identified extractabte heavy metals,
Ouonde ana mgaiuc chemicals content.
(3) If the filtered extracts are to be anah/xed only far the metal ekments
bsted in Section 6B6BO(b), the filtered extracts from the Treatment and Blank
shall be transferred to dean poryethyiene botttes and acidified with nitric acid
to five percent by volume acid content soon after each eiMati is filtered. For
those wastes or waste materials classified under subsection (c) (2). the Treat-
ment shaD be the Initial Filtrate combined with the extract generated by the
WET extraction of the initially separated solids. Similarly the Blank in this
instance shall be the filtrate generated by the WET Blank accompanying the
initially separated solids, to wtuch is subsequently added a volume of dennued
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TITLE 22
(p. 18008)
water equivilent to thii of the Initial Filtrate. These procedures shaD be fol-
lowed prior to acidification of Treatment tad Blink Muttons with nitric add
to five percent (by volume) add content. The bottle dull then be stored at
room temperature or frozen. If the extract are abo to be analyzed for the
organic substances listed in Section 66699 (c ) , or for the organic subitances only,
the filtered extract! shall be transferred to dean glass bottles. If the extracts are
to be waJyied for fluoride, they shall be transferred to cteu polyethylene
bottles. Tbiese extracts, containing organic ubfUnccs or fluoride, shall not be
but shall be frozen soon after each extract is obtained and held frozen
until the day of analyss, unless the extracts are analyzed within 34 hours.
(i) Sample analysis and data treatment shall be as follows:
(I) Each of the filtered extracts from the Treatment and Blank extractions
shall have been acidified to five percent by volume nitric add, and stored at
room temperature or frozen in polyethylene bottles or kept frozen without
addition of acid in glass bottles until the day of analysis, as prescribed. Each of
the extracts shall be thoroughly mixed just prior to being individually analyzed
for the substances listed in Section 66899 in order to determine whether the
extractabie concentration (EC) in the waste or other material c needs the
STLC for any of die subitances listed The extracts shaD be analyzed according
to the procedures identified in Sections 66700(b)(i). (b)(3) and (b)(4).
(1) The net EC of a subttance in the Treatment mmple which u Kited in
66699 shaD be calculated and reported as miDigrtmj per liter of sample
(mg/1). This value is derived after subtracting the concentration of die sub-
stance in the appropriate Blank extract from that concentration determined in
the Treatment extract
NOTE; Authority cited Sections SOB, BUI wd B190. Health end Safer Code. Refer-
ent* Section 13141. Health and Safety Code.
HISTORY:
1. Edtterial eofucttuB Bed 10*41 liangmturt efceth* 10-P-M (Refuter K No. 41)
•701 IfnitabtHty Criteria.
(a) A waste, or a material, d ignrtable and hazardous if it
(1) Is a bquid. other dian an aqueous solution containing leas than 24 percent
alcohol by volume, and hat a flash point leas than 60 degrvu centigrade (140
degrees Fahrenheit), at determined by a Pensky-Martens dosed Cup Tester,
using die teat method aerified in American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Standard D-9&-T9, or a Setaflash dosed Cup Tester, using die test
method specified in ASTM Standard D-3TTS-73; or
(t) Is not a bquid and is capable, under standard temperature and pressure.
of causing fire duough friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous chemical
changes and, when ignited, bunts so vigorously and penistendy mat it creates
a hmard; or
(3) It a flammable compressed gas as defined in 49 CFR173JOO(b) (codified
October 1. ISO) aad as determined by the lest methods described in that
TSbaa osxfaer as defined in « CFR 171151 (codified October 1.1982).
NOTE Authority cited Section! BS. B141 end BUB. He*h and Safety Code Refer
i B141. Health «d Safety Code.
-------
Attachaent B
Tlu* manual »»*» contain* longionil in-
formation an a«ed. The aH of the solution 1.--UI a- — ;
uorrd. as oescribeo: bclo* djnnc the cow -
of the extraction ar.d i.' tn* gH nttn \^-. .
V2. 0.5N acetic actd tt\.\ '.<: veet-j :o ;- -.•
*.r.« SK ioun :c in ; •:;•'-•-• -r -
event snail me actrecrv.c amour.: e' i:..-
addert to the solution . a rr.»itri-f su-;
and reaerroir of 0.5N act::; »c:S. If su;.- -.
system n not avaiUoit. the foUc--;
manual procedure shall be ensioyee:
(a) A pH meter shall be ca!i±rate£ :r. i:
eordanet «ith the manufacturers io*c..':-i
uoaa.
(b> The pR of the solution shall t;
checked and. U aeccuary. o.ss aceuc *c:i
shall be autauaUy added to the extrar.e:
until the pK rraehcf 5.0 r 0.3. The pU or
the solution shall be adjusted at IS. 30 asc
•0 minute tatamUs. movini to the net;
lonccr intcrraJ if the pH dow not have to Se
adjusted more than 0.5K pH uniu.
The aajustmtnt procedun sftaU be
continued for at least I hours.
(d) If at $ne end of the 24-hoor extract;;.-.
period, the pH of the solution U not teic^
S.J aad tbe »--f«f«»-.m« u&o.m <>f »cid >« c.
per traai of solids) h«* n-n orra adsr^. ;::
pK shall be •dfiswl to S.C £ 0.? ar.i ttt e:
traction continued for an additional (•)•;.•
hours, durtac which the -,K *naJ se toi:.*:
ed at one BOUT murals
<. At the end of the 24 hour ertrae:i?-
period. (MionUed water shall Se adaeti *x
the extractor in an amount 4«urmtnta ST
tae foUowuw ecuatiotv
V.-A
V.«l tfetontad water to be added
W«veifBt ia fimms of solid charted to ex
tractor
A»au of 04N acetic ac:d added aunns «x
traction
7. Tat material In the extractor sMU dc
seoarated lata tta component liquid ans
eoUd phaMs as deecribta under -Sepantior.
Proeedure.-
a. TIM llQuMs rexulUnc from Sic?* 2 ar.c1 "
ahall be combined. Thii comta:r.ee Uquid .cr
the WMU Itoelf if It has leas thar. «« se.-ur.:
touda. aa noted ia sup :i is the ef_-»e; IP.;
380
-------
Title 40—ProtodieMi of lnv*rw«s»«H»l
I Aft-r ihe uiiij material and deionoed
*a:»r ar* placed in ;^g extractor, the o;en-
10r mill begin agitation and measure Uie
PH or the solution m me extractor. It the
aH u tresttr than so the sll of the solu-
'.inn mail be decreased to JO = 0.: by
iddme O.S N acetic »-id f.' t.V pH « *ji'll
to jr ini than JO no acr-c acid should be
adUed. The pH of the solution i.ia!l be rr.on-
•tor-d. u described belaw. Spring the co-jrjs
;f tne extraction and if t.".e pH rut» abote
2. G.SN acetic acia ii>i!l be aadid to onn«
tne pH dawn 10 SO r 0.2. Hoxever. in no
*.ent ihaji the aggrtgrate amour.: of acid
«--*d to the solution eteted 4 ml of acid
**r tram of so:iJ The mixture man 6* agi-
•ite; for 24 noun and rr.a:r.ta:.-.ed ai 20'-
•Q'C (M--104T) during t.la i.sie. It u ree-
.•aunenoed that the operator monitor and
•djujt the pH durmc the course of the ex-
rmct,on with a device such a* the Type 4S-A
>H Controller manufactured by Chemtri*.
ne.. HilUboro. Oregon »7I23 or iu equiva-
*nt, in conjunction vith a metering pu=ip
uid rncrvoir of OJN acetic acid. If such a
ysttm it not available, the following
tanual procedure shall be employed:
A pK meter shall be calibrated m ae-
ordance witn the manufacturer'* specifics-
:oru.
(b; The ;.H of, the aolution ihall be
rg ar.i. If neceua.->. O.SN ac.tic ssio
manually >ddr<4 to in? t^tra::3r
n« pH re»ch« 50 r 0.2. Tr.t pK c:
ition shall be adjua:i»d at I.1.. 30 a.-.-!
iu:e inur/aU. moviof to :ne next
jiurval i' tl:e pK ac*» no: ruvr to M
r.iore than O.JN pH uniu.
(c) The adju*tiaen: procedure ahall be
•MUiniKd (or u least 8 hour*.
•d) U at O>« tnd or the 24-hour extraction
•nod. U»e pH of the solution a not below
.2 and the maxix.um amount of acid (4 ml
t- rran: sf solids) has no: been added, the
U sball be adi'iited :o.S.O = 0.: and the e»-
•action continued for as adCiuanaJ four
JUTI. dunss which its s3 shaii be adjust-
i at cne hour intervals.
6. At Utt end of the 24 hour eTtrmrtlon
•nod. d«:oru7.td-water shall b« added to
e extractor in an amount determined bv
e follovinc equation;
-<20KW)-l«(W).-A
• mi dtionued water to be added
• veicht ic iranw of solid charted M ex-
tractor
• ml of O.SN aeeuc acid added during ex-
traction
i. The materiml in the extractor anjUl be
Tvued Into its component liquid and
Ud pnasci as dcscnbec: under "SeoaraUon
•oeedurc."
1. The liquids resultinc from Steps 2 and 1
all be combined. Thu combined liquid (or
• vaste itself if it has leas than H percent
ids. as noted m step 2) is the extract and
Chapter I—Environment*! Protection Agency
shali be ana!>Tei !c> '.he presence of any of
tn» ."jn'.srii-ir.'j irer:Ji»c n. Ti*1'- ! of
i:c:.:t us;nc :r.e .Vulyi.c*; Procedures
desicruicd
Port 2*1. Apst. ||
Stpcntien
A f.'.ter SDlcv. d«mcd !cr
filtration media navmc a nominal pore size
of 0.4S micr:-;i«r» ard capable of aoolylr.i
a 3.3 kc/crr.'tTS pin hvdroj—f.e pressure u
tne solui.on b«ir< filtered, sr.all be uaed.
For nuxfj'M cinumini ncnabsorptue
solid). »r.cre jeparau;- car. be efftcied
without imp.--s:r.i a S 3 k(/cm' pressure dif-
ferent;al. vac-jurr. fiicen empioyinc a C 45
micromcten filler rr.ed.a can be used. (For
further cuidance on ftitra::on equipment or
•procedurei sec "Test Methods for Evaluat-
ing Solid War.*. Phyiical/Chemical Meth-
ods" incorporated by reference, see
I 260.11). Procedure:*
ci) Follovinc manufacturer's directions.
the filter ur.it i*.all be assembled with a
filter bed consuur.i of a 0.49 micrometer
filter membrane. For difficult or alow to
filter mixtures a prcfllter bed coiuistuic of
the followinc preflliers in tncreasinc pore
size (0.65 micrometer mfmbrane. fine (laa
fiber prefiitcr. and coarse tlaai fiber pre-
filter) ear. be uied.
ui) The wane shall be poured Into the fil-
tration unit.
0«5 *.r.. K the sample v:!l
not filter, various other separation tech-
niques can be used to aid in the filtration.
Aa described above, pressure filtration is
employed to speed up the filtration process.
This does not alter ths nature of the separa-
tion. If liquid does r.ot separate dunnc fil-
tration, tne waice can be centnfused. If sep-
aration occur* dur.ni ccntrifutation. the
liquid poRior (centrifufatei a filtered
throuch :he 0 45 »m fi'.'.»r pnor to becomme
mixed with tne liquid portion of the waste
obtained from tne initial filtration. Any ma-
terial that will not pass throuch the filter
after crntnfucation is considered a solid
• and is extracted.
to «*:'- '.r:r\ :*e •
trs'.e o^tl«t.
.-.j T>.« filter unit snail be C»vrf--j".:»
the so.»d matenaJ r»mo.ed ar.e w»icr- •• a.-.
then trans/erred to the ex;rir-.:or. a;>.-.r
lus. or. in the cue of final (il;ra::on cr::.- :
irMy?!!1. d:»cardfd Do not a^ov rn» o .-.'•
al retained on the filter pad to dry ^r jr.v.: tc .;r-
This devtae Is available tron Asao::i:*:
DosiCB and Manufactunnc Ccm;any. A.ex-
aBdna. VA 21314, as Part No. 123. or it ?.ay
be fabricated to meet the speuficauar.*
shown In ncure X.
' 1. The sample holder shall be filled v.iit -
the material to be tested. If th* san?;e af
waste is s large monobthip-block. a por.xn
shall be cut from tht-cloc* having the Si-
mensions of a U cm (1.3 In.) diameter x M
cm (X.S la.) cyliMtr. For a fixated wiaie.
samples ear be caK in the for= 9; s. 1.2 —
«11 ULTdianieter x 7.; cm (2.1 Ui.; cyar.i*.-
.Itr'purpose* o< ronnucting this test. Ir. r.:~
cases. the waste may be allowed to rurt ::r
10 ears prtor to fnr.hcr testing.
2. The sample holder shall tc aurrt :.-.to
the Structural Integrity Tester, tner. --.«
bannwr shall be raised to iu aa«:=-.-^s
height and dropped. Tlu* shall be repeated
til teen times.
1. The material shall be removed from the
sample holder, weighed, and transferred a
the extraction apparatus tor extraet-.ar..
Conceminonu
The tost method: for analysag the ex-
tract are as foiion:
1. For arsenic, banum. cadmium. chr?m-
um. lead, mercury, seleniun. silver. er.sr:.i.
lir.danc. methcxycnlor. toxaahene. 2.4-
Di2.4-diehlorophenoxyaceli: ac:dl or : vi
TP l2.4.5-triehloropheno«y5ro3ionic *c.;:.
Test Methods for the Evaiua;:or. o! Sc..=
Waste. Fhyiicai/Cheaueal Me:r.ods ' i:r.c:r-
poraied by reference, sec 1 260 .1 1 ).
2. (Reserved I
For all analyses, the methods of t:a.-.=iri
addition shall be used for quar.ti/isa-..o.-. a'.
i concentration.
381
-------
T«t:«
SAMPLC
EiASiOMsm.c *
SiM^Lt HULUcR
•ElASTOMERIC SAV1PLE HOLDER fASJlCATCO 0'
MATERIAL FIRM ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE SAMPLE
Figure 1
COMPACTION TESTER
U FR 111 It. May 19.1110. u untndcd »i «( FR as:*:. J.ly *. lltl]
-------
Attachment C (Source. .Francis. *198A)
T«bJ« 4O. P«rc«nt09« of •l«>«nt« extracted by «••!• extraction
(WET) fro* e«ch of th« r««oure« recovery ••*••«
Reeourec recovery ««h
...... ---- ........ ---- ............ ----
Chicefo Suaner H««pc.en Auburn
Al
l«
C« .
Cd
Cr
Cu
r«
Df
Hn
He
P
Pb
Sb
Si
Sr
Ti
V
Zn
6.9
1.3
29.3
92. •
ae
1.3
4.«
39. t
26.4
ne
• .«
lt.1
13.3
0.9
17.3
0.66
ne
4«.9
17.1
2.0
42.9
ne
ne
-ne
9.4
30.0
41.0
ae
15. ft
20.4
27.2
0.77
29.6
0.6«
ae
29. •
10.9
3.4
44.1
99.9
ne
ne
3.4
29.0
19.4
ne
19.1
29.1
21.0
0.93
34.9
1.02
13.0
31. •
13.9
S.«
39.7
ae»
1.9
99.2
9.3
26.6
91.6
24. «
*6.«
41.0
29.3
3.«
13. •
0.3*
ae
31. C
•Tho«« •^•••nt« ia which th« p«re«at «xtr«ct«d could not b« e«leul««od
for «11 four r««oure« r«eov«ry ••h«« «r« not included.
could not to
-------
T«bla 41. Concentration* of ar»«ntc ••••ur«d in four «*••«.• l««ca ta«t<
Weate ftaaourca recovery aah
laach teat Blank ------------.............._---._._.—
Chicago Suanar Kaapton Auburn
(10*3 ej/l)
WET 1 61 189 99O 17
EP <1 3 9 17 2
Carbonic acid <1 3 2 <1 1
Acatata <: 5 1 2 3
Table 42. Concentration* of cadaiua in four waste laaeh
Raaourea recovery aah
leech taat Blank ......................................
Chieafo Suanar Ha»p«en Auburn
(10*3 B^/L.)
WET 0.9 1»OO «10 1920 1«O
CP <0.3 710 240 9OO 2O
Carbonic acid <0.9 It 12 7O 9
<0.9 190 90 330 3O
-------
9442.1988(05)
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
§ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
f
OCT 3 1988
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Robyn-Marie Lyon
McDermott, Will and Emery
2049 Century Park East
Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3108
Dear Ms. Lyon:
I am responding to your letter dated September 7,1988, to Bob.
Dellinger which requests confirmation of a hazardous waste
interpretation of a waste stream generated by one of your
clients. Specifically, your client uses a bronze plating process*
which plates a copper-tin alloy on carbon steel wire. No
electrodes or electrolysis are employed in the process.
You have spoken with Mr. David Topping of my staff regarding
this process. As Mr. Topping has informed you, this process is
characterized as "immersion plating", rather than electroplating
and, therefore, treatment of this process1 wastewater will not
generate F006 unless electroplating rinse waters are mixed with
the immersion plating wastewaters prior to treatment.
You should advise your client that any wastes generated by
the immersion plating process should be evaluated prior to
disposal to determine whether they exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics (i.e.. ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity - see 40 CFR
261.21-24).
Also, you should be aware that the States may have a
regulatory program more stringent than the Federal program (i.e..
the State hazardous waste program may consider these wastes as
hazardous under State law). Therefore, you will have to contact
the various States where your clients are located to determine
how these wastes should be handled under State law.
-------
-2-
Abramf IT £l* SE-SS?" qUestions' "le"e ""act Mr. Edwin F.
Sincerely,
Oevereaux Barnes
Director,
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
9442.1989(01)
Mr. Richard Torrito
Assistant General Counsel
Continental Can Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 5410
Norwalk, Connecticut 06856
Dear Mr. Torrito:
It was a pleasure meeting, with you on December 22, 1988 to
discuss the regulatory status of wastewater treatment sludges
from the zirconium phosphating of aluminum cans which are
generated and managed by Continental Can.
As we discussed at that meeting wastewater treatment sludges
generated by Continental Can are within the scope of the listing
for wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum. Based on the process chemistry and
information received by the Agency, we do not believe that these
wastes contain or form Appendix VIII constituents in hazardous
concentrations. Therefore, it is the Agency's belief that
wastewater treatment sludges from this process should not be
classified as hazardous waste and that Continental Can and other
can makers employing the same process and chemical constituents
should be granted regulatory relief from managing their sludges
as hazardous wastes as guickly as possible.
The Agency believes that the best way to accomplish this is
to modify the F019 listing to exclude the zirconium phosphating
of aluminum cans process through an expedited rulemaking. One
issue you raised during the meeting was whether the modification
to the listing would retroactively apply to previously generated
wastes. According to our Office of General Counsel, the listing
modification would be retroactive (i.e., once the F019 listing
modification is final, previously generated wastes would not be
classified as F019).
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
I want to assure you that making the modification discussed
with you is a high priority within the Office of Solid Waste. It
is already underway and will be carried out as quickly as
possible. We will keep you informed.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9442.1989(02)
JAN 25 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Fluff Analyses
FROM: Alec McBride, Chief
Technical Assessment Branch, OSW
TO: Cynthia Stroup, Chief
Design and Development Branch, OTS
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify some of the
details of the analytical procedures that we understand will be
used in the fluff sampling and analysis project. We appreciate
the efforts that your office has put into dealing with the
difficulties encountered in collecting and analyzing the fluff
samples.
As you know, OSW has asked for analyses of lead and cadmium
in both the total fluff samples and the Extraction Procedure
(EP) extracts from those samples. Both sets of analyses should
be conducted on the samples after they have undergone appro-
priate size reduction steps to meet the EP requirements. One
thing I have not brought up in our discussions but would like to
mention now is that the EP does not require size reduction of
materials whose ratio of surface area to weight is greater than
3.1 cm2/g. Materials such as pieces of fabric or wire could
likely be put directly into the extraction bottle without being
reduced in size to pass through the 9.5 mm sieve.
Please call me on 382-4761 if you have any questions on the
EP requirements (although MRI should be familiar with them).
Also, we would like to take care of our share of the costs of
the project as soon as you have your final estimates. Thanks
again for all your help.
-------
BNfTtD ifATIS iNVtROMMCMTAL WWTfCTlOU
9442.1989(03)
20 1989
Mr. Richard S. Leonard
Quality Control Coordinator
NET Pacific, Inc.
435 Tesconi Circle
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Dear Mr. Leonard:
I am writing in response to your letter of February 9, 1989
requesting guidance on what analytes to look for when performing
RCRA analyses.
One selects the list of target analytes based on the j
regulatory purpose for which the analysis is being performed. :
For example, if one is a land disposal facility which is required
to monitor its ground water, then one analyzes the ground water
for those analytes listed in Appendix IX of 40 CFR Part 264. On
the other hand, if the reason for testing is to determine if the
waste is a hazardous waste by reason of Extraction Procedure
Toxicity, then one only needs to analyze the Method 1310 extract
for the 8 metals and 6 organic compounds listed in 40 CFR Part
261.24. Generally, the analyses a facility must perform are
described in its permit and, especially the Haste Analysis Plan.
I can understand how the various lists and analytes
described in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846) can
be confusing. SW-846 is a compilation of methods designed to
cover all testing one might need to do to comply with RCRA data
gathering needs. It contains testing methods for complying with
all aspects of the RCRA regulations and a method may be indicated
as being approved for determination of analytes which might not
need to b* determined in one's particular situation.
If you have any other questions on the RCRA regulations, I
suggest that, you contact the RCRA toll free hotline at
800-424-9346.
Sincerely yours,
navia Friedman, chief
•Method Section (Op-331)
-------
9442.1989(04
«• Ti UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 2 B :SS
3
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Antarctica Waste Disposal Practices
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Brenda Sue Thornton
Office of International Activities
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide comments from
the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) on the Scientific Committee on
Antarctic Research (SCAR) Panel of Experts recommendations
concerning waste disposal practices in Antarctica. OSW agrees
that the present Code of Conduct provisions concerning waste
disposal are inadequate in some respects and need updating. In
particular, the Code:
o categorizes wastes by disposal method, rather than by
waste characteristics and the degree of hazard they
pose to the environment;
o allows land and ocean dumping of untreated sewage,
solid and even hazardous waste;
o allows open burning and incineration without air
emission controls.
OSW also generally agrees with the SCAR Panel of Experts
recommendations, with some comments and suggestions for changes,
as follow:
o In general, the language of the recommendations and the
present Code is too qualified and conditional (e.g.,
vague qualifiers like "discourage the use of,1* "where
appropriate," and "take into account"). Additionally,
waste disposal standards should be incorporated under
the Treaty as a new Agreed Measure to make them more
binding.
o Recommendation 13: To some extent, wastes continue to
be categorized by disposal method, rather than by
characteristics and degree of hazard they pose to the
environment. We believe that wastes should be
categorized in the following manner:
-------
Waste water containing sewage, domestic waste, and
other organic waste with BOD and mineral nutrients,
that will be discharged to the land, ice, surface
water, or ocean, is one class of waste. (This presently
falls under class 1.) Hazardous waste should not be
mixed with waste water.
Wastes that exhibit hazardous characteristics,
regardless of whether they are liquids or solids, or
combustible or noncombustible, are another class of
waste (hazardous waste). (This roughly corresponds to
class 2.) Within this class, hazardous waste may then
be subdivided into combustibles, noncombustibles,
liquids, and solids (2a, 2b, 2c, 2d). They must be
managed, handled, stored, transported, and disposed of
to prevent their release into the environment.
Hazardous waste should not be mixed with waste water or
nonhazardous solid waste.
Solid wastes that do not exhibit hazardous
characteristics may then be divided into the two
categories of combustible and noncombustible (Groups 3
and 4).
Radioactive wastes (Group 5), already are a separate
waste class, and should not be mixed with any other
type of waste prior to removal from Antarctica.
o Recommendation #4: While waste management and disposal
by each country should be designed to meet that
country's national standards, universal minimum
standards for Antarctic waste management are necessary
in order to achieve uniform protection of the
environment. It seems inequitable and futile to have
some countries achieving high standards at considerable
expense, while others, whose national environmental
standards are low, escape these costs and contaminate
the air, land, and water. Some mechanism also is
necessary to make these universal minimum standards
enforceable, such as incorporation under the Treaty as
an Agreed Measure.
3. In light of Recommendation 14, U.S. waste disposal practices
in Antarctica should conform to standards found in 40 CFR.
Hazardous waste: Processes should be designed to
minimize the generation of hazardous waste. Likewise,
the purchase and import of virgin materials that will
become hazardous waste should be minimized. Hazardous
waste that does not meet Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) treatment standards cannot be land
disposed (as defined in the Land Disposal Restrictions
Standards in 40 CFR 268). If treated to BDAT standards
onsite (For most hazardous waste, properly conducted
-------
high temperature incineration often will achieve
BOAT.)/ the residual may then be disposed on or in the
land. However, the land disposal unit must meet 40 CFR
264 design recfuirements, with "minimum technology" such
as double liners and a leachate collection system.
Note that studies should be conducted to assess the
efficacy and feasibility of "minimum technology
reguirements11 in the Antarctic. Alternately (and pre-
ferably) , the treatment/incineration residuals should
be removed from Antarctica. Also, if incineration
does not achieve the BOAT standard, waste must be
removed from Antarctica. Hazardous waste incinerators
must meet design and operation requirements specified
at 40 CFR 264. Finally, hazardous waste subject to the
Land Disposal Restrictions should be stored and
accumulated only in tanks or containers prior to
treatment/incineration or removal, and only for up to
one year. (40 CFR 268.50)
Solid waste; Waste minimization, of both solid and
hazardous waste, should be emphasized in order to
reduce the volume disposed of. Packaging materials
that will become refuse should be minimized at the time
of purchasing and supply. Ideally, purchase of
plastics such as PVC, polyurethane, polystyrene should
be minimized if these materials cannot be recycled.
Materials should be recycled and recovered to the
maximum extent possible (e.g., silver recovered from
photographic waste). Combustibles should be
incinerated separately from hazardous waste and only in
double-burning high temperature incinerators with air
emissions controls. (See 40 CFR 240-257 for solid
waste management regulations.)
Waste water: OSW believes that the Office of Water
should comment on waste water treatment and discharge
reguirements. Nonetheless, we raise the following
points for consideration and discussion: At isolated
bases, treatment of waste water prior to discharge may
be difficult or impossible. However, use of composting
toilets, both at bases and stations, is a possible
solution to sewage disposal. At coastal stations,
primary treatment (physical maceration) alone is
inadequate; waste water needs biological treatment to
reduce BOD (with Rotating Biologicial Contactors (RBC)
or equivalent) prior to discharge. Untreated sewage
should not be discharged to the ocean. Despite the
relatively low population of Antarctica, significant
local impacts on the marine ecology could occur from
discharge of untreated waste water. Furthermore,
because ice-free land is scarce and the ecosystem rare,
discharge to land also could significantly impact this
ecosystem. Additionally, hazardous waste should not be
mixed with waste water.
-------
Ocean dumping of solid or hazardous waste, or untreated
waste water (sewage) is prohibited in the U.S. (except
for dredge and fill materials) and should be
eliminated.
Despite the logistic problems caused by the remote
location of Antarctic stations and bases, waste
disposal standards should not be compromised, either
for U.S. activities or for other countries' activities.
This is especially true in Antarctica, where pristine
ecosystems must be protected for their scientific
value. Protective waste disposal standards can be
achieved in Antarctica, although costs may be greater
than in other parts of the world.
Please contact Dave Reeves at 382-4679 to discuss these
comments further.
-------
9442.1989(05)
JUL 5 1989
Mr. Jon Greenberg
Manager, Environmental Policy
Browning-Ferris Industries
1150 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Greenberg:
This letter is intended as a follow-up to an Agency letter
of October 27, 1988, which was in response to your written
inquiry of August 11, 1988. In reviewing our letter, we
discovered that some language was not included, due to a computer
error. We would like to take this opportunity to correct this -
omission, thereby avoiding any confusion.
In our letter, we_ stated, "A residual generated from the "
treatment, storage, o"r 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." This sentence should have stated, "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), when
mixed with a solid waste, is a hazardous waste only if it
exhibits a characteristic." However, we reiterate that treatment
of a characteristic hazardous waste or a non-hazardous solid
waste may generate a listed hazardous waste, such as the
electroplating wastevaters mentioned in our previous"letter. In
that example, treatment of characteristic wastewaters generates a
sludge which is listed as F006, even if the treatment occuryoff-
site from the generation of the wastewater.
We apologize for any inconvenience this error may have
caused. If you have any further questions, please call the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 382-3000.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
-------
wirT-o$TATBiHvaroi«ERT>Linr(rrfc^H ~. 9442.1939(07)
Sff 12 B89
John P. Nash
P.O. Box 3473
Whittier, California 90605
Dear Mr. Nash:
This letter is written to inform you that your letter of
August 8, 1989, concerning the regulatory status under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of your system for
recycling/treating aerosol cans has been referred to Mr. Jeffrey
Zelikson, Director of the Toxics and Waste Management Division
in EPA's Region IX Office (San Francisco, California).
EPA's current policy regarding the regulatory status of
non-empty aerosol can puncturing, crushing or shredding is that
the appropriate EPA Regional office is to make a determination
on a case-specific basis. Although the December 30, 1980,
letter from Mr. Gary Dietrich indicates that such activity is
not RCRA-regulated treatment, subsequent evaluation by EPA has
determined that such activity may, indeed, meet the definition
of treatment found at 40 CFR 260.10 (i.e., such activity may, in
fact, change the physical or chemical composition of a hazardous
waste, or render such waste amenable for recovery). However,
until EPA develops a final determination regarding such
activities, the Regional offices, or authorized State regulatory
agencies, will make such determinations on a case-specific
basis.
Thank you for your interest in the recycling of solid
wastes. If you have any questions regarding your letter, you
should contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Petruska
Acting Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
OS-332-MITCH-PDISK-U!-9/ll/89-WCB025A
-------
UNfTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9442.1989(08)
OCT I 9 1988
Mr. Dave Collins
Jones and Henry Labs
2567 Tracey Rd.
Northwood, OH 43619
Dear Mr. Collins:
I an writing in response to our telephone conversation
concerning Method 1320, the Multiple Extraction Procedure.
Method 1320 states that after the EP (Method 1310) is run on the
initial waste sample of 100 grams, the solid phase remaining
after filtration is reweighed and a synthetic acid rain solution
is added to the solid phase in a 20:1 ratio. The sample is then
extracted and filtered. After filtration, the remaining solid
is again reweighed and the extraction fluid is again added in a
ratio of 20:1, and so on through the remaining multiple
extractions.
I had originally said that the synthetic acid rain
extraction fluid should be added in a 20:1 ratio based on the
sample's initial dry weight. However, this approach does not
take into account what would really happen to the waste in a
landfill environment. Method 1320 is trying to predict what
would happen to the waste when it is placed in a landfill and
subjected to rainfall over a long period of time. The waste may
absorb water after contact with the acid rain or may lose weight
due to the percolation of the acid rain through the waste. In
either case, the waste has been modified by the acid rain.
Therefore, in order to mimic this behavior in the laboratory,
the wet material that remains after each extraction with the
synthetic acid rain solution is the material that should be
weighed and used to calculate the 20:1 liquid to solid ratio.
The dry weight of the original waste sample of 100 grams should
not be used.
If you have any questions with this, please give me a call
at (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Ann Hansen
Environmental Health Scientist
Methods Section (OS-331)
-------
Table 43. Concentration* of copper aaaaured in four vaate leech teeta
Vaete •.eeouree recovery aeh
leech teat Hank •
Chicago Suaner Heaeton Auburn
(»9/t)
WET 0.022 1.90 .O.O41 0.047 211
CP 0.006 1.67 6.04 O.64 24.3
C«rbonic acid O.OO6 0.92 0.1* 0.12 1.32
Ac*t«t« O.OO3 1.06 0.15 0.21 24.2
T«bl« 44. C«nc«ntr«tloa« of ehreaiua ia four •••*• l««eh %••%•
W«*t« M««eure« rvce^vry ••»»
l««eh t»«t BlvnX ..................—.............
Chicago Su«n«r •••p^ea Auburn
wrr
0 .
Carbonic acid
Acatata
(a«/D
0.024 1.00 1.02 Lit 1.72
-------
T«Bi« 45. Concentration* of !••« ••••ur*d i.-. four v
;««e.t
w««c« Roaourca r«eev«ry ash
l««cn t««t ll«nk --........--....—
Chicifo 3u«n«r H«apt.en .Auburn
WET 0.07 29 3S 44 29
EP 0.007 • S.tO t.40 10.3 9.19
Ccrbenie «eid t««t
Chiecye Suanar •••pten Auburn
WCT
CP
<2
<2
<2
<2
t
3
3
4
<2
<2
4
a
<2
2
4
7
<2
<2
<2
4
-------
Table 47. Concentrationa of zinc measured in four veate leach tent*
R««ourc«
loach t«at i*en*«
Sunn«r Haapton Auburn
WET
-------
vn-T4v
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D v
9442.1989(09)
NOV 3 1989
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY FtESPONS.
Mr. Robert N. Steinwurtzel
Counsel to the Secondary Lead
Smelters Association, Inc.
Andrews and Kurth Attorneys
Suite 200
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Steinwurtzel:
This letter is in response to your letter of September 22,
1989, discussing the issue of waste testing procedures for blast
slag generated by lead recycling facilities. I appreciate your
bringing this matter to our attention. While this type of issue,
particularly in the enforcement context, is one in which the
Regional offices generally have the lead, I can give you some
idea of our thinking at Headquarters in response to your
concerns.
With respect to the technical aspects of the proper
application of the Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity test, we at
EPA Headquarters are in agreement with the discussion presented
by Mr. James Scarbrough of our Region IV office in his
September 27, 1989, letter to you (copy enclosed). Specifically,
we believe the sampling procedure used by the Secondary Lead
Smelters Association (SLSA) is inadequate because: 1-) the sample
is not taken from the actual waste material at the point of
generation and 2) the physical characteristics and chemical
composition of the sample are likely to be different from those
of the waste material. Given the actual nature of the waste as
described in Mr. Scarbrough's letter, we also agree with his
conclusion that the structural integrity procedure and the
stirring procedure for agitation are not appropriate for this
type of waste. Furthermore, we understand that the Region, in
consultation with EPA's National Enforcement Investigation
Center, has always taken these positions with respect to sampling
and analysis of smelter slag waste.
-------
We recognize that your clients may be in the position of
having to defend against an enforcement action at this point.
However, I believe that if you look at Mr. Scarbrough's letter of
September 21, 1989, he indicates a willingness to attempt a
proper disposition of this matter without extensive and expensive
litigation. I encourage you to explore this suggestion directly
with the Regional Office.
Thank you for communicating your concerns to me. if I can
provide any further clarification on the role of Headquarters on
this type of issue, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely, /?
A/
fer\
fery Denil
''Deputy Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9442.1990(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAY 3 1990
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Dr. Bodo Diehn
Science and Technology Professionals
Environmental Services
Post Office Box 3128
scottsdale, Arizona 85271
Dear Dr. Diehn:
This is in response to your letter dated March 27, 1990,
requesting an interpretation regarding the regulatory status of
paint spray booth air filters containing toluene and xylene.
It is my understanding that your client's painting process
generates an air filter which becomes contaminated by overspray
that is inherent in the paint spraying process. This filter is
replaced when it becomes "spent." Your letter also indicates
that your client's paint contains the solvents toluene and xylene
as ingredients in the paint formulation. Your letter does not
indicate that these solvents (or any other solvents listed in 40
CFR 261.31) are utilized for cleaning purposes, nor that your
client's air filters capture overspray generated during paint
spray booth cleaning operations.
Based on the information provided, it appears that your
client is not generating spent air filters that contain a
hazardous waste listed in 40 CFR 261.31. Process wastes
containing solvents where the solvent is used as an ingredient in
the formulation of a commercial chemical product, do not fall
within the scope of the spent solvent listings. Additionally,
the products themselves do not meet the listings. This point is
stated in the preamble to several solvent rules (see 50 £B 53316,
51 FR 40606) as well as in the listing background document.
However, should a spent solvent (i.e., a solvent that can no
longer be used for its intended purpose without first being
reclaimed) be mixed with the filter, the resultant mixture is a
hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261. 3(a) (2) (iv) .
-------
Your letter does not provide enough information to determine
if your client's air filter would exhibit any of the four
characteristics of hazardous waste. Each generator is
responsible for evaluating his individual waste stream to
determine if it meets a listing of hazardous waste in Subpart D
of 40 CFR Part 261, or if it exhibits any characteristic of
hazardous waste identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261.
Furthermore, State and local regulatory agencies may have
regulations that are more stringent than those at the Federal
level. Your client should contact the appropriate State agency
to determine what, if any, additional regulations may be
applicable.
Sine
Syipfa K. Lowrince,
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1990(02)
NOV
Mr. Michael Paessun
Wadsworth/Alert Laboratories, Inc.
4101 Shuffel Dr. N.W.
North Canton, OH 44720
Re: Bias Correction on TCLP
Dear Mr. Paessun:
We are pleased to respond to your concerns regarding the
application of bias correction for the TCLP. This response will
supplement our initial responses to questions from your company
(communication with Mr. Marvin Stephens) and hopefully will cover
all of your concerns.
The issue of bias correction was covered in the TC final
rule of March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11875). A restatement of the
requirement to correct for bias and a description of the method
for bias correction was issued in the June 29, 1990 correction
notice (55 FR 26993), to clarify the intent as well as procedure.
We would also like to respond to your specific questions:
1. The TCLP method does indeed apply to both the Toxicity
Characteristic program and the Land Disposal Restrictions
program. Any time the TCLP is required, any and all
requirements within the procedure must be met. It should be
noted that the limits set in the Land Disposal Restrictions
program were established based on data which was corrected
for bias.
2. All TCLP analytical results are to be corrected for
bias, including those which fall below the treatment
standards. This is indeed the intent of spike recovery. In
some cases the method (or laboratory/analyst) may
underestimate the true concentration. It is for that reason
that it is critically important that the spike recovery
correction factor be applied when the results are less than
the treatment standards.
-------
3. Data collected before the mandatory date would not be
subject to correction for analytical bias to comply with the
toxicity characteristic ruling. However, it should be noted
that the facility may be liable for proper disposal of any
waste which was improperly identified. After September 25,
any hazardous waste determinations should be based on the
TCLP with bias correction.
4. If you wisTi to supply information on the impact of bias
correction on generators of hazardous waste, I suggest you
send this information to:
Steve Cochran
Chief, Characteristics Section
OS-331
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
I hope we have been responsive to your questions. If you
need additional information on the Toxicity Characteristic Rule,
please contact Steve Cochran at 382-4769 or contact Jeanne
Hankins at .382-4761 for questions on bias correction.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442 1990(03)
NOV I 9 1990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Request for US EPA Headquarters Assistance in Selection
of Non-US TSPA Approved Methods for RCRA Subpart X Permits
FROM: David Bussard
Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: Terry L. Anderson
Chief
RCRA Implementation Branch
US EPA, Region VIII
This memo is in response to the request by Terry Anderson,
Chief of the RCRA Implementation Branch, Region VIII, for Office
of Solid Waste (OSW) headquarters guidance on appropriate
analytical methods for the analysis of the following eleven
compounds (with CAS Nos.)» in air, from open burning/open
detonation, for which no approved USEPA methods apparently exist:
Cyanogen chloride (506-77-4)
1,1-Diethylhydrazine (616-40-0)
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (57-14-7)
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine (540-73-8)
Ethyleneimine (151-56-4)
Hydrazine (301-01-2)
Hydrogen cyanide (74-90-8)
Methylhydrazine (60-34-4)
Nitric oxide (10102-43-9)
Toluene diisocyanate (584-44-9)
o-Toluidine hydrochloride (95-53-4)
United Technologies advocates the use of Draeger tubes for these
analyses, while Region VIII advocates the use of supercritical
fluid chromatography (SFC).
From our experience, OSW agrees with the Region VIII position
that Draeger tubes are inappropriate for use in this application,
because they are prone to giving false negative responses.
However, it is also our opinion that SFC is inappropriate as well
for this application. SFC is an unproved technique for
-------
environmental analyses, and shows little promise of future
applicability, particularly for the above list of compounds.
Therefore, SFC has a low priority in OSW's methods development
program.
Toluene diisocyanate and o-toluidine hydrochloride (as o-
toluidine) can be determined by SW-846 Method 8270. They should
also be amenable to sample preparation by one of the methods listed
in the "Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic
Organic Compounds * in Ambient Air", EPA-eoo/4-84-041, and its
subsequent updates, originally issued in April, 1984 by EPA's
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Methods for nitric oxide and other
gases in air may be available from the Office of Air Quality,
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) in Durham, North Carolina. OAQPS
has published a number of ambient air methods in the Federal
Register as a part of their regulations.
Other sources of applicable methodology for analysis or
monitoring of these compounds in ambient air include the
manufacturers of the compounds in question and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The
manufacturers need to monitor the quality of their products through
assay methods, and also to monitor air exposure of their workers
to these compounds during the course of the manufacturing process.
Exposure monitoring methodology is a specialty of NIOSH, and they
publish many volumes of analytical methods. Manufacturers of the
compounds of concern should be found in the trade publication
"Chemical Sources", which is commonly used by chemical purchasers.
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to call
Barry Lesnik of my staff at FTS: 382-7459.
cc: Chet Oszman
-------
9442.1990(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV I 1990
OFFICE OF
SOLD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Michael C. Stroh
Trace Organics Supervisor
PDC Laboratories, Inc
P.O.Box 9071
Peoria, II 61614
Dear Mr. Stroh:
Here are Toy answers to the QC questions you raised in your
October 19, 1990 letter to me.
You indicated concerns raised recently with your data raised
during permit reviews. In the Environmental Protection Agency,
the responsibility for performing such reviews is a Regional one
not a Headquarters one. While I will offer my technical
observations on the matter shortly, I urge you to contact Region
V (Ms Valerie Jones, Quality Assurance Officer) for Official
guidance. I appreciate that PDC intends to comply with EPA's
intent with regard to QC issues, while offering competitive,
legally and scientifically defensible analytical services to your
clients.
Matrix spike recovery intends to furnish two important pieces
of information in the analytical process. First, it will assist
you in ascertaining and correcting for co-extracted artifacts which
attenuate the analytical procedure's quantitation — analytical
bias compensation. Secondly, it will assist you in determining if
the particular analytical scheme is applicable to the specific set
of conditions presented by particular samples to your laboratory.
As you will see, my subsequent answers to your questions are
consequences of these two uses of matrix spike recovery data.
Your choice of, "performing a matrix spike on every waste's
TCLP extract" is within the scope of the June 29, 1990 TCLP rule.
As you are aware the similarity of samples is more than simply
being a TCLP leacheate, and more than being just a solid, liquid,
or sludge type waste, and probably quite process specific. Over
time your historical data might be marshalled to demonstrate that
various waste types really are identical with respect to matrix
spike recovery of a given analytical method. You have made the
most prudent choice for now.
Prinltd M Kteyeltd Paptr
-------
The proper reporting of non-detected anal it ies is of concern.
The limit of detection will vary depending on the analytical matrix
as well as the cumulative effects of reagents, technique,
procedure, and materials. The matrix spike provides a means of
adjusting the level of detection, a compensation for analytical
bias. When it is applied, it may as you indicate, "force the waste
generator to either certify for that compound, or manage the waste
as hazardous." When faced with this situatation, you can, it seems
to me elect anomg several alternatives:
*•
o Repeat the analysis
o Change the process, analyst, equipment handling,
cleaning, reagents, instrumental calibration
schedule
o Choose a different analytical scheme
The point being that one is much better off with a positive,
identified, measured, constituent than a non detect. If I confused
you when we talked, I hope it is clear now. Actually, the way that
you were operating is quite acceptable. But it would be incorrect
to substitute the QC check standard for the matrix spike.
Because the QC check standard provides different information
than the matrix spike, it is not possible to substitute one for
the other. The QC check standard, reports the degree of control
that exists in performing the analytical process within the
laboratory. On the other hand, the matrix spike reports the
adequacy of the methodology in estimating the true value in a given
set of samples. In those instances when the matrix spike
associated with a particular batch is below that expected in the
method, you need to correct the sample result or alter the process
or select a different method. If the QC check sample shows the
method to be in control, it seems to me, that you may need to use
a different method (assuring yourself that it too is in control) -
- hopefully one that has a better recovery.
I hope that Ay comments have been helpful. They are intended
to be technical information only. Please seek approval from Region
V. Also feel free to call me with any further questions you may
have (201^382-4761) .
Sincerely yours,
Charles Plost
Senior Chemist
Technical Assessment Branch
-------
9442.1990(05)
s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 3 0 1990
ofr\ct Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Det^rmi)p^^/L^ o^Used Oil Filters
FROM: Sylvia Lowrai
Office of SolidTww
TO: Robert L. Dupre'}/, Director (8HWM-RI)
Hazardous Waste Management Division
EPA Region VIZI
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). Zn 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
separated from the filter. The answers to the specific questions you
sked 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, ye 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.
-------
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
-------
9442 1991(01)
Bruce L. Johnson, Chief
Environmental Compliance and Investigation Unit
Environmental Services Section
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Transportation Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Mr. Johnson:
On December 6, 1990, you sent a letter to our office
requesting clarification on information you had heard regarding
the applicability of the new Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) relative to the old Extraction Procedure (EP)
when testing leaded paint sandblasting waste. This letter
responds to your specific concerns.
As you know, the Toxicity Characteristics (TC) rule was
effective on September 25, 1990 for large quantity generators,
and compliance must be achieved by March 29, 1991 for small
quantity generators. On the compliance dates of the rule, the EP
test can no longer be used for hazardous waste identification
purposes; the new TCLP method must be used.
The likely source of confusion is the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) program, which allows use of either the TCLP
or the EP test when measuring compliance with the treatment
standards for certain arsenic- and lead-containing hazardous
waste (see 55 FR 22660, June 1, 1990; Land Disposal Restrictions
for Third Third Scheduled Wastes: Final rule; technical amendment
- enclosed). For these wastes, the Agency specified that if a
waste does not achieve the nonwastewater treatment standard based
on analysis of a TCLP extract, but does achieve the standard
based on analysis of an EP extract, the waste is in compliance
with the treatment standard. (This action was taken because the
data used to develop the treatment standards for these wastes
were based on EP toxicity leachate data. Treatment standards for
characteristic wastes for the remaining EP toxic metals (D005,
D006, D007, D009, DOlO, D011) and EP toxic pesticides (D012 -
D017) must be evaluated using the TCLP.) This LDR provision is
applicable to treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste
which must meet required treatment standards prior to land
-------
In summary, the information you received at the Mississippi
Valley Conference regarding the use of the EP test versus the
TCLP with respect to leaded paint sandblasting waste was, as you
have also determined, inaccurate. The only circumstance that
exists where there is an option of using either the TCLP or the
EP is when measuring compliance with the treatment standards for
certain arsenic- and lead-containing hazardous waste.
As for the information you received from Mr. Jack Kollmer at
the November 9, 199JD luncheon, regarding the acceptance of the EP
Toxicity test for "one time operations" which includes bridge
paint removal, this was also inaccurate.
Of course, state and local agencies may have additional
regulations that differ. The appropriate EPA Regional office or
State and local regulatory agencies should be contacted for
additional assistance or clarification.
If you have further questions regarding the TC rule, please
contact Steve Cochran at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9442.1991(02)
FEB 2 2 1991
Mr. Herschel Cutler t
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.
1627 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1704
Dear Mr. Cutler:
I appreciate your providing us with the documentation of your
analyses of the fluff materials. We are returning the
documentation, per your request. Please note that in order to make
a copy for our records we were obliged to remove the binding. I
trust this will not be too great an inconvenience.
The comparison of the results between our contractor (MRI) and
your contractor (BCM) indicated a difference in some of the
results, as you had previously pointed out. BCM's EP Tox results
were approximately 3-30 fold lower than those from MRI for lead
and approximately 2-10 fold lower for cadmium. The TCLP results
were generally comparable, although BCM did have two significantly
lower lead values and one lower cadmium value.
The attached report describes the evaluation we conducted of
the analytical documentation from both BCM and MRI. I would like
to highlight those areas we thought were most noteworthy.
Since pH is one of the key factors effecting the leachability
of metals into an aqueous medium, we have carefully reviewed the
data provided by both laboratories with special attention to the
pH data.
For the EP Tox procedure, it is necessary to adjust the pH to
-5.0 +/- 0.2 with an acetic acid solution (see attachment for
details on procedure). MRI provided full documentation of the pH
adjustment step, including the pH values before and after each
adjustment. BCM did not provide documentation of the pH values
after adjustment for some of the samples. Therefore, it .was
difficult to fully evaluate the impact of this step in a
comparative manner. Data from BCM indicates that the pH before
each adjustment was much higher than 5.0 +/" 0.2, and this may
indicate that overall, the pH was higher in the samples leached by
BCM than MRI. That may be one reason that the concentrations of
lead derived from the EP Tox test as performed by BCM were
significantly lower than MRI1s. Also, during the on site review,
a discussion with BCM personnel indicated that, due to the large
-------
quantity of acid required and the time involved, a decision was
made to lower the pH to only 5.2. This is the upper limit of the
allowable pH range, and this factor may also help explain the lower
levels of lead found in the samples analyzed by BCM. (Details
provided in attached report.)
When using the TCLP procedure, a selection must be made
between two different extraction fluids. This selection is made
based on the pH of the material. In two cases MRI used extraction
fluid #2, whereas BCM used extraction fluid #1 in all cases. For
both of those samples where MRI used extraction fluid #2, MRI
reported a higher concentration of lead than did BCM. The use of
extraction fluid #2 for these samples had no apparent effect on the
concentration of cadmium. MRI provided data to support the use of
extraction fluid #2, while BCM provided no data to indicate which
fluid should be used. (See attached report.)
Relatively minor analytical anomalies were noted in some of
the data submitted by both laboratories. It is the opinion of the
reviewer that the anomalies would not make a major contribution to
the differences observed. However, these are also included in the
attached report.
We conclude that the data provided does not support the
contention that the TCLP is a more aggressive test than the EP Tox.
We are aware that laboratories do have more difficulty in using
the EP Tox, and we feel that this study emphasizes that
observation. Data from MRI show that the results are roughly
comparable between the EP Tox and the TCLP. We do not believe that
the documentation provided by BCM is adequate to support the
proposal that the two leaching procedures are not comparable.
We appreciate your participation in this comparison study.
We feel it has provided further clarification of our reason for
replacing the EP Tox with the TCLP. If you have any questions on
this evaluation, please contact Alec McBride on 382-4761.
Sincerely,
David Bussard
Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
cc: Alec McBride
Jeanne Hankins
Gail Hansen
Steve Cochran
John Scalera, OTS
Dan Reinhart, OTS
-------
REVIEW OF DATA ON FLUFF SAMPLES
This review covers all the data provided by both BCM and MRI.
The data was reviewed for internal consistency, calculation errors,
compliance with the method, and quality control measures.
EP TOX
PH DETERMINATION -
After addition of the waste and the distilled water into the
extractor, the pH must be measured and then adjusted if it is
greater than 5.2. The pH must be monitored during the course of
the 24 hour extraction period according to the following schedule:
• adjust the pH of the solution in 15-, .30-, or 60-minute
intervals, moving to the next longer interval if the pH
does not have to be adjusted more than 0.5 pH units.
• continue the adjustment for at least 6 hours.
• if, at the end of the 24 hour extraction period, the pH
of the solution is not below 5.2, and the maximum amount
of acid has not been added, the pH should be adjusted to
5.0 +/- 0.2, or until the maximum allocated amount of
acid is utilized, and the extraction continued for an
additional 4 hours, during which the pH should be
adjusted at 1 hour intervals.
Data forms provided by MRI allowed for simple and easy
determination of the pH adjustment process. The following
information was included: time and interval, pH before and after
adjustment, volume of acid added and cumulative amount, post 24
hour adjustment, and final volume of water added.
Data provided by BCM was difficult to comprehend. Only in
some cases was the time and/or interval indicated. In those cases
where the pH was provided, it was apparently the pH before
adjustment with the acetic acid solution. It was not possible to
determine what the pH was at the end of each adjustment or at the
end of the 24 hour period and whether the leaching period was
extended an additional 4 hours if the pH was greater than 5.2. It
was also unclear whether there was any addition of water at the end
of the leaching period.
It was noted that the volume of acid added by BCM was
approximately two fold greater than that added by MRI, which could
indicate a difference in concentration of the acetic acid reagent.
Otherwise, one would expect the BCM results to show greater
leaching. The incremental volumes themselves frequently differed
by approximately a factor of 10, most notedly at the initiation of
the leaching procedure. MRI in most cases adjusted the pH very
-------
close to 5.0, with two excursions below 4.8 (duplicates of sample
5,5 were adjusted to a pH of 4.71 and 4.45 initially). Since BCM
did not provide pH data after the addition of acid, it is not
possible to determine whether the adjustment procedure affected the
amount of leaching. Conversations between BCM -personnel and the
on site observers from EPA indicated that the pH adjustment was
stopped at a pH of 5.2 due to the large volume of acid added and
the extended length of time for adjusting the pH. The pH
recordings (presumably before adjustment) which were documented by
BCM were much higher than 5.2. This might mean that the amount of
lead or cadmium extracted could be lower because of a higher
overall average pH during extraction.
In summary, there are several apparent inconsistencies. MRI
added smaller increments of acid, a smaller total volume of acid,
but, in those cases where it was possible to make a comparison with
BCM, MRI samples had a lower pH at the end of the 24 hour leaching
period. It should be noted, however, that in no case did data from
MRI or BCM show that the pH was less than 5.2 at the end of 24
hours. Therefore MRI continued the leaching procedure for an
additional 4 hours as per the method, which may have increased the
amount of lead and cadmium leached from the fluff. It was not
possible to determine if BCM had an additional 4 hour extraction
period.
TCLP
Extraction Fluid Selection
In order to determine the appropriate extraction fluid for
the TCLP, one must use the following procedure:
• Weigh 5 g of the solid phase of the waste (particle size
1 mm diameter) into a 500 mL beaker or flask.
• Add 96.5 mL of reagent water to the beaker, cover with
a watch glass and stir for 5 minutes.
• Measure and record the pH. If the pH is less than 5.0
use extraction fluid II.-
If the pH is greater than 5.0, add 3.0 mL 1.0 N HC1,
cover with a watch glass, heat to 50* C for 10 min.; let
cool to room temperature and record the pH.
• If the pH is now less than 5.0, use extraction fluid #1.
If the pH remains greater than 5.0, use extraction fluid
12.
MRI provided information which detailed the pH values at each
step. Based on the pH, two of the samples were extracted with
fluid 12: samples 3,12 and 5,5. BCM used extraction fluid II for
-------
all samples, and did not provide any documentation of pH checks.
The lead analyses of these two samples revealed significant
differences in concentration, but the cadmium results were not
significantly different.
Sample 6,4 had a higher concentration of lead and a lower
concentration of cadmium when analyzed by BCM as compared to MRI.
No differences in procedure were noted that might have accounted
for this inconsistency.
In summary, the differences noted in the TCLP results for lead
analyses in samples 3,12 and 5,5 would appear to be due to the use
of different extraction fluids. Further information is needed to
determine whether the correct extraction fluid was selected by BCM.
The data does not indicate any variation in method for the
differences noted in sample 6,4.
ANALYSIS BY FLAKE ATOMIC ABSORPTION 8PECTROMETRY
MRI documented instrument drift in several instances when
using flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS). Logbooks from
MRI describe the techniques used to compensate for the drift,
including 1) manually establishing the baseline from the strip
chart recorder and 2) subtracting the blank from the preceding 10
samples. The second practice is not recommended as it would tend
to inappropriately lower the concentration in the samples analyzed
first. Strip chart recordings would be needed to verify
concentrations under the first condition.
Examination of the BCM data also indicated possible instrument
draft. Several QC samples had to be reanalyzed before they met QC
limits. Also, several analytical runs were missing from the
package. No explanation was given for these anomalies. Other
observations include the following: In the initial calibration for
lead, BCM did not use the 25 mg/L sample to establish the
calibration curve. During the cadmium analysis, the auto-zero
function was initiated after calibration. MRI had a high spike
recovery (approximately 10% higher than expected) for cadmium in
sample 6,4. Reanalysis confirmed the high recovery.
In summary, the data from MRI may be biased low for cadmium
in EP Tox, based on the technique for compensating for baseline
drift. Cadmium results for the TCLP leachate of sample 6,4 by MRI
may be biased high. However, the effects of these biases on the
results would be relatively minor, probably no more than +/- 10%-
Further information would be needed to understand what effect the
anomalies found in the BCM data would have on the bias of any
results.
-------
GRAVIMETRIC DATA
Both the EP Tox and the TCLP require the use of a 100 g
sample which must be weighed out before commencing the procedure,
BCM provided data on the weight determination of seven samples.
Several errors were identified (6 of 7). Although these errors
would have only a nominal effect on the overall accuracy of the
results it indicate^ a potential weakness in the quality
assurance system. The following data compares the results
calculated by BCM and the EPA reviewer:
fftttPLE F9 BCM EPA
2,5 100.23 99.40
2,5 100.31 99.73
2,4 100.35 100.35
2,4 100.85 100.70
2,12 100.38 100.08
2,12 100.16 99.55
3,5 100.32 100.73
Results for all other weight determinations were not provided by
BCM nor MRI.
-------
9442.1991(03)
ri UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
I 9 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Kelly S. Swanson *
Quality Assurance Officer
Analytical Technologies, Inc.
11 East Olive Road
Pensacola, FL 32514
Dear Ms. Svanson:
I would like to clarify the issue of when to add the
matrix splice in the TCLP procedure.
Because the concentration of the contaminant in the sample
is completely unknown, a matrix spike, i.e., a predetermined
quantity of certain analytes is to be added to each.sample matrix
prior to sample extraction/preparation. This is done to monitor
the performance of the analytical method as well as the sample
preparation method and to estimate the extent to which matrix
bias or interferences reduce the measured value of the
contaminant.
Section 8.2.3 emphasizes monitoring the analytical procedure
as opposed to the leaching procedure. It is to be emphasized
that the spike monitors the analytical and preparation
procedures, i.e., analytical method encompasses both the
preparative and determinative steps.
Thank you for your inquiry about spike recovery. I am
available to discuss this further, should you wish. My phone
-number is 202-382-7458.
Sincerely yours,
Charles Plost, Acting Quality
Assurance Officer
cc
Alec McBride
Jeanne Hankins
Joe Freedman, OGC
Hugh Davis, OWPE •
Steve Cochran
RCRA-Hotline
TAB-Hotline
-------
,ito jr4^
/ S *'i
(mj
9442.1991(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCE RESPONSE
March 25, 1991
Mr. Richard S. Leonard
Quality Assurance Director
National Environmental Testing, Inc.
Woodland Falls Corporate Park
220 Lake Drive East
Suite 301
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Dear Mr. Leonard:
The purpose of this letter is to clarify some of the
discussion in ray letter of August 14, 1990 to you (copy enclosed)
which was sent in response to your letter of August 1, 1990.
Specifically, I would like to revise the response to question
number 4. The original question and the revised response are as
follows:
Question 4:
Answer:
Our clients complain that when we dilute a
sample (e.g. oil or solvent matrix) to obtain
results that meet quality control
requirements, that the data so obtained are
"useless" because of the high reporting
limit. How do we generate analytical data
for compliance decisions when dilution must
be performed?
First I want to clarify that, at least with
respect to used oil that is destined either
for recycling or to be blended as fuel, there
is no need on the part of the generator to
run a TCLP since these wastes are eligible
for the used oil exemption (see 40 CFR
261.6(a)(2)(iii) and (a)(3)(iii). In the
case of oily waste that is to be disposed or
solvent wastes, it is required that
generators determine if their waste is
hazardous using either knowledge of their
waste and/or the process that generated it or
by testing. If they choose to test, then
they must use Method 1311 (TCLP). The Agency
is aware that running the TCLP on matrices
involving oily wastes and organic liquid
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
wastes may result in labs being unable to
. determine conclusively that the waste is or
is not hazardous. In those cases, the
generator must use his/her knowledge to make
this determination. Where no additional
information or knowledge is .available, it
would probably be prudent for the generator
to manage those wastes as hazardous wastes.
Please note that in the case of liquid
organic wastes, it is possible that these
^wastes may already be hazardous by virtue of
a hazardous waste listing (e.g., spent
solvents, hazardous wastes codes FOOl -F005) ,
in which case the hazardous waste
determination with respect to the TC becomes
much less critical (e.g., you would be
determining if additional wastes codes
applied to the waste instead of making the
critical hazardous waste determination) . I
would also add that the Agency is aware of
analytical problems associated with oily and
organic liquid wastes and is investigating
ways to solve them.
»
I would like to apologize for any misunderstanding or
confusion which may have resulted from my earlier response, and I
hope this revised response addresses your concerns. If you have
any additional questions related to this or other TC/TCLP issues,
please feel free to call Steve Cochran at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely yours,
Alec McBride, Chief
Technical Assessment Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(05)
MAR 27 199!
Aaron H. Goldberg, Esq.
Beveridge and Diamond, P.C.
Suite 700
1350 I Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Mr. Goldberg:
Thank you for your letter of January 25, 1991 concerning our
methods for ignitable liquids.
In defining an ignitable liquid hazardous waste under RCRA,
the Agency's regulations state that flash point should be
determined by either one of two specified methods, or by any
other method which might be approved by the Administrator. Only
one test method needs to be applied. The choice of the method
should be based on the applicability of the method to the
material being tested. In this case, one might consider
viscosity, among other things, in making the appropriate choice.
I hope that this has clarified the intent. If you need
further assistance, please call Charles Plost of my staff at
(202) 382-7458.
Sincerely yours,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
cc Steve Cochran
Joe Freedman, OGC
Joe Lowry, NEIC
Hugh Davis, OWPE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9442.1991(06)
MAY 9 1991
Nicolas H. Roelofs, Ph.D.
Nevada Environmental Laboratory
1030 Matley Lane
Reno, Nevada 89502
Dear Dr. Roelofs:
I an writing in response to your letter of May 1, 1991, to
David Bussard regarding the differentiation and equivalency of
Methods 8240 and Method 8260.
As you are aware, both methods are determinative procedures
for the analysis of volatile organics by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry. The two methods are very similar and differ
primarily in the gas chromatographic column used to effect
separation. Method 8240 utilizes packed columns, where Method
8260 utilizes open tubular capillary columns.
The two types of gas chromatographic columns both provide
separation of analytes targeted for analysis, but are not
technically equivalent in their separation ability. It is Agency
policy to allow the substitution of equivalent or superior
materials within the analytical procedures of SW-846 unless
otherwise specified in regulations. For example, Method 8240
, Section 4.12.2 allows the substitution of equivalent packings.
' Furthermore, Method 8000 Section 4.2 permits other packed or
capillary columns to be used provided the performance test
requirements of Section 8.6 have been met. Therefore, capillary
columns (with or without cryogenic cooling) may be substituted
for the packed column of Method 8240, if the ability to generate
acceptable accuracy and precision by Method 8000 Section 8.6 has
been demonstrated.
-------
We are aware that the delay in promulgating the methods of
the first update package has added further complications
regarding the utilization of Method 8260, which has not been
promulgated in its final form. We are expediting the final
promulgation of the methods contained in the first update package
to remedy this situation as soon as possible. If you have any
questions on this issue, please contact John Austin at (202) 382-
4761.
Sincerely,
Alec McBride, Chief
Technical Assessment Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9442.1991(07)
Mr. Timothy J. Anderson
Corporate Senior Project Engineer
Environmental Affairs
Rayovac Corporation
601 Rayovac Drive
P.O. BOX 4960
Madison, WI 53711-0960
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I am writing in response to your letter of May 15, 1991
concerning your particle size reduction procedure for TCLP sample
preparation of dry cell batteries.
Your idea of using liquid nitrogen to freeze the samples
before grinding is very interesting. Freezing at those
temperatures would certainly tend to make the sample easier to
crush afterwards.
However, the TCLP states that one must collect a
representative sample of the waste as generated for analysis. We
have no way of knowing whether this type of freezing will alter
or affect the sample's physical or chemical composition (and
therefore its leaching potential) in some way. Since the
generator is ultimately responsible for making the determination
that a representative sample is collected for analysis, we cannot
make an up-front determination that this type of freezing is an
acceptable step in crushing batteries.
If you have any further questions, please call me at (202)
475-6722.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Hansen
Health Scientist
Methods Section (OS-331)
cc: Dave Bussard
Alec McBride
John Austin
Carrie Wehling, OGC
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
MICE Line
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991 (08)
JUN 13 1991
Ms. Elaine McPherson
Technical Sales Representative
IT Corporation
17605 Fabrica Way
Cerritos, CA 90701*
Dear Ms. McPherson:
I am writing in reference to your letter of April 11, 1991
concerning the handling of TCLP extractions as they apply to oily
wastes.
We do not recommend performing the extract on the oily waste
that passes through the filter as Margo Jackisch of SAIC
suggested to you. First of all, the TCLP determines release
potential in two steps, the first of which I will discuss here as
it specifically applies to your situation. The initial
filtration step separates, the solid phase of a waste from its
liquid phase. This MM*MK' phase represents the primary waste
leachate or the liquid fraction of a waste that is mobile and can
be released from a landfill. In your case, the oil goes through
the filter and, by definition, becomes its own leachate which is
then analyzed directly.
If your waste is a used oil that is destined for recycling,
there is no need to characterize the waste since it would be
exempt under 40 CFR Section 261.6(a)(2)(iii) and (a)(3)(iii). It
is the decision to dispose of the waste, in lieu of recycling,
that triggers the waste characterization requirement. If your
waste is a used oil that cannot be recycled and is destined for
disposal, generators are required to make a hazard determination.
If the generator chooses to test for the Toxicity Characteristic,
the generator must use the TCLP or an approved alternative
method, as described in 40 CFR 261.24. The extract obtained from
the TCLP may be analyzed by any method, provided the method used
has documented QC and is sensitive enough to meet the regulatory
threshold for the constituents of concern.
In cases where the TCLP results on used oil or oily wastes
are inconclusive, including cases where the detection limit for a
constituent is higher than the regulatory threshold, generators
may use their knowledge of the processes involved in the
-------
generation of the waste to make a hazard determination or resort
to an alternative analytical method to get an answer. This has
been necessary with volatile organics. At this-time, the Agency
is conducting studies of an automated headspace analysis
methodology coupled with isotope dilution mass spectrometry in
order to achieve greater analytical sensitivity for all TC
volatile analytes, ^including vinyl chloride. We suggest the use
of this approach.. Currently, only a working draft method (copy
enclosed) is available. Pending the outcome of Agency studies,
the draft method will be revised and proposed for inclusion in
SW-846.
For furthei assistance, please call the MICE (Methods
Information Comi unications Exchange.) at (703) 821-4789. Calls
are recorded on an answering machine and, for the majority of
questions, responses are provided within 24 hours. I hope this
information has
sufficiently addressed your questions.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Hansen
Environmental Health Scientist
Methods Section (OS-331)
cc: David Bussard
Alec McBride
Steve Cochran
Mike Petruska
John Austin
Gail HanBQiv*-^
Leon Lazarus, Region II
Hugh Davis, OWPE
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
MICE Line
-------
UNITED i»Ai w CNViKONMfcNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9442.1991(09)
JUN I 9 1991
Esther L. Harper
Chen-Bio Corporation
140 East Ryan Road
Oak creek, WI 53154-4599
Dear Ms. Harper:
I am writing in response to your letter of June 12, 1991, in
which you request written confirmation of our phone conservation
regarding surrogate recovery.
In judging the validity of a data set, surrogate analytes are
used as indicators of the procedure's ability to recover the actual
analytes of interest. Surrogates are used to demonstrate correct
sample preparation and the absence of matrix effects impacting the
recovery of the actual analytes of interest. The use of surrogates
is an integral part of many of the Agency's methods for the
measurement of organic analyte levels. The omission of surrogates
from an analytical procedure in which they are called for is a
deviation from the suggested or required analytical method.
It is frequently observed in the review of analytical data
that dilutions needed to achieve quantitation of the analytes in
a sample results in levels of surrogates which are no longer
measurable. The omission or absence of measurable levels of
surrogates provides one less tool for use in the evaluation process
for the assessment of data useability. However, the absence of
-surrogate data does not in itself invalidate the analysis. If the
analysis still indicates that analytes are present at or above
regulatory action levels, then the lack of surrogate recovery data
would have little bearing on the use of the data. In the case of
no detectable analytes, then there is no assurance that the
individual sample was amenable to the preparative procedure.
Sincerely,
John Austin
Acting Chief
Methods Section
-------
9442.1991(10)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUL 3 1991
Mr. Theodore W. Lund
Vice President
C/P Utility Services Company, Inc.
119 Sanford St.
Hamden, CT 06514
Dear Mr. Lund:
This letter is in response to your May 20, 1991 letter to
Mr. Alec McBride of my staff in which you requested information
and responses to questions concerning the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and lead paint removal debris.
Q: a. TCLP as a lead test method, is it applicable to paint
residues?
A: The Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule requires waste
generators to determine whether constituent levels in their
waste sample extract, or leachate, exceed specified levels.
This determination can be based either on their knowledge of
the processes from which the waste was generated or by
application of the TCLP. The TCLP is not a test method
specifically for lead-containing waste, however, solid waste
containing hazardous constituents, such as lead, must be
tested with the TCLP unless the generator has enough other
knowledge to determine whether the waste is hazardous.
Q: b. What kind of sampling protocol should be used on drums,
roll offs and containers of abrasive mixtures?
A: It is important that you collect samples from drums, roll
offs, and containers of abrasive mixtures that are
representative of the waste. EPA has general sources of
guidance with respect to the development of a sampling plan.
These include "Petitions to Delist Hazardous Waste - A
Guidance Manual" (EPA/503-SW-85-003, April 1985) which
discusses the concept of representative sampling (section
7.1) and sampling techniques for various sampling
situations, such as how you would sample a waste contained
in drums (section 7.3). Also eo° 4Q rF?..?^rt> 2ST
provision 15 appxicaoie &Hc6*M(t&9*nl., *H&uiayli, afi
-------
EPA realizes that sampling is a complex procedure and the
representativeness of the sample is critical to the accuracy
of the waste characterization. Therefore, we strongly
recommend that you contact the EPA Regional Office for your
area and the state and local regulatory agencies for
additional information or clarification on the appropriate
sampling protocol for your specific situations.
Q: c. Can on-site stabilization be done for these special
bridge projects throughout a state without establishing a
TSD facility?
A: Yes. Based on the above scenario and under the federal
hazardous waste regulations, on-site stabilization can be
conducted without establishing a TSD facility. EPA allows
for limited on-site accumulation or storage by a generator,
regardless of whether the hazardous waste is treated or not
treated, without the need of a permit or interim status (90
days for generators of 1000 kg/mo or more of total hazardous
waste and 180 (270 if waste will be transported 200 miles or
more from site of generation) days for generators of more
than 100 but less than 1000 kg/mo of total hazardous waste)
(see 55 FR 10168, March 24, 1986). In addition, generators
(in this case C/P Utility Services would be the generator)
must comply with all applicable Subtitle C requirements.
For example, on-site hazardous waste stabilization or
treatment processes roust be conducted in accumulation tanks
or containers in conformance with the requirements of §
262.34 and Subparts J or I of Part 265. Generators not in
compliance with the above-prescribed requirements must
comply with all applicable RCRA requirements as a TSD
facility.
Q: d. Is it allowable to inject a percentage of iron shot into
a mineral abrasive to mask the lead in a subsequent TCLP
test?
A: The hazardous waste regulations do not restrict the use of
ingredients for the purpose of preventing waste from
exhibiting a hazardous characteristic. In fact, this could
be a desirable process change to make the waste less
hazardous. However, in this case, we understand that
introducing iron to the abrasive only temporarily prevents
lead from leaching from the waste, so it "masks" the lead,
but does not really change the character of the waste. If
your clients choose to do this, they should be aware of two
points:
-------
1) If the waste passes the TCLP initially, but then
fails later prior to disposal, the waste is hazardous,
subject to all applicable hazardous waste rules.
2) If the waste passes the TCLP and is disposed of as
non-hazardous waste, the generator nay, nonetheless, be
held liable under CERCLA for any environmental damages
caused by release of the lead into the environment.
Q: e. Can the State DOT choose a central collection point to
accumulate waste from several projects?
A: Yes. If the State DOT determines that it is necessary that
a central collection point to accumulate waste from several
projects be established (e.g., in order to eliminate
transportation or traffic impediments), and the waste is
hazardous, prior to movement of the waste from each site
(i.e., "several projects") to a central collection point,
generators are required under the Federal hazardous waste
regulations to prepare a manifest. In addition, a
transporter must not transport hazardous waste without
having received an EPA identification number from the EPA
Regional Administrator. Furthermore, a transporter must
store manifested shipments of hazardous waste in containers
meeting the requirements of § 262.30 at the transfer
facility (i.e., "a central collection point to accumulate
waste") for a period of ten days or less in order to avoid
regulation as a TSD facility for storage of those wastes
(see 40 CFR 262.20, 263.11-.12).
I hope the responses to your questions are of assistance.
Of course, state and local agencies may have regulations that are
more stringent and would thus, as a practical matter, supersede
the Federal'regulations. Furthermore, the answers to the
'questions you raised are likely to vary from site to site and
from state to state depending on the particular situation and the
particular state's regulations. Therefore, I suggest that you
contact the state waste management agency where specific paint
removal activities are planned for relevant requirements and
regulatory interpretations. In addition, you may want to contact
the local EPA regional office, particularly if you plan on
activities within states which do not have approved hazardous
waste management programs.
-------
If you have any further questions, please contact
Daryl Moore of my staff at (202) 475-6721.
Sincerely yours,
David A. Bussard
Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
cc: Carrie Wehling, OGC
John Austin
Gail Hansen
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
MICE Line
-------
9442.1991(11)
UNITED STATES ENVIF . ^MENTAL PROTECTION AGENiCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JU. - 9 1991
Mr. Craig S. Campbell
Regulatory Analyst
Health and Environmental Affairs Department
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Campbell:
In response to a request made during a recent meeting with
Mr. Jim Greene of Mobil Corporation, we are providing you with the
following information on the methodologies employed in our 1989-
1990 used 'oil sampling activities.
To fill data gaps in the pre-1985 generated used oil
characterization data and to provide source-specific waste
characterizations using improved analytical techniques, EPA
initiated a sampling and analysis program in 1989. To accomplish
this, the Agency stratified the used oil universe into limited
categories based on the source and application of the used oil.
Seven used oil categories identified include: automotive crankcase
oils; diesel engine crankcase oils from trucks and buses, heavy
equipment, and railroads; hydraulic oils and fluids; metalworking
oils and fluids; electrical insulating oil; natural gas-fired
engine oil; and aircraft and marine engine oils.
The Agency developed sampling strategy by conducting
literature research, data base searches, and telephone interviews
with industry, State, and local officials, as well as telephone
book listings. Each facility identified as a used oil generator
was defined as a unit selected on a random basis in one of the used
oil categories noted above.
To use available funds effectively by focussing on the
analysis rather than the national representation of used oil
sample, the sampling activities were undertaken in the Washington,
D.Co area, unless samples of used oil from a specific segment could
not be obtained there. The sampling program was not intended to
characterize variations in used oil based on geographical location,
since it is assumed that no significant differences in constituent
concentrations are attributable to geographic area.
Frinud OH Kteyeltd Paptr
-------
When possible, samples of "as generated" used oil and facility
storage tanks or containers were taken. This allowed EPA to
determine "as-generated' constituent concentrations and the extent
of adulteration endemic to the generator.
The Agency developed field procedures to sample numbering and
labeling, equipment use and decontamination, sample protocols, and
sample containerization and preservation, as well as documentation
of sampling activities. Chain of custody forms accompanied each
shipment of samples from the field to the laboratory.
The analytical program was designed to characterize used oils
with respect to the compositional concentration of the constituents
of concern and with respect to the Toxicity Characteristic (TC).
In order to do this, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) was applied to used oil samples, and after filtration, the
liquid phase (filtrate) of the samples were analyzed for selected
constituents of concern using analytical methods from SW-846, "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (Physical/Chemical Methods),
Third Edition," as noted in the table on the next page.
For volatile organic contaminants, the Agency found that the
traditional purge and trap GC/MS method (Method 8240) did not
provide detection limits that were sufficiently low. As an
alternative, the Agency has modified an existing headspace
screening method (Method 3810) to include isotope dilution. This
modified method includes the addition of several standard isotopes
that correspond to each of the target analytes. For semi-volatile
organics analyses, the Agency had similar difficulties. The
existing SW-846 methods were adequate for analyzing most samples,
but the used oil matrix required dilutions that yielded
unacceptable detection limits. To improve the detection levels,
the Agency utilized a specific ion monitoring (SIM) option on the
GC/MS. Instead of scanning the sample for a full spectrum of semi-
volatile compounds, the Agency found that analytes with lower
concentration could be easily detected using SIM.
Attachment 1 is a copy of thq. Sampling and Analysis Plan for
the Characterization of Used Oil, and Attachment 2 is the table of
SW-846 Methods employed to characterize used oil. The results of
the sampling and analysis effort wii. be publicly available at the
time of publication of the used oil proposed rule. Thank you for
your interest in EPA's used oil program.
Sincerely yours,
David Bussard, Director,
Characterization and Assessment Division
Attachments
-------
9442.1991(12)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/IB 3QI991
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Lead Paint Removal Debris and the TCLP Procedure
FROM: David A. Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
Office of Solid Waste (OS-330)
TO: Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule Regional Contacts
Regions I - X
Since the promulgation of the TC rule (March 29, 1990),
there have been a number of generator and state inquiries
regarding the applicability of the TC rule (i.e., Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)) to lead-paint removal
debris. Specifically, questions have been raised regarding the
regulatory status of lead-paint removal debris that are generated
with a mineral abrasive which includes an additive which "masks"
(intentionally or not) the lead in a subsequent TCLP test. We
anticipate that you will be receiving similar inquiries regarding
the regulatory status of the above-mentioned waste.
In summary, there are two scenarios that may exist regarding
the addition of agents or additives to mineral abrasives that are
used for lead paint abatement projects:
^'
1. Agents or additives that are mixed with the mineral
abrasive prior to the abatement process (i.e., before a
waste is generated) for purposes of preventing waste from
exhibiting a hazardous characteristic.
2. Agents or additives that are mixed with the mineral
abrasive subsequent to the abatement process (i.e., after a
waste is generated) for purposes of preventing waste from
exhibiting a hazardous characteristic.
The purpose"of this memorandum and the attachment is to
provide you with a copy of a letter that responds to these and
other questions regarding the applicability of the TC rule and
hazardous waste regulations to lead-paint removal debris.
-------
Should you have any questions regarding the information in
the attachment, please contact Daryl Moore of my staff on
FTS 475-6721 or (202) 475-6721.
Attachment
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs - Regions I - X
Nancy Brown (OWPE)
Frank McAllister (PSPD)
RCRA Hotline
-------
9442.1991(13)
OCT 9 1991
Dr. Irving M. Kipnis
Gascoyne Laboratories, Inc.
2101 Van Dennan St.
Holabird Industrial Park
Baltimore, MD 21224-6697
Dear Dr. Kipnis:
I an writing in response to your letter of September 13 ,
1991 requesting an exemption from the particle size reduction
step in the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) .
The RCRA hazardous waste regulations allow a generator to
use his/her knowledge of. a waste (which could include previous
testing data on wastes known to be very similar) or the processes
that generated a waste to determine if it should be regulated as
a hazardous waste. We do not require you to test. If you decide
to test for the Toxicity Characteristic, however, you must use
the TCLP (Method 1311) . At this time, the particle size
reduction step is included in the TCLP, and laboratories are
required to follow the steps in the method. Because TCLP does
not explicitly describe how to reduce the particle size of all
materials, a laboratory analyst must use his/her best
professional judgement for determining an appropriate method.
This might include cutting, crushing or grinding. The
responsibility lies with the generator to make that
determination.
In addition, the TCLP states that one must collect a
representative sample of the waste as generated for analysis. If
you scrub your subsamples prior to TCLP testing, then you may not
be testing a representative sample. We have no way of knowing
whether the cleaning procedure will alter or affect the sample's
physical or chemical composition (and therefore its leaching
potential) in some way. Sinoo tha generator iCultiiualelO
responsible for mavin^ +** ri**—^^**^™ +*tt n rftrroocntn
sample is-coilected lui diidlybi^-. we cannot make an up-front
determination that your proposed method is an acceptable or
appropriate step.
-------
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to
call me at (202) 260-4761.
Sincerely yours,
cc: Alec McBride
Dave Topping
David Bussard
Carrie Wehling, OGC
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
MICE Line
Gail Hansen
Chief,
Methods Section (OS-331)
-------
.. -r^muriMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(14)
OCT 29 1991
Mr. Michael Miller
Laboratory Manager
Betz Analytical Services
P.O. Box 4300
9669 Grogans Mill Rd.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Dear Mr. Miller:
.1 an writing in reference to your letter of October 8, 1991,
to Alec McBride, concerning the handling of TCLP extractions as
they apply to.liquid wastes, including oils and solvent-based
products.
It is important to keep in mind that EPA does not require
esting to determine whether a waste is hazardous; the generator
pay use other information (such as knowledge of the process by
mich the waste was generated) in making that determination.
Also, certain oily material destined for recycling, is exempt
(under Section 261.6(a)) from hazardous waste management
requirements.
Liquid hazardous wastes are subject to hazardous waste
management requirements regardless of whether they are destined
for landfill disposal. As a result, there are many reasons why a
generator or transporter would and should want to test the waste
that they manage. For example, a generator may need to determine
what types of storage, handling or transport requirements are
applicable to the waste. The generator may also need to test the
waste to determine compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions program, under which wastes are subject to
requirements for treatment by specified technologies prior to
land disposal.
Given these considerations, if the generator still wishes to
test his/her waste for the Toxicity Characteristic (TC)
determination, then the TCLP must be followed. Once the fluid to
be analyzed has been obtained (from either the initial filtration
-------
step or the leaching procedure) , the laboratory may^use any
appropriate determinative step for the analysis. If the methods
currently in SW-846 do not achieve the required detection limits,
then other methods should be used. This has often been necessary
with volatile organics for oily matrices. At this time, the
Agency is conducting studies of an automated headspace analysis
methodology coupled with isotope dilution mass spectrometry in
order to achieve greater analytical sensitivity for all TC
volatile analytes. We suggest the use of this approach be
considered. Currently, only a working draft method (copy
enclosed) is available. Pending the outcome of Agency studies,
the draft method will be revised and proposed for inclusion in
SW-846.
For further assistance, please call the MICE (Methods
Information Communications Exchange) at (703) 821-4789. Calls
are recorded on an answering machine and, for the majority of
questions, responses are provided within 24 hours. I hope this
information has sufficiently addressed your questions.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Hansen
Chief,
Methods Section (OS-331)
cc: David Bussard
Alec McBride
Dave Topping
Carrie Wehling, OGC
RCRA/ Super fund Hotline
MICE Line
-------
unit cw 44*i K* tn»iitwrvmcni AW ri\u t cw t ion
9442.1991(15)
BLWP132.91
December 17, 1991
Ms. Sharon Meves
Quality Programs Coordinator
WMI Environmental Monitoring Laboratories, Inc.
2100 Cleanwater Drive
Geneva, Illinois 60134
Dear Ms. Meves:
I am writing to you in response to your inquiry of November
18, 1991, concerning the handling and analysis of samples
containing volatile organic compounds. You do not mention any
specific matrix in your letter, but the tone of it indicates to us
that your questions refer to aqueous samples. My responses are
also limited to samples regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and represent the point of view of the Office of
Solid Waste.
In general, aqueous samples should be hermetically sealed in
volatile organic vials at the time of sampling, and must not be
opened prior to analysis to preserve their integrity. The vials
should be completely filled at the time of sampling, so that when
the septum cap is fitted and sealed, and the vial inverted, no
Jieadspace is visible. At the time of analysis, the aliquot to be
analyzed should be taken from the vial with a gas-tight syringe
inserted directly through the septum of the vial. Only one
analytical sample can be taken from each vial. If these guidelines
are not followed, the validity of the data generated from the
samples is suspect.
The following is the response to your specific questions:
1) The sample should exhibit no headspace "at the time of
sampling" as I have previously mentioned. However, due
to differing solubility and diffusion properties of gases
in aqueous matrices at different temperatures, it is
possible for the sample to generate some headspace during
storage. This hegdagtHnniari11 appear in the form of micro
bubblefc, and, shcjulcifnat^i ft validate |a sample for volat^les
-------
2) The presence of a macro bubble in a sample vial generally
indicates either improper sampling technique or a source
of gas evolution within the sample. The latter case is
usually accompanied by a buildup of pressure within the
vial, (e.g. carbonate containing samples preserved with
acid). Tom Bellar of the Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory in Cincinnati (EMSL-Ci) (unpublished
data) states from a study that he did several years ago
that "pea-sized11 bubbles (i.e. bubbles not exceeding 1/4
inch or *6 mm in diameter) did not adversely affect
volatiles data. These bubbles were generally encountered
in wastewater samples, which are more susceptible to
variations in gas solubility than are groundwater
samples.
3) There is no reason to "flag" data from acceptable
samples. However, finite volatiles concentrations (i.e.
values above detection limits) from samples containing
excessive headspace should either be identified as
minimum values or discarded and new samples should be
taken. Non-detectable results are invalid.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 202-260-
7459.
Sincerely yours,
Barry Lesnik
Chemist
Office of Solid Waste-Methods
Section
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(16)
Commanding Officer-
Department of the Navy
Naval Weapons Support Center (PM-4)
Crane, Indiana 47522-5000
On December 11, 1990 and April 18, 1991 you sent a letters
(#8026 - Ser 50222/U5224, - Ser PM4/U5471) to our office
requesting that the Navy be exempted from the provisions of the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) when
determining if munitions items (DOT Class C, Hazard Class 1.4),
which are being processed through an incinerator for disposal,
exhibit toxic characteristics. This letter responds to your
specific concerns. I want to apologize for not responding sooner
to your initial letter.
Under the existing regulations, persons who generate solid
waste are not specifically required to test their waste to
determine whether they exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic or any
other characteristic. Instead, solid waste generators are
required to make a determination as to whether or not their waste
are hazardous (see 40 CFR 262.11). This determination may be
made by either applying knowledge of the waste, the raw
materials, and the processes used in its generation or by
testing.
In your initial letter you stated that, "the TCLP
requirement to reduce particle size for toxicity determination
should not be applicable because of the inherently unsafe
procedure of crushing, cutting or grinding of munitions items."
The Agency recognizes that the particle size reduction
requirement (step. 7.3 - TCLP) could create an inherently unsafe
situation when testing these items. Therefore, we suggest that
determinations for these items be made by using knowledge of the
process or any other available data that characterizes the
properties of the above prescribed waste (e.g., EP Toxicity
results).
On January 11, 1991, our office called Mr. Keith Sims, and
on January 14, 1991 we spoke with Mr. J. Lawson, both of your
office, regarding the Navy's request for exemption from the TCLP.
In our phone conversations/ we explained that the TC rule does
not require generators to test in order to make a hazardous waste
determination, as described above. Based on their knowledge of
the process, i£ tnev think tnedbctiMMOfeove munitions items wouia
-------
fail the TCLP-extract analysis for lead or dinitrotoluene, then
these wastes could be declared as hazardous, and no testing would
be necessary. However, these wastes would have to be managed and
disposed of according to Subtitle C requirements. Both Mr. Sims
and Mr. Lawson acknowledged that they understood our explanation
and requested that we send you the above clarification in
writing.
Of course, State and local agencies may have additional
regulations that differ. The appropriate EPA Regional office or
State and local regnlatory agencies should be contacted for
additional assistance or clarification.
If you have further questions regarding the TC rule, please
contact Daryl Moore at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Mr. J. D. Lynch (PM-4)
Mr. G. S. Edwards (5022)
-------
9442.1991(17)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Nathan Fishback .
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Room 330
517 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Dear Mr. Fishback:
This letter is to follow up on a discussion with Mr. Richard
Ross of your office in which he requested a written clarification
of the applicability of certain analytical methods for conducting
testing under the toxicity characteristic regulation.
The Technical Assessment Branch in EPA's Office of Solid
Waste is responsible for developing and promulgating analytical
methods for EPA's hazardous waste program, including the
Extraction Procedure (EP) leaching test. Until September 25,
1990, when changes to the toxicity characteristic (TC) became
effective, the testing protocol for determining compliance with
the TC was the EP test. The EP test was described in Appendix II
to 40 CFR Part 261. See 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II (Superceded
test) (1990). Appendix II described the various steps of the
leaching procedures itself and then stated that the test methods
to be used for analyzing the 14 compounds were those specified
in "Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods", known as SW-846.
Until June 21, 1990, the methods specified in SW-846 for
arsenic, selenium, and mercury were Atomic Absorption, Furnace
Technique (methods 7060 and 7740 for arsenic and selenium,
respectively); Atomic Absorption, Gaseous Hydride (methods 7061
and 7740 for arsenic and selenium, respectively); and Manual,
Cold Vapor Technique (methods 7470 and 7471 for mercury). On
June 21, 1990, the Agency also promulgated method 6010
(Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy) for
arsenic and selenium. The Agency has not promulgated an Atomic
Absorption, Direct Aspiration Method for analyzing arsenic,
selenium, or mercury.
-------
If you have any questions on this information, please call
me on FTS 260-4761.
Sincerely,
Alexander McBride, Chief
Technical Assessment Branch
-------
9442.1991(18)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
DEC I 9 I9SI SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Slade Gorton
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Gorton:
Thank you for your letter of November 3, 1991, regarding
Chuck Burr's concerns about the disposal of used automobile
antifreeze.
My staff contacted Mr. Burr to discuss his concerns
regarding a recent revision to our toxicity test and to the
regulations that identify wastes as hazardous. Mr. Burr
indicated that there is a lack of guidance for businesses in
managing their antifreeze. We supplied him with information
about the current regulations and exemptions regarding the
disposal of antifreeze. I have also enclosed some guidance
documents that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
developed for small businesses to make it easier to comply
with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
It should be noted that EPA does not regulate household-
generated antifreeze. In the case of antifreeze generated by
Businesses, EPA regulates only antifreeze that fails the revised
toxicity test. It may be of interest to you that we have
received some information from used automotive antifreeze
recyclers and the used antifreeze collection industry, indicating
that used antifreeze may, in some cases, fail the revised
toxicity test and therefore be a hazardous waste.
In addition, EPA allows businesses that generate less than
100 kg/month (about 30 gallons) of hazardous waste to manage
their wastes without complying with the EPA hazardous waste
regulation. We are considering further special exemptions so
that small business owners can comply more easily. We expect
to propose this concept within the next few months.
Printed on flervc-otf •»««••
-------
Characteristics Of Hazardous
Waste (Subpart C)
ATKl/1112/6sm
-------
9443.1980(02)
Mr. Jack L. Cooper, Director
Environmental Affairs
National Food Processors Association
1133 20th St. N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Cooper:
I am writing in response to your letter to me of July 30,
1980 and your visit to the Agency on July 25, 1980. You raised
several issues in these communications which relate to the impact
of the hazardous waste regulations (as promulgated in the Federal
Register on May 19, 1980) on food processors.
Specifically, the food processors frequently use a dry-
caustic peeling process which produces a waste which may, on
occasion, exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of
corrosivity since its pH would equal or exceed 12.5. You further
indicated that this waste is always neutralized to well below a
pH of 12.5 and thus would not be a hazardous waste when it leaves
the plant for final disposition. You also indicated that you
feel such wastes, and the facilities generating and treating such
wastes, should not be included in the RCRA Subtitle C program.
In re-evaluating the regulations and our intent to only
control those hazardous wastes which if improperly managed may
present a potential hazard to human health and the environment,
it appears that some modification to the regulations may be
warranted. The Agency disagrees, however, that the appropriate
approach is to declare caustic food processing waste non-
hazardous. To do so would be inconsistent with EPA's May 19,
1980 regulations which identify highly corrosive wastes (pH above
12.5 or below 2.5) as hazardous wastes. Such wastes can cause
serious burns or seriously pollute surface waters. In the case
of your industry, overflows and leaks resulting from improper
operation could result in injuries to persons who might have
access to the area. Improper management could also result in the
release of toxic lists and fumes.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
- 2 -
In sum, we don't think it appropriate to exempt a waste as
non-hazardous because it is usually adequately managed. Such of
the Act. The structure of RCRA involves a determination first
appropriate regulation, the Agency is directed to assure the
public that management is safe. Unless regulations requiring,
proper handling are imposed, the Agency and the public have no
assurance that proper management is being achieved.
To make this same point another way, an interpretation such
as the one you are requesting would allow a great majority of
waste producers to seek exclusion from the program on the grounds
that they manage their wastes properly.
On the other hand, the Agency agrees that imposition of some
of the provisions of the May 18, 1980, regulations may be
unnecessary for relatively simple neutralization facilities. A
more appropriate approach might be to establish a special set of
standards applicable to neutralizations to implement such an
approach. We hope to make a decision on this regulations before
November 19, 1980, the effective date of the May 19, 1980,
regulations.
I would like to thank you for bringing this particular
problem to our attention. Our goal is to promulgate a set of
regulations which will protect human health and the environment
from the improper management of hazardous waste, but yet not
place an unnecessary burden on American industry. Please feel
free to call Mr. Alfred Lindsey if you have any further
questions. Mr. Lindsey can be reached at (202) 755-9185.
Sincerely yours,
Eckardt C. Beck
Assistant Administrator
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9443.1980(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRON;.:--:NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHIN 3TON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE or WATER
Mr. Richard Hill AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Whire Consolidated Industries, Inc.
11770 Berea Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44111
Dear Mr. Hill:
This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1980,
addressed to Filomena Chau of EPA, in wh.'.ch you requested a
clarification of the hazardous waste regulations as to whether
paint residues on conveyor hooks resulting from conveyorized
spray painting operations are considered hazardous and covered
by the F017 generic hazardous waste listing. The wording of
F017 listing ("paint residues or sludges from industrial
painting ...") and the description in the background document
for this listing convey our determination that such paint
residues are potentially hazardous to human health and the
environment if not properly managed and disposed. The paint
residues which you describe would fall under this category.
We have received many comments on the paint residues
listings prosulgated in interim final form on July 16*
Several coomenters have raised questions analogous to yours.
and we are currently evaluating them. We expect to meet vich
industry representatives (e.g., NPCA) and would be pleased to
receive your more extended comments on this matter. In this
respect it would be useful for us to know, for instance, what
is the quantity of residues which you describe as adhering to
conveyor hooks, what is the quantity of sludges which are
created by the caustic bath treatment, vhat is the fate of
these sludges (how are they disposed), and what is the nature,
amount and disposal of the residuals resulting from the
incineration of*the paint residue.
\
In the event that review and analysis of the comments
show that a change is necessary, the regulations will be
revised. We expect to publish our findings in the Federal
Register in advance of the date (Jaunary 16, 1981) on which
these particular regulations will take effect.
It should be note4* however, that in an amendment to the
hazardous waste regulations published on October 30, 1980 In
the Federal Register (45 FR 72024), a cop? of which Is attached,
the Agency excluded from regulation under 40 CFR Parts 262
through 265 or Pirts 122 through 124 or the requirements on
-------
Section 3010 of RCRA hazardous .-astes chat are generated in
a product »r raw material storage tank*, transport vehicles
or vessels or in a manufacturing process unit. Thus, in
your particular instance, if the hangers containing paint
residue are included within the hazardous waste system, the
conveyor hooks would not be subject to regulation until they
were either discarded or treated (i.e., burned to remove
paint residue from the hangers).
Please feel free Co call Dr. Judith Bellin of ay staff
if we can be of any further assistance. Her telephone
number is (202)755-9187.
Sincerely yours,
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste (WH-562)
Enclosure
cc: Filonena Chau
Dr. Judith Bellin
Kathy Kohl
Matthew Straus
-------
9443.1981(01)
UNfTIZ S7ATS- ENVIROf.1 -IN" *. PD3~
V. ASH ir, T~C:, Z.C 2046:
n
AND WASTE MANAOCMCN-
Mr. M. J. Boris
American Steel Foundries
3761 Canal Street
Cast Chicago, IN 46312
Dear Mr. Boris:
I an writing in response to yor letter of May 11, 1981
requesting a ruling on whether the American Foundrymen's
Society (ATS) Standard Test Procedure in which the container
is handshaken twice daily by inverting it 15 times is an
acceptable agitation procedure to employ when conducting the
Extraction Procedure toxicity test [40 CFR 261.24],
The AFS method is not acceptable since it doe? not
meet the definition of acceptable agitation; "...an
acceptable extractor is one which will impart sufficient
•agitation to the mixture to not only prevent stratification
of the sample and extraction fluid but also insure that all
sample surfaces are continuously brought into contact with
well mixed extraction fluid*. Specifically the AFS method is
deficient in that during the 12 hours or more that the sample
remains undisturbed, stratification is likely to take place.
The magnetic stirrer method you also asked about may
however be used if, after application of the Structural
Integrity Procedure, the waste material is a monolithic
piece. By suspending the sample in a continuously stirred
bath of extraction fluid, the objectives described in the
aforementioned specification will be met.
I hope that this answers you question. If you have any
additional questions, please feel free to give me a call at
(202) 755-9187.
Sincerely,
David Friedman
Manager, Waste Analysis Program
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
-------
9443.1983(01)
JAN I 0 1983
REt WCBDF0345
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ignitable Solids Definition
FROM: John H. skinner, Acting Director
Office of Solid waste (WH-562)
TO: David A. wagoner, Director
Air and waste Management Division, Region VII
As you requested in your *eno of December IS, I an writing
to clarify th« definition of an ignitable solid under 40 CPR
261.21 an it appli«ff to materials such «• titanium swarf.
As Gene Grumpier correctly advised Grog Weber of Region V,
in order for a solid waste to be an ignitable waste it must
be capable/ under standard temperature and pressure, of both
causing fires through friction, absorption of moisture or
spontaneous chemical changes and burn so vigorously and per-
sistently that it creates a hazard. Thus, if the titanium
nvarf is very difficult to ignite it would not be classified
as a hazardous waste ev«n thouyh, once ignited, it nay pose a
hazard.
In order to remove the ambiguities inherent in such a
definition, OSW is in the process of developing specific testing
methods and hazardous waste definition thresholds for ignitable
solids. However, s\ieh tests are not expected to be ready tor
proposal until FT 84. \
If you have any comments or questions concerning the
ignitable waste definition please give Davio Friedman or
Florence Richardson a call at FTS 382-4770.
WH-S65B:DFRIEDMAN:df:S248:382-4770;WSM:1-5-83 Disk DF:03:45
-------
9443.1983(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 83
Si.
Question:
Answer:
A wastewacer which is not identified or listed in 40 CF?
Part 261 is placed in a surface impoundment for dewatering.
A constituent of the wastewater is reactive when dry.
Does the surface impoundment becane subject to JOA if it
never dries out. during its active life?
Tne surface impoundment theories subject r.o RCRA when it dries
out after receiving its final volume of waste. If the waste
is immediately renoved as it becones reactive (dewatered),
then the operator would be a generator for that waste. If
the waste dries out first and becomes reactive, then the surface
impoundment would be subject to the regulations.
Source:
Research:
Fred Lindsey
Irene Horner
-------
9443.1983(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 83
5. Question:
Anwser:
If a material is 80% solid and 20% water, can the fH be measured
under 2€1.22(a)(D?
It is still testable if it contains free liquids (water). The
aqueous phase of the proposed paint filter test could be used to
determine if there are^free liquids.
Source Karen Gale
Research: Florence Richardson .
-------
9443.1983(04)
JUL -5 1983
i!n r
Mr. B. H. Conlin
Kooex Consultants Ltd.
•300, 1615-lOth Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T3C OJ7
Dear Mr. Conlin:
I aw writing to you an response to your letter of May 18, >^
1983, regarding practices and regulations for containment and 3 c
disposal of solid wastes in the resource processing industry. £. ;
N -
M '
At the present time, waste gypsum produced as a by-product of o >
processing phosphate rock is exempted by statute from regulation ^r
as a haeardous wast*. The exemption, under Section 3001(b)(3)5A)(ii) § ;
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), is 3 >!
in effect "until at least six months* after the date of submission wr
of a report required under Section 8002(p) on "materials generated ^ [
from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and •* ••
minerals, including phosphate rock and overburden from uranium ^t-
mining." EPA plans to submit the required report in October 1984. §^
0 c
The Agency is conducting two studies related to the phosphate n -.
industry. The first study, which focuses on the metals mining and " •
processing industry, also includes sampling and analysis of phos- £>-
phate industry solid wastes in Regions ZV and X. A total of 77 to~
waote samples (64 solid and slurry samples and 13 liquid sample*} ^
were collected and analysed from the phosphate mining industry. ^
Although most of these samples were collected from mining and bene- -
fieiating" wastes, two samples ware collected from gypsum waste— ^
gyp*]urn pond liquid aad >gypsum pond embankment. Analytical result* £
indicate that mortals concentrations in the gypsum pond liquid ^
exceeded CF tsxieity values for eadmlom and chromium. Acetic acid T
extract from «&e gypsum pond embankment did not fail any of the IP £
toicicity criteria. The gypeum pond fwrt embankment sample, however,
1,4 mioocuries/gram of Radium 226.
,
On Dacsmiber 18, If78, EPA propoaed hasardous waato regulation*
containing guidelines in the form of an advanced notice of propoaed
rnlemaXing concerning Radium 226. According to the advanced notice
of proposed regulations, a waste would be considered haeardous when
the total analysis for Radium 226 was equal to or greater than a
concentration of 5 picocuries/grair for solids. To date EPA has not
-------
promulgated this contemplated standard. If EPA does promulgate
the atandard at S piooeuriea/graa, the waste gypsum oould be
lidared hazardous again, pending completion of the study
to Congress.
Za addition to this ongoing mining study, BPA hat recently
initiated another study focused apacifieally oc vaata yjpguai fi
tli« pho«ph*t» prooaaaia? iadvatry. Initial aaaplln^ of vaataa
la aoh^nlad t* ba^ia July 11, If§3. Carrcatly* the BPA ia
%itttia« with th« Florida Zaatitnta of Phoophata Ra«aajr«li (located
ia Bartov, Florida) to ooodnot tha atudy aa a joiat affort.
At th« praaant ti«ta» EPA ia net ragulatine phoaphata waataa
aa haaardoaa vaataa. Th« Etata of Florida, howavar, haa ra^ula-
tory raquiraaicnta for phoaphate waataa. ntaaa raquirananta
iacloda grouadvatar Bonitorinq of gypam pilaa aad vill, in tha
aaar futora, iaelad* groandvater Monitorin? of othar phoaphata
waata diapoaal praetieaa.
As you mentioned in your letter, wastes free the gas pi
aing industry are frequently hazardous under EFA'e hazardous waste
characteristics (40 CFR 261). If waates fail a eharaeteriatic or
are listad aa hazardous, the full standards for hazardous waste
treatment, atorage, or diapoaal facilities (40 CFft 264-265) apply.
There are no apecial requirements for gaa proeeaaing wastes.
You may obtain a copy of up-to-date regulationa from the U.S.
Printing Office at (202) 655-4000.
If you have any further questions, plaase contact Ms. Penelope
Banaen of my staff at (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely,
Job* B. Bkiaaar
Biraotor
Office of stolid Vasts (Wl-362)
-------
3443.1983(05)
JUL2705
"'" ". ' "~ ' RBt WCBKA340r
Mr. Leroy J. wilder, Jr.
Ray-O-Vac - ,
630 Forward Drive
Madison, VI 53711
tear Mr. Wilderi
X an writing in response to your July 14, If83 request for
clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
haxardous waste identification regulations as they apply to waste
batteries and cells. < •-. ,
AS we discussed in our telephone conversation on July 7r 1963,
•out cannon batteries and cells rapidly degrade when placed in a
landfill. Thus, when testing such products to determine if they
exhibit the Extraction Procedure Toxiclty characteristic (40 CFR
261.24) the batteries and cells should be cut up into mall pieces
(i.,e., to pass 1 en sieve). If, after such preparation, none of
the concentrations listed in 40 CPR 261.24 Table 1 are exceeded
the batteries are not hasardous wastes and nay be disposed of in
a sanitary landfill. Batteries that yield extracts exceeding one
or nore thresholds are hasardous wastes and nust be disposed of
in a RCRA permit ted facility.
Certain batteries and cells, however, are manufactured in
such a nanner as to prevent disintegration after disposal* Such
products nay be tested without being cut up. At this tine,
we have not developed testing thresholds for identifying such abuse
resistant products* Fending development of such tests you nay
evaluate the corrosion resistance of your products using a salt
water solution. If after submersion for 1 month in a salt water
solution no leakage occurs, the product can be considered to
be corrosion resistant. If the package is also structurally
renistant to crushing, it can be evaluated in the IP Toxicity
test without being cut op.
... - I.trust that this explanation assists you in evaluating your
wastes. I would like to also bring to your attention the fact
-------
that we have a toll free hotline (1-800-424-9346), if you ever
need assistance with any aspect of the RCRA regulations.
—"•'•- -~ Sincerely yours,
David ptiedMn
Manager "'
waste Analysis Progta*
WH-565B/DPRIEDMANtNAtS248sX24770s7/26/83tDXSKsNA3408
-------
9443.1984(03)
June 4, 1984
Tooele Army Depot
Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch, (WH-562B)
Jon P. Yeagley, Chief
State Program Section (8AW-WM)
We have reviewed your submissions related to the Chemical
Agents Munitions Disposal System facility. Our preliminary
assessment of the properties of agents GB (isoproplyl methyl
phosphonofluoridate) VX (Ethyl-S-diisopropyl aminoethyl methyl
phosphonothidoate), and HD (Bis-2-chloroethyl sulfide) lead us to
conclude that the wastes should be considered hazardous due to
their reactive nature. While the wastes are not specifically
listed at this time, we believe them to be reactive according to
the definition of §261.23 (a)(4) —namely, when mixed with
water, they generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity
sufficient to present a danger to human health or the
environment. The gases of concern in each case are as follows:
for GB, emissions of hydrogen fluoride which has a TLV of 3 ppm
in air; for HD, emissions of hydrogen chloride which has a TLV of
5 ppm; and for VX, emissions of diethyl methyl phosphonate, bis-
ethyl methyl phosphonic acid and bis-S-(diisopropyl amino ethyl)
methyl phosphonodithiolate. In the case of VX, the emitted gases
are indicated as toxic decomposition products that would be
emitted upon addition of VX to water. (The reference for these
anticipated emissions is the Army's field manual on military
chemistry.) Sufficient quantities of any of these chemical
agents, when mixed with water, would be expected to emit gases at
levels of concern and, thus, exhibit the characteristic of
reactivity. In addition, mustard gas could meet the criteria in
§261.23(a)(5), due to emissions of sulfides.
With respect to our ultimate plans vis-a-vis these wastes,
we do expect to develop listings for all three agents. These
listings would probably be developed under the criteria of
§261.ll(a)(2) and result in the designation of the wastes as
Acute Hazardous Waste. Unfortunately, other priorities and a
general dearth of available information will hinder our efforts
and may result in the passage of considerable time before these
listings are finalized. We are not overly concerned about this
delay, however, since the State's letter suggests that these
wastes are being managed in a manner consistent with their
extreme toxicity. In addition, as we have stated above, the
wastes are currently regulated. Nevertheless, it would be useful
to our efforts if your group or the State agency could submit
information on the wastes and the corresponding treatment and
disposal options under discussion.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Do not hesitate to call Ed Abrams (382-4775) of my staff if
you require further information.
cc: Julia Bussey (T-2-2) Region IX
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9443.1984(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 84
UCRVSuperfund Hotline
July ISM Report
Page 3
S. a. Hew does one perform the I? toxic ity test on oily wastes?
The waste in question not
pass through the filter are subject to the O» extraction and
the resulting extract analysed to determine if th* wast* is
b. There is a variation of the EP toxic ity test specifically
for oily wastes which is used in the dells ting progran. It
is not regulatory, however, under 2(1.24. A copy of this
procedure may be obtained for use in experiaents firen Ibdd
Unroll USEPA Oat by calling (202) 382-4795.
Sources Dave Friedoan
Research: Ken Jennings
-------
9443.1984(05)
USE? «S4
MEMORANDUM
f» u
^ e
SUBJECT: status of Blasting Caps as Reactive Waste? *"<
Z '•
PROM: John skinner, Director ?I
orfice of Solid Waste (Vm-552) OC
Cft C
TO: David Wagoner, Director " fc
Air and Waste Management Division • . § <•
Region VII . ' ..*<
f
This is in response to your recent memorandum requesting .' c
.clarification of the Definition of a reactive waste as it applies • r
to out-dated blasting caps. According to 40 CFR 261.23, a waste ;
which is capable of detonation or explosive reaction, if subjected ^
to neat or a strong initiating force, is a reactive hazardous c
waste. Blasting caps clearly fall within that definition. • .. ;
As you brought to our attention, Section 2.1.3 o£ "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste* (SW-846) appears, however, .-\
to suggest otherwise. A note in the manual states that blasting ;,
caps in quantities of less than 1000 are not a hazardous waste. ^
This is a mistake. SW-846 is a compilation of sampling and *
analytical methods that may be used to test for the presence of •
Appendix VII or VIII constituents. It is not, however, the • 1
basis on which the identification or listing of a particular ,
material as a hazardous waste is made. Thus, Note 5 in Section ;
2.1.3 of s;>-846, should be disregarded. ' ' ' '<
* ' • t
• A package of revisions and updates to SW-846 is currently in
preparation; as part of this update, Note 5 will be deleted to
prevent future misunderstanaings, we appreciate your bringing
this problem to our attention. If you have any questions, please
contact Florence Richardson of my staff. She can be reached at
JTTS 382-4801. -• ; . •'- •"."
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 84
9443.1984(06)
^ Aqueous waste containing small amounts of an organic
compound flashes in a Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.
Is this waste RWA ignitable or is it excluded from that
definition because it "contains less than 24i'alcohol?"
The waste his no alcohol in it.
If an aqueous waste contains no alcohol, it is not excluded
from the definition of ignitable as U wine or latex paint.
Hence, if the flashpoint is less than 140V. the aqueous
waste 1s deemed ignitable. EPA is working on developing
i test for such wastes to determine if they would sustain
conoustion or only flash in the Closed Cup Tester.
Source: Florence Richardson
Research: Oenise Wright
-------
9443.1984(08)
— I
3 «
NO/ 23 -£A |<
o ;r.
a
. ' 3
Mr. Donald Doan *
Environmental Manager ^
Imperial Manufacturing Company n
Underwood Avenue r
P.O. BOX 280 ^
Plattsourgh, N.Y. 12901 3
y
Dear Mr. Dean: ^
This letter responds to your inquiry of November 9/ 1934/ u
regarding the correct designation for waste ink and solvent £
mixtures generated from printing facilities. '
waste inks containing solvents are not listed hazardous
waste; however/ these inks are considered hazardous wastes if they
exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste
(i.e./ ignitability/ reactivity/ EP toxicity and corrosivity).
In your particular case/ waste ink containing HER, MIBK, toluene,
xylene, and acetone will probably exhibit ignitability. Should
this be the case/ these wastes are deemed hazardous waste and/
as such/ should be designated as EPA Hazardous Waste Number 0001.
Solvent mixtures fron the cleaning of pumps/ lines and
tanks/ as described in your letter/ are not currently covered by
the solvent listings in 40 CPR 261.31, Therefore/ they are
hazardous waste only if they also exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste. Within the next few months/
the Agency will propose to amend the listing to include certain
solvent mixtures. Thus/ many of these solvents will be brought
under Subtitle C control.
If your waste management activities.occur in a State that
has been authorized under RCRA/ then the state rules/ rather than
the Federal rules/ apply.
Wo recommend that you consult with the appropriate States
to determine whether they interpret their listing as covering
solvent mixtures. Agency data indicate that New York State
-------
interprets their listing as applying to solvent mixtures as well
as single solvents. In addition, it is within the authorized
State's discretion to determine the appropriate classification
for wastes that are both listed and exhibit a characteristic.
Should you have questions, or require additional information,
please contact Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (202) 3*2-4807."
•«
Sincerely,
Eileen Claussen
Characterization and Assessment Division
Office of Solid wast*
-------
9443.1984(09;
' NL Baroid
\ ML Industrie!1), Inc.
V Mr. W. Li, Yancey
P.O. HOX 1675
Houston, TX 77251
0«ar Mr. Yancey:
I an glad to clarify the issues of hazardous waste
identification you raised in your letter dated November 15, 1934.
First, you .asked if physically solid forms of sodium hydroxide
and potassium hydroxide (granular or pellets) are currently
regulated as RCRA corrosive hazardous waste. The answer is no,
Title 40 CFR $261.22(a) defines corrosivity for aqueous solutions
within given pH ranges and for liquids that corrode steel faster
chan a quarter of an inch per year under specified t«se conditions.
The Kay 19, 1980, preamble, 45 PR 33109 states:
"...there is no demonstrated need to address corrosive
solids at this time. EPA will, however, continue to
seek information on the dangers presented by these wastes
and will consider specific regulatory measures if the .
need for more control becomes apparent."
At this time, the Agency is developing a test protocol to
evaluate the leachability of solid-phase corrosives. Further-
more, the now RCRA amendment* direct CPA to minimize effects
o£ hazardous waste on human health and the environment. So
you can see that tho status of corrosive solids may be subject
to change in the future.
Second, you wondered if products that contain preservatives
listed in 40 CFR S261.33U') are subject to regulation as
RCRA hazardous waste. In particular, you asked about.
that has been treated w*^h f~-~~\*~*y*~ ^», comnent
after 46 CFR $261.33(4") explains that commercial chemical products
are manufactured for commercial use and are commercially pure or
technical grades or formulations in which the chemical is the
sole active ingredient. The comment also says that a waste that
contains a chemical listed in £C261.33(e) or (f) is only a RCRA
waste if the waste is listed in $5261.31 or 261.32 or if the
-------
waste <«-j^«grriftu9 by e*af *7t?riaties 1 r1?"* i *1 «t1_
_2 RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)424-9346 can send you a "copy
of the State hazardous waste agency, addresses and phone 'numbers '.
if you need it. _ • .- *•;.,- *•'./.- .•."";•' . „*.<'•'* .,'-.'
' ' ' " *
If you wish to discuss those questions "further, please do
hot hesitate to call me at (202)382-4804. .-." .'.. .. •'
^ .
Sincerely yours,
Irene S. Horner
Studies and Methods Branch
Attachment
-------
9443.1984(10
30NOV1984
0
c
<
1E.MOKAMD.T1 r
SUliJKCT: Classification of S^all Arras Ammunition I
With Respect to Reactivity '<-
f'«OM: John H. Skinner, Director £
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) *
&.
\*
TO: David Wagoner, Director £
Air & Waste Management Division ^
Region VIIT *
^
Recently, a'question arose as to the status under Rrr\ of . =
off-specification small arms ammunition (ball or sporting ^
ammunition of calibers up to and including 0.50) intended for 7
disposal. The issue concerned whether such wastes are "reactive "
wastes" within the meaning of 40 CPR 261.23(a)(<) and, therefor*, \
subject to KCKA hazardous waste requirernents. because the £
ammunition contains an ignition source that may he shock and 'heat \
sensitive And is designed to generate high procure during use, it —
had been our opinion that it is probably "reactive." However, on £
the basis of information that was received from the Remington ^
Anas Company and the Army, we now conclude that such material*!' *
ar« not "reactive" within the meaning of 40 CPR 261.23 (a)(6). |
f
Section 261.2.1 (a) (6) of Title 40 provide* that a solid o
waste which is "capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it *
is subjected to a strong initiating source or if he a tod under =
confinement" is "reactive." As discussed in the Hay 19, 1440,
preamble to 40 CPR 241.23, shock and thermal instability are
important elements of this definition, while presently there is
no Agency guidance regarding these criteria, the Remington Arms
Company of Independence, Missouri, And the U.S. Army have provided
information which addresses both of these factors.
Remington Anas Company submitted- details on the effects of
heat and impact to small arms ammunition. There was no explosion
when A box of anmunrtion was set afire. Small arts, wh«n subjected
to tho SAAMI (Sporting ACTS a*r>1 Ammunition Manufacturer0a Institute) •
Impact Test, showed no evidence of mass propagation or explosion.
-------
-2-
The Department of the Army has a rigorous safety and hazard..;
testing program on .all munition items. The tests, which include,4;
drop tests from 5/7, and 40 feet to simulate handling errors .:.;••£
and ."heating under confinement," 160*F for 4* hours, also • .'•
showed no evidence of detonation or explosion with respect toW./.*«
small arms ammunition. The tests were performed on both the ' •--
individual munition and a package containing a prescribed number" .,
of items. - " ;•••' •./".• • ." ' ';' . -v."».''•'7 ..';•
> • .".-•. • .-''-,
As noted above, we feel that results from those tests show '
that off-specification small caliber ammunition up to and including .
0.30 is not "reactive" within the meaning of 40 CPR «2«1.23 <*)(«•)..%•
We, therefore, believe that the .disposal of such ammunition is not*.
subject to Subtitle C hazardous wante requirements. " .'•'.;. •y-:.;
•":-'.'"• • '.' V-:-rv'.:
We appreciate your'cooperation. If you have any questions " •• .
retarding the natter, please call David Friedman or Florence Richardson
at FTS 382-4770. - • • . "l . ' '•'••' '- '"•-"
«c;t Air & Waste Management Divisions Directors',
Regions I-VI and Vlil-x >; - "
-------
3443.1985(01)
FEB 21
3
"
Mr. R. B. Morris, Jr.
IBM
44 South Broadway
Whit* Plaint, NY 10*01-4495
Dear Mr. Morrist
This is in response to your letter of January 7, 1985,
which questions the proper Management of excavated construction
soil that contains detectable quantities of volatile organic
compounds. RCRA regulates the characteristic wastes discussed
in 40 CPR Subpart C and listed wastes designated in 40 CTR
Subpart D.
To qualify as a characteristic waste, the soil rould have
to be ignitable ( $261.21 (•)( 2) ), or contain a liquid phase
that is corrosive ($261.22), or exhibit any of the reactivity
criteria ($261.23), or be above the EP toxic levels (£261.24),
In order to be a listed waste, the soil would have to
contain known listed waste that arei
1) commercially unused S261.33(e) or (f) chemical e or
off-specification species, formulations containing
them as sole active inaredients, and container
reaidues or spilled Material of the above f
2) specific industrial waste streams specified in
$261.32; or
3) non-specific waste streams listed in S261.31.
As you stated, in many cases, the exact source of th* volatile
orqianics cannot be determined.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Re«inon*«,
and Liability Act, hazardous substances are currently only
those specified under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act,
the* Toxic Substances Control Act, and RCRA listed and character
istic waste. Therefore, disnosal of »oil contaminated with
hazardous substances must follow CEPCLA guidance also.
-------
You should be in touch with the States because they »ay
rogulate soils that contain volatile organic compounds in a
different Banner. Please feel free to contact •• or Alan Corson
of ay staff again if you have any other questions.
Cordially yours,
Eileen B. Clsussen
Division Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
ec Patrick Aurrlchio
-------
9443.1985(02)
FE3 2 6
Hi:. Kevin 3. Walter
Bureau of Technical Services
Division of environmental RnforCenftnt
Department of environmental Conservation
State of New York
SO wolf Road
Albany, New York. 1223V0001
Dear Mr. Waltert
Z aa writing in response to your recent letter requesting
clarification of the definition of the characteristic of tin it-
ability for hazardous waste*.
Your understanding that the word* "It is a liquid, other
than an aqueous solution containing less than 24 percent alcohol
by volume* were intended to exclude alcoholic beverages, such as
wino, and non-liquid materials is correct. However, while the
Agency's intent was that this exemption apply to potable beverag&s
only, because the tern •alcohol* was used instead of "ethanol,0
all aqueous wastes which are iqnitable only because they contain
alcohols (here using tne tent alcohol to mean any chemical containing
the hydroxyl l-OHl functional group) are excluded fro*
While the Agency completes the process of officially adoptinn
a method for identifying "free liquids," for use in the 'land
disposal regulations, it is out- current practice to employ Method
9095 (see "Test Metnods for Evaluating Solid Wast.e, SW-M5") for
such purposes. Any material passing through the paint filter is
deemed to be a liquid.
With respect to what constitutes an • aqueous solution,"
such a solution is one in which water is the primary component.
This means that water constitutes at least SO percent hy
weight of the sample. Although, we nave not officially approve^
any test methods for determining a wastVs water content, anv
coret>etent laboratory should be able to make such a detenai nation
using standard techniques (e.g., Karl Fisher titration, <"-D.
we share your concern over the ambiguities in the current
ignitabllity definition and have a prnqra* underway to correct
the characteristic's shortcomings. Specifically, changes are
under developnent to replace the alcoholic solution exclusion
-------
- 2 -
with • generic exclusion for those wastes which, while potsensing
« flash point below 60»C, neither continue to burn nor, If they
do burn, release enough energy to cause a major fire. In addition,
steps are being taken to expand the ignitabillty characteristic
to include wastes which are physical solids. Both of these
changes will involve proposal arrl promulgation of specific
definitional test methods and thresholds*
X hope this Information clears up any questions you may
have about the ignitabillty characteristic. If you have any
further questions concerning any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, please contact David Friedman, of *ny stiff, at
202-362-4770.
Sincerely yours.
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid waste
bee: G. A. Lucero, v«-527
A. Corson
S5"J5lSw w.,te Br.nch Chief,
Hotline
-------
9443.1985(04)
July 16, 1985
Mr. Terry L. Thoem
Manager, Environmental Conservation
Conoco Incorporated
P.O. Box 2197
Houston, Texas 77252
Dear Mr. Thoem:
I am writing to clarify several aspects of the sulfide
reactivity characteristic that you asked about in your letter of
June 24, 1985.
At present, there is no approved test method for determining
whether a waste exhibits the characteristic of reactivity. I
have enclosed a draft of a test method for determining Total
Available Sulfide. Work currently being done on the agitation
and waste introduction steps may result in significant changes in
the subsequent proposed test. However, pending the conclusion of
our investigations, we recommend, and will accept, use of this
draft procedure. While threshold concentrations have not yet
been promulgated by the Agency, we have adopted 500 mg/kg Total
Available Sulfide as an interim action level. We consider any
waste that yields sulfide values at or above the action level,
using the draft procedure, to be hazardous.
The 500 mg/Kg action threshold was arrived at by considering
a scenario in which a truckload of waste is discharged into a pit
containing (non-hazardous) acidic waste. As a result of the
reaction of the waste with the acid, a rapid, high level release
of toxic gas ensues. The objective of the characteristic is to
identify those wastes which, if such an activity were to take
place, pose a hazard to those persons in the general vicinity of
the disposal site. While we have considered dispersion in
arriving at the action threshold, the specific dispersion model
that will be used in the upcoming proposal is still under
development.
Ground water monitoring of all wastewater treatment lagoons
containing hazardous wastes, is required including those
containing only reactive wastes. The only exemption from ground
water monitoring that is defined by the RCRA regulations is in
the case of neutralization ponds receiving wastes hazardous only
by reason of corrosivity (§265.90(e)).
This monitoring is necessary because the Agency is not aware
of any' mechanism which can assure that such wastes will not also
have toxic chemicals which pose a hazard to ground water. The
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
fact that a waste is not listed or does not exhibit the
characteristic of Extraction Procedure Toxicity does not insure
the absence of leachable toxic species in the waste.
If you have further questions concerning the reactivity
characteristic please contact David Friedman (202/382-4770) of
the Methods Program. For information on the regulatory
requirements pertaining to ground water monitoring, contact
Robert April (202/475-8860) in the Ground Water Program.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: Claussen
Lehman
Weddle
Corson
Shuster
Friedman
April
Hotline
Region VI
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNITED S '^ES ENVIRONMENTAL PRC
9443.1985(05
JUL22885
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulation Interpretation for Pesticide
Applicator Washing Rins-e Water
FROlu John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562A)
TO: William Hathaway, Acting Director
Air and Waste Management Division (6AW)
Region VI
This is in response to the memorandum from Allyn Davis
dated April 22, 1985, regarding the regulatory status of
washwaters that are generated by washing the exterior of a
pwsticide aerial applicator's airplane. As we stated in a
previous memorandum to Region VII (dated June 16, 1982),
the airplane washing rinsewater is a hazardous waste via
the mixture rule (S261.3(c)) if the pesticide residue on
the aircraft is listed in 40 CFR 261.33(e) or (f) (see
attachment). This regulatory interpretation has created
some concern, especially regarding the excessive impacts
the hazardous waste rules will have on pesticide applicators
and regulatory agencies. Consequently, we have been asked
to reconsider our position on this issue.
Upon reconsideration, we now believe that we have
misinterpreted the rules and that the airplane washing
rinsewater is not hazardous via the mixture rule, in
particular, the mixture rule states that when a haaardous
waste is mixed with a non-hazardous waste, the entire
mixture is hazardous, unless the waste does not exhibit any
of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP)
tcxicity) or, in the case of a listed waste, the mixed
waste is delisted pursuant to 40 CPR 260.20 and 260.22. In
the case of the airplane washing rinsewater, the mixture
would have to be one of water and commercial chemical
product—namely, the pesticide. The Agency does not believe
that the pesticide residue left on the aircraft is a discarded
commercial chemical product. The residue does not qualify
as material discarded or intended to be discarded, see
Generally 45 federal Register 33115, Nay 19, 1980. in
CONCURRENCES
..<2fi>C
SURNAME
DATE
Xl&lf-f
5PA Font. 1320-1 (12-70)
/ '
FFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
listing commercial chemical products/ EPA intended to
cover those products which, for various reasons, are thrown
away. Id. The Agency did not intend to cover those cases/
as here, when the chemical is released into the environment
as a result of use. Unless we take such a position, one
could argue that the pesticide that is sprayed that does
not fall directly on the crop (but falls on the ground next
to the crop) would be disposal of an unused commercial
chemical product; such an interpretation is a distortion of
the commercial chemical product rule.
Consequently, we are withdrawing our previous interpretation
that airplane washing rinsewater is a hazardous waste via the
mixture rule.I/ Rather, this rinsewater would be defined as
hazardous only if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics
identified in Subpart C of Part 261.
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter,
please contact Matthew A. Straus of my staff on (202) 475-8551.
1 cc: Air & Hater Management Division Directors (I to V and VII to X)
4 Air & Waste Management Branch Chief (I-X)
Ci S. Schatzow
P. Gray
R. Ehardt
' B. Weddle
' J. Lehman
t
r
t
t
I/ It should be noted that the remainder of the regulatory
interpretations discussed in the June 16, 1982 memorandum
are still appropriate and should be considered valid.
WH-562B/HFRIBUSH/ecm/475-8551/7-8-8S Disk HFtl-32
-------
9443.1985(07)
September 18, 1985
Mr. John Polich, P.E.
Gabriel and Associates
1814 North Marshfield
Chicago, Illinois 60622
Dear Mr. Polich:
I am responding to your letter of July 18, 1985 requesting
clarification of the RCRA permit requirements that apply to a
specific wastewater stream, which is a mixture of methanol and
water, and which possesses the following characteristics:
Volume (30,000-50,000 gpd)
5-day BOD (25,000 mg/L)
Suspended solids (300 mg/L)
Methanol (20,000 mg/L)
This wastewater stream is a listed RCRA hazardous waste (EPA
No. F003) under 40 CFR §261.21. Since the waste is listed for
the characteristic of ignitability and because it is a mixture of
a solid and hazardous waste (§261.3(a)(2)(iii)), it can only be
exempted from all RCRA requirements if you can demonstrate that
the waste is not ignitable. To make this demonstration, you must
follow the procedures in §261.21 using a representative sample of
the wastewater stream. If your waste is not ignitable, as a
result of analysis according to these test methods, you should
notify Mr. Horst Witschonke, Chief of the Illinois RCRA Unit, U.S
EPA Region V at (312) 886-0987. He will evaluate the test data
and consider exempting the waste from RCRA regulations.
Another option is to seek approval from the local POTW,
which has an NPDES permit, and which meets all the other
requirements of 40 CFR §270.60(c) for a RCRA permit-by-rule, to
accept your hazardous waste. The POTW could allow you to pipe
the wastewater stream directly into a sewer, pipe, or other
similar conveyance at the point of generation, or to discharge
the waste at the POTW. In the latter case, the hazardous waste
must continue to be manifested and transported according to the
RCRA requirements of 40 CFR Part 262.
Finally, you should be aware of a new RCRA requirement
(Section 3005(h)) mandated by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 requiring the owner or operator of an on-site
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
RCRA facility to certify that he has a program in place to reduce
the volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste generated.
(See 50 FR 28733-34, July 15, 1985.) To comply with this
requirement, I recommend that you consider reclaiming or
recycling the spent methanol in the wastewater (see 50 FR 616-
668, January 4, 1985 for the definition of hazardous waste
recycling activities).
If you have any additional questions on these permitting
issues, please call Nancy Pomerlean at (202) 382-4500.
Sincerely,
Peter Guerrero, Chief
Permits Branch
cc: Art Glazer
Bob Scarberry (WH-562B)
Horst Witschonke, Region V
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9443.1985(08)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 85
EP Toxicitv for Oily Wastes
1. With regard to the EP toxicity tlse specified in $261.24, there was a method
1330 for oily wastes proposed to be added to SW-846, "Test Methods for Evalua-
ting Solid Wastes," which appeared in the October 1, 1984 Federal Register
(49 £R 38804). At what oil concentration should one uso this modified E? toxi-
city test for oily wastes?
Method 1330 "Oily Waste Extraction Procedure' was developed for wastes
containing oil or grease in concentrations of 1% or greater. This method
has been used by EPA for generators petitioning EPA to exclude their oily
hazardous wastes from the hazardous waste listings (i.e., "delisting').
Currently, when determining if a non-listed waste is hazardous witn respect
to EP toxicity, a generator oust follow the procedure specified in 40 CFR 261
Appendix II, not method 1330. Method 1330 should be used only when requested
by EPA for the purpose of delisting a hazardous waste.
Source: Jim Poppiti (202) 382-4665
-------
9443.1985(09)
OCT 3 198:
Mr. Donald A. Robbins
Department of Environmental Sciences
ASARCO Incorporated
3422 South 700 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119-4191
Dear Mr. Robbins:
Thank you for your recent letter and suggestions on approaches
to the difficult problem of regulating the management of those
mining wastes which pose a hazard if improperly managed. We share
your concerns both with respect to the suitability of using the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to identify
which mining wastes warrant RCRA regulatory control and the need
for tailored management standards for hazardous mining wastes.
The TCLP was developed primarily to simulate the leachability
of an industrial waste co-disposed with sanitary refuse or other
putrescible materials. Mining wastes, because of the relatively
large volumes of material involved, are not likely to encounter
aiuch disposal conditions even if not regulated. However, although
mining wastes are generally not acidic, many mining wastes contain
pyritic minerals which generate an acidic leachate upon exposure
to air. Thus, the acidic environment modeled by the EP/TCLP may
be appropriate for mining wastes even if the model environment
used to develop the TCLP is not. In fact, the leachate generated
by raining wastes can often be more acidic than the refuse derived
leachate. Thus, a different leach procedure (which, for some
mining wastes, could be more aggressive than the TCLP) might be
appropriate.
No decision has yet been made as to what type of test
procedure to use in identifying which mining wastes reguire
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. A decision tree process is
one approach that is being considered. Any such decision tree
will reguire a nethod for determining the waste's acid generation
potential. While we do not presently have any work ongoing to
develop test methods for determining a waste's acid generating
potential, we welcome your thoughts on this problem. We would
also be willing to work with you and other interested parties in
a cooperative effort to develop such a test.
-------
As to your reddest for tailored management standards, we
ciqree vfth the need to develop tailored nanaqenent standards
for mining wastes before subjecting them to Subtitle C control
and will indicate same in the 1986 Report to Congress.
I appreciate ASARCO's offer of assistance in developing
protocols to assess the leachinq potential of mining wastes*
j would suggest that you contact Alan Corson or David Friedman
1(202/382-4770) to follow up on developing a cooperative
program in this area.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia E. Willans
Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: E. Claussen
A. Corson
D. Friedman
J. Lehnan
w. Porter
T. Kimraell
-------
9443.1985(10)
OCT 2 I 1985
Mr. Robert B. Carroll
P.O. Box 442
Laramie, Wyoming 82070
Dear Hr. Carroll:
I am writing in response to your petition requesting a change
in the extraction medium employed in the Extraction Procedure (EP)
from mild acetic acid to the tetra sodium salt of diethylene triamine
pentaacetic acid (DTPA). We apologize for the delay in responding
to your petition, but your original letter was lost.'
The CP is designed to model waste leachability under a
specified mismanagement scenario. This scenario assumes disposal
of the waste with municipal refuse. The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act charges EPA with identifying, as hazardous,
those wastes which may pose a danger to human health if mismanaged.
The codisposal scenario was chosen because we believe that it
accurately represents a reasonably aggressive mismanagement
scenario (i.e., it is unlikely that wastes which are not regulated
as hazardous will be exposed to leaching conditions more aggressive
than those modelled by this scenario). While the EP is an accurate
simulation of this disposal environment, it is possible that oil
shale management constitutes a more aggressive leaching situation
than the codisposal scenario. How poorly the EP procedure simulates
the leachability of the oil shale waste under commonly occurring
oil shale mismanagement appears to be the question?
In your petition you cite the study by Esmaili, et.al.,
to show that the EP "does not work for retorted oil shale waste."
While DTPA may, admittedly, be a more aggressive extraction
medium than the mild acetic acid employed in the EP, we are not
aware of any data which indicates that DTPA more closely simulate
"real world" leachate generation than the EP does. The fact
that DTPA is more aggressive does not, in and of itself, make it
more accurate.
-------
Siaco the LP does not model tr.e specific environment «»n-.
countered during tn* disposal of oil shala waste* it *ay fail to
iu*ntify such * disposal situation as hazardous. The nCfUk
process could be used* however* to bring §uch managenant under
r«jul*tory control* i£ the *
-------
9443.1985(11)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 85
A. fOA
1. Solvent Mixture
A product contains two active ingredients, toluene and benzene. This unused
product is spilled on the ground. How is the spill and spill residue regulated
under HCRA? Will the proposed solvent mixture rule in the April 30, 1985
Federal Register (SO PR 18378) affect this?
Currently, if a product with more than era active ingredient is spilled, it
will not be classified as a •?• or *U* spill residue per 5261.33 since the
product contains more than era acti/e ingredient. Tn* proposed solvent
mixture rule (50 PR 18378) does not change the answ since the proposed
rule only addresses spent solvent mixtures.
If the soil mixed with the spilled product meets a characteristic of hazar-
dous waste in Part 261 Subpart C, then the soil is c RCRA waste. If the
soil Mixture does not meet a characteristic of hazardous waste, RCRA is
not applicable. CERCLA reporting may be required if the reportable quantity
is exceeded since benzene and toluene are hazardous substances.
Sources Jackie Sales (202) 382-4770
Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7703
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1986(0.
.WN I 7
Mr. Jack Corpuz
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan St.
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Dear Mr. Corpuz:
This is a follow up to our conversation of January 14, 193G
concerning spent iron sponge. A spent iron snonqe material which
evolves nore than 500 mq/fcg H2S is considered reactive hy our
current reactivity method. The Department of Transportation
(DOT) requires a ten day oeriod of exposure to the afnosnhero
cis a stabilization time prior to shipment (40 CFR ) 73. 174). The
facility performing this stabilization requires a pernit from
the EPA to operate (40 CPR 270.10), and if they can show that
une waste is nonr«active after treatment, then the waste's dis-
posal can be requlatod as a non-reactive material.
enclosed is a copy of an iron sponge renort which may be n€
interest to you* If you have any further questions, please qive
me a call (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Ann Hansen
Environmental Health Scientist
Methods Program (tm-5623)
Enclosure
-------
9443.1986(04
MI. Randall P. Andrews
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
Rout* 2
Box S21-C
Rod Springs, N.C. 28377
Doar Mr. Andrewsi
This is In response to your letter of December 27, 1985,
concerning the regulatory status of the copper plating solution
that you receive at your plant sits. MX understand your
situation, you obtain from a copper plating operation a copper
sulfate bath (which exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity)
at your plant site and react it with a chelating agent to
produce a material that is registered witb the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture as a commercial fertiliser. This
•aterial no longer exhibits the corrosivity characteristic.
This Material is then sold to farmers for use as a fertiliser
or is sold to fertiliser companies for inclusion into fertiliser
for resale.
under this scenario, the copper sultate bath that you
receive at your plant site is a solid and hasardous waste and
is subject to the transportation and storage requirements
under the hasardous waste regulations. The material that is
produced at your plant site (i.e., the commercial fertiliser),
however, is no longer subject to regulation under the hazardous
waste rules and may be managed as such. The basis for thic
decision is as followsi on January 4, 1985, EPA promulgated
its final rules which deal with the question of which materials
are solid and hasardous wastes when they are recycled. Among
other things, these rules state that all hasardous secondary
materials that are placed on the land for benefical use or
incorporated Into products (referred to as waste-derived
products) that are placed on the land for benefical use are
solid and hasardous wastes. (See enclosed copy of regulations.)
in the Agency's view* these practices are virually the equivalent
of unsupervised land disposal, a situation RCKA is designed
to prevent. The many damage incidents resulting from wastes
being placed on the land for benefical use bear out the
Agency*s concern. This type of recycling activity has also
-------
beon a particular concern of Congress. In particular, in a
amber of Congressional reports, they describe various damage
incidents involving wastes that arc placed on the land for
benefical use. These reports reflect not only Congress1
concern but its intent that BPA regulate this type of activity.
Therefore, we believe that this type of recycling activity
const itues waits management at id need bt subject to regulatory
control.
By asserting jurisdiction over waste-derived products
that are placed on the land, we are also asserting jurisdication
(and regulating) the materials that go into these products,
provided these materials are hazardous (i.e., exhibit one or
more of the hazardous waste characteristics or are specifically
listed). Therefore, since the copper plating solution is
corrosive, it is subject to regulation. More specifically,
the generator and transporter of this material is subject to
the appropriate generator and transporter standards, including
the hasardous waste manifest, while you (being the recycler)
would be subject to the appropriate storage standards. (See
40 CPR 261.6(b) and (c) for specific regulatory requirements.)
AII indicated earlier, however, the material that is produced
an your facility — the commerical fertiliser ~ is no louger
subject to regulation since this material is no longer defined
au hasardous.
Since this regulation has gone through tormal rulemafcing,
your only alternative (at this time) is to submit a rulemafcing
petition under 40 CFR Part 260.20 (See enclosure for specific
information requirements). Please feel free to give me a
call if X can be of any further assistance; my telephone
number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
waste Identification Branch (HH-562B)
-------
9443.1986(05)
SCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY
SUMMARY
JANUARY 86
1. spent Solvent Mixtures
In the December 31, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 53315), EPA amended the listinc
of hazardous wastes in $261.31 to include certain spent solvent mixtures. In
this final rule, spent solvent listings F001, F002, F004, and POOS were redefinee
to include mixtures containing ten percent or more total listed solvent (by
volume). However, the ten percent threshold for solvent mixtures'was not applied
co the F003 solvents listed solely Cor ignitatoility because the Agency determined
that these solvents may not be ignitable at such low concentrations. *Jdit tonal1
the Agency did not remove these ignitable spent solvents fron tne list of hazar-
dous waste since the solvents have not been evaluated for their toxicity. tow
then are mixtures of ignitable solvents regulated?
If a spent, non-halogenated solvent has been listed only for showing the
igmtability characteristic (i.e., listed as F003), then mixtures or olervds
of such solvents will remain listed aa F003 wastes as long as tne mixture
or blend consists only of F003 listed solvents. For example, a blend of
80% ethyl acetate and 2U% xylene would be classified as F003 while a blend
of 80% ethyl acetate and 20% petroleum solvents would not be F003. However,
the ethyl acetate and petroleum solvent would probably exhibit the ignita-
bility characteristic and be classified as 0001. Finally if a solvent blend
consists of a solvent listed under F003 plus 10% or more of any solvent
listed under F001, F002, F004, F005, then the resultant spent mixture will
be listed as F003 and the other spent solvents (i.e., F001, F002, F004, or
FOOS) respectively.
Source: Jacqui Sales (202) 382-4807
-------
1986(06)
MAR I 2 1986
Paul Agid
Owes k Moor*
1!>5 R.E. 100th Street
Suit* 500
Seattle, Washington 98125
Dear Mr. Agids
In our telephone conversation of March 11, 1916, we
discussed the detection limit for the BP leachate concentration
of selenium «0.2 ppm) cited in the del isting petition (M20)
fil«d for th« residual vait«/contaain«t«d soil pit at th« Boeing
Ooa««rcial Airplane Company • Fabrication Division facility in
Auburn, Washington. X indicated that, if the detection Halt wee
used aa a maxiauB BP leachate value in the VII grovnd water eodel
analysis, the predicted compliance point concentration would
exceed the Agency's regulatory standard of o.oi pp*. Further
analyeia ie necessary in order to produce lower detection liaits,
e.g. <0.1 pp», that would not produce a negative VMS finding.
Tt should be possible, if the saaplee are archived, to re-test
the existing samples using a method permitting finer detection
limits. Otherwise, additional representative samples must be
tested to achieve lower detection limits for selenium.
I have recently aaaumed responsibility for the review of
Boeing'e petition. Pleaae forward thla data to me aa soon as
possible, so that the timely review of the petition may be
aaaured. If you have any questions, please call me at (202)
382-47B3.
Sincerely,
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Solid waate (NR-562B)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
944 3 . 1986 (09 )
30 1986
Mr. Ritchey Vaughn
Quicksilver Products, Inc.
200 Valley Drive, Suite 1
Brisbane, California 94005
Dear Mr. Vaughns
I an writing in response to your request for a definitive
opinion on whether discarded fluorescent and mercury vapor lamps
would be classified as a hazardous waste under Section 261.24 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.
With only the data you submitted, it is not possible for me
to give you a definitive answer to your question. For example,
using the data presented on the GE MVR1000/VBU lamp as a worst
case, the amount of mercury that is potentially available is
223 mg/kg of waste. If all the mercury was extracted into the
Extraction Procedure (EP) extract during the test, this would
yield an extract concentration of 11.3 mg/1. However, mercury
ii a relatively inert metal, with respect to reactivity toward
nonoxidizing acids such as the acetic acid used as the extraction
medium in the EP. In addition, while mercury has a relatively
high solubility in water (as compared to most metals), it solubility
is only .02 mg/1 which is substantially below the regulatory
threshold of 0.2 mg/1.
While I do not believe that either fluorescent or mercury
vapor lamps would b« hazardous waste under the RCRA regulations,
actual EP testing would have to be conducted before any definite
conclusion could be drawn. You should keep in mind, however, that
RCRA is a State administered program in those States that have
applied for and received authorization. In such States it is the
State program which must be adhered to. Son* States have more
stringent regulations than those of the Federal program. Thus,
it is possible that a State may elect to regulate a waste as a
hazardous waste based on its total mercury content and not on
leachable mercury. California may bo one such State. I recommend
you contact the California Department of Health Services for
State-specified regulations.
-------
-2-
If you have any further questions, please feel free to cull
me at (202) 382-4770 or you may call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at
(600) 424-9346.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman
Manager
Methods Program
bcc: E. Claussen
A. Corson
S. Weil
trauss
totttftl
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1986(10)
MAY -51986
Mr. Dave Alff
Analytical Testing and
Consulting Services
1947 Drook Lane
Jamison, Pennsylvania 10929
Dear Mr. Alffi
This letter is to confirm our conversations regarding
your intent to market equipment used to run the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). As we discussed,
your designs for the rotary apparatus indicate that the device
meets the requirement for end-over-end agitation at approximately
.'10 rpm. I will be adding your device to the list of suitable
rotary agitation equipment*
You also presented designs for a zero-headspace extractor
(ZHE). Unfortunately, it is not possible to make a decision
regarding suitability without data comparing the performance of
your device to the other equipment* To reduce potential
variability, it is necessary to insure that all devices are
capabable of producing similar results.
As I suggested, you should consider evaluating your device
ifor comoarability in two steps. First, to insure that you are
in the right ballpark, you should initiate experimental work to
determine recoveries of spiked volatiles from water (or from
TCLP extraction fluid) that has been run through the ZHE. We
have done this work through one of our contractors with the
other two ZHE devices, and comparable results would provide
evidence that your ZHE should be suitable. Please call Dr.
David Taylor of 8-Cubed at (619) 587-8369 for information
regarding identity of the volatiles we used, the spike levels,
the spiking method, and the expected recoveries. I have alerted
Dr. Taylor to expect your call.
-------
-2-
Assuraing that your recoveries arc acceptable, testing of
actual wastes, and comparison to results obtained with the
other ZHE" devices, would be the next step. Since you
understandably wish to avoid having to buy other devices in
order to raake these comparisons, participation in our
collaborative study, also being managed by S-Cubed, would be
advisable. Please contact Or. Taylor if you wish to participate.
Another alternative would be for you to initiate comparative
work through a laboratory that has already obtained these devices.
This alternative has several distinct advantages. For one,
it would eliminate, several variables that always exist in
collaborative studies, such as analytical variability. A more
distinct advantage to you would be time* You indicated that
you wished for your ZHE to be listed with the other ZHE devices
when the proposed TCLP becomes published in the third edition of
SW-846 (our solid waste testing manual), even if it was listed
with the caveat that it was still undergoing evaluation. X
have talked this over with my management, and the decieion was
made that the nanual should only indicate that equipment which
has been shown to be acceptable. For time reasons then, you may
wish to elect this other alternative. Of course if you choose
this alternative you are still welcome to participate in our
collaborative effort.
The time factor may be the deciding factor for you 'since
we will have to make a decision on equivalency by the end of
June to include your equipment in the 3rd edition of SW-846.
I recognize that this leaves you with less than two months
to initiate and complete the necessary comparative work. If you
choose this route, however, I would be glad to provide you with
more assistance.
I are sorry for having to present you with these hard choices.
You have obviously put a lot of effort into your development
work, and your design seems feasible. I wish you had contacted
m« much sooner with your intent. He could have probably avoided
the time factor. Good luck and please call me at (202)382-4795
if I can be of more help.
Sincerely,
Todd A. Kinraell
Environmental Scientist
Studies and Methods Branch (WH-562B)
cct David Friedman (OSW)
David Taylor (S-Cuhed)
-------
9443.1986 (ID
.Mr. William R. blackburn
Travenol Laooratories, Inc.
ueerlield, Illinois 60U15
Dear Mr. Blackburn:
This is in response to the letters you have submitted
to the Agency in which you raise a number of questions tor
our consideration. First, let me apologize for tne time it
has taken to respond to your letters; I hope this has not
created any problems for you. You first request that we
confirm that the deionization (DI) acid that is generated
at Travenol's plant in Cleveland, Mississippi is not a
waste. Based on the information provided,!./ we agree with
you that the DI acid is not a waste and, therefore, is not
subject to the Federal hazardous waste rules. In particular,
before a material can be a hazardous waste, one must first
determine whether tne material is a solid waste. In general,
corrosive materials that are neutralized are normally considered
wastes. However, where such corrosive materials can be
shown to: (1) meet relevant specs with regard to contamination
levels, (2) be as effective as the virgin material for which
they substitute, and (3) be used under controlled conditions.-
we believe such materials may not be wastes. The information
provided in your letters clearly indicate that the 01 acid
generated at your Cleveland plant is benefically reused and,
therefore, is not a waste. As a result, this material is
not subject to the Federal hazardous waste rules. This
material would be subject, however, to any state regulations.
With respect to your request regarding the exclusion
and whether it applies retroactively under the old regulations,
we believe that since the DI acid has always been benefically
See iFtters dated: November 14, 1985, from William K.
Blackburn to Jack Lehman; December 5, 1985, trom Michael bmitn
to Robert Tonetti; January 13, 1986, from Michael Smith
to Matthew Straus; February 6, 1985, trom William R. Blackburn
co Matthew Straus; and April 17, 1986, from Michael Smith
to Matthew A. Straus.
-------
recycled and since this acid is neither listed nor a sludge,
this material is not now (and has never been) subject to
regulations. Therefore, Travenpl does not need to go through
closure tor this impoundment; we have discussed this inter-
pretation with our Office or General Counsel and they agree.
finally/ you requested written explanation as to why no
hazardous waste permit is required to dispose of the alcohol
to the cirair.; a verbal response was provided to you by
Ms. Irene Homer. A written response, however, has been
prepared and should be sent to you shortly.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any
turther questions.
Sincerely*. . \
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid'Waste
-------
UNITED S c- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A( CY
9443.1986(12)
MAY 23
Mr. Frank Neiderkofler
Supply Service (95)
Veterans Administration
810 Vermont Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20420
Dear Mr. Neiderkofler
As we discussed last Friday, the National Association
of Photographic Manufacturers (NAPM) provided data to the
Agency to indicate that used x-ray films/ in and of them-
selves, do not appear to be hazardous under RCRA. Therefore,
used x-ray films are probably not subject to the Federal
hazardous waste management regulations (see enclosure.)
?ou should be aware, however, that each generator is still
responsible for making this determination.A/ In addition,
wastes not hazardous under EPA's regulations may be hazardous
under authorized State programs. You, therefore, need to
contact the States to determine the regulatory status of
these films under their program*
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance; ay telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Branch Chief
Waste and Identification Branch
WH-562B/MSTRAUS/ecm/475-8551/5-19-86 Disk 8601-27
I/ If the generator determines that these films are hazardous,
the only requirements under the Federal regulatins imposed
upon the generator would bo to get an identification number
and to comply with the uniform hazardous waste manifest.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443. 198 6(13)
Datrick .7. Lsany
Minority ^-v^er
•iUD-Indeoendent Agencies
Aporopriations Subcommittee
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington, O.C. 20510
Oear Senator Leahy!
Thank you for your letter of Nay 7, 1986, regarding an
inquiry from your constituents in Bristol, Vermont. You
requested information regarding residues from municipal wast*
resource recovery facilities and any federal laws that apply
to the disposal of these residues.
Solid residue* from Municipal waste combustion
proceeses consist of fly ash and scrubber sludge recovered fro*
air pollution control equipment, and bottom ash. Disposal of
these residues Is accoapllshed by landf illing. Ply ash as well
as other residues fro* MHC processes sometimes exhibit the
characteristics of hasardous waste and, therefore, are regulated
under the applicable disposal standards in 40 CPR Parts 260 through
265. Other than those occasions when the wastes meet the definition
of hasardous waste* the Federal regulations that apply to the
landfillinq of any nonhasardous solid wastes, including most
residues fro* NNC processes, are the "Criteria for Classification
of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices' (40 CFR Part
2IS7), which were promulgated on September 13, 1979, under authority
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Criteria
include general performance standards that are used to determine
which solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable
probability •£ having no adverse effects on human health and the
environment.- A copy of these standards is enclosed for your
information^-
The 19M Basardous and Solid Haste Amendments (HSWO to
RCRA require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
complete several new efforts with regard to solid waste disposal.
By November 8, 1987, EPA must complete a study and report to
Congress on nonhasardous waste land disposal facilities and
practices to determine whether the current Federal Criteria
-------
are adequate to protect human health and the environment. . In
addition, by March 31, 1908, EPA must revise the current Criteria
(40 CFR Part 257) for disposal facilities, including municipal
waste landfills, that receive household hazardous waste and
small quantity generator hazardous waste. HSWA also requires
the Agency to develop a report to Congress and guidelines on
dioxin emissions from municipal waste incinerators or resource
recovery facilities.
In response to these HSWA mandates, we have recently
initiated several projects in an effort to address problems per-
tinent to your inquiry. EPA is currently developtaf a technical
information document for use by State and local governments in
evaluating municipal waste combustion projects. We anticipate
that this document will be available in February 1987. The EPA
contact for this effort is Stephen Greene, (202) 382-4608.
We are also currently engaged in a comprehensive study to
determine the characteristics of ash from MWC processes and to
assess the potential health and environmental impacts from the
disposal of these residues. The results of this study will
be incorporated into the February 1987 information document
mentioned above. The Agency contact for this ash study is
Gerri Dorian, (202) 382-4688.
Your letter presented several questions regarding this
matter. I have specifically addreeeed each of them below.
1. Has EPA tested the wastes from municipal waste
resource recovery facilities to determine the
characteristics of such wastes? If so, what did
those tests find? Have such wastes ever been
characterized as hazardous?
Various agencies, domestic and foreign, have performed a
range of analyses on these residues. A list of technical papers
available to the public is enclosed for your information. EPA
will not complete its full evaluation of this until February
1987. However, it is known that ash residues (predominantly fly
ash) sometimes exhibit the characteristic of EP toxicity as
determined using the RCRA Extraction Procedures (EP) for toxicity
(40 CFR Parts 260.20 and 260.21), because of the presence of
certain metals, such as load and cadmium. If a waste is charac-
terized as UP 'ioxic, it is a TICRA hazardous waste. Additionally,
recent testirv; ot fly ash an.-, flue gas fror. municipal wnste
cort.oust.iou processes has, i:\ sc::e cases, demonstrated the -Treeonce
of ;>olyci.l<;riuatec ctiLeiiiiG-o-ciicxir.s, polychlorinated ciber.s-furur.s
.-...<- ..el. rvlcr-ri-.-ite-.i ;.-i;:i:enyls in both rr.oOia in relativr-ly -s'-ail
_•:...jL.:-rt •:.:.•..•::. . ..."•" ';:s.b :'.ot. -fct.c?i:.- ine^ w'.-iot:.cr tin? ^rope::co of.
..-.T..-.. a na^eir.-: vv -2:. l2:n':f ilif .
-------
2. Do EPA's tests for toxicity of the waste include
a full range of organic chemicals?
The EP toxicity test (40 CFR Part 261.24) addresses eight
inorganics and only six organic constituents. These organics
include: Endrin, Lindane, Methoxychlor, Toxaphene, 2,4-D, and
Silvex. EPA is currently developing a new toxicity characteristic
and associated leaching procedure (TCLP) that will result in the
evaluation of a broader range of organics. For further information
on the TCLP, your constituents should contact Todd Kimmel at
(202) 382-4795.
3. If the waste were determined to be a hazardous waste,
what requirements would apply to a landfill in which
the waste is disposed?
Owners and operators of hazardous waste landfills must
comply with all applicable requirements in 40 CFR Parts 260
through 265.
You should be aware that certain States have more stringent
or specific standards for the disposal of MWC ash, whether or not
the ash is classified as a RCRA hazardous waste. The State of
Vermont has proposed regulations that address the disposal of
MWC ash. For further information on the State of Vermont regula-
tions (existing and proposed), your constituents should contact:
Mr. John Malter, Director
Waste Management Division
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(802) 828-3395
4. Under the Clean Air Act, are there any authorities
for controlling the blowing dust particles that
may result from the disposal of these wastes?
• Under the Clean Air Act, the Agency has the general authority
to investigate and regulate emissions, including particulate
emissions, from various sources that may pose a threat to human
health or the environment. The Agency also has authority under
RCRA to control dust. For your general information, the State
of Delaware has experienced some dust control concerns regarding
municipal waste combustor residues. For more detailed information
on the approach Delaware has used, your constituents may wish to
con'.act:
-------
Mr. William Razor, Supervisor
Solid Waste Management Branch
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 736-4781
5. Under the Clean Water Act or any other watee>
related federal statutes, are there any authorities
for controlling leaking ground water from a landfill
in which such waste is deposited?
The Clean Water Act does provide EPA some authority for
ensuring ground-water protection, but these authorities are
less specific to this purpose than those delegated under RCRA.
EPA's primary authority for ground-water protection at active
landfills is derived from RCRA. For more detailed information
regarding these Federal authorities, your constituents should
contact our Office of General Counsel, either Dov Weitman at
(202) 382-7703 or Ken Gray at (202) 382-7706.
I hope this information is useful to you and your constituents
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate
to contact us again.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
cc:
bcc
Mr. John Halter
Mr. William Razor
M
J.
K.
M.
Williams
Lehman
Shuster
Flynn
G. Dorian
-------
9443 .198 6(15)
Mr. Peter R. Drew
PML' Pty. Ltd. n. p - lQp..
17A Nortolk Court " ' *• ° Wc
Coburg 3058
Melbourne, Australia
Dear Mr. Drew:
This letter is in response to yours dated June 12, 1986
which forwarded information concerning your company's
electrolytic silver recovery eguipment.
The high recovery rates attributed to your equipment are
indeed impressive. I wish you success in marketing this
equipment.
Regarding your request tor information about CPA
limitations on silver discharges to sewer systems, I am
unable to comply. I believe you may have some misunderstanding
ot EPA regulations concerning silver, which I will attempt
to remedy.
As you are probably aware, the CPA has established a
limit of 0.05 mg/1 of silver in public drinking water supplies.
Drinking water containing concentrations ot silver above this
limit are considered to be unsafe.
Under EPA's hazardous waste program, pursuant to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), materials
which have a silver concentration of 5 mrj/1 or higher in
the liquid phase or in an extract from the solid phase
are considered hasardous waste and are subject to handling
and disposal regulations. However, these regulations do not
restrict th« discharge of hazardous waste to the sewer.
Discharge of materials to the sewer is regulated by the
Cl-«n Water Act (CWA) through fiPA's Effluent Guidelines
Program. Generally, EPA Effluent Guideline regulations are
industry and process specific. In the case of photo-finishing,
the Agency has not, as yet, issued a regulation to limit the
discharge of used photographic fixers to the sewer. The
decision to delay issuance of such regulations is based, in
part, on the Agency's belief that current silver recovery
practices greatly reduce silver discharges to the sewer.
-------
9443.1986( 16 )
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTi How Typical are the Characteristic Hazardous Wastas
Generated at Primary Metal faulting and Refining Sitss?
PlioMt Frank k. Smith, Economist
Economic Analysis Staff (WH-565)
TOi John Lehman* Director
Waste Management Division
This memo Addressee the question of whether the character i s tio
witstee produced by primary noaferroos ewtai ssMltinf and refining
plants are different in quantity and looational aspects froa the
olharscteristic wastes generated by other •aaufaetvring sectors.
Thr«« basic co^p*ri«oa« w«r« eeodua^cd to answer this questioni
(1) wasts quantititee produced at individual sitee*
(2) resident human populations reeiding within one
aad rive mile radii from the plants, and
populations served by public water supply systems
located near (oae aad five allss) the generating
sitee
.
The question of whether theee wastes are more or leee hazardous
in tervs of constituent concentrations will be addreeaed in a
neparate aeno regarding toxicity scoring of saelting/refinlng
•rastee vs. other similar wastes. Hazardous saelting and refining
plant wastes) are typically hasardous due to presence of EP toxic
i»etale and/or oorrosivity levels.
The basis for comparison in the following summary of results
Is "all manufacturing sectors* (8XC 2000-3t99) as represented
toy reeponsee from iPA's 1982-83 mail queetioaaaire surveys of
Generators and cm-site T8D General waste handlers. Data for
iimelting aad refining are from O8V*s 1M4-83 surveys of selected
iimeltiag aad refining sectors* including i aluainum* lead* sine
i»ad sine oxide* ferroalloys* titanium metal aad titanium dioxide
-------
There are EPA regulations limiting silver discharges to
the sewer from metal finishing and electroplating operations.
These silver concentration limits are below 1 rag/1.
If you desire additional information of EPA effluent
guidelines, I suggest that you contact Marvin B. Rubin
(mail code WH-552) in EPA's Office of Water Regulations and
Standards.
Also for your information, in case you don't already
know, there is a trade association of photographic equipment
manufacturers, in tho United States. You can contact this
association at:
National Association of Photographies
Manufacturers, Inc.
(Attention: Thomas Outticy)
600 Mamaroneck Avenue
Harrison, NY 10528
Respectfully,
Bernard J. StoM
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
(TiOj). for the most part, these are the largest generators in
the primary nonferrous metal sectors since they represent lostly
the large volume metals oro>1ucers.
Results
1. Quantity of Wasts Generated
Table 1 compares ths salient statistics for six primary
nonftrrous Smelting and Refining (S&R) •tctors (1984) against
the OSW 1982 TSD General Survey for manufacturing facilities.
In terms of average waste per generator, the StR's other than Tic>2
have a significantly lowsr mean (6,200 vs. 62,500 metric tons
per year per facility) than that for all manufacturing. On the
other hand, S4R's also exhibit a substantially higher median
(3,800 vs. 300 tons), indicating that they typically fall above
the median slxe among generators. However, 90 percent of these
SfcR's generate less than 25,000 tons per year, which is about on
a par with the manufacturing sectors as a whole. Excluding Ti02»
the largest individual generators within these six SfcR sectors
produce characteristic waatee in the 30,OOO to 3t,OOO ton per
year range, compared with several million tone per year for the
largeet individual generators in some other sectors. Statistical
estimates based on the TSO general survey indicate that there
were about 250 manufacturing facilities in other sectors generating
in excess of 36,000 tons per year in 1981.
In summary, two conclusions can be state-It
(1) Most primary nonferrous StR fscilities that
generate characteristic hasardous waste
produce larger quantities than do a majority
of facilitiee in other sectors, but
(2) SfcR generation rates are not extremely large in
comparison to the larger waste generators In
other sectors.
Titanioai dioxide would constitute an exception to these
findings. Rates of characteristic hazardous waste generation
for the generators in this sector are equivalent to the 35th to
99th perceatilee of all waste generators.
What if all hasardous waste except for aluminum potliners is
considered characteristic waste? The table below provides a
brief comparison with the addition of copper to the list of
sectors.
-------
Tabla i
Individual Facility Characteristic flaxartloua
Haata Oanaratlon Rataa
(Metric tons par yaar)
Haiardoua
Waate
Statlatloa
Mean
Median
Miniawua
Ma*lB«U»
1983
T8D
aurvay
62.545
269
«1
» 10. 000. 000
Sll
a actor a
5.791
3.800
40
39. 870
Privacy
M
4
1
ii
.
.
•inun
325
920
140
29
.
030
Hon-Ferroua 3m
Sine
10.150
6.380
2.670
19.400
eltlnc] and Raflnlnq Sactora*
Zinc
02
23.
23.
7.
39.
595
595
320
870
Lead
11.246
9.710
3.790
25.280
Perro-
alloya
4.900
5.300
4O
32.400
Titantlum
Matal
1.850
1.500
150
4.600
Total HW 234.784.000 341.670 103.800
30,450 47.190
56.230 93.00O
11.000
Nuatoar of
facllltiaa
3750
59
24
19
-------
Six Sector* All ifgr.
Per MPR Seven Sector* Sectors
Number of facilities 59 74 3.754
Total H.W. 341,670 750,500 234,784,000
Mean H.W. 5,791 10,140 02,545
Median 3,800 4,600 1G9
Minimum 40 40 less than 1
Maximum 39,370 91,930 over 10 million
Essentially, the transfer of proposed listed wastes to the
"characteristics* category does not change the conclusions. It
adds a sector with substantial waste quantities (copper) and adds
additional characteristic wastes to several facilities in the
lead and sine sectors. However, it only increases by four the
number of facilities with wastes in excess of 30,000 tons per year.
1 provides a cumulative frequency distribution of
facility hazardous waste quantities to illustrate the relation
between the 74 SfcR facilities and other manufacturing.
2. Vhat if "Large Volume* is defined tn terms of Sectors (industry
groups) instead of individual facililties?
The 1982 TSD Generator Survey was analysed in terns of
individual four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Industry hazardous waste management quantities* Comparisons were
then drawn between the 194 manufacturing sectors represented in
the survey and seven of the larger nonferrous metal smelting and
refining (S*R) sectors studied in the reinterprete t ion.
Sector Totals
The larfe*t hacardous waste generating SfcH sector was Conner
with 360,000 metric tons oar year. Thirty-two (32) other individual
oianfacturino; eectors (16 percent of all sectors) in the Office of
Siolld Waste 1983 Mail Survey reported larger hacardous waste
quant itiee than coppar. The second largest SfcR sector in our
itample of seven was aluminum with 104,000 metric tons oar year
(excluding pot liners), forty-eight (48) other manufacturing
vectors, or 23 percent of all sectors, exceeded 104,000 tons per
year of total haardous waste* The average sector total for all
aeven SaR sectors was also about 104,000 tons per year.
-------
The smallest 34R ••ctor among the seven in terws of
hazardous vasts was titanium metal with 11,000 tons per year.
This was exceeded by 109 (56 percent) other manufacturing sectors
and, in turn, was larger than 85 (44 percent) of the other non
S&R sectors.
On the basis of these data, we conclude that the smelting
and refining waste quantities when viewed as sector totals are
well within the •normal" range of sector hazardous waste quantities
for all manufacturing categories.
3. Population and Proximity to Public Water Supplies
Smelting and refinery facility locations were compared to
locations of other generators based on the 1982 generator survey
(HWDMS). Two types of comparisons were perforaedi
• Population density in the vicinity of the
facility (one and five mile radius)
• Population served by public *«ter supply intakes
ppl
ii.
located within one and five mile rad
Monferrous smelting and refining sites are somewhat more
rurally located than other generators. Aver* ;e population living
within one mile for SfcR's was 4,500 vs. 11,800 for other generators;
and within five miles average population was 51,000 vs. 198,000.
The conclusion is not warranted, however, that SfcR's are mainly
located in remote areas t 75 percent of S&R'a have a population
of at least 7,500 within a mile, compared with 15,000 for other
generators.
Regarding distance to public water supply intakes, 59 percent
of SfcR's shoved a public water supply intake within one mile,
v«. only 40 percent of all generators in the OSW generator survey.
Both SfcR's and all generators showed a public water supply intake
within five) miles for every facility in the respective samples.
Oil average, the water supply systems near SfcR's served somewhat
smaller populations (2,500 vs. 5,000 for systems with intakes located
within a mile of the facilities).
ecs Mark Greenwood
Meg Silver
Eileen Clauseen
Matt Straus
Jeff Denit
-------
9443.1966(17)
UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTtcTI
SB> 5
Mr. David J. Alff,
Analytical Testinq and
Consulting Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 537
Harrington, PA 18976-0537
Dear Mr. Alff:
I enjoyed meeting you and getting the chance to discuss your
company's zero-hoadspace extractor (ZBC) during the OSW symposium.
The EPA has tentatively decided to add your ZHE to the list
of extractors deemed suitable for conducting evaluations of
volatiles. He would like to remind you that your device, as well
as others, is in a proposed status as the rules that specify use
of the TCLP have not yet been finalized. If we encounter any
information which leads us to change our evaluation, we will let
you know. Otherwise, you can expect that your extractor will
receive formal approval when the TCLP is finalized later this year,
If you have any questions, please call ae at (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours.
Gail Ann Mansen
Environmental Health Scientist
Methods Section (WH-562B)
cc: David Friedman
Peter Guerrero
Todd Kinmiell
-------
UNITED STATES Er»ATtOMiiENT4i PROTECTION AGENCY
9443. 1986( 18 )
4 1985
Honorable Alan Cranston
United States Senate
Washington, D..C. 20510
Dear Senator Cranston:
Thank you for your August 4, 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent, Mr. Martin Schlaegel, concerning the disposal
of dry cell batteries containing mercury and the potential
damage they may cause to the environment*
We, like Mr. Schlaegel, are concerned with the toxic
effects of mercury on the environment. As you may know,
regarding dry cell batteries, the Agency's hazardous waste
rules define hazardous as any waste where the leachate exceeds
0.2 mg/l of mercury. Wastes are also defined as hazardous
if they are specifically listed by the Agency. At this
time, mercury dry cell batteries are not listed as hazardous
by the Agency. Although we have no data indicating whether
disposed mercury dry cell batteries are hazardous wastes
under our rules, we reguire generator's of such waste to
make this determination. To the extent that these batteries
are hazardous (i.e., the leachate from the dry cell battery-
would contain greater than 0.2 mg/l of mercury), they must
be managed at a hazardous waste management facility.
There are two exception* to the reguirement that hazardous
waste from these batteries be managed at a hazardous waste
management facility. First, if the batteries are discarded
by a householder, they are not subject to the hazardous waste
rules. Second, if the hazardous waste from these batteries is
generated in small quantities (defined as less than 100 kq
per month)* they also are not reguired to be managed at a
hazardous waste management facility. In these cases, the
batteries generally would go to a municipal sanitary landfill.
Municipal landfills are non-hazardous waste facilities.
Because the Agency is concerned that discarding this type of
waste in municipal landfills could be a problem we are re-eval-
uating our non-hazardous waste criteria. After we complete
our review of the criteria, we will revise the regulations
for non-hazardous waste facilities, including municipal
landfills. We will issue these regulations in March of 1988.
-------
If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
jS, J-iS ?-. — "--
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
UNI STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT AGENCY
9443.1986(19)
0 ffifiE
Ms. Jacciuelint- Da itch
Marketing Manager
Millipore Corporation
80 Ashby Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Dear Jacquie:
As per our phone conversation of September 4, 1986 con-
cerning your glass fiber filters, both David and Todd will
not reconsider the ERCO study results. They still feel
that your filters do not have the durability required for
the rigors of the TCLP. These filters have a tendency to
become frayed around the edges while undergoing the pressures
of the test. This could contribute to irreproducibility- and
may cause confusion amoung analysts.
We therefore cannot add your filters to the list of the
ones deemed suitable for TCLP purposes. It you have any
questions about this decision, please call me at (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Ann Hanson
Environmental Health Scientist
Methods Section (WH-562B)
cc: Peter Guerrero
David Friedman
Todd Kiosiell
-------
9443.1987(01)
January 6, 1987
Mr. Thomas Dufficy
Executive Vice President
National Association of
Photographic Manufacturers, Inc
600 Mamaronech 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 cartridges (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
(JLtJijL, 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
(_ii_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, corrosivity, 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 waste rules when they were sent for
reclamation, since they would not be considered a solid waste.
Thus, if any of these devices was used to treat wastewater (for
example, to comply with the new BAT/PSES rules), the residues
contained in the units would be considered a sludge; if the
sludge is sent for reclamation, it would not be considered a
solid waste. See 40 CFR §261.2(c)(3).
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Finally, as you are aware. States may choose to regulate
these recovery units under their State hazardous waste program
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.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
944 3. 1987(02)
«C MKjt'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
- 1987
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Les Aspin
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Aapin;
Thank you for your December 18, 1986, letter requesting
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make a determi-
nation as to whether lithium thionyl chloride (SOCL2) batteries
are hazardous wastes.
As you may know, wastes are considered hazardous under
regulations issued pursuant to the.Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) if they are either specifically listed as
hazardous wastes or if they exhibit one of four characteristics
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or Extraction
Procedure Toxicity). Lithium batteries are not listed hazar-
dous wastes at this time and the Agency is not currently
planning to list them as hazardous.
With respect to the characteristics of hazardous wavte,
determinations as to whether a particular material exhibits a
characteristic is, by regulation (40 CFR §262.11(c)), the
responsibility of individual generators. Although the Agency
rendered an opinion in March of 1984 with respect to lithium
sulfur dioxide (LI/S02) batteries, we did so only after
repeated requests from the Army and because there had already
been considerable work done on LiS02 system* which allowed
the Agency to render an opinion without extensive additional
study. Further work on other lithium battery systems is not
currently underway and other priorities established by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) will
preclude us from initiating such a study any time in the
immediate future. Consequently, we suggest that the Depart-
ment of Defense, perhaps in cooperation with the battery
manufacturers* evaluate these other lithium systems against
the characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261.
If I can be of any further assistance in this matter,
please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
94*3 .198 7 (04)
UN'TED STATES EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAR I I 1987
OPP'CE Of
Mr. Lawrence D. Aniballi SOLI° WAST£ AN
Research Products International Corporation
410 North Business Center Drive
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Dear Mr. Aniballi:
This is in response to your letter of December 16, 1986,
in which you requested an interpretation of the regulatory
status of your liquid scintillation counting cocktail, Bio-Safe II,
under the Federal hazardous waste regulations.
Based on telephone conversations you had with
Miss Filomena Chau, of my staff, and your letter of January 12, 1987,
Bio-Safe II contains less than 0.05 microcuries of radioactive
tritium (hydrogen- 3) and carbon 14; in addition, this material
contains the following scintillators: primary scintillator of
PPO: 2, Sdiphenyloxazole ; secondary scintillator of Butyl PBD:
2-(4'-tbutylphenyl)-5-4"biphenyl)-l,3,4 oxadiazole.
The waste, as you described, does not seem to be subject to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations under 10 CFR 20.306(a),
since your waste contains less than 0.05 microcuries of hydrogen-3
and carbon- 14 per gram of medium. However, your waste appears
to be subject to 10 CFR 20.306(d), which states that the generator
is not relieved from complying with other applicable Federal,
State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous
property of these materials. EPA's hazardous waste management
regulations would be an example of such "applicable regulations."
Thus, you must compare the characteristics of your waste against
the criteria outlined in 40 CFR Part 261 (see enclosure) to deter-
mine whether or not your waste is hazardous. Specifically, you
must determine whether your waste exhibits any of the characteris-
tics of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, "Character-
istics of Hazardous Waste"), or whether your waste is a listed
hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261, Subpart 0, "Lists of Hazardous
Waste").
-------
- 2 -
With respect to the hazardous waste characteristics, you
must determine whether your liquid scintillation counting cocktail
is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Liquid ignitable
wastes are defined under §261.21 as those with a flash point of
less than 140*F. Corrosive wastes are defined under §261.22 as
those having a pH of less than or equal to 2 or greater than or
equal to 12.5 or is able to corrade steel at a rate greater than
6.35 mo (0.250 inches per year at a test temperature of 55'C (130'F)}
Reactive wastes are defined under §261.23 as those exhibiting
any of eight properties (see the attached regulations). Section
261.24 defines the characteristic of extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity and indicates the test methods to be used to identify
the presence of this characteristic for any contaminants listed
in Table I of the Section.
Your letter stated that your waste has a flashpoint of
greater than 300*F, greater than the highest flash point of
regulatory concern, 140*F. The ingredients of Bio-Safe II, as
you described, are not any of the contaminants listed in Table I
of §261.24; thus Bio-Safe II does not seem to be EP toxic. Your
letter did not address whether Bio-Safe II was corrosive or
reactive. In addition, neither liquid scintillation co.ck tails
nor laboratory wastes, as a general category, are presently
listed as hazardous wastes under §261.30-.33. Therefore, provided
the liquid scintillation cocktail is not corrosive or reactive, it
does not appear to be a hazardous waste.
However, each generator is still responsible for determining
whether or not their waste is hazardous. See 40 CFR 262.11. In
addition, you will need to check with your State or local authorities
to determine whether this waste is regulated under their authority.
If you have any further questions, please contact
Miss Filomena Chau (202-382-4795) of my staff.
Matthew A. Straus. Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
cct Michael Bandrowski (ANR-460)
Paul Friedman (WH-562B)
Filomena Chau (WH-562B)
-------
1987(05
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY «ES*ONSE
MAR I 8 ££
Mr. Carl Berger, Director
Power Sources Division
U.S. Army Laboratory Command
Electronics Technology and Devices Laboratory
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 07703-5302
Dear Mr. Berger:
I am responding to your letter of August 18, 1986, in which
you request an Agency opinion that Lithium/Sulphur Dioxide (Li/SOj)
batteries that have been fully discharged to zero volts no longer
exhibit the characteristic of reactivity. Based on information
supplied by the US Army Electronics Technology and Devices Labor-
atory (LABCOM), we generally agree that such batteries are unlikely
to be reactive.
Under the hazardous waste regulations, each generator of a
waste is responsible for making a hazardous waste determination
under 40 CFR 262.11. If the waste exhibits one of the four
characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C of Part
261 or is a waste listed in Subpart D of Part 261, it must be
managed in accordance with the hazardous waste regulations. As
you know, on March 7, 1984, in response to requests from the De-
partment of the Army, EPA rendered an opinion that spent or discar-
ded Li/SO2 bateries appeared to exhibit the characteristic of
reactivity* as defined in 40 CFR 261.23. The Agency further
noted that 264.312 and 265.312 of the hazardous waste regulations
prohibit the placement of reactive (or ignitable) hazardous waste
into a landfill unless the waste, or waste mixture, is treated,
rendered, or nixed before, or immediately after, placement in a
landfill such that the waste or waste mixture no longer exhibits
the characteristic. Thus, the prohibition would no longer apply
if the waste no longer exhibited the characteristic of reactivity
(or ignitability).
-------
-2-
The Agency continues to believe that fully charged and duty-
cycle Li/S02 batteries are reactive hazardous wastes and should
be managed as such. However, information provided by LABCOM
during the Augisfc 5 meeting with members of my staff and in your
follow-up submission of August 18th indicates that a Li/S02
battery that has been fully discharged to zero volts would contain
substantially reduced quantities of reactive materials such that
the battery is not likely to exhibit any of the properties of the
reactivity characteristic. We assume that by fully discharged,
LABCOM means that each cell within each battery will have been
discharged.
It is our understanding that the mechanism by which the Army
intends to effect discharge of all Li/S02 batteries to zero volts
would be through a battery redesign that would incorporate an
additional resistor circuit that would be activated by an external,
manual switch. While such an approach would appear to.be capable
of producing the desired results, it remains the responsibility
of the generator or the disposer to ensure that all batteries so
discharged have in fact reached a fully discharged state and, thus,
are no longer reactive.
' In conclusion, the Agency agrees that a Li/S02 battery which
has been fully discharged is unlikely to exhibit the characteristic
of reactivity. However, the responsibility for determining whether
a waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste either before
or after treatment still remains with the generator and treatment
or disposal facility.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Di rector
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
944 3 . 1987 ( 06
APR 8 1567
Honorable Robert Walker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, O.C. 20515
Ltetar Mr. Walker:
Thank you for your March 5, 1987 letter regarding your
constituents' Carol and Richard Kushner concern about incinera-
tion. Generally speaking, EPA considers combustion to be a
viable alternative to direct landfilling as a means of managing
municipal waste. We recognize, however, that concerns have
been raised about certain aspects of combustion facilities,
including the disposal of residual £8h*
The solid residues from municipal waste combustion consist
of bottom ash* fly ash from air pollution control equipment,
and miscellaneous debris from uncombustible materials. Because
these residues can contain potentially toxic metals, proper
disposal practices are important.
The presence of large amounts of such metals could cause
ash to be classified as a hazardous waste. One way to determine
whether a waste must be managed as a hazardous waste is to
perform what is referred to as the "extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity test", which determines the concentrations of metals
that are likely to leach out of the waste when placed in the
type of weakly acidic environment typical of a landfill accept-
ing (unincinerated) municipal garbage.
In 1986, EPA performed a search for published reports of
the results of EP tests on ash to see what the results of those
tents typically showed. These tests had not been scientifically
reviewed, and some of the results were several years old.
The result* indicated that fly ash may exhibit the EP toxicity
hazardous waste characteristic, however, when combined fly
and bottom ash was tested. This combined ash frequently did not
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic. EPA recently ini-
tiated a study of the characteristics and leachability of ash
from municipal waste combustion to address these issues in a
more complete and careful fashion. Following EPA's evaluation
of ash characteristics, the Agency will be in a position to
evaluate what types of management practices are most appropriate
-------
If ash residues are found to routinely contain sufficient
amounts of metals to be of concern, there are a number of
technical measures that may be appropriate for their disposal.
First, basic housekeeping practices can be used to cut down on
the wind dispersal of ash. Second, the common approach of
mixing the acidic fly ash with the alkaline bottom ash to
achieve a buffering effect will decrease the tendency of the
ash to leach metals. (Acidic conditions tend to enhance the
leachability of metals). Third, some design and location
practices can reduce the tendency of aah to leach or limit the
extent to which leachate would affect groundwater. Monofilling,
which is the disposal of ash in a landfill that accepts nothing
else, can keep the ash segregated from acids or materials
which produce mild acids when they decay. Also, covers can be
designed to minimize rainwater infiltration and proper siting
of ash landfills can limit contact of the landfill with ground-
water.
EPA is also evaluating other aspects of municipal solid
waste management. Later this spring, EPA will submit to Congress
a report on air emissions from municipal waste combustion
facilities. Additionally, EPA is reviewing its program in the
general area of solid waste disposal, and will be proposing
rules, sometime in 1988 to improve disposal of solid waste at
municipal landfills to protect health and the environment.
If I can be of any further assistance, pleas* let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9443.1987(07)
APR l 6
Mr. David L. Bunganner
Remron
200 Putnam Street
Marietta, OR 45750
friar Mr. Bumgarmert
This brief note will respond to year letter of inquiry to
David Friedman regarding the interpretation of the Characteristic
of Ignitability, 40 CFt Part 261.21.
Your queetiona are repeated below with the appropriate
rosponsei
o We have observed apparent flashes on solvent mixtures
whose composition would imply they are nonflammable*
i.e., 99% Freon 113 mixtures containing tsxce levels of
cyclohexane. The flashes occur at low temperature (20*
- 40*C) and are usually not reproducible Oft the same
aliquot. Should these initial flash** b« reported ••
true Flash Points for RCXA characterisation?
Yes* according to the present regulations.
o Many solvent mixtures, including Freon 113* boil at
temperatures below 60"C and cannot be properly evaluated
by Peneky-Martena. ROW should such RCRA data be reported
to agencies and other clients?
Only those liquids that flash are considered ignitable.
o Many olients request Flash Point data for soils and
other solid materials. They indicate that waste haulers
or state or Federal agencies are requiring such data.
Does EPA have a standard policy on this matter?
Current test methods (40 CFR Part 261.21) are designed
for liquids only. At the present time there are no
suitable, validated procedures for determining the
ignitability characteristic of solid (non-liquid)
wastes.
We hope these answers are sufficient for your use. If you
have additional questions please feel free to call us.
Sincerely,
Florence M. Richardson
Chemist, Methods Section
-------
944 3 . 196 7 (08)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 87
Solvent Drippings from Degreasing Operations
fr-
A Dall-bearing iffenufacturer dips metal parts in a degreasing tank of
pure 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Once the parts have been dipped, they
are ground. The cooling system (either oil or water is used as the
fluid) picks ups the grinding sand, metal flakes, and traces of
solvent left on the part. The fluid is then filtered for reuse, and
the sand-rnetal-solvent mixture is discarded. Are the traces of
solvent left on the parts after degreasing classified as F001? 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 If the sand-metal-
solvent mixture exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste as defined in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261, then the
mixture would be regulated as a hazardous waste.
Source: Matt Straus 475-8851
Steve Silverman 382-7706
Research: Becky Cuthbertson 382-3112
-------
9443.1987(09)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEh
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY «ES
Mr. John Whitehead
Assistant Product Manager May 13, 1987
Madison Chemical Industries, Inc.
490 McGeachie Drive
Milton, Ontario L9T 3Y5
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
I am responding to your letter of May 4, 1987, to Mr. Alan
Corson requesting confirmation of your interpretation concerning
the regulation, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), of containers that packaged urethane coating chemicals.
Specifically, you stated that since none of the chemicals
used in your two-part urethane coating system are currently
listed as "P" or "U" wastes in 40 CFR 261.33, the residues in the
containers are not hazardous wastes and, therefore, you- vould not
need to determine whether the containers are empty in accordance
With 40 CFR 261.7.
Your interpretation is partially correct. Pc,rt 261c7 deals
with anv hazardous waste residues left in containers, not just
the commercial chemical products listed in Part 261.33 (or those
hazardous wastes listed in Parts 261.31 and 261.32). Therefore,
it also will be necessary to demonstrate that the container
residues do not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
extraction procedure (EP) toxicity) before stating that the
residues are not hazardous. If the residues, in fact, are
hazardous (i.e.. they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic)
then Part 261.7 should be used to determine whether the container
is empty.
If you require additional information, please contact Ed
Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Scarberry
Chief, Listing Section
cc: Alan Corson, EPA/OSW
-------
UN, J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT ,-rl AGENCY
9443.1987(11)
IK 8 B67
hr. Adolfo Valdei
Environmental Labs Inc.
67 Concordia Street
Ponce, Puerto Rico 00731
Dear Mr. Valdec
Thank you for your telephone call on June 5, 19B7 concerning
the Agency position on regulating chromium. The Agency under
CFR part 261 is currently regulating chromium as total
chrociuB. Until the Agency decides to change its position,
continue to analyze for total chromium.
Sincerely,
Martin Meyers
-------
UNIT JTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIU. ,GENCY
9443.1987(12)
JUN23&7
Ms. Karen Eglinton
Free-Coil Laboratories
P.O. Box 557, Cotton Rd.
Meadville. PA 16335-0557
Dear Ms. Eglintont
The Third Edition of SW-846 requires that the method of
standard editions be used whenever the percent recovery of a
matrix spike is outside of the range 75% to 125%. The method
of standard additions consists of "spikes" of three different
levels of analyte into three aliquots of the sample to correct
for interferences. This requirement applies to analysis .by
both atomic absorbtion and ICP.
However, it should also be pointed out that the method
of Htandard additions is required, in all cases, when analyz-
ing Extraction Procedure toxicity extracts (see 40 CFR 261,
Appendix II).
Thank you for your kind remarks about the Third Edition
of SW-846. We welcome any suggestions that you might have
for further improvements. I hope this aleviates your concerns.
If you have further questions, please feel free to call me at
(202) 382-7458.
Best Regards,
Denise A. Zabinski, Chemist
Methods Program
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1987(14)
flJG I I B67
*r. Prtan HO neon
state ot North Dakota
nent. Of Health
1200 Missouri Ave .
P.O. ?ox 5520
NO 5E502-5520
Dear *r. Wonson:
As you recuested, durinn our recent telenhone conversation,
I ar writing to review the reoulatory statue of Nethod 1310
(Extraction Procedure) and Kethod 1330 (Extraction Procedure
for Oily Waste.
when testino a waste to determined If It exhibits the
characteristic of Txtraction Procedure Toxicity one ersploye
Method 1310. This la so even if the waste would be conriderel
to be an "CJly K'aste". The Agency proposed the Extraction
Procedure for Oily Waste on October 1, 19*4 (49 Federal
7£6 and to replace Method 1310 with the new Toxicity Characr
t-.erirtic Lenchino Procedure, see Janunry 14, 1986 (51 Federal
1602) «nd June 13, 1986 (51 Federal Register 21, 64e).
TMF chance has not yet been promul rated. Method 1310 rer.toinB
the designated acceptable procedure (see 40 CFR 261.24).
The Aoency however hatt been concerned that Method 131C
mioht not adequately inodel the potential leachability of toxic
eoecles fror certain listed oily wastes. Method 1330, therefore,
was developed as a worst case estimation of potential toxicant
release* For dellatlno petition evaluation purposes. It nerves
ae a conservative indication of the mobile metal fraction. Tho
mobile metal concentration (MHC) values are compared with de-
listing thresholds developed using a specially developed fate
and transport p»odel.
Ke aoreff that the formula for calculating M?IC in tho recently
nublish*»d 3rd edition of Test Kethods for livaluatinq Selid l.'astt
(SV-846) contains an error. The weight of crude solid (L2) shoulc
bo in orar.fi not irsillinran'S. This error will be correct*?'.! in t)-*
-------
In summary, under the RCRA reoulatory program, Method 1310
is the only method currently approved for use in identifying
wastes that exhibit the characteristic of Extraction Procedure
Toxicity. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused
you and trust this clarifies the status of Methods 1310 and
1330.
Should you have any additional Questions In regard to this
matter, please contact me at (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely,
David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section
cc: Suzanne Rudzinski
Myles Morse
Martin R. Schock (ND)
Ken Kary (ND)
Larry Wapensky (Reg. VIZI)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1987(16)
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
OF
• OLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
AUG I 3 £87
Mr. Martin Lueck
Material Engineer
Nelson Division
Exhaust and Filtration Systems
Highway 51 West, P.O. Box 428
Stoughton, WI 53589
Dear Mr. Lueck:
This is in response to your July 13, 1987, letter requesting
an interpretation of whether and how the EPA hazardous waste reg-
ulations apply to vehicle filters contaminated with pesticides.
For the use you describe, i.e., in farm equipment, it would seem
most likely that the filters would become contaminated with pest-
icides via contact with ambient air near application areas. As
such, the filters do not really contain waste pesticide. Rather,
the spent filters are themselves a waste that may contain pesticide
ingredients as constituents. The generator of any waste must deter-
mine whether his waste is hazardous waste, and if it is, must com-
ply with applicable regulations. Most likely, these fiters would
only be hazardous if they exhibit the characteristic of E.P.
toxicity. (See 40 CPR S261.24. I have photocopied and enclosed
the relevant pages of the regulations for your information.)
You should also note that generators of less than 100 kilo-
grams (about 220 Ibs.) of hazardous waste per month are condition-
ally exempt from regulation. (See 40 CFR S261.5.) Many farms,
if the filters are hazardous waste at all, may be eligible for
this conditional exemption. You might advise customers to deter-
mine the apount of hazardous waste they generate each month inclu-
ding the filters in the amount. If the farmer's monthly total is
below 100 kilograms, the waste may be sent to a municipal landfill.
If the total exceeds 100 kilograms, the farmer may then want to
have the filters analyzed to determine if they exhibit E.P. tox-
icity.
-------
-2-
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike
Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-6676.
Sincerely, f . ;
Tiarcia E, wijliams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
•
Enclosures
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443 . 1987 ( 17)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
ALC 181937
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Kevin T. Rookstool
Mineral By-Products, Inc.
240 West Elmwood Drive
Suite 2011
Dayton, OH 45459
Dear Mr. Rookstool:
This is in response to your letter of May 20, 1987, in which
you asked whether the characteristic of corrosivity, as discussed
in 40 CFR 261.22, applies only to those wastes which are 'aqueous
and or liquid. Section 261.22 presently applies only to aqueous
and liquid wastes, unless and until EPA promulgates a definition
of corrosivity for solids. The Agency has no plans to do this at
the present time.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
cc: David Friedman
Filomena Chau
-------
' 9443.1987(18)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG I 91987
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY WESPQNS
Dr. Harold Edelstein
Director, Technical Development
Fisher Scientific Company
Chemical Division
1 Reagent Lane
Fair Lawn, NJ 07410
Dear Dr. Edelstein:
This is in response to your letter of May 1, 1987, in
which you requested an interpretation of the regulatory status
under the Federal hazardous waste regulations of your liquid
scintillation cocktail, Scintiverse BD, if disposed.
Under 40 CFR Part 261, a waste can be determined to be
hazardous in one of two ways. Specifically, as defined in
sub part D, a waste could be a RCRA listed waste, or a waste,
according to Subpart C, could exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste (ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, or toxicity).
It is clear from the information you provided that your
material is not a RCRA listed waste. See 40 CFR Part 261,
Subpart D. However, the data did not provide the Agency with
enough information to determine if the material would or
would not exhibit one or more of the characteristics of a
hazardous waste. It must be pointed out that, under 40 CFR
S262.ll, waste generators are responsible for determining
whether or not their wastes exhibit one or more of the hazardous
waste characteristics.
With respect to the hazardous waste characteristics, you
must determine whether your liquid scintillation cocktail is
ignitable, corrosive, reactive,' or toxic. Liquid ignitable
wastes are defined under S261.21 as those with a flash point of
less than 140*F. Corrosive wastes are defined under S261.22 as
those having a pH of less than or equal to 2 or greater than or
eaual to 12.5, or that are able to corrode steel at a rate greater
-------
- 2 -
than 6.35 mm (0.250 inches) per year at a test temperature
of 55°C (130°F). Reactive wastes are defined under S261.23 as
those exhibiting any of eight properties (see the enclosed
r«qulations). Section 261.24 defines the characteristic of
extraction procedure (EP) toxicity and indicates the test methods
to be used to identify this characteristic.
You should also note that the Agency has proposed a new
leach procedure, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(51 IB 21648, June 13, 1986). When this proposal is finalized,
waste generators will be responsible for determining whether
their wastes meet this characteristic. In addition, you will
need to check with your State or local authorities to determine
whether this waste is regulated under their authority.
If you have any further questions,
Chau of my staff at (202) 382-4795.
Sincerely,
please contact Filomena
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
-------
944 3 . 1987 ( 19 )
4 1967
Mr. Stuart J. Gock
Environmental Coordinator
»rintinq Developments, Inc.
2010 Indiana Street
Racine, WT 53405
Dear Mr. Gock:
The following information is being provided in response to
your letter of April 6, 1987, regarding the definition of aqueous
as used in the Corrosivity Characteristic, 40 CP* Part 261.22(a)(l)
As you are aware, the corrosivity cbaracteriotic docs not
soecifically define what constitutes an aqueous waste. However,
we have developed guidance in defining the ter« 'aqueous.* In
oartlcular, we consider a waste to be aqueous If It has a liauid
phase containing more than SO percent water." (S«« attached letter
from Dr. John Skinner, Director of the Office of Solid fftete, on
^ebruarv 26, 19«5.) This position is currently in effect and you
should use the 50 oercent water cut-off as a basis fop evaluating
whether or not to test your wastes for corrosivity.
I should point out that we are considering reviewing this
oosition, as well as the need for a regulatory definition of
aaueous waste. Therefore, you should be aware that a regulatory
definition of aqueous may be proposed at some point in the
future.
If you have any additional Questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert Scarberry, Acting Chief
waste Characterization Branch
Attachment
-------
9443.1987(20)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 87
6. SW-846 Test Method 3060
Why was Method 3060, for alkaline digestion to
hexavalent chromium, dropped from the third edition of
EPA's "Test Method for Evaluating Solid Waste?" is
there a replacement method?
The SW-846 Test Method *3060 is used to determine
the total concentration of hexavalent chromium in
solid waste. It uses a basic digestion of the
waste sample to solubilize both water-insoluble and
water-soluble hexavalent chromium compounds.
Method 3060 was dropped from the third edition of
the SW-846 Manual because it yielded inconsistent
results from sample to sample within the same
matrix and from matrix to matrix. The method also
provides the analyst with no way of distinguishing
when it would or would not work.
An evaluation study of Method 3060 indicates that
not only is it possible to oxidize Cr*3 to Cr*e,
but that Cr** can be reduced to Cr*3 during
digestion. In fact, there is more likelihood that
Cr** is reduced than Cr*3 oxidized. A.so during
the digestion, precipitates are formed which can
present problems.
It may be appropriate to continue using Method
3060, provided the user can demonstrate that it
works by doing spike recoveries. At this time EPA
does not have a current or expected replacement
method for Method 3060.
Source: Oenise Zabinski (202) 382-7458
Research: Joe Nixon
-------
9443.1987(23)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 87
4. Natural Gas Pipeline Condensate and Energy Recovery
Is natural gas pipeline condensate that exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability and that is going to be
burned for energy recovery a hazardous waste?
According to the January 4, 1985 FR page 630, off-spec
fuels burned for energy recovery are not by-products,
thus are not considered wastes. This includes natural
gas pipeline condensate. The condensate contains many
of the same hydrocarbons found in liquified natural gas
and certain higher hydrocarbons that have energy value.
It is generated in the pipeline transmission of natural
gas and is not considered to be a by-product nor a
waste when burned for energy.
By-products that exhibit any characteristics of
hazardous wastes are, however, hazardous waste when
burned for energy recovery.
Source: Ed Abrams (202) 382-4787
Research: Kate Anderson
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
OKITfD STATES ENVIROMMENTAL PtOTEC'
9443.1987(24
5BS7
""'
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Appropriate leaching test to use in evaluating soils
contaminated with lead.
DATE: October 30, 1987
FROM: David Friedman, Chief
Methods section (WH-562B)
THRU: Alec McBride, Chief
Technical Assessment Branch (WH-562B)
TO: Thomas Spittler, Chief
Laboratory Branch, Region I
As you requested, I am writing to review the regulatory
status of the various leaching tests that have been developed
for use in the hazardous waste program with respect to the
problem of assessing the regulatory status of contaminated
soils.
When evaluating a soil, or other waste, to determine
whether it is a hazardous waste by reason of the toxic ity
characteristic one should use Method 1310, the Extraction
Procedure. While, sometime in the future, we expect to replace
Method 1310 with the new Toxicity Characteristic leaching
Procedure (TCLP) , the TCLP has not yet been promulgated for such
use.
As I indicated at the recent meeting in Annapolis of the
Regional laboratory chiefs, OSW has recently developed Method
1312 for use in evaluating the leaching potential of in-place
soils and debris. This test, which is a modification of the
TCLP, employs regional specific simulated acid precipitation as
the extraction medium. As you recently noted in your work on
neutral soils contaminated with lead, the high acetate
concentration of the TCLP relative to the EP means that the TCLP
is significantly more aggressive than the EP for such materials.
For this, and other reasons, OSW feels that use of the TCLP for
determining the ground water G^ntayi nation of coils and debris
that aie Lo [remain in place ip ami"a§|ilioateioB of the , -
orlcedure. Jn uncomita .gwiaa^e..mafluaJa..pn..boti.maJcing J: lean
-------
closure determinations, and on facility investigations, the
Agency wfel approve Method 1312 for use as the leaching
estimation tool for those situations. For your convenience, I
have enclosed a draft copy of Method 1312.
I hope I have clarified the use of the different methods
for you. I want to thank you for calling my attention to the
problem you faced when the TCLP was applied to the contaminated
soils in your area. I am sorry that I did not get a chance to
see you in Annapolis last week.
cc: AH Regional Laboratory Chiefs
All Regional ESD Directors
All Regional Solid Waste Branch Chiefs
Enclosure
-------
PROTCCTIO*..JEMCY 9443.1937(25)
N0V 4067
Bernard E. Cox Jr., Chief
Hazardous Waste Branch
Land Division
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Dear Mr. Cox:
This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1987, to
Matthew Straus concerning previous correspondence from my office on
recycling of zinc oxide baghouse dust. In your letter you request
that the Agency clarify whether a sludge (zinc oxide) is subject to
subtitle C when used to maJce fertilizer. I apologize if Matt and
my previous letters to you and Mr. Tate were not entirely clear.
'[Tie rule that applies in this situation is that the determina-
tion of whether a material is a solid waste depends on the ultimate
management of the material. (See 50 fjj 634; January 4, 1985.)
Certain ultimate management methods, including incorporation of
waste into products that are to be placed on the land, result in
designation of the material as solid waste. Therefore, if zinc
sulfate is recovered from the zinc oxide and then used to produce
fertilizer, the zinc oxide is a solid waste.
The dust in question has not been listed as a hazardous waste;
therefore, it would be hazardous only if it exhibits one of the
characteristics at 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. It is the gene-
rator's responsibility to use his Knowledge of the waste or to
perform the tests described in sections 261.22-24 to determine
whether the waste exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste. The solution that you propose (i.e., to regulate the
process until the metals are removed) is allowable; but the issue
is not when the material ceases to be a solid waste, it is rather
when does it cease to exhibit a characteristic.
Finally, you should note that a facility which treats a
hazardous sludge to recover a material (i.e.. zinc sulfate) that is
used to produce fertilizer is subject to 40 CFR section 261.6(c),
the requirements for hazardous waste recycling facilities.
-------
9443.1987(26:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
NOV I 2 1987 .
OFFICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMQRANDUM
SUBJECT: Pulverizing Waste Prior to EP Test
FROM: Scott Maid
Variances Section
TO: Carolyn Bosserman
SAIC
Linda Cessar and I discussed the "pulverizing" issue you raised
concerning Eli Lilly (#564A) and we reached a consensus that the metal
rings and lids should be included in the ash samples. Our justification
for this is that these materials are contained within the volume of
hazardous waste, and should be evaluated as such. HSWA requires such an
evaluation of other constituents and factors in our evaluation of
hazardous waste. Also, the EP toxicity test procedure in 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix II explicitly requires that solid wastes shall be evaluated
for particle size, and large pieces of waste should be ground up,
crushed, or cut until the waste will pass through a 9.5 mm sieve. This
regulatory requirement is quite important since it does not allow for the
waste in question to be separated into different sized particles prior to
testing.
The 9.5 mm sieve will still allow pieces of metal over l\3"
square to pass through it, which are really pretty large chunks. The
connotation of "pulverizing" implies reducing the metal chunks to powder,
which we agree is inconsistent with the requirements of the EP toxicity
test procedure. If the paragraph about the sampling of ash were
re-worded to specify that the waste ash (including metal rings and lids)
should be crushed to a uniform particle size in accordance with the EP
test requirements, then it may not be perceived to be a problem by Eli
Lilly.
Call me if you have questions.
-------
t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENO
;* WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
NOV 2 0 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Lead-Based Paint Residues and Lead Contaminated
Residential Soils in Private/Public Housing Units
FROM: Jeffery Denit, Deputy Director.
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Walter Kovalick, Deputy Director .
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548)
The following information is being provided in response to
your draft memorandum requesting classification of lead-based
paint residues.
BACKGROUND
AS you are aware, the question of lea --based paint dis-
posal has been of concern for a long time. As early as 1904, it
was recognized that ingestion of paint and paint chips poses a
serious health hazard to children. Many buildings/ both individual
residences and public housing units, especially those built
before 1950, contain lead-based paints on interior and exterior
walls, window sills, and other surfaces accessible to young
children. In addition to paint, some plasters and putties have
also been found to contain high levels of lead. Some older
primers have been found to contain from 30,000 to 600,000 mg
lead per kg of primer. Soils adjacent to residences also have
been found to contain high levels of lead due to the leaching of
the lead as a result of the weathering of the painted surface.
For instance, in a study of lead contamination in Urbana,
Illinois, lead was found in concentrations up to 12,000 ppm in
soil. Many other cities throughout 'the United States have similar
problems.
-------
-2-
Numerous state and Federal agencies have been aware of
and concerned about the problem for some time and are pursuing
orograms to identify lead poisoning and to remove lead-based
paint from residences. The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Preven-
tion Act, as amended, provides the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) with authority to eliminate the hazards
of lead-based paint poisoning in HUD-financed and other public
residential housing. Unfortunately, the program has been hindered
b.v th.e lack, of a determination of whether or not lead-based
paint residues (paint Chios, peelings, etc.) should be managed
and disposed of as a hazardous waste.
ISSUES
Currently, the question of whether or not lead paint
wastes are hazardous is confused by Section 261.4 "Exclusions"
of 40 CFR Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste. If these wastes are generated at a commercial facili y
and exceed the EP toxicity limit of 5 ppm for lead, then they
will be hazardous wastes. However, when the paint residues
are generated at private and public residential units', the
question arises as to whether the household waste exclusion
applies (See 40 CFR 261.4 (b)). This provision excludes
household wastes from regulation as solid wastes, and therefore,
as hazardous wastes. Household wastes are defined as "any
material (including garbage) trash, and sanitary wastes (in
septic tanks) derived from households (including single and
multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger
stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day
recreation areas..)"
In the preamble to the Federal Register notice addressing
hazardous waste identification and listing (Vol. 49, No. 220,
November 13, 1984, page 44998), EPA states that "there is no
basis for extending the household waste exclusion to waste
such as debris produced during building construction, renovation,
or demolition in houses or other residences, as EPA does not
consider wastes from these sources to be similiar to those
generated by a consumer in a home in the course of daily living."
Furthermore, in the preamble to the Final Hazardous Waste
Rules, Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 98, May 19, 1980, EPA
noted that wastes generated by Federal agencies are not subject
to the household exemption since they cannot qualify as households,
-------
-3-
Paint wastes are exempted from regulation as a hazardous
waste if they are gererated at individual households by the
houseowner doing his own removal. On the other hand, if the
removal at an individual residence is done by a contractor,
the residues are solid wastes and must be evaluated with respect
to their hazardousness (EP Toxicity) and must be disposed of
according to hazardous waste regulations if found to"be hazardous,
In cases where paint residues are regulated under Sub-
title C, then commercial contractors who are performing the
renovation work and who generate less than 100 kg per month of
paint residues (which we believe is likely), will be a condition-
ally exempt generator (Section 261.5) and their waste will not
be subject to reaulation under Sections 262 through 266 of
RCRA. We believe that only large renovation projects will
exceed the 100 kg per month limitations.
While paint residues may not be regulated as hazardous
wastes, especially at private individual households or small
housing units, information should be made available to homeowners
warning them of the hazards associated with improper disposal
of paint residues. Directions should be provided regarding
the proper disposal of these wastes.
In the case of a larger commercial contractor whose activi-
ties result in the generation of more than 100 kg per month of
waste, for instance, at a public housing renovation project,
then the "hazardousness" of the waste must be determined.
In the case of lead-paint wastes, the EP Leachate Test should
be performed. If the leachate lead concentration exceeds 5
ppm, then the paint waste is a hazardous waste. If the residues
are indeed hazardous, then the generator (removal contractor)
must comply with all appropriate regulations, (e.g., Parts 262
Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous wastes and
Part 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous
Waste), and must send the waste to a facility that is permitted
or operating under RCRA interim status.
-------
-4-
PROCESSES THAT MAY GENERATE HAZARDOUS WASTE
There are several methods available for removing lead-based
paints? however, the conventional lead paint removal techniques
currently available are not totally effective and may exacerbate
the lead problem by dispersing lead-containing particles
throughout the residence. Newer, more effective abatement methods
which may be used for lead removal include:
* Peel Away - This consists of a caustic paste that
is covered with a plastic film (calcium, magnesium,
and sodium hydroxide). This paint removal
system can be used on wood, metal, stone and
brick, flat and irregular surfaces. It should
be noted that in a demonstration project conducted
in Baltimore, waste water from the peel away
process was found to have a lead content greater
than 66 ppm, which was well in excess of the EP
toxicity limit of 5 ppm.
• Off-Site Dipping - Wood trim, -.oodwork, and doors
are stripped of paint in enclosed chemical tanks
containing methylene chloride. When used for
this purpose, spent methylene cnloride is a
listed hazardous waste.
* High Efficiency Particle Accumulator (HEPA) Sander -
This is a power disk sander that attaches to a
HEPA vacuum to trap debris. It is used on flat
surface* only. This method would generate a
dust which could, depending upon the lead content,
fail the EP Toxicity Test.
* Replacement - Removal and replacement of wood trim
and old windows with new materials. All of the
painted wood products from the residence should
be sampled and the EP performed on the wood
samples.
In any of the above methods, if the extractable lead
exceeds 5 ppm in the waste, then it is a hazardous waste. If
the household waste exclusion does not apply then the wastes
mujit be handled and disposed of in accordance with the requirements
of 40 CFR Parts 262, 263, and 264, 265 and 270 as appropriate.
-------
-5-
CONTAMINATED SOILS
In addition to painted surfaces, the soils immediately
adjacent to residences may have high concentrations of lead,
due to the lead being leached from the exterior of the structure
as the paint weathers and ages. For example, in a study of lead
concentration in Urbana, Illinois, concentrations of the lead
in the soil were found to range from 132 to 11,760 ppm adjacent
to and 240 to 6,640 ppm away from the houses.
whether or not "contaminated" soils are considered
hazardous wastes depends Upon Whether or not they are I) removed
and transported off-site or left in place, and 2) exceed the lead
toxicity limit of 5 ppm.
If the contaminated soil is removed for off-site disposal,
it must be evaluated against the characteristics to determine
whether or not the soils are hazardous. If the soils fail the
existing EP toxicity characteristic, then they must be taken
to a RCRA Subtitle C facility. In the case of CERCLA sites
such soils must be taken to a RCRA facility which is in
compliance with CERCLA requirements for off-site disposal.
(See OSWER Directive number 9834.11 "Revised Procedures for
Planning and Implementing off-site Response Actions;
November 13, 1987.)
The reouirements for on-site treatment of lead-contaminated
residential soils, which may seldom be practical, differs for
CERCLA and RCRA sites. For CERCLA sites, such on-site treatment
can be performed without a permit being required. However,
for on-site treatment at RCRA sites/ a permit is required
unless treatment is performed in tanks or containers in compli-
ance with Section 262.34. It should be noted that any on-site
treatment must consider the requirements of the individual
states in question, which may be more stringent that Federal
requirements.
In the case of soil left on site, the property owner
will not normally be required to determine whether the soil is
a hazardous waste. For soils that are left in place/ EPA or
the appropriate state agency should set clean-up levels that
will ensure that the site will not pose a hazard when returned
to normal residential use. I know that the CERCLA program often
makes such determinations. For your information/ described below
is the procedure OSW plans to provide in the RCRA Clean Closure
and RFI Guidance Manuals for determining when contaminated
soils may safely be left in place and the site returned to
residential use. We have had a number of discussions with your
staff and we think that there is a general agreement on this
approach.
-------
-6-
There are two approaches which should be used in making a
determination if further soil removal is required. The first
is to look at health-based concentration limits in surface
soils; the second is an acid precipitation leach test (method
1312 in SW-846).
The health-based limits should be used to determine how
much contaminated soil will have to be removed. The RCRA Clean
Closure and RFI guidance Manuals provide direction on the appropri
ate health-based levels to use. Excavation would terminate at
the point where soil no longer exceeds the health-based concen-
tration limits.
At that point, method 1312 should be run on soil samples
to determine the threat, if any, that might be posed by
remaining residual contaminants leaching into ground water.
For testing for lead, a pH of 4.2 should be used. In the
absence of better numbers, the 5 ppm threshold used for the EP
should be the limit for method 1312 as well. Since method 1312
is new, no data on its use is available. Once such data are
available, the ppm limit may be revised.
The removed soil should be tested agains-. the EP after
removal to see if it fails the 5 ppm limit. If so, it must be
sent to a Subtitle C facility. If it does not fail, it can be
sent to a Subtitle D facility.
If you have any questions pertaining to the above, please
do not hesitate to contact Jerry Coalgate of my staff.
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1987(29)
NCV 18 BS7
Mr. Pat O'Brien
Rashid Geotechnical and
Materials Engineers
P.O. Box 10476
Jubail Industrial City 31961
Kingdom of Saudia Arabia
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
In response to your request of October 24, 1987 for an
updated copy of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) I have enclosed copies of the two Federal Registers where
it has appeared.
The TCLP was actually created for two separate EPA rule-
makings. The first rule, the Land Disposal Restrictions
Program, was finalized on November 7, 1986. The TCLP was to be
used in this rule to determine if a waste could be land disposal
by testing it for solvents and dioxins. The second rule, the
Toxicity Characteristic, was designed to determine if a waste is
hazardous based on its chemical toxicity. This rule was
proposed on June 13, 1986 but has not yet been promulgated and
will not be finalized until late 1988. At that time, it will
replace the current Extraction Procedure (EP) and wastes will
then have to be tested for not only the 14 EP constituents, but
for an additional 38 organic constituents as well.
If you have any further questions about either of these
two rulemaxings, or the TCLP, please give me a call at (202)
475-6722 or write me at the following address:
Ms. Gail Hansen
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562B)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
United States of America
Sincerely,
•call Ann Hansen
Environmental..Hea 1 th Scientist
Methods Section
-------
9443.1987(30
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
30 1987
SOLID waS'E AND £ME«GENCV
Mr. Phillip C. McGuire
Associate Director, Law Enforcement
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226
Dear Mr. McGuire:
Thank you for your October 14, 1987, letter regarding the
disposal of explosive materials under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). We have reviewed the information you
provided concerning the detonation of seized explosives that you
believe would not fall under the RCRA Subtitle C program. We
think, however, that the seized explosives may indeed be a solid
waste from the moment a decision is made that the explosives
must be destroyed and not returned to the original owners.
The basis for the Environmental Protection Agencyfs (EPA)
opinion is that the explosives are not being used for their
originally-intended purpose (e.g., demolition of & building,
military use, etc.), but rather are being detonated to discard
the materials. The explosives, therefore, would meet the
definition of a solid waste as defined in 40 £f_B Section
261.2(a) and (b). If these explosives exhibit the
characteristic of reactivity as defined in 40 CEK 261^23, they
would be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations for
storage, treatment and disposal. For example, detonation of
reactive waste is considered a form of thermal treatment that is
subject to Section 265.382, and shipments to the disposal site
are subject to 40 era Parts 262 and 263.
We recognize the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(BATF) has considerable experience in handling explosives. Your
internal procedures appear to be comparable to EPA's rules in
many respects. There are, however, some differences that may
need to be examined. For example, you state that the detonation
areas must be at least 1,000 feet from buildings, woods, etc.
EPA's regulations (Section 265.382) require farther distances
for quantities in excess of 100 Ibs.
-------
I would like to suggest that EPA staff meet with your staff
to discuss how to reconcile the RCRA rules as they apply to BATF
detonation activities. RulemaJcing efforts may be required of
both agencies to resolve any inconsistencies. In order to
schedule a meeting that will be mutually convenient, please
contact Mike PetrusJca, of my staff, on 475-8551. We believe
that this meeting will provide the opportunity to discuss
several points including what rulemaJcings may have to be
undertaken by either agency, and what exemptions may be
possible.
If I can be of any further assistance-, please let me know.
^Sincerely
' I' l>
»J.~Winston Potter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9443.1987(31)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2046C
DEC
Of PICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Status-of Surface Impoundments at Rockwell
International, Ashtabula Plant ^ . ./ 1^-
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director M^i^^
Office of Solid Waste (
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Chief
Solid Waste Branch (5HS-13)
Region V
This memorandum is in response to your August 6, 1987 inquiry,
and subsequent communications between France Norling and the
Characteristics Section staff, regarding the RCRA status of the
surface impoundments at Rockwell International's Ashtabula plant.
Specifically, you requested assistance in determining whether the
wastes managed in the impoundments exhibit the hazardous waste
characteristic of reactivity.
As you are aware, the reactivity characteristic promulgated in
the regulations is a narrative definition. In particular, the
regulations define a sulfide bearing waste as reactive when it is
exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5 and can generate toxic
gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a
danger to human health or the environment. To assist the Regions
and the regulated community in interpreting this rule, the Charac-
terization and Assessment Division provided interim guidance which
indicated that wastes releasing more than 500 mg H2S/Kg waste
should be considered hazardous (see enclosure). In addition to the
level, a testing method was also provided. We are evaluating the
reactivity of the waste in question based on this interim guid-
ance. However, you should note that any final decision as to the
hazardousness of the waste (i.et, reactivity) must be based on the
regulation. See 40 CFR 261.23.
-------
Based upon the analytical data provided by Region V, the
average concentration of sulfide in all the lagoons is below our
guidance level of 500 mg/kg; therefore, the wastes are likely not
reactive under the hazardous waste rules. The upper bound of the
90% confidence limit, however, is above the guidance level for two
of the lagoons in question (lagoons 1 and 3). This suggests that
the true concentration of the waste in the impoundments might be
above the guidance level. Therefore, before a definitive decision
can be made on the true concentration of sulfide in the sludge in
lagoons 1 and 3, additional sampling and analysis is recommended.
Should you, or Rockwell, require assistance related to the
analytical methods or—sample handling procedures, please contact
Gail Hansen of the/f!etjw>ds Section at FTS 475-6722. Questions '
regarding the reacti- vyity characteristic in general and its
applicability shooW>6 directed to David Topping of the
Characteristics Section at FTS 382-4798.
Enclosures
cc:; Gail Hansen
David Topping
-------
9443.1987(32
DEC I 6 . ,;
Ms. Barbara £. Pace
Hocjan & Hartson
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Dear Ms. Pace:
This is in response to your letter of August 19, 1987, in
which you requested an interpretation of 40 CFR Section 261.31 as
it applies to the iron caJce waste generated during the production
of methyldopa at a Merck and Company facility. Based on the
information provided in your letter, the Agency has determined that
the iron filter cake generated during the production of methyldopa
does not meet the listing description of a spent solvent waste
(lu.fiL.., EPA hazardous waste No. F005). The basis for our decision
is discussed below.
Our understanding of the process is that the iron cake is
generated when iron is filtered from the product; toluene is being
used for its solvent properties because it is acting as a carrier
for the product. Next, the toluene is reclaimed for reuse in the
same process.
With regard to the iron filter cake, the preamble and the
background document to the rule state that the Agency did not
intend to include within the scope of this regulation process
wastes that are contaminated with solvent (see Hazardous Waste
Listing BD, p. 81 Nay 1980; letter from Steve Silverman to Michael
Rodbury, December 16, 1982). The iron filter cake resulting from
the production of methyldopa at the Merck facility is a process
residual that is contaminated with the toluene solvent. The filter
cake, therefore, would not be EPA hazardous waste No. F005.
Please advise your client of our interpretation and make them
aware that as a generator of this type waste, they are responsible
for determining whether the filter cake exhibits any RCRA hazardous
characteristics (flj^a-., corrosivity, toxicity, reactivity, or
ignitability [see 40 CFR 261.21-24]). Also, you should investigate
whether this waste is regulated by the state, which may have more
"rntiiinim TFffrr* **"**-*'
»ifr
-------
Our determination is based on the information provided in
your letter and any deviations to the described process could
result in different interpretation. If you wish to discuss this
matter in further detail, please call Yvonne Garbe at (202)
475-6679.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9443.1987(33)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMsHTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DEC 31 ;:..•'
Ms. Joanna Cole
^460 Singleton Blvd.
Callas, TX 75212
As mentioned in our telephone conversation of December
16, 1967 regarding the difficulty of analyzing for chlorinated
comoounds in the leachate from your waste samples, X would
suanest that you do the following.
Perform a total constituent analysis of the waste itself
using SW-846 methods and assume that all of the compounds
leach from the waste. If the guidance levels of the compounds
fire not exceeded assuming 100% leaching, then no further
analysis or testing is reauired. To determine lOOt leachabi li ty ,
the following calculation may be performed on the compounds
found in tho total analysis!
maximum theoretical concentration of compound
extract concentration • in waste (mg/kg)
(mg/L) 20*
* liquid to solid ratio in the TCLP
If the maximum theoretical extract concentration is exceeded,
then the waste should be considered hazardous.
If you have any further questions, please give me a call
at (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Ann Hansen
Environmental Health Scientist
Methods Section (WH-562B)
-------
9443.1988(01)
January 4, 1988
Ms. Teresa Fort
Vice President
Environmental Options, Inc.
Post Office Box 4132
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Ms. Fort:
This letter responds to your inquiry of November 23, 1987, requesting
a written statement clarifying the regulatory status of waste generated
by skimming off a toluene-containing paint product floating on water
which is the overspray trapped by a waterfall when wood pieces are
painted. The waste has a flashpoint below 140°F.
The spent solvent listings (LC., EPA Hazardous Waste No. F001, F002,
F003, F004, and F005) cover wastes generated from solvents which were
used for their "solvent" properties, namely, to solubilize or mobilize other
constituents, and which cannot be reused unless regenerated, reclaimed,
or otherwise reprocessed. The listings do not cover manufacturing
process wastes contaminated with solvents that were used as reactants or
ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical products. Hence,
waste solvent-based paints are not within the scope of the F001-F005
speni: solvent listings because the solvents are ingredients in the paints.
Therefore, your ignitable hazardous waste, having EPA Hazardous Waste
No. D001, is not subject to the requirements of the land disposal
restrictions final rule (51 FR 40572), November 7, 1986) which is
applicable to the spent solvent listings.
If you have any further questions, you can call me at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
RETYPED FROM THE ORIGINAL
7190E-AL
-------
9443.1988(02)
Dr. Stephen W. Wunderly
Senior Chemist
BecJonan Instruments, Inc
Fullerton, CA 92634-3100
Dear Dr. Wunderly:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 4, 1987,
requesting an interpretation of the regulatory status of your
liquid scintillation cocktail solution product, Ready Safe, under
the hazardous waste regulations.
Under EPA's hazardous waste regulations, a waste is considered
to be hazardous if it is listed specifically under 40 CFR Part 261,
subpart D, or if it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic under
Part 261, Subpart C. The four hazardous waste characteristics are
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity for certain metals and pesticides. Section 261.33
contains a list of products that become hazardous wastes when
discarded.
Based on the information you provided, the product you describe
does not meet any of the listings under Part 261 Subpart D or to
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics under Part 261
Subpart C. Radioactivity is not presently included under the RCRA
hazardous waste characteristics or listing criteria. Therefore,
your liquid scintillation cocktail product when discarded (or
intended for discard) does not appear to meet the definition of a
RCRA hazardous waste.
Some State and local authorities, however, do regulate
radioactive materials as hazardous wastes. Therefore, your
customers should contact their State and local authorities for
further information on proper disposal of radioactive materials.
-------
9443.1988(03)
MAR 2 2 (988
Steve Simpson
Chief Process Engineer
Associated Technologies, Incorporated
212 South Tyron Street, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28281
Dear Mr. Simpson:
This letter is in response to your January 25 letter to
Marcia Williams regarding the regulatory status of asphalt
materials used at Associated Technologies, Incorporated.
Specifically, you requested a determination as to whether the
asphalt is a hazardous waste.
If the asphalt were to be used as a commodity, e.g., for paving
roads, then it would not be regulated under the hazardous waste
regulations. However, since the asphalt is disposed (buried in a
trench) it is a solid waste. In the RCRA program, wastes are
defined as hazardous if they: (1) are included on the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 or are
derived from, or are mixtures containing, such wastes; or (2)
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics described in
Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261 (i.e. . ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity). The
descriptions and analytical data you provided for the asphalt
materials (AC-20 and Type I) indicates that they do not appear to
be hazardous wastes.
However, the descriptions and analytical data you provided
appear to relate to the asphalt materials only, rather than the
mixture of the asphalt materials and the concentrate from the film
evaporator. Thus, if any of the wastes that contribute to the
concentrate are listed wastes, or if the asphalt/concentrate
mixture exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics,
the mixture would be a hazardous waste.
-------
- 2 -
Please note that the interpretation is based upon the
information contained in your January 25 letter and reflects
current Federal regulations. Since State and local regulations may
differ, you are encouraged to contact these authorities to ensure
that you are aware of all applicable regulations. Should you have
any questions regarding this interpretation, please contact David
Topping of the Waste Characterization Branch at (202) 382-7737.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Emily Roth
David Topping
Dr. Malcolm Knapp
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-------
9443.1988(04)
'1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
March 14, 1988 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Dr. Jeffrey Mirsky, President
National Diagnostics
1013-1017 Kennedy Boulevard
Maiiville, NJ 09935
Dear Mr. Mirsky:
This is in response to your letter to Mr. Matthew Straus
dated February 4, 1988, in which you request an interpretation
of the regulatory status of Ecoscint A and Ecoscint 0 under the
Federal hazardous waste rules. My staff has reviewed the data
on the two Ecoscint formulations that you enclosed with your
letter dated February 4, 1988. Neither Ecoscint A nor Ecoscint-
0 is listed under 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32, or 261.33.
However, a waste may still be hazardous if it exhibits one
or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e. ,
igriitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity) as described in 40 CFR 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, or
261.24. The data you enclosed indicates that neither product is
EP toxic and, based on their flashpoints, neither product is
ignitable. There is, however, insufficient data provided to
make a determination on whether the products are corrosive or
reactive. Therefore, if you wish to dispose of these
formulations as non-hazardous wastes, you must first determine
that they do not satisfy any of the criteria for corrosivity
(see section 261.22) or reactivity (see section 261.23).
In addition, any State in which you generate, transport,
treat, store, or dispose of these formulations may have
regulations that are more stringent than the Federal hazardous
waste rulea. You, therefore, should check with the State
agencies tordetermine what regulations, if any, apply to
handling waste Ecoscint A and Ecoscint 0.
-------
- 2 -
If you have any further questions, please contact Wanda
LeB.leu-Bi.swas- at (202) 382-7392.
Sincerely,
A
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9443.1988(05
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT .1 PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY-2
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. G. R. Boulden
Laclish Co. , Inc.
Kentucky Plant
Cynthiana, KY 41031
Dear Mr. Boulden:
This letter is in response to your telephone conversation
with, and March 1, 1988 letter to, David Topping of my staff.
Specifically, you have requested an interpretation as to the
applicability of certain hazardous waste definitions and
regulations.
As you are aware, wastes are considered hazardous if they
either (i) are listed in the lists of hazardous wastes described
in Sections 261.31 through 261.33; or (2) exhibit any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste described in Sections 261.21
through 261.24. For purposes of clarity, it should be noted that
the wastes you describe do not meet the first criterion. That
is, since the plant's SIC code is not 331 or 332, the wastes do
not meet the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062, which
appears to be the only listing that applies to pickling
operations. Therefore, the wastes would only be considered
hazardous if they exhibit one of the characteristics or are mixed
with another waste that is listed.
The responses to your specific questions follow:
1. Is the spent pickle liquor a hazardous waste if
it corrodes 1020 steel at a rate of >_ 0.25
inches/year?
Yes. This is the definition of a corrosive liquid
waste as described at Section 261. 22(a)(2).
2. Is the sludge from the bottom of the pickle tank a
hazardous waste if its pH <. 2?
Yes. This is the definition of a corrosive aqueous
waste as described at Section 261.22(a)(1).
-------
- 2 -
3. Does paragraph 264.314 apply to the dewatered lime
neutralized pickle sludge that is taken to the local
landfill?
No. Part 264 applies to hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal units. To the extent that the
"local landfill" is not a hazardous waste facility,
Section 264.314 is not applicable.
4. In regards to the wastes discussed above, what if
any, regulatory requirements does the EPA have?
Since it is not clear whether the wastestreams of the
Kentucky Plant do or do not exhibit the
characteristics described above, a general answer to
this question cannot be provided. It is suggested
that you direct this question to our Regional Office
at the following address: *
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Attn: James H. Scarbrough
Residuals Management Branch
Also, please note that State regulations may differ from
Federal regulations. Since the Regional EPA offices deal more
directly with the States, they are better able to provide the
information you desire.
Should you have any questions regarding this response, feel
free to contact David Topping of my staff at (202) 382-7737.
Sincerely,
***^ « ••* ' '* <* H)
Devereaux Barnes , Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
9443.1988(06)
May 31, 1988
Mr. R. Wade Knight
U.S. E.P.A. Region IV
College Statiorr Road
Athens, Georgia 30613
Dear Wade:
We have reviewed the data package submitted by Joseph
Stewart of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in support of his
petition to use the 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, we believe that ORNL has
demonstrated the equivalency of the Soxhlet and SOXTEC
extraction procedures for generating PCB data, and their
petition to use the SOXTEC extraction system for preparation of
PCB samples in place of the Soxhlet method (Method 3540) should
be granted. Furthermore, we in the RCRA program, with support
from Superfund, are in the process of using this ORNL data to
develop a general extraction procedure for SW-846 using the
SOXTEC apparatus.
-------
-2-
We are in process of assembling samples TO t>e split for a
multilaboratory validation study of the SOXTEC extraction
procedure for PCB's. This will be followed by a program to
expand the utility of this technique into a general SW-846
method with a scope equivalent to that of Method 3540.
If we can be of any further assistance to you, please call
Barry Lesnik at FTS 382-4761.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman, Chief
OSW-Methods Section (WH-562B)
cc: Barry Lesnik
-------
9443.1988(07)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
gout) WASTE AND EMESGENCV RESPONS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Discarded Class C Explosives
FROM: Sonya M. Stelmack, Acting Chief
Alternative Technology and Support Section
TO: Incinerator Permit Writers' Workgroup
Our section has recently received several inquiries
regarding whether Class C explosives intended for disposal
are classified as Subtitle C hazardous wastes, since it is
apparent that confusion exists, I would like to clarify this
issue.
To date, only those Class C explosives identified as
off-specification small arms ball ammunition up to and
including 0.50 caliber have been demonstrated not to be
subject to the Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements. The
Office of Solid Waste concluded that these materials are not
"reactive" within the meaning of 40 CFR 261.23(a}(6) based
on information provided by Remington Arms Company and the
Army (see attached memorandum) . Furthermore, in a letter
from Marcia Williams to J. Carricato of DOD (also attached)
it was emphazised that the OSW determination only applied to
the ball ammunitions since other ammunition types of similar
caliber may be subject to RCRA. For the remaining Class C
explosive wastes, as for any other solid waste not listed in
40 CFR 261 Subpart 0, the generator must determine whether
his particular waste exhibits the reactivity or other
characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C.
We vill be working with the Army on the Class C
explosive* issue as it relates to popping furnaces. If you
have any questions on the Class C explosives issue, please
contact Lionel Vega at FTS 475-8988.
Attachments
c:c: Bruce Weddle
Elizabeth Cotsworth
Lionel Vega
David Friedman
Major Jessie Cabellon
-------
9443.1988(07)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Discarded Class C Explosives
FROM: Sonya M. Stelmack, Acting Chief
Alternative Technology and Support Section
TO: Incinerator Permit Writers' Workgroup
Our section has recently received several inquiries
regarding whether Class C explosives intended for disposal
are classified as Subtitle C hazardous wastes. Since it is
apparent that confusion exists, I would like to clarify this
issue.
To date, only those Class C explosives identified as
off-specification small arms ball ammunition up to and
including 0.50 caliber have been demonstrated not to be
subject to the Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements. The
Office of Solid Waste concluded that these materials are not
"reactive" within the meaning of 40 CFR 261.23(a}(6) bas«d
on information provided by Remington Arms Company and the
Army (see attached memorandum). Furthermore, in a letter
from Marcia Williams to J. Carricato of DOD (also attached)
it was emphazised that the OSW determination only applied to
the ball ammunitions since other ammunition types of similar
caliber may be subject to RCRA. For the remaining Class C
explosive wastes, as for any other solid waste not listed in
40 CFR 261 Subpart D, the generator must determine whether
his particular waste exhibits the reactivity or other
characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C.
We vill be working with the Army on the Class C
explosive* issue as it relates to popping furnaces. If you
have any questions on the Class C explosives issue, please
contact Lionel Vega at FTS 475-8988.
Attachments
cc: Bruce Weddle
Elizabeth Cotsworth
Lionel Vega
David Friedman
Major Jessie Cabellon
-------
9443.1988(08)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ignitability Characteristic
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director '''/
Office of Solid Waste (OS-300)
TO: William E. Muno, Acting Associate Director
Waste Management Division (5HS-13)
I am responding to your request for clarification of the
phrase "under standard temperature and pressure" as used in the
ignitability characteristic (40 CFR 261.21). The phrase refers
to the conditions used to determine whether the waste is a
liquid or a solid. Wastes are evaluated at standard temperature
(20 C/68 F) and pressure (1 atra) and, if not a liquid und«>r
these conditions are not subject to the flash point criteria
of 261.21(a)(l).
Based on the information in your memorandum, Chevron's
polystyrene production distillation still bottom tar would
not be a liquid within the meaning of the ignitability
characteristic and therefore only evaluated against the
criteria of 261.21(a)(2).
If you have any further questions, please contact David
Friedman of my staff at (FTS) 382-4761.
-------
9443.1988(39;
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Use of the LD50 in the Office of Solid Waste
FROM: Pristfilla Halloran
Health Assessment Section (OS-331)
THRU: Stephanie Irene, Chief
Health Assessment Section (OS-331)
TO: Caret Lahvis
Science Applications International Corporation
In response to your inquiry about the Office of Solid
Waste's use of the LD50, these values are used as one of the
criteria for listing hazardous wastes. Specifically, it is used
to designate any Acutely Hazardous Waste. The LD50 value is
used unchanged, i.e. there is no extrapolation to humans.
"...in the absence of data on human toxicity,
it has been shown in studies to have an oral
LD50 toxicity (rat) of less than 50 milligrams
per kilogram, an inhalation LC50 toxicity (rat)
of less than 2 milligrams per liter, or a
dermal LO50 toxicity (rabbit) of less than 200
milligrams per kilogram...(Waste listed in
accordance with these criteria will be
designated Acute Hazardous Waste)."
CFR 40 Part 261.11 (a)(2)
The Office of Solid Waste generally evaluates the chronic
hazards, systemic and/or carcinogenic, of the constituents of
concern in its various regulatory activities.
-------
9443.1988(10}
SEP 13
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 8, 1988
SUBJECT: Definition of Reactive Waste - Explosivity
FROM: DavicTFriedman, Chief
Methods Section, (OS-331)
TO: Sonya Stelmack,
Assistance Branch, (OS-343)
As you requested, I have reviewed the testing protocols and
classification criteria used by the Department of Defense in
evaluating the explosivity of material (Army TB 700-2, Navy
NAVSEAINST 8020.8, Air Force TO 11A-1-47, DLA DLAR 8220.1).
It is my judgement that the only materials that would
exhibit the reactivity characteristic (40 CFR 261.23), due to
their potential explosivity, are those that fall into
Department of Defense Hazard Classes 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3.
Materials rated as Class 1.4 would, therefore, not be an
explosive within the meaning of the reactivity characteristic.
cc: Suzanne RudzinsJci
Reva Rubenstein
Robert Dellinger
-------
9443.1988(111
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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 -nemorandum is in response to your request for
determination of tlie regulatory status of aqueous wastestreams
generated at an Upjohn Company pharmaceutical facility in
Kalamazoo, MI. All answers are based on our best understanding
of the process flowsheets which you sent and the information
which you provided over the telephone to my staff.
The spent solvent listings cover those streams that are
used to solubilize or mobilize other constituents (e.g.. for
degreasing or fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants,
reaction and synthesis media, and similar uses) and through
such use, have become contaminated to the extent that they must
be reclaimed prior to further use or reuse.. See 50 EE 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
oolventi
-------
-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 states 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)
-------
9443.1989(01)
FILE COPY
JAN 2 7 1989
Ms. Karen Heyob
Environmental Engineer
0 M Scott & Sons
Marysville, OH 43041
Dear Ms". Heyob:
This letter will clarify our telephone conversation, and
your follow up letter, with respect to use of total
concentration to demonstrate that a waste does not exhibit the
characteristic of Extraction Procedure Toxicity.
The evaluation to be performed is as follows:
1. Determine the concentration of the analyte of concern in
the waste expressed in g/lOOg (A).
2. Determine the waste's percent liquid (B).
3. Calculate the maximum theoretical extract concentration,
in mg/L, (MTEC) using the formula.
MTEC = CAJ
[B + (20)(100-B)]
4. If MTEC is below the Extraction Procedure Toxicity
characteristic regulatory level, then the waste does not
exhibit the characteristic. If MTEC is above the regulatory
level, then one would have to run the test to show that the
waste is non-hazardous.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman
Chief, Methods Section
cc: Gary Daugherty
Manager, Environmental Engineering
0 M Scott & Sons
Rebecca Strom
EPA, Region V
-------
unrrro STATBS EIWRONMENTAI. PUOTECTION AGEMCY
9443.1989(02)
*.
u*
Mr. John P. Stockli
White, Ostennan, and Hanna
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12260
Dear Mr. Stockli:
This is in response to your letter of March 27, 1989, in
which you asked about the regulatory status of waste solvent-
based glue. Specifically, you wished to know whether or not the
F-listings (40 CFH 261.31) apply to characterization of waste
dried or non-solidified glue.
The spent solvent waste codes (F001 - F005) apply only to t
solvents that are used for their solvent properties. See t
50 F_B 53316 (December 31, 1985). These listings do not apply til
solvent-containing products that may become wastes if the
solvents are ingredients, such as for paint or glue. However,
the waste glue could meet one of the hazardous waste
characteristics, especially if it is in the non-solidified form.
(S€je 40 CFR 261.20 - 261.24.) The generator is responsible* for
ascertaining whether the waste exhibits one or more of thes*<
hazardous characteristics. In addition, the generator should
review state regulations, which may be more stringent than
Federal regulations.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at
(202)475-6715.
Sincerely,
* Devereaux Barnes
'->*• s Director
.v Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9443.1989(03)
,-tO Sr,
•* f
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 2 01933
SOLID WAS'E AND EM£BG£NCV
Ms. Lenore H. Schupak
Director, Environmental Technology
American Standard, Inc.
40 West 40th. St.
New York, NY 10018
Dear Ms. Schupak:
This letter is in response to your March 7, 1989, letter
regarding the proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for
barium in drinking water. In addition to your support for the
proposed MCLG, you suggested that the EP Toxicity level for
barium (Table 1 in 40 CFR 261.24) be revised immediately upon
any change to the MCL.
The EP Toxicity levels are based upon the constituents'
expected fate and transport as well as their MCLs. Currently,
the estimated fate and transport processes are represented by a
factor of 100. That is, the EP Toxicity levels are equal to 100
tines the MCLs. The Agency is currently re-evaluating the fate
and transport of the EP constituents to determine whether the
100 factor is an appropriate estimate of these processes. Since
this factor may change, it is not presently clear whether a
cheinge in the regulatory level (which depends upon both this
factor and the MCL) would be appropriate. Therefore, needed
chemges to the EP regulatory levels (resulting from changes in
either or both of these values) will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis and any warranted changes to the regulatory
levels will be proposed as modifications to 40 CFR 261.24.
Should you have any further questions on this issue, feel
free to contact Reva Rubens te in, Chief of the Characteristics
Section, at (202) 382-4798.
Sincerel
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
ffice of Solid Waste
-------
9443.1989(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACEHC
Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen
United States Senator
961 Federal Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Senator Bentsen:
Thank you for your April 24, 1989, letter regarding
Hollis E. Ervin's concerns about the March 14, 1989, court
opinion supporting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
interpretation of the regulatory status of contaminated
environmental media (such as soil and ground water).
EPA believes that a hazardous waste does not necessarily
lose its hazardous characteristic when it is combined with an
environmental medium, and that, unless demonstrated otherwise,
•the contaminated medium should be managed as a hazardous waste
because it contains ? ft*.&ardous wastt. (The environmental
medium itself is not % hazardous waste.) To consider
contaminated media as newly generated wastes for purposes of
determining whether they are hazardous could be an incentive
for the purposeful contamination of environmental media with
hazardous waste in an effort to avoid regulations otherwise
applicable.
EPA has established a process under which persons
may petition the Agency to have their waste removed from
regulatory control on a case-by-case basis (sometimes called
"delisting"). Under this process, EPA evaluates the waste in
question and determines whether it needs to be regulated as a
hazardous waste. In addition, EPA is currently examining ways
to streamline this process - e.g., setting de minimis levels of
contaminants which, when met, would allow for the management of
wastes outsids the structure of the hazardous waste
regulations.
As found by the D.C. Court of Appeals, the "contained in"
rule has been a consistent and reasonable interpretation since
the promulgation of the applicable regulations in 1980. To
change an established regulatory interpretation, the Agency is
required to provide notice and an opportunity for public
comment (i.e., regulatory interpretations cannot be changed at
the "whim" of EPA).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Than* ^Bxor your interest in the hazardous waste
program. 9Tl can be of further assistance to you, please feel
free to call me, or have your staff contact Bob Bellinger at
(202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Sylvia K. Lovrance, Director
Office of solid Waste
OS305/DELLINGER/T. MCMANUS - 382-4646/CSH/5-16-89/
CONTROL #AL892146/DUE DATE:5-19-89/DISK #23/NAME:BENTSEN
-------
't 9443.1989(07)
JUL 10
Laura Belden
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
USPCI
Suite 400 South
2000 Classen Center Building
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73106
Dear Ms. Belden:
This is in response to your letter of May 12, 1989 to Joshua
Sarnoff of the Office of General Counsel. You requested that EPA
clarify an April 1987 Hotline report on 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(TCA) contained in a sand-metal-solvent mixture, created from
degreasing metal parts in TCA, grinding the parts, and filtering *
the cooling fluids. EPA continues to believe that this waste :
stream does not meet the F001 listing description. »
The sand-metal-solvent mixture is a process waste stream
-------
9443.1989(08)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG | I!
0"'CE
SOLID WAS" AND = ME
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of RCRA Authorities Regarding U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Dredgey-Sediments
f'/
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS-~K>
i ' "'' '
TO: Basil G. Constantelos, Director
Waste Management Division
Region V
This memorandum responds to your May 30, 1989, request for
clarification concerning RCRA authorities to regulate dredged
sediments that exhibit one of more characteristics of a
hazardous vraste. As yoo stated, EPA's policy regarding such
materials is defined In the January 23, 1986, memorandum from
Marcia Williams to David Stringham. However, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE) published a Federal Register
notice on April 26, 1988 (53 FR 14902), in which USACOE
concluded that dredged materials are not solid waste antf,
therefore, not subject to RCRA. These contradictory statutory
interpretations and policies have caused confusion in properly
implementing RCRA authorities over dredged sediments.
The Agency's policy regarding the applicability of RCRA to
dredged sediments remains unchanged from the January 23, 1986,
memorandum. The pertinent points of this policy are: 1) point
source discharges subject to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) are exempt from RCRA, 2) hazardous wastes dumped into
surface water in a manner that does not trigger Section 402 of
the CWA are subject to RCRA regulation, as well as any sediments
that are contaminated by such discharges (under the contained-in
rule), and 3) in cases where the pollutants discharged into
surface water are not subject to RCRA, sediments would be
regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA only when they are dredged
from the surface waters and only if they exhibit one or more
characteristics of hazardous wastes.
The Office of Solid Waste and the Office of General Counsel
are currently evaluating the best approach to take in addressing
USACOE's April 26, 1988, Federal Register notice. I agree
that a definitive statement of RCRA authorities over dredge
sediments is needed to clarify the regulatory requirements.
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. Should
you have any questions, your staff should contact Mitch Kidwell,
of my staff, at FTS 475-8551.
-------
9443.1989(09)
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC^N AGENCY
NOV I 7 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Waste that Exhibits Two Characteristics
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division
This is in response to the October 23, 1989, letter from
Christine McCulloch to Steve Cochran, and follows up on my memo of
September 28, 1989 to you regarding Fisher Scientific. Apparently
Fisher generates a nitric acid waste that is both an oxidizer
(which makes it ignitable under RCRA rules) and is corrosive. If
this is the case, then this waste is both D001 and D002. EPA
Federal regulations do not require a generator to place waste
codes on the manifest, but the waste must be managed in compliance
with all special requirements for ignitable (e.g., 264.17) and
corrosive waste.
Please feel free to give me a call at 8-382-4637 if you have
any further question.
!! 1 ] 1!!11!111111M M!!11111!1!!M111111111M M M!1M M111M 11!!!!!!
cc: Christine McCulloch, Region II (Fax 264-4359)
bcc:: Steve Cochran
Hotline
-------
9443.1989(10
UNITED STATES EHVfRDKMENTAi: PROTECTION ACEKCY'
copy
December 13, 1989
Mr. William Berning
CC Johnson & Malhotra, P.C.
Suite 215
215 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, CO 80228
Decir Mr. Berning:
I am writing in response to your letter requesting
clcirification regarding when it is necessary to digest EP (Method
1310) and TCLP (Method 1311) extracts prior to metals analysis.
The Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic (40 CFR
261.24) states that a waste is a hazardous waste if the extract
of the waste contains any of the listed constituents above the
indicated regulatory levels. Method 1310 and 1311 extracts
should be digested prior to metals analysis for several reasons.
The two most important ones being:
1) Extracts often consist of a mixture of phases. Unless
the extract is digested prior to the determinative step
all of the metallic species may not be in a form which
gives an accurate detector response (e.g., ICP or AA).
2) During cold storage of Method 1310 extracts, it has
been reported that precipitation sometimes occurs.
Unless the extracts are digested prior to the
determinative step, any metal that precipitates would
not be counted and this would lead to an
underestimation of extract concentration and a
potentially incorrect hazard classification.
-------
-2-
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations hold the regulated individual responsible for
accurately characterizing the properties of the wastes. Some
wastes may yield extracts which do not require digestion to yield
accurate concentration results. However, persons who analyze
Method 1310 or 1311 extracts without prior digestion of the
extracts, and who therefore incorrectly characterize their waste
would be deemed not to have made a good faith effort to
characterize their waste. In fact, Step 8.14 of Method 1311 (40
CFR 268, Appendix I) specifically states that, "TCLP extracts to
be analyzed for metals, other than mercury, shall be acid
digested."
I hope that the above answers your questions.
Sincerely,
David Friedman
Chief, Methods Section
Office of Solid Waste (OS-331)
-------
9443.1990(01)
UNITED STATES'ERVHnjMMEHnL PROTECTION
James; W. Poirier
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
1752 N St., NW
Washington, ,DC 20036
Dear Mr. Poirier:
I am writing in response to your letter of December 1, 1989
regarding the ignitability characteristic.
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) currently has two test
protocols for determining the ignitability of a liquid - the
Pensky-Martens Closed Cup (SW-846 Method 1010) and the Setaflash
Closed Cup (SW-846 Method 1020). These methods are for liquids
only and do not establish that a solid possesses the ignitable
characteristic. For solids, there is only a narrative definition
set forth in the regulation itself:
"It is not a liquid and is capable, under standard
temperature and pressure, of causing fire through
friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous
chemical changes and when ignited, burns so vigorously
and persistently that it creates a hazard."
The OSW has been conducting work to develop test methods for
ignitable solids. A method has been developed but has not been
evaluated and no decision has been made on the appropriate
regulatory thresholds. Presently, other priorities have resulted
in the work being put on hold.
If you have any further questions, please contact Gail
Hanstm of my staff at (202) 475-6722.
Sincerely yours,
Devereaux Barnes
Director,
Characterization and Assessment Division
copy
cc: Alec McBride
David Friedman
Gail Hansen
Ann Ryan
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9443.1991(01)
6 1991
Ms. DeAnna M. Senegal
AnalytiKEM Inc.
2925 Richmond Avenue
Houston, TX 77098
Dear Ms. Senegal,
I am writing in response to your letter of June 28,
1991 requesting clarification on the determination of the
ignitability characteristic. The characteristic, as
defined in 40 CFR $261.21, is applicable to both solid
and liquid wastes; however, test methods are currently
ns£ available for solid waste. Because standardized,
approved methods are not available, the characteristic
determination for solids (e.g., determining whether
solids will cause vigorous and persistent fires through
friction, absorption of moisture, or spontaneous chemical
changes, as listed in the regulations) has to depend upon
knowledge of the waste stream, as noted in 40 CFR
.) Xj£Gi.i(a) (2) (li) and S262.11(c) (2) . Waste analyses of
solid materials may be helpful for determining if any of
the detectable compounds are known to be ignitable.
Please note that meeting anv (not all) of the properties
specified in the definition of ignitability qualifies a
waste as characteristically ignitable.
There are no specific definitions of "liquid" ( i.e. .
5%, 10%) in the ASTM method D-93 (Standard Test Method
for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Tester) but the
types of materials that may be tested are specified in
the method as "fuel oils, lube oils, suspensions of
solids, liquids that tend to form a surface film under
test conditions, and other liquids of similar vis-
cosities". You are correct to note that results obtained
from applying the test outside of the specifications
(a. a. . paddle does not turn freely) do not provide proof
for a characteristic determination. However, if you are
assured that the paddle moves freely, then you may accept
the determined flashpoint as reliable.
-------
ignitability. As stated in the 1990 D-93 method, "flash
point measures tendency of the sample to form a flammable
mixture with air under controlled laboratory conditions.
It is only one of a number of properties which must be
considered in assessing the overall flammability hazard
of. a material".
Regarding your question about how the results should
appear to clients if the procedures are not followed as
written, specific notations according to any deviation
from the method should be cited in the client's report.
If you have any further questions, please call me
at (202) 260-4761.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Hansen
Chief,
Methods Section
(OS-331)
cc: Alec McBride
Dave Topping
John Austin
David Bussard
Mark Badalamente, OGC
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
MICE Line
-------
9443.1991(02)
RCRA/SUPERFDND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 1991
3. Removal of Toxicity Characteristic
Wastes from a Surface
Impoundment
4f
A generator produced a solid waste and
disposed of his waste in an on-site surface
impountiment. After the September 25,7990,
effective date of the toxicity characteristic (TC) No. not under the following circumstances.
rule, the waste would meet the definition of a The generator may remove the waste from the
newly-identified TC waste (40 CFR §26124). surface impoundment prior to the effective
If he chooses to remove the waste from his date of the TC rule and the unit will not be
surface impoundment and dispose of it off-site, regulated as a subtitle C unit EPA has also
would his surface impoundment be a regulated clarified mat the Agency would not normally
unit under Subtitle C ofRCRA? consider the one-time removal of waste from a
unit on or after the TC effective date to bring
the unit into the hazardous waste management
system (e.£, as a storage unit). As stated in
the September 27.1990. Federal Register
clarification notice* "EPA doc? not consider.
one-time removal of waste from a unit on or
after the TC effective date, in and of itself, to
make the unit a storage unit and thus subject to
Subtitle C The Agency does not view one-
time removal of waste as pan of a closure as
changing the status of the unit, as long as there
has not been ongoing management of the waste
in the impoundment." The preamble language
goes on to state that this removal is beneficial
to human health and the environment since it
would eliminate potential sources of
groundwater contamination. (55 ER 39410)
Should the generator choose to remove the
hazardous waste from the unit on a one-time
basis, he may use the impoundment as a non-
Subtitle C unit (provided no other hazardous
wastes are generated, managed, or disposed of
in the unit). On the other hand, if the generator
chooses to leave the waste in place and does
not use the unit for hazardous waste
management after the effective date of the TC
rule (for example, if he intends for the surface
impoundment to be the final disposal site for
the waste), the unit would not be a regulated
-------
Lists Of Hazardous Waste
(Subpart D)
ATKl/1112/7sm
-------
9444.1980(01)
September 4, 1980
Mr. Robert Goodell
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
Betz Laboratories, Inc.
4636 Somerton Road
Trevose, Pennsylvania 19047
Dear Mr. Goodell:
This is in response to your letter of August 1, 1980 in
which you reguested confirmation of our previous telephone
conversations related to interpretations of §261.33 of the
hazardous waste regulations promulgated on May 19, 1980. In an
attachment to your letter you described a hypothetical waste
stream which contained several constituents which, as products,
are listed in §§261.33(e) or 261.33(f); you concluded that the
waste stream was non-hazardous.
As noted in the regulations, §§261.33(e) and (f) relate only
to commercial chemical products (or variants thereof) which are
hazardous wastes if and when they are discarded. They are not to
be applied to wastes which incidentally contain substances listed
in these sections. Thus the waste stream you described is not
one of the commercial chemical products listed. (The exception
to this would be those cases where, citing your example, the
product is known by the generic name of and purchased for the
active ingredient, pentachlorophenol.) Also you did properly
indicate an evaluation against the characteristics of hazardous
waste.
A Regulatory Interpretation Memorandum (RIM) on this
specific issue (§261.33) has been prepared and is being revised
within the Agency. It should be published in the Federal
Register in about two weeks. A notice indicating that RIMs would
be prepared and a tentative schedule for a group of RIMs was
published on August 19, 1980 (45 FR 55386). A copy is attached.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
I have this provides the information you requested. Please
call or write If I may be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Alan S. Corson, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division
Attachment
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1980(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOV 1 3 1980
Mr. John D. P.. Wright
Independent Valley Energy
Company
1100 Kills Building
Suite 2765
Houston, Texas 77002
Dear Mr. Wright:
This is in response to Mr. Finis E. Carleton's lett*? to rse
dated October 2R, 1?50 (copy attached). In hi« letter tfr, Carleton
ask* for verification of his interpretation of our RCRA Htsardous
Waste Management Regulations with re*p«ct to wastes that will be
aeneratod by a refinery your firm intends to build in BeXersfield,
ilifcrnia. Eased on the facts presented in his letter, I conclude
chat Mr. Cariston has reached correct interpretations of our
regulations.
It drpeurs that the refinery wastewater to be treated is not a
haz.sraouG waste because it is not listed in §«2G1.31 or 261.32 of the
regulations, >2c»os net contain (by nixture) any of the hazardous wastes
listed in f?2G1.31 or 261.32, or *!o«s not exhibit any of th« hazardous
waste characteristics identified in Subpart C of Part 261 of the
regulations. As such, this wastewatar wculd not Ns subject to our
regulations an4 it would not b* necessary to submit a Part A application
on N'ovcr.ber 19, 1980. cr obtain interim s-tatus in accordance with
§122.25. I would hasten to point out, however, that if any of the
three hazardous wastes to b< generated by the refinery (KO48, KO49 and
K051) are discharged intoxan-i nixed with the refinery vastewater, they
will cause the wastewater to be a hazardous waste— in accordance with
the mixture rule of $261.3(a) (2) (ii) — and, thereby, subject to our
P.CRA regulations.
t appears that one of the hazardous wastes to be generated by
your refinery— naaiely sfcizriings from the air floatation unit (XO43) —
will be recycled to the coker after accumulation or storage in the
slop oil tank. Although the recycling of this wast* is not now
sub'ject to our regulation* (see «2Gl.G(a)), the storage cf this waste
n the slop oil tank is now subject to our regulations because it is
cre^e o* a listed hazardous waste (see $2Gl.G(b)). ?.s the regulations
re now written, the slop oil tank v/ould have to }?* pcmitted or have
-------
-3-
I hopr that I have been helpful in this response. I regret that
cur regulation* are so coaplicated but believe that this complexity
is caused by the complexity of the problen being regulated. If I can
h« of any further assistance, please call or, prefarrafcly, contact:
Arnold Den
Chief* Hazardous Katerialc Branch
215 rreaont Street
San Prtneiseo, California 94105
(415) 556-4606
Sincerely yours.
Gary H. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid «aste
Tnclcsure
cc: ?inis E. Cnrleton
-------
UNlTtD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 3444.1980(03)
NOV 1 7 198Q
Mr. R. E. Hoyle
Manager, Operations
Koch Fuels, Inc.
P.O. Box 2338
Wichita, Kansas 67201
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
Tills IB in response to your letter of September 11, 1980,
requesting clarification of our RCRA hazardous waste management
regulations relative to bottom sediments, water wastes fend spilled
nateri&l and nixtures resulting from storage of petroleum products.
You asfc whether these wastes are hazardous wastes by virtue of
containing any of the constituents, such as benzene, listed in
Appendix VIII of Part 261 of our regulations.
These wastes would only be hazardous waste if:
1. they are listed as hazardous wastes in §§261.3> or
261.32 of our regulations; or
2. they are mixtures that contain any of the hazardous
wastes listed in §$261.31 or 261.32 of our
regulations.
3. they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes described in Subpart C of Part 261 of our
regulations.
Frcn the information provided in your letter, it appears that your
wastes do not meet either of the first two criteria. Your letter
does not provide sufficient information to make a judgement based
on the third criterion.
Relative to your questions about Appendix VZZZ, that Appendix
is only meant to b« used by EPA in naking judgements about listing
wastes as hazardous wastes. Zt is not intended that the regulated
community oust us* Appendix VZZZ to determine whether a waste is a
hazardous waste. Put in other words, a waste that contains an
Appendix VZZZ constituent is only a hazardous waste because of this
if EPA has listed the wast* for this reason in §1261.31 or $261.32.
-------
-2-
If your wastes contain any of the Ar.pendix VIII constituents hut
these wastes are not listed in" §§261.31 cr 261.32, this does net
necessarily mean that ZPA ha« nade a deteminaticn that these wastes
are ncn-hasardous. It nost liV.ely means that we have not yet nafie a
determination with respect to these wastes.
I hope I have clarified our regulations with respect to your
questions'. If I can of further assistance, please call ne.
Sincerely yours,
Gary 1J. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Adninistrator
for Solid Waste
-------
9444 .1980 (05)
1 £ 1350
r'ichael S. Rabren
Techr.ical Director
*J . S . Cylinders
100 Industrial ?arh
Citenelle, Alabar.a 3P.522
Dear ".r. r.abren-.
This is to respond to your letter of October 30, 1SCO, to
;'s. rilcr.er.a Chau asXinc fcr clarification of our hazardous waste
r.ar.acener.t reeulations as they apply tc your cerrp.'j.r.y1 s weste.
Vcu indicate that your waste is CaC, Sir'2 and asbertcs ar.vi
asV: if it is a hazardous waste. w« listed asbestos as & hazardous
waste in §261.33(5) of our regulation, but this cr.ly applies tc
technical crade asbestos if, for acne reason, it is discarded or
intended tc be discarded. This list.ir.er does not causr a r.aruf scturinc
rrccecs waste containing asbestos as a ncmal waste constituent to be
a herardous waste. ?rcn cry understanding of ycur letter, your waste
is such a manufacturing process waste. If this is correct, it is r.ct
a '-.».rarucus waste because of its contcr.t cf asbestos.
Your waste may be a hazardous waste ^eca•J^• it irhibits any of
th« characteristics of hazarscus wast*; identifies in £ut.T-s"t C or
Part 2C1. Frcr: the information rrovid«d in your letter, I canr.ot
nahe ft judrc.-nent on this point. You say want to chec'x on this. I:"
you need further guidance, I reccmenc that you ccr.tact-.
Janes Scarsrourh
Chief, P.esiduals ".anacement Branch
345 Courtland Street, ^.C.
Atlanta, Georgia 3C3C5
(404) P.P.1-3016
If you should fini that your waste is a hazardous waste and you
ere a snail quantity generator, you are allowed to dispose of your
wasi_c in a facility that is approved by the State for disposal of
nur.icinal or industrial waste (not a necessarily hazardous waste
facility) . A sr-.^ll quantity generator is cnc who generates less thar.
1000 kiio^rars cf hazardous waste in a calender rsor.th. Ycur letter
-------
that you cisocse of 5CD fciiocrans per rronth of asbestcs. Cur
regulation is baaed en the quantity cf the tctal waste, net ;.ast tre
quantity of the asbestos or any other constituent in the waste.
Therefore, I cannot rsaV.c a judgement en whether you are a sr.all cuar.tiv
Generator. You r.ay wish tc discuss this with Kr. Scar'nrcuch.
I hope I have been helpful. I arolccise for the tarSincRs of this
response but we have been overwhelmed with requests for clarification
of cur regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Gar-/ M. Dietrich
Associate Deputy ijsistant nininistrator
for Solid Waste
-------
9444.1980(06)
December 2, 1980
Mr. William English
Vice-President, Operations
The Massillon Steel Casting Company
Massilon, Ohio 44646
Dear Mr. English
This letter will confirm the conversation you had with Mr.
Myles Morse of my staff on October 20, 1980, concerning your
petition to exclude the waste of the Massillon Steel Casting
Company from the K061 hazardous waste listing, (emission control
dust/sludge from the electric furnace production of steel), under
Section 261.32 of the hazardous waste regulations. The Massillon
Steel Casting Company's facility in Massillon, Ohio, as indicated
by your petition dated September 9, 1980, is a steel foundry and
is therefore not affected by this RCRA hazardous waste
classification. This reflects the Agency's finalized listings
(see 45 FR 74890-892 (November 12, 1980)) which clarify that the
listing K061 applies only to the primary production of steel and
not to steel foundries. This change was made since the listing
background document refers throughout only to primary steel
production. We are uncertain whether foundry electric furnace
emission control dusts and sludges are sufficiently similar in
composition to warrant inclusion in the area listing, and
therefore have not included them in this listing. Foundry
industry wastes are being evaluated and may be addressed by
future Agency actions. At present, however, the Agency has
formally terminated further processing of this petition. The
petition will be kept on file with the Agency for future
reference.
Your waste stream, therefore, will not be listed as
hazardous. You are not required to take any action as a result
of the May 19, 1980, interim final listing. You must still
determine, however, whether your waste possesses any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., reactivity,
corrosivity, ignitability or EP toxicity) as provided in §262.11
of the regulations. If your waste does not possess any of these
characteristics, you will be deemed a generator of hazardous
waste, and be required to manage the waste under the hazardous
waste management program. It should be noted that if your waste
meets any of the four characteristics, you should have already
obtained an EPA identification number by August 18, 1980.
This has Jbeen retyped from the original document.
-------
Please feel free, to contact Mr. Morse if you have any
questions or problems. Mr. Morse's telephone number is (202)
755-9187.
Sincerely yours,
John P. Lehman
Director
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1981(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
12 MAR REC'O
OPFICi O*
•OLIO WASTI AND IMIMQINCY MCS^ONSI
RE: WCBDF830108
Mr. John D'Aloia, Jr.
Deuel and Associates, Inc.
7300 Jefferson St, N.E.
Altmqerque, MM 87109
De«r Mr. D'Aloia:
I am responding to your letter of March -r, 1983 to Alan
Corson requesting a clarification of why-the Agency does not
identify as a hazardous waste any manufacturing waste that
contains any of the compounds listed in 40 CPU 261.33.
The commercial chemical products regulated under $261.33
ares generally products containing high concentrations of toxic
chemicals or, in the case of pesticides, products of high
toxic activity. Thus, there is no question that such materials
are likely to meet the criteria for listing, as hazardous wastes.
Manufacturing process wastes, on the other hand,- generally
contain only low levels of these materials. Thus, expanding
th« hazardous waste identification regulations to encompass
all manufacturing wastes containing the 5261.33 compounds is
likely to result in many false positives (i.e., wastes identified
as hazardous which do not actually contain hazardous levels
of the toxicants of concern) unless, and until, minimum
concentration theresholds can be established for each compound.
At this time, due to the lack of data, the Agency is unable
to set* thresholds for all the compounds. As the comment to
S2S1.33 explains1*, where the Agency deems a manufacturing
process wast* to be ^ hazardous waste because it contains
low levels of these compounds, such a waste will be listed
in $5261.31 and 261.32.
In summary, $261.33 was not broadened to include all
process wastes due to the problem outlined above and the
technical difficulties in establishing de minimis concentration
thresholds for all the compounds.
-------
-2-
I hop* that I have answered your question. If you need
additional background information on these regulations, I
suggest that reviewing the $261.33 Background Document may be
useful.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman
Manager
Waste Analysis Program
cc: Hotline
-------
1931(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C 2046C
ornci or SOLID WASTE
3 196, "
OFFICE OF WATER
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr. R. E. McNeill
Occidental Chemical Company
P.O. Box 300
White Springs, PL 32096
Dear Mr. McNeill:
I am writing in response to your letter of June 9, 1981
to Mr. Alan Corson requesting clarification of the section
261.33 regulations with respect to a sulfuric acid catalyst
you use.
The hazardous waste listing P120 in section 261.33(e)
relates to all the oxides of vanadium's +5 oxidation state.
If the Monsanto Catalyst that you employ in the production of
sulfuric acid does not have such an oxide as its sole active
ingredient, then the catalyst is not regulated under section
261.
One must keep in mind however that, even if it is not
regulated under section 261.33, the waste must still be
evaluated to determine if it exhibits any of the chtraetftristic
of a hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, EP toxicity).
I trust the above answers your questions. If I can be
of further assistance please give me a call at (202) 755-9167.
David Friedman
Manager
Waste Analysis Program
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
cc: Hotline
-------
9444.1981(03)
OFFICE, OF SOLID WASTE
JUN "
Mr. nd Keough
Continental Pipeline
P.C. BCLX 2197
Room 600
Richaond Tower
Houston, Texas 77001
Dear Mr. Keought
This letter is in response to your request tor a
clarification of the hazardous waste listing K052, 'Tank
bottoms (leaded) frost the petroleum refining industry.* In
our telephone conversations, you indicated that your company,
as well as other pipeline companies, generate leaded tank
bottoms at bulk terminals* distribution points, etc., which
are not part of • refinery. Therefore, it was not clear to
you whether the listing K052 included all leaded tank bottoms
generated by the petroleum industry or just those specifically
generated at a petroleum refinery*
As you had discussed with Matt Straus, of my staff, on
the telephone, the hasardous waste listing KOS2 is limited
to only those leaded tank bottoms which are generated «fc OE
as purt of a petroleum refinery. A petroleum refinery is
described in the listing background document as a ••••complex
combination of interdependent operations engaged in the
separation of crude oil by molecular cracking, molecular
rebuilding and solvent refinisbing, to produce a varied list
of intermediate and finished products...* (Background Documents
SS261.31 and 2C1.32 - Listing of Rasardous Wastes (Finalisation
of May 19, 1910 Hasardous Waste List), November 14, 19IC, p.
685.]! Therefore, only leaded bottoms from those tanks (i.e.,
tank farm) which are directly part of a petroleum refinery
(i.e.., used to store product/crude prior to shipment off-site)
and which generate leaded bottoms would be currently covered
by the listing* These leaded bottoms are subject to control
as hasardous wastes when they are removed from the tanks.
This we believe is made clear in reading the listing background
document which defines the scope of the listing.
-------
This, however, doe* not mean that your bottoms are non-
harardoua. Each generator i« ultimately responsible for
determining whether this waste exhibits any of the charac-
teristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity and EP toxicity) as provided in 5262.11 of the
regulations. If the waste exhibits a hazardous waste charac-
teristic, the facility will be deemed a generator of hazardous
wasto, and the waste must be managed in accordance with the
hazardous waste management regulations* In addition, if, in
further studies, the Agency determines that leaded tank bottoms
generated frosj other sources are alao hazardous, the Agency
will amend the listing to include these sources under Subtitle
C control.
Please feel free to give me or Matt Straus of my staff
a call if you have any further questions. My telephone
number is (202) 755-9185 while Matt's telephone number is
(202) 755-9187.
Sincerely yours,,
Alfred V. Lindsey
Deputy Director
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
WH-565iMStrausjpesix59187i5-30-81 Din* PS-51-02
-------
9444 .1981(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONf/ENTAL PROTECTIOt AGEN
WASHINGTON D.C. zoaso
OFFICE Or SCLIT WASTE
JUK L L iboi
Mr. 1. E-. King, Sr.
Goulc Inc.
Powder Metal Products Division OFFICE or WATER
Becks Mill Road AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Salem, IN 47167
Dear Mr. Ring:
I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter
of November 5, 1980 requesting clarification of the hazardous
waste regulations with respect to Freon TF recovery still
bottoms.
First of all, if this is the only hazardous waste you
generate and you only generate 150kg/month of it, you would
b«> considered a small generator. In answer to your other
questions.
A. The resinous material remaining after recovery of
the l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon TF)
is the listed waste F002 and is thus a hazardous waste.
B. If, as described above, you classify as a small generator
you are legally permitted to dispose of this residue
in state approved landfills.
C. If you desire to petition the Agency to de.Ust this
.still bottom by showing that the waste dots not contain
l,l,2-trifluoro-l,2,2-trichloroethane either method
8.01 (BSD) or method 8.24 may be used to ?.?mlyze for
the chlorofluorocarbon residues. Detailed: protocols
for these methods may be found in EPA Office of
'Solid Waste Publication SW-846. Copies are available
from ^Ed Cox, Solid Waste Information, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 26 West St. Clair Street, Cincinnati,
OB 45268'*
I hope this information answers your questions. If you
have any additional questions or would like a further
clarification of any of the above areas please give me a call
at (202) 755-9187.
Sincerely,
David Friedman
Manager
Waste Analysis Program
Hazardous and Industrial Division (WB-565)
-------
9444.1981(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
... a^j
nT. ifleQQ
Enforcement Division* Region H
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2:15 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Dear Mr. Sato:
I am writing in response to your letter of July 23, 1981 (2-5-3;
]X81-fOA-079) requesting clarification of 40 CFR 261.33 (e)..
You are
in your interpretation that a material containing a
compound listed in $261. 33 (e) as its sole active ingredient is a hazardous
taste when discarded even though the original product has been diluted by the
user. Thus if a person purchases *. concentrated solution of the pesticide
Aldicarb (P070) and then dilutes it to an application strength solution; disposal
of the application strength solution is considered to be disposal of the product
itself. A literal reading of the regulations would mean that even if the
cinount of chemical product prior to dilution v«s leas than 1 kilogram, disposal
of more than 1 kilugr an/month of the application strength solution would require
management as a hazardous waste.
It is important to keep in mind, however, the applicability of the "fanner
exemption" discussed in $262.51. A commercial applicator working for a farmer
roay mix, apply/ rinse and dispose of pesticide rinsate or unused pesticide
ssolution on the farmers property if done so in accordance with the instructions
on the pesticide label. Ibis exemption would not apply if the pesticide were
being applied to more than one farmer's property and disposal only* occurred at
one farm, or if the waste was shipped off the farmers ' s property for disposal .
I trust that this explanation clarifies the issue for you.
any further questions, please feel free to give us a call.
If you have
Sincerely yours,
(T, . . V .
N.Qx-1 ifr" - J* «-••• * *"'
David Friedman
Manager
Waste Analysis Program
Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division (VK-565)
cc: Fred Lindsey (W-565)
A. Corson (W-565)
D. Friedman (VB-565)
M. Straus OB-565)
Any Schaffer, Enforcement (WJ-562-M)
Susan Bream (WH-564)
Filcaena Qiau (W-562)
RCRA Botline
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
21 5 Frtmont Street
San Francisco. C«. 941 05 J^JL 33
In Reply: E-5-3
Refer To: IX-81-RCRA-079
Mr. I)«vid Friedman , (WH-565)
Manager' of Waste Analysis
Wasci! Characterization Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Request for Policy Statement regarding §261.33(e) of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
4
Dear Mr. Friedman:
EPA Region 9 is currently engaged in an enforcement action which
involves an interpretation of 5261. 33(e) of Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations. ' •
It is our contention that a pesticide containing a listed §261.33(e)
chemical product as its sole active ingredient which is diluted to
application strength i« a- hazardous waste if discarded. We contend
that; such application-strength pesticide is a hazardous waste even
where the chemical product prior to dilution is less than 1 kilogram.
Therefore, so long as an applicator generates 1 kilogram of waste
pe suicide residues per month he is required to notify as a generator
pursuant to section 3010 of RCRA.
i
Within our own technical section there has been some dispute as to
whether the preceding analysis is correct. In order to obtain guidance
on this matter I contacted your office on July 20, and explained our
position to Mr. Matthew Straus. Mr. Straus stated that Region 9's
interpretation of S2.61.33(e) is correct.
Furthermore, Mr. Straus indicated that if the applicator tanks were
rinsed, that rinsate could be considered hazardous waste as well.
I
-------
5444.1982(01)
Regulation of .Paint Filters
David Friedman, Manager
waste Analysis Program (WH-565B)
Chet McLa-ughlin, Chief
State Programs Section (Region VII)
Recently you indicated that the States of Iowa and Kansas
have raised questions concerning the regulation of paint
filters removed from spray booths. The questions revolve
around -how we regulate those filters which are hazardous
wastes when removed from the spray booth but not after immersion
in water.
I will try to answer the specific questions raised in
your memo (a copy of which is attached).
1. In calculating the quantity of hazardous waste
generated, it is the weight of spent filters (including
occluded paint) that is used. Generators are responsible
for evaluating their waste to determine whether it is a
hazardous waste or not. If necessary they may have to test
their waste to make such an evaluation. However, many tines
testing is not required. The necessary evaluation can be
made on the basis of engineering calculations. If the water
fails the EP toxicity test it is also a hazardous waste and
its weight would be added to that of the filters.
2. Waste paint filters are handled the same as any
other hazardous waste relative to the snail generator exemption.
3. I an not sure why this particular waste needs special
treatment in the hazardous waste system other than perhaps
for a streamlined system of obtaining treatment permits for
the hazard mitigation operation (the 55 gallon drum filled
with water). Except in the case of the EP Toxic waters, the
immersed filters are not hazardous wastes and can be placed
in a sanitary landfill at will, whether the generator is a
large or small generator.
\
I hope I have answered your questions. If not give me a
call at 8-755-9187 (382-4806 after September 3U).
Fnclosure
cc: Lehman
Lindsey
Corson
Straus
Hotline
WH-565B:DFRIEDMAN:p«s:x59187:9-15-82 DISK PS-57-15
-------
9444.1982(01;
Enclosure
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 19, 1982
SUBJECT: Regulation of Paint Filters
FROM: Chet McLaughlin, Chief
State Programs Section
TO: Allan Corson, (WH-565)
Chief Waste Characterization Branch
The State of Kansas and Iowa have raised a series of problems with
the regulation of paint filters from pray booths especially those
generated infrequently and in small numbers. When these filters
are removed, they can be subject to self ignition and are usually
treated by immediately immersing them in water. Typically these
individual filters are then transporter to a nearby sanitary
landfill and immediately buried to prevent auto ignition. This
produces the potential for the container, water, filter and waste
to become hazardous waste subject to handling as such.
The alternative is to allow the filter to ignite and burn
releasing small quantities of potentially hazardous air
contaminants and handling of the ash a appropriate.
The questions raised by the states on this subject are several:
1. Do they consider the weight of the paint or paint and filter
for the generation quantity? Does the container and water have to
be tested before it can be disposed? If the water fails the EP
toxicity test must it be handled as a hazardous waste?
2. Do they have to require the handling of filters as a
hazardous waste at firms where other wastes achieve the 1000
kg./mo level and allow others to be treated as small quantity
generators able to use sanitary landfills?
3. Assuming the petition route is not appropriate, the use of
enforcement discretion is apparently the only available mechanism
to allow the states to assume equal treatment and safe handling of
this particular wastes? Are others under consideration?
4. Can they anticipate any regulation interpretation memorandum
on this related subjects in the next several months?
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1983(01)
JJN I 0 1983
2
T
Dan kelson WK: wrpjsfl6l4 ^
waste Management, Inc. -j\
VJ03 Butterfield Road 2
Oak c*rook, Illinois 60521 ^
in
••
Dear Mr. Nelsont ^
••
In your letter of April 4, 19«3, you requested that to
EPA confirm your interpretation of the RCRA hazardous waste $
regulations as they pertain to the spent solvent listings, ~
and the status of leachate fro*n sanitary landfills that have M
received hazardous waste. I trust that this letter adequately ^
addresses your concerns. i
*•
As stated in your letter , the solvent listings (EPA Hazardous \
waste Nos. F001-F005) pertain to spent solvents ( i.e. ,. solvents ^
used Cor their solvent properties). Industrial process wasue »
containing solvents, on the other hand, are not included in ?
the solvent listings except to the extent that it is a mixture ~
of a solid waste and a spent solvent. Thus, you are correct '?•
in stating that spent 1 ,1 ,l-trichloro«thane generated from a ~
cleaning process is considered EPA Hazardous Waste No. POO 2, %
while industrial process waste containing 1 ,1 ,l-trichloro«thane a
as a contaminant are not listed spent solvents. These waste*, 2
however, may be listed individually under Subpart D of the •*
regulations.
Leachate from a sanitary landfill that has received listed
wastes is also considered a hazardous waste. However, as you
stated, leachate containing POOS listed solvents is only hazardous
to the extent that it exhibits the characteristic of ignitability.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to give
a call at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Manager
Hazardous waste Definition Program
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1983(02)
DATE:
SUSJCCT:
FROM:
TO:
July 117 1983
Scope of the Listing K061, Enission Control Dust/Sludge froo the Primary
Production of Steel an Eiectric/urnaces '
(a f •/ J\ /
Alan Corson, Chief ULU/f /K^frvN^
Waste Characterization Branch (WH-565-B)
Chief, Residuals Management Branch
Air & Waste Management Division
This is in response to your question as to the scope of ttia- listing K061
mission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel.
•
Interpretation of Scope of K061
The K061 waste listing is defined under 40 CFR Section 261.32 as "Brassion
control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel (T).'
This applies to steel produced in electric furnaces, not blast
furnaces.
The listing does not include foundries.
Facilities that use scrap steel as a raw material are included
in the listing. •
The listing does not include iron making.
If a facility produces steel in an electric arc furnace using steel
scrap, the emission control dust meets the listing of K061. What is
done with the steel after this process does not affect the process
wastes' inclusion in the listing. •.
-------
9444.1983(03)
HKMORANDDM REs WCBLG2016
i
flabj«cti Hatardoui Wastes from Solar CtU
and High Tech Industries
Front John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Tot Leiand Modesittr Director
Office of Legislation (A-103)
In response to your inquiry for follow-up with
Senator Burdick's staff, the production of solar cells and
other high technology devices (transistora, integrated circuits),
involves a variety of manufacturing processes and can include
the use of industrial solvents and Metal treatment. Hazardous
wastes generated from these operations include electroplating
wastowuter treataent sludges that contain cyanides and
«j stetals that are toxic or reactive* spent solvents that are
2 toxic or ignitablei and discarded eonnercial chemical products
-------
MEMORANDUM 9444.1984(01)
DATE: Mar 5, 1984
SUBJECT: Clarification of the Listings for Metal Heat Treating
F010, F011, and F012.
FROM: Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Air & Waste Management Division
Region IV
This memorandum is in response to your question regarding
the scope of the cyanide listings for metal heat treating
operations (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F010, F011, and F012). In
particular, you asked whether the form of cyanide (i.e.. complex
cyanide or free cyanide) was germane in determining whether one
had a listed waste. In short, the answer is no. In listing
these wastes as hazardous, the Agency was (and is still)
concerned with the management (or management) of cyanide wastes
(both complex cyanide and cyanide salts). If the Agency felt
that a distinction was necessary, it would have done so in the
listing. For example, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F012 would have
been listed as follows:
"Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from metal heat
treating operations where complexed cyanides are used in the
process (except for precious metals heat treating quenching
wastewater treatment sludges)."
In addition, you should be aware that the form of cyanide often
changes during the heat treating operation or subsequent
treatment; therefore, although you may begin with cyanide salts
(free cyanide) your waste may be primarily complex cyanide. The
waste listings take this into account by differentiating between
the form of cyanide present in the waste (i.e.. only cyanide-salt
containing wastes (free cyanides) are listed as posing a
reactivity hazard).
Furthermore, it should be noted that although complex
cyanides are less toxic than free cyanides, complex cyanide-
bearing wastes are of concern because of their potential to
undergo photodecomposition to form toxic hydrogen cyanide and
free cyanide decomposition by-products. (See Listing Background
document for Cyanide Wastes, Response to Comments Section,
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Comment No. 3 for more details.)1 Therefore, if the metal heat
treating process uses cyanides in any form, the process is
covered by the hazardous waste listings.
This document is included in the document §§261.31 and
261.32 - Listing of Hazardous Wastes (Finalization of May
19, 1980 Hazardous Waste List), #1941.28 November 14,
1980.
This has Jbeen retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1984(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
MARCH 84
Conpany A etcnes semiconductor silicon wafers. Cotpany B us« the wafers
to.manufacture printed circuit beards. TSe two ecnpanies are totally
separate. Is sorpany A's wastewater treatment slucge fran the etching
process classified as a F006 waste?
Yes, the vastawatar treactent slucge is regulated as F006. The
chemical etching is viewed as electroplating, even though the
Bactcgraund Docjnent on electroplating did not include tne etching
process. The Background Document was overly narrow in including
only the manufacture of printed circuit boards and excluding
etching.
Source: Bill Sproat and Myles Mcrse ^^ ' ° ^
-------
9444.1984(03)
Mr. John O. Nalevaja, President REI SMBASC1A32
Weed Science Society of Aaerica
c/o Agronomy Department
North Dakota State University
Pargo, ND 58105
Dear Mr. Nalewajat
•
X an writing in response to your letter of March 20, 1984,
and the resolution of th« Weed Science Society of America
requesting the removal of 2,4-D waste from regulation under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The toxic properties of 2,4—D were evaluated oy the RPA's
Office of Drinking Water as part of the process leading to
the development of the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards (MZPDWS). Inclusion of 2,4-D in the list of
toxicants regulated under 40 CPR 261.24 and 261.33 of the HCRA
regulations was based on the evaluation that was conducted
in support of the tflPOWS.
The NIPDMS for 2,4-D was derived assuming that the lowest
long term level with minimal or no effects for the rat and the
dog is 50 and 8 mg/kg/day respectively. Based on these valued,
a "safe level" for man was derived of 1.12 mg/man/day. (See
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, EPA—
570/9-76-003* Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mater
Supply). Verschueren (Handbook of Environmental Data on
Organic Chemicals, Van Nostrand Reinnold* Hew York, NY, 1983)
indicates that 2,4-D is significantly toxic to mammals (i.e.,
oral rat LDSO 300-1000 mg/kg, oral mouse LD50 375-521 mgTkgT
oral dog LDSO 100 mg/kg). In addition, 2,4-D exhibits acutely
toxic effects at the mg/1 level in a variety of aquatic species
which indicates that Its uncontrolled release into the environ-
ment can also affect the ecologleal balance. . For the above
reasons, 2,4-D and its salts have been listed under the hazardous
waste identification regulations.
WH-5S2B:nPRIEDMANllgtS248I38247701WSM Disk ASCIA32
AX400797
DOB DATES 4/9/84
-------
You nay petition the Agency to change Ita regulations;
for OSW to remove 2,4-D frc* regulation underllCRA* you must
demonstrate that the chenical would not poae a hazard to
human health or the environment even If iaproperly disposed
of« For more information, please contact David Friedman of
»y staff '(202-382-4770). Requests or inquiries related to the
NXPDVts and their rationale should o« directed tot
Dr. Joseph Cotruvo
Director
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Drinking Water, WH-550
401 H Street. SW
ffaahington* DC 20460
{202)382-7575
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste (MR-562B)
ccs «r. Cotruvo
-------
9444.1984(04)
April 26, 1984
Dave DoIan
Environmental Scientist
Waste Management Branch
Region V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Dave:
As a result of several inquiries, we wish to clarify which
wastes generated by Bell Lumber and Pole, located in New
Brighton, Minnesota, are listed as hazardous under Part 261 of
the hazardous waste regulations implementing the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. At the present time, one category
of wastes from the wood preserving industry is included as a
hazardous waste from a specific source: K001 "Bottom sediment
sludge from the treatment of wastewaters from wood preserving
processed that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol".
From process descriptions compiled by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health, and Region V during a recent plant site visit,
the following is my understanding of the current and past waste
generation points at the Bell Lumber and Pole facility.
1. Work tank/storage tank sludges. These sludges
accumulate at the bottom of vertical storage tanks for
preservative solutions of pentachlorophenol. In the past,
these tanks may have been used for creosote preservative
solutions. These tanks receive reclaimed preservative
solutions, store them, and in some cases heat the reclaimed
solutions prior to reuse in the wood treating tank.
Currently, sludges from these tanks are discharged to the
mechanical oil/water separator described below.
2. Mechanical oil/water separator sludges. Wastewater
contaminated by oil/preservative solutions and sludges are
collected at a sump at the wood treating tank and are
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
discharged to a tank (81' x 6") where oil/water separation
takes place. This oil/water separation procedures treats
effluent generated after completion of the wood treating
process. Although no water is intentionally added to this
process, a substantial amount of water is released from the
wood itself during hot oil/preservative solution steeping.
Some of this wastewater is emitted to the air as steam
during the steeping process, and some is entrained in the
preservative solution or settles to the bottom of the wood
treating tank.
The first mechanical oil/water separation device was
installed in 1976 at "Tank 8". A steel belt oil/water
separator, installed in 1980, is in current use and operated
daily except when the weather is cold enough to freeze the
water. This oil/water separator daily receives contaminated
wastewater effluent directly from the treating tank.
Approximately one time each year, bottoms from the
storage/work tanks are also added to the mechanical
oil/water separator.
3. Thermal dehydration/evaporation sludges. The
oil/preservative solutions recovered by the mechanical
oil/water separator undergo a secondary wastewater treatment
step by thermal dehydration/evaporation. This is currently
conducted in the "Butt Treatment Tank" with heating coils,
generating a sludge. Other sludges may be added directly to
this thermal dehydrator/evaporator without first being
subjected to mechanical oil/water separation. Thermal
dehydration or evaporation of wastewater from wood
preserving solutions typically generates a sludge.
Before installation of the mechanical oil/water separation
devices, a thermal dehydration treatment was used as the
sole procedure for drying oil/preservative solutions from
the wood treating tank. Fuel oil, used as the solvent for
either creosote or pentachlorophenol, typically will entrain
significant amounts of water during the wood treating
process. Entrained wastewater must be removed to regenerate
dry oil/preservative solutions for good penetration into the
wood during the treating process. Thermal dehydration of
the used oil/preservative solutions in the past could be
assumed based on typical industrial process information,
with concomitant sludge generation.
From the above description of sludge generating processes,
the mechanical oil/water separator sludges and the thermal
dehydrator sludges meet the K001 listing description of
wastewater treatment sludges from wood preserving processes using
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol. If the storage tank/work tank
sludges are mixed with the mechanical oil/water separator sludges
or thermal dehydration/evaporation sludges, then the resulting
mixture also must be managed as a K001 hazardous waste.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Page 21 of the Listing Background Document for the Wood
Preserving Industry states "wastewater treatment sludges are
generated first at oil/water primary separation", which includes
any mechanical oil/water separation device as described for the
Bell Lumber and Pole facility, as well as sludges from surge
tanks, drainage pits, etc. On page 21, dehydration of
oil/preservative solutions and on page 26, evaporation of
wastewater from the addition of heat are also described as
wastewater treatment processes generating sludges defined as K001
hazardous wastes.
Based on processing procedures used by the wood preserving
industry, it is reasonable to assume in the absence of proof to
the contrary that Bell Lumber and Pole was generating a K001
wastewater treatment sludge prior to 1976, and indeed throughout
its; manufacturing history. This is because water removal from
spent wood treating solutions is necessary to regenerate usable
oil/preservative solutions. We do not know if thermal
oil/preservative dehydration or another procedure was used.
Further indication that K001 wastewater treatment sludges
were generated prior to installation of the mechanical oil/water
separation devices in 1976 and throughout the facility's history
comes from the CERCLA "Notification of Hazardous Waste Site",
date June 9, 1981. Thomas E. Doten, then Vice President and
Plant Manger of Bell Lumber and Pole, states that K001 waste was
placed in the on-site landfill up until the late 1960's. He was
unable to estimate the amount of K001 waste deposited in this
landfill "given age [circa 1920] of facility".
Generation rates of K001 wastewater treatment sludges may be
estimated by information in the Listing Background Document and
the Effluent Guidelines Division Data Collection Portfolio. From
the Listing Background Document, the amount of pentachlorophenol
treated wood and the amount of pentachlorophenol wastewater
treatment sludges generated annually yields an estimate of 0.276
cubic feet of sludge per 1000 cubic feet of treated wood.
Effluent Guidelines Division data for all types wood treating
processes (creosote, pentachlorophenol), indicates that
approximately 0.432 cubic feet of sludge is generated per 1000
cubic feet of treated wood from zero wastewater discharge plants.
An average wood preserving plant treats 4000 cubic feet of
wood per day. Therefore, the annual wastewater treatment sludge
generated by a plant would be in the range of 55-87 drums. Some
individual plants have indicated they produce several times as
much wastewater treatment sludge. If sludges from other plant
sources such as storage or work tanks are mixed with the
wastewater treatment sludges before or after oil/water separation
procedures, then this volume estimate would be higher.
I hope this information is useful in evaluating the waste
sources of groundwater contamination from the landfill on the
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Bell Lumber and Pole facility. If you have any further
questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely yours,
Gate Jenkins, Ph.D.
Waste Identification Branch (WH 562)
Characterization and Assessment Division
cc: Matthew A. Straus/OSW
Francine Jacoff/OSW
Steve Silverman/OGC
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1984(05)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
APRIL 84
2. The dry cleaning Industry use carbon filters to filter the sol vent,.
perchloroethylene. Are the resulting carbon filters which contain spent
perchloroettylene viewed as hazardous waste?
The filters are viewed as F0u2, ane the welyht of the filter 1s counted toward
the small quantity generator (SQG) Unit of 1000 K*. These filters arc
typically generated by tne dry cleanln* Industry and *a/ contain up to one
gallon of perchloroethylene.
Source: Alan Corson 1l*tH.
Research: Oenlse
-------
9444..198<(06)
RCRA/SUPERPUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
APRIL 84
3. Wastewater fror an API separator discharges Into rultlple sequential surface
Impoundments where the solids fall out.
a) Is the westewater fron the API separator a hazardous waste If It eoesn't
exhibit a Subpart C characteristic?
b) Is the sludge that precipitates out 1n the Impoundments a KUS1 waste?
c) If the wastewater 1s filtered, are the solids from filtration KU&I?
a) No.
b) Yes; the API separator and subsequent Impoundments used for settling of
solids are viewed as all part of the API separation system.
c) Yes.
Source: Myles Hors* and J1n PoppUl QUUU
Research: Oenlse wr1«nt " n<
-------
9444.1984(07)
May 30. 1984
Wo li. lance y
NL Harold
P.O., Box 167S
Houoton, TX 77001
Doar Mr. Tanceyi
Thia is to confirm our May 29, 1984 telephone conversation
regarding your letter to Alan Corson dated nay 17, 1$&4C regarding
baUast fluid classification. I hope this discussion clarifies
your question on the formaldehyde.
Pormaldehyde is listed (as U122) in 40 CPU 261.*3tf). Thia
listing refers only to discarded commercial chemical products,
off-specification species, container residues, and spi£l residues
hoviing the generic name •formaldehyde.0 The comment Ir Section
261..33(4) explains that the term •commercial chemical product*
refers to a substance manufactured for commercial us« which is
commercially pure or a technical grade and formulation® in which
the chemical is the sole active Ingredient. It does fc&'i refer
to a material, such aa a process waste, that contains eny of the
subiitancea listed in 261.33(e) or 261.33(f). To be fe&wsidered
a hazardous waste, such process wastes will be listed fn either
Sections 261.31 or 261.32 or be identified as a hasardous waste
by characteristics as set forth in the regulations.
!Cn other words, formaldehyde (and sodium pentachlorophenate)
in lie ing used to keep down growth in the ballast fluid. The fluid
in not considered to be the commercial chemical product formaldehyde.
Ship ballast fluid would have to be specifically listed as a haxardous
waste stream or be haxardous on the basis of the characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or BP toxicity), aa explained
above.
-------
If you have any further questions, f«el free to call me at (202)
382-4804. You should alao be able to contact the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline tollfree at (800) 424-9346 for assistance with any aspect
of tine RCRA regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Irene Homer
Studies and Methods Branch (WH-562B)
-------
9444.1984(08)
JUN e
JUN 6 1984
Mr. Kenneth R. Rolyoafc
American Chemical Company
SOS N. Lak« Shore Drive
Suit* 6101
Chicago, XL €0611
Dear Mr. Bolyoakt
I am writing in response to your Hay 15. 1984» request
for clarification of the existing Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste identification regulation*
as they apply to deodorants for portable toilets as well an
potential additional requirements due to pending legislation.
•
Chemical deodorants containing small amounts o£ formal-
dehyde are used to provide sanitary conditions in portable
toi>let units. Let me explain how the current regulations
apply to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a hazardous waste
if it is a discarded commercial chemical product, Th«
ecunent in 40 CPR 261.33
-------
ft *
0 X
9 I
legislation in Congress plans to regulate lower ? <£
quantities of hasardous waste than are presently subject to 2, £
regulation under the SMll quantity generator regulations. x
The RCftA reauthorisatlon legislation changes currently do o i
not reflect any changes in the waste identification. Thus, > £
the anticipated changes will have no Impact on the regulation * g
of deodorants containing formaldehyde. 01
*-\
M »~
Thank you for your inquiry. As you know* 40 CP* 262.11 *^
requires any generator of a solid waste to determine whether en
or not the vasts is hasardous* as I have informally reviewed
above with you. If you have any other questions, feel free
to contact Irene Horner of my staff at (202) 182-4804 or the
•CRA/superfund Hotline at (800) 424-fJ4l for further regulatory
clarifications.
Sincerely yours,
V.
o
Jotin 8kinn«rr Director *-
Office Gl Solid waste (WH-J62) 5-
*
a
-------
9444.1984(09)
JIM 3 B8d
R£t WIBBS840102
I
(0
MEMORANDUM §
SUBJECT: Xlnc Plating (Segregated Basis) on Carbon Steel 3
PROM: Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief £
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B) £
TOt William B. Kinor, Chi**; 5
Technical Permits and Compliance Section £
Waste Management Division ^
Region V \
OD
After evaluating the information supplied by the Gulf and \
Western Stamping Division regarding their phoephatin^ operations £
and zinc plating line, it is.our conclusion that the wastes ' £.
generated from both their operations meet tae description of -
EJ'A Bazardous Waste No. PO&6. More specifically, the BPA " ' a
Background Document defines phosphating as a component of 2
electroplating of chemical conversion'coat ing* Othetf components o
of: this category include coloring, chromating, and iamersion e
plating. Accordingly, wastes generated from the phosphating *°
operation at Gulf and Western would be considered hfc*&rdous "
wits tee.
With respect to their other operation, wastewater treatment
sludges generated from zinc plating operations on carbon
steel are not considered hazardous wastes when the waste
stream from these operations is maintained and treated separately
(ftegregated) from other waste stream generated at the facility.
Bovever; Gulf and Western's zinc plating line also includes
a chrornate passiveting bath in which the low carbon steel
stampings are dipped after plating. Chrome passivating is
considered a component of chemical conversion coating and
therefore the wastewater treatment sludges generated from
this operation would also be considered hazardous.
Therefore, wastewater treatment sludges generated by
both operations at Gulf and Western are considered EPA
Bazardous Waste No. P006 and subject to regulation under 40
CPR 262-266. If you have further questions regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to call Mr. William Sproat of
my staff at PTS 382-4783.
-------
"444.1984(10)
25
1984
MEMORANDUM
SUIUBCTI Regulation of wastevater Treatment Effluent from
Processes that Generate K001 and P006 Vastevater
Treatment Sludge
PROMi John B. Skinner, Ph.D.
Director
-..- .. , Office of solid vaate
-TOt • -James I. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Air and vast* Management Division
This memo is ia response to your request dated Nay 21f 19S4,
concerning regulation of IPX Basardous Haste nos. K001 and root.
Plrst, you requested clarification of the listings K001 and
P006 as to the scope of their coverage. These listings include
any sludges derived frow the treatment of waatewaters regardless
of where the sludges are formed. Thus, If a sludge is formed in
a waatewater treatment tank, filtration device, or surface impoundment,
it is K001 or P006 sludge. These wantewater treatment units
would be subject to sll hazardous waste regulations, including
appropriate permitting standards.*
There is an exceptions tanks tnat treat or store hazardous
wastewaters are exempt from the Part 2(4 and 265 management
standards when the tank is part of a wastewater treatment unit
as defined in f260.10.
-------
TOO also requested ~c-larlfieation'of th« regulatory status of
the effluents tram a particular wood preserving facility. Th«
wastewater treatment train Is illustrated schematically be low j
Cylinder
Mechanical
Separator Tank
Pint
•B-
xulstion Tank
Spray irrigation field
•D*
Holding Pond
•C*
Sand/Gravel Filtration Beds
The effluents from the oil/water separator tank (*A*) and the
chemical flocculation tank (*B*) are not elasaified as the
listed hazardous vasts K001 after the listed hasardous vastevater
treatment aludgea have settled out, even though some flocculated
•aterial is carried along with the effluent stream. When the
Agency listed vastewatsr treatment sludges fro* wood preserving
processes, the Agency differentiated between sludges which
settle out frosi successive treatments of process wastewaters
and the wastewster stream itself. The wastewater effluents
from these two tanks would, therefore, be subject to regulation
only if they meet one or store of the characteristics of a hazardous
waste, as set forth in 55261.21-261.24.
This facility next uses a sand filtration surface impoundment
("C*> to treat the wastewster effluent after oil/water separation
and flocculation. The sand filter consists of two 20 x 20 x is
ft. surface impoundments, with natural clay bottoms, and sides
constructed of preserved wood. The wastewater is added to the top
oi! these units and collected as an effluent from the bottom, end
stint to a holding pond (*0*) where additional wastewster treatment
sludges are generated. Both the sand filtsr and the holding pond
would be subject to all hazardous waste regulations and permitting
standards since they are aurface Impoundments used to manage a
hazardous waste (i.e., the sludge).
The principal regulatory question presented by this sand
filtration unit is whether the wastewater that passes through the
unit loses its statue as "wastewater* and becomes •leachate' because
it percolates through the listed sludge that has been trapped in
the unit, we do not believe that the passage of a contaminated
liquid (e.g., leachate, wastewater) through a filter should cause
us to redefine what that liquid is, even though the filter may change
the chemical makeup of the contaminated liquid. For purposes of our
-------
regulatory definitions, what comes out of a filter is the
thing tha-t goes into the .filter. ..A vastevater that .passes through
• filter la a treatment system 1« «ttll a wastewater. That result
it not changed by the fact that the filter happens to be a sand bed
and the wastewater emerge* from the bottosi rather than the top of
the treatment unit,'
Tbe final step in the wastewater treatment aye tee) used by the
voed preserving facility in question is * spray irrigation field
(•!•)• Me are currently investigating the status of this unit to
determine if it Beets the definition of a land treatment unit, a
surface impoundment, or a landfill. We expect to get back to you
on this point in the near future.
^ • . •• .
The above discussion regarding vantewater treatment units,
vaati»vaters, and the storage or disposal of hasardous wast enter
treataent sludges wastes is also applicable to other facilities
generating similar wastes.
Kt should be noted that this approach also prevents an operator fr<
placing a sand filter at the bottom of a landfill and then arguing
that the liquid emerging from the bottosi of the unit is no longer
« leachate. Lsachate emerging from waste in a landfill remains
« leachate even after it has passed through a filter.
WH-562B/CJENKINS/pes/475-855l/7-l2-84/Disfc CJllOl
-------
9444.1984(11
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20440
27 JUL 1984
SOLID WASTE AND EMCMOCNCV
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Clarification of K062 - Spent Pickle Liquor Listing
From: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste
To: Directors, Waste Management Divisions
EPA Regions I-X
Within the past year, several EPA Regional Offices have
requested clarification of EPA Hazardous waste No. K062 -
Spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations. This
interpretive memorandum addresses several question «nd issues
which have been raised regarding the listing.
1) Which operations/processes are considered "steel finishing
operations" and thus are covered by the listing?
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) defines "steel finishing
operations" as processes which impart desired mechanical
and surface characteristics to steel. The following
processes are included in this description and are
intended to be covered by the R062 listing, provided
• that spent pickle liquor is generated:
1) acid pickling
2) alkaline cleaning
3) cold reduction
4) blast cleaning
5) cold drawing
6) cold rolling
7) galvanizing
8) coating with organic and inorganic compounds
-------
-2-
9) tempering I/
10) coating of steel with metals"
11) tin plating
12) electropolishing
Although the background document for K062 addresses'only
spent pickle liquor from the iron and steel industry, the
Agency intended the listing to cover all industries engaged
in the pickling of steel. Indeed, many persons who generate
spent pickle assumed that the listing was much broader then
indicated in the background document.2/ Furthermore, on
January 4, 1984, (see Notice of Availability of Data and
Request for Comments, 49 FR 427) th« Agency stated that steel
finishing is practiced by a diverse group of manufacturers.
The large number of notifiers indicate that generators in
many industry categories are aware of this interpretation.
Recently, representatives from the porcelain industry
informally challenged OSW on its interpretation of the K062
listing. It is their position that the listing pertains
only to the iron and steel industry.37 However, for reasons
stated earlier, to the extent that facilities within this
industry category pickle steel prior to coating or enameling,
the spent pickl* liquor (or any waste derived therefrom) is
considered the listed waste.
The Agency'realizes that concentrations of the hazardous
constituents of concern for which spent pickle liquor was
listed may differ among industries based on process variations;
however, wastes that do not meet the criteria for which pickle
liquor was originally listed may be excluded from regulation
on a site-specific basis (delisting pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20
and 260.22). The Agency also will consider industry-wide
petitions to delist these wastes.
I/ Although coating of steel with metal (electroplating) is
~ considered "steel finishing," the Agency did not intend
the K062 listing to include electroplating processes that
generate spent pickle liquor. This would be duplicative
since electroplating wastes are specifically covered
under P006.
2/ Data from the RCRA Notification data base indicate that
~" a diverse group of industry categories pickle steel and
generate spent pickle liquor (e.g., metal working machinery
and equipment; refrigeration and service industry machinery;
coating, engraving and allied services; sanitary services;
aircraft and parts, and others).
3/ Approximately half the facilities within the porcelain
"~ industry have notified that they generate either K062 or
the lime stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge.
-------
-3-
At this time, the Agency has taken action on a rulemaking
petition submitted by the American iron and Steel Institute
(AISI) to remove lime stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge
(LSWPLS) (formerly referred to as lime neutralized waste
pickle liquor sludge) from the presumption of hazardousness
contained in the regulations. This exclusion however, applies
only to LSWPLS that is generated by the iron and steel industry
(SIC Codes 331 and 332). (See 49 PR 23284 - 23285, June 5,
1984 for Specific details regarding the conditions of the
exclusion).
2) Many electroplating operations pickle prior to electroplating,
Is the waste generated from this process considered F006,
K062, D002, or both P006 and K062?
In considering petitions to delist electroplating
waste, the Agency has stated that the F006 listing
includes the acidic wastes (i.e., spent pickle liquor)
from the electroplating process. Electroplating
operations typically pretroat the metal using acidic
baths prior to electroplating. The acidic wastes
from this process are generally mixed with spent
plating bath solutions and lime treated. Sludge
generated from this process is considered F006. For
example, an electroplater acid pickles metal parts
as part of the electroplating process. The resultant
wastewater (including spent pickle liquor and rinsewater)
is neutralized with lime. Sludge generated from
this process is F006. In another example, a galvanizer
also pickles metal parts prior to galvanizing. Since
galvanizing is not included under the electroplating
category, spent pickle liquor from this process
would b« considered EPA Hazardous Waste K062. If
the pickle liquor is lime treated prior to disposal,
the sludge from this process is a hazardous waste by
virtu* of the 'residue rule* (5261.3(c)(2)).
In cases where acidic wastes from the electroplating
operation remain untreated or are segregated from
other process waste and treated separately, the waste
in then considered K062 (or lime stabilized waste
pickle liquor sludge).
3) Does the K062 listing pertain to spent pickling acids
other than those listed in tho background document for
K062 (i.e., H2S04, HCL, and HN03 t- HF)?
In developing the background document for K062,
the Agency listed the most commonly used pickling
agents. However, we intended the listing to include
all acids used in the pickling of steel.
-------
-4-
I trust that this memorandum adequately clarifies the
K062 listing. Should you have questions, or require
additional information, please call JacqueUne Sales at
FTS 382-47TO.
cc:
Gene Lucero, OWPE
Kirk Sniff, OECM
Bill Hedeman, OWRR
-------
9444.1984(12)
July 30, 1984
Kent Gray
Utah State Department of Health
Hazardous Waste Program
P.O. Box 2500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
Dear Mr. Gray:
This letter responds to your recent inquiry regarding the
regulatory status of spent acid from electropolishing of
stainless steel (i.e.. whether the waste is considered EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K062—Spent pickle liquor from steel
finishing operations).
As you stated in an earlier conversation with Jacqui Sales,
of my staff, electropolishing is a process which utilizes a
mixture of sulfuric and phosphoric acids (pH 1.0) to impart a
shiny finish to stainless steel. As Ms. Sales explained, the
spent pickle liquor listing was intended to include those
processes where acid is used to impart a desired surface
characteristic to steel or steel products; in particular, to
remove oxide scale. Although the background document for the
listing addresses only the commonly used pickling acids (i.e..
hydrochloric, sulfuric, nitric, and hydrofluoric), the Agency
intended the listing to include all acids used in the
pickling/cleaning of steel. Thus, spent acid from
electropolishing is considered the listed waste.
I trust that this letter adequately addresses your concerns,
Should you have additional questions or require further
information, please call Jacqui Sales at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
MEMORANDUM 9444.1984(14)
DATE: July 30, 1984
SUBJECT: Dragout from EPA Hazardous Wastes No. F007 - Spent Cyanide Plating
Bath Solutions from Electroplating Operations (Except for Precious
Metals Electroplating Spent Cyanide Plating Bath Solutions)
FROM: Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Air & Waste Management Division
This is written in response to your inquiry concerning dragout from
plating bath solutions listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F007. Briefly, the
process described at Georgia Tubing involves the transfer of parts from a
plating bath solution to a chlorination tank to stop the plating process.
During this transfer, dragout drips off the plated parts, is collected and
transferred to the chlorination tank for treatment.
In general, your interpretation that the chlorination tank receives and
treats a listed hazardous waste and is therefore a hazardous waste treatment
tank is correct. However, it should be pointed out that the definition of EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F007 refers to spent plating bath solutions only.
Therefore, the plating bath solution itself would not be considered an F007
waste until it is spent. Only the dragout from the plating operation or if
the plating bath solution itself was dumped would be considered an F007 waste
because at that point in the operation it would be considered spent. In
addition, any sludge that forms in the bottom of the chlorination tank would
also be considered an F007 waste. The sludge would be considered an F006
waste only if wastewaters from the electroplating operation were to enter the
chlorination tank for treatment in addition to the F007 waste. If you have
any further questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to call Mr.
William Sproat of my staff at FTS 382-4783.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1984(16)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT
AUGUST 1984
LISTING OF BAGHOUSE DUST GENERATED FROM REMELTING
OF PRIMARY PRODUCTION STEEL
A facility generates a baghouse dust from remelting primary produced
steel. The remelting occurs in electric furnaces. The baghouse dust
contains fluoride neutralized by calcium carbonate and the heavy metals:
lead and selenium. The baghouse dust has been analyzed for the heavy
.metals (50.65ppm lead and 13ppm selenium). The analytical methods used
were 8.56 and 8.59, respectively, in SW-846 (not the E.P. toxicity
test). Assuming that the baghouse dust will fail the EP toxicity test,
should the waste be K061 (even though it is not primary smelting) or
should it be D008 and D010?
The waste generated from this process is K061. Although steel is
being remelted, this process is considered primary production for
the purposes of RCRA.
Source: Matt Straus
Research: Gordon Davidson
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 84
.CRA/Superfund Hotline
August 1984 Report
Page 2
3. A company recycles methyl chloroform (F002) through a distillation
process. Often after distillati-on, the recovered methyl chloroform
does not meet market specifications and must be disposed. Is
this waste listed as F002 or U226?
Off-specification solvents produced from the distillation
of listed solvent hazardous waste would be treated as en
off-specifiction commercial chemical product if discarded
according to 261.33 of Title 40 and considered U226 for
regulatory purposes.
Source: Penny Hansen
Research: Tom Gainer
-------
9444.1985(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 85
tow Tort. Suta Realth tspertBent oasnec a house unfit for habitation
to ajccefttiw chlflriam Imli in tt» toll around the bouss. The soil
contaminated with cMordane was removed and placed In 55-?»llon cr\*».
The renewal resulted in 45 draw of cont*ninated «oU with an avarag*
oonoantration of 50 pjn. I» thia oontaminated aoil a RCRA hazardous
vacta?
Tba eontamiMtad «oll 1* ^ot a MOW ilatad hasardtaua «Mt».
oould anly taa ootwidarad a KXA hacardoua vuta if it we diacento£
prior to uaa or ws a oontaimr or apill residua. If chloettem a«t
any on* of tha«a orltsciA, it would ba a listed hasardouB waata
as listed and oascrlhad in 40 CTR fMl.3). In this situation,
non* of thaM critaria w»r» «et because chlardane was a^^>li«d •• £•
eoanarcial ohanioal product. Itia ganarstor auat still **t»oUj» if
ths oontsaiAstad soil asMbits aiy of tha four IO» eharceftarisUoa
(BP toxic r ignitablsr oorrosiva, raaeUva)* If tfaa se»ti <^paa JBK • •
sathlbit a aharactatistic, than it is wither a listed rcxr e charac-
teristic hazardous vaata. Alttaouoh tha oantaadnated toil it-> K*. a
JCM hasarOoue vests 2) 18>4T70
-------
9444.1985(02)
March 4, 1985
Mr. Walter G. Talarek
American Wood Preservers Institute
1945 Gallows Road
Vienna, Virginia 22180
Dear Mr. Talarek:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 14, 1985 in
which you request clarification of the dioxin listing. In particular, you
asked for comment regarding the applicability of the RCRA dioxin listings
published in the Federal Register on January 14, 1985 to wastes from wood
preserving processes using pentachlorophenol.
As you state in your letter, the following hazardous waste listings
relating to pentachlorophenol were promulgated on January 14, 1985:
F021: Wastes (except wastewater and spent carbon from hydrogen
chloride purification) from the production or manufacturing use (as
a reactant, chemical intermediate, or component in a formulating
process) of pentachlorophenol, or of intermediates used to produce
its derivatives (H)
F027: Discarded unused formulations containing tri-, tetra-, or
pentachlorophenol or discarded unused formulations containing
compounds derived from these chlorophenols... (H)
F028: Residues resulting from the incineration or thermal treatment
of soil contaminated with EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022,
F023, F026, and F027 (T)
[Please note that, contrary to the statement in your letter, the latter
is a "T" not "H" waste).
Most of these wastes are not typically generated by the wood preserving
industry. We, therefore, generally agree with your assessment that the
final dioxin rule (published on January 14, 1985) does not include
wastes by the wood preserving industry. However, wood treatment
facilities could be covered under the listing if:
A wood preserving facility makes a derivative of
pentachlorophenol (e.g.. a sodium or potassium salt); the wastes
resulting from such a process would be EPA Hazardous waste F021.
A wood preserving facility makes formulations containing tri-,
tetra-, or pentachlorophenol or its derivates; waste resulting
from such a process would be F021 wastes.
A wood preserving facility discards unused formulations
containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorophenol or its
derivatives; these would be EPA hazardous waste No. F027.
Furthermore, although most of the wastes generated by the wood
preserving industry are probably not regulated by the January 14, rulemaking,
you are aware that we are presently investigating whether wastes resulting
from wood preserving processes using pentachlorophenol should be listed as
hazardous (or acute hazardous) wastes, and whether CDDs and CDFs should be
added as constituents of concern in the wood preservation process waste
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
already listed [EPA Hazardous waste K001]. As previously stated, we will take
appropriate regulatory action if warranted.
I trust that this adequately addresses the concerns expressed in your
letter. Please do not hesitate to call Matt Straus, if you have further
questions concerning this matter, Mr. Straus can be reached at (202) 475-
8551.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: J. Bellin
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1985(03)
APR I
I
to
X
0
Mr. John D'Aloia, Jr. 3
Deuel and Associates, Inc. *
7304 Jefforaon St., IB ^
Albuquerque* MM S7109 *
M
Dear Johns £
\
There are* indeed, aoveral facata to Identifying which «
solvonts are P-liated waetea. X am going to review the "
points wo discussed over the phone on Itarch 20th, in response *;
to your letter da tod March «, 1»8S. ^
o
Only those solvent* designated in the ••• series are f
liotod aa •?• solvent wastes, in the Hay If, IttO federal M
Keginter (45 PR 32122), |2C1.30(b) aays that Appendli VII ?
idontifiaa the constituent which caused IF* to liat the waste in •
12(51.31 or 12(1.32 aa Wf toxic or toxic waste. IB Appendix VII, x
only the listed solvents are specified. The spent solvent 2.
liotinga in 1261.31 are worded "The following apant halogenated/ %
non-lltalogenated aolventa...* which clearly daaignataa only the
liatad aolventa. 2
-------
in combination as F003, the program is more extensive than the
*CRA program, but operating in lieu of *dA.
Zf yo« haT« any further question*, please do not hesitate
to get in touch again*
iincorely yours,
Man l.
Braacli Gaief - "
ttadies aadv Hetheds
•ncloaure •• .. '"*".
-------
9444.1985(05)
Ar. Stuart £. rtassoll, P.E.
Project Hanager
Lawler, Matusky I Skelly Engineers
One Blue Hill Plaza
Pearl River, New fork 10965
Dear Mr. Bassells
I am glad to clarify the issue that you raised in your
letter of April 1, 1985. The identification of RCRA *PC an6
"U" wastes (chemical products that are hazardous wastes when
discarded) is not as obvious as the identification of ofchsv
listed wastes.
As you know, 40 CFR 262.11 outlines the generator'*
responsibility for identifying hazardous waste as follows*
first* check to see if the waste is excluded from regulation
under Part 261 Subpart D, second, see if the waste is listed in
Part 261 Subpart D, third (if it is not a listed waste)*
determine whether it is a characteristic waste by testing or
applying knowledge of the process producing the waste. Neither
the fish nor the used formalin would qualify as a listed RCH*
waste.
To clarify why the fish and the usod formaldehyde are not
listed waste* the reasoning is as followst Formaldehyde is
listed (as U122) in 40 CPR 2€1.33(f). This listing refers
only to discarded commercial chemical products* off-specification
species* container residues* and spill residues having the
generic name "formaldehyde." The comment in 4261.33(d)
explains, that the term •commercial chemical product* refers
to a substance manufactured for commercial use which is
commercially pure or a technical grade and formulations in
which the chemical Is the sole active ingredient. It does
not refer to a material* such as a process waste* that contains
any of the substances listed in S261.33(e) or 1261.33(f). To be
connidered a hazardous waste* such process wastes will be
listed in either $$261.31 or 261.32 or be identified
an t\ hazardous waste by characteristics* as set forth in the
regulations.
-------
The comment excludes waste materials that contain any "P"
and "U" auostances unless the waste stream is listed (i.e.,
listing formaldehyde used as a preservative) or the waste meets a
Part 261 Subpart C criteria. This means EPA regulates unused
cnemicals but not all wastes containing the same chemicals.
There are regulatory efforts underway that may eliminate this
discrepancy.
Of course* the generator also needs to determine that
the discarded fish and formaldehyde are not hazardous on the
basin of exhibiting any of the characteristics of ha«ardous
waste. It is unlikely that the formalin will be found to be
ijnitable, corrosive, reactive, or 8P toxic. If you have any
other questions on the Federal policy of regulatory hazardous
waste, feel free to contact me at (202) 382-4770. Of course,
you need to comply with the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation determination in the State of New York, ainoe the
State program ia operating in lieu of the Federal progri
Sincerely youra,
Alan 8. Coraon
Branch Chief
ccs James S. Koran, NYDSC
-------
9444.1985(37)
RCRA Input to Region IV Inquiry: UIC Well Inventory
Update
Eileen B. Claussen, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Paul B<ay, Director
State Programs Division
office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Per your request the following paragraph is the RCRA response
to the embalming fluid question in the subject inquiry.
The RCRA hazardous waste identification regulations
contain two mechanisms for identifying a waste as a
hazardous waste, lists and characteristics. A waste is
a hazardous waste if it either is listed (40 CFR 261.31,
32, or 33) or it exhibits one or more of the defined
characteristics ($261.21, 22, 23, or 24). While used
embalming fluitts do not qualify a> hazardous under eny
of these criteria, many people mistakenly believe thay
they do because formaldehyde, the key ingredient it>
such products, is listed under $261.33. Section 2fe3c?3
lists commercial chemical products which are hazardous
wastes when discarded or intended to be discarded. It
does not include wastes which result from the intended
- use of the product. Thujs, embalming fluid, since it.
consists of formaldehyde plus some inert ingredients
(e.g., colorants and perfumes), would be a hazardous
waste if discarded unused and the septic tank/tile
field could classify as a Class 4 well. However, if
the generator is disposing of embalming fluid which has
been used, for example, to flush body fluids out of the
cadaver, then disposal of the fluid does not constitute
disposal of a hazardous waste and the tank/field is not
a Class 4 well.
WH"562B/DFRIEDMAN/ACORSON/margaret/rm 8248/382-4770/5-17-85
DFA Diskette
-------
UN'-' ' ATES ENVIRONMENTAL 9444 _ 1985 ( 08
MAY
Mr. Robert C. Scott
Director ot Administration
I'lobay Chemical Corporation
Agricultural Chemicals Division
P.O. Box 4913
Kansas City, MO 64120
Dear Mr. Scott:
I am writing in response to your request for a decision
regarding whether certain wastes associated with the manufacture
of pesticides at your Kansas City, Missouri plant are considered
to be listed hazardous wastes. More specifically, you have
inquired whether the manufacturing processes for prothiophos,
sulprofos, fensulfothian, and MTMC generate listed spent solvents.
These manufacturing processes use either toluene, methanol, or
m-cresol as reactants in such excess that large amounts of these
materials do not react and are removed from the process as a waste
stream. Steve Hirsch from the Office of General Council and I
have carefully reviewed the material which you have submitted as
well as the Background Listing Document (BLD) and the Federal
Register notice for the listing concerning wastes from the usage of
organic solvents. Based on our review, we conclude that the wastes
that contain the unreacted materials are not listed spent'solvents.
We agree with Mobay's assertion that the original solvent
listing was not intended to include chemicals which are commonly
used as solvents when they are used as reactants. As the bases for
our decision, we cite the following excerpts and quotations from the
BLD and the Federal Register notice:
o The footnote on page 33 of the BLD states, "Large amounts
of chemicals listed in Table II-l are used in such non-
solvent applications as chemical feedstock..." Thus, usage
as a feedstock was considered to be a non-solvent use.
o Pages 40 and 41 of the BLD define solvent application in the
production of pesticides to include "... usage as a reaction
(synthesis) medium, and usage in equipment cleaning." The
term "reaction medium" does not mean reactant or feedstock;
rather, it refers to a substance that is capable of dissolving
another substance (i.e. , solute) to form a uniformly dispersed
mixture or solution thereby enhancing the ability of the
solute to undergo a chemical reaction with other soluble
substances.
-------
-2-
o The language in 40 FR 56584 (November 17, 1981) clearly
states that substances commonly used as solvents, "... may
also be used in a manufacturinq process as chemical reactants
or process intermediates and/ when so used, are not considered
to be spent solvents."
It should be noted that although we do not consider the subject
waste streams to be listed hazardous wastes, these streams may
exhibit hazardous characteristics (e.g., ignitability). If such is
the case, these wastes should be handled under the waste management
standards contained in 40 CFR Parts 262-266, Part 124, and the
permitting requirements of Parts 270 and 271. If you have any
questions regarding our decision on this matter, you may contact
me at (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Identification Branch
-------
9444.1985(09)
JUN3 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTS Request for Guidance on Part B Application*
PROM i John Skinner, Director
office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TOs Janes H. ScarDrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
EPA Region IV
This memorandum responds to your inquiry of April 29, 1985,
requesting concurrence on the status of toluene-laden filter
residue generated from the ink production process at Union C&tnp
Corporation. Your memorandum states that both EPA Region IV and
Georgia EPD consider the waste to be a spent solvent— EPA Hazardous
waste No. POOS. We disagree with this determination.
In general, chemicals which are used as solvents are not
consumed* nor are they physically or chemically altered during
the process. When used in this manner, that is, for their
"solvent" properties, wastes generated are considered spent
solvents when they consist of solvents (fend other materials)
which no longer meet the specifications £ot which they ware
originally used and are intended for discard or further
The filtering unit at Union Camp is an integral part of
the production process, since its primary function is removal
of unreacted chemicals, excess reactants and other impurities
from the product. The filtration cake generated at this unit,
however, is not a spent solvent. The waste stream apparently
only includes the solvent as a contaminant. As noted in Union
Camp's letter to John D. Taylor of the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division, "the filter cake waste stream consists
primarily of filter aid, unreacted metal oxides, and resinate
product.* The listing background document notes,
the wastes encompassed by this listing do not
include) waste streams where solvent is a contaminant,
such that the waste stream is not spent solvent, as
defined above. Thus, wastes which contain as consti-
tuents solvents which are used in the industrial
process are not included within the scope of this
-------
-2-
cl
listing. Nor ar* these wast* streams hazardous by § i
virtu* of th* aixing nil* (S*c. 261. 3(a) (2) { ii ) ), ? £
sine* a spent solvent is not b*ing mixed with °*
a not nee* .solid wast* (Listing Background Document, c-
p. «1>. ' o »
• »—
Accordingly, th* filt*r cake is not an POOS waste, but remains C«
only an ignitabl* (O001) wast*. x<^
i o
o \
Sine* th* residue is treated ontlt* (partially in a Punda ^g
Unit and partially by evaporation), to decrease solvents content,
th* facility must obtain a tr*at»*nt permit, and either obtain £
a storage permit before tr*ats»nt or comply with 40 CPR $262.34. ^
*>
If you hav* questions or require additional information, \
please call Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (PTS) 382-4770.
Ul
I
GD
Ul
o
r~
(0
Jf
CA
»-•
o
ee
o
-------
9444.1985(11)
r.
c
x
cr.
Mr. J.W. Bloeoer r*
Eaton Corporation ^
Manufacturing Services Center =
32500 Chardon toad w
Willou'jhby Hills, Ohio 44094 ^
cr
D*&r K,r. Blo«Mri u>
c
to
Thi> it la r«ply to your l«tt«r of Juo* 3« IMS, l& which ],
you aolicitcd our opinloc &e to tb« vtatoc of «p«xt ion exchange ^
rcein resulting froc aet&l reaoval froe electroplating rinae o
watcre (EPA BaKardou* *&•<:• FOO6 ) . k* you sunlsed la your ^T
queeticn, our anwer la la the affirmative — the epent ion ^
*xch£.ng€ re«in ie ooncidered to be 7006 and mat be aan«ged in c
accordance with hacardoue vaate regulation*. ^
U'
Should yon aeed additional information or, in particular, if
you vith information relative to excluding your waete free
regulatory control ("delieting"), Z etaggeet you call Hylet Moree,
202/3^2-4762.
Very truly yours,
JLlan t» Cor eon,
Branch Chief
Studiee and Kethodt Branch (VE-562B)
-------
9444.1985(12)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 85
Solid Waste Detenninaticn
4. A warehouse stores product aerylonitrlie. An accidental fire destroys the ware-
house and produces an ash from the burned acrylonitrile. The acrylonitrile
was not a >M»»J>T*«II« waste prior to the fire. Is the ash viewed as solid waste
generated from the disposal of a hazardous waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i) and therefore
a listed hazardous waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i)7
The ash from an acrylonitrile warehouse fire is regulated as U009 hazardous
waste. Burned product is viewed as rtismnVrt. Thus, the acrylonitrile is
a solid waste per §261.2(b)(l) and §261.2(b) (50 FR 614, January 4, 1985).
Ash from the acrylonitrile is a listed hazardous waste per §261.3(c) (2) (i).
Source: Steve Silvernan (202) 382-7706
Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
-------
9444.1985(13)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
~ - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 3B85
Of
SOLID WASTE ANC EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Ken Chiu
Solid Waste Branch (HS-13)
US EPA - •
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60616
Dear Mr. Chiu:
I am writing this letter in response to the question you
posed in our telephone conversation on August 30, 1985. Accord-
ing to the manufacturing process description that you provided,
the surface impoundment at the Rockwell International, Newark,
Ohio facility is considered a hazardous waste impoundment, listed
as EPA Hazardous Waste No. P006.
It is my understanding that Rockwell International manufactures
automotive gears. These gears are placed in an iron/oianoanese/
phosphate tank to provide lubrication. The gears are then dipped
in a rinse tank, and this contaminated rinse water enters the
impoundment. The F006 listing applies to wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating operations. Any sludge th*t. precipitates
out of Rockwell International's wastewater is classified as hazar-
dous.
Rockwell International's lubrication coating process is con-
sidered electroplating, as defined in the listing background
document. A number of production processes, including coating,
are considered subcategories of the electroplating industry.
Electroplating is defined as the application of a surface coating,
usually, but not always, by electrodeposition to provide corrosion
protection, erosion resistance, anti-frictional characteristics
or decoration. In particular, phosphate conversion coating pro-
duces a layer of insoluble crystalline phosphate on the surface
of a metal that provides a base for lubricants.1
Consequently, Rockwell International's iron/manganese/phosphate
lubricating process is considered electroplating, and sludge that
results from treatment of the wastewater is considered hazardous
V US EPA. Development document for existing source pretreatment
Standards for electroplating point source category. EPA No.440/
1-79/003. August, 1979.
-------
and listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. If Rockwell Inter-
national feels that their sludge is non-hazardous, then please
advise them to call this office and discuss submitting a delist-
ing petition.
I hope that this letter helps to clarify the issue. If you
have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call
me at (202) 382-4519.
Sincerely,
Ann Burke Sarno
Environmental Protection Specialist
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
9444.1985(14)
September 10, 1985
Mr. Dave Johnson
Production Manager
Pueblo Chemical and Supply Company
Garden City, Kansas 67846
Dear Mr. Johnson:
We have reviewed your letter of July 22, 1985, notifying the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of your intent to dispose
of over 20,000 gallons of rinsates generated as a result of
cleaning containers that contained 2,4,5-T and other pesticide
formulations by deep well injection. These waste rinsates are
listed as acute hazardous wastes under EPA regulations (see
enclosed Federal Register notice) and subject to all regulatory
provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Thus,
the waste rinsates can be disposed only at a deep well facility
which is permitted to handle dioxin-containing wastes. If the
facility at which you intend to dispose the waste rinsates is
permitted to handle such wastes, you may proceed with the
disposal plan. However, if the facility is not permitted you can
either seek a facility that is permitted to handle these wastes
or petition the Agency to exclude your wastes from the hazardous
waste list.
While wastes described in the regulations generally are
hazardous, a specific waste meeting the listing description from
an individual facility may not be. For this reason, 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22 provide generators the opportunity to petition
the Administrator to exclude a waste on a site-specific basis
from the hazardous waste list.
To be excluded, petitioners must show that a waste generated
at their facility does not meet any of the criteria under which
the waste was listed. (See 40 CFR 260.22(c).) In addition, the
Agency is required to consider factors (including other
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed if
there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional
factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. Accordingly, a
petitioner must demonstrate that his waste does not exhibit any
of the hazardous waste characteristics and present sufficient
information for the Agency to determine whether the waste
contains any other toxicants at hazardous levels.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
If you wish to delist the subject waste rinsates from the
hazardous waste list, you can petition EPA to exclude the
rinsates from the listing under CFR Part 261. The petition must
include sufficient information for the Agency to determine
whether the waste meets the criteria for which it was listed as
well as information to determine if any other hazardous
constituents are present in the waste rinsates at levels of
regulatory concern. The analysis data included in your letter to
EPA can, in part, be used to support a delisting determination
should you decide to petition the Agency for an exclusion to the
listing.
If you have any questions or need further information on the
delisting procedures, please contact Dr. Howard Fribush, Office
of Solid Waste, or (202) 475-6726.
Sincerely,
Jack W. McGraw
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1985(15)
June 24, 1985
Mr. Martin H. Lewis
Smith & Schnacke
Suite 2250
41 s. High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-6199
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This letter responds to your inquiry of June 14, 1985,
regarding the regulatory status of a solvent mixture (Nalcast
6015, water and wax) and residue from a water-wall paint spray
booth in which solvent-based paints are sprayed.
First, you are incorrect in stating that Nalcast 6015 (used
in the removal of wax) is considered a process waste when
intended to be discarded. Since Nalcast 6015 is used as a
"solvent" (i.e.. to clean wax from metal parts) it is considered
"spent solvent" when it has served its intended purpose and can
no longer be used without further processing. However, you are
correct in stating that under the current hazardous waste
regulations, spent solvent mixtures are not regulated, unless
they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste (i.e.. ignitability, EP toxicity, reactivity, and
corrosivity).
At this time, the spent solvent listings pertain only to the
technical grade or the pure form of the solvent, thus, solvent
mixtures remain unregulated. On April 30, 1985, the Agency
proposed to close this regulatory loophole by expanding the
universe of wastes considered "spent solvents" to include solvent
mixtures containing ten percent or more of one or more listed
solvents (see enclosed Federal Register notice). When this rule
becomes final, Nalcast 6015, when spent or discarded, will be
considered a listed hazardous waste. In addition the Nalcast
601f5/water/wax mixture also will be considered hazardous waste
based on the provision in the "mixture rule" (40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iii) which states that a mixture of solid waste and
hazardous waste is considered "hazardous waste."
With respect to the water-wall spray booth residue, these wastes
are not hazardous waste unless they exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste. As you correctly stated,
solvent-based paints are not listed hazardous waste when
discarded nor are they covered under the spent solvent listings.
The listings do not apply to waste streams where solvents are a
contaminant.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
I trust that this letter adequately responds to the
questions raised in your letter. Should you have additional
questions, please call Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (202)
382-4807.
Sincerely,
Eileen Claussen
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Branch
Enclosure
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1985(16)
September 26, 1985
Mr. Robert E. Broyles
Purina Mills, Inc.
Checkerboard Square
St. Louis, MO 63164
Dear Mr. Broyles:
This, is in response to your letter of September 6, 1985, and
pursuant to your conversation with Dr. Judy Bellin. In
particular, you requested that EPA clarify whether persons who
solely blended commercially available materials are exempt from
the dioxin regulations; whether the rinsate from the equipment so
used is EPA hazardous waste; and whether EPA can provide for an
expedited delisting petition.
Concerning the first point, the dioxin regulations
promulgated on January 14, 1985 provide that the past
manufacturing operation described in your letter and discussed
with Dr. Bellin (i.e.. the formulation of chemicals derived from
2,4,5-trichlorophenol) presently results in the generation of EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F023. This applies to the waste resulting
from the company's mixing and formulating tanks.
Two courses of action are available to change this
determination. The company can replace the mixing tanks, or it
can submit a delisting petition showing that the waste in
question does not contain chlorinated dioxins or
-dibenzofurans or other toxicants at levels of concern. Waste
generated after substitution of "new" equipment, or after
delisting of the waste, would no longer be considered EPA
hazardous waste.
With respect to the evaluation of a delisting petition, we
cannot guarantee that the petition will be processed
expeditiously. The Agency already has approximately 300
petitions that are currently being reviewed and acted upon; your
petition would have to be considered in an appropriate order.
I trust the above adequately responds to your concerns. If
you have further questions, please call Judy Bellin at (202) 382-
4789.
Sincerely,
Matt Strauss, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Crushing of the reject substrates would not be
considered a process waste since this activity is
not part of the manufacturing operation (i.e.,
operation to manufacture the vanadium pentoxide
substrate). Rather, the crushing operation is a
treatment process to reduce the waste volume of the
off-spec substrates. However, since the reject
substrates are not hazardous wastes (i.e., are not
specifically listed nor exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics (as you indicate), the crushing
operation is not subject to the hazardous waste rules.
3. Would the ultimate end user of this new product,
e.g., a power plant, have to dispose of the spent
product as a hazardous waste solely because it
contained vanadium pentoxide? (Obviously, if the
product as a result of its use captured arsenic or
lead, for example, from the exhaust stream and it
then exhibits the characteristic ot EP Toxicity it
would have to be disposed of as a characteristic
hazardous waste.)
No. Aa already indicated* the vanadium pentoxide
substrate is not a listed hazardous waste. Therefore,
this material is not subject to the hazardous waste
rules, unless this material exhibits one or more or
the hazardous waste characteristics.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any
further questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATF 'NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENt'
9444. 1986( 16 )
Mr. Randy; L. Porter ^JJQ j g
Industrial Hygienist
University of Kansas Medical Center
Safety Office
39th and Rainbow Blvd.
Kansas City, Kansas 66103
Dear Mr. Porter:
This is in response to your July 8, 1986, letter in which
you request written clarification as to whether your laboratory
waste, generated by an investigator performing research
using stock solutions of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD), is covered by the dioxin listings (EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027). These wastes
include animal carcasses, bedding, feces, urine and other
"typical" laboratory dry waste such as paper goods, gloves,
syringes, etc.
The wastes which you described are not the listed dioxin-
containing wastes under 40 CFR $261.31. These wastes would more
appropriately be defined at 40 CFR $241.101(h) as infectious waste,
"...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
fomites (any substance that may harbor or transmit pathogenic
organisms) attendant thereto ". To date, EPA has not
promulgated criteria for identifying waste as infectious
under S261 Subpart C. The Agency has, however, developed a
manual to provide guidance on the management of infectious waste.
A copy is enclosed for your reference.
I hope this adequately answers your Questions. If you
have any further questions, please contact Doreen Sterling of
my staff.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
«,.!. OK
-------
UNITED STx INVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGE. „ e , , , ,
9444 . 198 6(I/)
Mr. John L. Cherill
Environmental Control
Corning Glass Works
Corning, New York 14831
Dear Mr. Cherill:
This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1986,
regarding the regulatory status of the reject substrates
containing vanadium pentoxide (as described in your May 15th
letter) under the existing Federal hazardous waste regulations.
First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in
responding to your request; I hope this delay has not caused
you any problems. With regard to your specific request, the
vanadium pentoxide substrate is not a listed hazardous waste;
therefore, this material (when abandoned) would only be,
subject to the hazardous waste regulations if it exhibits one
or more of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity). In response to your specific questionst
1. Would our reject substrates (prior to crushing) be a
hazardous waste, P010, because the vanadium pentoxide
component would be considered a "sole active
ingredient*?
No. The reject substrates are not considered the
listed hazardous waste P010. P010, listed in 40 CFR
261.33(e), covers unused vanadium pentoxide (either
pur* grade, technical grade, or in formulations
where it is the sole active ingredient) which
is discarded. Since the reject substrates are not
considered the commercial chemical product vanadium
p«ntoxide, this material is not considered hazardous
waste P010.
2. Would crushing the reject substrates (as we normally
do) make them a "process waste* which, since such
process waste is not a listed waste under 261.31 or
261.32 and would not exhibit any of the characteristics
of a hazardous waste given at 261.20, 261.21, 261.22,
261.23 and 261.24, is not a hazardous waste; or,
would such crushing merely be considered a "treatment*
01 a nalarflftus was^ncUW^itct to a KCftA *>»rt R B«-«««» »?
OFFICIAL FILE CO"Y
-------
Crushing of the reject substrates would not be
considered a process waste since this activity is
not part of the manufacturing operation (i.e.,
operation to manufacture the vanadium pentoxide
substrate). Rather, the crushing operation is a
treatment process to reduce the waste volume of the
off-spec substrates. However, since the reject
substrates are not hazardous wastes (i.e., are not
specifically listed nor exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics (as you indicate), the crushing
operation is not subject to the hazardous waste rules.
3. Would the ultimate end user of this new product,
e.g., a power plant, have to dispose of the spent
product as a hazardous waste solely because it
contained vanadium pentoxide? (Obviously, if the
product as a result of its use captured arsenic or
lead, for example, from the exhaust stream and it
then exhibits the characteristic ot EP Toxicity it
would have to be disposed of as a characteristic
hazardous waste.)
No. Aa already indicated, the vanadium pentoxide
substrate is not a listed hazardous waste. Therefore,
this material is not subject to the hazardous waste
rules, unless this material exhibits one or more or
the hazardous waste characteristics.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any
further questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9444.1986(19
.
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
3EP 2 5 1986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
• ^^^•^^•WBMBM^BV^^H^^
SUBJECT: Repromulgat ion of F006 Hazardous Waste Category
FROM: \!?J» Winston Porter
\ Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
TO Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
Thank you for your August 18, 1986 memorandum regarding
the repromulgation of the F006 hazardous waste category.
After a briefing with the staff from the Office of Solid
Waste, Office of General Counsel, and the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement (OWPE), I decided to re-interpret the F006
listing to only include those processes that can be implicated,
either directly or indirectly, in the language of the listing.
During this briefing, I was presented with five options which
are described in the attached material. I selected ootion
three because it orovides a sound leaal argument and is cost
effective— it saves resources. Realizing that ontion three
may create problems with existing enforcement actions. involving
F006 wastes, I have reguested OWPE to develop guidance which
you should find helpful. In addition, we expect to re-visit
the scope of the F006 listing as part of our relisting effort.
The details of the decision are as follows: the F006
listing would include wastewater treatment sludges from the
following processes: (1) common and precious metals electro-
plating, (2) anodizing (3) chemical etching and milling and
(4) cleaning and shipping associated with common and precious
metal electroplating. The following processes are not included
under the. POO 6 listing: (1) chemical conversion coating,
(2) electroless plating, (3) printed circuit board manufacturing
and (4) the six processes explicitly excluded from F006.
Let me elaborate two fine points regarding the processes that
are not listed. First, wastewater treatment sludges from the
chemical conversion coating of aluminum are listed as EPA
hazardous waste No. F019. Second, wastewater treatment sludges
from printed circuit board manufacturing operations that
include processes which are within the scone of the listing
(i.e. chemical etching) are listed as EPA hazardous waste
No. F006.
-------
we have drafted a Federal Register notice which oresents
our re-T-nteroretation of the F006 listing. This notice has
been forwarded to the Regions for comment. In addition, a
meeting was held with the Regions in Atlanta on September
16, 1986 to discuss our approach.
I hone this memorandum and the attached briefing material
explains how I made my decision and how I plan to proceed.
If I can be of further assistance, Please let me know.
Attachment
-------
9444.1986(20)
UJ IDSTAT. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC i (ON AGEN*
Mr. William L. Warren ^^ ^ «
Warren, Goldberg, Berman, and Lubitz 5flr * *
112 Nassau Street
P.O. Box 645
Princeton/ New Jersey 08542
Dear Mr. Warren:
This is in response to your letter of August 26, 1986,
in which you reouest that EPA confirm that soil contaminated
with Chlordane, as a result of application of that pesticide
in the- normal course of agricultural use, would not automatically
be considered a hazardous waste.
The pesticide Chlordane is a listed commercial chemical
product (U036; see 40 CFR 261.33(f)) that becomes a hazardous
waste_ when discarded or intended to be discarded. The Agency
did not intend to cover those cases when the chemical is
released into the environment as a result of use. (See, for
example, the enclosed memo regarding the regulatory status of
pesticide applicator washing rinse water.) In addition, 40 CFR
261.2(c)(1)(B)(ii ) specifically states that commercial chemical
products listed in Section 261.33 are not solid wastes (and,
thus, not hazardous wastes) if they are applied to the land
and that is their ordinary manner of use. Therefore, the
contaminated soil would be treated as a hazardous waste (if
it is duq up) only if it exhibits one or more of the four
RCRA hazardous waste characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21
through 261.24.
Please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew A. Straus if you
have any further questions; Mr. Straus can be reached at (202)
475-8551.
Sincerely/
Eileen B. Claussen
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosure
-------
We have drafted a Federal Register notice which oresents
our re-~interoretation of the F006 listing. This notice has'
been forwarded to the Regions for comment. In addition, a
meeting was held with the Regions in Atlanta on Seotember
16, 1986 to discuss our approach.
I hope this memorandum and the attached briefing material
explains how I made my decision and how I plan to proceed.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Attachment
-------
9444.1986(21)
Mr. Paul M. Frank
ACR Electronics Inc.
5757 Ravenswood Road
P.O. Box 5247
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33310-5247
Re: Status of Delisting Petition #0297
Dear Mr. Frank:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Agency
has reevaluated its previous interpretation of the hazardous
waste listing for F006 wastes (Wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations) and has determined that it is overly
broad. In particular, we believe that certain of the processes
identified in the Listing Background Document that are not
directly or indirectly implicated in the actual listing are not
covered under regulations as listed hazardous wastes. As a
result, we now believe that F006 includes only common and
precious metals electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching and
milling, and cleaning and stripping when associated with these
processes. On the other hand, the following processes are not
included under the F006 listing: chemical conversion coating1,
electrolysis plating, and printed circuit board manufacturing2.
The Agency will be publishing an explanation of its determination
on the F006 listing in the Federal Register in the near future.
1Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019.
2Wastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board
manufacturing operations that include processes which are within
the scope of the listing (e.g., chemical etching) are regulated as
EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
Our records indicate that your petitioned waste is generated
from processes that are not included in the scope of the F006
listing as described above. Therefore, we have discontinued the
review of your petition. It should be noted that if your
petitioned wastes are mixed with listed F006 wastes or any other
listed hazardous wastes, the resulting mixture would be
considered hazardous. Also, if your petitioned wastes or any
mixture of wastes exhibit one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous was.te (40 CFR 261 Subpart C) then that waste would be
considered hazardous. If our records are incorrect or if your
petitioned wastes are mixed with other hazardous wastes for which
you still seek delisting, please contact us as soon as possible
so that we can reactivate our review. Also, please note that
this decision does not apply to any other listed wastes that may
be generated at your facility.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Myles Morse of my staff, at (202) 382-4788.
Sincerely,
Division
Bruce Weddle
Director
Permits and State Programs
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1986(23)
Mr. Alfred A. Levin
Director, Toxic Substances Control
Regulatory Affairs
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
341 East Ohio Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611-337
Dear M-r. Levin:
This is in response to your March 19, 1986, letter in Which
you request written confirmation that the wastes generated from
the manufacture of 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (TCP) and
Hexachlorophene at your Beaumont plant are not covered by the
dioxin listings promulgated on January 14, 1985 (see 50 FR 1978).
First, I would like to apologize for my delay in getting back to
you;; I hope this has not caused you any problems. With respect
to your specific request, I agree that all of the wastes that are
described in your letter that are generated at your Beaumont
plant from 2,4,5-TCP and Hexachlorophene production are not
covered by the dioxin listings (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020-
027).' As I explain below, these waste are specifically excluded
activities are being carried out or were carried out in the past,
the answer to these questions could change. More specifically:
• Wastes from Manufacture of 2.4.5-TCP
- Wastewaters - I agree that the wastewaters that are
generated in the 2,4,5-TCP process (i.e., streams l
and 2, as referred to in your letter) are not covered
by the EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020 and F023
listings. If, however, these wastewaters are treated
on-site and a sludge is formed (e.g., biological
sludge, spent activated carbon, spent filter aid,
etc.), the sludge is covered by the listings and would
be regulated as an acute hazardous waste. (See
enclosed, March 29 1985, memorandum from Michael Cook
to the Regions).
'The only stream which I did not address is the spent sulfuric
acid from the manufacture of 2,4,5-TCP. However, Mr. Steven E.
Silverman already addressed the regulatory status of this stream in
a separate letter dated October 6, 1986. Therefore, I will not
discuss it in this letter.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
• Wastes from Manufacture of Hexachlorophene Where Highly
Purified 2.4.5-TCP is Used
I agree with you (except as noted below) that all the
wastes that are generated by this process (i.e.,
streams 3-11 and 13-19, as referred to in your letter)
are not included within the scope of EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. F020 and F023). I agree with Dr. Bellin
that highly purified 2,4,5-TCP means any 2,4,5-TCP
that contains less than 1 ppb of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.2 (You
should be aware that if the Hexachlorophene Process at
this plant was previously operated without using
"highly purified 2,4,5-TCP," the wastes that are
currently generated would be covered by EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F023.)
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further
questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
This level is much lower than that typically found in 2,4,5-
TCP where the 2,4,5-TCP had not been highly purified. See
table 3 in listing background document to dioxin listing
where it states that the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
trichlorophenols did range between 0.07 to 6.2 ppm. In
addition, based on discussions we had with manufacturers who
use to produce hexachlorophene meeting FDA standards with
respect to TCDD-contamination and their supplies of 2,4,5-
TCP, the 1 ppb level of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was indicated as
necessary in order to meet the FDA specification for
Hexachlorophene.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9 4 4 4 • 19 8 6 < 2 5
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
A ^^C SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS
- 3
Andrew A. Rathsack, P.E.
Project Manager
Andrews Environmental
Engineering, Inc.
1320 South Fifth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62703
Dear Mr. Rathsack:
Thank you for your September 29, 1986, letter requesting
written confirmation that floating hollow plastic balls,
which are used to control vapors from industrial process
tanks containing carbon disulfide, would not be a hazardous
waste when disposed.
As you are aware, carbon disulfide is listed in 40 CFR
261.33(e) as an acutely hazardous substance waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This listing
includes commercial chemical product, off-specification
species, container residues, or spill residues when any of
these are discarded or intended to be discarded.
The plastic balls are a hazardous waste since c&tbon
disulfide has been incidentally deposited on them. Cleaning
the balls should remove the carbon disulfide and ren-3«r the
balls non-hazardous. Simple washing may be sufficient, f.or
this purpose.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me
know.
-Sincerely,
(.
Winston PdrVer,
ssistant Administrator
-------
9444.1986(26)
NOV 7B86
Mr. Gary Winelow
Ganuos Crop Protection Corp.
Chemical Manufacturing
1990 Bay Road
East Pdlo Ax to, CA 91303
Etear Mr, Winslow:
Thia letter is in response to your October 8, 1986, letter
requesting £uidanc6 re£erdin£ the interpretation of the scop*
or the si/ent solvent listings (i.e., EFA Hazardous Waste Nos.
POC1, PC02, i?003. F004, and F005)~"~ In your letter, you
discuss your understanding of these hazardous waste listings
and request that vc determine whether three specific wastes
are llstea spent solvents.
In general, jour understanding of the regulations related
to the identification ana classification or spent solvent
wast? is correct. However, below ar* the criteria that we
use to determine wnether a particular waste is a haterdoue
spent solvent:
1) the waste oust be a solid waste as defined in 40 CPft 261.2,
2) the waste oust be generated as a result of tht.- solvents
bein*, used for their solvent properties: that is, to
soluoilise (dissolve) or nobillte otner constituents.
(The listings do not cover aanufacturing process wastes
that are contaminated with solvents when the solvents
are used as reactants or ingredients in the formulation
of connerclal chemical products.), and
3) in the ease of solvent aixtures, the mixtures must contain,
before use. a total of ten percent or noru (b> volume) or
one or more of the solvents listed in FOdl, F002, P004,
'or 7005 («ftc 50 FR 53315).
-------
In rv^arJ to the turce s^uirtc exaepiea that you discuss
in your lrtt*r, each exazple involves tl,o t,-.-n*ration or &
aolvont-contaninattd process westaw&t^r. You arc correct in
/our conclusion that th'.- apent oolvont listings are not a
because tn«sc waatcw&tcra are manufacturing proceed waato
and not the spent «olvent*.y Thus, these wastes would oni>
coneirtcpc-d bataruous wastes'if the> exhibit one or more hasardous
waste characteristics defined in 40 CPfi 261.21 - 261.24.
Please contact Mr. Matt Straus at (202) 175-8551 ir you
have additional questions regarding the regulator/ status of
th;:3t wastes.
It cnoulC be noted that ir the waste streaas discussed
in your letter were a mixture o;m wastewater and spent solvent
(i.e., it is not a waste which contain* a solvent as & result
oi:~ari actual manufacturing process), the waatuwatcr mixture
would not be regulated if the mixture act the conditions in
40 CPR 2Cl.3(a)(2)(IV)(A) or (B) .
H&rcia toil liana
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
•JNITEO-STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444. 1986(27)
DEC 5)986
Dr.- Gerald Spiegeiran
:ul controls dauager
Services Co.
nest iltirket Struct
Caapbelltown, Pennsylvania 17010
This is in response to your letter of September 17, 19SG,
regarding tna applicability of the hazardous waste regulations,
d;>2ciiicaliy 4O CrK 261 and 40 CFK 268, to still oottoma generated
r'roi.i distillation of spent xylena fron the manufacture of sodium
xylenesulfonate. 1 .rpologize £or the delay in responding to your
letter. During the recant mantns we have been using all available
resources to develop tnu land disposal restrictions final rule (51 FR
4^572, November 7, 19J& ) .
A process waste containing solvents where the solvent ic a
reactant in the formulation of coainercial chesvical products are
noc covered by tno spent solvent listings (EPA Hazardous W*ute Ncs.
F002, FO'J3, F004, and F005). According to the information
in your letter, xylene is used as a reactant ia t.ho
manufacture of sodium xylenesulfonate, therefore, you ar« correct
in noting that excess xylene fron this process would not be
covered uuuer the F003 solvent listing. Still bottoms generated
from tne distillation of the excess xylene would not be a hazardous
waste unless they exhioit one or taore of the characteristics of
nc^ardous wa»ta (i.e., corrosivity, ignitability, EP toxicity,
or reactivity). Furthermore, as you correctly stated, spent
xylcae and still uottono from the recovery of xylene used ia
your process does not neat the listing deacription for CPA haz\rdoui
waste number U239, since it is not a discarded conu.tarcial chemical
product, off-specification specieo, or other material identified
under 40 CFk 261.33.
The first clans of wastes subject to tha Ifend disposal re-
strictions effective November 3, 1936, include thw F001-F005 solvents
and certain Jioxin-containing wa*t«». Therefore, the xylene
still bottoQs generated froia your process would nofe be subject
to these rules. If these wastes exhioit ono or more of the
cauractoristics of hazardous waste, they will be subject to the
l
-------
this information adequately addresses your concerns
feel free to contact Bill Fortune, of my staff at (202)
7b-b71!j, if you have further questions.
i
Sincerely,
Jacqueline W. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
9444.1986(28)
December 5, 1986
Mr. Eliot Cooper
Director of Environmental Affairs
Waste-Tech Services, Inc.
18400 W. 10th Avenue
Golden, CO 80401
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1986, in which you
request clarification of the regulatory status of spent fluidized
bed media used during the destruction of listed hazardous waste
as well as clarification of facility changes allowed under
interim status.
Under the RCRA regulations, spent fluidized bed media would
not be considered to be a hazardous waste via application of 40
CFR 261.3(d) since the spent media would not be considered to
have been derived from the treatment of a hazardous waste. In
addition, the mixture rule in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) does not
apply since the fluidized bed media is not a solid waste at the
time it becomes mixed with a hazardous waste. Nevertheless,
spent fluidized bed media contaminated with a listed hazardous
waste (or, in this case, a waste derived from a listed hazardous
waste) would still be subject to regulation since it contains a
hazardous waste. See §261.3(c)(a) and (d)(2). Therefore, the
treatment, storage, or disposal of spent fluidized bed media
contaminated with hazardous waste must be handled as if the
fluidized bed media itself were a hazardous waste. However, if
the fluidized bed media, as a result of the incineration process
or as result of other treatment, no longer contains a hazardous
waste, it would no longer be subject to regulation under Subtitle
C of RCRA. In this case, no delisting petition would be
required.
Your second question concerns whether an interim status
facility may add a new incinerator if the facility currently does
not have an incineration process. The answer is yes, provided
that the conditions specified in 40 CFR 270.72 are met. Under
§270.72(c), owners or operators wishing to make any changes in or
additions to the processes of treatment, storage, or disposal at
an interim status facility are required to submit a revised Part
A eind a justification for the change to the regulating agency for
approval. EPA or an authorized State may approve these changes
only when they are necessary to prevent a threat to human health
and the environment due to an emergency situation, or when they
are necessary to comply with Federal regulations (including the
interim status standards of 40 CFR Part 265) or State or local
laws. This provision does not preclude the addition of a
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
completely new process (e.g.. incineration) at an interim status
facility that currently does not have such a process.
It should be noted, however, that §270.72(e) limits the
scope of any changes that take place at interim status facilities
by prohibiting changes that require a capital expenditure greater
than 50% of capital cost for the construction of a comparable
entirely new hazardous waste management facility. Therefore,
this provision (known as the "reconstruction" limit) may restrict
the extent of a change even if the addition of a new process is
allowed under §270.72(c).
The above response to your two questions describes the
operation of the Federal RCRA program for the situations you
outlined in your letter. However, 42 States now have final
authorization to operate the RCRA program in lieu of EPA. Some
State requirements may be more stringent or more restrictive than
the Federal program in these two areas. If you have specific
concerns regarding your operation in Colorado, I recommend that
you contact Mary Gearhart in the Colorado Department of Health
(303-331-4830) since the State has RCRA authorization.
If you have any further questions on the Federal RCRA
requirements, please feel free to contact Larry Wapensky in EPA's
Region VIII office in Denver (303-293-1660).
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Larry Wapensky, EPA Region VIII
Mary Gearhart, Colorado Department of Health
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1986(29
DEC tW*
Dr. George V. Hanbo
National ?est Control Association, Inc. '
PI00 Oak Street
Dunn Lorlng, VA 22027
Dear Dr. Rambo:
This is in response to your letter of November 13, 19€6,
requesting an interpret%tion of the federal hazardous vaate
rules concerning the disposal of spent ash following fumigation
with aluainum and/or magnesium phosphide products.
As you are aware, aluminum phosphide is listed a* a
hazardous vaate (IPA Hazardous Waste Ho. P006) In 40 CJ*
$261.33(e). However, this listing only applies to the uaased
commercial product when discarded as the pure grade, teonaieal
grade, or where it la the sole active Ingredient in a
formulation!/. Since the product has been used, it vault not
be considered the listed hazardous waste* Nevertheless,
the ash-residue of the product would be hazardous and subject
to the appropriate requirements If it exhibits any of the
hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitabllity, corroeivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (3F) toxiclty) and if the
fir%ll quantity generator (SQG) level (1 kg of total hazardous
waste calendar month) Is exceeded. Thus, when the ash residue
is collected, the generator is responsible for determining if
it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics; if it
'floes, the additional processing of the residue (i.e. Xexpose
to %ir or place in a water detergent bath) must be managed in
accordance'with 40 C?R Farts 262 to 266.
If you have any further questions, Dlease feel free to
call Wanda LeBleu-Blswas of ay staff at (202) 382-7392.
I/ Ths lifBiM also applies to any off-spec commercial
eilunlmiB mfesvphide, container residues, and spill resld
the unused product.
Sincerely,
ItereiA I. Vlllltu
Director, Offle. of Solid Vut«
-------
9444.1986(30)
December 10, 1986
Curtis Verploegh
Hazardous Waste Manager
The University of New Mexico
Occupational Safety
Medical Building 3, #137
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Dear Mr. Verploegh:
This is in response to your October 21, 1986 letter in which
you requested clarification as to whether your laboratory waste,
generated by an investigator, performing research involving
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is covered under 40
CFR §261.31. The wastes in question are: 1.07 mg of TCDD
contained in some 361 mouse carcasses, 450 gallons of cages and
bedding, and 41 gallons of dry waste.
The wastes which you described are not the listed dixoin-
containing wastes under 40 CFR §261.31. Rather, these wastes
would more appropriately be characterized as infectious wastes,
". ., . laboratory wastes, such as pathological specimens (e.g. . all
tissues, specimens of blood elements, excretes, and secretions
obtained from patients or laboratory animals) and disposable
fomites (any substance that may harbor or transmit pathogenic
organisms) attendant thereto..." see 40 CFR §241.101(h). To
date, EPA has not promulgated criteria for identifying waste as
infectious under §261 Subpart C.
The Agency has, however, developed a manual to provide
guidance on the management of infectious waste. A copy is
enclosed for your reference. You should be aware that typical
infectious waste incinerators are probably not satisfactory
devices for disposal of materials highly contaminated with TCDD.
TCDD decomposes above 800C. These wastes which you describe can
be safely managed by high temperature incineration.
I hope this adequately answers your questions.
Sincerely yours,
Doreen Sterling, Ph.D.
Chemist
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
cc: Matt Straus
This has been retyped front the original document.
-------
AGENCY
9444.19C601)
0£C M 1986
Mr. Randy-M. Mott _
Heron, Burchette, Ruckert
and Rothwcll
Suite 700
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, O.C. 20007
Dear Mr. Mottj
Thank you for your November 5, 1986, letter regarding
the September 22, 1986, correction notice (51 PR 33612) for
the spent pickle liquor final rule (51 PR 19320, May 28,
1986). You stated that the correction notice dramatically
changed the spent pickle liquor final rule without prior
notice and comment. You, therefore, argued that the Agency
violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the Agency
did not provide notice and comment, $4, 5 U.S.C. $553 (1966).
You also argued that adoption of the correction notice by the
State of Tennessee violates the Tennessee Administrative
Procedure Act.
we disagree with your argument that our action has
violated the Administrative Procedure Act. We think that
the Agency's intent throughout the rulemaking process has
been to list, as a hazardous waste, spent pickle liquor from
steel finishing operations from facilities within the iron
and steel industry, and that the Agency stated this intention
clearly and repeatedly. In fact, until your letter, there
has never been any question, or even assertion, that the
listing is limited to only those facilities actually producing
iron and steel. Thus, in the September 10, 1985, proposal
that led to the May 1986 final rule, the Agency explained
that the whole debate revolved around the question of whether
the Agency's existing K062 listing applies to pickle liquor
generated by any steel finishing operation -or only from
those steel finishing operations in the iron and steel industry,
See, e.g. 50 FR 36966/1; 36967/1; 36967/2.
The Agency laid out several options to resolve the
issue, including whether the listing "applies only to K062
wantes generated by the iron and steel industry", (id. at
36968/1). The reference to the "iron and steel industry"
referred to facilities in Standard Industrial Codes (SIC)
Codes 331-332, as shown by the Agency's reference to those
SIC codes (id. at 36966/1), as well as, the regulatory lan-
guage in §261.3(c)(2) (ii).
-------
The final regulation adopted the option of narrowing
the K062 lilting to wastes from facilities within the iron and
steel industry. In particular, we statedi
"The Agency believes that the petitioners and the
connDenters to the September 10, 1985, proposed rule
have a valid argument that the listing should be
read to apply only to those f aci1i t i es wi th i n th e
iron and steel industry." [emphasis addedj(51 FR
19321/2)
"Therefore, in light of the comments received and
arguments made, the Agency had decided to modify
its interpretation and narrow the scope of the spent
pickle liquor listing to apply to those facilities
within the iron and steel industry." [emphasis
added} (51 FR 19321/2)
"This amendment will have no adverse economic impact
on small entities since the rule will reduce the
hazardous waste requirements to those persons who
generate spent acid in non-iron and steel industries."
[emphasis added] (51 PR 19322/1)
"The majority of comraenters strongly supported the
petitioners' claim that the plain language of the
listing for spent pickle liquor from steel finishing
operations...indicates that the listing applies
only to facilities within the iron and steel industry."
The final rule mistakenly applied to facilities producing
iron and steel. The preamble to the final rule also occasionally
referenced this error. The rule did not reflect the Agency's
intent and could not reasonably be viewed as doing so. The
Agency (as shown above) did not propose such a limited con-
struction, and received no comments suggesting such a restricted
listing nor was the regulatory language consistent with the.
preamble language cited above.
It should also be noted that the May 1986 regulatory
language contradicted the language of another regulation
regarding waste K062 and so did not reflect the Agency's
intent and could not reasonably be considered to do so. In
particular, lisje stabilised waste pickle liquor sludge from
the iron and steel industry liquor (SIC codes 331-332) had
be«n exempted from the "derived from" rule under $261.3(c)(2)
(ii). See 49 PR 232B4, June 5, 1984„ Thus, a listing of
pickle liquor only fron facilities producing iron and steel
would have made the listing narrower than the parallel exclu-
sion for sludges derived from treating the listed waste. We
repeat that such a factual contradiction could not be deemed
to reflect the Agency's intent, and so could be changed by
means of a technical correction. The Agency indeed noted
this contradiction in making the technical correction. 51
FR 33612/2.
-------
Therefore the Agency believes that it has not violated
the Administrative Procedure Act. We believe that the
regulated community is clear on the issues involving the
pickle liquor listing as evidenced by the comments received
on the Septebmer 1986, proposed rule. Also, the Agency
believes that the commenters and the regulated community
understand that the iron and steel industry is defined as
^ SIC codes 331 and 332 (as stated in the June 5, 1984, final
| rule).
j In support of this position,the Agency received numerous
* calls from the regulated community and State officials ques-
tioning the contradictory language in the preamble and final
rule. Many of these callers indicated that the preamble
language of the final rule indicates that the listing applies
to all facilities within the iron and steel industry while
the rule addresses facilities that "produce" iron and steel.
The Agency recognized the contradiction as pointed out by
callers and responded with the September 22, 1986, correction
notice.
Thus, in light of the phone calls received by the Agency
addressing the contradictory language in the preamble and
regulatory language of the May 1986, final rule, the Agency
concludes that the regulated community understands that the
Agency made an error in the final rule, and that it did not
have "a belated change of heart in the nature of the rule"
a« you allege. Furthermore, the Agency has difficulty under-
standing the practical consequences to your client of the
corrected regulatory language. You indicate that Bristol
recycles all pickle liquor and rinse water. We would be
interested in an explanation of what operations at Bristol
are regulated and which regulations would apply.
I trust that this letter adequately addresses your
concerns. If you have questions, please contact Matthew
Stx-aus or Jacqueline Sales at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
/*/ Jack W. MOOT-.,,
Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
UhlTEO STATES fcNVlKL»««cN i AL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1986(32)
Mr. Richard M. Barrett *
Teledyne Monarch Rubber Company
10 Lincoln Park
Hartville, OH 44632
Re: Status of Delisting Petition #0507
Deajr Mr. Barrett:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Agency
has reevaluated its previous interpretation of the hazardous
waste listing for P006 wastes (Wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations) and has determined that it is overly
broad. In particular/ we believe that certain of the processes
identified in the Listing Background Document that are not directly
or indirectly implicated in the actual listing are not covered
under the regulations as listed hazardous wastes. As a result,
we now believe that F006 includes only common and precious metals
electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching and milling, and
cleaning and stripping when associated with these processes.
On the other hand, the following processes are not included under
the F006 listing: chemical conversion coating £/, electrolyse
plating, and printed circuit board manufacturing £/. The Agency
recently published an explanation of its determination on the F006
listing in the Federal Register £/•
In addition, the Agency notes that your petition also
identified the subject waste as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062
The Agency has recently revised the scope of the K062 listing
to include wastes from only those facilities described by
V Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F019.
£/ Wastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board
~" manufacturing operations that include processes which are
within the scope of the listing (e.g., chemical etching)
are regulated as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.
/ e*
-------
-2-
SIC codes 331 and 332. Based upon discussions with Mr. Richard
Bohaychyk of Teledyne, we have concluded that the SIC code for
your facility causes the waste to not meet the K062 listing
description.^./
Our records indicate that your petitioned waste is generated
from processes that are not included in the scope of the F006
listing or that of the K062 listing/ as described above. Therefore,
we have discontinued the review of your petition. It should be
noted that if your petitioned wastes are mixed with listed F006
wastes, listed K062 wastes, or any other listed hazardous wastes,
the resulting mixture would be considered hazardous. Also, if
your petitioned wastes or any mixture of wastes exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (40 CFR 261 Subpart
C) then that waste would be considered hazardous.
If our records are incorrect or if your petitioned wastes are
mixed with other hazardous wastes for which you still seek
delisting, please contact us as soon as possible so that we can
reactivate our review. Also, please note that this' decision does
not apply to any other listed wastes that may be generated at
your facility.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Myles Morse of my staff, at (202) 382-4788.
Sincerely,
Nyles Morse
Acting Chief
Variances Section
cc: Alan Debus, Region V
William Muno, Region V
V Se"e 51 FR 19320, May 28, 1986 for an explanation of the
K062 decision. Also, see 51 FR 33612, September 22, 1986
(correction notice).
-------
UNITED STATEi ENVIRONMENTAL PROTBCTlON AO*PCY ,no£
9444.1986
Honorable Lloyd Bentsen '•• ~. 9
961 Federarl Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Mr. Bentsen:
Thank you for your November 24", 1986, letter requesting
information concerning the regulatory status of electric arc furance
(EAF) dust generated by the Bodner Metal and Iron Corporation of
Houston, Texas, after treatment with Lopat Industries; K-20
encapsulation process. My office has reviewed the material supplied
with the letter, and has concluded that the encapsulated EAF dust is
still a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and should be managed as such.
The Texas Water Commission, in its letter of November 7, 1986,
to Emanuel Bodner of Bodner Metal and Iron Corporation, was correct
in its assessment of Bodner Metal and Iron's EAF dust. This EAF
dust is a listed hazardous waste (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K061)
under 40 CFR $261.32. The hazardous constituents for which this
waste was originally listed are hexavalent chromium,
-------
It should be noted that the two series of EP toxicity tests
performed on samples of treated EAF dust (the results presented
with Mr. Bodner's letter of November 10, 1986) have produced leachate
concentrations for lead that are too high to justify a delisting.
The Agency uses a vertical and horizontal spread (VMS) dispersion
model to aid in the evaluation of delisting petitions. This model
uses leachate dat and waste volume to predict potential impacts of a
waste upon ground water. The EP leachate data for lead (1.6 and
3.6 mg/1) in the treated waste/ as presented in the Bodner letter,
will produce compliance-point concentrations which fail the VHS
evaluation ( i.e. , the compliance-point values exceed the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard for lead of 0.05 mg/1).
The Agency has required that other stabilization technologies
employed in several other delisting petitions achieve EP leachate
concentrations for lead below 0.3 mg/1. Several petitioners have
been successful in achieving these leachate levels.
Although it would not change the regulatory status of the EAF
dust the Agency does believe that encapsulation processes (such as
the Lopat K-20 process) are useful in controlling the mobility of
hazardous wastes and thereby decreasing the probability of
environmental contamination. To assure that stabilizing treatment
technologies will successfully bind constituents over the long
tenty the Agency requires stabilized wastes to be ground to a
uniform 100-mesh particle size prior to chemical testing. This
provides the Age«ncy with a means of evaluating the waste for the
potential effects of weathering or mismanagement. \
s' • '
- • I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have
any additional questions concerning the delisting of hazardous
wastes, please contact Mr. Myles Morse, of my staff, at (202)
382-4782.
Sincerely yours, •>
/s/ Je^ r. Kc-r^-- ?
J. Winston Porter ' •/
Assistant Administrator f:
------- |