cvEPA
United States Solid Waste and
Environmental Protection Emergency Response
Agency (OS-340)
EPA530-R-92-018
April 1992
RCRA Permit Policy
Compendium Update
x. a.
Package
V'-\
\ s s
V;x,
Revision I - April 1992
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-SW-91-062F
Environmental Protection Emergency Response August 1991
Agency (OS-343)
RCRA Permit Policy
Compendium
Volume 6
9444.1987-9457.1990
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste (Part 261)
• Lists (Cont'd)
Generator Standards (Part 262)
• General
• Pretransportation
• Recordkeeping
• Special Conditions
• Importing
-------
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.
-------
94«- 1987(o
f ^KZ '- UN'TED STATES EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V.^M*S>/ WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JAN 27 1987
- = c C S
SOLiD A4S-E A.\o
Ronald J. jrozdowski
Process and Environment Chemist
Moog Inc.
East Aurora, MY 14052
Dear Mr. Drozdowski:
I am responding to your letter dated December 9, 1986,
identified as ME LTR #25-86, that requested our interpretation
of the regulatory status of your coolant waste streams.
Mr. Ed Abrams, of my staff, spoke to you on the telephone on
Janaury 8, 1987, to clarify several points regarding the
management of your waste streams containing 1,1,1,-trichloroethane
(111-TCE).
Mr. Abrams determined that you segregate your vapor degreasing
operation wastes from your machining coolant wastes. While both
wastes contain 111-TCE, only the spent degreaeing solvent is a
listed hazardous waste (FOOD at this time. Your cool&nt wastes
are not interpreted as EPA Hazardous Wastes P001 under the Federal
hazardous waste program at this time because the coolant is not
being used as a solvent, nor has it been mixed with a spent
solvent. However, the coolants would be considered hazardous if
they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste.
You should also b« aware that the Office of Solid Waste is
presently working on a toxicity characteristic which is likely
to establish levels of 111-TCE in waste extracts that will
cause them to be characteristically hazardous if the concentra-
tions of 111-TCE are exceeded. (See enclosure for proposed
rule.) These wait** will have a "D" clarification. Thus,
coolant wastes rmy not currently be subject to the
RCRA Sfisle C regulations, th«y may be defined as hazardous in
the t\
-------
If your coolant wastes are currently not subject to
Subtitle C regulations, you will not need a RCRA permit to
dewater and thereby reduce the quantity of the coolant waste
for disposal. However, I strongly recommend that you consult
with your State and local authorities regarding your intended
treatment of coolant wastes.
I hope I have answered your inquiries satisfactorily. If
you have additional questions, you may telephone Mr. Abrams
at 202-382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, o.c. 20460
9444.1987(03)
JAN C ] IS87
OF'lCt Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMEMOINCY
Mr. Tom Sauer
General Electric Company
1 Newmann Way
Mail Drop N123
Cincinatti, OH 45215
Dear Mr. Sauer:
This letter is in response to your Janaury 13 telephone
conversation with David Topping of my staff. Specifically, you
requested a written interpretation as to whether electrochemical
machining operations are within the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F006.
As stated in the December 2, 1986 Interpretive Rule (51 PR
43350), the F006 listing includes wastewater treatment sludges
from chemical etching and milling. The listing Background Document
for F006 refers to the Development Document for Existing Source
Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating Category, August
1979, for details on specific processes. The latter document
states that "chemical etching and milling" includes the specific
processes of "...chemical milling, chemical etching, bright
dipping, electropolishing, and electrochemical machining." Waste-
water treatment sludges from electrochemical machining operations
are, therefore, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.
Should you have any further questions regarding this
interpretation, please contact me at (202)475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9444. 1987(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SOLID WASTE AND EMEHGENCr
Mr. Stever. H. White
Tricil Environmental Services, Inc.
Talbott Tower, Suite 510
131 North Ludlow
Dayton, OH 45402
Dear Mr. White:
This letter is in response to your January 5, 1987 inquiry
concerning the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. Specifically,
you requested an interpretation as to the status of wastewater
treatment sludges that result from a waterfall curtain used in
electrostatic painting operations.
Wastewater treatment sludges from electrostatic painting
operations are not included in the F006 listing. Thus, the waste
would only be considered hazardous if it: (1) exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic (e.g., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity) or (2) is mixed with a
hazardous waste (e.g., F019 from pre-painting conversion coating
operations on aluminum).
Should you have any further questions regarding this
interpretation, please contact me, or David Topping of my staff.,
at (202)475-8551.
Sincerely*
y/jL (I &
Matthew A. Stssui, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9444.1987(05)
SB?
Mr. M. David «*owes
President
Finish Enoineering Co.
921 Sreengarden Road
Frie, Pennsylvaina 16501-1591
~ear Mr. Bowes«
This ia in response to your letter of November 25, 1986,
recording the regulatory status of still bottoms generated from
the reclamation of listed solvents. As we indicated in our previous
letter, EPA encourages the recycling of hazardous wastes and we
are currently evaluating this activity to determine whether
other changes to the regulations may be appropriate. In addition,
we are also re-evaluating the existing listings to better define
them. In particular, we expect to re-propose the current listings
and ««t concentration levels in the listing* which would define
when the wastes contain levels of toxic constituents which would cause
then to be defined as hazardous. If a waste that meets the listing
description contains levels of the toxic contaminant below the
level set when we relist wastes, the waste would no longer be
considered a listed hazardous waste. Although this effort ie techni-
cally complex and, therefore, may taxe several years to complete,
we believe the "relisting effort" addresses your concern directly.
In the shorter term, if you wish to remove your particular
still bottoms from regulation, you will need to submit a
delisting petition pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. These
sections outline the process for submitting a petition to delist
vour wastes and the showing that must be made as part of the peti-
tion process. However, you should be aware that if your solvent
still bottom wastes are classified as EPA Hazardous Waste So.
r^03, and if this waste no longer exhibits any of the hazardous
waste characteristics after it has been tt»ixed with another solid
'•a«te, your wnet* ia no longer consider*'? hazardous under Puhtitle C
cf the Federal hazardous waste rules (i.e., the still bcttons
voul* not nee-^ to be delisted under the Federal hazardous vaste
rul^R). See 40 rpn 9$1.3(a)(3)(iii).
OFFICIAL PILE COP
-------
-2-
Ple.se feel free to call Mr. Matthew *. Straus at (202) 475-8551
if you have any further ouestions: if you have any specific question*
regarding delistina, please contact Mr. Myles Morse at (202) 382-4782.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Haste
-------
UNITED 1 fES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A.ENCY
9444.1987(06)
5 1987
414 East Third Street
Muscat ir.e, Iowa 52761
Dear Vr. Grosser:
I an» responding to your letter dated January 15, 1987
reouestinq an interpretation of the land disposal restriction
requlatior.s as applied to a paint sludqe waste. Accord i no to
your letter, this waste Is created in a water-wall spray
booth which prevents oversprayed paint particles from beir.q
discharged to the atmosphere.
I concur with your interpretation that this waste is a
manufacturing process waste based on the description of a
manufacturing process waste on page 40697 of F£ 51, published
on November 7, 1986.
In regard to your request for a copy of the "BOAT
Background Document for P001-F005 Spent Solvents', this three-
volume set (identified as PB-87-120-259) can be purchased
from NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Their
telephone number is (703) 487-4650. The cost for the set is
$63.00. Also, these documents are available for viewing at
any EPA regional library.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have additional
questions, you may call Ed Abrams of *y staff at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Robert N. Scarberry
Chief, Listing Section
-------
X
9444.1987(07)
\
I
v
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAR
Of
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCY
John SKoufis
Laboratory Manager
Anscott Chemical Industries, Inc.
26 Hanes Drive
Wayne, NJ 07470
Dear Mr. Skoufis:
In reference to your letter of December 22, 1986, and your
telephone conversations on Friday, January 16, 1987 and Wednesday,
February 18, 1987 with Mr. Ed Abrams of my staff, I am responding
with my clarification on the hazardousness of typical drycleaning
industry waste streams.
As I understand your process, a typical drycleaning facility
generates three aqueous wastes that are contaminated with small "
quantities of perchloroethylene (PCE). These wastes arc generated
from the following three sources:
1. Condensation from PCE recovery during fch* norwil drying
cycle of fabrics in the drycleaning machine.
2. Condensation from the distillation recovery e»f PCE.
3. Condensation from the steam stripping of PCE from filter
cartridges.
The spent solvent listings apply only to wastes that are
generated when the solvents are used for their solvent properties
(i.e.. to solubilize or mobilize another constituent) and can no
longer be used or reused without reclamation; the spent solvent
listing does not apply to process wastes that may become contaminated
with the solvents during processing or manufacturing. Thus, waste
No. 1 above is not a listed waste under RCRA and would not be subject
to Subtitle C regulations, unless the wastewater exhibited any of the
hazardous* waste characteristics defined under 40 CFR 261.21-261.24
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity). [Please note that on June 13, 1986, the Agency proposed,
among other things, to set a concentration of 0.1 mg/L as the
regulatory level for PCE. Should this rule be finalized as proposed,
waste No. 1 would exhibit the hazardous characteristic of organic
toxicity if the level of PCE exceeded 0.1 mg/L as measured by the
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. (See 51 £& 21648.)]
-------
However, waste Nos. 2 and 3 above are hazardous wastes pursuant
to 40 CFR W1.3(c) (2) (i) because they are residues derived from the
treatment of P002 hazardous wastes (solvent recovery residues and
residues from the steam stripping of filter cartridges, both
containing PCE). Therefore, these wastes must be managed in
accordance with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
If you require additional information, please feel free to call
Mr. Ed Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely, .
Matthew A. Straus
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.198 7(08
MAR 1607
;ir. rhonas wacicernan
Environmental Scientist
Ajolied Scientist & Technology, Inc.
Post Office 3ox 1328
Ann Aroor, riichigan 48106
OGir Mr. tfackernan:
This letter responds to your January 14, 1997, correspondence
requesting the rerijlatory status of line treated s^nt oickle
li-juor wastes placed on th-2 north orooertv of the Che-!-Met
Services, Inc. facility in wyandotte, Michigan. The wastes in
question were generated fror non-iron and steel facilities.
On May 28, 1996, the Agency promulgated a final rule (51
FR 19320) narrowina the scope of the listing for snc-nt pi-c^le
liquor wastes iEPA Hazardous »aste No. K062) to aroly only to
wastes generated oy steol finishing ooerati^ns that Produce iron
an-J atc-el. dowever, in promulgating this rule an error was na-3e
in the lannua-ge of the listing. The Agency had intended th*>
listing to'apjly to all facilities within the iron »nj steel
industry, not to only facilities that "produce" iron or steel.
Furtnermore, the language was not consistent with *• Jur.3 5, 1984,
final rule (49 FR 2J284) which excludes sludqe fro.Ti •• he line
treatment of spent pickle lirruor wastes generated by facilities
witr.in ths iron and steel industry from the "derived-froTi" rule
in 40 CPR 261.3(c)(2)(i). Therefore, in a Scotenber 22, 1Q36,
correction notice (51 PR 33612) the Agency amended the listinc
to apply only to wastes generated by facilities within the
icon and steel industry (SIC codes 331 and 332). Thus,
pictcle liquor wastes from industries not in the iron and steel
industrial ciasaifications are hazardous onlv if they exhibit
one or nor* of the characteristics of hazardous wastes (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and EP toxicity).
Because the spent pickle liquor wastes received bv
Chem-fiet for solidification were not qenerated by facilities
witnin the iron and steel industry, these wastes are not covered
under the K062 listing. These wactes are hazardous wastes
only if they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous wastes. Since spent Dickie liquor is ^enenllv
corrosive and usually contains high concentrations of chronium an 1
iojd; tno
-------
treatment probably exhibited the characteristic? of corrosivitv
and £P toxrcity and, as such, were hazardous wastes. However,
according to tne provisions in 40 C?n. 251.3M) (1), if tre*t"»ent
of a characteristic hazardous waste results in a treatment
resiriual tnat no lonqer R/hioits any of the rharacteristics
chen the treatment residual is not a hazardous waste. Hence,
the *aste on Chen-Met's north prooerty resultinq from li-ne
treatment of spsnt picxle liquor wastes is not a hazardous
waste if it no longer exploits a characteristic of hazardous
wastes. As sucn, it can be disposed of in a Subtitle 0
sirutary lanjfill.
I hope this letter adequately addresses your concerns.
If you have any further questions, you can contact me at
(202) 3S2-4770.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline u. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
9444.1967(09)
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAR 2 6 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. A. Allen Hill
Executive Office of the President
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear
Thank you for your February 27, 1987, letter concerning
wastes generated at Continental Can Company's LaCrosse and
Milwaukee plants.
The Agency previously determined that the can washer
sludges meet the definition of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Hazardous Waste No. F019— wastewater treatment
sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum.
This determination is based upon the belief that the process
used in the can washer system (zirconium phosphatizing) is a
chemical conversion coating process. In fact, Continental
Can Company itself identified the waste from a similar can
washer system at their Olympia, Washington plant as F019 in a
delisting petition submitted to the Agency pursuant to 40 CFR
§§260.20 and 260.22.
Mr. Richard Torrito of Continental Can Company stated
in his February 5, 1987, letter that the can washer sludges
had been incorrectly identified as F019. Specifically,
Mr. Torrito claimed that zirconium phosphatizing is not a
chemical conversion coating process. As a result of subse-
quent telephone conversations between Mr. Torrito and my
staff* Continental Can Company has submitted a detailed
description of their can washer process so that the Agency
can make • determination as to the proper classification
of the wMte. Once this determination is made, the Agency
will notify Continental Can Company of its decision.
If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free
to call me.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9444 .1987 ( 10 )
UNITED STATES EN vlROh...£NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
w A5HINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 9B67
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY ftESPON.
Mr. Joe Rader
Environmental Affairs
Consultant
P.O. Box 277
Dayton, OH 45401-0277
Dear Mr. Rader:
This letter is a response to your letter of March 13, 1987,
in which you request an interpretation on what "used" and "unused"
formulationu mean as applied to the F027 listing.
In the regulations, the word "used" includes formulations
that have been contacted with wood during wood preservation
processes (pressure, vacuum, or non-pressure processes) or surface
protection processes (antisapstain or sapstain control processes).
The word "used" would apply to the material that remains*in the
process vessel after the wood has been treated, and not just to
the material that adheres to the wood, as some people have
interpreted the term.
Also, the formulations do not have to be spent (i.c.> ( not
capable of being used or reused without being reclaimed or recycled)
to be classified as "used"; even after one treatment, a formulation
is considered to be "used."
In your letter, you also ask if it were possible that one
could open a container of unused pentachlorophenol formulation
and dip a piece of wood into it for the purpose of claiming it as
"used" and, thus, not the listed waste. In this case, the Agency
would consider this to be sham use and the formulation would
still be termed as the listed waste when discarded.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact
Robert Scarberry of my staff; he can be reached at (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1987(11)
APR utgerr
Mr. Kurt iZ. './hitiaan
Project Coordinator
GW Inc.
Post Office Box A
Saukville, Wisconsin 53080
Dear fir. Whitnani
This letter responds to your request for clarification on t-\«
applicability of the F001 through F005 hazardous waste listings to
four specific waste streams generated from the use of vinin chemi-
cal formulations and whether these wastes are subject to the
November 7, 1936, land disposal restrictions final rule. I
apologize for the long delay in responding to your correspondence.
Each of the scenarios presented in your letter is restated
below an.i followed by an appropriate response which provides
clarification on whether these wastes are covered by the s**»nt
solvent listings (i.e., EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F001, F002, F023,
F004, and F005).
Exaaple *1 - "A paint remover consisting of 55% Methylene Chloride,
15% Phenol and 301 Sodiun Chrornatet This material
is an outdated, virgin product. OW, Inc., assirnc^
a EPA hazardous waste of D002 only.'
-- According to the above description, the waste strewn is an
outdated, virgin product and has not been utilized as a paint
rsnover. As such, the solvent was not used for its solvent
properties, and therefore, is not covered by the F001-F005 spent
solvent listings. If this waste stream exhibits the characteristic
of corrosivity, it would be appropriately classified under EPA
Hazardous Waste Nunber D002.
The spent solvent listings include only those wastes nenerited
as a result of a solvent being used for its solvent properties,
that is, its ability to solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other
constituents (e.g., solvents used in decreasing, cleaninn, fabric
scouring; as diluents, extractants, reaction and synthesis roe-Ua).
Furthermore, the listing only applies to solvents that are con-
sidered spent (i.e., solvents that have been used and are no
longer fit for uce without beinq regenerated, reclaimed, or
otherwise reprocessed).
-------
Example *2 - "A paint stripper consisting of 15% Toluene, 3^V
Methylene Chloride, 10% Phenols, 20% Kerosane and
20% Paint Sludge. Analytical results show that
this is an ignitable waste (D001).'
-- It appears* baaed on the information provided in your letter,
that the virgin paint stripper was used for its solvent properties
(i.e., to solubilire paint). The resultant waste stream probably
constitutes a spent solvent Mixture covered under the F001-F005
hazardous waste listings, however, this deternination depends on
the concentration of the F001-F005 constituents in the paint
stripper before use (see the enclosed FEDERAL REGISTER notice for
the solvent mixture rule). Since the waste streaa contains
greater than 101 of the solvents listed in F001, F002, F004 or
F005, the virgin paint stripper also probably contained a total
of 10% or more of these solvents. If so, this waste stream
meets the criteria for an F001-F005 spent solvent mixture/blend
and would be subject to the land disposal restrictions.
Example *3 - "Spent paint waste formulation of 30% Alkyd Enanel
Resin, 15% Chromium and Lead Piqnents, 20% Toluene,
5% Xylene and 30% unknown solids. The EPA hazardous
waste codes for this sludge are D007, DOOQ and 0001."
— The spent solvent listings do not cover manufacturing process
wastes contaminated with solvents When the solvents were used as
reactants or ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical
products. Therefore, the waste solvent-based paint formulation
described in your letter is not within the scope of the F001-F005
spent solvent listings.
Example »4 - "Spill Residue consisting of 35% Clay (Oil Zorb) and
Dirt, and 15% 1,1,1 Trichloroethane. The EPA waste
code is F002 for this waste stream.11
Proper classification of this waste stream requires knowledge
of the regulatory status of the 1,1,1-trichloroethane prior to
its being spilled. If the 1,1,1-trichloroethane was a discarded
commercial chemical product, manufacturing chemical intermediate,
orvoff-specification commercial chemical product, the spill residue
should be classified as U226. As such, thin waste is not subject
to the Novesfeer 7, 1986 final rule.
If however, the 1,1,1-trichloroethane was a spent solvent
prior to it* being spilled, the entire waste stream would be
classified as a listed spent solvent (EPA Hazardous Haste Mo.
P002). In this case, the spill residue would be considered a
hazardous waste because it contains an F002 solvent. This waste
stream would be subject to the prohibitions on land disposal of
spent solvent wastes.
-------
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please feel free to contact Will!an Fortune, of ay staff at (202)
475-6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline V. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
enclosure
-------
9444. 198 7(12)
;/
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
K. Seller
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
7272 Cleanwater Lane,
Olympia, Washington
LU-11
98504-6811
Dear Ms. Seiler:
I recently received your letter of February 26, 1987, in which
you requested clarification as to whether excavated soils,
contaminated with 2,4,5-T, Simazine, 2,4-0, Dicambia, and Bromacil,
are F027 wastes. The site in question was a county public works yard
where a pesticide product was mixed with water as a carrier, prior to
application on the county roadsides. Contamination occurred from
spillage of both unused and used pesticide solutions.
The F027 listing designates, as acute hazardous waste (H),
formulations containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorphenol or
discarded unused formulations containing compounds derived from these
chlorophenols. Whether the contaminated soil contains a listed
hazardous waste is dependent on: (a) whether the 2,4,5-T got onto
the soil through the use of the chemical or by being discarded, and
(b) whether the 2,4,5-T was in fact a discarded formulation as stated
in Sec.261.31.
Soil, which is contaminated with unused 2,4,5-T, that had been
discarded, would contain a listed hazardous waste, namely P027. This
contaminated soil, which contains a hazardous waste, is therefore
subject to the Subtitle C regulations.
Soils, which are contaminated with 2,4,5-T, an a function of its
use, would not be considered to contain a hazardous waste. These
contaminated soils nay, however, be hazardous if they are excavated
to be discarded, and if they meet the hazardous waste
characteristics, i.e.. if the EP leachate concentration exceeds the
levels specified in Sec.261.24(b).
-------
To my knowledge, there are currently no commercial treatment or
disposal facilities permitted to accept listed dioxin wastes. You
also questioned whether any treatment standards have been established
for dioxin wastes. According to 40 CFR 264.343, incinerators burning
hazardous wastes F020-F023, F026, and F027 must achieve a destruction
and removal efficiency of 99.9999% for each principal organic
hazardous constituent specified in its permit. Effective Nov. 8,
1988, these same wastes are restricted from land disposal if an
extract of the waste or the treatment residual of the waste (using
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)) is equal to or
greater than 1 ppb of dioxin.
Please feel free to call Doreen Sterling, of my staff, at
202-475-6775, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
9444.1987(13)
*
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENC
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Mff _ 5 1937
Mr. William C. Duncan
Vice President OFFICE OF
Compliance Recycling Industries SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
8200 S. Akron, Suite 112
Englevood, CO 80112
Dear Mr. Duncan:
As requested in our telephone conversation on April 15, 1987, and in your
letter of the same date, I am responding to your request for the Agency's
interpretation (as it applies to RCRA regulations) of your process for the
treatment of electroplating rinse water.
My understanding of your process is that only rinse vater is fed to a
tank near the electroplating line. The rinse vater is then pumped through a
filter to a "compliance module" that contains anionic and cationic Ion
exchange resins vhich remove metals, chromates, and cyanide. The vater
exiting the module is deionized and can be recycled back, as rinse vater, or
sent to disposal. Also, you have determined that neither the treated rinse
vater nor the spent ion exchange resin exhibits any of the hazardous vaste
characteristics.
First, I must apologize if I misled you during our telephone
conversation. I have discussed your process vith others at the Agency, and
have determined that your ion exchange resins (containing the cations and
anlons removed from the rinse vater) and the filter from the transfer module
fit the definition of a sludge (see 40 CFR 260.10). Therefore, th& used
resins and filter are P006 hazardous vastes, even if they do not exhibit any
of the hazardous vaste characteristics. Thus, it vill be necessary for the
electroplaters to comply vith the generator requirements, including
manifesting the shipment of these cannisters to your regeneration facility.
Because your regeneration is a recycling activity, you vill not require a
permit, unless you store the cannisters for any length of time before you
process them.
Also, any vastes generated during your ion exchange resin regeneration
process vould also b« considered as P006 vastes via the derived -from rule,
vith the exception of the recovered metal that you sell as a product.
I hope that I have ansvered your questions satisfactorily. If you
require additional Information, please feel free to contact me at (202)
382-4787.
Sincerely,
Bdvin F. Abrams
Chemical Engineer
-------
9444 . 198 7 (14)
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENO
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
8 Q87 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPON!
Michael Sanderson, Chief
RCRA Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Dear Mr. Sanderson:
This letter is in response to your April 20, 1987 memo
regarding certain wastes generated at Everco Industries' Ottumwa,
Iowa plant. Specifically, you requested an interpretation ae to
whether wastewater treatment sludges generated at their plant
meets the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006.
We have reviewed the description of Everco'• procesews and
agree that the wastewater treatment sludge does not meet the defi-
nition of F006. The non-cyanide zinc plating process it srpecfically
excluded from the listing as "zinc plating (searegated basis) on
carbon steel." Likewise the coating processes, both before and
after the process change, are not within the scope of the, listing
as explained in the December 2, 1986 Interpretive Rulec It is
also noted that the cleaning and stripping operations &re also
specifically excluded from the li&tinq as "cleaning/stripping
associated with tin, zinc,, and t.AumiiiUK plating on c&rbon steel."
Thus, the waste would only be considered har.crdous if it exhibits .
any of the Subpart C hazardous wa*fc« characteristico.
Should you have any Questions regarding this interpretation,
please contact me, or David Topping of my staff, at FTS 475-8551.
Sincerely
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characteris&tion Branch
-------
9444.1987(15)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGl
WASHINGTON, D.C. Z0460
MAT 18B8T
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Mr. Dennis M. Burchett
V.P. Regulatory Affairs
Clean Crop
419 18th Street
P.O. Box 1286
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Mr. Burchett:
Thia is in response to your inquiry of April 21, 1987. From
information in your letter and from your phone conversation of May
8, 1987, vlth Mike Petruaka of my ataff, ve have concluded that
your apent carbon contains the listed hazardous waste Phorate
(P094). Therefore, the contaminated carbon ic tubject to the
hazardoua vaate regulations. In particular, your company muat
comply vlth the hazardous vaste generator requirements, including
compliance vlth the manlfeat. See 40 CFR 261.£(b). In addition,
the facility that regenerates the carbon must also comply vlth
the appropriate hazardoua vaate rules. See 40 CF£ 261.6(c)
The reasoning behind this determination ie *s- follovs:
'The packaging of the finished Phorate product releaaea Phorate
to the air. In effect, Phorate ia being "discarded;"
"EPA regulations at 40 CFR S261.33 identify certain commercial
chemical products (among them Phorate) aa hazardoua vaate
vhen they are discarded;
°EPA continues to regulate a Hated vaate even vhen it ia
contained in another material, i.e., In thla caae the spent
carbon.
The first point above, concerning the Phorate being discarded,
is critic*! to your situation. Even though you capture the Phorate
relea«a>4 to the air in carbon scrubbers and send the spent carbon
for regeneration, the Phorate contained in the carbon is not
recovered but rather la deatroyed during carbon regeneration.
This leads us to conclude that you are discarding Phorate. You
-------
-2-
should note, however, that if you were reclaiming or reusing the
Phorate, your regulatory situation would be different. In this
case, the Phorate would not be solid waste, and so would not be
hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR §261.2.)
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike Petrusk,
of my staff at (202) 382-4765.
Sincerely
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
cc: Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
-------
9444. 198 7(16)
NffZOfiff
Ms. Karen S. Thirman
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Ms. Thirman:
I am responding to your letter of April 30, 1987, requesting
the Agency's interpretation of the hazardous waste classification
of an etching process waste. Specifically, you ask whether the
process described in your letter generates a listad hazardous
waste.
In reviewing your letter, we believe that th& process
described is considered to be a stripping process that employs
cyanide chemicals, and the waste stream generated is EPA.
Hazardous Waste No. F009, "spent stripping and cleaning bath
solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used
in the process1*. This point is substantiated in reviewing the
listing background document for "Spent Waste Cyanide Solutions
and Sludges", covering EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F007, F008, and
F009, where it specifically states (on page 7) thst chemical
etching is part of the listing.
If you require additional information, please feel free to
contact Ed Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
6. If the paint sludge that results is pronerlv classified a? an
F003 waste (because it contains >1% xylene), and it is processed
using a distilling device that removes all of the solvent an'!
water from the paint sludge, is the resultino 'cooked' slu^nu
an F003 waste even though it no longer contains solvent? If so,
can it be delisted? If the 'coofced' sludge meets the solvent
treatment standard of 0.15 mq/1 for xylene, can it be landfille<1?
In accordance with the "derived from rule" (40 CTR ?61. 3(c)(2)),
the residue from treatment of a hazardous waste remains a hazardous
waste. Thus, assuming the waste stream is properly identified as
an F003 spent solvent waste, the "cooVed" sludge resulting from
distillation of this material remains an P003 hazardous waste and in
subject to the applicable land disposal prohibition reauirement*
unless delisted according to the provisions, or rendered non-hararson
(see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)). It should be noted that the deli*tino
procedures require that the petitions address all factors that may
cause the waste to be hazardous, not only those for which the waste
was originally listed.
Where restricted wastes and the concentrations of their
associated hazardous constituents meet the applicable treatment
standards, the wastes may be disposed of in a Subtitle C facility.
Therefore, if the "cooked* sludge meets the treatment standard
established for xylene and does not exceed the treatment standard*
for any other restricted waste constituents, it may be placed in
a hazardous waste land disposal facility.
7. If the water wall and associated tanX were removed and replaced
with dry filters, and paint containing >10% by volume of xvlene
was anplied to the product, would the waste paint filters be
classified as an F003 waste? If the waste paint filters
contained 0.15 mg/1 xylene, would they be classified as an
F003 waste?
The waste paint filters described in this scenario would not
be properly classified as an F003 waste since the paint residuals
would not constitute • vpent solvent (refer to the response to
question No. 1).
I hop* this information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at
475-6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Jacoueline W. Sales, Chief
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444.1987(17)
MAY 201987
Mr. Stephen J. Evans
Environmental Engineer
iodine Manufacturing Company
1500 DC Koven Avenue
Racine, Wisconsin 53401
Dear Mr. Evans:
This is in response to your letter of March 30, 19P7, in which
you request guidance AS to the proper classification of waste paint
sludge and whether these wastes are subject to the Koveirber 7, I°P*,
land disposal restrictions rule. Specifically, you referred to nnint
sludge waste resulting from painting operations where the paint has
been thinned with petroleum nantha solvent. Purthcrnore, you indi-
cated that the virgin petroleum nantha solvent contains certain
solvent constituents that are also included under the F001-FOO*
spent solvent listings (e.o., xylene and toluene).
Each of the questions raised in your letter is rest«t*d below
and followed by the appropriate response'*
1. Can we continue to classify the paint sludge as a r>007 waste or
must we classify it as an FO03 waste?
In order for a waste to meet the criteria of tin? spent solvent
listings (i.e., EPA Hazardous Waste Mos. F001, FOC2, F003, F004,
and F005), the waste must be generated as the result of a solvent
being used for its "solvent" properties, that is, its ability to
solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents (e.o., solvents
used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring? as diluents,
extractants, reaction and synthesis media). Process wastes containing
solvents where the solvent is an ingredient in the formulation of
a product arc- not covered by the scent solvent listings. Thus,
paints containing solvents as an ingredient are not covered under
the solvent listings. In the painting process scenario you
described, the, addition of petroleum naptha solvent to a paint
product constitutes the formulation of a modified paint product.
The Agency does not recognize a distinction between paints that
contain solvents and paint where solvents have been added.
-------
Therefore, thinned paint (as described in your letter) that it
later discarded as a waste or paint sludge resulting from the
use of the thinned paint would not be covered under the FOOl-POPS
spent solvent listings. If the extract from a representative
sample of the paint sludge exceeds the maximum concentration of
chromium for the characteristic of FP Toxicity (40 CFR 261.24),
the waste would be appropriately classified under EPA Hazardous
Waste Number D007.
2. If virgin xylene were used in lieu of petroleum naptha to thin
the paint, is the paint sludge that results an F003 waste (>lt
xylene by weight in paint sludge)?
Regardlees of whether the solvent in virgin xylene or petroleum
naptha, the solvents are used as ingredients in the formulation
of the paint. As such, the resultant paint sludge would not meet
the criteria for an F003 spent solvent waste (refer to the response
to question No. 1).
3. If waste or reclaimed xylene were used in lieu of petroleum
naptha to thin the paint, is the paint sludge that results an
F003 waste (>ll xylene in paint sludge)?
No. The paint sludge that results would not be properly
classified as an F003 spent solvent waste (refer to the resnonse
to question No. 1).
4. If xylene were used to clean the spray guns (the solvent/paint
sprayed onto the water wall), would the paint sludge then become
an F003 waste (>1% xylene in paint sludge)?
Using xylene to clean the spray guns constitutes use for
its solvent properties because the xylene solubllizes (dissolves)
other constituents (i.e., paint). As such, spent xylene that
is generated from this cleaning practice would be covered by the
spent solvent listings, specifically Hazardous Waste No. POO 3.
Furthermore, in cases where the spent xylene that results from
cleaning spray guns (an F003 waste) is mixed with paint sludge
produced from the painting scenarios described under questions
1, 2, and 3, the resultant waste stream would be considered
an F003 waste (in accordance with the "mixture rule", 40 CF* 261.3
5. If petroleum naptha and xylene were used to thin the paint
(and the resulting mixture contained >10% xylene by volume),
is the paint sludge that results an F003 waste?
As mentioned above, paint sludge resulting from the oversnrav
of thinned paint does not meet the criteria for an F003 waste, since
the solvents (in this case, petroleum naptha and xylene) are
ingredients in the formulation of the paint. "Hi us, the solvent
mixture rule does not apply (see 50 F* 53315, December 31, 19PF).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT*. PRC 'ECTiON AGENCY
9444.19C7(18)
Wf 2 01987
Mr. Frank Czigler
Environmental Department
S & w Waste Inc.
115 Jacobus Avenue
South Kearny, New Jersey 07032
Dear Mr. Criglen
This letter responds to your request for assistance on
identifying whether certain solvents are covered under the F001
through F005 hazardous waste listings, and for clarification
on the applicability of the land disposal restrictions final
rule (51 FR 40572, November 7, 1986). I apologize for the
delay in responding to your correspondence. After the new
regulations were promulgated the Agency received numerous
requests for guidance.
Each of the questions raised in your letter is restated
below and followed by the appropriate response.
1. "Since the December 31, 1985 definition of the fcP*. waste
types F001 through F005, the following solvents have been
added to the listing but arc not listed in tafoli* CCWE-
CONSTITUENT IN WASTE EXTRACT (F. R. /Vbl .51, No. 2X6/11-7-
86/Page 40642 )t
1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane
2-Ethoxyethanol
2-Ni tropr opane
Benzene
If these solvents are to be included in the li*t of
wastes restricted from land disposal, what maximum
concentrations in waste extract are the treatment
standards) expressed as?"
— The November 7, 1986 final rule does not include treatment
standards for these four newly listed F001 throuoh F005 spent
solvents. Provisions under RCRA section 3004(q)(4) require
the Agency to make a determination within 6 months whether to
subject newly listed hazardous wastes to the land disoos*!
prohibitions. However, the statute does not impose an
automatic prohibition if the Agency misses th* deadline.
EPA expects to make land dispd)»ga.u«f»«f let ion datarPiinat tana
-------
pertaining to these solvent wastes in association with the
scheduled listed wastes (51 FR 19300, Hay 28, 1996).
2. "Are wastes generated by laboratories as a result of
analytical and research work, where the listed solvents
are used for their solvent properties, (e.g., solvents
used in liquid chronatography, rinsing paraffin off tissue
culture slides, in ion exchange columns, in layer separation,
in distillation, as final step of organic synthesis, in
re-crystallisation, etc.) regulated?"
Yes. Under the approach prouulgated in the final rule,
F001-F005 listed solvents are subject to the land disposal
restrictions. If an analytical or research laboratory generates
these restricted wastes, the wastes Bust be managed in
accordance with 40 CPR Part 268. In order for a solvent
waste to be covered by the P001-F005 spent solvent listings
the waste must be generated as a result of the solvent being
used for its "solvent" properties, that is, its ability to
•olubilice (dissolve) or mobilise other constituents (e.g.
solvents used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring; as
diluents, extractants, reaction and synthesis media).
In the case of solvent mixtures, the mixture must contain,
before use, a total of ten percent or more (by volume) of one
or more of the solvents listed in P001, F002, F004, or FOO5.
Wastes that meet these criteria are covered by the spent
solvent listings and as such, are subject to the November 7, 1996
final rule.
3. "Are rags contaminated with listed solvents that were
used for their solvent properties (e.g.. In clean-up
work) excluded from P001 through POOS'listing an*/or
the November 8th regulations? This same question
was posed to the RCRA-Hot Line, and the following answer
was received!
"If the solvents are poured onto the surface to be cleaned,
then the contaminated rags used in the clean-nip fall into
the F001 through POOS listing. If the solvents are poured
onto the) rags that are to be used in the cleanup, then
the resultant dirty rags DO NOT fall into the P001 through
POOS listing."
— Technically, the interpretation of the regulations that you
received from the RCRA Hotline is correct. The P001-F005
solvent listing includes certain halogenated and non-halogenated
solvents when spent. A solvent is considered spent When it
has been used and is no longer fit for use without belna re-
generated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed. Therefore, when
solvents are applied to a surface or machinery (and used
for their solvent properties), then cleaned-off with ra
-------
F001-F005 lilting. When solvents are applied directly to a raq
prior to use, the solvent at that tine is not acent and the
rags are not covered by the spent solvent listino.
As a practical natter, however, in each of these scenarios,
the contaminated rags would be basically identical in constituent
make-up and would pose similar hazards. Furthernore, land
disposal facilities (which are ultimately responsible for veri-
fying that only wastes meeting the treatment standards are land
disposed) would not be able to distinguish between raas used to
cleanup spent solvents from other rags contaminated with solvent.
As a result, these facilities may choose not to accept rags con-
taminated with solvents unless they meet the treatment standards.
In light of these considerations, we recommend that anv raos
contaminated with listed solvents be managed as hazardous wastes.
4. "Are dry cleaning filters used to separate solid *ines out
of the F001 through F005 listed solvents exempted?"
— No. If P001 through POOS listed solvents are treated usiner
dry cleaning filters to separate out solid fines, the resultant
waste filters are also P001-P005 hazardous waste. In accordance
with the "derived from" rule (40 CFR 261.3 (e) (2) (i) ), any solid
waste generated from treatment, s tor acre, or disposal of a* hazardous
waste is a hazardous waste. Thus, used filters from the treatment
of spent solvents is designated as an F001-F005 waste and is
subject to the land disposal restrictions.
5. "Does the process of thinning a paint for its subsequent
use in the painting of a surface remove the paint from
a non-FOOl through POOS category (as being a commercial
product) to being an F001 through POOS waste (due to
solvent having been used as a diluent) if a part of the
thinned paint is later disposed of as • waste?"
— Process wastes containing solvents Where the solvent is an
ingredient in the formulation of a product are not covered by
the spent solvent listings* In this specific case, the addition
of solvent to a paint product constitutes the formulation of,.a
modified paint product. The Agency does not recoonite a
distinction between paints that contain solvents and paint Where
solvents have/ been added. Therefore, thinned paint (aa described
in the above case) that is later discarded as a waste would not
be covered under the P001-P005 spent solvent listings.
6. "Meed clarification regarding the POOS solvent listingt
(a) Are we to understand the phrase, "...All spent solvent
mixturesA>l«nds containing, before use, ONLY the above
spent non-halogenated solvents..." as listed under
the F003 hazardous waste number listing (In F.R./Vol.
-------
50, No.251/Tuesday 12-31-85/Page 53319) to mean that
the solvent mixture must consist (before use) 1001 of
one or more of the non-halogenated solvents (as listed
in F.R. under POOS listinq). In other words, if there
is any non-F003 solvent, (i.e., ethanol, mineral spirits),
or other contairinant (i.e., water, oil, etc.) in the
solvent wixtwre/blend (before use), then the waste
effluent of the process would not fall under the F003
listing.'
In order for a waste to meet the criteria of an F003 soent
solvent mixture/blend it must include, before use, only
solvent constituents listed under the F003 hazardous waste co^e,
or must contain, before use, one or more of the F003 non-
halogenated solvents and a total of ten percent or more of solvent
constituents covered under Hazardous Waste numbers F001, FOP?,
F004, and F005. Therefore, as you correctly stated, if the
solvent mixture/blend contains (before use) other solvents such
as ethanol, or mineral spirits, the spent solvent would not be
considered a listed waste, in particular an F003 waste. However,
the Agency does not intend to exclude such mixture from regulation
where non-F003 constituents are present as contaminants in the
virgin products.
(b) "As we understand it, if a solvent mixture/blend in*used
for its solvent properties (e.g., in cleaning out a reactor)
and it is made up (before use) of less than 10 percent
P001, POO2, F004, and POOS solvent constituents and oreater
than 90 percent but less than 100 percent P003 listed
solvent(s), then the resultant waste does not fall into
any of the F001 through F005 hazardous waste listina(«).
Is the above a correctly interpreted example?"
-- Your interpretation of the solvent mixture provisions as
they apply to the scenario described in the above question is
correct. If a solvent mixture/blend (before uee) contains
F003 listed solvents and FOCI, F002, F004, and FOGS solvent
constituents, it would not constitute a listed hazardous waste
(unless the total of all F001, POO?, F004, and POOS constituent*
meet the ten percent threshold). Although such waste streams are
not listed wastes, these solvents may be regulated under WTIA if
they exhibit one or nore of the characteristics of hazardous
waste (i.e.* corrosivity, ignitability, F.P toxicltv or reactivity)
(c) "An often asked question by our clients is described in
the following example. Please indicate whether it exhibits
a correct interpretation of the D001 characteristic waste
type in lioht of the newly defined P003 listino.
A batch reactor vessel is used in a production process.
After each batch, the reactor must be thoroughIv
cleaned out with pure xvlene. As a resource recoverv/
conservation measure, the clean-out effluent ("con-
taminated xylene") is regenerated by distillation. The
-------
regenerated xylene IB re-used as reactor clenni.no itocV,
and the •till bottoms residue must be disposed of at a
hazardous waste* classified as EPA WASTE TYPE D001
according to the generator, since it exhibits
characteristics of EPA-ignitability.•
-- According to the information provided in your example, the
xylene is used solely for the purpose of cleaning out the hatch
reactor vessel and is not a reactant or ingredient in a production
process. As such, the pure xylene has been used for its solvent
properties and would be considered an POO3 spent solvent when it
can no longer be used without further processing. Still bottoms
generated from the distillation of the spent xylene also would he
designated as an F003 solvent waste in accordance with the listina
description, not as EPA Hazardous Waste Ho. D001.
7. "RCPA Hot-Line gave us the following example. Are they
correct?"
(a) "A paint reactor is cleaned out between batches with 100
percent xylene. The resulting solution is pumped into
a holding tank in which the solids settle out. According
to the RCRA Rot-Line, the solids do not fall into any
of the P001 through F005 waste listings because the xylene
is still considered 100 percent technical grade and is
to be re-used after the solids are removed. If the bottom
sludge/solids are found to exhibit characteristics of EPA-
ignitability would they be correctly classified as D001
waste? When is the xylene considered contaminated or spent?
If it is considered contaminated after the first "wash out*,
and used for subsequent washes, should the resultant sludge
be classified as an P001 through POOS listed waste or a
D001 characteristic waste?"
— The example described above is an incorrect interpretation
of the F001-P005 spent solvent listing. Regardless of whether
the bottom sludge/solids removed from the holding tank exhibit
the characteristic of ignitability, such wastes would be incor-
rectly classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. D001. The pure
xylene would become •contaminated" when it comes in contact with
the paint or other impurities. Therefore, the xylene would be
considered contaminated after its use during the first "wash-out"
of the paint reactor. As mentioned in earlier responses, such
solvents would be considered spent when they are no longer used
without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed.
Thus, the contaminated xylene placed into the holding tank would
constitute an P001-P005 "spent" solvent because the xylene is
regenerated by allowing the eolids to settle out. The bottom
sludge/solids accumulated and removed from the settling unit
also would constitute an F001-FOO* listed waste based on the
"derived from" rule (40 CPR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).
-------
(b) "If the tank is washed with a mixture of 90 percent
xylene 10 percent mineral spirits, is the resultino
sludge an F001 through F005 listed waste?"
If the solvent mixture/blend used to clean out the paint
reactor contained, before use, 90 percent xylene and 10 percent
mineral spirits, the spent solvent waste would not meet the
criteria of a listed hazardous waste (on the basis described
above under question 6(a)). The resulting bottom sludoe/solids
would be correctly classified as a DOC1 hazardous waste if they
exhibit the characteristic of iqnitabilitv.
8. "As specified in 40 CFR 261.32, "...solvent washes and sluices
..." resulting from ink formulation are properly classified as
EPA waste type K086. Does this K0ft6 classification hold true
in light of the most recent definition of the P001 throuoh
F005 hazardous waste listings? If a waste meets both waste
category requirements, that of a waste from a specific source
and also that of an F001 through F005 - non specific source,
which waste classification takes precedence?*
— In cases where tubs and equipment used in ink formulation
are washed by solvents, and the solvents used in the washes are
included under the F001-F005 listings, the resultant solvent-
wash wastes are considered hazardous wastes under the applicable
spent solvent listings, as well as, the KOR6 listing (as indicated
in the January 12, 1981, Background Document). Such wastes must
be managed in accordance with the FCRA regulations applicable to
both waste classifications. In consideration of the November 7,
1986, final rule, these solvent-wash wastes would be subject to
the prohibitions and would be required to meet the applicable
treatment standards prior to disposal in a Subtitle C facility.
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at (202)
475-6715, if you have further questiona on this matter.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline W. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
9444. 1987(19)
UNITED STATE h £N V!« ON V'ENTX.L ''RC'TECTiQN AGENC',
Mff 22 W7
E OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY PESPON:
Mr. Edgar R. Santiago
Environmental & Safety Engineering
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Comoany
750 Warrenville Road
Lisle, IL 60532
Dear Mr. Santiago:
This letter is in response to your April 27, 1987 letter
regarding the December 2, 1986 Interpretive Rule on EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006. Specifically, you reguested an interpretation
related to the inclusion of cleaning and stripping operations in
that listing.
At line 10 of the first full paragraph on paae 43351 of the
Interpretive Rule, the F006 listing is said to include wastewater
treatment sludges from "... cleaning and stripping when associated
with electroplating operations (i.e., common and precious metals
electroplating, anodizing, and chemica1 etching and milling).
In your letter, you imply that certain printing industry
processes are not included in the F006 listing because they were
exempted from the Effluent Guidelines Divisions' requirements
for pretreatment standards for the electroplating point source
category. We disagree with your interpretation. Neither the
F006 listing background document, nor the August 1979 Development
Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the
Electroplating Point Soruce Category referenced therein, exclude
the printing industry from the definition of electroplating
operation*. That is, while the Office of Water may have elected
not to require the printing industry to meet the electroplating
pretreatment standards, that action does not exclude from the
F006 listing any electroplating wastewater treatment sludges
that may be generated by the printing industry.
Finally, you inquired as to the status of EPA's action on the
trivalent vs. hexavalent chromium issue. Comments were received
on this issue in the Agency's proposed Organic Toxicity Characteristic
-------
-2-
(see 51 FK 21648, June 13, 1986). This issue will be addressed
as part o? that rulemaking.
Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation,
please contact ne, or David Topping of my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Charactization Branch
-------
9444.1987(20)
Zelda Curtiss
Pennsylvania Departaent of
Environmental Resources
Office of Chief Counsel
1303 Highland Building
121 South Highland Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15206-3988
Dear Ms. Curtisst
After careful review of your letter of April 24 and the
supporting docuaentation in Don Ziaaer's letter of Hay 7, we agree
with your deteraination on Witco's API Separator Sludge. The
waste is not generated at a facility encompassed by the original
listing. Thus, it is not K051.
Nevertheless, it is important to Keep in -lind chat soae of
the wastes generated by the facility nay Beet one, or acre, of
tne hazardous waste characteristics. Additionally, for future
reference, I also should clarify the types of facilities whicn we
consider to be included in the listing. "
The petroleua refineries encoapassed oy the existing listing
are not restricted to facilities that process cruue oil. Generally,
the refineries covered are all facilities in SIC 2911 who perform
distillation of crude oil and/or unfinished petroleuu derivatives.
Witco does not distill the neutral distillates and does not produce
motor or heating fuels. Consequently, they are not in the listed
industry.
-------
-2-
bopefully, this letter will serve to clarify the scope of
the refinery listing*. Do not hesitate to contact B«n Saith of
•y staff at (202) 362-4791, if you r«quir« any additional infori
tion.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straui, Chief
Mast* Characterization Branch
cos Dir., WMD, Regions I-X
-------
9444.1987(22)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
2 4 1987 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Richard Torrito
Continental Can Company, Inc.
800 Connecticut Avenue
P.O. Box 5410
Norwalk, CT 06856
Dear Mr. Torrito:
This letter is in response to your February 5, 1987 inquiry
regarding the regulatory status of certain wastes generated at
Continental Can Company's La Crosse and Milwaukee, Wisconsin
plants. Specifically, you requested an interpretation as to
whether the sludge generated from wastewater treatment processes
associated with the can washers at these plants is a hazardous
waste within the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste Mo. F019—
wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating
of aluminum.
We have carefully reviewed the attachment to your February 5
letter (i.e., the January 9, 1987 letter from Lester Steinbrecher
of Amchem Products to you), as well as Mr. Steinbrecher'•
February 27, 1987 letter to David Topping of the Waste Character-
ization Branch. In those letters, it was asserted that the use
of Amchem's surface conditioners for the treatment of two-piece
aluminum cans does not constitute a chemical conversion coating
process. We disagree with that interpretation tor the reasons
explained below.
In the background listing document for F019, conversion
coatings are described as "processes (that) apply a coating to
the previously deposited or basis metal for increased corrosion
protection, lubricity, preparation of the surface for additional
coatings or formulation of a special surface appearance. This
manufacturing operation includes chromating, phosphating, metal
coloring, -and immersion plating." The Agency believes that the
use of a zirconium phosphating process to inhibit corrosion of
the aluminum surface is within the scope of this definition.
-------
-2-
Several of the statements in the Amchem letters indicate
that the process is not chemical conversion coating because the
process does not impart a crystalline coating. While the listing
background document does refer to crystalline phosphate coatings,
it was not the Agency's intention to restrict the listing to apply
only to crystalline coatings. Further, the broader definition
(to include both crystalline and amorphous coatings) is supported
by other (non-EPA) definitions of conversion coating.
For example, Chemical and Process Technology Encyclopedia
(McGraw-Hill, 1974) states that "conversion coatings are formed
chemically by causing the surface of the metal to b« "converted"
into a tightly adherent amorphous or crystalline coating part or
all of which consists of an oxidized form of the substrate metal."
Also, in Standard B 374-80, ASTM defines conversion coating as "a
process produced by chemical or electrical treatment of a metallic
surface that gives a superficial layer containing a compound of
the metal." Thus, ASTM does not restrict the definition to crystal-
line coatings.
The fact that the can washing process is within the commonly
understood definition of chemical conversion coating is also
supported by the identification of that process as chemical
conversion coating in Continental Can Company's delisting petition
for the Olympia, Washington plant. In that petition, the fourth
stage of the can washing process is described as follows: "The
function of Stage 4 is to apply a chemical conversion coating to
the can which inhibits corrosion, brightens the can surface, and
provides an improved base for the application of organic coating
lacquers." Also, the zirconium phosphating process is described
as chemical converison coating in a rulemaking petition filed
jointly by Reynolds Metals Company and Miller Brewing Company.
(That petition, recently withdrawn, was to modify the F019 listing
to exclude sludges from "...the phosphate conversion coating of
two-piece aluminum beverage cans.")
Finally, in a telephone conversation with Matthew Straus of
the Waste Characterization Branch, you cited the Office of Water's
November 17* 1983 regulation related to the can-making industry
(see 48 FR 52,399). In that regulation, it was stated that the
sludges from the pretreatment standards was believed to be
-------
-3-
nonhazardous. That statement refers to sludges that have been
treated. That is, it was the Agency's opinion that the waste-
water treatment sludge could be treated to render them nonhazardous
(j^e^, the treated sludge could likely be delisted).
For these reasons, we have concluded that the wastewater
treatment sludges associated with the can washers at the La Crosse
and Milwaukee plants meet the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste
NO. F019. Should you have any questions regarding this interpreta-
tion, please contact Mr. Matthew Straus, Chief, Waste Characteri-
zation Branch at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marci/a Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UHlfeU STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9444 . 198 7(23)
3 0 !3c7
Mr. Robert Williams
General Motors Corporation
Fisher Guide Division
200 Georges vl lie Road
Columbus, OH 43228-0512
Dear Mr. fcilliams:
The Assistance Branch has reviewed your letter datsri
February 27, 1987 regarding the EPA's clarification of the
60op-» of EPA .V^zardous Waste No. P006. This waste was the
SUL -i-ct of your ceiia'ci."? petition 10177. we acknowledge your
description of the major processes at your plant, including;
1. Zinc plating on carbon steel on a segregated he sis
2. Mechanical or electroless zinc plating
3. Sulfuric acid anodizing on aluminum
4. Phosphatinq on steel.
Both zinc plating on carbon steel on a segregated ba&if< end
sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum were listed as exemptions
from the original F006 listing in November 198*. On December 2,
1966, a clarification of the FU06 listing was published (51 FK
43350-43351) which specifically exempted electroless zinc
plating and phosphating on steel. Therefore, we believe that
your wastewater treatment sludge is not included in the scope
of EPA Hazardous Waste No. FOC6.
Although your wastewater treatment sludge is not an EPA
listed waste, you are still required to determine whether the
waste exhibits sny of the characteristics of hazardous wastes
as defined y 40 CPR {261. 21-261. 24.
-------
Please contact Mr. Scott Maid, of my staff, at (202) 382-4783
if you have any questions.
Sincerely/
/_ B / Signed
Susanne Rudsinski, Chief
Assistance Branch
cci Alan Debus, Reg. V
Williaa Muno, Reg. V
Matthew Straus, BO
-------
9444. 1987(26)
JUL 2 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTS Clarification of federal Policy Regarding
Dioxin Disposal
FROMt Marcia Williams, Director O-^'3'2- "•,?-. by
Office of Solid Waate Marcia E. Williams
TO i Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
In your memo datad May 20, 1987* you requested our feaaiatance
in developing a definitive statement to address certain public
concerns over EPA's regulation of di ox in-containing waetaa. Speci-
fically, you requested our assistance in drafting a proposed
response to a letter frost Hew York State Senator John
First, I would like to clarify the Federal regulations with
regard to the disposal of dioxin and dioxin-contaainateid material.
On January 14, 1965 (50 PR 1976), EPA amended the regulations for
hazardous waste management under RCRA by listing as acute hazardous
wastes, process wastes from the manufacturing use of tetra- penta-,
or hexachlorobencenes under alkaline conditional wastes from the
production and manufacturing use of tri-, tetra,* and penta-
chlorophenols and their chlorophenoxy derivatives} and discarded
unused formulations containing compounds derived from these
chlorophenols. Also listed were wastes that are generated in the
course of a Manufacturing process performed on equipment previ-
ously used for such operations* except where the equipment was
used only. Cor the manufacture or formulation of pentachlorophenols
or its derivatives. In addition, soils contaminated with these
wastes are also regulated.
Dnder 40 CFR 261.31 of RCRA the dioxin-containing wastes are
brought under Subtitle C control through the listing of specific
processes which generate diroxin, it is incorrect to imply that
toxicity is not considers*! in the listing process.
-------
-2-
The basis for listing these wastes can be summarized as
followst
The contaminants of concern in these wastes are chlori-
nated dibenzo-p-diozins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzo-
furans (CDFs), tri-, tetra-, and pentachlorophenols, and
the chlorophenozy derivatives of these ehlorophenols.
The toxicants of concern are likely to be present in the
listed wastes at concentrations many orders of magnitude
greater than the levels of concern in terms of human
health. For ezemple, analysis of distillation bottoms
from manufacturing processes making or using triehloro-
phenols can contain several hundred ppm TCDDs, filter
aids may contain up to 6000 ppm TCDDs, and cooling pond
muda were ahown to contain as much as 1200 ppm CDDs.
The contaminants of concern are not only present in these
wastes in significant concentrations but are capable of
migrating from waste matrices and reaching environmental
receptors in potentially dangerous concentrations, particu-
larly as a result of water run-off or wind dispersion of
contaminated particles. These wastes have been associated
with some of the most serious hazardous waste damage
incidents known, among them Love Canal and Times Beach.
Ve, therefore, believe that the most hazardous diozin-
containinq waste streams are covered by these listings. Although
the Agency recognized at the time this rule was promulgated that
there were other wastes which contained or may have contained
diozina, (i.e., chlorinated benzenes, dichlorophenol process
wastes, fly ash and emission control dust from low temperature
combustion of ehlorophenols, and presently unlisted residues from
wood preserving) not enough data were available to support rule-
making. For example, the Agency did not have data with regard to
the concentration of diozins in such wastes and the likelihood of
the waste posing a threat to human health or the environment.
Although these wastes are not required to be managed in accordance
with the special management atandards promulgated under RCRA,
these wastes are most likely toxic and should be carefully
managed. For example, these wastes can be safely managed by high
temperature incineration.
-------
-3-
Since then, the Agency has collected some of this additional
information. This information, for example* has been used by EPA
to support a draft proposed rule, which is currently under Agency
review, to list residues generated from the use of chlorophenolic
formulations in wood preserving and surface treating operations.
The Agency also is continuing to investigate a nuober of
dioxin issues* For instance, the Water Office is exploring the
formation of dioxins frost the pulp and paper industry's bleached
kraft process* The Agency is also developing a new exposure
assessment that may be used to enhance our understanding of the
rieks associated with dioxin.
It should also be noted that the listing process is only one
nechenism by which the Agency has control of problems posed by
dioxin. Facilities, which have submitted a Part B permit appli-
cation or are subject to interim status arc now subject to tb«
new corrective action provisions (Sec. 3004(u)). This requires
that all permit applicants musts identify all solid waste manage-
ment units at the facility; identify any releases of hazardous
wastes or hazardous constituents that have occurred or are occur-
ring from those unitss take appropriate corrective measures to
clean up releases; and demonstrate financial assurance for those
corrective measures.
Furthermore, dioxin and dioxln-contaminated soil are also
subject to clean-up under CERCLA as remedial action if the site
is on the National Priority List or as emergency response if
there is a need to abate a significant threat to public health
and welfare or the environment. To date, the Agency has taken
removal action if the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) issues a health advisory for the site. ATSDR
has traditionally viewed 1 ppb as a level of concern for residen-
tial settings. However, under the remedial program, the long-term
threats posed by each site are evaluated and pathways of exposure
are considered. Based on differing site conditions, EPA may
consider other action levels. The Agency expects to select the
remedy for five remedial sites this summer. Thus, the Agency is
in the process of formulating a policy for setting trigger and
clean-up levels in response to these anticipated site clean-ups.
-------
-4-
Finally, the requirements governing the disposal of listed
dioxin wattes (r020-r023, and P026-F028) in UndfilU are ««t
forth «t 40 CFft 264.317. Bff«ctltre Nov««b«r 8, 1988, th« dioxin-
contftining wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA Hazardous
Wast* Rot. F020P023, P026, and F027 arc prohibited fro* land
disposal if they do not s*et the treatBent standards specified at
40 CFR 268.41.
Please feel free to contact BC if you have any further
questions.
-------
Q
944 4 . 19E7(27)
UNITEC- STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEf
"HINGTON. D.C. 204<0
JUL 6 1967
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY KESPO
Mr. Gerald J. Wurtsmith
Federal Screw Works
Romulus Division
34846 Goddard Road
Romulus, MI 48174
Dear Mr. Wurtsmith:
This letter is in response to your June 16, 1987, inquiry
regarding wastes generated at Federal Screw Works' Romulus,
Michigan plant. Specifically, you requested an interpretation as
to whether the sludge (filter cake) generated from tr ^atment of
the rinse waters meets the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste Mo.
F006.
Your understanding is correct that the U.S. EPA no longer
considers wastewater treatment sludge from zinc phoephating on
steel to be within the scope of the F006 listing. (See enclosed
notice detailing our basis for this reinterpretation.) Since your
manufacturing operations contain a pickling process, however, you
should be aware that spent pickle liquor from facilities within
SIC Codes 331 and 332 is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste Mo. K062.
If your facility is included within these SIC Codes and spent
pickle liquor is introduced into the wastewater treatment system,
the sludge may meet the definition of K062. In addition, you
should also be aware that the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (DMR) hazardous waste program may be more stringent
than the Federal program. Therefore, you will need to contact
the state to see how they would classify your filter cake.
Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation,
please contact •• at (202) 475-8551.
neere1
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9 44 4 . 1 9 8 7 ( 2 8 )
JUL I3BBT
Mr. James Boggs • " '
Wickes Mechanical Components
P.O. Box 999
Southfield, MI 48037
Dear Mr. Boggs:
As you were informed during your conversation with Mr. Howard
of SAIC on July 1, 1987, some questions have arisen regarding the
classification of your petitioned waste as a listed waste under EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F006. Under the Agency's reinterpretation of
the F006 listing (see 51 FR 43350), wastewater treatment sludge
from electroplating operations involving chemical etching are
considered to be hazardous. Your petition discusses bright
dipping operations that occur at the facility. Bright dipping is
defined as a chemical etching operation (see EPA 440/1-79/003:
Development Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards
for the Electroplating Point Source Category) and thus the peti-
tioned waste appears to be a listed hazardous waste°
In order to clarify the regulatory status of your petitioned
waste, we will need more information about your bright dipping
operations. Please describe the the physical and chemical processes
that occur during bright dipping, the properties and characteristics
you are trying to achieve during bright dipping, and the specific
equipment used for the bright dipping. This information should
be provided for each of your bright dipping options; yellow
dichromate, bright chrome dip, and bright dip.
Once we have received this information, we will be able to
determine whether your facility is still regulated as a generator
of F006 waste. If it is determined that you are still regulated,
another request will be sent detailing the information required
to complete the review of your petition. If you have any questions
please contact ma at (202) 382-4783 or Mr. Howard at (703) 734-3171.
Sincerely,
. Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Variance Section ' '
cc: Allen Debus, Region V
Bill Miner, Region V
-------
9444.1987(29)
June 19, 1987
Ms. Kathie Roos
Chemical Engineer
3738 Harrison Avenue
P.O. Box 4168
Butte, Montana 59702
Dear Ms. Roos:
This is in response to your letter of May 21, 1987, in which
you sought to bring to my attention inconsistencies and problems
your firm has encountered in helping your clients find
appropriate disposal options for various types of
pentachlorophenol wastes. You describe several categories of
wastes (i.e.. bottom sludge cleaned out of dip tanks, PCP-
contaminated dirt, PCP-contaminated sorbent pillows and PCP-
impregnated posts, poles, and railroad ties) for which different
disposal guidance was provided by EPA Headquarters, Regional, and
State Program personnel as well as waste management firms.
In particular, you ask the Agency's position on whether any
of the waste categories described in your letter meet the listing
description of Hazardous Waste Nos. F021, F027, or K001. At the
present time, the K001 listing includes those sludges that are
generated from treatment of wastewaters produced from wood
preserving processes using pentachlorophenol or creosote; the
F021 listing includes those wastes generated from PCP
manufacturing; and the F027 listing includes unused formulations
of PCP (i.e.. the F027 listing does not include those
formulations which are used, such as those which have been
contacted with wood curing wood preservation processes (pressure,
vacuum, or non-pressure processes) or surface protection
processes (antisapstain or sapstain control processes). The word
"used" would apply to the material that remains in the process
vessel after the wood has been treated.
Pentachlorophenol which is impregnated in treated wood
(e.g.. posts, poles, and railroad ties), as mentioned in your
letter also does not meet the F027 description for unused
formulation. Also, dirt contaminated with PCP would not meet the
listing description, unless the contamination were the result of
a spill of unused PCP. In addition, the bottom sludge cleaned
out of dip tanks does not meet the K001 listing description.
Therefore, none of these wastes, except as indicated, are
currently listed hazardous wastes. As a result, these wastes are
not subject to the land restrictions program that was promulgated
on November 8, 1986 (see enclosure). With respect to the PCP-
contaminated sorbent pillows additional information would be
needed (i.e.. the ways in which they are used, whether they are
part of the wastewater treatment system, etc.) before an answer
could be provided on its regulatory status.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
While these wastes are not listed at this time, the Agency
is currently developing regulations for wood preservation and
surface protection residuals which may list these additional
wastes as hazardous. Until that time, however, I agree with you
that good practice requires that these wastes be managed in a
responsible manner (i.e.. as though they were hazardous under
RCRA).
Finally, you should be aware that the States may have a
regulatory program that is 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.
Thank you for your interest and concern in this area.
Please feel free to contact Mr. Robert Scarberry at (202)
382-4769 if you [have] any further questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: Solid waste Management Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ""
944 4 . 198 7 (30 )
JUL 2 I 198T
Mr. James Charley
Fnvironmental Engineer
New United Motor Manufacturi.no
45500 Fremont Poulevard
Frecont, California 94538
Dear Mr. Charley:
This is in response to your letter of June 1, 1987, in
which you request confirmation of the proper classification of
used "paint thinner" and whether such solvent wastes are subject
to the November 7, 1986, land disposal restrictions final rule.
Specifically, you referred to a solvent blend called "paint
thinner" which before use contains flO percent xylene, 9 percent
toluene, and 11 percent glycol ethers.
In your letter, concurrence is requested with respect to
three specific questions. Ttiese questions are restated below
and followed by the appropriate response.
1. "Are we correct in classifying this waste as a D001 rather
than as a F003 or F005 waste?"
—- Although this solvent is used for its solvent properties,
it would not be correctly classified as an F001~17005 spent
solvent. In order for the waste to veet the criteria of a
spent solvent mixture/blend, the solvent Bust include, before
use, a total of ten percent or nore of solvent constituents
covered under Hazardous Waste nunbers P001, POO?, F004, and
POOS. Where a solvent mixture/blend (before use) contains
an F003 listed solvent (i.e., xylene) and F001, F002, F004, an4
F005 solvent constituents, it would not constitute a listed
hazardous waste unless the total of all F001, F002, F004 and
F005 constituents Beet the ten percent threshold. Since the
concentration of toluene (an F005 listed solvent) in the solvent
blend, before use, is only 9 percent, the resultant waste streat!
would not constitute an F001-F005 spent solvent aixturA/blend.
The waste "paint thinner" would be correctly classified as a
0001 hazardous waste if it exhibits the characteristic of
ignitability.
-------
2. "Are_ye correct in statinq that thie waste ia not restricted
under the November 8, 1986 final rule on land disooaal?"
The hazardous wastes prohibited from land disposal effective
November 8/ 1986/ include the F001-F005 spent solvents and certain
dioxin-containing wastes. Since the "paint thinner" waste addressed
in your letter does not constitute a waste covered by the scent
solvent listings/ you are correct in asserting that this waste
would not be subject to the November 1, 1986 final rule (51 FR
40572). If this waste stream exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability), it will
be subject to the land disposal restrictions when the Aoency
promulgates treatment standards for characteristic wastes by th»
May 1990, statutory deadline.
3. "If this waste is restricted, are there any variances provided?
Specifically:
a) Soil contaminated with this waste.
b) Shop rags contaminated with this waste."
The waste described above is not restricted from land disposal.
However, if it were a restricted waste (i.e., an F001-F005 spent
solvent), the only applicable variances are the following: 1) a
24-month statutory exemption (i.e., until November 8, 1?R8) from
the land disposal prohibitions for solvent-containing soils Generated
from Comprehensive Environmental Response, Comoensation, and Liahilitv
Act (CERCLA) response actions and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) corrective actions? 2) solvent-water mixtures, solvent-
containing sludges or solids, or solvent contaminated soils
(non-CERCLA or RCRA corrective action) which contain less than
1% total F001-F005 solvent constituents; or 3) solvent-containino
wastes fron small quantity generators of 100-1000 kg/month.
Soil and shop rags contaminated with solvents are only subject
to a 2-year nationwide variance if they meet at least one of
the above criteria.
I hope this information adequately addresses vour concerns.
Please feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at
(202) 475-6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
9444. 19 87(31)
JJL
zsetf
Ma. Shirlee Schiffman, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous Waste Regulation
and Classification
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, KY 08625
Deaz Me. Schiffmant
This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1987, in
which you requested our interpretation on several issues involving
electroplating rinsewaters. Specifically, you requested confirmation
of your conclusions drawn as a result of your telephone conversa-
tions with Mr. David Topping, of ay staff. In addition, you
requested our answers to five specific questions relating to the
hazardous waste/non-hazardous waste status of used ion exchange
resins that were used to treat electroplating rins«wat.ez«.
First, I would like to respond to the two questions you
discussed with MX. David Topping. In particular, I agree with
your conclusions thati 1) rinsewaters fron electroplating opera-
tions were not meant to be included"tn~the F009 listing (spent
stripping and cleaning-bath solutions from electroplating opera-
tions where cyanides are used in the process), and 2) rt^i^ual
droplets of stripping, cleaning, or electroplating solutions
present on the metal would not make the rinsewaters haz&xdous uy
the "mixture rule" when the metal parts aze zinced off. In the
first case, zinsewatezs are not considerod spent stripping oz
cleaning bath solutions; in the second case, tzace amounts of
plating bath solutions that aze cazzied ovez to rinse tanks aze
not considezed to be a solid waste mixing with another solid
waste. These materials aze in use and aze not wastes until they
are spent and removed fzom the process. The remaining questions
will be answezed in the same ozdez that they aze presented in your
letteri
1. Ybux fizst question asks "can a wastew&ter treatment
system which only is tzeating a non-hatazdous electro-
plating waste (such as zinsewatezs) pzoduce an F006
listed hazardous waste?" The answez to this question
is yes; the sludge fzom the treatment of electroplating
wastewatez contains toxic metals at concentzation many
times highez than theiz concentzation in the wastewateis
mi
. i . &A.I«C\.T f3B namng ximfewateijs axe noxi fcpecr icfciy speu
-------
in 40 CFR 261 Subpazt D, they cay exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic (EP toxicity) under 40 CFR 261
Subpart C for certain toxic metals.
2. Youz second question asks "would an ion exchange
canister which has been used to capture metals and
cyanide from non-hazardous electroplating zinsewaters
only, be considered to contain wastewatez treatment
sludges from electroplating operations (EPA Hazardous
Waste Ho. F006)?" The answer to this question also is
yes. Section 260.10 of 40 CFR defines sludges as "any
solid, semi-solid, ot liquid wast* generated from a
municpal, commercial, oz industzial wastewatez treatment
plant, watez supply treatment plant, oz effluent from
a wastewatez treatment plant." Thus, any residuals
generated from treatment of waatewaters from electro-
plating operations foz pollution contiol would be
considered an F006 listed waste.
3. Youz third question asks "is the ion exchange zesin,
which is similar in function to activated carbon (i.e.,
used to remove pollutants from wastewatezs), considered
a 'sludge* in this situation? Once again, the answer
is yes foz the same reason given above.
4. Youz fourth question asks "do xinsewatezs from electro-
plating operations fall within the scope of any listed
hazazdous wastes?" The answer to this question is no;
electzopiating zinsewatezs aze not a listed hazazdous
waste undez 40 CFR 261, Subpazt D. Howevez, as I
indicated eazliez, electzopiating zinsewatezs may
exhibit a hazazdous waste characteristic undez 40 CFR
261, Subpazt C.
5. Youz fifth question asks "does the 'mixtuze zule'
apply to zinsewatezs fzoa electzopiating operations due
to the pzesence of 'residual dzoplets1 of stzipping,
cleaning, oz electzopiating solutions?" This question
was answered previously.
If you have furthez questions zelating to this subject,
please feel fzee to call Mr. Edwin F. Abzams at (202) 3fc2-47b7.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Wat»te Chazacterization branch
-------
i ei_ I I
. 9444.1987(31a
JUI
Kr. Siraans
Raymark Industrial Division
1204 Darlington Avenue
Crawford!villa, Xndlaaa 47933
Dear Mr. Sirmanai
After our review of Raycark's delisting petition (10627)
submitted to the Agency on August 16, 1985, and of additional
information supplied in support of the petition, the Variance*
Section has established that Raymark's waste does not weet the
corrected listing description for K062 wastes published on
September 22, 1986 (51 PR 33612), which amended the K062 listing
promulgated on May 28, 1986 (51 PR 19320). The listing now
refers to "pickle liquor generated by steel finishing operations
of facilitiee within the iron and steel industry (81C Cedee 331
and 332).* Since you have identified your etching processes as
being classified under SIC Codes 3465 and 3449, your waste pickle
liquor is not a listed hazardous waste and may be managed as a
•olid waste under Subtitle D regulations* Your petition is*
therefore, mooted, and we have cloeed yoor file. Please be
reminded that your waste must still be tested periodically to
verify that it does not demonstrate any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste.
Should you have any questions regarding our evaluation,
please contact Scott Maid* of my staff, at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely*
Mylea Morse, Chief
Variances Section
cct Allen Debos, EPA Keg. V
William Muno, EPA Reg. V
Karl Bremer, EPA Beg. V
-------
9444.1987(33)
HUG T
Mr. William S. Harer
CHEM-CLEAR
992 Old Eagle School Road
Suite 915
Wayne, PA 19087
Dear Mr. Harer:
This is response to your letter of May 12, 1987, in which
you requested an interpretation regarding the regulatory status
of a waste generated by one of your clients. Specifically, the
waste in question is generated by caustic rinsing metal parts
that have been cleaned with a solvent containing over 10%, by
volume, trichloroethylene.
The Agency does not consider small amounts of solvent
carried over on the metal parts from solvent decreasing to meet
the listing description of a spent solvent. Therefore, if any
solvent is carried over into the caustic rinse water, th«
mixture rule would not be applicable. Thus, the caustic rinse
water would only be a hazardous waste if it exhibits one of the
hazardous waste characteristics [ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity]. Since your
caustic rinse water does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, as was demonstrated by your client's analytical
results, the caustic rinse water would not appear to be a
hazardous waste under the Federal hazardous waste regulations.
However, you should be aware that the State's hazardous waste
regulations may be more stringent than the federal hazardous
waste rules. Therefore, you should contact a representative
from the State to determine the waste's regulatory status under
the State's hazardous waste program.
If you require additional information, please contact Ed
Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
-------
944 4. 1987 (34)
*, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCN
>, . * WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
7 OFFICE OF
I i; . • SOLiO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Disposal of Wastes from the Environmental Chemistry
Laboratory in Bay^St.-^ouis,, Mississippi
/ ' • " J^t
FROM: Marcia E. Williams,/Bir*£t0f M."*-
Office of Solid Waste (WB-562)
! i '
TO: Allen L. Jennings, Director
Benefits and Use Division (TS-768-C)
This is in response to your July 1, 1987, memorandum in which
you requested our reaction and guidance on your plans to dispose
of wastes generated by the Office of Pesticide Program's. Environ-
mental Chemistry Laboratory (ECL), located in Bay St. Louis,
Mississippi. ECL analyzes environmental samples for trace levels
(ppm, ppb) of pesticides, herbicides, and related compounds, and
ultra trace levels (ppt) of chlorinated dioxias. You presently
have fifteen 35-gallon drums of miscellaneous laboratory wastes
contaminated with low levels of dioxin and the equivalent of
another seventy-five 35-gallon drums of environmental samples;
these drums are currently being stored in freezers and other
storage areas at ECL.
As a result of your July 24 meeting with my staff, it is my
understanding that the wastes in question are not the listed dioxin
containing wastes under RCRA (40 CFR 261.31) and as such are not
subject to the special management requirements for the listed
dioxin wastes. These wastes, however, are likely to contain low
levels of dioxins and as such should be managed with care. High
temperature incineration is an appropriate means of disposal. We,
therefore* •acoarage you to proceed with your proposal to send
your laboratory wastes to ThermalKEM for incineration at their
interim status fixed hearth, dual chamber, high temperature unit
in Rock Bill, South Carolina.
If you have and further questions, please feel free to con-
tact me.
-------
9444.1987(36
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204*0
OP'ICI Of
•QUO WASTI AND IMIMOINCY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Listing Program's decision on Chevron Chemical
Company's waste from Tower 201 in their polystyrene
production process in Marietta, Ohio.
FROM: Matthew A. Straus **
TO: Steve Hirsch
On July 28, you met with Barry Millman (Dynaraac), my staff,
and me, to discuss Region V's request for assistance in deter-
mining whether Chevron Chemical Company generates an POOS waste .'
in Tower 201 in their polystyrene production process in Marietta:/
Ohio. I assigned Chuck Lawheed with the task of gathering the
information necessary to enable us to make a decision. On
August 4, he submitted to me a summary of the arguments relevant
to the issue, as we defined it in the meeting mentioned above.
(See attached memo)* The decision at which we arrived if out-
lined below. If you have any questions or comments, please sub-
mit them to me by August 26. We intend to write George Hamper
(Region V) to inform him of our decision.
Listing Program's Decision on the Chevron Issue;
The Listing Program has decided that toluene is used as a sol-
vent in Chevron Chemical Company's polystyrene production process
and, therefore, that waste from Tower 201 is the listed hazardous
waste, POOS, still bottoms from the recovery of spent toluene.
This decision was made, based on the following information:
1. In a document submitted by Squire, Sandersf and Dempeey
on behalf of Chevron, it was stated that the toluene
is "added as a diluent* in the process. The toluene
is also used as a carrier, or diluent, for the additives
which art used in the process.
2. Both styrene and toluene are recovered in Tower 201;
they are separated from the tars in this column. There-
fore, the waste generated at this point in the process
qualify as still bottoms from the recovery of spent
toluene, an POOS waste.
-------
-2-
3. The closed loop recycling process exemption does not
apply to this process.
4. Chevron made several arguments that have not been ad-
dressed by this decision. We feel that the (3) deter-
minations above resolve the issue by themselves.
Support for the decision;
1. Peter Oxenbol of Chevron Chemical Company commented that the
term "o^Uient" had been used by them before th&ealized
that to carried nfcy^t such a weighty connotation (MwtLJLt
use as a diluent constitutes use as a solvent.) He sug-
gested that a different word or description could be
used which would not be as sensitve as the work "dilu-
ent". The definitier^f^the word "diluent", however,
is quite clear, and\It was chosen previously as an
accurate description of the role that toluene plays in -
the reaction. Chevron wishes to use a different word >
now, but toluene's function will not be changed by
doing so.
2. Of the feed that enters Tower 201, roughtly 83% is unreacted
styrene and 4% is toluene and they are both separated,
together, from the tars in the column. Toluene may not be
the major component in the feed stream to the column, but
it is nonetheless being recovered at this point in the
separated from the styrene.
3. The Federal Register excerpt on the closed loop recycling
process reads as follows: *Xt should be noted that, under
today's rule, although secondary materials stored in
closed-loop reclamation processes that fit within the
exclusion of S261.4(a)(8) are not solid waste, wastes from
their management are solid wastes. Thus, still bottoms
from solvent reclamaton in a no exclusion applies for
another reason, and can be hazardous wastes if they are
identified or listed. In this regard, the Agency notes
that many still bottoms from solvent reclamation are listed
wastes, as are the residual spent solvents themselves
(Hazardous Wastes F001-005)." (51 FR 25443)
4. Chevron's other arguments, that toluene is present in the waste
in the in only de minimis quantities, that toluene "is an
essential ingredient in the process from a kinetic stand-
point", etc., became moot points because it was decided
that the waste was the listed waste, F005.
Attachments: ( 1 )
-------
UH^ift CTATK 1HWIWWMIMTAL FMTtCTIOffA 9444.1987(37)
Technical Manager
American Chrome and Chemicals , Inc. '""- ' 9
Buddy Lawrence Drive
P.O. Box 9913
Corpus Christ!* TX 78469
Dear Mr. Barnhart:
This letter is in response to your July 13, 1987 inquiry
regarding the status of the K006 wastes and the on-site disposal
unit containing these wastes at your Corpus Christi facility.
As mentioned in your letter* these wastes received a temporary
exclusion on May 25, 1982. Based on our evaluation of the
information submitted in support of your petition* however/
the temporary exclusion for this waste was revoked and a final
exclusion denied on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 41320-41321) with
an effective date of May 14, 1987.
The State of Texas has been authorized by EPA to administer
and enforce a hazardous waste management program pursuant to
Section 3006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. $6926. In light of the State's
authority, the future status of this disposal unit should be
determined by the Texas Water Commission. This will ensure that
the use of the unit will be commensurate with ongoing and planned
waste management requirements at the facility.. In- a similar'
manner, if this unit is to close in the future* all closure
requirements should be determined by the Commission.
I hope this explanation has addressed all of your concerns
regarding the status of your petitioned wastes and the on-site
disposal unit in which they are contained. Should you have any
further questions concerning the Federal regulatory compliance
for the petitioned waste* please feel free to contact Suzanne
Rudzinski of the Office of Solid Waste at (202)382-4206.
Sincerely*
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
ccs Allyn Davit?, Keg ion VI Oiv. Dir.
Lee Haze* Region VI Del1sting Contact
Saa Becker* Region VI Ka\* Enforcement Contact
Randy Brown, Region VZ •£•*> Branch Chief
Bill Honker* Region VI
-------
9444.1987(38)
September 1, 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director (WH-562)
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Director
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
Our office has reviewed the information you provided in your
July 29th memo, in which you requested an interpretation of 40
CFR 261, as it applies to a still bottom waste generated during
the production of polystyrene at the Chevron Chemical Company,
Marietta, OH. We have decided that toluene is used as a solvent
in the process; therefore, the tower 201 still bottoms are a F005
hazardous waste that is generated during the recovery of spent
toluene.
The following information was used to make our decision and
to address the concerns outlined in your memo.
1. In a document submitted by Squire, Sanders, and Dempsey
on behalf of Chevron, it was stated that the toluene is
"added as a diluent" in the process. The toluene is also
used as a carrier, or diluent, for the additives which
are used in the process. The property of a RCRA solvent
is the ability to solubilize, or to act as a diluent.
2. Both styrene and toluene are recovered in Tower 201; they
are separated from the tars in this column. Therefore,
the waste generated at this point in the process are
still bottoms from the recovery of spent toluene, and
F005 waste.
3. The closed loop recycling process exemption does not
apply to this process. (See attached discussion)
4. Chevron made several arguments (e.g., the waste is not
ignitable and, consequently, not hazardous; the waste
does not contain toluene) that have not been addressed by
this decision. We feel that the three determinations
above resolve the issue of, whether the material in
question is hazardous waste.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Additional discussion on items 1-4;
1. Peter Oxenbol of Chevron Chemical Company commented that
the term "diluent" had been used by them before they
realized that it has carried with it such a weighty
connotation (that use as a diluent constitutes use as a
solvent.) He suggested that a different word or
description could be used which would not be as sensitive
as the word "diluent". The definition of the word
"diluent", however, is quite clear, and it was chosen
previously as an accurate description of the role that
toluene plays in the reaction. Chevron wishes to use a
different word now, but toluene's function will not be
changed by doing so.
2. Of the feed that enters Tower 201, roughly 83% is
unreacted styrene and 4% is toluene. They are both
separated, together, from the tars in the column.
Toluene may not be the major component in the feed stream
to the column, but it is nonetheless being recovered at
this point in the separation from the styrene.
3. The Federal Register excerpt on the closed loop recycling
process reads as follows: "It should be noted that,
under today's rule, although secondary materials stored
in closed-loop reclamation processes that fit within the
exclusion of §261.4(a)(8) are not solid waste, wastes
from their management are solid wastes. Thus, still
bottoms from solvent reclamation, if an exclusion applies
for another reason, can be hazardous wastes if they are
identified or listed. In this regard, the Agency notes
that many still bottoms from solvent reclamation are
listed wastes, as are the residual spent solvents
themselves (Hazardous Wastes F001-005)." (FR Vol. 51, No.
134, 25443).
4. Chevron's other arguments, that toluene is present in the
waste in only de minimis quantities, and that toluene "is
an essential ingredient in the process from a kinetic
standpoint", etc., became moot points because it was
decided that the waste was the listed waste, F005.
If you wish to discuss the above in further detail, please
call Yvonne Garbe on FTS 4/5-66/9 of my staff.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1987(39)
21987
Mr. John S. Ramsey
Hazardous Waste Section
Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Topeka, KS 66620-0001
Dear Mr. Ramsey:
This is in response to your recent letter which requested a
clarification of the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste 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". In particular, you were concerned with the
regulatory status of wastewater generated from this production
process.
In a recent telephone conversation, I concurred with your
interpretation that this exclusion applies only to wastewaters from
hydrogen chloride purification. However, after researching the
issue, I learned that no wastewater is generated from by-product HC1
purification and that the Agency had intended the exclusion to apply
to all process wastewaters.
I apologize for this hasty determination. As you indicated in
your letter, an EPA memorandum dated March 29, 1985, also clarifies
that the RCRA "Dioxin" listing specifically excludes all wastewaters
resulting from the PCP manufacturing operations. I hope that my
error has not inconvenienced you in any way.
If you require additional information, please feel free to
contact me or Ed Abrams of my staff at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Robert N. Scarberry
Chief, Listing Section
-------
9444.1987(40)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENC* BESPONS
SEP 9
Mr. Alfred A. Levin
Manager
Toxics Substances Control
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
5600 River Road
Rosemont, IL 60018-5119
Dear Mr. Levin:
This is in response to your letter of July 16, 1987, regard-
ing whether certain materials contaminated with the registered
pesticides, chlordane and heptachlor would be considered hazardous
wastes. As stated in your letter, professional pesticide applica-
tors dilute the concentrated pesticides and apply them for use to
control structural termites.
You describe three scenarios that result in the contamination
of materials due to the accidental spilling or over-application of
these pesticides. In the first scenario, the pesticide solution
is applied around a home with a swimming pool, water from the
swimming pool moves through cracks in the pool's wall and enters
the soil. Soil contaminants then move out of the soil into the
pool. The pesticide was then discovered to have migrated into
the pool. You want to know whether the water in the pool (when
discarded) is a hazardous waste. As stated in 40 CFR 261(d)(1)(3),
listed commercial chemical products are not wastes when applied
to land if that ii their normal manner of use. Since the contami-
nation of th« pool water resulted from the normal use of the
pesticide aa a product, rather than from its disposal, the pool
water is not hazardous waste via the mixture rule.
In the second scenario, a professional applicator spills
some of the pesticide outside on the grass (soil) away from the
intended site of application, creating a very low-level contami-
nation of the sod. He collects the contaminated soil and you
wish to know whether it is a hazardous waste. The contaminated
soil that is collected is a hazardous waste; disposal is defined
at 40 CPR 260.10 to include spilling any solid or hazardous
waste into or on any land. Under 40 CPR 261.33(d), hazardous
-------
-2-
wastes are defined to include contaminated soil or debris resulting
from the cleanup of a spill on any land of listed commercial chem-J
ical products, which includes chlordane and heptachlor. Thus,
the contaminated soil is subject to regulation provided you exceed
the small quantity generator limit (i.e. , clean'up more than 100
kg in a calendar month). If you clean up less than 100 kg per
month, you are subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 261.5(f)
(for heptachlor) or (g) for chlordane.
In the third scenario, a professional applicator either over-
applies or spills the pesticide, resulting in a residue on the
carpet or wallboard of a house. You want to know whether the
contaminated carpet and wallboard, after they are removed, are
hazardous wastes. Regardless whether it is spilled or overapplied,
contaminated carpet or wallboard should be safely managed. Depen-
ding on the individual circumstances, sound management is required
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIBLA)
or RCRA. First, if the contaminated carpet or wallboard results!
from overapplication of the pesticide, the carpet or wallboard
would not be a hazardous waste, since the contamination resulted
from the use of the pesticide. This would be a violation of
FIFRA, however, and the Agency could take proper action under
FIFRA to ensure safe disposal. On the other hand, if the carpet
or wallboard became contaminated as a result of spilling the
pesticide, the carpet or wallboard (after they are removed)
would be a hazardous waste, since this would be considered disposal
of the pesticides. The cleanup of this debris would be covered
by 40 CFR 261.33(d), as discussed above for the second scenario.
In response to your inquiry into the possibility of a delist-
ing of the dilute wastes generated by professional applicators,
we believe it is most appropriate to evaluate these materials on
a spill-specific basis. These materials can vary in hazardous
constituent concentrations, waste volumes, and exposure scenarios.
Consequently, we believe it is inappropriate to promulgate a
generic exclusion for spill residues and related materials.
You also requested the Agency's advice as to what information,
in addition to the requirements discussed in the Delisting Guid-
ance Document, would be useful for the evaluation of petitions
to delist dilute solutions or minimum concentrations of chlordane
and heptchlor. One requirement which is not listed in the current
-------
-3-
guidance document is that four quarters of ground water monitoring
data from a compliant system und'er Subpart F must be submitted
by the petitioner for any on-site land-based management unit.
other available data which you submit will be considered, but be
aware that the current Agency policy is that delisting is waste-
specific, and site-specific factors (i.e. , intended management,
local hydrogeologic attenuation properties) are generally not
considered.
If you have additional questions, please feel free to call
Ms. Wanda LeB leu- Biswas, of my staff, at (202) 382-7392.
Sincerely yours,
Marc
Direftot
/Office/of Solid Waste
-------
9444 .1987 (41)
rs
Ms. Sharon Rillmer
Regulatory Coordinator
Colonial Printing Ink Corporation
180 East onion Avenus
Cast Rutherford, New Jersey 07073
Dear Ws. Rillmert
Thin responds to your Auoust 4, 1987, letter reouestino
clarification of the EPA Pazardous Waste Number for your waste
from ink formulation. You are uncertain whether the spent
solvents contained in the waste stream are included under the
K086 listing, or also must be designated as an P001-POOS spent
solvent.
Aa stated in an earlier phone conversation, thero it« no
question that your waste meets the description for tPk Hazardous
Waste Number R086 pursuant to 40 CPU 261.32. However, »s the
background document for the K086 listing (entitled "Background
Document Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wast*') statesr
"... if these solvents are used in ink formulation tftd are
disposed of, they are considered hazardous wastes undex the
earlier listing as well as the present listing.* Therefore,
should your waste also meet the description-for the F0fll-ppcn
spent solvent wastes, your waste must be designated as ore for
more) of the P001-P005 hazardous wastes, as well as belno
designated as R086.
Absent the K086 listing, most wastes from ink formulation
would be listed only as P001-P003 spent solvents, though not
necessarily (not all K086 wastes contain the listed spent sol-
vents, and therefore, would not be listed as such>c however,
the solvent listings do not address the constituents of concern
in the ink formal at Ion wastes (i.e., lead and hexavalent chromium).
Therefore, tlM K086 listing is reouired to address these con-
stituents of concern, and the P-listing is recu1red to address
the spent solvents when appropriate.
In our Initial discussions on the prooer designation for
your wastes, the assumption was that the 1086 wavte also contained
spent POOS solvent constituents. If this was the ease, both
-------
Che K086 and POOS designations would be required. However,
upon further investigation, it was ascertained that the solvent
of concern is a Mixture of cyclohaxanone (an F003 solvent) and
a naphtha solvent.
A solvent eixture containing cyclohexanone would be
designated as F003 when spent only if, before use, the eixtur*
contains only the solvents listed under F003, or a total of 10%
or «ore (by voluae) of the solvents included under the F001,
F002, F004, and F005 listings. Because the cyelohexanone used
in your process is aixed with only a non F001-FQ03 solvent, the
waste cannot be designated as an F003.
Therefore, your waste would only be designated as *04€,
without a designation for the solvent constituents. T*e solvent
designation is not included because the solvent, before use, does
not iieet the criteria for the F003 listing (not because the
solvents are included in the K086 listing).
I hope this has clarified the classification of your waste.
Should you have any questions or need further information, please
feel free to call ** at (202) 382-4805.
Sincerely,
Mitch Kldvell
Environmental Protection Specialist
-------
9444. 19 87(4 2)
I* 1967
Jill ft. Blunoon
ftoppera Co«p*ny, Inc.
Legal ttervicea
4J* deventfc Ave.
j?ittaourgn, PA 1521*
Dear AS. ttlundon:
la your July 10, 1*67 letter, you request vrlttea coariraa-
tioa 01 toe regulatory atatua uaaer tne Aeaource Conservation aae*
a«cov«ry Act ot ••v«ral •uostanccs cootaialng chloropo«noHc
coapounos.
ricat* you c*qu««t clacicicatloo of tne regulatory ouatu* of
to« coaa«rcial product iioitant** a torauiation coat la &3la oy
«opp«ra aa an anti-atainiog aatarial for luooar iaurtac«
agant). «y atari oaa conflravo In convaraaciona vlto
paatacoloropoanol ia tna aola activa iagracuent of taia
Olacaroao unuaao toraulatiooa of paotacnloropDaool, auc^ a&
Moitaaa* ara liatao basarooaa vaataa uodar part ^cl.Jl o£ tfia
Coda of reoeral «tagulatlooar aaaaly *VA Masarooua wtate no. ^027
(Olacaroad unuaao foraulatioaa containing tri-, tatra** or
paatacnloropnanolf or dlacardao unuaao roraulationa containing
coapouada darivao fro* thaaa cnloropnaaoia).
sacoao* you raqvaat olarlficatloa ot tna regulatory atatua or
woo4 ealpa ajM aawoa«% oarivad rroa vooo vnicn naa oaaa traatao
vita paatAaa^oropoaaol taoxtaae*). Taaaa voou cnip ana aavauat
vaata ara ••* carrantly llatad aa naxarooua waat« unoar aitnar
fart 2*l.)Xo* 2»1.32. T&acarora^ taaaa vaataa «oula o« aaaxgnatea
aa naxardoua under ACMA only if tney eiaiolted one or aore or tne
cnaracteriatlca under duopart c of fart
-------
-2-
You should be aware that the Office of Solid Waste is
currently considering listing as hazardous a number of wastes
from processes which use chlorophenolic compounds to prevent the
staining of wood including spent formulations as well as sawdust
and planar shavings. Although these wastes are not currently listed
as hazardous wastes, they do contain hazardous constituents and I
recommend that you dispose of them in an environmentally safe manner.
Finally, you inquire whether wood chips and sawdust is
prohibited under EPA regulations. Unless the materials exhibit
a characteristic of hazardous waste,then there are no EPA regula-
tions that prohibit their disposal or incineration.
If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Cat* Jenkins
of my staff at (202) 382-4786.
Sincerely*
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
944 4. 1987 (4 3)
ocr 9W
Ms. Barbara E. Pace
Hogan & Hartson
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Dear Ms. Pace:
This letter is a response to your August 19, 1987, letter in
which you request an interpretation of 40 CFR Section 261.31 as
it applies to the filter cake waste generated during the produc-
tion of methyldopa at a Merck and Company facility. Based on a
review of the process information that you have provided, we have
determined that the filter cake waste described in your letter is
not a listed spent solvent waste (F005) for the reason stated
below.
The waste in question is generated as a result of filter-
ing the product stream to remove iron. Although toluene is being
used for its solvent properties, (i.e., to mobilize or solubilize
the product), at this point in the process the toluene is not
spent. Thus, the iron cake is neither a residual from the treat-
ment of a spent solvent nor a mixture of a solid waste and a
spent solvent, but rather a waste that is contaminated with
toluene. Pursuant to the listing background document and the
preamble to the Federal Register notice, the F001 through F005
solvent listings do not apply to process waste streams that are
contaminated with solvents.
Please advise your client that our decision is based on the
information provided in your letter and that deviations to the
described process could result in a different interpretation. In
addition, the generator is responsible for testing this waste to
determine if the residual exhibits any RCRA hazardous character-
istics (e.g.. corrosivity, toxicity, reactivity, or ignitability)
as defined in 40 CFR Subpart C.
-------
If you wish to discuss this matter further, please call
Yvonne Garbe at (202) 475-6679, or myself at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Robert Scarberry
Acting Branch Chief
Waste Characterization
Branch
cc: Yvonne Garbe, WCB
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL f... fECTION AGENCY A
9444.1987(44)
Phillip G. Retallick, Director
Division of Air and Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
State of Delaware
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
Dear Mr. Retallick:
This is in response to your October 1, 1987 letter requesting
EPA's interpretation of the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste as it
applies to Standard Chlorine's proposed thermal oxidizer and
hydrodechlorination processes. As you know, a panel of the
District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals held (in a "2-1 deci-
sion) in American Mining Congress vs EPA. No. 85-1206 (D.C.
Cir.), that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority in certain
respects by including within its definition of solid waste
certain types of materials not intended by Congress to be "dis-
carded materials" under RCRA section 1004(27). We are still.
studying the court's opinion and we plan to issue an interpreta-
tion as to how the EPA regulations are affected by the ruling by
about mid or late November. We cannot comment on how EPA
regulations affecting Standard Chlorine's processes are affected
by the court's ruling at this time.
Since Delaware has adopted under State lav rules equivalent
to EPA's, you have asked for an interpretation as to how standard
Chlorine would be regulated under EPA's January 4, 1985, rules,
if the court's opinion did not exist. Based on the materials
that you sent to Mike Petruska in August and September, we have
reached the following conclusions:
(1) Standard Chlorine's "polychlor material" is the
distillation bottoms from the production of chlorinated
benzenes, and therefore, is a by-product that meets the
listing description of hazardous waste No. K085. (We do
not agree that these bottoms are a co-product, as
Standard Chlorine claims.)
-------
- 2 -
(2) The Agency considers both the thermal oxidizer and
hydrodechlorination processes to be forms of reclama-
tion. These processes are designed to recover materials/
products (Muriatic Acid, chlorobenzenes, or benzenes)
from a listed by-product; and under Section 261.2(c)(4),
this constitutes reclamation.
(3) Pursuant to Section 261.2(c)(3), listed by-products that
are reclaimed are solid wastes.
In summary, our interpretation under the January 4, 1985
rules would be that the polychlor material is a solid waste
when reclaimed using either the thermal oxidizer or the hydrode-
chlorination process, and thus is a hazardous waste subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
If you have further questions in this area, please feel free
to continue to deal with Mike Petruska of my staff, at (202)
382-7729.
•
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9444.1987(47)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
WASHINGTON, O.C. 204«0
' ^ 3 "">"T OFFICE OF
'• 2 ' SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Mr. Michael Mclaughlin
Vice President
SCS Engineers
11260 Roger Bacon Drive
Reston, VA 22090-5282
Dear Mr. Mclaughlin:
This is in response to your letter of September 1, 1987, to
Matt Straus, concerning regulation of supernatant liquid resulting
from treatment of spent pickle liquor (EPA waste K062).
In the situation you have described, the impoundment would be
a regulated unit under RCRA if it stores any supernatant liquid
from the lime-stabilization of waste pickle liquor. The super-
natant forms during clarification of the lime-stabilifced mixture.
The preamble to the June 5, 1984 Federal Register (49 FR 23284)
states that "... sludge from the treatment of spent pickle liquor
(K062) is generated by a well known technique involving lime
neutralization, flocculation, clarification, and, in inust cases,
dewatering of the resultant sludge.
According to Agency policy (see OSWER Directive number
(9441.12184) attached), the exclusion under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)
applies to the sludge generated from the treatment process, but not
the supernatant liquid. Because Section 261.3(c)(2)(ii) does not
address the supernatant portion arising from lime stabilization of
waste pickle liquor, that liquid portion would be derived from
K062, and thus a hazardous waste, per Section 261.3(c)(2)(i). A
surface impoundment holding this supernatant portion would be
subject to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C.
-------
If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike
PetrusJca of my staff at (202) 382-7729.
Sincerely,
Mar-cia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
WASHINGTON. D.C. 204(0
Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY MESPONSi
Kevin Mouser, R.P.S.
Hazard Materials Specialist
Bureau of Environmental Health
Department of Water Quality and
Hazardous Materials Management
Marion County Health Department
22 East Ohio Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Dear Mr. Mouser:
This is in response to your September 25, 1987, letter to
Matt Straus concerning the dioxin-contaminated oils. This letter
explains the regulatory requirements for the used oil in question,
and then (as you requested) recommends additional management
practices you may want to consider.
First, from the information you provided, the contaminated oil
is not an EPA-listed hazardous waste, and would only be a hazardous
waste under RCRA if it exhibits any of the hazardous character-
istics. The only wastes listed as hazardous under RCRA due to the
presence of dioxins are found in 40 CFR 261.31 under the hazardous
waste numbers F020-23 and F026-28. Most of the listed diojtin
wastes are manufacturing process wastes; the exception is F027,
which covers discarded unused formulations containing tri-, tetra-,
or pentachlorophenol or compounds derived from these chloro-
phenols. The waste in question is actually lubricating oil
contaminated with TCDD. The contamination resulted from use of the
TCDD as an analytical standard, rather than from mixing of the oil
with TCDD that is intended for discard. Therefore, the contam-
inated lubricating oil would not meet the F027 listing.
-------
Second, please note that all used oils, whether they are
hazardous by a characteristic or not, are subject to 40 CFR Part
266, Subpart F, if burned for energy recovery (or made into a
fuel). If you decide to manage the oil in some other manner,
however, no EPA regulations apply. You should check with the
appropriate State agency to determine if state regulations
apply.
Finally, you asked for storage and disposal recommenda-
tions. With regard to disposal, the most protective approach
would be to ship the oil to a permitted hazardous waste
incinerator. The regulations that EPA promulgated for small
quantity hazardous waste generators, which are summarized in the
enclosed handbook, contain recommended practices for storage.
(The handbook also includes the address and phone number of the
State regulatory agency in your area.)
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska at (202) 382-7729.
Sincerely
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9444. 1987(49)
(XT
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 261.2(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 washwater sent to the oil/water separator is ignit-
able, it would be classified as a D001 hazardous waste, and would
remain such for as long as it exhibits the ignitability 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 Ezekwo
EPA Region II
Air and Hazardous Waste Division
-------
9444. 1987 (51 )
-4 1967
Mr. Joe Berkant
EtfCO, Inc.
P.O. Box 2193
East Gadsden, Alabama 72401
Hear Mr. tJerkant:
Daaed upon our review of your original dellatlng petition
(*05d3) and additional Information submitted to our office, as
well aa infornatlon provided in converaations between Kenneth
Layton, P.E. (Roblson & Layton, Inc.) and Cecil ^ross (SAIO), we
have re-evaluated the processes at your plant with respect to
EPA'a recent clarification of the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F006. On December 2, 1986, « redefinition of the P006
listing was published (see 51 PR 4?35C-«3351) which exempted
electroless plating processes, among others, from coverage as a
listed hazardous waste. Since external currents are not used in
asaoclation with coating processes at your facility, and n^no of
the manufacturing processes described In your jotltion fell into
the &roup of processes currently defined as electroplating pro-
cesses, we conclude that your wastewater treatr^nt sludge;* an
described in your petition, is not Included wl^in the accpe of
CPA Hazardous Waste VQ. POOfi. V'e, therefore, .ire clo«ln
-------
December, 11, 1987 9444.1987(52)
Mr. Jordan Dern
Manager, Environmental Regulatory Programs
Koppers Company, Incorporated
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Dear Mr. Dern:
The Permits and State Programs Division has reviewed your
September 21, 1983 petition (#0528) requesting an exclusion from
regulation for sludges, presently classified as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K035, generated at the Koppers1 Follanabee, West
Virginia facility. We will recommend to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that your
petition be denied. There are two reasons for this
recommendation: (1) groundwater monitoring data indicates that
the subject units and waste may be contaminating groundwater; and
(2) the waste has not been sufficiently characterized to
demonstrate that it is non-hazardous. (Note: We have not
previously requested some of the missing information because of
(a) confusion created by the petition as to which wastes are
treated in the system, and (b) the evolving requirements of the
Delisting Program). The specific bases for our recommendation
are further described below.
However, before further explaining our denial
recommendation, let us first address your contentions that the
waste to be delisted is not subject to regulation.
Your firm contended that its wastewater treatment system
does not generate or treat a listed hazardous waste.
Specifically, you argued that the waste is a sludge generated
from the biological treatment of creosote production wastewaters
and that the K035 listing (wastewater treatment sludges generated
in the production of creosote) is not applicable to this waste
because the listing background document does not include
biological treatment sludges.
The Agency disagrees. The K035 listing background document
specifically includes biological sludges:
2. Creosote Wastewater Treatment Sludge
The wastewater treatment sludges that remain after
biological treatments are also hazardous. The carcinogenic
constituents of creosote, namely benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(a)pyrene, are specifically
likely to be present in the treatment sludge since these
constituents absorb to sediment at very high levels (App.
B). Where treatment is incomplete, creosote (which is,
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
however, somewhat amenable to biodegradation (App. B), is
projected to be present in the sludge as well. If these
sludges are placed in a leaking landfill, an unlined holding
pond, or an improperly sited facility (i.e., as in an area
with permeable soil), the waste constituents may be
released."
For this reason, the Agency concludes that the wastewater
treatment sludge generated at the Koppers' Follanabee, West
Virginia facility is a listed hazardous waste K035.
In addition, your firm contends that the aeration basins are
tanks, not surface impoundments, and are therefore exempt from
regulation under 40 CFR 261.4(c). As explained in the attached
October 11, 1985 letter from Stephen Wasserang (EPA Region III),
EPA examined the structural details of the aeration units and
found that the units do not meet the criteria for tanks.
Therefore, the §261.4(c) exemption does not apply.
Because the units and waste are subject to Subtitle C
regulations, we evaluated the merits of your delisting petition.
As mentioned previously, our evaluation has resulted in our
decision to recommend the denial of your firm's petition. The
primary basis for this decision is that the submitted groundwater
monitoring data indicates that the waste units may have
contributed to groundwater contamination. Also, we are concerned
about the adeguacy of your ground-water monitoring system.
Finally, you did not supply all of the data needed to fully
characterize the waste in the treatment system. We address each
of these concerns in more detail below.
It is EPA's policy not to exclude any waste until the
petitioner demonstrates that it poses no past or present threat
to the environment. For waste that has been treated, stored or
disposed of in a land-based unit, EPA will investigate the
potential for ground-water contamination. Our policy is to
reguest four consecutive guarters of groundwater monitoring data
from a groundwater monitoring system meeting the requirements in
the 40 CFR 265, Subpart F. These data must show no exceedance of
regulatory standards.
We reviewed the data that Koppers submitted and concluded
that two of the monitoring systems (wells in the R-A and R-B
series) were not adequate to monitor ground-water quality in the
uppermost aquifer underlying the aeration units because they were
installed in shallow fill materials that are typically dry. The
R-C series wells which are downgradient of the units and the
upgradient A-115 well, although not fully complying with the
Subpart F requirements, can be used to sample the uppermost
aquifer. Koppers submitted two quarters of data from these
wells. Data from the downgradient wells showed concentrations
exceeding background levels for the following hazardous
constituents, which are among those we would expect to find in
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
K035 waste: cadmium, barium, phenanthrene, benzo(a)-pyrene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, anthracene,
chryzene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and phenol. In all cases,
concentration levels at the downgradient wells exceeded the
levels of regulatory concerns that EPA uses to evaluate delisting
petitions. In some cases wells at the background (upgradient)
well also exceeded these delisting levels. Moreover, the
downgradient wells also showed higher concentrations of TOC, pH,
and specific conductants, three of the four general indicators of
ground-water contamination measured under the Subpart F
monitoring requirements. Appendix I presents these data in
greater detail.
We discussed the need for data on ground-water contamination
with representatives of Koppers in 1986. At that time, we
focused primarily on a CERCLA action that addressed ground-water
problems at a different part of the facility. We were concerned
that releases from the wastewater treatment units might be
contributing to that problem. In response to our letter of March
1986, Koppers submitted information intended to show that the
wastewater treatment units were not contributing to the ground-
water contamination subject to the CERCLA response. We have
serious questions about this demonstration. More significantly,
that demonstration provides no basis for us to conclude that the
wastewater units are not contributing to the contamination closer
to the units at the three R-C series wells. Because samples from
these wells contained a large number of constituents frequently
found in K035 waste, and because the wells are located
downgradient of the units, we have tentatively concluded that the
units are contributing to the contamination at those wells.
Accordingly, we must recommend that the Agency deny your
petition.
Furthermore, as mentioned briefly above, none of the wells
in the vicinity of the aeration units fully complies with the
monitoring standards in Part 265, Subpart F. For example, two of
the monitoring systems (the initial R series and the RR series)
were installed in fill materials that are typically dry, and have
been determined to be inadequate for monitoring groundwater
quality in the uppermost aquifer underlying the aeration units.
EPA's current delisting policy also requires us to recommend
denial of your petition on this basis.
Finally, we must again recommend denial because your
petition does not fully characterize the wastes in the wastewater
treatment units. Without a complete understanding of the
composition and nature of these wastes we can not exclude these
wastes or associated treatment units from regulation under the 40
CFR Parts 262 through 268 and 270. Each of these deficiencies
discussed below.
First, Koppers requested that the waste in all units of the
wastewater treatment systems (i.e., 2 aeration basins and 1
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
clarifier) be delisted. Among other things, delisting procedures
require that the petitioner (1) properly sample and characterize
the waste in all units seeking delisting; and (2) analyze the
waste for factors (including constituents other than those for
which the waste was listed) which may cause the waste to be
hazardous. The Koppers petition is significantly deficient in
both these areas.
Koppers provided sampling data only for the waste in the
clarifier. We do not consider the samples taken from the
clarifier to be representative of the waste that accumulated in
the two aeration basins because potentially hazardous organic
residues (that may be more dense than the wastewater) may be
settling out in the aeration basins. This may cause the waste in
the aeration basins to be substantially different from the
clarifier wastes. Therefore, the Agency has no basis to decline
the uncharacterized aeration basins.
Second, submitted data indicate that material other than
K035 waste was added to the wastewater treatment system. Your
firm added contaminated groundwater removed from other locations
at the facility (as requested under CERCLA) to the wastewater
treatment system before the units were sampled, but failed to
clearly document the source or contents of the added groundwater.
This information is essential under EPA's definition of
"hazardous waste." Mixtures of listed hazardous wastes, such as
K035 and another solid or hazardous waste, are hazardous wastes.
See 40 CFR §26l.3(b)(2) ("the mixture rule"). EPA would need to
evaluate all of the constituents in the resulting mixture before
granting a delisting petition. To succeed, your petition would
have to demonstrate that the ground water that you added to the
units contained no wastes. Even if you could show that the
ground-water contained no RCRA wastes, you would need to perform
a full Appendix VIII analysis if you wanted to demonstrate that
any of the constituents found in the samples from the R-C series
wells originated in the contaminated ground-water from the CERCLA
action rather than the K035 waste.
Third, the constituent analyses you conducted were limited
to the constituents for which the waste was originally listed.
However, available data indicate that other processes at your
facility use pyridine, picoline, cyclohaxane, or naphthalene. It
is not clear whether constituents from these processes may end in
the petitioned wastewater. Further, contaminated groundwater
containing these and/or other constituents has been added to the
wastewater treatment system. Consequently, your petition should
have included an evaluation of the aeration basin wastes
(including the volume of previously generated waste) and the
clarifier wastes for the total concentrations of the following
constituents as well as for other constituents that may be
present from these process waters and/or contaminated
groundwater:
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
acenaphthylene 2-methoxy-4-methylphenol
arsenic dibenze(a,h)anthracene
barium ethyl benzene
benzene fluoranthene
benzo(a)anthracene indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene lead
benzo(b)fluoranthene mercury
benzo (2-chloroisopropyl)ethernapthalene
cadmium nickel
chrysene phenol
chromium picoline
cyanide pyridine
cyclohexane silver
creosote selenium
2,4-dimethyl phenol toluene
Fourth, a petitioner must also provide data indicating the
waste to be delisted would not be hazardous based on any
characteristics of the waste. You failed to provide such data
despite our requests for it. The aeration basin wastes should
have been analyzed for corrosivity (pH), ignitability,
reactivity, and EP toxicity.
Finally, submitted data indicate that mercury, although not
expected to be present in K035 waste, is present in the waste.
This fact further supports the Agency's position concerning the
inadequacy of the waste characterization and analytical data you
provided. Specifically, we are concerned with the source of this
metal contaminant. The summary EP toxicity data submitted on
November 17, 1986 showed that the mercury concentration in the
March 12, 1986 sample, when subjected to the VRS model, exceeded
the regulatory level of concern (i.e., National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation for Mercury).
We recognize that we have not previously requested that you
submit some of these missing data (e.g., aeration basin waste
characterization data). As we explained above, however, your
groundwater monitoring data and the status of your groundwater
monitoring well network provide independent grounds for denying
your petition. Therefore, even if you had supplied the missing
data, and if it had allowed us to predict that no constituents in
the waste exceeded a level of regulatory concern, we would have
recommended denying your petition. The missing data, although
potentially useful, is therefore not needed to support our
decision.
For all of the above reasons, we consider the waste to be
hazardous and subject to regulation under 40 CFR Part 262 through
264 and to the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270.
Accordingly, we will recommend to the Assistant Administrator
that a denial action will be published in the Federal Register.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of
withdrawing their petition to avoid publication of a negative
finding in the Federal Register. If you prefer this option, you
must send us a letter withdrawing your petition and indicating
that the petitioned waste is considered hazardous and will be
managed as such. If you send such a letter, it should be
forwarded to me within two weeks of the date of receipt of
today's correspondence. If you choose not to withdraw your
petition, a denial decision will be published in the Federal
Register. You and other interested parties will be able to
submit comments if you disagree with the Agency's decision.
If you have any questions regarding our decision, please
contact Mr. Scott Maid of my staff at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Bob Greaves, Region III
Sharon Feldstein, Region III (Superfund)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
Mr. Verrill M. Norwood, Jr. 9444.1987(53)
Director, Environmental Affairs
Olin Chemicals Group
P.O. Box 248
Lower River Road
Charleston, Tennessee 37310
Dear Mr. Norwood
This letter is in response to your June 3, 1987 letter,
concerning your petition (#0381) to delist the pyridine still
bottoms (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F005) generated from the
Thermolin 101 process at your Lake Charles, Louisiana facility.
On May 25, 1987, we informed you of our intention to deny
your delisting petition on the basis of predicted levels of
pyridine, at the compliance-point, that exceed the regulatory
standard for pyridine. On June 3, 1987, we received your letter
withdrawing your petition. Your basis for withdrawal was the
belief that the Agency's F005 listing is not appropriate for your
waste. Specifically, you stated that pyridine is used as a
catalyst and not as a solvent in your process and you contended,
therefore, that the residue generated during reclamation does not
constitute an F005 waste. Based on the information received to
date, however, we believe that pyridine functions as a solvent in
your process and that your recovery wastes are therefore
accurately listed under EPA Hazardous Waste No. F005. The waste,
therefore, should be considered hazardous and is subject to
regulation under 40 C.F.R. Parts 262 through 265 and to the
permitting standards of 40 C.F.R. Part 270.
Since you have withdrawn your delisting petition, my office
will not investigate this topic any further. However, since the
waste is hazardous, we are forwarding our files to appropriate
Region VI officials.
In the future, if you decide to submit a new delisting
petition to the Agency, in addition to the information reguested
in the letter of May 26, 1987, you must provide the following
information.
o A complete description of the Thermolin 101 process.
o A description of all process eguipment involved in the
Thermolin 101 process, including complete schematic
diagrams.
o A list of all materials used in the process and their
functions.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
o A complete description of all reactions involved in the
process. This should include a description of the most
likely chemical mechanisms of the reactions.
o Molar amounts (mass or volumetric amounts are also
acceptable) of all materials used and generated in the
process (including intermediates). Include a rationale
for use of specific ratios of raw materials used in the
process.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Scott Maid, or my staff at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Lee Haze, EPA Region VI
Bonny Romo, EPA Region VI
Bill Taylor, EPA Region VI
Bill Honker, EPA Region VI
Jim Anderson, Olin
Henry Huppert, SAIC
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNITED STATES
9444.1987(55)
28 1987
Kr. R.F. Weimer
Union Carbldo Corporation
Llnde Division
P.O. Box 44
Tonawanda. Mew York 14151-00**
Dear Mr. Welmeri
We have received your letter expressing your Intention to
withdraw your dellstlng petition (*0fl?^) for wastewater treat-
ment sludge generated at your Tonawanda plant. Pollowlnc your
conversation with Carolyn Bossemen of Science Applications
International Corporation, we were Informed that contrary to the
process description In your original petition ("cleaning, etching,
and passivation of carbon steel, stainless steel, and alunlnun"),
your plant does not perfom etching of either carbon steel or
stainless steel, but only pickles these aetala. We understand
that your plant performs etching of aluinlnun, but aluminum etching
Is exempted from the listing for FPA Hazardous Waste No. P00r> anrt
your petition for this waste is therefore moot. Furthermore, we
understand that the spent pickle liquor (PPA Hazardous Vact* Vo.
K062) generated when the pickling baths are periodically dispose*
Is sent off-site to a licensed hazardous waste facility am* does
not enter the wastewater treatment plant.
Please be advised that the decision to moot your petition 1.-.
based on the assumption that you will continue to sesrefrate r*e
spent ploklln£ buth solutions J>ow-t>te petitioned waste. Should
this situation change and cause the waste to Include EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K062, or any other listed haeardous waste,, it Is Union
Carbide'a responsibility to notify the State of New York accor-
dingly and manage the waste as hazardous.
If you fcaW any further oonoenta or questions, please call
Scott Maid, of mf staff, at (202) 3*2-*7?3.
Sincerely,
Terry Orogan, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Janes For an, N7DF.C
-------
"ATES ENV.RONMEHTAL PROTEAN AGSH"
9444.1988(01)
JAN
Mr. John H. Lovgren, Jr.
Environmental Engineer
Leach and Garner company
Attleboro, MA 02703
Dear Mr. Lovgren:
This is a response to your November 17, 1987, letter to me
regarding the regulatory classification of certain metal finishing
sludges. Your letter describes a number of processes used in metal
finishing, including pickling, tumbling, burnishing, heat treating
and contact cooling. In addition, during a recent phone conversa-
tion you provided my staff with further details regarding the
generation of several different vastestreams and sludges. Our
decisions on the regulatory status of these residuals are discussed
below.
On December 2, 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
clarified the scope of the F006 listing (See Federal Register
43350); this clarification narrowed the scope of EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006 to include only wastewater treatment sludges from
common and precious metals electroplating, anodizing, chemical
etching and milling and stripping when associated with, these
processes.
In addition, the F006 listing applies only to the sludge
generated from treatment of wastewatera associated with electro-
plating operations. Hastes resulting from treatment of spent baths
and solutions that are not wastewaters would not be considered
F006. However, sometimes these spent baths become mixed with
wastewaters from electroplating operations; in these cases the
sludges from treatment of the mixture would be F006. Also, depend-
ing on their composition, the spent baths and wastes derived from
their treatment may meet the listing descriptions of other EPA
hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 or exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste defined in 40 CFR 261.21 through
261.24.
-------
- 2 -
One wastestream you described is a spent solution from metal
burnishing and polishing that contains soaps and metals. In the
process, small pieces of metal are tumbled with rocxs and soap to
smooth the metal pieces. Under the Clean Water Act, the spent
tumbling solution must be treated to remove the metals and soap
before discharge. As you have described this mechanical burnishing
and polishing process, it is not an electroplating,
anodizing, chemical etching and milling, or chemical etching and
milling, or cleaning and stripping associated with these
processes. Therefore, the metal hydroxide waste derived from
treatment of the spent burnishing and polishing solution would not
meet the F006 listing. If, however, the waste solution is mixed
with "electroplating" wastewaters, the wastewater treatment sludge
would be F006.
Another waste that you described was sludge from lime neutra-
lization of a spent pickling bath. The pickling bath is used to
remove oxide scale from precious metals and does not meet the
definition of the K062 listing. In addition, this spent bath is
neutralized, the resulting sludge would not be F006. If the metal
is subsequently rinsed, however, and this pickling process is a
cleaning or stripping operation associated with an electroplating
process, then sludge from treatment of the rinsewater would meet
the F006 listing.
A third process that you described (the manufacture of gold
beads) also generates a spent bath. In this process, nitric acid
is used to etch out the copper base metal in a gold bead. (The
bead is moulded from gold-plated copper tubing.) Treatment of the
spent nitric acid bath produces a metal hydroxide waste. The spent
acid is not a wastewater; thus, waste derived from direct treatment
of the acid would not be F006. However, sludge from the treatment
of wastevater associated with the etching process could be defined
as F006.
You also inquired about the status of sludge generated from
the treatment of contact cooling water. If the contact cooling
water is used only for cooling and is not, for example, also used
as a rinsewater in an electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching
and milling, or associated cleaning stripping operation, then the
treatment sludge would not be F006. If, however, the cooling water
is combined with other electroplating related wastewaters for
treatment, the resulting sludge would meet the F006 listing.
-------
- 3 -
I hope this answers your questions. If you require additional
information, please contact Ed Abrams of my staff at (202)
382-4787.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
ATTLEBORO, MASSACHUSETTS 02703
November 17, 1967
Ms. Marsha Hilliaas
Director of Solid Haste
Environmental Protection Agency
WH562, 401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Williams:
This letter is being submitted as a request for clarification of the F006
listing for hazardous mate from non-specific sources.
I represent the Leach & Garner Company which is in the precious metal product
industry. Our operations range from producing intermediate precious metal
products for further processing by our customers to the the production of
electrical contacts. These operations require a substantial amount of metal
finianing operations such as pickling, tumbling, burnishing, heat treating and
contact cooling. As a result of treating the effluent or wastewater, we
generate a variety of metal hydroxide filter cakes and sludges. Two of the
five operations which generate the wastewater sludges are involved with
electroplating. One of the operations generates its sludges by chemically
treating burnishing and tumbling solutions which contain soaps and metals.
The sludge generated during this process has been tested for EP tozicity and
has passed.
I have reviewed documentation from the Federal Register dated December 2, 1986
which refers me to the Effluent Guidelines for pretreatment standards for the
electroplating point source category.
I would appreciate your interpretation as to the proper classification of our
metal finishing sludges. If you require any further information regarding
this request, please feel free to contact me at 617-222-7400, ezt. 390*
Sincerely,
John H. Lovgren, Jr.
Environmental Engineer
JHL:bb
-------
9444.1988(02a)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMfSTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. zoieo
JAM
OFFICE 5r
SOLID WASTE AND EME> CJENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: New Jersey Zinc Company
FROM- Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Robert E. Greaves, Chi 2f
Waste Management Brand (3HW30
is in response to your manio dated November 3, 1987, in
which you requested that the Off re of Solid Waste (OSW)
provide assistance on a number vl regulatory issues surrounding
the N'2w Jersey Zinc Company site in Palmerton, PA.
AMC v. EPA.
A Federal Register notice (attached) interpreting the A^C
decision was signed by the Administrator December 31, 1987. Our
reading of the AMC opinion is that the New Jersey Zinc Compan/'s
operation is not affected by the AM£ opinion, i.e. . it still
involves solid waste management (at least up until it is bur .ed
in an industrial furnace) and the company must still obtain a
RCRA permit for their K061 storage pile. Further, we do not
think the opinion affects EPA's speculative accumulation
provisions at all. (You should note, however, that the
speculative accumulation provision determines when certain
secondary materials are solid wastes; it does not distinguish
between storage and disposal. "Disposal" is defined in the
regulations at Section 260.10.)
The last of your first set o' questions concerned partially
reclaimed zinc oxide that requires further reclamation.
Normally, a partially reclaimed solid waste remains a solid
waste as long as it must still be reclaimed before use, and the
Section 261.3(c)(2)(i) "derived-!rom" rule would make the
partially reclaimed material a hazardous waste. As I understand
the situation at New Jersey zinc, the partially reclaimed zi ic
-------
-2-
oxide is both a solid and a hazardous waste. However, as is
discussed below in the context of the Waelz Kiln residue, i: New
Jersey Zinc were to change their process so that the only
hazardous waste they were to burn in the kiln was K061, the
residues from that kiln may then not be hazardous waste.
Regulatory Status of Waelz Kiln Residue
The regulatory status of the kiln residue (and the partially
reclaimed zinc oxide) depends on the type of feed to the kiln.
As I understand the process currently employed at New Jersey
Zinc. I concur with Sam Rotenberg's assessment that the residue
is a hazardous waste via the derived-from rule, and further,
that the residue has been a hazardous waste since 1980. Ths
following are the factors upon wr.ich this determination is
based.
o The kiln resiJue is not exempt under RCRA Section
3001 (b) (3) (A) (ii) because the K061 feedstock is a u;iste
from the primary steelmaking industry. Steelmakirui
constitutes an alloyino process, which the Agency 1 vs
determined not to bo "processing of ores or minera-s."
.. Waste produced by recl-air.ation of other minerals from
non-Bevill waste is noc itself a Bevill Waste.
o The "indigenous secondary material" discussions that
have appeared in the Federal Register over the last 3
years (fififi 50 EB 630-1, January 4, 1985; 50 £B 49167,
November 29, 1985; and 52 EB 16989-91, May 6, 1987) are
not applicable to this unit because I understand that
F006 and F019 are introduced to the furnace — these
wastes are certainly not indigenous to a zinc smelting
process
I/ Your letter also stated that K062 is added to the furnace.
We would not view K062 as indigenous to zinc smelting either,
but as I understand it, what is actually introduced to the
furnace is sludge from lime stabilization from waste pickle
liquor that is exempt from the c*erived-from rule under Section
261.3(c)(2)(ii). Therefore, introducing this exempt sludge into
the furnace does not affect the regulatory status of the kiln
residue.
-------
You should note that New Jersey Zinc might be able to change
the status of the kiln dust by ceasing to add any hazardous
waste but K061 to the kiln. Under the May 6, 1987 proposal ;52
FR 16990), K061 would be considered indigenous to a zinc
smelting operation because K051 ir generated in furnaces use-:'; \n
primary steel production (i.e.. totn are forms of metal smelt-
ing). If this rule is finalized as proposed, then the derived-
from rula will no longer apply to residue from smelting of
K061. Of course, if New Jersey Line continues to add F006 ^nd
E'019 to the kiln, the kiln residue would continue to be hazard-
ous no matter what is decided concerning K061. In fact, as a
final point, the introduction of F006 and F019 to the kiln calls
into question the kiln's status ?? a reclamation device. (f£-2£
50 FR 630-1, January 4, 1985.) That is, the F006 and F019
wastewater treatment sludges are not ordinarily associated with
zinc smelting, and these wastes may contain Appendix VIII
constituents different than normal zinc smelter feed materials.
(Id. ) The kiln, as it is currently operated, may be more
properly classified as a hazardous waste incinerator as opposed
to a reclamation furnace.
Regulating Exempted Waste- Undor RCRA Corrective Action
Your second set of questions concerned the applicability of
RCRA Section 3004(u) corrective action authority to releases
from exempt units. The units you asked about are:
1. Bevill exempt;
2. Pre-RCRA inactive units, and
3.. AMC opinion exemptions.
(1) The question about units containing Bevill wastes we.;
settled recently when EPA issued the second HSWA Codificc.-
tion Rule, signed by the Administrator on November 16,
1987. EPA determined that the RCRA Section 3001{b)(3)
exemptions (i.e.. those established for "Bevill wastes") do
not extend to Section 3004(u). This decision is explained
fully in the preamble of the second Codification Rule. (See
£B 45790, December 3, 1987.)
-------
(2) Releases from pre-RCRA inactive units are certainly
within the authority of RCRA Section 3004(u). 40 CFR
Section 264.101 provides that an owner or operator of a
facility seeking a RCRA permit must institute correction
action for releases from units at the facility,
"...regardless of the time at which waste was placed in sucli
unit."
(3) Releases from units excluded from RCRA jurisdiction
under the AMC opinion, should there be such exclusions,
vould be handled the same as other product or process
releases. That is, the unit holding the product is not a
SWMU, but areas contaminated by "routine and systematic
discharges" from the unit are SWMUs.
If you have further question? in these areas, contact
Michael Petruska of my staff at FTS 475-98E8.
Attachment
-------
9444.1988(021
M 2 0 1988
J. Carter S. Gray
Secretary/Counsel
Earth Industrial Waste Management, Inc.
3536 Fite Road
Millington, Tennessee 38053
Dear Mr. Gray:
This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1987, to
Michael Petruska concerning classification of your solvent wastes.
The waste you describe appears to be a mixture of several
commercial chemical products that are listed in 40 CFR Section
261.33 (f). In addition, you also indicate that^at times the
solvent mixture would exhibit the ignitability characteristic —
referred to in your letter as D001. If the commercial chemical
products flushed from the line are intended for reclamation (i.e..
solvent distillation) they would not be wastes under the hazardous
waste regulations and', thus, would not be subject to any Federal
regulation, including labelling requirements. If however, the line
flushings are intended for discard, they are hazardous wastes
provided they contain a U-listed commercial chemical product or
exhibit a characteristic.
With respect to your specific concern, the Agency recognizes
that generators may have difficulty identifying and manifesting the
waste as a result of this multiple U-waste classification. One
possible means of reducing the generator's burden is to segregate
the wastestreams as they are generated, and thus limit the number
of different wastes in each drum. For example, chlorinated
solvents could be segregated from non-chlorinated solvents, and
solvents that are hazardous only due to their flash point
(ignitability) should be segregated from those that are listed as
hazardous due to their toxicity.
-------
with respect to proper identification of the multiple U-listing
wastes on the manifest, the generator should seek guidance from the
regulating State agency. The National Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest (EPA Form 8700-22, codified at 40 CFR Part 262, Appendix)
includes a continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) for multiple
waste shipments. Some states, however, prefer the generator to
simply use more than one manifest for multiple waste shipments;
either approach is acceptable to EPA.
If you have further questions, please continue to deal with
Michael Petruska at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerel
ircia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UMUCW »iAici c«viKOW*6*TAl. PROTECTION AOENC 9444.1988(03)
I /
Mr. A. J. Heinze
AJH Environmental Consulting, Inc.
843 Claymont Drive
Ballvin, HO 63011
Dear Mr. Heinzef T?5 !TAT '' *""«•< •""*- - — "ION
^..
This is in response to your November 7, 1987, letter to
Michael Petruska concerning the regulatory status of spent pipeline
filter cartridges. The status of the cartridges depends on whether
the solvents that pass through the filters meet one of the listing
descriptions at 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D.
If the solvent in question has been used and otherwise meets
one of the "F« listings in section 261.31, then the filters are
hazardous waste under the "derived from* rule in Section
261.3(c)(2)(i). The filters would be hazardous waste unless a
deiisting is granted by EPA under Section 260.22.
If the solvent contained in the filter is a discarded commer-
cial chemical product listed in Section 261.33(e) and (f), then the
filters are contaminated with, or contain, a hazardous waste and
must be handled as hazardous waste until it no longer contains the
hazardous constituent.
• • • " . - •. • • -«L. • • • .' '
From the information you have provided, it appears that your
client has filters in both categories. As such, the filters are
subject to the regulations at 40 CFR Part 261-268, Part 270, and
the notification requirements of RCRA Section 3010.
If you have further questions, please continue to deal with
Michael Petruska at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marc i a E. Williams
Director,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITF,"MATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOr*.GENC
9444.1988(05)
MAR I I 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Refractory Wastes at U.S. EPA Combustion
Research Facility
FROM: Jeffery D. Denit, Acting Director
Qffice of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Sam Becker, Chief
Hazardous Waste compliance Branch (6H-C)
This is in response to your memorandum to Robert Scarberry
dated December 22, 1987, regarding the regulatory status of refrac-
tory waste at EPA's Combustion Research Facility (CRT). Solid
waste that is generated from the treatment of a hazardous waste is
a hazardous waste if it: (1) contains a listed waste, (2) is
derived from a listed waste, or (3) exhibits a characteristic of a
hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(c) and (d).
According to 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i) "any solid waste generated
from the treatment, storage or disposal of a hazardous waste... is
a hazardous waste.* EPA interprets this provision to mean that the
"derived from" waste carries the same EPA Hazardous Waste designa-
tion as the original waste. (See 50 FR 37338 (Sep. 12, 1985); 50
FR 1995 n. 26 (Jan. 14, 1985); fil. 50 FR 619 n. 7 (Jan. 4, 1985)).
This is important bacause apparently dioxin-containing waste (F020)
was burned at the facility; and F020 is subject to special require-
ments in 40 CFR 264.317. (As you suggested, residue resulting from
the treatment of many different listed wastes should be handled as
the most restricted of the listed wastes.)
As related to us by Johannes Lee of CRT and Jerry Truitt of
your staff, the wastes generated from the rotary kiln incinerator
at CRF during the time that the dioxin waste (F020) was incinerated
are the following: (1) removed refractory material, (2) dismantled
pieces of the former scrubber system, (3) departiculate air filt-
ers, (4) scrubber wastewater, (5) soil contaminated with scrubber
-------
- 2 -
wastewater, and (6) ash. Based on the following assessment, we
have determined that all of these wastes are acute hazardous (H)
wastes, or contain acute hazardous wastes, and are thus, subject
to the special requirements of 40 CFR 264.317.
The wastes listed above which are hazardous because they were
"derived from" waste are: (1) departiculate air filters, (2) scrub-
ber wastewater, and (3) ash. These wastes may be delisted under
Section 260.22: otherwise they must be managed as dioxin-containing
hazardous waste (i.e., under Section 264.317, as well as other
applicable requirements).
with regard to materials that are contaminated with listed
waste, and thereby contain hazardous waste (i.e., hazardous
constituents from the waste), EPA has determined that such
materials must be managed as hazardous waste for as long as they
contain any of the listed waste. (You should note that for
contaminated materials, a formal delisting is not necessary;
rather, the generator of the contaminated material must manage the
material as hazardous waste, or must be able to demonstrate that
the material has been decontaminated so that it no longer contains
any listed waste.) Following the same logic as cited above for
"derived-from" waste, material contaminated by a listed waste
carries the same designation as the most restricted listed waste
that it contains, i.e., in this case, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F020.
The wastes listed above that are designated as contaminated
materials include: (1) refractory material, (2) dismantled pieces
of the former scrubber system, and (3) soil contaminated with
scrubber wastewater. These wastes must be treated as acute
hazardous (H) wastes, unless and until they are decontaminated and
no longer contain the listed waste (i.e., F020).l/ A detailed
description of decontamination procedures should be a part of the
facility's closure plan as described in Section 264.H2(b)(4) and
Section 264.H2(e)
I/ -If the material is decontaminated so it no longer contains
F020, but it still contains constituents from other listed wastes,
the material would be managed as nonacute hazardous waste.
-------
- 3 -
All hazardous waste generated at the CRF must be managed in
accordance with Section 262.34 or under the facility's permit. If
on-site storage of hazardous waste for time periods greater than 90
days is necessary, and is not addressed in the permit, then the
permit must be modified to address the on-site storage of these
wastes.
Please feel free to call Emily Roth, of my staff, if you have
any further questions; her telephone number is FTS 382-4777.
-------
UNITl- iTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.AGENCY 9444.1988(06)
MAR 3! 868
Mr. Michael J. Fox, Manager
Chemical Engineering Services
Aptech
Post Office Box 3440
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3440
Dear Mr. Fox:
This is *n response to your letter of March 9, 1988, in
which you see* written confirmation of an opinion given you by
the RCRA/Superfund Hotline concerning solvent/mixture blends.
The information you were given is correct. A spent solvent
mixture/blend that contains, before use, a total of less than ten
percent of the solvents listed in the FOOl, F002, F004, or F005
categories would not be considered a Hated hazardous waste.
(See 40 CFR 261.31 and 50 £B 53315-20.) The situation which you
describe in your letter falls within the realm of the above
regulation, so the clarification you were given by the Hotline is
correct. However, if the waste exhibits the characteristics of
corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity, or extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity (40 era 261.20-261.24) the spent solvent/mixture
blend would be considered a characteristic hazardous waste.
It should be noted that state regulations may be more
stringent. Therefore, please contact your state environmental
authorities to find out what their regulatory requirements are.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions, please call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at
(800)424-9346 or (202)382-3000.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Acting Director
Characterization and
Asseessment Division
-------
April 7, 1988 9444.1988(07)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation Assistance Request -
Determination for Viability of "F-Waste" Electroplating
(F007-F009) Listings at Lewis Industries, Inc.
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director (WH-562)
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Wagoner, Director
Waste Management Division, Region VII
This is in response to your memorandum dated December 31,
1987 in which you reguest guidance as to whether rinsewaters that
are generated by electroplating operations are regulated as
hazardous wastes under RCRA. Specifically, you describe the
electroplating process at Lewis Industries, Inc., located in
Kansas City, MO, and inquire if the rinsewaters generated by
their operations might be listed hazardous wastes according to 40
CFR 261.31. As your analysis of the listing background document
to 40 CFR 261.31 correctly indicates, rinsewaters from
electroplating operations are not within the scope of the F007,
F008, or F009 hazardous waste listings. Rather, these
rinsewaters would only be considered hazardous under these
specific listings if the F007, F008, or F009 is deliberately
mixed with the rinsewaters from electroplating operations. (See
40 CFR 261.3(b)(2).)
During the plating process, rinsewaters may be contaminated
with cyanides carried over from plating or cleaning bath
solutions. The mixture rule applies when a hazardous waste is
mixed with a solid waste. (See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv).) The
rinsewaters are not a solid waste when they become contaminated;
therefore, these rinsewaters would not be hazardous waste due to
the mixture rule. In addition, based on the available data that
you submitted, the rinsewaters do not exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste set forth in 40 CFR 261
Subpart C. Therefore, the rinsewaters generated by Lewis
Industries, Inc., would not be designated as a hazardous waste
under RCRA. Please feel free to contact Mr. Ed Abrams at FTS
382-4787 if you or your staff have any further questions.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1988(09)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 88
4. Spent Solvent Listings
The owner of a metal working facility uses a cutting oil to cool and lubricate metals during
a drilling process. The cutting oil, before use, consists of eighty percent (80%)
l,l,l,trichloroethane and twenty percent (20%) lubricating oil. When spent, this fluid is
sent for disposal. Would this material meet the F002 listing found in Section 261.31?
Yes, Section 261.31 of 40 CFR describes the requirements for listing spent solvents.
These requirements were codified in the December 31,1985 Federal Register. The
December 31,1985 FR explains that: "the spent solvent listings cover only those solvents
that are used for their solvent properties — that is, to solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize
other constituents." For example, solvents used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scour-
ing, as diluents, extractants, reaction and synthesis media, and similar uses are covered
under the listing (when spent). A solvent is considered "spent" when it has been used
and is no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise
reprocessed" (50 FR 53316). The 1,1,1, trichloroethane in this circumstance, is being
used as a diluent for mobilizing the constituents in the lubricating oil and is therefore
covered by the F002 listing in 40 CFR Section 261.31.
Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475-8551
Research: Steve Campbell
-------
IP4ITCDMTES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ^— ' 88(10)
^t
:i3*«
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Chlordane and Heptachlor Pestidfta Hastes
FROM: Sylvia K. Lovrance, Director
Office of solid Waste (WH-562B)
TO: Su«an H. wayland, Deputy Director,
Office of Pesticide Programs (T3-766C)
This is in response to your memorandum dated March 3, 1988,
in which you request guidance on the regulatory status of .
chlordane and heptachior pesticide waste under Subtitle C of the
Resource conservation and Recovery Act. My staff has researched
the specific questions raised in your memorandum; our responses
are given below.
QUESTION NO. 1: Are products containing either chlordane or
ieptachlor, or both chlordane and heptachior covered by the •?•
ir "U" listings of 40 CFR 261.33 (e) and (f) respectively?
5
* Commercial chemical products or manufacturing intermediates
that contain any of the compounds listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (e) or
261.33 (f) are potential "P" or "U" wastes. For our purpose,
commercial chemical products or manufacturing intermediates are
defined as materials which contain either the pure or technical
grade.of the listed chemical, crude product, or a formulation in
which the listed chemical is the sole activ* inqr««ii«nti- Also
included as potential "P" or "U* listed wastes are
off-specification products which, if they met specification,
would have the generic name included in either of these lists.
When two or more compounds listed in 261.33 are present as
active ingredients in a formulation, the formulation is not a
-------
intended for the product). Fillers, solvents, propellants, and
other components with no pesticidal role are functionally inert
with recard to pesticide formulations and are therefore not
active ingredients. It is possible for a hazardous constituent
from 261.33(e) or (f) to be a functionally inert component of a
commercial chemical product, for example, a solvent carrier.
In these cases, its presence does not prevent the formulation
containing another "P" or "U" constituent as the sole active
ingredient from being a "P" or "U" listed waste.
With regard to chlordane products that contain small
amounts of heptachlor, these formulations are considered to
contain only one active ingredient. It is our opinion that the
small amounts of heptachlor, which are not economical to
extract from chlordane during its manufacture, do not
constitute a second active ingredient because heptachlor occurs
as an impurity in the synthesis of chlordane and is not mixed
with chlordane to formulate a new product.
Finally, in order for commercial chemical products or
manufacturing intermediates to be subject to regulation as "P"
or "U" hazardous wastes, they must be discarded or intended for
discard as described in 40 CFR 261.2 (a)(2)(i). This
requirement is satisfied when materials are "abandoned" as
defined in 40 CFR 261.2(b), "when they are mixed with waste oil
or used oil or other material and applied to the land for dust
suppression or road treatment, when they are otherwise applied
to the land in lieu of their original intended use or when they
are contained in products that are applied to the land in lieu
of their original intended use, or when, they are produced for
use as (or as a component of) a fuel, distributed for use as a
fuel, or burned as a fuel."
QUESTION NO. 2: Is there a critical cutoff concentration or
percent'active ingredient at which chlordane or heptachlor
product would fall under the umbrella of the listing?
No. Under the existing regulations, there is no critical
cutoff concentration or percent active ingredient at which
chlordane or heptachlor product would fall under the listing.
The Agency is initiating a program that will establish
concentration thresholds for compounds listed at 40 CFR 261.33,
below which they win no longer be the listed waste. This
effort, however, win take a number of years to comoiete.
-------
9444.1988(11)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. William Lindberg
Regulatory Affairs Coordinator
SWI, Inc.
P.O. Box B
Saukville, WI 53080
Dear Mr. Lindberg:
Tnis is in response to your letter of April 19, 1988 to
Mr. Steven Weil, in which you ask if paints containing solvent
constituents are subject to F listings (40 CFR 261.31).
You are correct in stating that "solvents that are used for
their 'solvent' properties—that is, to solubilize (dissolve) or
mobilize other constituents" (50 EB 53316, December 31, 1985) are
covered by the spent solvent listings. However, the Federal
Register notice goes on to state that "process wastes where
solvents were used as reactants or ingredients in the formulation
of commercial chemical products are not covered by the listing.
The products themselves are also not covered." (Id.) Paints,
which are included in the classification of such commercial
chemical products are, therefore, not F-listed spent solvent
hazardous wastes.
Thank you for your letter. If you have any further
questions, please call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at
(800)424-9346.
sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9444.1988(12)
UNITEDVTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ENCY
Michael Fox
Chenical Engineering Service*.. .___.. -....
APTECH . _ - ...... .:.: _. ._ _. .—.:
P.O. Box 3440
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3440 '
Dear Mr. Foxt
This letter is in response to your April 21, 1988 letter to
Mr. Matthew Straus in which you request clarification of the
hazardous waste listings. '
The passage you cited from the Handbook for Small Business
(EPA 1986) is correct. The remainder of this latter provides
some explanatory information -on the hazardous waste listings.
Discarded commercial chemical products are hazardous wastes if
they are listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (the *P» and "U" lists) or if
they exhibit one or sore of the hazardous waste characteristics
of Part 261, Subpart C. A comment in Section 261.33 (d)
clarifies that the listing applies,to commercial and technical
grades of the product, and to formulations in which the chemical
is the sole active ingredient. "Sole active ingredient" means
the active ingredient is the only chemically active component for
the function of the product. If the discarded product is a
formulation with more than one active ingredient, it would not be
within the scope of the listing in Section 261.33.
The listings of Section 261.31 for spent solvents apply only
to solvents which have become contaminated through use.
Formulations with many "active ingredients" may be covered by the
spent solvent listings in Section 261.31.
If a waste does not meet any of the listings, the generator
is required under Section 262.11 to either test the waste or use
his knowledge to determine if the waste exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic.
-------
UNITEIf-rfATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EHCY
- 2 -
In addition, the generator.should check with hit state
hazardous waste agency for additional wastes which nay be
regulated under state laws or regulations.
If you have further questions, please contact Mike
Petruska at (202) 475-9888.
Sincerely,
Devereauz Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
WIIUD ITATU IMV1IOMMIN7AL PtOTICT^I ACtHCT
9444.1988(13
JUL 28 £68
Mr. T. Wayne Vickers
v.p., Marketing and Sales
Columbus Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 257
Ashville, Ohio 43103-0257
Dear Mr. Vickers:
I am responding to your letter dated June 27, 1988, in which
you requested information regarding the disposal of paint filters
and our opinion on the veracity of an advertisement for paint spray
booth filters. Specifically, your questions deal with an
advertisement for a styrofoam paint spray booth filter appearing in
the April, 1988 issue of FINISHER'S MANAGEMENT magazine.
•
We can not comment on the veracity of the advertisement, but we
can offer some information regarding the disposal and hazardous
waste classification of related wastes.
„ Used paint filters are not a RCRA listed hazardous waste (i.e.,
not listed in 40 CFR 261.31-33). However, they may be
characteristically hazardous if they exhibit any of the four
hazardous waste characteristics (ignitability, corrosivifcy,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity - see 40 CFR
261.21-24).
The advertisement claims that the filter is soluble in paint
thinner for easy disposal. If the thinner is one or more of the
solvents covered by the EPA hazardous waste listings F001-F005, and
the thinner has been used for its solvent properties (i.e., to
solubilize or mobilize another material such as in a cleaning
operation or in -dissolving the paint filter), then the resultant
solution of .the paint filter and the thinner will become a listed
hazardous wasjte on disposal.
• •
• 4 '
I hope this information will be useful to you.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
-------
9444.1988(14)
'i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
r;;r; ? 6 i^0
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPQN
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Secondary Lead/Smelter Variances
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowranqg, Vyr/L''-L
Office of Solid Wast9/TJ
TO: Waste Management
Division Directors, Regions I-X
This memorandum provides guidance to assist you in handling
variance requests you may receive from secondary lead smelters.
Owners and operators of secondary lead smelters are likely to
request variances from being classified as a solid waste for
their lead plates and groups that are stored in storage piles.
More detailed information is included in the attached report
from Midwest Research Institute. Questions in this area should
be addressed to Filomena Chau or Mike Petruska at FTS 382-4795
or 475-8551.
A. General.
Section 260.30(c) provides that the Regional Administrator
may grant a variance from classification as a solid waste for
those materials that have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed
further before recovery is completed if, after initial
reclamation, the resulting material is "commodity-like." This
determination is to be based on five factors specified at
Section 260.31(c)(l)-(5), and "other relevant factors"
(paragraph (c)(6)).
Secondary, lead smelters reclaim lead from spent lead acid
batteries (a characteristic hazardous waste). An intermediate
step in this reclamation process is the breaking and component
separation of batteries, which results in partially-reclaimed
lead-bearing material known as "plates" and "groups." These
materials may be stored in piles and subsequently fed to blast
or reverberatory furnaces for re-smelting. Under certain
conditions, these plates and groups may meet the criteria in
Section 260.31(c) and, therefore, would not be a solid or
hazardous waste.
-------
2 -
In some instances, the granting of a variance for plates and
groups could lead to a smelter becoming exempt from the need to
comply with the interim status requirements or obtain a permit.
For example, if a smelter can set up an operation where incoming
batteries are introduced directly into the recycling operation
without prior storage, and where emission control dust (K069) is
recycled either without storage or stored under Section 262.34,
the smelter would have no activities subject to permitting
(absent the plate and group storage pile).
B. Factors 1-4.
After analysis of a considerable body of information, OSW
has determined that secondary lead smelters on a national (or
"generic") basis meet the criteria of Section 260.31(c)(l)-(4).
The basis for this determination is summarized below. - (For more
details, see the attached draft report from Midwest Research
Institute (MRI).)
o The first factor (paragraph (c)(D) is the degree of
processing a material has undergone and the degree of
further processing that is required (for the resulting
material to be "commodity-like"). Available
information indicates that the battery-breaking and
component separation steps can be labor-intensive and
often represent a significant percentage of the
resources required to recycle a battery; we would view
these steps, then, to account for a substantial amount
of processing.
The second factor (paragraph (c)(2)) is the value of
the material after initial reclamation. We have
determined that plates and groups do have significant
market value, i.e., prices for plates and groups are
listed in industry publications, and until recently
smelters have purchased -.large amounts of plates and
groups from independent battery breakers.
The third factor (paragraph (c)(3)) is the degree to
which the reclaimed material is like an analagous raw
material. He have determined that plates and groups
are similar to galena ore in terms of lead
concentration, and based on available data do not
contain significant amounts of hazardous constituents
not found in galena. (Arsenic concentrations do appear
to be slightly higher in the plates and groups, but we
note that small amounts-of arsenic are viewed as
desirable in secondary lead smelting as an alloying
metal; therefore, our determination is that
-------
- 3 -
the slightly higher arsenic concentrations in lead
plates and groups do not change the conclusion that it
is substantially comparable in composition to galena
ore. )
The fourth factor (paragraph (c)(4)) is the extent to
which an end market for the reclaimed material is
guaranteed. Typically, secondary lead smelters break
and separate batteries at the smelter site. This
arrangement provides an end market for the partially
reclaimed material because it is unlikely a smelter
would close without processing remaining plates and
groups. We do not, however, reach such a conclusion
for independent battery breakers. The end market value
for their broken batteries is heavily dependent on lead
prices, and has been very insecure for the past several
years.
C. Storage and Handling Practices.
Section 260.31(c)(5) identifies as a factor, "the
extent to which the reclaimed material is handled to minimize
loss." OSW reviewed information on plate and group storage and
handling practices at most secondary lead smelters in the U.S.
We are unable to reach any conclusions on a national basis for
this industry because the available information indicates a wide
variation in practices (i.e., some smelters store the lead
plates and groups in a manner that minimizes loss while others
do not). Each smelter facility will have to be evaluated
individually to determine if the standard in paragraph (c)(5) is
achieved. Factors that Regional (or State) personnel may want
to consider include:
Whether the storage pile is under a roof;
Whether the pile is on an impervious base, e.g., coated
concrete;
Whether runoff controls are in place, e.g., retaining
walls, drainage collection, etc.;
Whether wind dispersion controls, e.g.> sprinklers,
vents, etc., are in place.
Plate and group piles may be evaluated in a manner similar to
those hazardous waste piles considered for the limited exemption
under 40 CFR Section 264.250(c), which calls for consideration
of these same sorts of factors.
-------
Also relevant is a comparison of storage and handling
practices at the secondary lead smelters to handling practices
employed by primary lead smelters for galena ore. Available
information indicates that galena ore is always stored under
cover, but galena storage areas are not always totally
enclosed. Therefore, some outdoor plate and group storage areas
may meet the paragraph (c)(5) factor without being enclosed in a
building, but a plate and group pile without any cover would
appear much less likely to satisfy the "minimize loss"
criterion.
Finally, while concrete pads are the norm for plate and
c.oup storage areas, typically the top layers of these pads '
(which may be an asphalt liner) become damaged by the acid
remaining on the plates and groups, and by front-end loader
traffic and, therefore, have to be periodically replaced.
Normal maintenance of a plate and group pad includes periodic
replacement of the top (i.e., "sacrificial") layers. Therefore,
part of the paragraph (c)(5) evaluation should include a review
of the smelter's pad replacement schedule. Consideration should
be given to requirements for coating the concrete pads with an
acid resistent material.
In summary, a plate and group pile that is stored under
cover, where run off and wind disposal is controlled, and where
pad replacement prevents soil contamination, would appear to
meet the paragraph (c)(5) "minimize loss" criterion.
D. Other Relevant Factors.
*
Under Section 260.31(c)(6), the Regional Administrator
may consider other relevant factors in the determination of
whether to grant the variance. These factors may be raised by
the petitioner, the Agency/ or other interested parties. As OSW
has evaluated information on secondary lead smelters, the
following additional factors have been raised as potential
concerns. Although these factors, may not be directly applicable
to the Regional Administrator's decision to grant a variance,
they may be relevant in, for example, assigning priorities to
evaluate a facility's petition.
1. Economics of battery recycling. Recent EPA studies
indicate that national battery recycling rates, while apparently
stable at this time, have experienced a long term decline over
the past 30 years. The result is that more batteries are
disposed of, often in municipal landfills. In addition, loss of
recycling capacity (i.e., smelter closures) has placed
generators in some, regions (e.g.,. the Pacific Northwest) in the
position where they must transport batteries long distances to
recycle. This obviously adversely affects recycling rates.
-------
Environmental compliance costs may be a major component of a
secondary smelter's capital and operating expenses. The next
few years may be critical for many of these smelters, as they
face the choice of full RCRA compliance and permitting versus
facility closure. Prompt processing of variance petitions may
allow well-run operations, for example, to expand operations
without the need for a permit modification (or perhaps without a
permit at all), and thereby maintain or increase regional
recycling rates, even if other facilities close.
2. corrective action. Facilities in the secondary lead
smelting industry have had problems in the past and some are
currently involved in clean-up activities. One implication of
granting a variance is that certain facilities, as noted above,
may become exempt from permitting and interim status
requirements and, therefore, the corrective action provisions of
RCRA Section 3004(u) and 3008(h) would no longer apply. (CERCLA
Section 106 and RCRA Section 7003 actions would not be affected
by granting the variance.) The Regional Administrator may want
to consider the need for clean-up at a site under paragraph-
(c)(6), or at least in the timing of when a variance is
granted. For example, final granting of a variance could be
considered as part of clean-up action at the facility.
In summary, disposal of spent lead-acid batteries is
becoming a serious national problem. One means to increase
battery recycling rates is to exclude plate and group storage
piles at those secondary lead smelter facilities that meet the
Section 260.31(c) criteria from classification as solid waste.
If a secondary lead smelter facility stores and handles its
plates and groups in a manner that minimizes losses and
otherwise runs a sound operation (as evidenced by, for example,
clean-up of past releases), OSW would deem it appropriate and
certainly consistent with national policy for the Regional
Administrator to grant the solid waste variance.
Attachment
-------
9444.1988(15)
•"'w 7
2 9 1988
Hazards in the Environment
Action League
HEAL-New Brighton
P.O. Box 12611
New Brighton, MN 55112
Dear Members of HEAL-New Brighton:
This is in response to your letter dated July 25, 1988, in
which you expressed your concern about the use of pentachlorophenol
as a wood preservative at two local sites in New Brighton, MN.
More specifically, you urged the Agency to reclassify
pentachlorophenol (PCP) as an acutely hazardous material and, if
possible, to ban its use in the United States.
Wastes from the production of or manufacturing use of PCP (EPA
hazardous waste F021) and discarded unused formulations containing
PCP (EPA hazardous waste F027) are currently designated as acute
hazardous wastes. (See 40 CFR 261.31). However, the Agency has
received a petition to reclassify these two wastes as toxic wastes
based on the results of a recent toxicological study. In April of
1988, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a draft report
on the results of a study of the toxicity of purified and technical
grade PCP, containing measured levels of HxCDD as well as other
dioxin homologs in lower concentrations. (See enclosed citation) .
The Agency is in the process of reviewing these data and will
respond to the rulemaking petition in the near future. This
response will be a Federal Register notice and will request public
comment. At that time, HEAL may submit its comments on EPA's
decision.
Regarding the banning of PCP for use as a wood preservative, we
have forwarded your letter to our Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPTS) for separate reply. The banning of chemicals is
outside the purview of the Office of Solid Waste.
We look forward to your comments in the future.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
CITATTQN
McConnell, E.E., DVM, Chemical Manager.
th*» Trtvi r!nl nrrv an/4 /^^ >-,-.-i ..__ j_i_ _?
Pr Peer Review Draft. National
Program. Research Triangle Park, NC. April, 1988. NTP
-------
9444.1989(02
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
«* M Ml
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Pesticide Standards for Formaldehyde and
Paraformaldehyde
~~~V , '
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director^ ^'j
Characterization and Assessment DivisioJn (n«v 33nj
TO: Chet Mclaughlin, Chief
state Programs Section, Region VII
This is in response to your memorandum of JuJy 26, 1988 to
Matthew Straus, in which you asked for our comments concerning
an Office of Pesticides Programs' (OPP's) manual entitled
"Guidance for the Reregistration of Pesticide Products
Containing Formaldehyde and Paraformaidehyde as an Active
Ingredient." You asked about the effect of this manual on the
"sole active ingredient" clause regarding P and U listed
hazardous wastes included in 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f). You
also asked if many of the pesticides on the P and u lists would
no longer contain a "sole active ingredient" as a result of the
subject OPP document.
The intent of the regulations concerning sole active
ingredients can be found at 45 CB 78532, November 25, 1980.
The concept of sole active ingredient was used for the purpose
of "removing all trade names from the lists of 40 CFR 26l.33(e)
and (f), but clarifying that the scope of the 40 CFR 26l.33(e)
and (f) includes, in addition to the commercially pure grades
of the chemicals, all technical grades and all formulated
products in which the listed chemical is the sole active
ingredient" (emphasis added). The Federal Register Notice
explains that "many of the trade products regulated under this
section are-pesticides or fungicides, produced for the express
purpose of destroying plant or animal life. It is evident that
such a substance, when discarded, meets the RCRA definition of
hazardous waste" (45 Q 78539). The Federal Register Notice
also states (45 CB 78538) that "the product is considered to be
the chemical comprising its active portion," and refers to the
-------
Farm Chemicals Handbook. which "lists all trade products having
a generically-named chemical as the sole active ingredient as
'other names' for that chemical." The Federal Register Notice
clearly states that, under RCRA, the term "active ingredient"
refers to the pesticide constituent on which the commercial
product and the 40 CFR 261.33 regulations are based, not "inert
ingredients which tend to magnify its toxic effects (e.g. .
solvents and surfactants)" (45 fjj 78539).
The OPP Guidance Manual states that formaldehyde and
paraformaldehyde, when added to preserve the formulation, in
the past had been classified as inert ingredients. However,
according to FIFRA Section 2(a), an active ingredient is "an
ingredient which will prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any
pest." Therefore, when these chemicals are added to preserve
the formulation by preventing deterioration by bacteria and
fungi, the Guidance Manual concludes that formaldehyde and
paraformaldehyde are active ingredients. The Guidance Manual
also directs that the following statement appear on the label
for such products: "Formaldehyde (or paraformaldehyde) is
present solely to preserve the pesticide formulation and does
not otherwise contribute to the product's pesticidal
activity." (p. 21)
When formaldehyde (or paraformaldehyde) is added solely to
preserve the activity of a pesticide formulation, it is not
considered an active ingredient for purposes of the sole active
ingredient requirement of 40 CFR 261.33. Thus, the OPP
Guidance Manual's determination that formaldehyde and
paraformaldehyde are pesticidally active and the requirement
that the labels state they are "pesticidally active when used
as a preservative in pesticidal formulations" does not affect
the determination of whether a waste is hazardous under
40 CFR 261.33.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions, please contact Ron Josephson at FTS 475-6715.
cc: Juanita Hills, OPP (H7505C)
-2-
-------
HTU'IH.TWACBKT' 9444.1999(03)
JUN 281969
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Solvent -and Commercial Chemical
Product Waste Streams .
FROM: Oevereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: Howard Wilson, Manager
Environmental Compliance Program
Environmental Health and Safety Division (PM-273F)
This memorandum is in response to an inquiry you sent to
Ron Josephson of my staff, dated June 8, 1989, and to que'stions
presented at a meeting, on June 14, 1989. Specifically, you
request a definitive classification of solvent-contaminated
wastestreams in order to prepare a guidance document for EPA
laboratories. We will answer each of your concerns point by
point in order to ensure clarify.
1) During organic liquid-liquid extractions, solvents
(e.g. methylene chloride) are used, which are minimally (<2%)
soluble in water. Thus, after the extraction, the aqueous
phase contains trace amounts of solvent. Does this aqueous
phase need to be disposed of as F002 spent solvent, since the
"before use" solvent concentration was greater than 10%?
The aqueous phase from this separation is considered to be
analogous to a process stream which has become
contaminated with solvent constituents; this waste is not
a spent solvent stream and would therefore not be
classified as F002.
2) In.other analyses, the extraction of an organic
analyte is "performed with solvents contained only in the F003
listing, such as methanol. Should the aqueous waste be
classified as F003 spent solvent even if it is not ignitable?
Again, the scope of the listing did not include aqueous
-------
3) in a memorandum dated December 6, 1988, the Agency
states that solvent-contaminated aqueous streams resulting .from
liquid—liquid extractions are not spent solvent and need be
managed as a hazardous waste only if they exhibit one of the
four characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21 - 261.24. Is
this still true and is this applicable to the above situations?
Yes. The memorandum you reference pertained to processes
at a pharmaceutical production facility. However,
sufficient analogies exist among these situations that the
process waste interpretation may be used in these cases.
4) A laboratory buys a commercial chemical product in
order to formulate standards for quality assurance (QA)
purposes. The QA standards are then sent to other laboratories
for analysis. If excess standard solutions existed which were
not needed for analysis but need to be disposed, would these
formulations be considered commercial chemical product wastes
under 40 CFR 261.33 (assuming that there is a sole active
ingredient)?
Yes. Dilution of a commercial chemical product with water1
is not considered use of a commercial chemical product in
this case. Thus, the excess QA standards intended for
disposal would be listed hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
261.33.
5) A laboratory synthesizes a chemical to be used as a QA
standard. The lab then distributes this chemical (or diluted
QA standards) to other laboratories for analysis. Would excess
quantities of these materials be considered hazardous wastes
under section 261.33 (assuming that there is a sole active
ingredient)?
Yes. Materials synthesized in a laboratory in lieu of
buying a commercial product (because of cost savings or
because the product is difficult to obtain) are equivalent
to commercial chemical products, and therefore would be
regulated under 40 CFR 261.33 when disposed. Again,
excess QA standards made by diluting these compounds are
also covered by the listings, when disposed.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any other
questions on these topics, please contact Ron Josephson at 475-
6715.
-------
9444.1989(04)
XL »3
SUBJECT: Characterization of BTL Specialty Resins Corporation
Waste as to Whether It Is RCRA Listed Hazardous Waste
K022
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: David A. Ullrich, Associate Director
Office of RCRA
Waste Management Division, Region V
This i» response to your •••orandum of March 22, 1989, in
which you asked whether a waste produced by BTL Specialty Resins
Corporation is RCRA Listed Hazardous Waste K022. our
determination is based on information sent by your office and
subsequent telephone conversations between Walter Francis of your
staff and Ron Josephson of my staff.
Based on our review of the information that you provided, we
have determined that the waste produced by BTL is RCRA waste K022
("Distillation bottom tars from the production of phenol/acetone
from cumene"), as listed in 40 CFR 261.32. The process
generating BTL's waste meets the listing description and is not
different in any significant respect from exemplary processes
described in the listing background document. The argument
presented by BTL's counsel, Mary Bryant, that BTL does not
generate K022 because their waste is a "liquid" and not a "tar,"
is clearly erroneous. Tars are defined, **£«., in w«b«ter*»
Dictionary. as> "viscous liquids." Moreover, the process
information provided by your staff indicates that more than one
wastestream isr mixed in the waste tank in question which, along
with the temperature and pressure in the tank, explains why BTL's
tar may be less^. rather than more viscous.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further
questions on this topic, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff
at FTS 475-6715.
-------
' 9444.1989(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
Oee'CC O«
SOLID AASTf. AND EMEBCENCr
J.1L 2 I :-33
Shirlee Schiffman, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous Waste
Regulation and Classification
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State street
CN 028
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0028
Dear Ms. Schiffman:
This is in response to your letter of April 5, 1989, and the
subsequent conversation my staff had with you and your staff on
April 20. Specifically, we are answering several questions on
the applicability of hazardous waste regulations under
40 CFR 261.31 and 261.33 to situations enumerated in your letter.
In the first situation, you asked if the regulatory
interpretation provided in a letter sent by the former Office of
Solid Waste Director, Marcia Williams, dated October 26, 1987, is
still valid in the case of acetone-contaminated water from the
washout of a reactor vessel after removal of spent solvent. The
Agency has not changed its interpretation.
In the second situation, you state that a company uses
methanol and acetone to wash a product in order to remove water.
From the telephone conversation, your staff indicated that the
solvent mixture is 50% acetone and 50% methanol before use. To
answer this question, two questions must be answered: 1) does use
as a drying agent constitute use as a solvent? and 2) does the
solvent mixture meet the listing description? First, use as a
drying agent does meet the definition of solvent use because the
material is used to extract water. Second, •ethanol and acetone
are listed ignitable solvents under F003; therefore, the F003
listing applies because the solvent mixture consists solely of
F003-iisted solvents.
You asked during our telephone conversation whether the
mixture rule under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) would apply to this
situation. The Mixture rule applies af^er the waste has been
generated and is then mixed with a solid waste. The mixture rule
specifies that if the mixture no longer exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability, then the waste is no longer
considered hazardous. In this situation, the spent F003 solvents
collected after the washings are EPA hazardous waste F003 until
-------
they are subsequently mixed with solid waste and no longer
exhibit any hazardous waste characteristic.
In tne third example, a transporter delivers P and U wastes
in tanJcer trucks. The heels are drained, and the collected
materials are drummed and manifested as hazardous waste. Once
the tank trucks have been drained, subsequent washes may still
contain small quantities of the original chemical. The answer to
this question depends on whether the truck at the time of rinsing
qualifies as an empty container, under 40 CFR 261.7. The wash
waters generated after draining, assuming the commercial
chemicals have been removed by reasonable means and less than one
inch or less than 0.3% of the tank volume remained, would not be
hazardous wastes. If these conditions are not satisfied, then
the wastewater would be hazardous waste because they contain
unused discarded cponercial chemical products. (See
47 £B 36092 -36097, August 18, 1982.)
The fourth situation involves a company that uses toluene as
a solvent in a chemical production process. After the product is
made, most of the toluene is recovered. However, the wash water
is contaminated with traces of toluene, which then contaminates
the plant's process wastewater and settling tank sludges. The
wash water may be considered a process stream that is
contaminated with a solvent constituent and not a listed spent
solvent. The wastewater and settling tank sludges also are not
listed spent solvent wastes.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any other
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at
(202)382-4770.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: George H«yer, EPA Region II (2AWM-HWC)
-------
9444.1989(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 89
1. Clarification of F009 Listing
Title 40 CFR Section 261.31 describes the hazardous waste listing F009 as "spent
stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations where
cyanides are used in the process." Does this listing include all spent stripping
and cleaning baths from cyanide electroplating processes or only those stripping
and cleaning baths used at seme point after the cyanide bath?
*
Discussion of the scope of F009 in the RCRA Listings Sad ground Docuine.it
indicates EPA's intent is to regulate wastes that contain cya ude. A cleaning
and stAping bath used prior to the cyanide plating bath wou'd not contain
cyanidBpntamination from carry over. Spent cleaning and stripping baths
that fiflEvr cyanide plating baths at some point in the dip ss^utnce wouM
have levels of cyanide in them due to dragout Therefore, it is EPA's"'intent *o
regulate only those spent cleaning and stripping baths from electroplate.-
processes that are used at some point after the cyanide bath. However, if
cleaning and stripping baths are commingled with other baths occurring
during or after cyanide plating baths or if cyanide containing solutions or
wastes art introduced or recycled in the process upstream of the cyanide
plating baths, then these cleaning or stripping baths would be F009.
Source: Robert Scarberry (202)382-4770
Research: Gwen Herron (202) 382-3112
-------
STATtS PVOm^CKTAL PtOTfCTMN ACCMCY
9444.1989(07)
Mr. Thomaa B. Mastalerz
Technical Sales Representative
GSX services, inc. J4JG 2*
P. 0. Drawer c
Greenbrier, Tennessee 37073-0903
Dear Mr. Mastalerz:
This letter is in response to your letter dated July 31,
1989, in which you asJced for clarification of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations as they pertain
to "U" and "P" listed wastes found at 40 CFR Section 261.33(e)
and (f).
When characterizing any commercial chemical product (CCP) as
a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA, a person must first
determine if the CCP can be defined as a solid waste (see 40 CFR
261.2). If the CCP is a solid waste, the CCP would also be a
hazardous waste if it is either a "U" or "p" listed waste in 40.
CFR Section 26l.33(e) or (f) and/or if it exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR Subpart
C of Part 261. If the CCP is not defined as a solid waste, it*
cannot, be a. hazardous waste.
As stated in 40 CFR Section 26l.33(b), "The following
materials or items are hazardous wastes if and when they ate
discarded or intended to be discarded...any off-specification
commercial chemical product or manufacturing chemical
intermediate which, if it met specifications, would have the
generic name listed in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section."
Section 261.33(d) provides that commercial chemical products on
the "U" and "P" lists would also include commercially pure grades
and technical grades of that chemical.
The July 28, 1989 Federal Register (54 FJB 31336) explains
that the "U" or "P" lists do not apply to chemicals that have
been used for their intended purpose. If the laboratory's
"chemical A (U???)" described in your letter is "unused1* and
stills remains a technical grade of that chemical after the 0.5%
- 5.0% contamination you indicated, then the chemical must be
classified as a U listed waste when discarded or intended for
discard/disposal. In addition, if the laboratory's "unused*
chemical A was no longer considered a technical or commercially
pure grade dtie to contamination, it would be considered an off-
specification species of that chemical. As the November 25, 1980
Federal Register (48 £R 78540) explains, "off-specification
-------
materials that, if they met the specification, would be
commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates11 would be listed hazardous wastes when discarded or
intended for discard/disposal.
If you have a CCP that has been used, then it would not be a
"U" or "P" listed waste. It may, however, still exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste defined in 40
CFR Part 261 Subpart C. It is the responsibility of the
generator to make this determination.
You should also be aware of the fact that if the CCP were a
solvent (i.e.. used for its solvent properties) and it was spent,
it may meet one of the spent solvent hazardous waste listings
found at 40 CFR Section 261.31 (Hazardous Waste Nos. F001 through
F005).
Finally, please be advised that States may have regulations
that are more stringent or broader-in-scope than those of the
Federal government. You should always check with the appropriate
state agency.
If you have any further questions, please call the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800-424-9346.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9444.1989(08)
August 21, 1989
Mr. Stephen J. Evans
Environmental Engineer
Modine Manufacturing Company
1500 De Koven Avenue
Racine, Wisconsin 53403
Dear Mr. Evans:
This letter is in response to your letter dated August 3,
1989, in which you ask for classification, under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), of wastewater treatment
sludges resulting from your metal cleaning process.
Your first and foremost question is whether the sludge
generated from the treatment of process wastewaters resulting
from your metal cleaning process meet the listing description for
RCRA Hazardous Waste No. F006. Based on the information in your
letter, Modine's cleaning operation is not associated with
electroplating. If this is the case, then the sludges generated
from treating these cleaning baths (in a wastewater form) are not
considered RCRA Hazardous Waste No. F006. This is based on the
fact that cleaning is a separate and distinct process from
chemical etching and milling. (See EPA's publication Development
Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the
Electroplating Point Source Category. August 1979, publication
No. EPA440/1-79/003, pages 41 and 42 for the definitions of
chemical etching and milling. Note that this document was
referenced in the background document for the F006 listing). As
the December 2, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 43350) states, "The
F006 listing included only common and precious metals
electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching and milling, and
cleaning and stripping when associated with these processes."
This continues to be EPA's policy; cleaning must be associated
with one of these three processes in order to be included in the
listing description for Hazardous Waste No. F006.
Your second question relates to whether an electrical
current is a prerequisite for a process to generate an F006
sludge. The application of an electrical current is not a
prerequisite; chemical etching, for example, does not involve the
application of an electrical current, but sludges generated by
treating wastewater from a chemical etching process are included
in the F006 listing. Unfortunately, the interpretation mentioned
in your letter that you received from the RCRA Hotline on May 15,
1989 relative to this question was incorrect.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
As you mention in your letter, however, the sludge generated
in your wastewater treatment process may be characteristically
hazardous (e.g.. EP toxic); it is the generator's responsibility
to determine whether his/her waste exhibits one or more hazardous
waste characteristics as defined in 40 CFR Subpart C of Part 261.
Please be aware that many states have been authorized to run
their own RCRA programs. State regulations may be more stringent
or broader-in-scope that Federal regulations so you should always
contact the appropriate state agency.
Should you have any additional questions, please feel free
to contact David Topping of my staff at (202) 382-7737.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9444.1989(09)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 89
1. Waste Identification of Discarded Thermometers
A manufacturer of mercury thermometers produces a batch of contaminated
thermometers that must be discarded. If the manufacturer discards the
unused thermometers intact, would the waste need to be managed as U151 or
would the manufacturer need to test the waste to see if it exhibits a hazardous
waste characteristic?
40 CFR Section 261.33 contains a listing of commercial chemical products
that are hazardous wastes if and when they are discarded. Under Section
261.33(d), the phrase "commercial chemical product is defined as a
chemical substance which is manufactured or formulated for commercial
or manufacturing use ...." Furthermore, according to the final rule
preamble in the November 25, 1980 Federal Register (45 ££. 78541), the
Agency did not intend for the phrase commercial chemical product to
apply to manufacturing articles that contain a chemical listed in Section
261.33. The intent was to regulate only those commercial chemical
products and manufacturing chemical intermediates that are known by
the generic name listed in Sections 261.33(c) or (f). Thus, a thermometer
containing mercury is not itself a commercial chemical product and would
not meet the U151 listing. The manufacturer would then need to check
the discarded thermometers for the hazardous waste characteristics,
specifically to see if the waste would exhibit EP toxicity and thus need to be
managed as RCRA hazardous waste 0009. Waste not subject to federal
regulations may be regulated under specific state requirements which are
more stringent.
Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475-6715
Research: Mary Beth Clary
-------
Than* you for your inquiry, if you have any additional
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my office at
FTS 475-6-715.
cc: Susan Broiran, OWPE (OS-520)
John Snith, OTS (TS-798)
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I, II, IV - X
-------
9444.1989(11
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OCT 3
Mr. Jeffrey 0. Cerar
Squires, Sanders, and Dempsey
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20004
Dear Mr. Cerar:
This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1989,
concerning the petitions of the Ferroalloy Association and
Macalloy Corporation to withdraw the K090 and K091 hazardous
waste listings.
As indicated in your letter and our meeting on July 17,
the Agency does believe that trivalent chromium is a more
serious health concern than previously believed. Recent
evidence suggests that Chromium (III) may be a potential
carcinogen.
The toxicokinetics of chromium have been well studied and
are documented in the literature. Chromium (both III and VI)
have been found to be absorbed in humans and animals following
inhalation, oral, and dermal exposure (Tox Profile for
Chromium, 1987). Chromium (VI) is taken up through the cell
membranes and reduced to Chromium (III) intracellularly. In
addition to the Chromium (III) metabolites, several other
potentially genotoxic chromium metabolites are formed such as
chromium (V and IV) as well as reactive peroxides and oxygen
radicals. (Tox Profile for chromium, 1987). However, it is
thought that chromium (III) may be the predominant genotoxicant
producing DMA-protein cross links and DNA strand breaks
(Beyersmann and Koster, 1987).
Until recently it was assumed that chromium (III) was
unable to permeate the cell membrane due to negative results
from in vitro genotoxic assays and positive results with
isolated nuclei and purified DNA (Tox Profile for Chromium,
1987). Recent studies, however, have shown that chromium (III)
complexes can penetrate biomembranes and induce DNA damage (de
Flora et al., 1984; Beyersmann and Koster, 1987).
-------
In light of the existing studies showing absorption of
Chromium (III) via inhalation, oral and/or dermal exposure;
permeation of chromium (III) across cell membranes, and
evidence that chromium (III) is a genotoxicant, chromium (Ii:
should be regarded as a potential carcinogen. Our
toxicologists would be happy to meet with you to discuss thii
further.
Because of our toxicological concerns with trivalent
chromium, the Agency is also rethinking the appropriateness c
the exclusion under section 26l.4(b)(6) for wastes which
contain chromium which is nearly exclusively in the trivalent
form. As you stated in your letter, however, we will need tc
go through rulemaking to amend the regulations.
In addition, the Agency remains concerned about the
conversion of trivalent chromium to the more toxic hexavalent
form under certain plausible mismanagement scenarios, which v
the original basis for the listing of K090/91. Thus, data
submitted by the Ferroalloy Association on the K090/K091
proposed listing regarding valence did not affect the Agency'
listing determination. Given these concerns with both
trivalent and hexavalent chromium, we believe that the decisi
to list K090 and K091 on the basis of total chromium was
appropriate.
In your letter you indicated your concern with how the
Agency lists wastes based on the presence and concentration o
Appendix VIII constituents. It has always been the Agency's
practice to consider the factors outlined in 40 CFR
261.IK a)(3) when listing a waste as hazardous. For the
reasons described above, EPA believes that the listing of K090
and K091 was appropriate after considering all the relevant
factors.
You also expressed concern over the variability of the
waste covered by the K090 and K091 listings and indicated tha
the Agency should not regulate them if the wastes are not
consistently hazardous. Although the technologies which
generate the waste differ and chromium levels vary within the
ferrochromium industry, the wastes are all generated by air
pollution control devices from furnaces used in the manufactui
of ferrochromium or ferrochromium silicon and all wastes
contain sufficiently high levels of chromium to warrant
listing. We believe that the individual wastes covered by tht
listings are typically or frequently hazardous if mismanaged.
In regard to data obtained from the extraction procedure
(EP) toxicity characteristic, EPA has always maintained that
the EP levels are concentrations which are clearly hazardous
based on the simulated leaching of certain toxic constituents
from a waste. Concentrations below the EP levels also may pot
-------
a substantial hazard to human health and the environment; thus,
the Agency will not remove a listed waste from regulation based
solely on data utilizing the EP toxicity characteristic.
Finally, you stated that delisting employs different
criteria than listing and is not an appropriate option for your
Association's members due to the timeframe and because you
believe that the Agency should withdraw the listings. First,
delisting requires the Administrator to determine, among other
things, that the petitioned waste does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed. Thus, although
delisting may consider additional factors, it is not accurate
to say that delisting applies different criteria. As stated in
our previous letter of June 16, 1989, EPA does not presently
intend to withdraw its listings. We must, however, go through
proposed and final rulemakings to respond to your members'
petitions as well as the petitions regarding the other 4
hazardous smelting wastes. Completing this process may take at
least another year. Therefore, delisting may still be an
option for your consideration. If the Agency were to apply its
VHS delisting modeling tool, chromium bearing wastes may be
delistable if the total chromium concentration does not exceed
between 0.315 ppm and 1.6 ppm depending upon the.annual volume
of waste generated and assuming the waste does not exhibit
other factors (e.g., additional toxic constituents) which would
make the waste hazardous. See the description of the VHS
model, 50 FR 48896 (November 27, 1985) for details.
I would like to emphasize that this letter contains only
tentative reactions to the issues you have raised. A final
determination on your members' petitions to withdraw the
listings will be made only after notice in the Federal Register
and a full opportunity for public comment. We will also make
your August 16th letter, this response, and the technical
materials cited above a part of the public record for your
petition.
I hope this letter has provided further clarification on
the Agency's position. As indicated earlier, our toxicologists
would be happy to meet with you to discuss our health concerns
with trivalent chromium. Please feel free to contact Dr. Susan
Griffin at (202) 382-4295, if you would like to arrange a
meeting.
Sincerely
Robert M. scarberry, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
UNITED STATES EFWRrONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE*-"'
9444.1989(12)
Ms. Sonya E. Shashoua
Supervising Environmental Specialist
Bureau of Hazardous Waste Regulation and Classification
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN-028, 401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0028
Dear Ms. Shashoua:
This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1989, in which
you asked several questions related to specific waste codes under
40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f). As you requested, this office will
clarify the points you have raised so your own hazardous waste
lists are consistent with the technical corrections to §261.33
the EPA published on April 22, 1988 (53 FR 13382). We will
answer your questions in the order you raised them.
l. The chemical name "3-(alpha-Acetonyibenzyl)-4-
hydroxycoumarin" (P001, CAS #81-81-2) was dropped from
40 CFR 261.33(e) while the name "Warfarin" was retained.
was the reason for this deletion?
What
Warfarin is the common name for this substance, and the name
in the 9th Collective Index (CD of Chemical Abstracts was
changed.
2. There were two chemicals on 40 CFR 261.33(f) with the number
U126; Glycidylaldehyde (CAS #765-34-4) and l-propanol-r 2,3-epoxy
(CAS #556-52-5). After July 1, 1986 the latter chemical was
dropped from 40 CFR 261.33(f). Why wasn't it retained with a
different "U* number?
Glycidylaldehyde appears to be correct and 1-propanol,
2,3-epoxy was added as an incorrect synonym in 1981. When
the Agency again addresses the issue of making technical
corrections to $261.33, we will review the old support data
to confirm the correct entry.
3. Can you verify that the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
number for U136 Cacodylic Acid is 75-60-5? The source I am using
as a double check lists the number as 75-50-6.
.iL dLill US
OATV
Keg
stry, tne
S~O&.&tiB,
y u
«« IM04 02*7«)
OFFICIAL FtUI COP
-------
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH).
4. What is the correct name and CAS number for U036: Chlordane,
technical (CAS #12789-03-6) or Chlordane, alpha and gamma isomers
(CAS #57-74-9)?
Chlordane, alpha and gamma isomers (CAS #57-74-9) are the
commercial products associated with the 9th CI name;
Chlordane, technical (CAS #12789-03-6) is associated with
the 8th CI name. Since no commercial grade of Chlordane is
a pure compound, any formulation in which Chlordane is the
sole active ingredient is probably regulated under §261,33.
5. What are the correct listings for creosote and coal tar? I
have found:
U051 Creosote -
U051 Creosote CAS # 8021-39-4 (40 CFR - July 1, 1987 edition)
Appendix VIII Coal tar creosote CAS # 8007-45-2
Appendix VIII Creosote No CAS # U051
Appendix VIII Coal tar creosote CAS #8001-58-9 (40 CFR, July 1,
1987 edition)
Creosote, U051, with no CAS Number is correct since the
Agency wants to include all forms of creosote under tne
listing. See enclosure for more details.
6. What is the source for the CAS numbers for "nitrogen
mustard" and Nitrogen mustard N-oxide?" These compounds are not
listed in the reference book I have.
The CAS Registry and RTECS are both sources for the CAS
numbers for these substances.
7 The listing for U161 "Pentanol, 4-methyl" appears to be in
error. The name "2-Pentanone, 4-methyl" has the CAS #108-10-1
and would agree with the other two entries for U161: "Methyl
isobutyl ketone" and "4-Methyl-2-pentanone" both having the CAS
#108-10-1. Could you please clarify this listing?
You are correct in the statement that 4-Methyl pentanol is
an incorrect name for U161. Methyl isobutyl ketone and
2-Pentanone, 4-methyl (CAS #108-10-1) are both correct names
for U161.
Thank you for your inquiry. Many times the Government
Printing Office makes typographical errors and omissions when it
publishes our regulations in the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations. Such mistakes cause many people to send in
inquiries about the accuracy of our listings and force us to
publish technical corrections to the listings from time to time.
You may also be interested in checking the accuracy of the CAS
-------
numbers used in §261.33 and Appendix VIII by contacting the
Chemical Abstracts Service (a part of the American Chemical
Society) in Columbus, Ohio at (61-4)447-3600.
Sincerely,
£*•*—' V .rwW
Ron
Environmental Engineer
Listing Section
Enclosure
cc: George Meyer, EPA Region II (2AWM-HWC)
-------
9444.1989(13)
x
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
V
OCT 2 0 1989
(jr net c^
SOLID VkAST AND EV< HGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Kevin Anthony
Environmental Assistant
MagneTek Ohio Transformer
1776 Constitution Avenue
Louisville, OH 44641
Dear Mr. Anthony:
Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1989, in which you
requested information concerning the handling of "F". series solid
wastes. More specifically, you requested that we send you
information on handlers and alternate disposal or reclamation
processes for rags and similar materials, which have absorbed
various volatiles and "F" wastes through wipe down and cleaning
processes. In general, the EPA Regional Offices are responsible
for this type of inquiry. However, because you have indicated that
Region 5 referred you to my office, my staff has coordinated with
them to prepare the following response for you.
Rags arid similar materials may be incinerated and the residue
landfilled. Laundering these rags is an alternative to
incineration, for those rags which can be laundered. Dan Patulski
of Region 5 did not have any additional information on handlers and
alternate disposal or reclamation processes for rags and similar
materials. v
If you have any further questions, you can contact
Mr. Patulski at (312) 886-0656. He has your letter and will be
given a copy of this reply.
Sincerely,
K. Lowrance, Director
of Solid Waste
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 1989 9444.1989(14)
3. 40 CFR Section 261.33: Spills of Commercial Chemical Products
Any residues or contaminated soils, waters or other debris ". . . resulting from
the cleanup of a spill into or on any land or water of any commercial chemical
product or manufacturing chemical intermediate having the generic name listed
in paragraph (e) or (f) . . ." of Section 261.33 are hazardous wastes if and when
they are intended to be discarded. (40 CFR 261.33 (d)) Does 40 CFR 261.33 only
apply to spills "into or on any land or water," or are other types of spills covered
(i.e., debris that result from a cleanup of a spill wholly contained within a
building)?
In the November 25,1980 Federal Register. EPA states that the purpose of 40
CFR Section 261.33 is to regulate the listed chemical products (and spill
residues thereof) as hazardous wastes when they are discarded or intended
to be discarded. (45 FR 78540) Although not specifically stated in Section
261.33 (d), EPA intends that this section apply to all spill residues, regardless
of where the spill occurs. The scope of this regulation includes not only
spills on land or into water, but also other types of spills.
Source: Ron Josephson, OSW (202) 475-6715
Research: Sean White
-------
9444.1939(10
SEP 22 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Regulation of a Spill of Tetrachloroethylene
Contaminated with Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS-300)
TO: Steven Wassersug, Director
Waste Management Division, Region III (3HW-00)
4
This memorandum is in response to a June 9, 1989 letter.frotf
Lawrence Falkin of the RCRA Enforcement General Section to Pat .*
Carter of the Headquarters Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
(OWPE). in this letter^ your staff asked for a determination of
whether tetrachloroethylene contaminated with PCBs from the
washout of transformers is a RCRA-regulated hazardous waste.
Specifically, the tetrachloroethylene was used as a temporary
transformer dielectric and to remove residual PCBs from
transformers.
Although use as a dielectric does not meet the description
of a solvent use, it is clear that the primary reason that the
tetrachloroethylene is used is to remove the PCBs from the
transformer. Use of tetrachloroethylene (where the before-use
concentration is at least ten percent by volume) in "decreasing,
cleaning, fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants, reaction and
synthesis media, and similar uses* is a solvent use covered by
the F002 spent solvent listing description. (See 50 PR 53316,
December 317 1985.) Here, the before-use concentration of the
tetrachloroethylene is close to 100%. Spent tetrachloroethylene
contaminated with PCBs is a spent solvent (F002) under
40 CFR 261.31 and is subject to all RCRA waste management and
corrective action requirements. Further, the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) in no way supersedes RCRA requirements
applicable to such wastes. If a conflict between RCRA and TSCA
authority were to be found, the more stringent requirements would
apply. (See, e.g., 52 PR 25769 - 25770, July 8, 1987.)
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE STO 9 4 4 4.19 9 0(01)
JANUARY 1990
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—JANUARY 1990
A. RCRA
1. Two Parts to the Definition of Treatment
To facilitate disposal, a generator consolidates two spent solvents, which
are listed in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D, into a single container. Is the
mixing of these wastes considered to be treatment of hazardous waste
under RCRA? Would a person consolidating waste need a RCRA permit
or interim status designation for treatment of hazardous waste?
The definition of treatment is a two-part definition. The definition
includes "any method ... or process ... designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous
waste so as to neutralize such waste, or so as to recover energy or
material resources from the waste, or so as to render such waste non-
hazardous; less hazardous; (or) safer to transport, store, or dispose of
(40 CFR Section 260.10).
Putting two RCRA hazardous wastes into one container with the
purpose of facilitating disposal is treatment if, for example, the
mixing makes one or both of the wastes less hazardous or safer to
transport. (OSWER Directive 9432.05-84; November 6, 1984) Any
person, unless otherwise excluded from regulation, consolidating
wastes needs a RCRA permit or interim status designation for
treatment if the mixing results in treatment according to the
definition in 40 CFR Section 260.10. (Certain generators accumulating
wastes and treating the wastes in tanks and containers may not be
subject to permit requirements (51 £E 10168, March 24,1986).)
Regardless of whether or not the person is treating hazardous waste,
he may need a RCRA permit for storage. A generator would need a
permit or interim status designation for storage if waste is stored
longer, or is accumulated in amounts greater, than the limitations in
40 CFR Section 262.34. A transporter also would need a storage
permit if, for example, he stores waste at a transfer facility for longer
than ten days (40 CFR Section 263.12).
Source: Jim Berlow, OSW (202)382-4627
Mitch Kidwell, OSW (202) 382-4805
Richard Kinch, OSW (202) 382-7917
Chet Oszman , OSW (202) 382-4499
Research: Monica Genadio
-------
9444.1990(02)
r<>.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 22 1990
O*'ICE Of
souo WASTE ANO EM£"GE«CV
Richard A. Jamison, Jr.
Micron Diagnostics, Inc.
Point Breeze Business Center
2200-C Broening Highway
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
Dear Mr. Jamison,
This letter responds to your March 14, 1990 correspondence
regarding the regulatory status of your product, Micro-Clear.
In order for a material to be defined as a hazardous waste
subject to regulation under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) , it must first be defined as a solid waste
according to the requirements set forth in 40 CFR 261.2. Unused
commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates do not qualify as solid waste unless they are
discarded or intended to be discarded, burned for energy recovery
or used to produce a fuel (if this is not their normal manner of
use), or applied to the land (if this is not their normal manner
of use) . If a commercial chemical product is used, reused,
recycled or reclaimed in lieu of being discarded, it does not
qualify as a solid waste and cannot be a hazardous waste subject
to regulations under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Your letter does not indicate the final disposition of the
Micro-Clear, but you do state that Micro-Clear is a commercial
product. Provided this commercial product is being used for its
intended purpose, it would not qualify as a solid waste and would
not be subject to RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction. However, if this
product could no longer be used for its intended purpose (e.g., it
is off-specification or outlives its expiration date) and is
intended for disposal, it would be a solid waste and could be
subject to RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction.
A generator of solid waste is required to perform a hazardous
waste determination for his solid waste pursuant to 40 CFR 262.11.
This regulation requires the generator to determine if his waste
meets a listing of hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261.
If the waste is not listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261, he must
determine whether the waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261.
-------
Assuming that a quantity of Micro-Clear was intended for
disposal and that you have previously determined that it does not
meet a listing of hazardous waste, the test data supplied with your
letter appears to demonstrate that Micro-Clear does not exhibit any
of the characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C
of 40 CFR Part 261. You should be aware, however, that although
your data indicates that Micro-Clear does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, each individual generator is
responsible for evaluating his own waste and making this
determination. Furthermore, the EPA recently finalized the
Toxicity Characteristic rule. This rulemaking amends 40 CFR 261.24
(Characteristic of EP Toxicity) by adding an additional 25 organic
constituents of concern and establishes regulatory thresholds for
these constituents. Your letter indicates that a sample of Micro-
clear was evaluated for most of the constituents found in Table l
under 40 CFR 261.24 (cadmium is not included with the metals which
were found to be non-detectable). However, after the effective
date of the Toxicity Characteristic regulations, generators must
evaluate their solid wastes for the presence of these additional
toxic constituents.
Should you have further questions regarding the regulatory
status of your Micro-Clear, I encourage you to contact the
appropriate Regional office or authorized State regulatory agency.
The regulatory interpretations provided in this letter apply to
Federal requirements. State and local regulatory agencies may have
regulations that are more stringent than those at the Federal
level. You may want to contact the appropriate State regulatory
agency to determine what, if any, additional requirements apply.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9444.1990(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR -5
/f*
Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Chuck Kr eider
BASF Corporation
8 Campus Drive
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
Dear Mr. Kr eider:
This is in response to your letter of February 22^1990 to
Mr. Jace Cuje of Geo-Resource Consultants, Inc. (the
RCRA/ Super fund Hotline) concerning the commercial chemical
product listing (40 CFR 261.33) for xylene (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. U239). Specifically, you wanted to know if the listing for
dimethyl benzene (a chemical synonym for xylene) was listed for
ignitability and toxicity, or ignitability only.
On April 22, 1988, the Agency promulgated technical
corrections to the $261.33 listings. (See 53 FR 13382.) In the
process of doing this, the Agency added Chemical Abstracts
Service (CAS) numbers to the listed chemicals, as well as
chemical synonyms, to make understanding these regulations easier
on the regulated community. After these corrections appeared in
the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations, we
realized that a few typographical errors had been made. The case
of dimethyl benzene is one of them. The listing for "benzene,
dimethyl" (U239, CAS No. 1330-20-7) should be only for
ignitability. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have
caused you.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any additional
questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at
(202)475-6715 or the RCRA/ Super fund Hotline at (800)424-9346.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Scarberry, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
friMtd on Kteycltd Pap*'
-------
9444.1990(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY
-Z1990
Mr. Frank Jaronik
Coral International, Inc.
135 LeBaron Street
Waukegan, Illinois 60085
Dear Mr. Jaronik:
This is in response to your letter of March 27, 1990 /
concerning tne exclusion from the F019 hazardous waste listing
which was finalized on February 14, 1990 (55 FR 5340). You
wanted to know whether this exclusion applies to wastewater
treatment sludges from zirconium phosphating of two-piece
aluminum food cans in addition to aluminum beverage cans.
The F019 exclusion would apply to sludges from this process
on aluminum food cans provided the conditions outlined in the
February 14 Federal Register are met. The conversion coating
process must involve the exclusive use of zirconium phosphating
solutions that do not contain cyanide or chromium. Further, this
process must not be associated with electroplating or conversion
coating steps where hazardous constituents are used.
Should you have any additional questions, please contact
Ms. Denise, Wright of my staff at (202) 245-3519.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Scarberry
Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444.1990(05)
Mr. Janes B. MacRae, Jr.
Acting Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
New Executive Office Building
Room 3019
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. MacRae:
The purpose of*this letter is to summarize the Agency's
response to issues raised in OMB's review of the petroleum
refinery sludge hazardous waste listing regulation, since
receiving your letter on September 6, 1990 the Agency has spent
considerable time reviewing the issues raised, re-analyzing the
data that support the rule, and developing written responses, the
most recent of which we sent to you on October 5. Both the
Deputy Administrator and I have spent significant amounts of time
personally on this matter; we have both been briefed by staff on
the issues, we have formulated the Agency's response, and we have
met with you or talked personally on the phone. As late as the
morning of October 16 EPA and OMB staff were engaged in detailed
discussions on the text of the preamble. I am sure you will
agree that-the Agency has been quite responsive to your concerns.
As you know, the fundamental purpose of this regulation is
to complete the work begun in 1980 when the Agency listed the
first group of primary wastewater treatment sludges from
petroleum refining. A major weakness in the original listing was
that it failed to capture all of the primary sludges generated at
petroleum refineries. This final listing regulation simply
completes RCRA coverage of the these primary wastewater treatment
sludges, all of which have the potential to present significant
risks to human health when mismanaged. I therefore strongly
encourage you to complete your review of this important
regulation. Your speedy action is particularly important since
the Agency is now under order of the U.S. District Court for the
.District of Columbia to promulgate this rule by October 22, 1990.
-------
Following is a summary of the Agency's responses to your
concerns in the order presented in your letter.
EPA'8 Decision to List Is Based on Arbitrary Distinctions Between
Waste Types
Your September 6 letter raised two concerns about the scope
of the listing determination. Your first concern is that the
preamble fails to document the distinction between primary
separation and biological separation sludges and thus calls into
question the Agency's rationale for listing.the former but not
the latter. You provide data to support your conclusion that the
levels of hazardous constituents in the two types of sludges are
similar enough to justify the listing of both. Your second
concern is that the listing determination fails to account for
the variability in levels of hazardous constituents in the
primary sludges and thus over-regulates.
With respect to your first concern, the Agency has never
intended to include biological sludges in thisilisting nor have
we published any documents suggesting that we were considering
such an action. Our intent has always been simply to regulate
the primary sludges that were not captured by the 1980 listings.
Since biological sludges were not within the scope of the
rulemaking, we have never undertaken a major sampling effort and
therefore have only limited data. This limited data and our
engineering judgment lead us to believe that biological sludges
contain significantly lower levels of many hazardous constituents
than primary sludges and thus pose less of a risk to human health
and the environment. In attempting to re-create the figures
shown in the table on page 4 of your letter, we realized that
your figures for the concentration of hazardous constituents in
biological treatment sludges include data from some units that
would be regulated as primary treatment units under this listing.
Your figures therefore overstate the concentration of hazardous
constituents in aggressive biological treatment sludges and do
^not by themselves provide a rationale for listing biological
treatment sludges. In our October 5 letter we transmitted new
preamble language and data that more clearly explain why the
Agency cannot justify the listing of biological sludges at this
time.
Your letter also states that the levels of hazardous
constituents in primary sludges vary by orders of magnitude
across facilities and between units and thus the listing is over-
inclusive. The Agency's data do not support this conclusion.
While it is true that individual constituent concentrations vary,
virtually every sample of primary separation sludge collected by
the Agency contains one or more hazardous constituents several
orders of magnitude above the applicable health-based levels.
-------
Thus, notwithstanding variation among constituent concentrations,
these data clearly demonstrate that all primary sludges have the
potential to pose a risk to human health.
Selective Application of the Factors for Consideration in
6 261.11 fal m
Potential f°r FMg|ap Exposure
Your letter states that the Agency has not provided evidence
of contamination in- drinking water wells down-gradient of
petroleum refineries. In response, we have provided preamble
language documenting evidence found in Region VI of contamination
of RCRA groundwater monitoring wells by currently listed primary
separation sludges. As we stated in our earlier written response
and in our October 4 meeting, it would be time-consuming and
costly for the Agency to monitor drinking water wells (as opposed
to monitoring wells) for the purposes of regulation development.
Even if the monitoring data were collected, it would also be
difficult to identify the specific source of any contamination
detected due to the prevalence of contaminants surrounding
petroleum refineries. The same limitation on identifying
contamination sources applies to monitoring conducted by public
drinking water treatment utilities. Therefore, as a standard
practice, we rely heavily on modeling of constituent fate and
transport to predict the potential for drinking water
contamination from particular wastestreams. In the case of this
industry, we have an unusually large database containing real-
world information on toxic constituents, current management
practices, site hydrogeology, and distances to public and private
wells. It is our view that the fate and transport model, coupled
with extensive real-world data inputs and the Region VI damage
cases provide clear evidence of the potential for these sludges
to contaminate down-gradient drinking water sources when they are
mismanaged.
Factors Inadequately Addressed in the Draft
Risk Reducing Effects of Drinking Water Regulations
H»' ••^^^^^^^^^•••••^"^^•^••^^^^^^•^•••^^^^^••^•—•^•.•^^•^•^^^^^•••••^•^^••••^^^^^^^^••••••••••^^^•^•••••••^^^•••••••^^^•••••••^•••••^^^•t
Your letter suggests that the benefits analysis and the
decision to regulate should take into account both the effects of
existing regulations under the Safe Drinking Water (SDWA) and the
effects of contaminant taste and odor on drinking water use. You
imply that it would be less costly to society to rely on SDWA
regulations to prevent human exposure to any groundwater
contamination through public drinking water treatment systems and
to rely on contaminant taste and odor to prevent human exposure
through private wells.
The Agency views this approach, which focuses on cleanup, as
contrary to both the statutory goals of RCRA and the Agency's
pollution prevention strategy. Prevention of pollution often has
-------
proven to yield long-term benefits. The Agency nonetheless
agrees that the existence of drinking water regulations for some
of the hazardous constituents of primary separation sludge is
relevant to the quantitative benefits calculation. However,
drinking water regulations do not exist for all of the hazardous
constituents, most notably the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
that are common in the petroleum sludges at issue here. The
Agency did not therefore invest its limited analytical resources
in a further refinement of the benefits analysis to measure the
exact impact of drinking water regulations. We did provide in
our October 5 letter additional language for the preamble and the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that qualitatively addresses
this limitation in the analysis.
Contaminant taste and odor would be an unreliable approach
to protection of private veil users. The concentration threshold
at which people taste and smell contaminants varies, and in the
case of benzene, the threshold is several times higher than the
drinking water regulatory level. Such an approach would
obviously not be effective for contaminants that have neither
taste nor odor.
The Agency also does not dispute the fact that treatment of
contaminated groundwater is less costly in the short term than
full implementation of RCRA Subtitle C. We are not convinced
however, that: the long-term costs to society would indeed be
lower, given the mandates of both RCRA and CERCLA to clean up
contamination and the essentially unquantifiable value of an
uncontaminated natural resource. The policy and legal
implications of implementing a treatment approach are profound,
and would require the Agency to undertake a comprehensive re-
thinking of the RCRA and CERCLA programs. We do not believe that
it is appropriate to undertake such an effort at this time or in
the context of this individual rulemaking. We would welcome the
opportunity to discuss the environmental implications of relying
on groundwater treatment instead of prevention and remediation
later this fall as we begin to prepare for the reauthorization of
RCRA.
**'
Other Appropriate Considerations
1) Alternative Means of Achieving Equivalent Risk -
Reduction Benefits at Less Cost
You suggest that EPA should have given further consideration
to a range of alternatives for the regulation of primary
separation sludge. Examples given include a d£ minimis approach,
a Subtitle "D" or nD+" approach, and the more novel idea of
regulating only when contamination in drinking water wells has
actually been detected and the refinery has failed to provide
either treatment or alternative water supply. Your letter goes
on to state that full implementation of Subtitle C dampens
-------
pollution prevention incentives by regulating all of the sludges
to the same degree of stringency regardless of their level of
toxicity.
Based on further analysis, we have found first that
petroleum refinery primary vastewater treatment sludges are
unlikely to qualify for a de minimis exemption from Subtitle C
regulation. Since 1980 the industry has been unable to lower
constituent levels to meet even the hazardous waste delisting
levels, so ve do not consider a fl£ minimis approach to be viable.
Second, we do not have statutory authority to develop or enforce
Subtitle D regulations for this industry at this time, nor are we
aware of the legal authority under which your final regulatory
alternative could be implemented. We therefore did not pursue
analysis of these options in our RIA.
The Agency could consider pursuing a concentration-based
listing or tailoring existing Subtitle C requirements to this
particular industry in hopes of reducing the costs of compliance.
However,.neither approach is likely to produce dramatic savings
in this industry. . The toxicity and mobility of these sludges
would probably prevent the Agency from establishing
concentrations that would allow substantial volumes to escape
regulation. It would also be difficult to justify significant
deviation from established Subtitle C engineering standards.
Both approaches would require a new data collection and analysis
effort as well as a re-proposal of the rule. We do not think it
is appropriate to consider a fundamental change in our regulatory
approach for petroleum refining waste at this late stage in the
process, particularly when the standards for newly listed sludges
would vary in approach from standards that apply to virtually
identical sludges that have been listed since 1980. We do
believe, however, that both concentration-based listings and
tailored standards are worthy of consideration in the future for
those wastestrearns where it is appropriate. There are policy,
legal, and resource issues to be evaluated before the Agency can
fully implement either approach. We would be happy to discuss
these issues with you at your convenience.
*'
We do not agree with your statement that listing discourages
pollution prevention. Our experience has been that listing under
Subtitle C creates a strong incentive to reduce waste volume, to
improve the efficiency of wastewater treatment systems, and to
recycle and re-use waste materials. Based on this experience and
information provided to us by the refining industry, we would
expect the same incentives to exist for these petroleum sludge
listings.
-------
2) Upper-Bound Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk is Within
EPA's Acceptable Risk Range
Your letter indicates that the excess cancer risks presented
by primary treatment sludge are within the 10"* to 10"6
"acceptable" range. Your letter fails to point out that OMB used
average upper-bound cancer risks to the exposed population to
document this statement as opposed to the cancer risks posed to
the maximally exposed individuals (MEI's) at individual
refineries. Historically, EPA has set standards to protect
against HEX cancer risk levels in the 10"* to 10*6 range.
*•
3) Costs Exceed Benefits by at Least an Order of
Magnitude
EPA is aware that the projected costs of complying with the
petroleum refinery sludge listing exceed the benefits we have
been able to quantify. It is extremely difficult to quantify the
health and environmental benefits of prevention regulations and
we would welcome any advice OMB may have on improving our
techniques for benefits estimation. We provided in the
attachments to our October 5 letter a discussion of the factors
that have caused us to under-estimate benefits. These include
exposure pathways not analyzed, constituents not included in the
analysis, and future populations not accounted for. We believe
that the incentives to reduce waste volumes and upgrade
wastewater treatment systems, the closing of a long-standing gap
in RCRA regulatory coverage, and the consistency with previous
listing decisions are all factors in addition to the cost/benefit
ratio that must be considered in this final regulatory decision.
In closing, I would like to say that EPA appreciates the
time and effort that you and your staff have devoted to the
review of this regulation. You have pointed out some issues
which required fuller discussion in the preamble and have raised
broad policy issues that clearly merit further consideration as
we look to the future of the hazardous waste program. However,
given the existence of a gap for 10 years in RCRA regulatory
coverage of primary separation sludges and the court order
requiring the Administrator to take final action on this rule by
October 22, the Agency finds there is a compelling need to
complete our work on the petroleum refinery sludge listing and
promulgate this final rule.
Sincerely,
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
cc: F. Henry Habicht, II
-------
9444.1991(01)
RCRA/SDPERPDND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 1991
1. Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Treatment Sludge Classification
A petroleum refinery produces large volumes of process and oily cooling
wastewaters. Prior to discharge into the facility's privately owned treatment works,
the wastewater undergoes treatment to meet applicable dean Water Act discharge
limits. At various points throughout the wastewater treatment process, the facility
generates a sludge which is disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill. The
November 2,1990 Federal Register (55 FR 46354), promulgated two new petroleum
refinery wastewater treatment sludge listings, F037 and F038. After May 2,1991, the
effective date of this rule, which of the facility's treatment sludges will need to be
classified according to the new designations and therefore become subject to RCRA
Subtitle C requirements?
In developing the new listings, EPA concluded that sludges resulting from
various petroleum refinery wastewater treatment sources contain similar
levels of hazardous constituents as those generated in Dissolved Air Flotation
(DAF) units and American Petroleum Institute (API) separators, which are
already designated as K048 and K051, respectively. Consequently, the
Agency promulgated the nonspecific source F037 and F038 waste listings to
ensure that regulatory coverage was extended to all petroleum floats and
sludge resulting from primary wastewater treatment that are not covered
under more unit-specific K designations. (55 F_B 46356)
To determine the applicability of the F037 and F038 listings, the facility must
ascertain the origin of the wastewater treatment sludges. Petroleum refinery
process and oily cooling wastewaters are generally treated in two phases:
primary treatment and secondary (biological) treatment Primary wastewater
treatment in the petroleum refining industry covers only the two initial stages
of treatment which are designed to use physical and chemical processes to
separate oil, water and solids from the wastewater stream.
Specifically, the F037 listing description is assigned to sludges resulting from
the first stage of primary treatment where gravitational oil/water/solids
separation is performed. The F038 designation pertains to floats and sludges
that arise from the second stage of primary treatment in which physical and
chemical processes are employed to separate emulsified oil/water/solids
from refinery wastewaters. (55 FR 46363) PLEASE NOTE: sludges resulting
from secondary wastewater treatment, which are distinguished by the active
biological degradation phase that follows primary treatment, are not covered
by the new petroleum refinery sludge rule.
-------
A final consideration when determining the scope of the F037 and F038
listings are the exemptions for sludges generated from specific situations.
These include (1) sludges generated from storm water units that do not
receive dry weather flow; (2) sludges (or floats) generated from aggressive
biological treatment units; and (3) sludges resulting from specific wastewater
treatment units already designated as K048 and/or K051. (55 £E 46358) The
exemptions ensure that only sludges and floats resulting from previously
unregulated activities or activities within the scope of the new listings (i.e.,
only primary treatment) are identified as hazardous under the F037 and F038
waste codes.
Source: John Austin, OSW (202) 382-4789
Research: Stephen Buchanan
-------
-J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444 1991(02)
Gaynor Dawson
vice President
ICF Kaiser Engineers
601 Williams Blvd., 4th Floor
Richland, WA
Dear Mr. Dawson:
I am writing ^to respond to your August 17, 1990 letter
requesting clarification of the circumstances under which lead
shielding for radioactive waste is a solid waste under RCRA.
In your letter, you refer to the June 26, 1987 correspondence
between the Director of the Office of Solid Waste, Marcia
Williams, and Terry Husseman, Chair of the Northwest Interstate
Compact Committee, which states in part: "...lead whose primary
use is shielding in low-level waste disposal operations is not
subject to Federal hazardous waste regulations when placed on
the land as part of its normal commercial use." This policy is
unchanged.
Most recently, this policy was echoed in the October 4,
1989 Agency guidance to NRC licensees, "Guidance on the
Definition and Identification of Commercial Mixed Low-level
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste and Answers to Anticipated
Questions." In question 6, on page 4 of the guidance, the issue
is raised: "Are lead containers whose primary use is for
shielding in disposal operations, hazardous waste under RCRA?"
The first paragraph of the response follows:
No. While lead containers and lead container liners
may exhibit the hazardous characteristic for lead,
those containers whose primary use is for shielding in
low-level waste disposal operations are not
considered hazardous wastes and thus, are not subject
to the hazardous waste rules. These same containers
and liners if disposed of or discarded would be
considered wastes and if they exhibit the hazardous
characteristic, would be subject to the hazardous
waste rules.
In summary, your statement that "... lead containers or
container liners [are] not solid wastes when the radioactive
waste [is] disposed because the lead shielding continue [s] to
fulfill this intended use as shielding" is a correct
interpretation of Agency policy. While the lead shielding is
urioi1 to idiJDoaali in ei? epcfflli, K8I& fee pggvenfc fehq ohieldipg
-------
UNI. J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
from leaching. When this is done, the environment will be
protected from radiation by the lead shielding, and from the
leaching of lead by the macrbencapsulation of the entire waste
package. Please note that this macroencapsulation is not
required by the land disposal restrictions, but represents best
management practice. Of course, if the shielding is no longer
serving its intended use as a commercial product and is
discarded, and exhibits a characteristic, it is a solid waste
and must meet all Subtitle C requirements, including
macroencapsulatio"h before being placed in or on the ground.
Your letter asks several questions regarding lead
shielding, some of which were discussed over the phone with Rod
Larang of your staff. The first question asks if lead shielding
for radioactive wastes is a solid waste when it is disposed
under certain conditions.
The first condition is when the shielding is part of an
object being disposed, and while necessary for radiation
protection during waste handling prior to its disposal in or on
the land, is not necessary for radiation protection after the
object has been placed in or on the land. Since the shielding
is not necessary for radiation protection once the object has
been disposed, it becomes a solid waste upon disposal, and
therefore must meet all applicable treatment standards.
The second condition concerns lead shielding that is part
of a disposed waste package and is necessary for radiation
protection after the object has been buried. Here, the lead
shielding is fulfilling its intended use as a commercial
product, and is not considered a solid waste.
The third condition involves the introduction of shielding
during the packaging of radioactive waste in preparation for its
disposal. As the lead shielding is necessary only during waste
handling in this example, once the shielding is disposed, it
becomes a solid waste.
The fourth condition concerns the introduction of shielding
during the packaging of the radioactive waste for disposal; the
shielding being necessary for radiation protection after the
waste package has been buried. Here the shielding is not a
solid waste as long as it is fulfilling its intended use as a
commercial product.
,.^^ ^^^Q ~r,
wnen pijaceu ior|
-------
UNITeD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
treatment standards (i.e., encapsulation for D008 waste lead
shielding), or are these standards inapplicable because the
shielding is not a solid waste until disposal is completed?"
As indicated above, if the lead shielding itself is discarded
and is no longer fulfilling its intended use as a commercial
product, it is a solid waste, and is subject 'to all applicable
treatment standards.
Question three describes a situation where a waste package
with nonencapsula£ed shielding disposed in the past is retrieved
in the future in order to treat the waste. In this case, as
long as the shielding is fulfilling its intended use, it is not
a solid waste. Once the shielding is discarded, however, the
shielding becomes a solid waste, as it would no longer be
serving the function for which it was intended. As the land
disposal restrictions apply prospectively, it is important to
know when the shielding was discarded. If it was discarded
before the applicable effective land disposal restrictions date
for the RCRA hazardous waste, the land disposal restrictions
would not apply until it was dug up.
Question four in your letter provides two more examples of
the use of lead shielding: radioactive materials passing through
a lead pipe, and nonradioactive materials being protected from
a radioactive environment by lead. To respond to the subparts
of question four, first, the abandonment of buried lead-lined
piping which transported radioactive materials and the
radioactively contaminated lead-shielded phone cable constitutes
disposal of a solid waste. See 40 CFR 261.2 for the definition
of solid waste. This lead would' be subject to treatment
standards under the Land Disposal Restrictions program. Lead
contaminated with radioactivity must be macroencapsulated before
disposal (55 FR 22628). The piping and cables are wastes once
-abandoned; redisposing the waste elsewhere would not affect its
status as a solid waste. Again, because the land disposal
restrictions apply prospectively, if the material was abandoned
before th« land disposal restrictions effective date for the
hazardous waste(s), the land ban would not apply unless the
material wa» dug up. Liability for the improper disposal of
hazardous waste would occur immediately upon such disposal.
Violations of the land disposal prohibitions may result in the
issuance of an order assessing a civil penalty for any past or
current violation, requiring compliance immediately or within
a specified time period, or both. (RCRA section 3008 (a)(l)).
To reiterate, HSWA requires hazardous wastes to meet promulgated
treatment stanaaros Prior
these stjandards Js a violation ot JHSWA.
-------
UNITtD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Question 5 of your letter asks if, under Section 6001 of
RCRA, federal agencies are immune from regulation by authorized
states. Section 6001 of RCRA spells out clearly that any part
of the Federal government engaging in waste disposal operations
is subject to all federal, state, interstate, and local
requirements. Moreover, Executive Order 12088 states that the
Federal government will comply with all environmental statutes
and regulations, including the environmental statutes and
regulations of authorized states. Thus, under Section 6001 of
RCRA, Federal agencies are not immune from regulation by
authorized states.
•
We hope that this letter answers your concerns regarding
the circumstances under which lead shielding for radioactive
wastes is or is not a solid waste under RCRA. If you have
further questions on this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Richard Kinch, Chief
Waste Treatment Branch
-------
9444.1991(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 1991
omparative Definitions of FOOT and F002
etrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, methylene cr-w.^,«,« *,*,*-
ichloroethylene are listed in the definitions of both F001 and F002 in 40 CFR 261.31.
he listing for F001 reads "the following spent halogenated solvents used in
egreasing...", while the F002 listing begins with "the following spent halogenated
Events...". Although F001 applies specifically to solvents used in degreasing
:cording to the December 31,1985 Federal Register, the F001-F005 listings cover
nly those solvents used for their solvent properties. A solvent used in decreasing
considered to be used for its solvent properties. (50 FR 53316) Thus, a solvent,
•hich is listed in both F001 and F002 (e.g., methylene chloride) and is used in
egreasing, could be both F001 and F002. Would such a spent solvent be
pprophately classified as F001, F002, or both?
It was not the intent of the Agency to apply both listings to a solvent
constituent which is listed in both FOOT and F002. The waste code that the
spent solvent receives depends on the type of decreasing involved. Page 6
of the "Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR 261.31 and 26132); Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste Under RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3001" (also
known as the Background Listings Document) clarifies the intent of the F001
listing as opposed to other spent solvents. Specifically, the F001 listing is
appropriate when tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, methylene chloride,
and 1,1,1-trichloroethane are used in large-scale industrial degreasing
operations [e.g., cold cleaning, vapor degreasing (open top and
conveyorized), and fabric scouring). Alternatively, tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane used in
equipment cleaning or in smaller scale degreasing operations involving repair
work (that do not employ industrial degreasing processes as described
above), such as industrial maintenance and repair, commercial service and
repair, and consumer-performed maintenance and repair, receive the F002
listing.
Source: Ron Josephson, OSW (202) 475-6715
Research: Peter LeTourneau
-------
9444.1991104)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AL)G 3 0 1991
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Residual Materials Contaminated with Trace Solvents
FROM: Sylvia K. Lovrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
EPA Region VIII
This memorandum is in response to your requests for guidance
on trace solvent issues dated December 20, 1990 and February 11,
1991. In the particular case cited, a facility degreases metal
parts in an FOOl-listed solvent, air dries the parts, and then
blasts the parts. Some of the blasting grit has been found to
contain solvent constituents. According to your first memo, a
conflict between Region VIII and the Utah Department of Health
has arisen on interpreting the scope of the listing regulations.
The conflict appears to be centered on whether previous
Headquarters memoranda are valid and applicable to this
situation.
Upon review of the specific situation and your initial
response, research into previous Headquarters correspondence, and
discussions with your staff, we concur with the memorandum sent
by Terry Anderson to James Wickemeyer on October 29, 1990 (i.e.,
the blasting grit generated by the facility in question does not
meet the F001 spent solvent listing description). This letter is
consistent with previous Headquarters interpretations as to the
scope of the spent solvent listings or the mixture rule, which
state traces of solvents left on equipment after cleaning are not
spent and therefore do not meet the listing description. Such
wastes may be hazardous because they exhibit one of the
characteristics of hazardous waste described in 40 CFR 261
Subpart C (particularly the toxicity characteristic of §261.24).
If solvents "are used for cleaning in excess of amounts
needed for that purpose, however, the excess solvent residues
-------
could be spent, and therefore listed hazardous waste. No set
quantity has been established for excess amounts of solvents
which would cause the residual in question to be subject to
regulation. The nature of facility operations will dictate
whether the amount of solvent released, inadvertently or
deliberately, would cause the waste in question to meet the
listing description. The applicability of such an interpretation
would depend on the nature of the operation, the quantities of
solvents used and disposed in the operation, and the manner in
which they are used/disposed.
Please note that some state agencies have the authority to
interpret Federal regulations more strictly than EPA, if desired.
In this particular case, such an interpretation may ease the
regulatory flexibility of State agency personnel.
Thank you for your memorandum. If you have any additional
questions on this topic please do not hesitate to call me or have
your staff contact Ron Josephson at FTS 260-4770.
cc: (w/incoming) Ken Gigliello, OWPE (OS-520)
Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I - VII, IX, X
-------
9444.1991(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
November 26, 1991
Mr. James C.R. Lee, P.E., Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer.
CEPOJ-ED,
APO San Francisco 96343-0061
Dear Mr. Lee:
Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1991. Please accept
my apology for the delay in answering your letter, which was
referred to our branch from the Kansas City regional office.
In response to your first question, discarded wastewater at
a corrosion control facility is considered a solid waste. (40 CFR
261.2). Whether a solid waste is also a hazardous waste depends
on whether the solid waste contains any listed hazardous waste or
exhibits any hazardous waste characteristics.
Methylene Chloride is listed in 40 CFR 261.31 as a hazardous
waste. Unfortunately, the information you provide about the way
in which the methylene chloride is used is not enough to allow me
to say, conclusively, whether the waste you describe is
hazardous. Methylene chloride is listed as both an F001 and F002
hazardous waste. I refer you to the following paragraphs:
40 CFR 261.3 Hazardous wastes from non-specific sources
E001...The following spent halogenated solvents used in
decreasing: Tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
•ethylen* chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon
tetrachloride, and chlorinated fluorocarbons; all spent
solvent* nixtures/blends used in decreasing containing,
before use, a total of ten percent or more (by volume)
of ona> or norm of the above halogenated solvents or
those solvents listed in F002, F004, and F005; and
still bottoms from the recovery of these spent
solvent and spent solvent mixtures.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-2-
We appreciate the input and cooperation of the Navy and
Department of Defense in resolving this issue and look forward to
your continued support in securing passage of the Administration
bill.
Sincerely,
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
cc: Jacqueline Schafer
Department of Navy
Robert Grady
OMB •
-------
9444.1991(06)
RCRA/SUPERFDND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 1991
1. Multisourca Leachate (F039) Waste
Code as it Applies to Contamination
From Spills
The hazardous waste code F039, known as
mulnsource leachate. is defined in 40 CFR §26131
as leachate resulting from the disposal of more
than one hazardous waste listed in 40 CFR Pan
261, Subpart D, which is also a restricted waste
under the Land Disposal Restrictions program in
Part 268. Rainwater has percolated through soils
contaminated with spills of several different listed
hazardous wastes. Could the resulting
contaminated water now receive the F039 waste
code?
The January 31.1991. Federal Register (56 FR
3865) states that in order to determine whether a
waste meets the criteria of F039, it is necessary to
first determine that the waste meets the definition
of leachate. This definition, found in 40 CFR
§260.10, is "any liquid, including any suspended
components in the liquid, that has percolated
through or drained from hazardous waste." The
preamble of the January 31,1991, notice also
clarifies that only liquids that have percolated
through land disposed wastes ("land disposal"
having the meaning of RCRA Section 3004(k)) art
considered to be leachate for the purposes of
making this determination. The definition of land
disposal in Section 3004(k) states that land
disposal "shall be deemed to include, but not
lirrited to any placement of such hazardous waste
in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile,
injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome
formation, salt bed formation, or underground mine
or cave" (emphasis added). Spillage and
drippage are also forms of land disposal, albeit
improper and illegal Since spills and drips of
hazardous waste which have collected in the soil
are normally land disposed wastes, water that has
percolated through soils contaminated with more
than one listed hazardous waste for which Pan
268 treatment standards are in effect is normally
F039.
-------
Appendices
ATKl/1112/8sm
-------
9445.1984(01)
APR 22
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities
TO: Addressees
The response to my previous RCRA Methods and QA Activities
weno was very gritifylng. we very much appreciate the conm*nt»
and suggestions that you sent us. In this memo I will address
some of the topics you suggested in your comments. The topics
to be discussed a ret
• Delisting Spot-Check Progran
• Performance Audit Program for Volatile POHC
• Method 3030 - Acid Digestion of Oils, Greases and Waxes
• EP Toxicity - pH Adjustment
• Method 3550 - Sonication extraction
• pH of Oil/Grease
Deliatinq Spot-Cheek Program
OSW has a program, which is approximately a year old
now, in which unannounced visits are made to facilities that
have submitted delisting petitions. Included in these visits
are both on-site waste management facilities and commercial,
off-site, multiple fasto treatment facilities.
The purpose of the spot-check program is to collect
representative samples of the material being tnanagod in
order to verify data submitted in the facility's delisting
petition, and, If appropriate, to inspect the treatnent
process and ensure that exclusion contingencies are being
observed.
A total of eleven visits have been made (one to Region
I, two to Region II and four each to Regions III and V). As
a result of the inspections, recommendations were made to deny
-------
5e petitions submitted by throe of the facilities. In some
cases, recommendations to the Regions for enforcement action
resulted from these checks.
The spot-cheek program will continue with trips planned
*.o Regions IV,V, and VII by late spring. Both the Regional
jffice and the appropriate Stats office are notified and
invited to accoapany the OSW team on these visits.
Performance Audit Program for Volatile POHC
EMSL-RT? ha* prepared stjndAr-1 cylinders of organic
substances in nitrogen in support of the OAQPS and RCRA -nonitorirvj
programs. Bach cylinder contains the following five organic
compounds: carbon tetrachloride, chloroform* porchloroethylene,
vinyl chloride and benzene. Some cylinders have compound
concentrations in the range of 7 to 90 ppb suitable for
auditing tho VOST and others are In the range of 90 to 430
ppb and suitable Cor auditing a bag sampler.
while it is presently not required, OSW is considering the
implementation of a performance audit program that would require
source test measurements during all hazardous v*sto trial
burns. Since EMSL-RTP is already in a position to conduct
audits of VOST and bag sampling operations, we recommend
that Regional permit and CSO personnel immediately begin to
require use of the RTP audit cylinders during all source
measurement programs.
Please direct all requests for audits to Florence Richardson
f my staff. She will record the requests and forward them
.o EMSL-RTP for scheduling. This will permit us to determine
the future resource implications of such a requirement. He
would also appreciate any suggestions that you may have for
implementing the program.
Method 3030 - Acid Digestion of Oils, Greases and waxes
Region V has initiated analyses of waste oils to determine
their hazardous characteristics* and the determination of
metals is one of the principal waste oil analyses of interest.
The lead and barium contents of waste oil are important
because of their use as gasoline additives.
Prior to the metals' analyses, recovery data for oils
spiked with organometalllc standards were collected. The
spike recoveries were definitely unacceptable for barium,
lead, mercury and selenium.
-------
We appreciate Region V bringing this problem to our
attention, EMSL-Cinn is currently evaluating all of the SW-845
digestion methods. In response to comments such as these,
we are considering modifications or adjustments to the current
methods and also methods from other sources in the evaluation
program. The report on the evaluation of this method is
scheduled to be prepared and available for review by July, 1984.
Method 1310 EP Toxicity
One question frequently asked is 'What is the procedure to
use if the maximum amount of 0.5N acetic acid has been
added to the extractor and pH 5.0 * 0.2 has not b*en reached?"
• In such a case the 4 meq/gm maximum amount of acid specified
is controlling, and no additional acid should be added to the
system. Under such condition! the extraction is conducted
at the pH reached after the maximum amount of acid is added.
"Also, when the EP toxieity test Is performed on oily or
greasy samples that cannot be filtered; is it permissible
to heat these at low temperature to remove organics and then
determine the metals present."
• material* that do not pass the 0.45 urn filter are considered
as solids, irrespective of their liquid properties, and
thus must be extracted with the acetic acid solution. They
are not considered to be an extract as would an oil that
passes through the filter.
pP of Oil and Grease
• _ Another question that is often raised deals with how to
•measure the pB of oily materials.
-•• • It Is impossible to determine the pH of non-aqueous
materials. In eases where the material is multiphaslc,
containing both an oil and a water layer, the water
•.. . layer can measured.
•.*•.""• •' • .:••*% ' - ~ ' ' . •' •
Clarification of Method 3550
•A laboratory inquired about method 3550 and wanted to
•know if the results were to be reported in dry weight.
•This methods states 'a weighed sample of solid waste is
ground, etc., etc.* The sample referred to is the *as
received material' not a 'dried portion.*
-------
Unless" specif leal ly stated in a method, results are to
be reported "as received* and the sample is not dried
before analysis.
NOTE
ORO provides Vital OA support to the 3C3A program
a number of laboratories* From ti"»e to tine I thought it
h«» worthwhile to highlight these laboratories and describe some
of the support they provide. In *hi - -?r;.: /o will highlight
Quality Asaurancu ac ErtSL-Cinn, BMSL-LV and EMSL-*TP.
The exSL-Cinn QAB staff is headed up by John A. Winter with
Harold Clements and Ed Berg as section chiefs. They are
responsible for preparing and distributing certain types of
laboratory performance evaluation saaples, quality control
samples and reference materials. They also maintain and operate
the BPA repository of toxic and hazardous materials and thus
are responsible for distributing analytical standards to
laboratories performing RCRA testing. The repository of
calibration standards have been verified by multiple laboratory
analyses as to percent purity of the neat compounds and
concentration of solutions in the sealed ampules.
Responsibility for.developing and distributing non-aqueous
tandard reference materials* maintaining the Quality Assurance
aterltls Bank, evaluation of biological testing methods and
development of leaching procedures is with EMSL-LV. Compounds
in tho bank are not calibration standards but are of various
levels of purity and aay or may not have been fully verified
Gareth Pearson is tbe Branch Chief. Llew Williams is the
Project Leader for the Ames mutagenicity and daphnia magna
bloassay projects and for development of the second
generation Extraction Procedure. These activities vill be
discussed in a future
BMSL-RTP provides OA materials and conducts audits of
laboratories dealing with airborne* or gaseous sampling and
analysis. As previously stated in this memo ENSL-RTP provides
cylinders of standard gases for ensuring the measurement of
organic compounds in trial burns and/or landfills. Darryl von
Lehmden heads up this OA effort.
Once again let me thank you for your interest and
please keep sending us your comments and ideas for future
momos. .; - . ' . -.. •• .--•...-•••
David Friedman
Manager
Jlay 1984 . . Methods Program
-------
9445.1984(02)
4 APR 84
RE: MCBPR0136
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT! Notes on RCRA'Methodology and OA Activities
PROMi David fried*«n
Manager
Methods Program (HH-565B)
TOi Addressees
•
This memorandum is an attempt to assist regional, state
and other interested persona in keeping abreast of Agency
RCRA wot ho do logy and'Quality Assurance activities. X plan to
send out these brief memoranda periodically. They will
contain information on new t«st methods and guidance documents
being developed, method evaluations in progress, updates on
the accuracy and precision of the current KCRA methods*
results of quality assurance audits (without mentioning
names), as well as any other topics that you fe«l would be
useful. The following topics will be addressed in this
meoo s
EP Toxicity Teat
Adjustment of pH
Digestion of extracts
Testing manufactured articles
Test method evaluations in progress
Now test methods under development
Waste Analysis Plans Guidance Manual.
Reference Standards
Before getting into these topics I just want to asfc that you
reflect on this memorandum ind send me your comments and
questions regarding the in to mat ion in. this memo and include
suggestions for future topics.
-------
,6 Toxicity Teat
f Adjustment of pH
Rocently, differences in the results of lead analyses
between two laboratories resulted in the discovery of a
problem in execution of the EP Tbxicity Test, upon examination,
by the Quality Assurance Officer for Region VI, it was determined
that pH adjustment was bein-j performed using pH paper and
not with a PH meter. The 5? test is especially sensitive to
pri adjustaent and for that reason the method requires that pH
measurements be marte only with a pfl meter* The pH strips
are not accurate enoucjh and must not be used. In addition,
frequent calibration of tho pH meter is important* (See
SW-K46 "Tost Methods for Evaluation Solid Waste,* Method
1310, Step 7.13.1.)
•
Extract Digestion
Please remenbec that all extracts must be digested
prior to analysis unless it has been demonstrated, on similar
samples, that digestion is not necessary. All metal test
methods in sw-846 explicitly require this (see, for example,
Mothod 7040, Step 1.0).
Testing Manufactured Articles
The EP toxicity test procedure requires that a representative
sanple of the material be prepared for extraction by crushing,
cutting or grinding into pieces which can pass through a 9.5
mm sieve.
The difficulty arises with manufactured articles when
the natorial inside is an environmental problem but is encased
in a leak resistant container designed to be structurally
resistant to crushing* cutting or grinding. In rare eases where
such products are an appropriate sixe, they may be tested
without being cut-up pursuant to the structural Integrity
Procedure.
Although son* batteries tend to degrade rapidly whan
placed in a landfill, certain batteries are manufactured in
such a manner as to prevent disintegration after'disposal.
However, at this time the Agency has not developed standardized,
CP toxicity test procedures for structurally strong articles
sucn as batteries. EPA is considering proposing amendments
to the EP Toxicity test which would allow a package designed
to be structurally resistant to crushing, cutting, or grinding
to be evaluated in the EP Toxicity test without being cut-up.
One possibility would be to test the corrosion resistance of
structurally resistant articles by submerging the article in
-------
• 1M salt (Had) water solution at an elevated temperature
(60*-80*) for a period of one nont.l. If no leaks occur the
product can be considered corrosion resistant. . ^.
I «ould appreciate hearing about any other suggestions you
aay have with respect to this issue. Me hope to be able to develop
a proposed amendment package in the near future*
Methods Evaluation
The Agency has initiated an extensive research program
to determine the accuracy and precision of methods currently
in SW-846. At the present tine, the following wet hods are
being evaluated.
1110 Oorrosivity Toward Steel
1120 Polarization Resistance Method
3030 Acid Digestion of oils, Greases, or Waxes
3040 Dissolution Procedure for Oils, Greases, or Waxes
3050 Acid Digestion of Sludges
3010* Acid Digestion Procedure for Plane Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy
3020 Acid Digestion for Furnace Atonic Absorption
Spec tro « copy
7190 Chromium: Atonic Absorption, Direct Aspiration
7191 Chromiums Atomic Absorption, Furnace Method
7195 Hexavalent Chromium: Coprecipitation
7196 Hexavalent Chroniunt Colo rime trie
7197 Rexavalant Chroaiuni Chelation - Extraction
7198 Hexavalent Chromiums Differential Pulse
Polarography Method
t XXXX Hexavalent Chromium: ion Chromatography
Method Development
Our efforts continue with respect to the development of
additional methods for identifying hazardous wastes. Protocols
are being developed or existing methodology is being modified
to address the following areast
Zgnitable Solids
The) objective is to develop methods for
use in the definition of ignltable solids.
Protocols have been developed and subjected
to single l*!r>r«tory evaluation using actual
vaste samples. Test have b
-------
•' -»
f
Hazards Posod by Liquids with Flash Points t>«lov 60*C
The objective is to- develop a simple test
for identifying those liquids that should
not be considered as hazardous even though
thoy will flash at a temperature below 60*C.
Many such materials will not sustain combustion
nor release sufficient amounts of energy to
surrounding materials to spread the fire.
The evaluation report of this method is also
scheduled to be prepared and available for
regional revi*« and comment by the end Of
1984.
Reactive Gases - Cyanide and Sulfide
The objective is to develop a method for
determining when a waste is a reactive waste
(40 CFR 261.33) by reason of potential H2S or
HCN release. A method has been evaluated
using standards and actual waste samples.
Tie teat method is expected to be available for
Regional review and comoent by June of 1984.
work is also progressing on establishing
reactive waste definition thresholds using
the eethod. While it loots like it works
acceptably well for sul fide-bear ing wastes,
further met ho 'I refining will be necessary
oof ore it can be adopted for cyanides.
Haste Analysis Plans Guidanco Manual
Under Section 3004 of «CKA, EPA promulgated standards
applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste managenent
facilities. These standards govern the issuance of permits
for facilities that treat, store* or dispose of hazardous
waste. OSW is currently developing Pern it Guidance Manuals
to describe the permit application process and to provide
guidance to applicants and permit writers in addressing the
information requirements.
As part of the permit application* owners/operators aro
required to submit a Waste Analysis Plan. The requirement
for a Waste Analysis Plan is to insure that owners or operators
possess sufficient information on the properties of wastes
so that they will be able to treat* store, or dispose of the
waste In a manner which will not pose a threat to human
health or the environment.
To assist permit applicants and State and EPA staff
members who review applications and draw up permits, the
Office of Solid Waste is in the process of preparing a Waste
Analysis Plan Guidance Manual. This Manual will provide
specific guidance on how to comply with the general waste
-------
analysis requirements of 40 CFR 264.13. The Manual will
include a discussion of the Waste Analysis Plan requirements,
model waste Analysis Plans for each of the principal waste
disposal management situations, and'a checklist for reviewers
to use in evaluating permit applications. We anticipate
that a draft of this manual will be available for Regional
review early in Spring 1984. ' .
Reference Standards • •
Since 1980, BPA's Office of Research and Development
has maintained and continues to expand an inventory of standard
compounds for us* in analytical efforts* •
Organic standards consist of either single-component
solutions (for instruaent calibration) or multi-component
solutions, containing several chemicals. Analytical reference
standards can be utilized in several ways to enhance sample
analysis and quality control. Reference standards can bes
• added to media before analysis to check recoveries
and thus be used as a matrix spike;
• added to a saaple which has b««n prepared for
instrumental analysis, and thus bet used as an internal
standard;
• used as a surrogate for a particular compound allowing
for both sample analysis and recovery verification to
be done in the samo run, e.g., deuterated or fluorinated
standards can thus be used as surrogates for compounds
found in hazardous waste.
• usod for instrument calibration.
A single source of standard chemicals of known purity
and reference materials is necessary to assure that data of
known quality are produced* The Quality Assurance Materials
Bank provides reference standards to analytical laboratories
to support the Agency's programs for monitoring hazardous
waste (RCRA/ CERCLA). pure ("neat") compounds ace. purchased
and analyzed and low purity compounds are purified. Once
verified, high purity organic and inorganic standards are
prepared (standard solutions) and distributed for use by
laboratories in calibration of instruments and for quality
control in sample analysis. The purity, concentration,
stability and applicability of each standard is evaluated by
the O.A Materials Bank. For information regarding the availability
of specific standards contact Ed Kantor at CMSL-LV (702-798-2690)
FTSS45-2690), Ed Berg at EMSL-Cinn (513-684-7325) FTS-684-7325),
or Florence Richardson at the office of Solid Waste (202-382-4801)
FTS-382-4801). " '
-------
9445.1984(03)
2Er.;;y 954
Clarification of Guidance on Petroleum
Refinery Haste Analyses
John H. fiklnnor, Director
Office of solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs
Region* I-X
On April 3, 1984, I forwarded to you a memo entitled,
•Guidance on Petroleum Refinery Waste Analyses for Land
Treatment Permit Applications* (see copy attached). My
April 3 memo provided guidance on evaluating petroleum
refinery waste analyses submitted in land treatment permit
applications. It included a list of hazardous constituents
suspected to be present in petroleum refinery wastes and
described the analytical methods for these wastes. This
memo provides additional guidance clarifying the analytical
methods that should be used for these wastes.
Attached IB a copy of a draft document entitled,
•Handbook for the Analynis of Petroleum Refinery Residues
and Waste." This document describes the analytical plan
that will be employed in OSWs petroleum refinery waste
study. The analytical plan includes sample preparation
techniques, inorganic and organic analytical methods, and
analytical quality control procedures. Although developed
for the OSW petroleum refinery waste study, the information
provided in the attached document will be useful in any
situation in which petroleum refinery waste analyses are
necessary, including RCRA permitting.
The draft analytical method for organics provided in my
April 3 memo was derived from an earlier draft of the attached
document. This revised document now includes a more complete
description of this method, and thus should be consulted by
permit writers and applicants as EPA's most recent guidance.
Specifically, Section 3.2 of the document includes the
analytical methods for organic parameters. The hazardous
organic constituents identified in my April 3 memo should be
evaluated in waste analyses for land treatment permit
applications.
?
In using the attached document, two points should be noted.
First, the Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity test data, as
described in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, need not be submitted
in the land treatment permit application. Rather, total
metal concentrations should be reported in the application.
Second, certain of the analytical quality control procedures
described in this document, including frequency of procedural
-------
blanks, duplicates, and instrumentation checks, may not ho
sufficient for RCRA permit waste analysis plans. The
analytical OA/OC procedures described were developed for
laboratories that are under close EPA supervision and are
participating in the osi? performance audit program. Also
OA/OC procedures for sampling are not addressed In the
attached document. Comprehensive quality assurance/quality
control procedures for waste sampling and analysis should be
specified in the permit application. General guidance on
OA/OC procedures can be found in Test,Methods for Evaluating
Solid Wastes (SW-R46) and in Permit Applicants^ Guidance
Manual for the General Facility Standards of 40 CPP 264
(SW-968).
If you have any questions on the analytical procedures
described in the attached document please contact Ren Smith
(PTS-3R2-4791) of the Waste Identification Branch. Any questions
regarding the use of this guidance in permitting land treatment
units should he directed to Hike Plynn (FTS-382-44R9) of the Land
Disposal Branch*
Attachments
cci Jack Lehman
Pred Lindsey
Ken Shuster
Eileen Claussen
Matt Straus
Pruce Weddle
Peter Guerrero
WH-565E:MFlynn:aj:382-4658:M2102:WSM:5/18/84
-------
9445.1984(05)
2C -
MEMORANDUM - Number 4
SUBJECTS Notes on RCRA Method* and OA Activities
i
FROMi David Friedman, Manager
Method* Program, WH-562B
TOt Addressee* ..--..•• ^
*•*. ' ' ,
We appreciate your comment* and suggestions in response to c
my previous RCRA Methods and OA Activities memos. This nemo ^
will address several of the topics suggested in recent =
correspondences 1
'• RCRA Laboratory Evaluation Program ;
X
! • standard Methods for Ground Water Testing £
'i
• Method 3030 - Acid Digestion of Oils, Greases, and Waxes «
• Waste Analysis Plans Guidance Manual *
• Reactivity Evaluations for Solid waste
RCRA Laboratory Evaluation Program
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) appreciates the cooperation
of those Regional Laboratories that participated in the pilot
Laboratory Evaluation Program (LEP) that OSW conducted during
this past spring and summer. Now that the mechanics of the
program have been worked out, the RCRA LEP is being officially
implemented and expanded to include all EPA Regional Laboratories
and OSW contractors.
Since the Super fund program has also established a LEP as
part of the CERCLA OA program, OSW and the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR) will consolidate samples to minimize
the impact on participating laboratories wherever possible. The
differing needs of the two programs, however, will sometimes
prevent such a consolidation.
-------
During PY 85, each laboratory will receive four sets of
check saaples. Each set will consist of two staples to be
analyzed by different methods.
Standard Methods Proposed For Testing Hazardous Waste Facilities'
Ground Water ^ ....
OSW recently proposed adopting a set of Mandatory standard
test aethods to improve the quality of ground-water sonitor ing
at licensed hazardous waste facilities. It Is expected that
such standardization would also help speed up the penult process
by aaklng the application evaluation procttt easier.
The rulemaking of which this proposal is a part has five
objectives! 1) aake the analysis and sampling methods in EPA
Publication "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste* (SW-846)
Mandatory for all testing and monitoring activities required
under Subtitle C of RCRAi 2) consolidate in SW-846 all methods
necessary for Subtitle C testing; 3) eliminate certain requirements
for groundwater testing in those limited circumstances where
the constituent being tested for immediately converts to another
substance upon contact with water* or where no testing method
has been developed to detect the constituent in question) 4) allow
the limited use of SW-846 methods for compliance monitoring
screening purposes/ and 5) introduce the concept of hierarchical
testing that in certain cases may reduce the number of tests
required to determine whether classes of Appendix VIII compounds
are present* ._
As it stands now, hazardous waste facilities must sometimes
develop their own test methods to Identify particular hazardous
constituents because EPA has not formally specified which of a
number of methods it considers acceptable. Federal and State
environmental officials must then approve these methods as
part of the facility permitting process. Since in the absence
of mandatory testing requirements Federal or State environ-
mental offices may develop differing requirements for acceptable
test methods, monitoring requirements and results may vary
froa Region to Region (and State to State).
This proposed rule will allow permitting officials to
quickly evaluate permit requests since all necessary methods
will be contained in a single manual. More important, by
consolidating test methods, it will be easier for the regulated
community to apply for and be granted hazardous waste permits.
For smaller facilities in particular, this proposal will help
assist them in meeting RCRA's permit requirements. In addition
to easing the permitting process, using standard methods for all
monitoring will better enable the Agency to determine the quality
of the data and to follow environmental quality trends.
Although EPA has prepared a series of draft guidance
documents which give some general information on monitoring
-------
•ethodB, no one document has hitherto listed all the campling
and analysis methods that are specifically acceptable to osw.
The proposed regulation proposes a number of new testing methods
and consolidates then Into Its existing test methods manual.
As noted above, the new standards also would save time and
costs, while maintaining environmental standards, by eliminating
groundwater testing for those chemicals that Immediately decompose
In ground water. The proposed regulations would also reduce
unnecessary testing by allowing facilities monitoring their ground
water to test for the absence of certain classes of chemical wastes,
instead of testing for each individual chemical within a class.
For example, if a facility tests its ground water for halogens
and it finds none, then it would not have to test for each variety
of halogen listed in the regulations.
The proposed regulation appeared in the federal Register
Oct. lf 1984, at 49 FR 38786.
Analytical Report on Method 3030 • Acid Digestion of Oils, Greases
and Waxos
In response to Region V's corenents (May 1984), we Initiated
a task to examine EPA Method 3030 for its applicability to the
analysis of barium, lead, mercury, and selenium in waste oils
and to formulate any modifications necessary to produce satisfac-
tory analyses. - -
The digestion of four waste oil samples by EPA Method 3030
gave very low recoveries for barium, lead, and mercury. Selenium
could not be determined in the digest due to severe interference
by sulfuric acid with the graphite furnace technique. The
initial heating step of Method 3030 produces a large quantity
of charred material which is not digested by the latter steps.
Barium is precipitated as barium sulfate. This accounts for
the absence of barium In the samples and lack of recovery. The
Method 3030 digestion procedure was judged to be unsuitable for
the determination of any of these metals. We recommend that
Method 3050 be used for the digestion of barium, lead, mercury,
and selenium.
Waste Analysis Plans Guidance Manual
waste Analysis Plans Guidance Manual is intended to assist
both permit applicants and reviewers/writers In the preparation
and evaluation of waste analysis plans. The manual explains
the RCRA regulations that require a waste analysis plan and
provides a recommended approach, including checklists to ensure
completion of the plans. It presents sample waste analysis
plans for various hazardous waste management scenarios.
-------
:JT
-4-
Although a waste analysis plan should demonstrate to EPA or
State-permitting officials that the facility operator knows what
information is needed to operate the facility properly and has
in place a program to gather the necessary information* there is
no specific required format for the plan. However* the Manual
suggests that the plan be organited around the following four
questions! •
• What are the specific wastes or types of wastes
that will be managed within each process? .
• what are the specific waste parameters that have
to be quantified in order to satisfy the data needs?
• What are the waste-associated properties that are
of concern in ensuring safe and effective management
(e.g., Btu content, % water)? - .•
• How will the necessary data be obtained. Including
a description of the sanpling and analysis procedures
and attendant quality control/quality assurance
procedures to be carried out by the permittee? .
i
In addition to providing checklists to assure the completeness
of the plan (and sample plans covering a variety of hazardous
waste management scenarios) the manual puts forth such concepts
as "boundary condition* and "tolerance limits.* "Boundary conditions'
gives the maximum and minimum values of vaste properties which,
if exceeded, would alert the operator that the waste doe* not
meet its typical properties and requires further attention before
acceptance. "Tolerance limits* are those characteristics of a
waste or waste mixture that a waste management process can handle
while maintaining pernit compliance* The manual also discusses
the selection of waste parameters, the need of periodic recharac-
terization of hazardous wastes, the performance of shipment
screening by offsite facility operators, snd procedures for
waste sampling, analysis, and quality assurance/quality control.
The manual, can be ordered fron the Government Printing Office
as document 155-000-00244-4, at a cost of $5.50. The address in
as follows!
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
(202) 783-3238
-------
Reactivity Evaluation* for Solid Waste
In cooperation with the 0.3. Department of Transportation
and the United Nations Group of Experts on Explosives, the
Bureau of Minos has been conducting research on the development
of tests designed to determine whether a substance has explosive
properties. These tests are currently under consideration for
international standardization and are called the U.S. Gap Test
and the U.S. Internal Ignition Test. The Bureau of Mines has
proposed that these tests are suitable to determine the properties
described in 40 CPR 261.23 (a)(6) and (7) which defines a solid
waste as having the characteristics of reactivity if it has,
aaong others, any of the following properties!
(a)(6) Capable of detonation or explosive reaction if
subjected to a strong initiation source or if
heated under confinement.
(a)(7) Readily capable of detonation, explosive decomposi-
tion, or reaction at standard temperature and
pressure.
•- * ' .»
The methods were the subject of a single laboratory at the
Bureau of Mines Laboratory In Pittsburgh, PA, using waste
samples from processing waste treatment facilities. In addition,
a series of standard explosives were obtained and evaluated
for use in calibrating the tests*
A report summarizing the single laboratory evaluation should
be available for review early in 1985.
Symposium
A symposium on RCRA test methods and Quality Assurance is
being planned for July 24-26, 1985 in Washington, D.C.. Topics
to be included ares Organic and Inorganic Analytical Methods,
Hazardous Waste Identification Characteristics, Quality Assurance,
and Sampling. More Information will be included in our next issue,
-------
9445.1984(06)
RCRA/8UPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 84
A. RCRA
When does one make the determination that a waste is
liquid or solid prior to disposal in a landfill? The
waste in question is normally solid but liquifies at
temperatures reached in the vehicle transporting it to
the site (>140°F) and occasionally at ambient desert
surface temperatures (120°F in the summer). The
material will solidify over a short period of time.
The phase of the waste should be determined just
prior to disposal. In this case, the waste is
liquified during transportation but will solidify
over a short period of time. Therefore, it is
proper to allow the shipment of containers to
stabilize or solidify before performing the free
liquid test. It is permissible to use best
engineering judgment.
Source: Paul Cassidy
Research: Ken Jennings
This has Jbeen retyped from the original document.
-------
9445.1985(01)
5 !985
Dr. Paul Jonmaire
Ecology and Environment, Inc.
195 Bugg Road
P.O. Box D
Buffalo, Hew York 14225
Dear Dr. Jonmairei
In response to your recent request for Information
regarding th« basis for incluaion on Appendix VIII of several
eubetancea, encloaed pleaee find copiea of relevant liating
background documenta.
In anever to your oth«r queetion, aoil contaminated vith
toluene ia not automatically conaidered to be a hasardoua waete
aolely becauae toluene ia lieted in Appendix VIII, Only if a
apill containing one of the vaatea Hated in f2€1.31, .32,
or .33 were the cauae of auch contamination would auch a
aituation ariae. If auch a apill were ind**d responsible for
the contamination, formal deliating ia required before the
reaidue can be conaidered not to be hazardous. Buppoaing that
the apill did not account for the contamination, the aoil would
only be regarded aa a hasardoua waate if it exhibita one of the
hasardoua waate characteriatica. The incluaion of toluene on
Appendix VIII ia not conaidered to be germane.
Hoping this anawera your questions.
Sincerely,
David Friedman
Manager
Hethoda Program
Bncloaureat
S261.33 Background Document
Liating Background Documental
Chlorobensenea
Toluene
Cyanide
-------
9445.1985(02)
April 23, 1985
MEMORANDUM #6
DATE: April 1985
SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities
FROM: David Friedman, Manager
Methods Program (WH-562B)
TO: Addressees
Thank you again for your response to my previous RCRA
Methods and QA Activities memos. In this memo we will inform you
about the following recent initiatives in the Agency:
o Public Meetings on Delisting
o Intra-agency Work Group on Update to SW-846
o Development of New Testing Methods and Reevaluation of
Existing Methods.
We appreciate your comments and suggestions.
Public Meetings on Delisting
Approximately 200 persons attended public meetings in
Washington, D.C. and Dallas, Texas, organized by the Delisting
Program. The meetings were conducted to describe in detail how
future delisting petitions will be affected by the Hazardous
Waste Amendments of 1984 and to provide instruction to
petitioners on the preparation of supplemental material that
should be included in future delisting petitions. Presentations
were made on the reauthorization of RCRA, the general petition
review process, information resources and special procedures that
will apply to petitions concerning wastes from petroleum
refineries and multiple waste treatment facilities. A discussion
session followed the presentations in which attendees were given
the opportunity to question the delisting staff about their
particular concerns.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
Intra-agency Work Group on Update to SW-846
As part of the process of finalizing the October 1, 1984
proposal to update SW-846, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste," an intra-agency work group is in the process of
considering the comments received by the Agency in response to
the proposed changes and is rewriting some of the methods to
reflect these comments and suggestions. OSW expects to complete
this process by the end of this summer, with Federal Register
publication anticipated in the Spring of 1986.
Development of New Testing Methods and Reevaluation of Existing
Methods
As part of its efforts to develop new testing methods and to
determine the accuracy, precision and sensitivity of the existing
methods, the EPA Office of Research and Development has completed
a number of test methods studies including:
o Method 9022 and Interim Method 450.1 — Determining
total organic halide (TOX) in ground water and waste
oil
o Method 8030 — Determining acrolein, acrylonitrile and
acetonitrile in ground water, solids and organic liguid
matrices
o Method 8090 — Procedure for analysis of nitroaromatics
and cyclic ketones in ground water, liquid waste and
solid sample matrices
o Method 8280 — Procedure for analysis of hazardous
wastes containing tetra-, penta- and hexa-chlorinated
dibenzodioxins and -furans
o Application of a gas chromatography/Fourier transform
infrared protocol to the determination of semivolatile
organic compounds in waste water, soils, sediments and
solid wastes
o Analytical methods for compounds that do not gas
chromatograph.
The following sections describe these recent research
developments.
Method 9022 and Interim Method 450.1
Various methods for determining total organic halide (TOX)
in samples of ground water and waste oil were evaluated by EMSL-
CIN (Thomas Pressley, 513-684-7494). Of three inorganic halide
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-3-
species generation approaches and three inorganic halide
determinative techniques evaluated for ground water analyses, one
combined approach using Schoeniger flask oxidation with
colorimetric chloride determination was chosen for laboratory
validation and method detection limit studies. Ground water
samples were also analyzed for TOX using neutron activation
analysis (Method 9022).
The results of this evaluation indicate that Method 9022 is
an appropriate technique for TOX analysis and offers the
additional advantage of providing individual chlorine and bromine
values for the samples at levels equal to TOX detection limits
achievable with the microcoulemetric determinative technique
which has a reliable limit of sensitivity at 5 ug/L (Interim
Method 450.1). The Schoeniger flask/colorimetric chloride and
neutron activation analysis methods were found to give TOX
results for spiked ground waters that were comparable to those
obtained using the microcoulometric method. However, the
Schoeniger flask/colorimetric halide method was useful only for
halide levels above 0.2 mg/L due to the high halide background
levels encountered in the reagents.
A method for analysis of oil samples that uses the sodium
biphenyl reagent and a colorimetric chloride method was found to
be unsatisfactory for the analysis of various oils spiked with
PCBs due to interferences in the colorimetric determinative step
that resulted in recoveries greater than 100 percent. Further
evaluation of the sodium biphenyl reagent using alternative
determinative techniques, such as microcoulometric detection or
an additional clean-up step for the extract prior to the
colorimetric determinative step, will have to be performed to
establish the usefulness of the technique at halide levels in the
range of 20 to 350 ug/g.
Method 8030
Method 8030 was modified using revised chromatographic
conditions for determining acrolein, acrylonitrile and
acetonitrile in ground water, solids and organic liquid matrices.
In order to evaluate these modifications, method validation
studies were conducted on each of the four sample preparation
techniques included in Method 8030, namely: (1) heated purge-and-
trap; (2) polyethylene glycol (PEG) extraction followed by heated
purge-and-trap; (3) direct liquid injection; and (4) manual
heated headspace. Each method validation involved the
determination of the method detection limit (MDL) and seven
replicate analyses of one or two matrices unspiked and spiked at
two different levels. Ground water was analyzed by the heated
purge-and-trap method; a solid waste was analyzed by the
PEG/heated purge-and-trap method; and a liquid organic waste was
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-4-
analyzed by direct liquid injection and by the heated headspace
method.
The heated purge-and-trap method gave excellent recoveries
(85 to 96 percent) and precision for the three analytes in ground
water. The PEG/heated purge-and-trap method gave good recoveries
(76 to 96 percent) for acetonitrile and acrylonitrile in the
solid waste but poor recoveries for acrolein (10 percent).
Problems resulting from residual amounts of PEG indicated that
additional modifications of this method are needed. The direct
liquid injection technique gave excellent results for the
determination of all three analytes (86 and 111 percent
recoveries) in the liquid organic waste; however, late eluting
material may present serious problems in some cases. The manual
heated headspace method gave distinctly less accurate and less
precise results than the PEG/purge-and-trap method for the
determination of acetonitrile and acrylonitrile in the solid
waste sample. Acrolein was not recovered at all by the method
due, apparently, to decomposition during the one-hour
equilibration at 90°C. The headspace method gave extremely
erratic results for the analysis of the organic liquid waste and
was, therefore, considered completely unsatisfactory for such
samples.
This study was conducted by the EMSL-CIN laboratory (James
Longbottom, 513-684-7308).
Method 8090
Another study recently completed by the EMSL-CIN laboratory
(James Longbottom, 513-684-7308) was a single laboratory
evaluation of Method 8090, which is a procedure for the analysis
of nitroaromatics and cyclic ketones in ground water, liquid
waste and solid sample matrices. The method spike recoveries in
authentic matrices at two challenge concentrations were
determined. Authentic matrices were obtained from industrial
sources with manufacturing processes that might require the use
of this method for monitoring, and as such these authentic
samples provided the analytical conditions and background
interferents that might be expected in actual implementation of
this method.
The method detection limit (MDL) in reagent water for all
the analytes ranged from 1.2 ug/L to a low of 0.26 ug/L. The
experimental method detection limits were lower than the
published method detections in Method 8090 for 2,4-
dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, nitrobenzene and isophorone.
The recoveries for all the analytes in reagent water were greater
than 75 percent.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-5-
The recoveries for the majority of the analytes in the three
matrices (ground water, nonaqueous liquid waste, and solid waste)
were generally good. All the analytes gave good recoveries
(greater than 70 percent) and good precision (relative standard
deviation less than 12 percent) in the ground water matrix.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 1,3-dinitrobenzene and
1,4-naphthoquinone gave good recoveries (greater than 70 percent)
in the nonaqueous liquid waste. Poor recoveries were observed
for nitrobenzene and isophorone in the nonaqueous liquid waste.
For the solid waste matrix, 1,4-naphthoquinone gave the worst
recovery (50 percent) of the six analytes, while the remaining
analytes gave recoveries ranging from 60 to 70 percent at the
high concentration level and greater than 80 percent at the low
concentration level.
Method 8280
In 1983, EPA proposed a ruling affecting disposal of
hazardous wastes containing tetra-, penta-, and hexa-chlorinated
dibenzodioxins and -furans. As a result, the EMSL-LV laboratory
initiated a validation study of the method proposed to detect
these substances.
The RCRA Method 8280 consists of four major sections: (1)
extraction of the analytes from the environmental sample; (2)
"open" chromatographic clean-up with alumina using methylene
chloride/hexane eluent; (3) MPLC clean-up; and (4) analysis by
capillary column gas chromatography/low resolution mass
spectrometry (HRGC/LRMS). In order to test Method 8280
efficiently and to develop appropriate modifications with minimal
effort, each section of the methodology was tested separately.
Initial tests were performed on a simple (pottery clay soil)
sample matrix and upon standard solutions. Necessarily, the
first step evaluated was the measurement technique. Both GC/MS
and GC/EC (electron capture detection) were tested using
guidelines from the published RCRA method. Because the analytes
could not be measured at the published mass-to-charge ratio (m/z)
values by GC/MS, these values were corrected prior to further
work.
In summary, the following revisions were made to the
published method: (1) correct m/z values were substituted for
those in the published method so that the mass spectrometer could
detect analytes and standards introduced via the interface gas
chromatograph; (2) the extract clean-up with an alumina column
was revised so that all desired analytes eluted in a single
fraction, with the bulk of the analytical interferences removed;
(3) the method was revised so that wet samples could be
accommodated; and (4) NPLC procedures that could be performed
effectively and be reproduced consistently were developed. The
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-6-
extraction revision allows accommodation of wet samples and
improves recovery of spiked analytes in dry soil samples.
The RCRA method with revisions discussed above was subjected
to performance tests that included: (1) analysis of reference
materials containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD and interferences; and (2)
precision and accuracy determinations on samples having known
composition through spiking the sample matrix at this laboratory.
Two independent teams of analysts investigated the
performance of the revised method using precision and accuracy
determinations (standard deviation of results) and by recovery of
spiked analytes and isotopically labeled standards. Effects of
experimental parameters, such as QC column type (coating) and
alumina activation level were also determined.
After incorporating necessary revisions, satisfactory method
performance has been demonstrated on soil-type samples. Much
precision and accuracy data obtained to date were based on GC/EC
determinations. Comparisons to the precision and accuracy
attainable by NPLC/LRMS is underway. Performance of the method
on relatively complex matrices, such as sludges, still bottoms
and fly ash was determined.
Although the method was found suitable for soils, fly ash
and other relatively clean matrices, serious interferences were
obtained during the analysis of still bottoms. Additional clean-
up steps are now being studied. A copy of the revised method
will be attached to the July memo (Ron Mitchum, 702-798-2103).
Gas Chromatographv/Fourier Transform Infrared
The application of gas chromatography/Fourier transform
infrared (GC/FT-IR) data to regulatory decisions requires the
availability of validated analytical protocols. A GC/FT-IR
protocol was developed by EMSL-LV (Donald Gurka, 702-798-2113)
that is applicable to the determination of semivolatile organic
compounds in waste water, soils, sediments and solid wastes. The
protocol is designed for automated analysis of multicomponent
environmental and hazardous waste extracts. Waste water analysis
for semivolatile organic compounds is based upon extracting 1 L
of sample with methylene chloride and concentrating the sample
extract to 1.0 mL. The analysis of the semivolatile fraction
derived from solid waste analysis is based upon extracting 50
grams of sample and concentrating the sample extract to 1.0 mL.
A gel permeation option is included to further purify those
extracts which cannot be concentrated to the specified final
volume.
Using capillary GC/FT-IR techniques, waste water
identification limits of 150 to 400 ppb can be achieved with this
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-7-
method while the corresponding identification limits for solid
samples are 3 to 8 ppm. Automated packed column GC/FT-IR
identification limits are approximately a factor of five higher
than the corresponding capillary GC/FT-IR values. The most
frequent obstacle to achieving these identification limits is
expected to be the presence of large quantities of interfering
high boiling coextractants. These coextractants would raise the
identification limits by preventing the concentration of extracts
to the desired final volume, thereby necessitating gel permeation
clean-up, and/or by decreasing the spectral signal-to-noise GC-
volatile analytes by raising the spectral background intensity.
Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy
In order to develop analytical methods for compounds that do
not gas chromatograph, EMSL-LV (Steve Billete, 702-798-2232) has
been studying the use of alternative analytical methods. A
number of dye compounds and dye wastes were characterized by
MS/MS using thermospray ionization and triple-quadrupole mass
spectrometry. The polymethine, commarin, xanthene, arylmethane
and non-sulfonated azo compounds are classes of dyes that, in
general, give collision mass spectra when introduced into the
spectrometer via the thermospray interface without
chromatography. Other classes of dyes, such as phthalocyanines,
stilbence and benzidine dyes, have not been detected by this
method.
Many synthetic intermediates and other dyes were detected in
standards of individual dyes. The precursor compounds are
generally not completely removed from the commercial product.
The dyestuffs are formulations based on color index standards.
Dye wastes (mother liquors from various dye processes) were
analyzed without pretreatment before injection into the
spectrometer. High percentages of the starting materials used in
the synthesis of specified dyes were often detected. Other types
of dyes spiked into these wastes could be identified by their
collision spectra. The quantification of these dyes proved
difficult because of the impurity of the dye standards.
Detection limit studies indicate that at least 100 mg to
250 mg of injected material are needed for the dye to be
identified. However, specific detection limits are dependent
upon the class of dye and its actual chemical structure.
The use of triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry proves very
effective in identifying those dyes that undergo thermospray
ionization. The production of a useful spectrum from the single
ion per compound generated from thermospray ionization makes the
triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer useful in both structure and
mixture analysis.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-8-
Test Methods Discussed at AOAC Meeting in Dallas
In addition to the above studies for which reports have
recently been completed, two other methods under development, a
new Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and a
Sorbent Pressure Test Method, were discussed at a session of the
AOAC meeting on April 11, 1985 in Dallas, Texas. A discussion of
these new methods is presented in the following sections.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
The 1984 amendments to the RCRA call for EPA to make the
Extraction Procedure (EP) more accurate and to expand the
hazardous waste characteristics. In response, the Agency is
expanding the list of compounds that can be detected using the
Extraction Procedure and is developing a second generation
mobility procedure. The new TCLP is being designed to be
suitable for determining the leaching behavior of volatile
compounds as well as to be less costly and more precise than the
current EP. Furthermore, the features of this new procedure are
expected to approximate the leaching action of a sanitary
landfill. The draft TCLP that was discussed at the AOAC meeting
in Dallas makes the use of a zero-headspace extraction vessel,
the tumbler type agitator currently employed in the EP, and an
acetic acid/sodium acetate buffer as the extraction medium. A
report is in preparation summarizing the results of the lysimeter
and laboratory experiments that led to the draft procedure. A
copy of the draft method is attached. For further information,
contact Todd Kimmell 202-382-4795).
Sorbent Pressure Test Method
Compression of materials occurs during routine landfill
operations, and the 1984 amendments to RCRA directed EPA to
prohibit the landfill disposal of liquids absorbed in materials
(sorbents) which can release these liquids when compressed.
In order to determine whether certain sorbents could release
liquids under simulated landfill pressure, the Agency has
initiated a program to develop a new test method, entitled the
Sorbent Pressure Test. As discussed at the AOAC meeting,
centrifugation and consolidation are currently being investigated
as a means of simulating landfill pressure. The test will be
designed to be easily applied in the field and to yield both
qualitative and quantitative results.
Attachment
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9445.1985(03)
Mr. William L. Ramus
Water Management, Inc.
2480 Broadway Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115
Dear Mr. Ramusi
This letter is in response to your may 17, 1985 letter to
Mr. Matthew Straus of the Masts Identification Branch*
Specifically, you requested a clarification of ths FOJt
listing and its applicability to wastewatar treatment sludges
from sulfuric acid anodising of aluminum.
The P006 listing of wastewster treatment sludges from
electroplating operations was published Interim Final on Nay
19, 1980 (45 PR 33123). Comments were take* on tHe proposed
listing, whicTT~prompted several modifications.. These
modifications were incorporated into the final listing on
November 12,-1980 (45 PK 74886-74817K First, waxtewator
treatment sludges from eeveral specific processes' were sxcfudsd'
from the listing. These processes include sulfuric acid
anodising of aluminum. Also, wastewater treatment sludges
from chemical conversion costing of aluminum wore listed
separately, as P019, becsuse these sludgss were not expected
to contain significant concentrations of cadmium and niexsl.
Thus, the P019 listing is, in -effect, a subeategory of the
POOC listing.
Since wastewster treatment sludgss from sulfuric acid
anodising of aluminum are specifically excluded from the POOf
listing, the sludges are not included under F019. At present,
this exclusion also includes the coloring stsp and, thus, the
process you describe results in an excluded wants unless the-
sludge is hasardoua by characteristic (ignItability, corrosivlty,
reactivity, or BP toxic!ty).
WH-562B/DTOPPING/rpj/382-4690/S-31-85/DISr DT 01
-------
It is important to note that this waste is excluded from
the listings because it meets the description in the P006
exclusion and not because the chemical conversion baths
contain no chromium. Apart from the P006 exclusions, wastewater
treatment sludges from all chemical conversion coating
processes are listed hazardous wastes (F019 for aluminum,
F006 other metals).
However, the Agency is currently re-evaluating the
electroplating and metal finishing listings to determine
whether phosphating and some other processes should continue
to be included.
Should you have any questions related to this clarification
or other aspects of the electroplating and metal finishing listings,
please feel free to contact me at (202) 382-4690.
Sincerely,
David A. Topping, Jr.
Environmental Scientist
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
cc: Sally Swanson, EPA Region V
-------
9445.1985(04)
MEMORANDUM #1
DATE: June 1985
SUBJECT: Notes on RCRA Methods and QA Activities
FROM: David Friedman, Manager
Methods Program (WH-562B)
TO: Addressees
Today's memo will cover the following subjects:
o Metal Determination in Ground Water
o Dioxin Method 8280
o Performance Audits on Gas Samplers
o Validation of Method 3540
o Reactivity Test Methods
o Symposium on Solid Waste Testing and Quality Assurance
Thank you for past comments and suggestions.
Metal Determination in Groundwater
The forthcoming publications, "Ground Water Technical
Enforcement Document" (OWPE) and the Third Edition of SW-846,
will provide greater detail on how metals are to be determined in
ground water. The following policy will be implemented in both
documents.
o All ground water samples are to be analyzed for total
recoverable metals (unfiltered, mild digestion) and
dissolved metals (filtered, mild digestion) as defined
in the EPA publication "Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Waste" (EPA-600/4-79-020), Section 200
Metals, paragraphs 3.7 and 3.4. Total recoverable
metals and dissolved metals are to be determined by the
methods given in the same publication in Section 200
Metals, paragraphs 4.1.4 and 4.1.1. (The digestion
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
given in Note 3 of 4.1.1 is always to be used for
ground water samples.)
Organic determinations are to be made only on ground
water samples that have not been filtered.
An on-site filtration method will be developed and
evaluated before inclusion in SW-846.
Dioxin Method 8280
The single laboratory evaluation of Method 8280 for analysis
of halogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans has been
completed. The method consists of extraction, base and acid
washes, alumina column chromatography, reverse phase HPLC, carbon
column chromatography and quantitation by high resolution gas
chromatography low resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/LRMS) (see
Table I). Analyses, concentrations and performance data are
given in Table II. Detection limits derived from the single lab
study are given in Table III. These may be higher than lowest
possible detection limits because calculations are based on high
natural and spiked dioxin concentrations. The EMSL-Las Vegas
laboratory is currently investigating method modifications aimed
at lowering the detection limits and is preparing for a multi-
laboratory evaluation of the current method.
Availability of PPB Hazardous Organic Cylinder Gases for
Performance Audits
In order to minimize the chance of poor data being collected
when performing trial burns and other combustion process
monitoring, the EMSL-RTP laboratory has prepared several audit
cylinders for use in performing performance audits of SW-846
sampling methods 1.2.1.8 (VOST) and 1.2.1.13 (MM5). These
multicomponent organic cylinder gases have been successfully used
in audits during RCRA hazardous waste trial burns.
As a result of the success with these cylinders, OSW
believes it is prudent for all persons performing such sampling
to use a cylinder audit during each sampling episode. If such a
level of Quality Assurance cannot be performed, then cylinder
audits should be performed during all trial burns. The cylinder
gas audit can be used for all volatile organic sampling that uses
either the VOST or bag techniques. The audit adds an important
ingredient now missing from such trial burns—assessment of
sampling accuracy. Currently, EPA and State personnel who
require trial burns for POHC have little means of knowing the
accuracy of POHC measurements. Requiring permit applicants to
conduct cylinder audits during the trial burn adds an important
weapon to the QA arsenal. OSW strongly recommends instituting
this requirement.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
TABLI X. FLO* SHEET FOR «THOO 8280 DIOXIN AMALYSI8
1 - lOg Sanple
tttraet
100 ml for Asht Toluene umed for
^ M ^ w^»^ • ki Aj^a • a ^ r\ * ^ _ ^ »
Carbom
(7t3) u»«d for
Aquwou*
Discard
Organic
Math with
20% KOtt
AqtMOua
Discard
T
Organic
Mash vith
cone*
AQU«OUS
Discard
I
Organic
Alumina Colu
Claan up
I
raction 1 (H*Cl2tB«xans)
(20i80)
Fraction 2
(SOiSO)
aPLC Clsanup
I
Fraction 2
Phas«
(Xsocrat*-ftaOR)
I
Fraction 1
Discard
(••B/LM8)
I
Sludg*
Tars
Still tk>ttoms
Carbon Co limn
Carbon PX-21 (Anoeo
I
Fraction 1 and 2
I
Discard
I
Fraction 3 (Toluene)
H*GC/UM&
-------
TABLE -II. PRECISION CAT A FOR REVISED METHOD 8280
Compound
Matrix
Analyte Level
Native +
Spike(ng/g) N
Mean
Percent Percent
Recovery RSD
1,2,3,4,7-P«CDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDD (C-13)
1,2,7,8-TCDP
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDT
1,2,3,4,7,84x019
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
"fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clav
*»*—j
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
•oil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
clay
soil
sludge
fly ash
still bottom
5.0
25.0
125
13.9
2500
5.0
25.0
125
46
2500
5.0
25.0
125
46
2500
5.0
•»• "
25.0
1 X 10*
—
—
5.0
25.0
125
5.0
2500
5.0
25.0
125
3.7
2500
5.0
25.0
125
46
178,000
—
25.0
133
17.6
2500
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
4
^
4
8
-
-
4
4
6
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
2
2
-
4
4
4
2
58.4
62.2
79.2
102.4
81.8
61.7
68.4
81.5
104.9
84.0
46.8
65.0
81.9
125.4
89.1
ND
W m&
ND
—
—
—
64.9
78.8
78.6
88.6
69.7
65.4
71.1
80.4
90.4
104.5
57.4
64.4
84.8
105.8
— •
54.2
68.5
82.2
91.0
92.9
3.36
8.92
6.93
10.3
— —
23.2
10.8
5.28
— —
—
28.9
12.9
9.0
~
-—
— —
„•
—
—
—
7.58
9.14
3.42
6.74
7.47
6.91
8.40
3.08
11.1
—
5.18
6.77
9.74
—
—
—
10.0
5.29
8.71
—
-------
TABLE III. DETECTION LIMITS (ppb) FOR RCRA METHOD 8280
Analyt*
Class Clay Soil Ply Ash Still Bottom Sludge
TCDD
TDCF
PeCDD
PeCDP
HxCDD
HxCDP
1.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
5.0
2.5
7.5
5.0
10
7.5
1.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
500
250
750
500
1000
750
25
12
38
25
50
38
-5-
-------
-3-
weapon to the QA arsenal. OSW strongly recommends instituting
this requirement.
These cylinders are available, at no cost, from the EMSL-RTP
laboratory. Each audit cylinder contains 5 to 9 hazardous
organics. Audit cylinders are available in two concentration
ranges. The concentration of each hazardous organic in the low
audit cylinders is between 7 and 90 ppb. The concentration of
each hazardous organic in the high audit cylinders is between 90
and 430 ppb. Groups.I and II cylinders are currently available
for audits. Group III cylinders will be available in the Fall,
1985. Groups I, II and III cylinders contain the following
hazardous organics:
Group I Cylinders Group II Cylinders Group III Cylinders
Carbon tetrachloride Trichloroethylene Pyridine
Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane Vinylidene chloride
Perchloroethylene 1,2-Dibromoethane 1,1,2-Trichloro-
1,2,2-
trifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride Acetonitrile (Freon-113)
Benzene Trichlorofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloro-
(Freon-11) 1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethane
(Freon-114)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon-12) Acetone
Bromoethane 1,4-Dioxane
Methyl ethyl ketone Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane Chlorobenzene
All audit cylinders are periodically analyzed to assure
cylinder concentrations have remained stable. Also, all
stability analyses in Appendix A include quality control analyses
of ppb hazardous organic gas standards prepared by the National
Bureau of Standards for EMSL-RTP/QAD.
Audit cylinders may be obtained by contacting:
Robert L. Lampe
USEPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Quality Assurance Division (MD-77B)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Telephone: Commercial (919) 541-4531 or FTS 629-4531
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-4-
Validation of Method 3540
The development and evaluation of fortification/
homogenization procedures for preparing uniform distributions of
analytes in diatomaceous earth showed no appreciable differences
between fortification solvents, between mechanisms of
homogenization, or between duration of homogenization.
Uniformity of distribution of analytes in the diatomaceous earth
was essentially independent of these parameters. Consequently,
the most facile.approach (i.e., fortifying using methylene
chloride followed by tumbling for 30 min) was applied to
subsequent experiments.
The evaluation of the Soxhlet Extraction Procedure (Method
3540, SW-846) using reagent diatomaceous earth demonstrated that
this procedure provides accurate and precise measurements on
nonvolatile components. Recoveries of such species from
fortified diatomaceous earth was approximately 85 percent, with
relative standard deviations of less than 11 percent. Recoveries
of the three volatile analytes, toluene, p-xylene, and o-xylene
were considerably lower (-40%). Loss of these volatile compounds
during evaporation of gross solvent in the fortification step was
considered the most probable cause of this poor performance.
Extraction and K-D evaporation were also minor contributors. No
effect of using diatomaceous earth from different sources on
recovery of target analytes was noted.
Precision of determination of unknown components of
diatomaceous earth fortified with actual pesticide industry waste
was somewhat lower (approximately 27% RSD). This observation was
attributed to the difficulty of homogenizing a mixture of two
solid materials.
Reactivity Test Methods
Development of reactivity test methods for those waste
materials which are capable of detonation is underway. In an
interagency agreement with the Bureau of Mines Laboratory (BOM)
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, OSW sponsored a study that
evaluated the U.S. Card Gap Test and the U.S. Internal Ignition
Test as tools for determining if a given waste is an explosive
that could undergo detonation under reasonable mismanagement
conditions. Samples of sludge from several explosives processing
waste treatment facilities were collected and analyzed as well as
a series of standard explosives for calibration use. Because of
the inconclusive nature of the results of the BOM work, further
evaluation is needed before any decision is reached as to the
applicability of these tests to RCRA wastes.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-5-
In the interim, OSW has supported the use of a battery of
tests to determine reactivity due to explosive properties. This
battery is outlined in a test plan submitted by the U.S. Army.
Please contact Florence Richardson (FTS 382-4770) for
additional information on this aspect of reactivity.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9445.1985(05)
Mr. Don B. Howard
OK Associates, Inc
11848 South Barren's Perry Road
Suite A
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
Dear Mr. Howards
This letter is in response to your November 6, 1984, re-
quest for an analytical method to determine the presence of
creosote. Alan Corson referred your letter to me, because I have
been working with creosote regulations. In order to properly
reply to your letter, I feel that some clarification is necessary.
K001 refers to wastes from wood preserving processes that
use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol, which I presume is the
case that you described. U051 refers to creosote as a commercial
chemical product which is only considered as a hazardous waste if
discarded or int*nd*d to b* discarded. In other words, you will
not have 4051 unless raw creosote is discarded.
As you may know, creosote is an extremely complex mixture of
•any compounds. The concentration distribution of these compounds
varies depending both on reaction conditions and on the source of
:oal used. Unfortunately, we are aware of no single analytical
aethod with which to determine creosote presence. Recent in-
formation indicates that following the procedure outlined in the
loot note associated with creosote on Appendix III, is not a
•eliable indicator of the presence of creosote. EPA is presently
rorking on a proposed rule to amend the hazardous waste regulations
roncerning creosote.
However, we are not concerned with creosote per se but
•ather, the toxic compounds that are present in creosote. I
.herefore, recommend you analyse for the toxic compounds identi-
led as being present in K001 on Appendix VII. If any of these
ire present at the facilities you are concerned with, a potential
azard still exists. Analytical methods for these compounds are
rovided on Appendix III of 40 CPR part 261. Refer to Test Method
or Evaluating Solid Haste (SW-B46), Second Edition? Test Methods
100, 8250, and R310.
-------
I hop* these recon mend at ions will be of assistance. Please
feel free to contact us again* if you have any questions at
(202) 475-8990.
Sincerely,.
Agnes M. Ortiz
Chemical Engineer
Methods Program, WH-5fi2B
cct Region VI
-------
9445.1985(06)
RCRA/SUPERPUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 85
•Skinner List*
1. What is meant by the tern 'Skir.-*r Usf ?
tern 'SXi.-.".«r List* refers to a subset of 40 CTR 261 Appendix vi:i constituents
(89 conpounds) that, when developed, was considered a conservative list of hazario^s
constituents chit wart-reasonably likely to ne ir. pecrolejn refinery «stes. 7J*
list «s originally an attacttner.t to a memo dated April 3, 1984, Cron John Skinner,
Lie.-. Director for tht Office of Solid tfeste, to the ftegioral Hazartous vtste Pennlc
3rar.cn Cuefs.
Its prunary purpose «s to provide permit writers guidance or. evaljati.Tg petrole-jn
refL-.ery waste analyses suOnitted ir. land traaonent pecaic applications. However,
as a result of changes in delisting requirements as specified oy the Hazardous and
Solid htoste Amendments of 1984, the list aecane relevant for purposes of refinery
delisting actions including the identification of analyses to be perforated for
delisting purposes. (The list of constituents sent to petitioners actually differed
slightly frcn the original list that appeared with the Skinner memo. Tfte consti-
tuents appeared in a list entitled 'Constituents of tossifile Interest to Refir^ry
Listing Effort.')
AS a result of additional data collected by the Agency during the spring of 1985,
t^e decision MS made to eliminate a significant r.anoer of constituents for which
analysis w&s needed for delisting purposes. That subsequently reduced list is the
current one now ir. use for delisting purposes only. Regional offices retain the
authority to require the complete "SVi.v»r List" to be used in land traaonent permit
applications. Ir. addition, the hazardous waste listing program at EPA headquarters
may periodically add constituents to the listings as a result of data collected
through their industry studies. The guidance manual entitled Petition to Delist
Hazardous waste contains the current list for which analysis is needed for refinery
wastes ir. addition to general infbraation described on preparing a delisting
petition. This guidance manual can be ordered at a aosst of $19.00 through the
National Technical Information Service (NTXS) by referring to order nunber FB
85-194488.
Source: Barbara Bush (202) 475-6776
-------
9445.1987(01)
RCRVSUPERFUND HOTLINE MOHTHLV
MARCH 87
5. Appendix viu, Groundwater Monitoring
In the July 24,1986 Federal Register, EPA proposed Ganges to the
existing ground-water monitoring requirements. These changes involve
replacing the requirement for owner/operators to monitor for the
40 CFR 261 Appendix VIII hazardous constituents, with a new list of
hazardous constituents in 40 CFR 264 Appendix IX. The Appendix DC
list is the same as the Appendix VIII list except it does not include
those listings from Appendix VIII that cannot be analyzed for in
ground-water. Also, the proposed Appendix DC list includes 25
new constituents that are routinely analyzed for in the Super fund
program, under the existing regulations when the o/o discovers a
statistically significant increase of an indicator parameter during
the detection monitoring phase, the o/o must immediately sample all
ground water monitoring wells and analyze those samples for the
presence and concentration of Appendix VIII constituents. Based on
this information, the Regional Administrator will set "ground-water
protection standards", or levels, for the constituents in the ground
water. If these levels are exceeded in the ground water, corrective
action must be implemented, if the Appendix DC list is used in
place of the Appendix VIII list, will the 25 additional Superfund
chemicals also be" analyzed for and be subject to the ground-water
protection standards of the 40 CFR 264 ground-water monitoring
program? *-
X
These additional 25 Superfund chemicals would be analyzed for
along with .the other proposed Appendix DC constituents when a
statistically significant increase of an indicator parameter
was identified during detection monitoring, and again any time
Appendix DC monitoring was required. Because the Agency has
not yet evaluated these 25 constituents.to be "hazardous" per
47 FR 32295, as they have the Appendix VIII constituents, the
Regional Administrator could use the "omnibus authority" of
40 CFR 270.32(b)(2) and Section 3005 (c)(3) of RCRA to set
protection standards and require corrective action for these
additional 25 constituents if it was deemed necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
Source: Jerry Carman (202) 382-4658
Research: Robyn Neaville
-------
9445.1987(02)
SEP I 6 193T
Dr. Suelien Pirsgss
National Solid tfastss
Managas»nt Association
Suit* 1000
1730 Bhodc island A*e., mr
Washington, DC 2003€
Dear Suelleni
I SB writing in response to your recent letter requesting
clarification of OCW*s policy regarding tb« status of MP 144.
It appears froa your Isttsr that a •isundsrstandiag szista with
rsgard to th« function and regulatory status of ths s«n«al.
In gonoral, BPA will vaadats ths quality asswrsncs/quality
control proc«dur«s in SW-S4* but not th« specific •s-thods. T«
this «nd, ws ars in ths procsss of prsparlajg. a Rotis« of Propossd
•Mlsaaking which ws sxpsct to publish in th« Psdsrsl tagistar
ssrly is Iftl. Howsvsr* for a lialtsd group of regulations* ws
currently Bandsta uss of 8W-§4< sMthods* For those regulations,
•V-t4f will continue to be Bandstory. Tbe specific prograa areaa
where SV->I4< aethods are •aedatory includet
1. Determining whether a waate is hasardous by rsason
of one or SOTS eharsctsristicsi
2* Saspling and analysing a wests to gather data to
support a delistlng petitioni
3. Cosjdfcvtlng an incinerator trial burn) and
4. Detsuilning whether a bulk or containerised waate
ooMtaiaa -free liquid.*
-------
Other than exceptions noted above, SW-946 serves as a
compendium of methods which are approved, but not mandatory, for
use in complying with the requirements of the RCRA regulations.
This approach was adopted, by OSW, to offer the greatest decree
of flexibility to the regulated community while minimizing the
burden to them of having to evaluate methods Cor each and every
RCPA monitoring requirement. The Aqency continually reviews the
effectiveness of this approach. If we find that the flexibility
is resulting in compliance problems in specific program areas, we
would consider expanding the areas where use of SW-846 methods
are mandatory.
We agree with your comment that/ when developing a testing
program, one should consider not only the methods in SW-846 but
also those published by organizations such as ASTM, AOAC, and
Standard Methods. To that end, OSW has an active program to
encourane and work with standard-setting organizations in
developing testing methods that can be used in the RCRA
program.
We would appreciate any assistance NSWMA can give us in
developing and evaluating testing methods. Wherever possible,
we would very puch like to undertake joint program with NSWA.
I would be happy to have David Friedman attend the next Meting
of your Technical Committee to explore specific areas where NSWMA
can assist us in developing and evaluating testing methods.
Sincerely yours,
"arcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
cci Sylvia Lowrance
David Friedman
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACFMT
9445.1987(03
OCT 20 1987
MEMORANDUM f20
DATE: October 1987
FROM: David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WH-562B)
TO: Addressees
This nemo will address the following topics:
o GC/MS Suitability Testing of RCRA Appendix VIII- and
Michigan List Analytes
o Notes on Safety In the Laboratory
o Standardization of Method 8610, Part 2
o 1988 Solid Waste Testing and Quality Assurance Symposium
o TCLP Video
o Application of Structural Integrity Procedure when
Performing EP Analyses
GC/MS Suitability Testing of RCRA Appendix VIII and Michigan
List Analytes
The RCRA list .of toxic compounds (Appendix VIII) contains
over 300 organic aasX^bfs. In response to a petition by the
state of Michigan, tfi** Agency proposed to add over 100 additional
organic eoapqqftsls to th« list. In order to develop and validate
methods for «£f», ••)*lr»ls of these compounds in wastes, EP
extracts, ans^jjjjrojmsV Vatsr, the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory in Cincinnati (EMSL-CI) has been evaluating
applicability of Methods 8240 and 8270 for these analyses.
-------
The first phase of this approach involved the identifica-
tion of thorn* compounds which are amenable to GC separation
and HS detection. These evaluations involved the analyses of
solutions of standard materials using the GC/MS conditions
described in the Contractor Laboratory Protocol (CLP) for the
application- of Methods 8240 and 8270 for volatile and semi-
volatile organic compounds, respectively.
EMSL-CI recently issued the first report on this study.
The report describes the procedures and presents the results
obtained from this first phase of the study. The compounds
were classified as candidates for Method 8240 or Method 8270
testing. Some compounds were not tested because they fell
into one of the following categories:
o The chromatoqraphic behavior of the compound had
already been thoroughly characterized.
o The compound was known to degrade rapidly in aqueous
sample matrices.
o The compound was known not to be amenable to gas chroma-
tography -- Compounds known to be too polar and/or too
thermolabile to elute using Method 8270 conditions.
o Standards were not available, either from the EPA
repository or from commercial sources, for the
compound.
For compounds not excluded for the above reasons, the following
data were obtained:
o GC Performance — retention characteristics.
o Mass Spectral Performance — response factors, key ions
for detection and quantification using extracted ion
current profiles (EICP).
The project demonstrated that of the Appendix VIII or
Michigan List analytes tested, 64 are compatible with the GC/MS
analysis for volatiles and 220 others can be detected using
the Superfund GC/MS program for semi-volatlies.
Notes on Safety in the Laboratory
The items below were brought to our attention and we felt it would
be of benefit to reprint them in this issue. Chemical Safety (C&CN,
July 27, 1987)
-------
Noxious Fumes From Nitric Acid Digestion
SIRi *• **f* interested to read of Paul Haas' description of
an unexpeotfctf reaction involving the acidification of hydrous
metal oxides with nitric acid (CsEN, April 20, page 3). The
health and environmental chemistry group at Los Alamos National
Laboratory conduct* the extraction procedures-toxicity tests
for determination of metals in hazardous waste materials as
required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Because of
the nature of these materials, there is always an inherent
amount of uncertainty with each sample to be analyzed. However,
our experience has shown that approximately one third of all
samples are likely to yield a fairly vigorous reaction at some
point throughout the extraction procedure.
Recently, we experienced an incident involving one
of these samples. A sample aliguot was being prepared for
mercury analysis by the stepwise addition of digestion acids
and potassium permanganate. Nitric acid had been added to the
aliguot in a 100-mL Erleroneyer flask and the mixture had bean
allowed to stand for 15 to 20 minutes with occasional swirling.
An ice bath was used to douse vigorous reactions. The flask
was then removed from the hood and placed in the laboratory
sink, which contained approximately 1 inch of cool water.
Shortly thereafter, a reddish-brown mist containing probable
fumes of nitrogen dioxide and butyric acid (based upon the
appearance and odor) was liberated from the flask, resulting
in mild exposure to the employee conducting the analysis.
Several other individuals in the building also reported
nausea and slight dizziness.
At the time of removal of the flask from the laboratory
hood, the sample appeared ouiescent; it was removed from the
hood in order to make room for other samples being prepared
in a similar fashion. In the future, all such samples will be
retained in the hood throughout the procedure at the possible
cost of increasing throughput tine for sample analyses.
Mary C. Williams,
Fred N. Bolton
Health, Safety & Environment Division
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Standardliation of EPA Method 8610, Part 2
Method 8610, "Total Aromatics by Ultraviolet Absorption"
was evaluated in conjunction with Method 3560, "Reverse Phase
Cartridge Extraction* for the separation and semi-quantitative
determination of visible or ultraviolet absorbing organic
compounds listed in Appendix VIII. In Part 1 of this program,
reported on earlier by EMSL-CI (EPA/600/S4-85/052), the following
work was conducted:
-------
A data base of visible and ultraviolet (UV) spectral
dfttf for the Appendix VIII compounds was developed and
use< to estimate detection limits for those compounds
whffch absorb UV or visible light in the region 220 to
o The reverse phase cartridge extraction procedure of
Method 3560 was evaluated and modified for the separation
of polar and non-polar subsets of 21 Method 8610 analytes
using methanol hexane eluents. However, the extraction
procedure was found to be unsuitable for analyzing the
tested composite groundwater sample. The tested water
contained five sediment particles which partially moved
through the extraction cartridge and possibly interfered
with the UV analysis.
o The spectrophotometric determinative technique of Method
8610 was evaluated and found, in the range of 220 to 400
nm, to be very sensitive for a majority of the compounds.
Based on these results, further work was conducted
by EMSL-CI to further investigate the applicability of these ,
methods in a variety of ground-water samples and to refine
method detection limit estimates. ^
^™
Seven ground-water samples were supplied for the study by
ASTM Committee D-34 members. These samples were evaluated for
background UV absorbance, and duplicate sample extractions
were used to simulate down-gradient versus upgradient testing.
An estimated positive response decision level was found to be
0.02 absorbance units. Five Method 8610 analytes were evaluated
for spike recoveries from both reagent water and a composite
ground-water sample. One analyte was found to be unstable in
water and the elution solvents used. The remaining four analytes
had good total recoveries from reagent water ranging from 79
to 108 percent with standard deviations of all but one analyte
ranging from 1 to 5 percent. Spike recoveries for composited
ground water were not reproducible due, apparently, to a
significant variability in recovery of native UV absorbing
material. The cause of the variability could not be specifi-
cally attributed to* bat nay have been associated with, the
presence of very finely divided particulate material.
Microvave Oven Safety
It has recently come to our attention that several
laboratories are using kitchen type microwave ovens to aid in
the acid dissolution of solid and liquid waste samples. The
Methods Section is currently evaluating commercial microwave
oven assisted sample digestion procedures and hopes to recommend
-------
certain approaches in the near future. Those laboratories now
using or .qs^ifeapCatlBo; the use of kitchen type ovens should be
aware of SjfTeeAl significant safety issues. First, when acids
such as ni
-------
Applicability of the Structural Integritv Procedure Whan Performing
tons
ity of the Structural Integrity
'iro«*dtfre Toxiclty DeterminaTTc
a question came in regarding whether or not one
could us*rrffis> Structural Integrity Procedure (SIP) when evaluating
a certain tflurts in lieu of grinding the waste prior to performing
the extraction. Since this was not the first time we have
received such guestions, I felt it would be appropriate to
review when use of the SIP is appropriate and when it should
not be used.
The Extraction Procedure (Method 1310) protocol requires
that wastes be ground to pass a 9.5 mn sieve unless the waste
is in the form of a single piece (Step 7.9). If the waste
consists of a single piece, or if upon disposal will be in the
form of a single piece, then one may use the SIP in lieu of
grinding. The SIP may, therefore, only be used to evaluate a
waste that is in the form of a monolithic mass. In addition,
in order for the sample, being tested, to be truly representative
of the waste as a whole, the waste will have to be homogeneous*
Put another way, one must be able to obtain a cylindrical •••pl»
of the waste with the dimensions 3.3 cm X 7.1 ca which has th» 3-
same compost ion and properties as the waste as a whole. Thus **•
when determining whether one can use the SIP the critical .^
guestions to be answered are:
1. Is the waste a monolithic block when disposed of, and
2. Is the waste homogeneous.
To be considered a monolithic mass, the waste must be
produced or generated in the form of discrete units of material.
For example, a solidified waste may be cast into cylinders or
blocks of a predefined size and shape; the waste may be emplaced
in a landfill cell as a fast setting liquid which then hardens
into a mass the shape of the cell (a la concrete poured into a
form); or the waste may be a product that is in the form of a
discrete unit (e.g., telephone pole, block of plastic). A
material, however, that, while at some point In the production
process is in the form of a monolithic mass, randomly breaks up
as a consequence of its management prior to disposal would not
be considered to be a-aonolithlc waste and therefore is not a
candidate for testing* using the SIP. It should be noted that,
while wastesvar* normally tested using the SIP at the time of
generation, -pouolonic or other wastes that "set up" with time
to fora a solfi -BASS- Bay be aged for up to 30 days before
testing (ss* ttfrthod IJftO Step 7.10.1).
The second critical parameter that must also be considered
is whether the waste is homogenous. In order for the sanple
that is to be tested to be a representative sample, the waste
from which the sample is being derived oust be homogeneous. If
-------
the vft*t« iv not homogeneous the subsample used in the SIP
would not be representative. Examples of non-homogeneous wastes
are batteries and hazardous wastes encapsulated in a plastic or
other covering to prevent contact between ground water and the
waste. Th««« wastes are considered not to be homogeneous since
the outer surface is different from the inner surface, and a
sraale sample of the waste cut from the larger block of waste
would not have the same properties (i.e., composition,
permeability) as that of the "whole waste". If, however,
the waste was prepared, by a fixation process, in the form of
cylinders 3.3 cm X 7.1 cm, the samples would be representative
of the waste as a whole and could be tested using the SIP.
-------
9445.1987(03
Sue11en Pirages, Ph.D.
Director, Institute of Chemical
Waste Management
National Solid Hastes Management
Association
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Dr. Pirages:
Thank you for your letter of October 26, 1987, expressing
the Institute of Chemical Waste Management's (ICWM) concerns on
various issues.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shares your
concerns regarding the performance guideline of 50 psi
compressive strength for wastes subject to liquid absorption/
adsorption treatment. We intend to provide additional guidance
to the Regions and States in the near future. This guidance
will emphasize that ve are not recommending that a specific
compressive strength be incorporated into permits. The guidance
win, at a minimum, deemphasize the importance of a specific
level (such as 50 psi) and stress that the important criterion
is that following treatment, compressive strength must increase
over tine.
Therefore, if an owner/operator shows an increase in
compressive strength over time, then it can be concluded that
the treatment process is indeed achieving stabilization/
solidification for that waste, and is not merely an
absorption/adsorption process.
You also raise the issue of the tendency on the part of
permit, writers to allow facilities to use only SW-846 methods
when testing wastes. While the regulations do not require the
use of SW-846 methods, the permit writers may be requiring
facilities to use them because these methods have been evaluated
by EPA and found to be suitable for their intended purposes.
Before a permit writer can allow a facility to use a non-SW-846
method, he/she must be convinced that the method works, and
would probably require that the applicant first submit data
3rrai-P rne method * 8»b8 in the intended
-------
He are trying to include in SW-846 the least costly methods
that can adequately answer the testing questions that facility
owners/operators need to answer. It is our aim to continue to
expand the list of approved methods as expeditiously as
possible. To this end, EPA has been soliciting from industry,
and other members of the regulated community, suggestions on
methods to include in SW-846. I suggest that ICWM submit to EPA
any fingerprinting or other cost-effective testing methods that
have been evaluated by ICWM. Once EPA has reviewed the method
and its supporting data and determined that it is suitable for
RCRA use, EPA will add the method(s) to SW-846. Enclosed is a
copy of the Test Methods Equivalency Guidance Manual which
describes the information EPA requires and the procedures.
EPA is currently considering alternative systems to use in
coding hazardous wastes. Among the alternatives being evaluated
are systems that more accurately describe the type of waste
being characterized (e.g., incinerator ash, scrubber water,
etc.). The Agency is also considering a feature by which the
code would reflect the treatment requirements to which the waste
must be subjected prior to disposal. This project is still in
its early, conceptual stage. Finally, as to the proper
characterization of mixture derived from wastes according to the
current system, EPA requests that all of the waste codes (from
which the new material is derived) be used.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
,3
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
WH-562/STRAUS-SCARBERRy-TONETTI/L.T.HANSEN - 382-2074/11-06-87/
CONTROL HO. SWER-002211/DUE DATE: 11-12-87/TELEX CONTROL tl
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACENCW
9445.1987(04)
4887
Mr. Lundy Adelsberger
Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Col urn bus, OH 43266-0149
Dear Mr. Adelsberger:
I am writina to clarify how to determine allowable holding
tires when testing RCRA sairples. Basically, the holding time
for a given sairple begins at the tine the sample is generated.
For example, If ono has to analyze a sample of ground
water for volatile organics using Method 8010, the holdina
time socclfied in SW-84f is 14 days. This means that within
14 days fror. the time the sample of water was taken from the
well, it must be analyzed using Method 8010.
If, on the other hand, one is to analyze a sample of around
water for semi-volatile organics using methods 3510 and 8270,
the water must be extracted within 7 days (the holding time
for Method 3510) and then the organic extract analyzed within
40 days from the time the water was extracted (the holding time
for Method 8270 sample*).
In summary, as long as the holding time for each sequen-
tial step in a determination is not exceeded, the holding time
criteria is not exceeded and the determination is not considered
invalid.
With respect to the testing of waste materials to determine
whether or not they exhibit the characteristic of Extraction
Procedure Toxicity things are slightly more complicated. The
listed holding times apply to analytes in the matrix in which
they will be determined. If mercury is to be determined in
Method 1310 leachate (the Extraction Procedure), the 29 day
holdinn time, listed in SW-846 for mercury, begins when the
leachate is generated. There are no holding times established
tn nnvC\t3tmfi>}?ii\atnr official
jujlrvment 1^ such caJBes.
-------
I hone this discussion clarifies the issue of hcl^ino
t ir--> i-'or you. If vou have any aricritional cutsticns, :3lea«-.r
ccr.t.-ct Florence Pi c.^sr.-.'son, of my staff, at 20?/382-477a /
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WH-562R)
cc: F. Richardson
Hotline
-------
9445.1987(05)
Mr. Robert Meltzer - 2 -'-•'
Vice-President of Publications
and Marketing
ASTM
1916 Race Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Dear Mr. Meltzer:
I am writing as a follow up to my discussion with Kathy
Green at the D-34 Committee meeting held in Clearwater, Florida
last month. We discussed reprinting some ASTM Standards in the
Environmental Protection Agency manual SW-846, Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical Methods. Third
Edition.
sw-846 contains testing methods approved by EPA for meeting
the testing requirements of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. In response to requests by laboratory personnel
who use the manual, we would like to include the approved ASTM
Standards listed below in SW-846 to ease the burden on users.
We estimate 10,000 copies of SW-846 are presently in print to
which the ASTM standards would be added. Currently, the
following ASTM Standards have been approved for use in the RCRA
program.
D445-86 Test Method for Viscosity of Transparent and Opague
Liquid and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity
D446-85a Specifications for Operation of Glass Capillary
. Viscometers
D2015-77 Test- Method for Gross Calorific Value for Solid Fuel by
th« Adiabatic Bomb Calorimeter
D1888-78 Method A Test Method for Particulate and Dissolved
Matter in Hater
D1888-78 Method B Test Method for Particulate and Dissolved
Matter in water
-------
D93-80 Test Method for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed
Tester
D3828-81 Test Method for Flash Point by Setaflash Closed Tester
Kathy indicated that she thought there might be a mechanism
to permit ASTM methods to be included. As we are approaching
our deadline for the next update, I would appreciate any
assistance you can give us on this matter.
My staff and I look forward to working with you. If you
have any questions related to this matter, please contact Denise
Zabinski or me at 202/382-4761.
Best regards,
David Friedman, Chief
Methods Section (WH-562B)
-------
UNITED : fES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9445.1987(06)
JUN 3 0 ls87
John J. Mousa, Ph.D.
Environmental Science and
Engineering, Inc.
P.O.Box ESE
Gainesville, PL 32602
Dear Dr. Mousat
Z an responding to your requeet for interpretation of the
Gw-646, Third Edition holding tines for Seei-volatiles in
•oil es they appear in Table 4-1.
6oil/«edincnt/«ludge sanples, if properly stored, cay be
held for 14 days prior to extraction. Extracted samples cay
be held for 40 days prior to analysis for sen-volatile organic
compounds, provided they are properly stored.
I hope this response answers your question. If I can be
of nore help, please feel free to contact no.
Regards,
Deniso A. Zabincki
Chemist, Methods Section
cc: David Friedman
Hartin Meyers
-------
9445.1989(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 89
1. Appendix VIII and Appendix IX
What is the difference between Appendix VIII and Appendix IX under RCRA?
When is each used?
The hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR) contain two lists of chemicals
which are sometimes confused: Appendix Vm of Part 261, and Appendix IX
of Part 264.
—Appendix Vm
Appendix Vin in 40 CFR Part 261 is EPA's list of RCRA hazardous
constituents. This list was first promulgated in the May 19, 1980 Federal
Register (45 £& 33130). The Appendix VTH list is comprised of chemicals
which have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on humans
or oth«r life forms. Compounds which meet the criteria for 40 CFR
Sections 26133(e) and (0 as identified in Sections 261.1 l(a)(l), (2), and (3) are
also included in Appendix VIH
-------
1. Appendix VIII and Appendix IX (Cont'd)
Appendix VIE is a composite of several other lists of regulated chemicals.
Appendix VIE includes chemicals from the priority pollutants list under the
Clean Water Act, chemicals considered hazardous to transport under
Department of Transportation, chemicals identified as carcinogens by EPA's
Carcinogen Assessment Group, and chemicals which have a high acute
toxicity as identified by NIOSH's Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances list. Appendix VIII lists the chemical names in alphabetical
order, the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) name and number, and the
RCRA hazardous waste code (where applicable). There are currently 416
chemicals or classes of chemicals on Appendix VIII.
The main purpose of Part 261, Appendix VIII is to identify the universe of
chemicals of concern under RCRA. Appendix VIII is used for two main
purposes. EPA uses Appendix VIII to determine if a waste contains
hazardous constituents and, therefore, should be considered for listing
under 40 CFR Section 261.11. (Appendix VIII however, should not be used
by a generator identifying hazardous wastes under Part 261, Subparts C and
D. Appendix VIII is much broader than the actual hazardous waste lists in
40 CFR sections 261.31-261.33.) Owners/operators of RCRA facilities use
Appendix VIII for hazardous waste analysis before incineration (Section
264.340).
EPA's original regulations for ground-water monitoring at permitted land
disposal facilities required owners and operators, under some circumstances,
to analyze samples of groundwater for all constituents listed on Appendix
VIII. The Agency soon discovered that compliance with this requirement
caused ?. wide range of practical analytical problems. These problems
included listings in Appendix VIII that covered broad categories (e.g.,
chlorinated naphthalene, not otherwise specified), listings of compounds
which decomposed in water, and listings for which no analytical standard
existed. To abate these groundwater monitoring problems, EPA
promulgated Appendix DC of Part 264, the Groundwater Monitoring List (see
52 fj& 25112).
—Appendix DC
Part 264, Appendix DC was promulgated to replace Part 261, Appendix VTII
for groundwater monitoring for permitted facilities. Hence Part 264,
Appendix IX is the Groundwater Monitoring List. It is comprised of
compounds in the Part 261, Appendix Vm list for which it is feasible to
analyze in groundwater samples as well as a few compounds routinely
monitored under Superfund. Appendix DC lists the chemicals' common
name in alphabetical order, the CAS number, the CAS index name, the SW-
846 suggested test method, and the Practical Quantitation Limits (PQL's)
-------
1. Appendix VIII and Appendix IX (Cont'd)
which arc the lowest concentrations of anaJytes in groundwater that can be
reliably determined within specified precision and accuracy limits using the
suggested method. Appendix IX of Part 264 currently contains 211 chemicals
and their associated test methods.
Under the July 9, 1987, rules (52 £B 25942), an owner/operator of a RCRA
facility will have certain Part 261 Appendix VIII hazardous constituents
specified in his permit for which he must determine background levels (40
CFR Section 264.98). If he determines that there is a statistically significant
increase over the background values specified in his permit at any
monitoring well, he must notify the Regional Administrator and
immediately sample the groundwater in all monitoring wells to determine
the presence and concentration of any Part 264, Appendix IX constituents.
Appendix IX is only used for groundwater monitoring. It is not used as
widely as Part 261, Appendix VIE (e.g. incineration, listing criteria). For
further discussion of Part 261, Appendix Vin and Part 264, Appendix IX and
their respective roles in the groundwater monitoring program under
RCRA, see Part 264, Subpart F and the July 9, 1987 Federal Register (52 FR
25942).
Source: Bob April (202) 382-7917
Research: Rene* Bench (202)382-3112
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION t
9445.1989(02
SUBJECT: JLtalth Based Values for Chemical List
FROM: **an Griffin, Ph.D.
TOxicologist
Health Assessment Section
Technical Assessment Branch (OS-331)
TO: Percival Miller
Legislative Commission
Solid Waste Management
Albany, NJ 12207
Listed below are the risk specific doses (RSDs) or reference
doses (RfDs) for the chemicals which you requested. The RfDs are
agency verified non-carcinogenic health numbers. The RSD's are
carcinogenic numbers obtained by dividing the risk level (10"*)
by the cancer slope factor. The RSD values given below may or
may not be agency verified numbers, however, they are all used in
our regulations to set acceptable concentration limits, (ie.
soil).
Antimony - oral RfD 4x10** mkd (mg/kg/day)
Arsenic - a carcinogen; RSD 2.0x10"" mkd
Barium - oral RfD 5xlO"2 mkd
Benz(a) anthracene - B2 carcinogen; RSD 3xlO"7 mkd
Benzo(a)pyrene - B2 carcinogen; RSD 8.6x10"' mkd
Benzo(b) fluoranthene - B2 carcinogen; no quantitative data
Benzo(ghi)perylene - RSD 8.6x10"* mkd
Benzo(K) fluoranthene - B2 carcinogen; RSD 1.4x10"'
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate - B2 carcinogen; RSD 1.4xlO~2 mkd
Cadmium - oral RfD 5x10"* mkd
Chlordane - oral RfD 6xlO"3 mkd
Chromium III - oral RfD 1.0 mkd
Chromium VI - oral RfD 5xlO"3 mkd
Chrysene - C carcinogen; RSD 8.6x10"* mkd
-------
Copper - no data available
Dibenz(a,h) anthracene - B2 carcinogen; RSD 2.0x10"* mkd
1,1-Dichloroethane - no data available
Diethyl Phthalate - oral RfD SxlO"1 mkd
Indeno [l,2,3-cd]pyrene - C carcinogen; RSD 5.7xlO"s mkd
Iron - no data available
Lead - clean up to background levels
Manganese - no data available
Mercury - oral RfD 2xlO"3 mkd
Nickel - oral RfD 2xlO"2 mkd
Phenanthrene - oral RfD 5.7xlO"5 mkd (this is not an agency
verified number)
Phenol - oral RfD SxlO"1 mkd
Selenium - (Selenious acid) - oral RfD 3xlO"3 mkd
Silver - oral RfD 3xlO"3 mkd
2,3,7,8 - TCDD - B2 carcinogen RSD 6.2xlO"12 mkd
toluene - oral RfD 3X10"1 mkd
1,1,1-trichloroethane - oral RfD 9xlO"2 mkd
1,1,2-trichloroehtane - (1) oral RfD 4xlO'3 mkd
(2) RSD 1.7xlO'5 mkd
Vanadium (Vanadium Pentoxide) - oral RfD 9xlO"3 mkd
Vinyl Chloride - no data available
Xytene - oral RfD 2.0 mkd
Zinc - oral RfD 3x10"* mkd
The following compound are currently in the process of
having RfD's developed:
Acenapthene Fluorene
Anthracene Pyrene
Fluoranthene
-------
9450 - GENERATOR
STANDARDS
Part 262
ATKl/l 104/21 kp
-------
9451 - GENERAL
Part 262 Subpart A
ATKl/l 104/22 kp
-------
9451.1980(01)
December 2, 1980
Michael Ridge
Manager, Environmental Health
Carrier Corporation
Carrier Tower
P.O. Box 4000
Syracuse, New York 13221
Dear Mr. Ridge:
This is in response to your letter of August 19, 1980, to
Ms. Eileen Claussen requesting clarification of our RCRA
hazardous waste management regulations as they pertain to
hazardous waste generated in the field servicing of air
conditioning equipment.
Your letter indicates that in servicing air conditioning
equipment owned by your customers, your servicemen may remove
waste oil, spent refrigerant and other materials from such
equipment and, because these materials are to be discarded, they
are solid wastes and may be hazardous wastes. You basically ask
whether your company is a generator of hazardous waste (or
whether the owner of the equipment being serviced is the
generator) and what are your company's responsibilities, if any,
are in managing such hazardous waste.
We interpret our regulations such that, when hazardous
wastes are generated in the servicing of equipment (air
conditioning or other types of equipment), both the owner of the
equipment being serviced and the person (company) performing the
servicing are generators and are jointly and severally liable for
performing the generator's responsibilities of Part 262 of our
regulations. We hasten to point out, however, that we will allow
and, in fact, prefer one of these parties to perform the
generator duties. And, where one party, in fact, does perform
those duties, we will look to that party as the generator and
normally will not bother the other party. However, we feel that,
from an enforcement position, we must hold both parties jointly
and severally responsible. A discussion of this can be found in
the preamble to a recent amendment we promulgated in 45 Federal
Register 72026-72027, a copy of which is enclosed.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
I hope I have helped clarify our regulations for you. If
you would have additional questions, please do not hesitate to
write, call or come see me. I apologize for the tardiness of
this response but we simply have been overwhelmed with requests
for clarification of our regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Gary H. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
Enclosure
bcc: Filomena Chau w/incoming
Jack Lehman w/incoming
Regional A&HM Division Directors, Regions I, III-X
w/incoming
Water Division Region II w/incoming
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9451.1980(02)
NOV 1 8 B80
Julie R. Cooper
Attorney
Mobay Chemical Corporation
Penn Lincoln Parkway West
Pittsburg, Pennsylvaina 15205
Dear Ma. Cooper
This is in response to your latter of Soveaber 5, 1980, to
Ms. Filowena Chau requesting an interpretation of our hazardous
waate management regulation.
You indicate that your company hirea many independent contractors
and they, in tarn, often hire subcontractors to perform various
services including painting, janitolcal services, boiler cleaning
and construction. Tea indicate that these contractors and
subcontractors generate wastee and that •one of theae wastes may
be hazardous wast'ee. You state that you normally require your
contractors to remove their wastes from your premises and you indicate
that they may or may not require waste removal by their subcontractors.
Finally, you say that you would like to continue the practice of
having contractors remove their waste but would like to have the
option of asauming this responsibility.
5y implication, you are asking who is the generator of hazardous
wast-* your company or your contractors (or has subcontractor) EPA
contends that both parties or, as the ease may be, all three parties
are generators and are jointly and severally liable for complying
with the generator standards in Part 262 of our regulations (see 45
Fed. Beg. 33140-33148). We do net object to and, in far*, orefer
that only one of these parties, by mutual agreement (e.g., a contract)
perform these responsibilities in fact. We will reserve the right,
however, to add both or all three parties liable for theae
responsibilities in any enforcement, actions we might take as a result
of a violation of the regulations. This interpretation parallela
.the interpretation we, have taksn and discussed la the preamble to a
recent amendment to our regulations (sea 45 Fed. Keg. 720*6-72027.
October 30, I960).
-------
-2-
ConBcqucntly, either your company, your contractor or his
subcontractor can assume responsibility for removing hazardous
wastes generated on your premises and further assume the responsibility
for complying with Part 262 of our regulation, as your company
prefers. But your company, in any case, wil have liability for
proper performance of these responsibilities.
We will plan to issue this interpretation in a Regulatory
Interpretation Memorandum in the near future. Pending such issuance,
you can consider this letter to be an official interpretation on
this matter.
Sincerely yours
Gary K. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
bcc: Filomena Chau w/incoming
Mike Barclay w/incoming
Regional A&HM Division Directors w/incoming
-------
Mobay
Mobay
Chemical Corporation
November 5, 1980 . hP(M5aos
41JPT7.2000
Ms. Filotnena Chau
Office of Solid Waste (WH 562)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.U.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Independent Contractor Generators
Dear MI.. Chau:
I have had several conversations with regional and headquarters'
staff regarding the regulatory status of independent contractors
who generate hazardous waste on sites owned or leased by us.
None of these persons has been able to point to specific
affirmative regulations that clearly set forth the responsi-
bilities of the owner and the independent contractor under these
circumstances.
In the manufacture of chemicals and maintenance and construction
of plants, many independent contractors are used. These
contractors-and their subcontractors may generate hazardous
waste in the course' of performance of their contracts. Examples
of contractors who might generate hazardous waste include
consulting engineers, painting contractors, janitorial services,
boiler cleaning services, industrial cleaners, construction
contractors and common carriers. In many of our contracts we
would oblige the contractor to remove waste from our premises.
These contractors may or may not contract in the same manner
with their subcontractors. Ue would like to be able to continue
Wrt»f • Owes Dial Number
412 - 777-2187
i* Dymjftt • Fton* MduWMi i
-------
November 5, 1980
Ms. Filomena Chau Page 2
the practice of having the contractor.? remove waste from our
premises, but we would also like to have the option of being
able to take the waste from them for disposal.
Please advise us of the proper procedures to follow in each
instance. If appropriate, we would appreciate issuance o£ z.
Regulatory Interpretation Memorandum.
Very truly yours,
Julie R. Cooper
Attorney
JRdmy
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 83
9451.1983(02)
RCRA
Several colleges and,universities have asked for clarification on
°(. the Issues of filing for generator 1.0. numbers and determination
of eligibility as small quantity generators.
Several basic configurations exist for college campuses. The
rural or suburban campus might have several buildings on one
contiguous piece of property. This would be considered a single
or Individual generation site even though one or more hazardous
wastes are generated from one or more sources. One EPA I.D.
number would be assigned, and small quantity generator status
would be determined by looking at the total hazardous waste
generated or accumulated on the site.
Kany unlve.rwty campuses are divided by public roads or other
Mghts-of-way which they do not control. MetropoHu/) CMpvtes
are frequently constructed on a nmber of adjoining city blocks
where the various campus buildings are separated by city streets
but the buildings may be connected by tunnels or overhead walkways.
Even 1n these oases. «ach generation site (I.e., each city
block or each half of a cvnpus bisected by a public road) would
be a generator (or small quantity generator} and assigned Its
own EPA I.D. number.
Hazardous wastes being shipped from'one caopus building (I.e..
generator) to another building (I.e., TSDF) where the sites art
divided by a highway would need a manifest while on the highway.
The one exception 1s when the waste 1s shipped directly across
the road. In this case, the receiving building Is considered
•on-s1te,' as defined 1n 40CFR 260.10 even though both sites
are required to have separate EPA I.D. numbers. (NOTE: The
definition of "on-slte" Is Intended to be used only In determining
whether or not a generator should Initiate t Manifest. It does
not define two hulldings owned and/or operated by the sane
person hut divided by a highway as one generator site). The
Agency's philosophy Is to Identify each shipment of hazardous
waste as being from a specific location. EPA needs to Identify who
1s responsible for the waste (I.e., who created the waste, determined
It to be hazardous, and 1s liable for Its proper aanageront). This
may cause some or all of the waste from a university to be subject
to the reduced requirements of the small quantity generator.
The Agency 1s contemplating lowering the small quantity generator
exclusion limit which should then capture these wastes.
Source: Lee Daneker and Rolf H111 • *lH5l'
-------
9451.1984(02)
September 4, 1984
K. T. Allford
NL Treating Chemicals
NL Industries, Inc.
17402 Wallisville Rd.
P.O. Box 490
Channelview, TX 77530
Dear Ms. Allford:
I am writing in response to your July 24, 1984, request for
application of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste identification regulations as they apply to
SULFA-CHECK spent slurry.
It is the responsibility of the person who generates a solid
waste to determine whether the waste is a hazardous waste,
following the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 262.11. First,
SULFA-CHECK is not excluded from regulation in §261.4. Second,
determine whether SULFA-CHECK is a listed waste from 40 CFR 261
Subpart D, and, third, determine whether or not SULFA-CHECK is
hazardous based on 40 CFR 261 Subpart C characteristics either by
testing or applying knowledge. Steps 2 and 3 are elaborated on
below.
Since it is spent, it is neither a §261.33(e) or (f) unused
commercial chemical product, off-specification species,
container, nor spill residue of those listed chemicals. You have
probably eliminated the §261.31 and §261.32 source listings based
on your knowledge of the waste.
The sample has a flash point of over 200°F, but the test
procedure was not specified. Ordinarily, open cup tests (such as
the Department of Transportation requires) will produce higher
flash points than the closed cup tests required by EPA. You
should determine what type of flash point protocol was used by
the Chemical Research Laboratories.
If SULFA-CHECK is aqueous, it is not corrosive. If it is a
nonaqueous liquid, the "quarter-inch" corrosivity test (or an
equivalent method) outlined in 261.22 must be performed.
Although the RCRA regulations do not specify tests for
reactivity, suggested cyanide and sulfide concentrations are less
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
than 10 ppm, or roughly 10 mg/kg. You should ascertain the
reactivity status of SULFA-CHECK.
In terms of EP toxicity criteria, your laboratory report
does not indicate how the analysis was performed, and your
enclosed analysis does not indicate concentrations of the
pesticides produced by the EP toxicity procedure. You can
probably conclude, based on the starting composition of SULFA-
CHECK and the type of use it has, that none of the heavy metals
or pesticides designated in the EP toxic test would be found in
SULFA-CHECK.
You should not perform the determinations outlined in 40 CFR
26l.ll(a)(2) to classify your waste. The Administrator uses
those criteria to designate solid wastes as hazardous waste.
Thus, even if a solid waste met one of the criteria, it is not a
hazardous waste until so designated by EPA.
I hope this overview of the hazardous waste determination
clarifies the steps you must take in order to certify whether or
not SULFA-CHECK is a RCRA hazardous waste. On the basis of what
you wrote, SULFA-CHECK would not be a RCRA hazardous waste, but
you will have to confirm this preliminary determination by
reviewing the points I have raised. You can understand why the
regulations (§262.11) make it the generator's responsibility to
determine whether their solid waste is hazardous, considering the
many parameters involved.
As you may know, 44 States and territories have instituted
hazardous waste programs that operate in lieu of RCRA. In those
States, you will have to comply with State hazardous waste
specifications, instead of the Federal standards. You should
contact the appropriate State agency to acquire their regulatory
standards. For a copy of the State hazardous waste agency
addresses and phone numbers, and for a further discussion of your
guestion, call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346.
Please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 382-4770 if the
Hotline cannot clarify these issues for you.
Sincerely yours,
Alan S. Corson
Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9451.1985(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 85
3. Waste Minimization
Section 3002(£>) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), aa amended, requires that a
generator sign a certification on the manifest (EPA form 8700-22) and on the biennial
report. The certification states that the generator "has a program in place to
reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of such waste to the degree determined by
the generator to be economically practicable.* If a generator of hazardous waste
reclaims and reuses some of the hazardous waste co-site and sends the rest off-site
for recycling, can the generator certify that a waste minimization program is in
place since the volume of hazardous waste actually disposed of has been minimized?
The waste minimization provision of SWDA $3002(b) is a self-implementing program
in which the choice of compliance mechanisms is to be made by the generator in lie;
of his/her own particular circumstances. The waste minimization requirement is me
for the purpose of certification when the generator makes a good faith effort to
minimize threats to human health and the environment. EPA has determined that
various management practices conducted by a generator can be viewed as forms of
waste minimization, e.g., participation in a waste exchange, recycling of solvents,
and that these practices are consistent with the Congressional intent of the requir
ment (see Senate Report No. 284, 98th Congress, 1st Session 66 (1983)). These
activities reduce the volume of waste disposed of by the individual generator and
also minimize the overall quantity of hazardous waste disposed of by allowing
continual reuse of hazardous substances. Therefore, in the case described afiove,
the generator may sign the certification on the manifest since the generator has
a waste minimization program in place.
Source: Elaine Eby (202) 382-7930
-------
UN 3 STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT 4 AGENCY
9451.1986(01
Kwi 1 1 i960
Honorable Edwin Gam
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Garn:
This letter resoonds to your request dated February 4,
1986, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Richard L. Meibos.
Mr. Meibos is concerned that regulations being promulgated for
small quantity generators of hazardous waste will force his
institution to change certain waste management practices.
The regulations to which Mr. Meibos refers are being promul-
gated under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA), signed into law on November 8, 1984. HSWA directs the
Agency to promulgate standards "for hazardous waste generated
by a generator in a total quantity of hazardous waste greater
than 100 kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms during a calendar
month," by March 31, 1986 (Section 3001(d)(l)). HSWA also
specifies certain minimum requirements for these 100-1000 kg/
-------
*y contrast, burning of regulated Quantities of hazardous waste
in non-industrial boilers, such as those at schools, hospitals
and'oflice buildings, is prohibited (see 40 CFR 266.31, as amended
at 50 FP. 49164 (November 29, 1985)).
Renulated quantities of hazardous waste may be stored in
containers, but those containers nust be closed except when
necessary to add or remove waste (40 CFR 265.173). Disposal of
renulated quantities of hazardous waste must occur at a facility
which has interim status or a permit from EPA or an authorized
State.
Materials that pass through a sewer system to a publicly owned
treatment work (POTW) are excluded from the hazardous waste
management provisions of RCRA (40 CFR 261.4). However, such
materials may be subject to pretreatment standards under the
Clean Water Act or to local limits on what may be sent to the
POTW.
If a sludne results from the treatment of a listed hazardous
waste (lists of hazardous waste are found at 40 CFR Part 261
Subpart D) and that sludge is mixed with other material, the
entire mixture is considered a hazardous waste and must bo
managed as such. A sludge could also be a hazardous waste if it
exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity, reactivity, iqnitabi1ity,
or extraction procedure toxicity (40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C).
If such a sludge is mixed with other material, the mixture must
be manaqed as a hazardous waste only if the mixture continues to
exhibit one or more characteristics.
Mr. Meibos is concerned that chanoes in hazardous waste law
and regulations will result in more waste being disposed of on land,
which may cause releases from sites such as those which occurred
at the Lov« Canal. The Congress made limitations on land disposal
of hazardous waste an Agency priority in HSWA. This statute
prohibits land disposal of Hazardous waste by certain dates, unless
the Agoncy determines that land disposal would be protective of
h»«.-.an health and the environment.
Mr. ''toihos also discusses a generator's permanent legal
liability for *»*nagen»ent of tha generator's hazardous waste.
This liability was established by the Comorehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation a*>i i.iaoi**t/ Act (Super*.unci) It applies
to all generators of haz«ruuus wast?.- anu ?« rot. subject tn
change by the Agency.
One method for mitigating the land Disposal and liability
nrobloms discussed by Mr. K^ibos in tor generators to rt-duc-. the
anount of hazardous waste they produce. HSUA enc^ur»oes wasto
~.inlT»ization and the Agency is current.v ^ru^yinej waste minimization
strategies.
-------
The American Chenical Society has produced a brochure
entitled !Less is Better," that describes technioues laboratories
may use to reduce the amount of hazardous wastes they nroduce. I
have enclosed a copy, which you may want to pass alonq to Mr. Meibos
I have also enclosed a copy of an EPA brochure which describes the
current requirements for 100-1000 kg/mo generators, and an insert
which deals specifically with laboratory wastes.
I hope that this addresses Mr. Meibos1 concerns. If I can
be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
-------
9451.1986(02)
March 17, 1986
Honorable Gillespie V. Montgomery
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.. 20515
Dear Mr. Montgomery:
I am responding to your letter of February 11, 1986, to Mr.
Matthew Straus in which you express concern that EPA is
considering classifying port facilities as generators of vessel
oily waste.
In response to guestions raised by the Coast Guard, EPA
issued a directive on February 5, 1985, which clarified the
applicability of EPA's regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to operational waste from
ships. A copy of that directive is enclosed. In particular, the
Coast Guard asked EPA to determine who is the generator of oily
waste that is produced on ships and discharged to reception
facilities at ports and terminals.
EPA has determined that for any oily waste that is produced
in product or raw material vessel units both the ship, and in
some circumstances, the operator of the port facility would be
considered hazardous waste generators. For other types of oily
waste, such as bilge water in vessel engine rooms contaminated
with engine lubricant drippings or solvents, only the ship would
be deemed to be the hazardous waste generator. A more detailed
discussion of EPA's regulations for generators of oily hazardous
waste is contained in the February 5 directive to the Coast
Guard.
We hope that this has been responsive to your concerns
regarding the applicability of EPA's hazardous waste regulations
to terminals. If you have other guestions on this subject,
please don't hesitate to contact Carolyn Barley of my staff at
202-382-2217.
Sincerely yours,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
This has been retyped from the original document,
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9451.1986(03)
•13. Patricia OeJong APR 2 8 ©S6
Inrariaation Services of Alaska
P.O. Box U43
Ancnorage, Alasna 9^510
Dear as. DeJongi
Your letter to Mr. Roy R. Jones regardinq the acceptability
of performing total analyses» in lieu ot* performing the Extraction
Procedure (£*>) Toxicity Pest, was forwarded to Ms. Florence M.
Richardson, the Office of Solid Waste's Quality Assurance
Officer, and finally, to myself. The EP, as w«li the new TCLP
test that you referred to, are both iny responsibility.
In answer to your question, Section 262.11 ot the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR 262.11) provides (or the
use of generator knowledge in application of the cnaractsristics.
Practically speaking, the generator has tho option of considering
nis or her knowledcie of tiie wasto in determining whether it nests
any of the characteristics. This includes information reoardina
total waste concentration.
The TCLt» (enclosed - See Section 1.2), which will soon t>o
proposed for use in expanding the £P Toxicity Characteristic,
specifically states that if a total analysis of the waste
demonstrates that a waste does not contain a particular contam-
inant, or tnat it does contain the contaminant, but at such low
concentrations that the particular hazardous level could not
possiblv be excoaded, then the TCL? does not have to be performed.
This evaluation must be made* however, assuming that all the
contaminant present in the waste will migrate or leach into the
liquid extract*
-------
se call mo at (2U2) 332-47:)5 if I can be of any f'
assistance*
Sincerely,
Todd A. Ki*nnell
Rnvironnental Scientist
Methods and Studies Branch (WH-5623)
enclosure
cc: Florence M. Richardson
Hoy K. Jones, EPA Region X
-------
94
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20440
DEC 15666
QfHC* Of
SOLID WASTE AND IMCHOINCV MSFONSf
Mr. William Plumley
I80391-011-V-3
P.O. Box 1010
Bastrop, Texas 78602
Dear Mr. Plumley»
Thank you for your letter asking for information about
how to dispose of "dry" toluene and carbon tetrachloride safely.
In addition, you asked whether it is safe to dispose these
wastes in the regular trash.
As you might be aware, regular trash is frequently disposed
of in landfills. Toluene and carbon tetrachloride are chemicals
with the potential to cause serious health risks when land-
disposed. Even though your wastes maybe "dry," other liquids
in the landfill could mobilize these materials.
From your letter we can not determine whether you are a
small quantity generator(SQG) of hazardous wastes. Therefore,
if you are a SQG, you will find enclosed the brochure A Handbook
for Small Business that explains how small quantity generators
(see pages 6 to 9 for the definition) must comply with applicable
Federal laws. I also*am enclosing the document Alternative to
Hazardous Wastes Landfill that describes available methods to
treat regulated hazardous wastes prior to dispose them in a
permitted RCRA hazardous wastes landfill.
If you have any questions regarding the SQG brochure or
on your status as generator of hazardous waste please contact
Dave Plant of our Regional Office at (214) 767-2600. EPA also
maintain* a tell free hotline for questions on hazardous waste
disposal the number is 1-800-424-9346.
-------
For additional information on disposing of hazardous wastes
safely, you also can contact your local authorities. In Texas
you can contact Ed Hatton of the.Texas Water Commission at (512)
463-7754.
Sincerely,
r\
James R. Barlow
Chief
Trtatm«nt Technology Section
Waste Treatment Branch (WH-565A)
Enclosure
cct Dave Plant, Region VI
Ed Hatton,
Texas Water Commission
-------
CM'iuwNMcr. I'AI eR07t ION AGENCY
9451.1986(07)
24 1986
Honorable t.'ilMan V. *oth, Jr.
Unlto^ States Senate
Washinaton, DC 20510
Dear Senator Roth:
This letter responds to your request of February 3, 1986,
on behalf of your constituent* Mr* William H. Cann, Jr.
Mr. Cann i« concerned about his responsibilities for the
transportation and disposal of snail quantities of hazardous
waste.
As you know, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CEP.CLA), Section 107(a),
establishes liability for the costs of removal or remedial action
and any other costs or damages resulting from a release of a
hazardous substance. CERCLA establishes three classes of people
responsible for cleanup costs, damages to natural resources, and
related expenses: (1) all owners and operators of facilities or
vessels, including persons who owned or operated facilities at
the time of disposal; (2) persons who contracted for the disposal
or treatment of hazardous substances (i.e., generators), and
(3) nersons who accented the hazardous substances for transport
and selected the treatment or disposal facility (i.e., transporters).
This concent of "joint and several" liability has been a consistent
cart of the CEP.CLA prooram. What has underqona recent chano.es
are the sneeifie regulrements which a generator like Mr. Cann
must meet under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (*CP.A).
In 1990, when EPA initially issued regulations under PCPA
for the management of hazardous waste, snail quantity generators,
those TJreducing less than 1000 kiloorams (about 2200 pounds) of
hazardous waste in a calendar month, were exempted from most of
the requirements applicable to larger generators. The Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), however, direct CPA
to publish* by March 31* 1986, final regulations for generators
of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste in * calendar
month. At a minimum, the renulations must require 100 to 1000
kilogram/month generators to: use a Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest when shipping hazardous waste off-site; store waste
-------
on-sitr tor no mor« than 130 -Jay* (270 days If the wi«t*> Is to
h« shioooO nore than 200 miles) : and ensure that thMr hazardous
wasto is managed at a hazardous waste facility with interim
status or a permit under fcCRA. EPA is now final tring the rerjul*-
tions, and expects to publish th«se rules within the naxt two
weeks. The r«aulations vill be effective six months followinn
publication in th« L*5!±TAi 5*2JL2ter.
Until the final rules become effective in Sentenber 1936,
virtually the only requirement for 100 to 1000 kg/mo qon«rators
under federal law Is the HSWA statutory requirement* effective
August 5, 1985, that these generators use a oartially completed,
single copy Manifest to acconpany hazardous waste shipoed off-site.
Many States, howover, have additional or more stringent requirements
for small quantity gonerators in place now.
Although Delaware has generally adopted the federal RCRA
program, there are additional State laws that nay Impact your
constituent's activities* While federal law, for exannle.,
currently allows snail quantity generators to send their hazardous
waste to a sanitary landfill or other facility authorized by the
State to accept it, X understand that Delaware landfills aro not
authorized to acce.pt hazardous waste. Therefore, it is likely
that Mr. Cann, as he Indicates in his letter, does need to sand
his hazardous waste to facilities located out of State. 'Which
is the closest facility he may usa is largely dependent upon the
type of hazardous wast* Mr* Cann qene»rat*»«, as different facilities
accept different tynes of hazardous waste. While printing
Astahlishmrnts generally produce such wastes as contaminated
solvents, without more information about Mr. Cann's sneetfic
wastes, it is difficult to provid*> the name of a facility
.authorized to accept his waste. The Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control should be. able to provide
assistance to Mr. Cann.
Similarly, Mr. Cann's suggestion that small quantity
generators be allowed to transport their own hazadous waste to the
facility they select is currently permitted under federal regulations.
Again, however, I b«lievo that certain State requirements may
apply. If this is the ease, »lr. Cann may be required to obtain
a transporter license before he can haul his hazardous waste to
the facility he selects.
enclosed a copy of a brochure WA have prepared for
small quantity generators explaining the current federal hazardous
waste requirements, which may be helpful to Mr. Cann. Included
in the brochure is an insert providing information specific to
the printing and allied industries. This is one of a series of
eighteen industry-specific inserts we hav* pronared as a part of
our education/out roach effort for newly regulated small ouantity
o^n»rator». For your reference, I am also including a
-------
s»t of these industry-specific inserts. We would br\ hapoy to .a^d
Mr. Cann's" narv? to our railinn list so that ha nav receive a cony
of the final federal regulations and other education materials
as they bocome available. In th<» meantime, I auqqest that Mr. Cann
contact tho Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
environmental Control at (302) 736-4781 for information on coecific
State retirements as they nay apply to him.
I hope this information will be helnful. We appreciate your
inquiry and your interest in the small quantity generator pronran.
Sincerely yours,
Ji Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Fnclosures
-------
9451.1987(01;
5193?
STTHUECTi Rapid Issuance of Identification Numbers to Site*
' ; Under Investigation by the Drug Enforcement
Administration
FPOWt Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WP-362)
TO i Regional Project Officers, Regions X - X
(See liet of eddreeeeee)
*
The purpoee of thie memorandum ie to extend EPA 'a policy for
rapid Issuance of identification number* to sitas under investiga-
tion by the Onm Enforcement Administration
Because of this Adniniatration's eonnitMnt to halt the illegal
manufacture and sale of drugs* the DBA has embarked upon an ambitious
nrooram of enforcement against illegal drug manufacturing operations.
In particular* OCA Special Agents have been securing clandeetine
laboratories* many of vfcich generate hazardous waste (e.g., ether,
cyanide wastes). Since the waste is usually transported off-site
immediately to approved treatment* storage* or disposal facilities,
DEA officials need immediate access to generator identification
numbers for these sites in order to complete the manifest which must
accompany the shipment.
The Agency** policy regarding rapid issuance of identification
numbere for emergencies or unusual circumstances allows generators
or transporter* to obtain provisional identification numbers orally
by telephone* See attached Federal Register of December 24, 1980.
The unusual circumstances surrounding the DEA clsndestine lab
operations warrant extending the rapid issuance policy to such sites.
Therefore, we ask that you orally provide emergency identification
numbers to DEA agents who may call to obtain the numbers for shipment
of wastss from secured laboratoriee. The numbers can be used on a
-------
-2-
one-tive-only basis. The •eehanie*) used by Region V for issuing
such nuabers (attached) My be • useful format for you to follow.
Follow-up requirements to provide completed notification forms
(870G-12) would depend upon the individual circuastancea at each
alte aa well aa upon Regional and State discretion and policy.
If you have any questions about this request* please contact
Mike Petrueka of my staff on 473-1531.
Attachments
Addrecaeeai
Ken Blu*her9» Region I
Mark Savedoff, Region XI
Shirley Bulkin, Region III
Rita Pord, Region IV
Judy Stone, Region V
Bob Stender* Region VI
Jane Ratcllffe, Region VII
Jen Minkoff, Region VIII
Mtt Hltguard« Region IX
Judy Pey^Region X
cci Steve Levy (WH-5<3)
-------
9451.1987(02)
February 18, 1987
Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Hammerschmidt:
Thank you for your letter of January 21, 1987, on behalf of
your constituent, Mr. Gene Culver. Mr, Culver is concerned about
the costs for disposing of the hazardous wastes from his dry
cleaning establishment, and a recent increase in charges for the
Safety-Kleen® service he has been using.
As you know, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate
regulations for small quantity generators of 100 to 1000 kg of
hazardous waste per month. Congress directed that, at a minimum,
regulations issued by EPA require that: (1) all treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes from 100 to 1000 kg/mo
generators occur at facilities with interim status or a RCRA
permit; (2) 100 to 1000 kg/mo generators be allowed to store
waste on-site for up to 180 days (or 270 days if the waste is to
be shipped more than 200 miles) without the need for a permit;
and (3) that 100 to 1000 kg/mo generators use a Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest when shipping their hazardous waste off-site for
treatment, storage, or disposal.
In developing these regulations, the Agency attempted to
assure protection of human health and the environment while
avoiding unreasonable burdens on the large number of small
businesses affected by the rules. As a result, the final
regulations for small quantity generators of 100 to 1000 kg/mo
that went into effect on September 22, 1986, provided some relief
from a number of paperwork and recordkeeping requirements
applicable to larger generators. In addition, 100 to 1000 kg/mo
generators were allowed a longer on-site storage period (180 days
as opposed to 90 days) in which to accumulate their waste for
more economical shipments off-site. For your reference, I have
enclosed copies of a handbook we developed to explain these new
requirements to affected businesses.
As a result of these new rules, a number of waste management
and disposal firms, such as Safety-Kleen*, have developed "milk
run" programs to serve small quantity generators. State
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
agencies, local governments, and several trade associations have
also recognized the need for innovative, economical, and
efficient programs for handling small quantities of waste from a
large number of generators. We are encouraging some of these
programs through a series of grants awarded under §8001 of RCRA.
Some pilot efforts now underway include establishment of periodic
"milk runs", transfer stations, and waste exchanges. EPA does
not, however, have any authority over private companies pricing
structures, which appears to be one of the sources of
Mr. Culver's concerns.
In sum, we understand Mr. Culver's concern about the
increased costs he faces for properly disposing of his dry
cleaning wastes. He hope that, as additional firms enter the
small quantity generator market, and as State and local programs
evolve, Mr. Culver will be offered a greater variety of waste
management plans, and will be able to select one that most
economically and appropriately fits his needs.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
45i.13 67 ^ Q
JUL 3 0 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT! Generation of Aids to navigation (ATOM)
Batteries end RCRA Requirements
FROMt Marcia E. Williams, Director
. Office of Solid Waete (WH-562)
Gene A. Lucero
Office of Waete Program* Enforcement (HH-527)
TOi Kenneth D. Feigner* Chief
Waete Management Branch (HW-112)
EPA Region X
Thie ie in response to your June 30, 1987, •••orandan 'in which
you requeeted clarification ae to how the RCRA rulee apply to ATOM
batteries. The answer* to your specific questione are as followst
1. We agree with you that the entire battery ie counted
in weight calculationsi
2. The points of waete generation are, ae you suggested,
each ATOM unit service area (either landbased or the
tender vehicle). Each area is subject to the quantity
determination of 1261.5, except when several areas are
on one eitei then the entire quantity of hazardous waste
generated at the site ie counted.
3. The location to which the epent betteriee are taken
would normally be a T60F, provided the waste is received
from one or more ATOM unite which generate greater
then 100 kg/mo, of hazardous waete. You should note,
however* thet 40 CFR 1263.12 provides that properly
packaged and labeled hazardous waete containers may
be) held for 10 days or lees at a transfer facility
without having to comply with Farts 264, 265, or 270.
-------
-2-
4. The satellite accumulation area provisions of f262.34 (c)
do not apply to the ATOM locations because they arc
not all on on* site, but rathar ar* each distinct
sites surrounded by water.
5. We believe that the battarias reaoved aftar tandar
servicing do require manifesting, as wall as thosa
raaovad froa land-basad vahicla sarvicing. Tha loca-
tion whtra t bttttry is rtiovtd fro* tttvica ii the
wastt ganaration tit*. Tha ganarator Bust aanifast
tha battarlas to a T8DF providad thay ara not a condi-
tionally axaapt ganarator. As indlcatad abova, tha
battarias «ay ba hald for up to 10 days at a transfer
facility under §263.12.
Plaasa faal fraa to contact Michaal Patruska at 475-6676 if
you hava any further questions.
cct Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - IX .
Solid waste Branch Chiefe, ftegiona Z - X
-------
9451.1987(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
3. 100-1000 kg/no Generators
40 CFR Part 262 states that 3 100-1000 kg/mo
generator has 130 days to store hazardous waste without
a permit or interim status. If the waste is shipped
more than 200 miles, the generator is allowed to store
waste on-site for up to 270 days. Is it permissible for
a 100-1000 kg/mo generator to ship waste to a TSD
facility more than 200 miles away, even though the
generator could send the shipment to a facility less
than 200 miles away?
40 CFR Part 262 contains no regulations addressing
wwhen a generator is permitted to ship waste in
excess of 200 miles, and thus receive an extra 90
days storage time. 40 CFR 262.40 states that a
generator can store hazardous waste for 270 days,
"if he must transport his waste or offer his waste
for transportation over a distance of 200 miles or
more." The preamble notes that "the Agency has
decided not to establish specific criteria for
determining if a generator may accumulate waste on-
site for 180 or 270 days. EPA believes that such
criteria would not serve any useful purpose... ."
"In addition, the Agency was concerned that
establishing criteria for demonstrating that the
closest facility was greater than 200 miles from
the generation site would be unnecessarily
confusing and could have the perverse effect of
causing waste to go to less desirable management
practices (e.g., where a disposal facility is
located within 200 miles while a recycling facility
is located over 200 miles from t.s generator, the
generator could be forced to/utilize the less
desirable disposal facility). "/Therefore, it would
be permissible for a generator to send hazardous
waste to a facility greater than 200 miles away
even though there is a TSD facility closer than 200
miles away.
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 332-7936
Research: Mark Janaskie
-------
9451.1989(01)
Mtf 3
He
z
o
o
•J
CO
Alan H. McLean
Hughes Hubbard and Reed
Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Dear Mr. McLean:
This letter is in response to your letter dated
March 2, 1989, requesting a written interpretation of aspects
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
implementing regulations applicable to recycling activities
(40 CFR Parts 124, 264, 265, 266, 268 and 270). It is my
understanding that Environmental Technology Group's (ETG's)
operation involves a mobile recycling unit that visits
hazardous waste generator sites. Used solvents are pumped into
the mobile unit through hoses connected to the generators'
storage tanks or containers and a horizontal thin film
evaporator is applied to reclaim reusable solvents. The
reusable solvents are then pumped back into the generator's
product tanks or containers. All rinsings and non-recoverable
residues exiting from the mobile unit are placed in waste
containers and remain on-site as the property of the generator.
In your letter, you reached several tentative conclusions
regarding the applicability of certain RCRA regulations to your
process. I have discussed those Federal regulations below to
clarify how they would apply to your activities. However, it
should be noted that in states that are authorized to implement
the RCRA program, the state regulations, rather than Federal
regulations, are applicable. The state program can be
broader-in-scope or more stringent than the Federal
counterpart, so ETC should check all applicable state standards
before deploying its mobile recycling units.
The first question raised is, who is considered the
generator of the residue or still bottom resulting from the
recycling of the spent solventby ETG's units. EPA considers
the original generator of the spent solvents and ETC to be
co-generators of these still bottoms, and the RCRA regulations
regarding generators, found at 40 CFR Part 262, are applicable
to both. However, this does not mean that both generators
-------
-2-
must satisfy each regulatory requirement individually. When
two or more parties contribute to the generation of a hazardous
waste, as is the case in the generation of the still bottoms,
these requirements are satisfied if one of the parties assumes
and performs the duties of the generator on behalf of both the
parties (45 ££ 72026, October 30, 1980). Therefore, by mutual
agreement either party could perform the generator
responsibilities of recordkeeping, reporting, and manifesting
for the still bottom waste. Typically, these duties are
assumed by the original generator who owns the site.
Nevertheless, EPA reserves the right to enforce against any and
all persons who fit the definition of "generator" in a
particular case if the requirements of Part; 262 are not
adequately met. For more discussion on generator
responsibilities, see the October 30, 1980 Federal Register
notice referenced above.
Regarding the notification process, generator
notifications under section 3010 of RCRA are generally
required only once, at the time that RCRA regulations initially
become applicable to the generator. It is through the
notification process that a generator obtains an EPA
identification number. If the original generator has already
submitted a notification and received an EPA identification
number, and if this generator consents to perform the generator
duties for the still bottoms as described above, then,
additional notification is not required for the mobile unit to
perform the recycling operation. This arrangement appears to
fit the circumstances described in your letter. However,
-should the agreement between ETC and a particular client
prescribe that ETC be the generator of record for the still
bottoms, including manifesting the residue, ETC would need to
obtain an EPA identification number for that particular site by
submitting a notification form (40 CFR 262.12(a)).
You also inquire about the applicability of the permitting
requirements to the generator or the mobile unit operator.
Your letter correctly states that a hazardous waste recycling
process is exempt from the RCRA permitting requirements
(40 CFR 261.6(c)). Therefore, neither ETC nor the generator
would be obligated to obtain a permit for the recycling
operation. Further, generators are allowed to accumulate
hazardous waste on-site in tanks or containers for up to 90
days without being required to obtain interim status or a
permit (40 CFR 262.34). It should be noted, however, that
90-day generators must comply with the technical standards of
Part 265, Subpart J (for tanks), and Subpart I (for
containers), as well as certain emergency response and
personnel training provisions. If the accumulation period
before the waste is introduced into the recycling unit exceeds
90 days, the generator will need to obtain interim status or a
permit for such storage.
-------
-3-
Wastes or residues from recycling activities are
considered to be newly generated wastes and therefore are also
allowed a 90 day accumulation period without a permit. Note
that these wastes are also "derived from1* wastes and are
assigned the same EPA waste codes as the spent solvent from
which they are derived (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).
You also indicate in your letter that ETC will not be
subject to the Part 268 land disposal restriction requirements
since a permit is not required. However, you should note that
the Part 268 standards apply independent of the permit program,
and any such requirements that are applicable to a particular
waste (e.g., the solvent still bottoms) must be complied with
regardless of the §262.34 accumulation provision.
I hope this information will be helpful to you.* If you
have further questions please feel free to call Frank NcAlister
at (202) 382-4740.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph S. Carra
Director
Permits and State Programs Division
-------
9451.1989(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JLN 26 889
OPPiCE Of
SOulO WASTE AND 6MERG6NCV RESPONSE
Mr. Donald A. Barbour
Nuclear Metals, Inc.
2229 Main Street
Concord, Massachusetts 01742
Dear Mr. Barbour:
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 1989 to EPA
Administrator William Reilly regarding inconsistencies between
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) and EPA's regulatory
programs. In that letter you identified both regulatory
requirements and routine radioactive waste management practices
as examples of inconsistencies between the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The first joint initiative undertaken by EPA and NRC was .a
comparative study of the respective agencies regulatory
programs. The purpose of that study was to delineate
inconsistencies. None were identified although differences in
stringency were. However, implementation of the dual regulatory
program may reveal instances where compliance could result in an
inconsistency. However, RCRA permitting and/or administrative
requirements are not examples of inconsistencies. Neverthe-
less, I would like to respond to each of the concerns and
proposed resolutions you raised.
First, you indicated generators of mixed waste may routinely
treat the waste to conform with NRC waste form requirements
and/or Department of Transportation (DOT) shipping require-
ments. You expressed concern that this treatment might force
generators into the RCRA permitting scheme.
Admittedly, the overwhelming majority of mixed waste
handlers are already licensed by NRC for operations involving
the radioactive) constituent of the waste. Also, hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal that may have been incidental to
radioactive waste management must now be brought into
conformance with regulatory requirements for hazardous waste
management including permitting. However, not all hazardous
waste handling processes must be permitted under RCRA.
Facilities engaged in recycling, resource recovery, totally
-------
-2-
enclosed treatment and certain in tank treatments within the
generators 90 day accumulation time do not require a RCRA
permit, for example. Generators need to assess their waste
management operations and processes to take advantage of these
and other exemptions which may be available.
Second, you suggested the benefits of storage for decay of
high activity waste may not be fully exploited by generators
because storage beyond 90 days would warrant a RCRA permit.
In addition to storage of high activity wastes to minimize
occupational exposures, storage for decay of short-lived
radionuclides is also a common practice. The latter practice
could potentially allow certain mixed wastes to be managed
solely as hazardous waste. Staff is currently assessing the
implications of RCRA on these practices. This effort, however,
has been hampered because of scanty information on the actual
number of facilities and waste volumes in this category.
Currently, the Agency is not considering changes to existing
storage rules although some modification may be justifiable in
the future.
Third, you commented that the absence of disposal capacity
will force generators that might otherwise be exempt from
hazardous waste permitting requirements to obtain RCRA storage
permits.
Mixed waste disposal capacity like low-level waste disposal
capacity is unlikely to be available until after the January 1,
1993 deadline established by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Policy Act Amendments of 1985. Even then, the probability of
national mixed waste capacity being available is small. This
uncertainty underscores the need to ensure that mixed wastes are
managed in a manner which protects human health and the
environment from the hazardous constituent of the waste. The
Agency is developing guidance jointly with NRC that will
integrate the respective regulatory regimes for storage. The
Agency has undertaken this initiative because of anticipated
long-term storage of nixed waste.
Fourth, you indicated dual manifesting would be cumbersome
and recommended use of the radioactive waste management
manifest.
As you know, NRC manifesting data elements differ for wastes
destined for disposal versus treatment or storage under RCRA.
Similarly, information necessary to satisfy EPA recordkeeping
and reporting requirements may not be data elements on the NRC
manifest. We have explored the practicality of using a single
manifest with NRC and both agencies agree that dual manifesting
represents a reasonable and expeditious approach.
-------
-3-
Fifth, you questioned whether nixed waste could be shipped
from a State where the waste was a hazardous waste and subject
to RCRA to a facility in a State where the waste was not
hazardous"waste.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 262.20(b) require generators
of hazardous waste "to designate on the manifest one facility
which is permitted to handle the waste described on the
manifest." The regulations are clear that the facility so
designated is the "designated facility" as defined in the
Section 260.10. That definition refers specifically to Section
262.20, the requirement that generators designate a permitted
facility. Thus, a "facility which is permitted to handle the
waste" must also be a facility that fits the definition of
"designated facility." Under that definition, a designated
facility must: [1] have an EPA permit (or interim status) in
accordance with the requirements of Parts 270 and 124, [2] have
a permit from a State authorized in accordance with Part 271, or
[3] be a treatment, storage or disposal facility that is
regulated under Section 261.6(c)(2) or Subpart F of Part 266,
and that has been designated on the manifest by the generator
pursuant to Section 262.20.
The phrase "in accordance with" as used in the definition of
designated facility can be read to imply that if a RCRA permit
need not be issued to a facility because the waste La not
hazardous under authorized State law, then the waste could be
delivered to that facility without violation of authorized State
or Federal law. It should be noted that this interpretation of
"designated facility" reflects the special situation where
hazardous waste in on« State is shipped to a second State that
does not regulate the waste as hazardous.
Sixth, you expressed concern that transporters may need to
obtain a "State hazardous waste transporter permit" which could
impede mixed waste shipment.
Transporters are not required to obtain a RCRA permit.
Rather, transporters must comply with the regulations governing
handling, transportation, and management of hazardous waste.
EPA has also adopted DOT hazardous materials transportation
regulations as necessary to protect human health and the
environment in the transportation of hazardous waste. EPA's
transporter standards are found at 40 CFR Part 263.
You should note that while transporters are not required to
obtain a permit under Federal regulations, States are not
precluded from developing such regulations under authorized
State lav. Mo authorized State IMS instituted such a
requirement for hazardous waste transporters although New York
is considering such a State law.
-------
-4-
Last, you commented that any reconsideration or change in
the Federal regulatory status of used oil "should consider the
advantages of preserving present disposal options for
radioactively contaminated waste oil."
As you know, used oil is not "listed" as a hazardous waste
under RCRA. However, the Court of Appeals has overturned this
1986 decision, and the Agency is currently re-evaluating the
technical basis for listing used oil on an accelerated
schedule. To date, the Agency has not made a finding on the
regulatory status of used oil although, any such finding will be
predicated on environmental considerations.
However, authorized State hazardous waste programs may be
"broader in scope" than the Federal program. And, consistent
with this provision, used oil nay be listed as a hazardous waste
under authorized State law. Several States have, in fact,
established such a waste listing. Handlers of mixed waste need
to be cognizant of the scope of authorized RCRA programs to
ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
I hope my comments have been useful in delineating the
Agency's position on regulation of mixed waste. Again, thank
you for your comments and analysis of what are certainly some of
the key areas of concern regarding dual regulation of. mixed
waste. While immediate plans do not include revamping the RCRA
program specific to mixed waste, certainly the issues you raised
will receive additional attention as we continue to refine our
regulatory program.
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Carra
Director
Permits and State Programs
cc: John Gr««v«s, U.S. NRC
-------
9451.1991(01)
yw"r%
« UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
\
MAR I 3 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarifica^iron/lojtQG Rquirements and Liabilities
FROM: Sylvi
Office oystiW&tk (OS-300)
TO: Jeffrey Zelikson, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (9H-1)
This memorandum is written in response to your February
20, 1991, request for clarification of the regulatory
requirements and potential liabilities of small quantity
generators pertaining to the use of hazardous waste manifests to
assist you in responding to William Apger.
The practice in question is a situation in which hazardous
waste is transported to a permitted (or interim status) storage
facility, accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest; a small
quantity generator has initiated the shipment, and has contracted
with the storage facility to clean up and remove the waste from
the generator's property. Once the waste reaches the storage
facility, the manifest is signed and returned to the generator.
The waste is later sent to another designated facility for final
treatment and disposal, and is accompanied by a second manifest
on which the storage facility is named as the generator. The
requestor asks if this practice conforms to the legal
requirements imposed under RCRA, if obtaining and following
recordkeeping requirements for the first manifest is sufficient,
and if the generator should request copies of the manifest
initiated by the owner/operator of the storage facility when the
waste is shipped to the second facility.
Small quantity generators who generate between 100 and 1000
kg of hazardous waste per month, as well as generators of more
than 1000 kg per month, are required to comply with regulations
pertaining to the manifest. If the generator, the transporter,
and the storage facility in the scenario presented each use the
uniform hazardous waste manifest during handling of the waste,
completing the required signatures (the generator, transporter,
and storage facility before a copy is returned to the generator
in accordance with 40 CFR 262 Subpart B) and maintaining the
required records, then the generator would appear to be in
:ompliance with the Federal regulations. Note that
conditionally-exempt small quantity generators, i.e., generators
PrinM en Racyctotf Ptett
-------
of less than 100 kg of hazardous waste in any given month, are
exempt from the manifest provisions.
As you are aware, States are allowed to impose regulations
which are either more stringent or broader in scope than the
Federal regulations; therefore, the generator should also check
with the State in which his facility is located.
The letter which you provided with your request for
assistance also states that the storage facility would, upon
request, furnish the generator with copies of the manifests which
are prepared at the storage facility for the subsequent
transportation of the waste to the ultimate treatment and
disposal facility. If the generator is requesting such copies
because of a concern about potential future liability, a request
for copies of these manifests could be regarded as a prudent
practice. As you know, the generator retains potential liability
under Superfund for future mismanagement of hazardous waste even
after it has left his site and is out of his possession.
Please contact me if you need further clarification on this
or other issues.
-------
9451.1991(02)
HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
RCRA/SUPKRFUND
MARCH 1991
1. Amendments to Part 262 Hazardous Waste Determination and Recordkeeping
Requirements of Part 262 and 268
The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Third Third final rule (June 1,1990,55 FR.
22520) revised the waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 26111. Prior to the
revision, section 262.11 set out an either/or scheme where, if the generator
determined that a waste was listed in Pan 261, Subpart D, he or she need not
determine whether the waste exhibited a characteristic under Part 261, Subpart C
With the promulgation of the Third Third rule, the Agency amended section 26111
to indicate that generators must determine whether listed wastes also exhibit any
hazardous waste characteristics for purposes of compliance with LDR,
A generator is required to develop and maintain records for hazardous waste under
two regulatory programs, LDR (Part 268) and generator standards (Part 262). How
does the amended language of 40 CFR 26111 (c) affect the paperwork associated
with these two regulatory programs?
The amended language of section 26111(c) does not affect the generator
paperwork required in Part 261 When a generator determines that a solid
waste meets a Part 261, Subpart D hazardous waste listing, he/she is not
-------
required to determine whether the listed waste exhibits any characteristics for
purposes of filling out Part 262 paperwork such as generator notification
forms (8700-12) and biennial reports. (However, the generator may elect to
determine whether the waste exhibits a characteristic for his/her own
information or for other reasons.) On the other hand, the paperwork of Part
268 mustteflect the amended language of section 262.11 (c) which states that
for the purposes of compliance with Part 268 a generator must determine if a
listed waste is also characteristically hazardous. (Emphasis added.)
The general principal of the section 26111 waste identification modification is
that if both the treatment standard for a listed waste and the treatment
standard for a characteristic waste are in effect for a common constituent then
the treatment standard for the listed waste applies because it is more specific
If, however, the treatment standard for the listed waste does not specifically
address the characteristic^), the waste codes for both the listed waste and the
characteristic waste(s) should be included on the notification paperwork of
section 268.7. (see 55 FR 22659) In the Third Third technical amendment rule
(January 31,1991,56 £E 3864), the Agency provided an example of this second
scenario. K062 is listed for toxicity as well as for the characteristic of
corrosivity. Because the K062 treatment standard does not specifically
address the characteristic of corrosivity, both K062 and D002 must be included
in the section 268.7 paperwork. (56 F& 3872)
There is also a variation of the principle illustrated above If the most specific
treatment standard is subject to a national capacity variance or a case-by-case
extension and thus is not yet in effect then the treatment standard for the
most specific waste code that is in effect must be met The January 31,1991,
Federal Register also provides an example of this situation. During the K048
variance period horn August 8,1990, until November 8,1990, K048 was
subject to the treatment standards for EP toxic chromium and lead (D007 and
D008) since the treatment standards for these two characteristics were in
effect After the variance expired for K048, section 268.7 notification for the
K048 treatment standard would only apply because the listing treatment
standard is more waste specific than the two characteristic waste treatment
standards. (56 EB 3873)
In conclusion, the amended language at 40 CFR 262.11(c) was intended for
compliance with LDR treatment standards. The generator recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of Part 262 remain unaffected.
Source: Rhonda Craig, OSW
Becky Cuthbertson, OSW
Research: Cynthia Hess
(202)382-7926
(202)475-9715
-------
9451.1991(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C 20460
APR I 6 1991
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Michael H. Oberg-
Chief Operating Officer
United Marketing International, Inc.
P.O. Box 989
Everett, WA 98206-0989
Dear Mr. Oberg:
Thank you for your letter dated February 19, 1991 concerning
the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule and its relationship to
used oil filter disposal as outlined in a October 30, 1990
memorandum to Mr. Robert Duprey in EPA's Region 8 office.
The TC rule was effective in all states on September 25,
1990, regardless of the state's RCRA authorization status. The
TC will be implemented and enforced by EPA's Regional Offices
until such time as states are authorized to implement and enforce
the TC. Please note that the compliance date for generators of
small quantities (from 100 to 1000 kg of total hazardous waste in
a calendar month) of TC-hazardous wastes was March 29, 1991.
Small quantity generators (SQGs) were required to begin managing
their TC-hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable
hazardous waste regulations on that date. Of particular concern
to the Agency is the proper management (.e.g., storage , treatment ,
transportation and disposal) of these wastes.
As a point of clarification, I would also note that under
the TC rule, generators are not specifically required to test
their waste. The regulations allow generators to use their
knowledge of the waste and/or the process that generated it to
determine if it is hazardous. They are, however, required to be
correct in their determination.
The Agency intends to fully enforce this rule. The Agency's
enforcement policy clearly is designed to identify and prosecute
violators and to deny any economic benefit resulting from
violations. Civil and criminal penalties are also available as
enforcement tools.
Finally, the Office of Solid Waste appreciates the
information you provided pertaining to recently completed studies
of used oil filters conducted by the University of Northern Iowa.
This study addresses the Agency's recommended best operating
practice contained in the October 30, 1990 memorandum which
suggested both draining and crushing of the ail filter to ensure
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
maximum removal of the oil. Of course, as discussed earlier,
each hazardous waste generator is ultimately responsible for
making their own determination as to whether their waste is
hazardous under the TC rule for any waste stream generated.
I hope this letter clarifies the nature of the Agency's
implementation of the TC rule. If you have any additional
questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Cochran of my
staff at (202) 382-4J70 for general TC questions and Mr. Hugh
Davis in the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement at (202) 475-
9867, if you have TC enforcement questions.
Sincerely
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9452 - THE MANIFEST
Part 262 Subpart B
ATKUl 104/23 kp
-------
9452.1984(02)
October 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Violation of EPA Hazardous Waste Manifest Regulations
by Federal Facilities
FROM: Bruce R. Weddle
Director
Permits and State Programs Division (WH-563)
TO: Stormy Friday
Director
Facilities and Support Services Division (PM-215)
The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulation became
effective on September 20, 1984. This regulation mandated a
hierarchy for all generators of hazardous waste to follow in
acquiring manifest forms and shipping hazardous waste off site.
A number of states and Regional offices have told us that
some Federal facilities including EPA facilities, are not using
the correct form for manifesting hazardous wastes to treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. In order to correct the
problem and bring all Federal facilities into compliance, we
would like you to notify all EPA facilities that might be
generating hazardous waste of the form acquisition hierarchy.
The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulation
(March 20, 1984 FR) states that the generator must use the
manifest form of the consignment State if that State prints and
distributes the form. If that State does not print the form,
then the generator must use the manifest form of the generator's
State if the State prints and distributes the form. If neither
State prints and distributes the form, then the generator should
obtain the form from any source such as a printer.
Attached is a list of contacts, including phone numbers, of
State printing and distributing the form. Any EPA facility
(e.g., our laboratories) that is manifesting hazardous waste to
any of these States, should call State for forms or that
assistance. There may be a charge for manifests in some States.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
If you need additional information or clarification, please
call the EPA Hotline. The Hotline number is 382-3000 for the
Washington area and 800-424-9346 outside the Washington area.
Attachment
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9452.1984(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 84
2. Sec* ct tha States that bav» recaivad authorisation froa o*A to Banana their
own WCRA prosri."« radiate a larger unlwna oC waaxa* than doe* D»A. *^«rt
on tM Unifara fUiardcui WASC* PUnitvt
-------
9452.1985(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 85
Snail Quantity Generators
4. International Fabricate is a trade association that represents dry cleaning and
laundry establishments. This industry will be affected by the new Snail Quantity
Generator (SQG) program pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
of 1984 (P.L. 98-616). Starting August 5, 1985, SQGs generating between 100 kg. and
1000 kg. per month oust acccrapany hazardous waste shipments with a ttuforra Hazardous
Waste Manifest* 0m of the items on the manifest that must be completed it item 12,
•Containers." "Containers' specifies the number and type of containers. On desig-
nating the container type, the SQG completing the manifest miat select one of 12
types. Dry cleaners sometimes package and ship hazardous w.iXea in plastic bottles,
similar to Clorox bottles. How should item 12 be completed?
Once a hazardous waste is packaged per DOT/EPA regulations, the container
must be categorized according to item 12 on the manifest. A plastic
bottle would be categorized as "Of." "DP means fiberboard or plastic
drums, barrels, or kegs. In obtaining and completing the manifest, the
SQG should first contact the State regulatory agency responsible for
hazardous waste management as provided in 40 CFR 262.21. The-State
agency will provide information regarding where to obtain the manifest
and how to complete the portions required by the state, if any.
More importantly the SQG must package and label the hazardous waste according to
DOT regulations specified in 49 CFR Parts 172, 173, 178, and 179. All RCRA haza-
dous wastes which are subject to 40 CFR Part 262 manifest requirements are also "
hazardous »«terials subject to DOT shipping requirements (40 CFR $263.10). In
complying with DOT requirements, technical assistance is available from DOT by
calling the Office of Hazardous Materials Regulations, Materials Transportation
Bureau at (202) 426-2075.' •
Source: Curt Cvercast (202) 382-4761
Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217
-------
9452.1985(02)
OCT 17
nr. Frank L. Deaver
Corp* Environmental Services
Tektronix, Inc«
Tektronix Industrial Park
P.O. Box SOO
Beeverton, Oregon 97077
Dear Mr* Daaveri »
Thank you for your letter of September If, 19fS, concerning
the waate Minimisation Statement on the Uniform Baaardoua waate
HaniCeat (Umm) fern.
Za your letter* you indicated that Tektronix employees are
reluctant to aign the statement unless the) signature block la
modified to indicate that the Tektronix employee algalag the
statement ie signing ss an agent of Tektronix, fee) have imeluded
a suggested modification to the eon and have requested •»«••
concurrence on that modification.
EPA views the changes which you suggested aa two separate
•^edification*. The firat modification which Tektronix has propeeed
ia to preprint in the aignature block area of Item 14 the words
TERTRONIX, INC. to indicate the generator and to add the word "fit-
to indicate that the employee signing the fort ia signing aa an
agent of Tektronix* Inc. EPA concura with thia Modification sine*
it la conaiatent with the modifications BPA allows generators to
make to the form (aee page 104t9 of the encloaed narch 20, 1984,
federal Register).
The second modification which Tektronix* Inc. la proposing to
•ake to the omm Con ia to add a block below Item If for an
employee to print or type his or her name. This modification la
not penlSMble since the inclusion oC an additional apace altera
the form. Tme only changes to the form which may be made are
Identified in too March 20, 19M, federal Hoc later (page 10499).
However, X would like to auggeat the following modification which
makes uoe of the existing apace on the Con* I believe thla accom-
plishes the same goal aa your proposed modification without altering
the deaign oC the font
Printed/Typed Maaa
T0T98MZX, I »€.-< Employee's Name)
Signatures TlKTKMli, INC
•Yi (employee's Signature)
MO Da Tr
-------
-2-
Other eeteraativoe which Tektronix may want to conaider would
be to add the phrase "on behalf of TtKTBOBXl ISC." to the aignature
block of Ikem 1C (aee the attached July 11, 1»IS, letter to the
Boeing Company) or to include additional laformatloa about the
signature in Item 15, Special Bandling Instructions and Additional
Information.
X understand that Carolyn Barley of ay staff spoke with
Jia Green of Tektronix to discuss your proposed modification and to
recommend the above altarnate modification. Mr. Green indicated in
that conversation that IPA's re c a ami need aerification My resolve
Tektronix'e coecerne. However, Nr. Green has already ordered 3,000
eopiea of the form with the Tektronix modification Included on it
and the order cannot be rescinded. Hr. Oreen requested IFA's con-
currence on using those coplee if the additional apace waa voided.
He emphasised that future printings would net include this additional
apace. Because Oregon is an authorised State, its rules apply in
lieu of KFA'e. Therefore, you must discuss the use of existing forms
with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (D*0)« X suggest
that you ceetact Nr. Nike Downs, Administrator of DIO's Basardous
and Solid Vasts Division (SSJ-22t-SJSt).
i truet that tfcia letter adequately addressee your concerns
on this subject* If you have other questlone concerning the OIVN,
X suggeet that you call Carolyn Barley (202-382-2217).
Sincerely Toura,
Mareia villiama
Director
Office of Solid tfcata
Bncloeuree
cct Hike DewnSf Oregon 010
Charles Mndley, tfA legion X
NH-5€3iCBicetlf-l-SS«3S2-2217tCC*a diak8,doc3S
Controlled CosTespondenee O3W-1I3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGI 9452.1986(01)
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204*0
•8/985
o»»ici or
u . ,f - _ . . SOLID WA»Ti AND IMINOfNCv «l«KJN8
Mr. Jeffrey L. Dauohin
Waste Systems Institute of Michigan, Inc.
470 Market, S.w.
Suite 100-A
Grand Rapids, MZ 49503
Dear Mr. Dauphin:
This letter responds to your request, dated April 1, 1986,
for clarification of the waste minimization certification
requirement for small quantity generators of hazardous waste.
1 The waste minimization certification requirement was created
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), signed
by the President on November 8, 1984. Section 3002(b) of HSWA
requires that generators of hazardous waste regulated under Section
3002(a)(5) certify, on the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, that
they have in place a program to r*duc* th« quantity and toxicity
of the hazardous waste they generate, to a degree determined by
the generator to be economically practicable and that the proposed
method of treatment, storage, and disposal is that practicable
method currently available which minimizes present and future
threats to human health and the environment. This statutory
provision does not apply to generators of less than 1000 kg per
month.
1 The HSWA also required EPA to establish standards for
generators of 100-1000 kg per month. These standards were
promulgated on March 24, 1986. On the same day, EPA proposed
that the waste minimization certification requirement also
apply to 100-1000 kg/mo generators. If the Agency finalizes
this proposed requirement* the waste minimization certification
statement in item 16 of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest
will apply to 100*1000 kg/mo generators just as it applies to
generators of greater than 1000 kg/mo. I have enclosed copies
of both Federal Register notices* for your information.
The certification contained in item 16 of the manifest form
consists of two parts* the waste minimization certification and
the general certification of accuracy. Only one signature is
required.
The waste minimization certification requirements of HSWA
do not authorize EPA to "interfere with or to intrude into the
production process by requiring standards for waste minimization;
-------
rather, it specifically provides that the substantive determinations
of "economically practicable" and "practicable methods currently
available" are to be made by the generator in light of his own
particular circumstances. Thus, from an enforcement perspective,
the Agency will be concerned primarily with compliance with the
certification signatory requirement. Each generator subject to
the waste minimization requirement should make a good faith effort
to minimize the amount and toxicity of waste generated and to
select a means of treatment, storage, or disposal most likely to
minimize the present and future threat to human health and the
environment (50 FR 28734). The legislative history of HSWA
makes clear that~judgements made by the generator (for the
purpose of the waste minimization certification] are not subject
to external regulatory action (S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 1st
Sess. 67 (1983)).
The HSWA, however, require the EPA to submit a report to
Congress, by October 1, 1986, on the feasibility and desirability
of: (1) establishing standards of performance or of taking
additional action under the Act (RCRA) to require the generators
of hazardous waste to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity
of the hazardous waste they generate; and (2) establishing with
respect to hazardous wastes required management practices or other
requirements to assure such wastes are managed in ways that minimize
present and future threats to human health and the environment.
In addition, the report shall include any recommendations for
legislative changes which EPA determines are desirable and feasible
to implement the national policy of minimizing the generation and
the land disposal of hazardous waste by encouraging process
substitution, materials recovery, properly-conducted recycling
and reuse, and treatment*
The Agency supports all environmentally sound strategies
for reducing the amount of hazardous waste which must be disposed
of, including waste exchanges. The Agency's position on waste
exchanges, therefore, remains consistent with that expressed in
John Skinners' March 1, 1985 letter to you.
I hope that this answers your questions about the waste
minimization certification requirement. Thank you for your
interest in the hazardous waste program.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
-------
9452.1986(02
OCT 20B86
bear State Basardoua Waste Directori
on March 24, 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) promulgated final regulations for small quantity generators
of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of hacardoua wasts in a calendar
month (SI Federal Pecister 10146). Effective September 22, 1966,
this rule requires these generstors to use the multi-part 'round*
trip* ffacardous Waste Manifest (form 8700-22 and 22A) for all
off-site shipments of hasardous waste*
In e Federal Register notice accompanying the March 24, 1986
final rul«, tb« A9«ney •zpl*ln«d that since it had not specifically
addressed the issue of vaate minimisation in the proposed rule for
small quantity generators, it was requesting public comment on
whether these generators should be required to certify to waste
minimisation on the Uniform Basardoua waste Manifest. As explained
in the March 24, 1986 final role* the requirement that generators
of 100-1000 kg/mo certify to waste minimisation on the manlfeet
would automatically go into effect on September 22, 1986, the date
these generators became eubject to the Section 3002 generator
standards, unless the Agency acted to exempt them.
On September 22, 1986, the Administrator of EPA signed a final
rule explaining ita decision not to exempt saall quantity generatora
froa the waste minimisation requirement (see enclosed rule), la
response to comments, the Agency has Instead modified the waete
minimisation statement on the manifest as it applies to email
quantity generators to require only a good faith effort to minimise
waste generation and selection of what they believe to be the best
available aad affordable treatment, storage, and disposal alternative.
Za addition to modifying the man!feat fora to include the new
waete minimisation language for email quantity generators, EFA
has also modified the form to include a technical correction to
the vasts minimisation stateaeat applicable to generatore of
1000 kg/mo and a new OMB expiration date aad form number. The
revised form is effective immediately.
-------
Enclosed are camera-reedy copies of the revised manifest form.
Camera-ready copies are also being sent to the manifest coordinators
in those States which currently print and supply the manifest (see
enclosed list). Although your State nay not print and supply the
form, we anticipate that many generators in your State, including
small quantity generators and private printing firms, will request
copies of the revised form.
If you have any questions about the new manifest form or about
the waste Binimitation requirement, please contact Bob Axelrad on
(202) 382-4769 or Carolyn Barley on (202) 382-2217.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
ccs State and Regional Manifest Coordinators
bees George Garland, State Programs
-------
9452.1986(03)
Mr. Robert Fixter
Assistant Environmental Manager
StH Wait* Inc.
115 Jacobus Avenue
South Kearney, New Jersey 07032
Door Mr. Pixt«n
Thank you for your letter of January 15, 198C, requesting
clarification of the term "waste minimization* a* it appears in
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Anendnents (HWSA) of 1984. In
particular, your letter requests guidance as to whether the
following practice would be considered a waste minimization
progra*.
•
A commercial treatment, storage* and disposal
(TSO) facility accepts waste solvents and oils
from off-site, the TSD blends these wastes on-
site to »eet certain specifications for use ss
a fuel extender by off-site Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA) peraitted industrial
furnaces. The wastes are subsequently recycled,
as fuel extenders and reused in an economically
beneficial manufacturing program.
The H8WA establishes a national policy for minimisation of
hazardous waste, and requires that waste minimization considera-
tions be addressed in RCRA transport manifests, biennial reports,
and on-site TSD permits. The Agency has not developed guidance
on what constitutes a waste minimization program or a waste mini-
mization activity and, at this time, has no plans to do so. It
is hoped that activities such as source reduction and recycling
will be explored by individual generators to reduce the volume or
quantity and toxicity of hazardoua waste generated.
The reports that accompanied the HSWA spelled out Congress1
intent with regard to the waste minimization requirements in
HSWA. As the report states, both waste minimization requirements
for the transport manifest and biennial report refer to a certi-
fication by the generator that a program is in place to reduce
-------
the volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste to the
degree determined by the generator to be economically practicable,
and that the proposed method of treatment, storage or disposal
is that practicable method currently available to the generator
which minimises present and future threats to human health and
the environment. While the requirement to make the waste minimi-
zation certification is mandatory, the nature of the criteria for
such certification and the determination of compliance with those
criteria are to be made solely by the generator.
This makes it clear that Congress' objective for waste
minimisation program certification is to encourage generators
to seek voluntarily ways or programs to reduce the quantity and
toxieity of generated waste. The reports further state that
recycling pollutants , contained in effluents, emissions, wastes,
or othet- pollution streams is one, but by no means the only, way
of implementing this national policy of waste minimisation. A
fundamental premise of RCRA is and continues to be to encourage
the reuse of materials.
As the legislative history suggests and as the environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has stated, generators that recycle wastes
on-eite or send their waste off-site to be recycled are engaging
in an activity which may be considered waste minimisation.
The Agency appreciates your eoneern with the watte
minimisation program definition. Zf you should have any further
questions, please contact James R. Berlow, Manager of the Treat-
ment, Recycling, and Reduction Program at (202) 382-7917.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Haste (HH-562)
-------
ur« few i._. £i ENVIRONMENT At PROTECTION AOcUCY
9452.1987(01)
rE5 2 4 i9S?
Pr. Phillip J. Sparta
Assistant Managing Director
Environmental Technology Southeast
Ifll9 Albert Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Dear Pr. Sparta t
This is in response to your latter of January 21, 1987
regarding the partieioation of a waetewater treatment unit in the
manifest system.
Although you were previously informed that a generator of
hacardoue waste may designate a wastewatar treatment unit on the
manifest ae a facility allowed to accept this waste, we now
believe the previous interpretation is incorrect. Zn particular,
under 40 C7* M264.1(g)(6) and 270.1(c)(2), the substantive
requiremente of Part 264 and the permit requirements of Part 270
do not apply to owners or operators of wastewater treatment units.
The interim statue requirements of Part 265 also do not apply to
such unite. (See 40 CFR f 265. l(c) (10) . )
EPA's ma ni feet system regulations (40 CFR H262.20(b) and
263.21) require that a generator send haeardous waste only to a
"deeianated facility." As provided in $260.10* a designated
facility must have an FPA permit, interim status, or a permit
from an authorised State, or must be a facility regulated under
the special provisions of $261.6(c)(2) . Because waetewater
treatment facilities, other than publicly owned treatment works
(PCTWs) that are permitted-by-rule under f 270 .60, meet none of
these conditions, they cannot be listed as a designated facility,
and therefore, they cannot receive hacardoue waste from off-site.
I apologise for any problems our previous interpretation may
have caused you. Please contact Michael Pet rusk A or Carolyn Barley
of my staff at (293) 475-A451 if you have additional questions
on this matter.
Sincer- ly,
-------
»«52.1987(02
Gregory Zak
Illinois Snvironaental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Xoad
Springfield, IL 62706
Dear Mr. Zak:
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1907, in which you
requeat concurrence from EPA on Illinoia' decision not to allow
use of the continuation sheet (fora 8700-22A) to the Unlfora
Hazardous Waste Manifest.
The instructions to the aanifeat (Appendit to 40 cnt Part 262)
state that the continuation sheet Bust be used if sore than two
transporters are used in traneportin? the waet* or if no apae* im
required for the DOT description and related information* However,
froB ay conversations with various States, I aa aware that the the
use of sere than two transporters ie rare. Further, since iaple-
•entation of the Unifora Rasardous Wests Manifest fora in
Septeaber 1984, the DOT haa siapllfied procedures for shipping
•lab packs" (50 PR 11700, March 25, 1985, enclosed) which in soae
instancea eliminates the need to list each saaple on the aanlfeet.
As a result, a continuation sheet is often unnecesary.
EPA views Illinois' decision not to allow the uee of the
continuation sheet but rather to require an additional aanifest
for any shipment Which consists of aore than two transporters or
acre than four DOT proper ahippinq naaes as being consistent with
the Federal prograa. Please call «e on 202-382-2217 if you hav«
further questions OB this Batter.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Barley
Enclosure
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9452.1989(01)
DECEMBER 1989
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—DECEMBER 1989
A. RCRA
1. Manifesting Requirements and EPA ID Numbers
Two facilities, one a nuclear power plant and the other a conventional coal
burning power plant, are owned by the same company and occupy adjacent tracts
of land divided by a river. The company owns a dam on the river that connects
the two tracts passage from one facility to the other. For safety reasons, the dam
is not utilized for the transport of hazardous waste between the facilities. A
public highway forms the boundary of the properties along one edge. Transport
of hazardous waste between the facilities occurs via this public highway. The
two facilities currently share one EPA identification number. Can the two
facilities continue to share one identification number or must each have its own
number? Is a manifest required to transport hazardous waste between the
facilities?
*
Each of the facilities will be required to obtain its own EPA identification
number. Due to the safety hazard associated with using the dam to move
wastes from one facility to the other, no effective connecting right-of-way
exists between the two facilities, and they are considered to be two individ-
ual sites. Hazardous wastes transported along the public highway from one
site to the other must be accompanied by a manifest in accordance with 40
CFR 262.20, which states that a generator who transports, or offers for
transportation, hazardous waste for off-site treatment, storage, or disposal
must prepare a manifest.
Source: Emily Roth, OSW (202) 382-4777
Research: Jenny Peters
-------
9452.1991(01)
«• ^"k mm •£
\$SHj
\ y
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
•;ee,CE Of
SCUD 'AiSTE AND e
JUL 26 199!
Brian Engel
U.S. Pollution Control
515 west Greens Road, Suite 500
Houston, TX 77067
Dear Mr. Engel:
Thank you for your letter of June 10, 1991, which requested
clarification on some of the instructions for completing the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. Specifically, you described a
situation in which waste is transfered from rail to highway on
its way to the designated facility. You asked whether an agent
of the generator, acting in the generator's behalf, would be
allowed to choose the highway transporter from among a group of
pre-approved transporters at the point of transfer from rail to
highway. You proposed this procedure as an option to replace the
current practice in which the highway transporter chosen by the
generator and listed on the manifest is replaced by another pre-
approved transporter, thereby requiring that the manifest be
altered en route, making the document difficult to read.
Although your option has merit from the point of neatness
and legibility of the manifest, I do not believe that it fits in
with the functional purpose of the manifest which is to track the
movement of the waste from the point of generation to the point
of disposal. If the generator leaves the Transporter 12 block on
the manifest empty when the waste is transported from his site,
there would be no indication that the generator knew how the
waste would get from the rail to the facility. That could
presumably be addressed by the generator's indication on the
manifest of a limited number by the rail transporter to the
designated facility. We still however, consider the generator
responsible for knowing who is transporting the waste, so we
would require that the generator be notified before the waste was
transferred to one of the approved final transporters and that
the selection (and approval by the generator) is noted on the
manifest.
This procedure might better reflect the actual situation at
the time the generator signs the manifest than the current
requirements. It would, however, require at least as much space
on the manifest as the current procedure of putting down the most
likely transporter and then modifying the manifest if necessary,
and would require the same step of communication with the
generator before making the notation of the actual transporter on
the manifest. For that reason, we think the existing
requirements are sufficient.
RESPONSE
-------
We appreciate your making a helpful suggestion. At some
point we would like to reexamine the manifest forms and a variety
of issues that arise in their use, but we are unable to commit
our resources to that at the moment. We will keep your
suggestion on file for reconsideration if we get the opportunity
to complete a reexamination of the manifest forms. For now, we
cannot approve the approach you recommend.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453-
PRE-TRANSPORTATION
REQUIREMENTS
Part 262 Subpart C
ATKl/l 104/24 kp
-------
9453.1982(01)
AUG 3119821
cn 9U-uay Accumulation or hazardous waft* in Tanks
FRu«t John tt. bkinner
Ac tiny Oirtctoc
ottice of. »olid»Msste.(uif»ft2)
"•. . F •
TOi Thomas W. Devlne *
Director
Air and Maste runayeoent Division, Region IV
Ih it it in response to your memorandum ot June 29, 1962
reyardiny the 90-da* accumulation ot hasardoua waste in tanks.
in your memo* you requested headquarters' rational* for allow-
in^ y«n«r«cor> to accumulate hasardoua waata in tanka undar 40
Ci'R 26^.44. YOU uointao out tnat aceuvulat ion* 4nr tank,* .!•
virtually tha aana activity aa atoraya in tanka, and ^(mraXpra
ic »«ooa inconniatent to apply, dittarent atandaroa to the two
•ctivitiea.
section ^62. J4 allows yeneratora who accumulate hasardoua,
waste as a normal »>art of their manufacturing or induatrial
procesaea to do ao tor short periods ot ticte without ootaininy
a KCMA permit for storage or ^uaiityiny cor interim status.
This distinction between accumulation sno storage wss made
tor practical and aominiatrative reaaons. KfA determineo
tnat generators should not be ourdoneu with the KCMA permit tinj
process tor snort-term accumulation that ia incidental to their
operations. Me si low generators to accunulate hasardoua
waste in ooth containers and tanka because we believe that it
^enera tora adnecp to the stsndarda in Fsrt 2»» tfubparts I
and J thet they can sately accumulate hasardoua waate for 90
uays or less without ftaviny to obtain a pernlt. The require*
nenta of »4*2.J4 were uesi^ned to oe consistent with both yoals
ot relieving generators of KCRA permitting ^rocedurwa applic-
aole to storage tacilitiea wnxie ensuring protection ot human
neaiun and the environment Uunnu accumulation.
your comment that "an «mpty tank haa not been
ducined*, the preamble to the January 11* 1912 final rule on
yo-uay accumulation (47 £K 1^50) yivea the toiiowiny yuidancei
*A tank will ue conaidered 'empty* when it'a contents hsve
been drained to the fullest extent possible* since many tank
-------
OP not allow tor cot-.k-i«tt.« arain*,e due to
of eftoua, ic is not *x»,*ct-eu tr>*t 1UU\ ot the wastes
always oe removed.* AM you- *uj
-------
9453.1984(01)
Htf I 8 1984
l A. Ver<««
T»chn1cal Sales Representative
CiClS International
?J?1 Kenrore Avenge
Buffalo, N«« Tork 14207
Oar f»r. Yertfe:
Thomas Charlton of tn« DepartM«t of Transportation has
forw-
of EPA's hazardous vastc narking requlrteent (§262.32) to Stit«
re*u1at*d «ast*s.
PC?'s art not defined as Hazardous vistes in 40 CFS firt
261 - Identification and Lifting. thvr«for« they ar< not subject
to EPA's »«rk1n$ r*i4>j1 r*n«nt under Section 262.3?. On th? other
nani. .States atay have a regulatory progrtn which Is aiore stringent
or broader In scope than the Federal program. Many States ha»-
expanded their universe of regulated «4«tes to cover additional
vistet net defined as hazardous unaer the Federal pfo^rer. 1«
aodltlon to regulating a broader rar^e of vastes. sooe States
alsc require that other regulations such as parting requirements
apply to State regulated wastes. 7n-ji, ne» Tork State ">«/
rHt^u1re t^at containers o' PCB's be narked according to EPA's
requirements under ^262.32 even though the wastes are not Inclueeo
1n tne Federal universe cf hazardous waste under
If you have questions regarding Mew York State's require-
for hazardous wastes. I voull suggest that you write to
Mr. Norraf! N. Kostnchuck, Director, Division of Solid waste,
3*partr.ent of Environmental Conservation, SO Wolf Road. Albany,
Tork 12233*0001 or call hie. at Slfc-4»7-S6G3. If you nave
-------
ot*er questions on EPA's regulations, please write to •>* at
the following address:
Per«1ts and State Programs 01?1»1on (WH-S63)
U.S. environmental Protection A^encjr
401 n Street SW
Washington, DC Z046J
As an alternative source of help on questions of this t/p*.
/ou Pay vlsh to call the RCKA/Sup«rfund Hotline on 800-424-9346.
Slnctrtl/ /ours,
Iruce R. Utdolt
Acting Director
Peralts and State Programs Division
(WH-SS3)
cc: Moreen Mosenchuck
Thowas Charlton
W«.563/CB*r1e//08 MAT 84/332-4697/CO's Disk 112 Doc 111
KCV9ITTEN: Strley/5-0-84/cd:Thoop»on/5-ll-84/cd:
bcc: Dan Dtrfcl c$-Bruce WeddU: Thoapson: Sarlejr :L«»jr
-------
9453.1984(02)
RCRA/SUPERPUND HOTLINE SUMKARY
MAY 84
F006 (wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations) is
snipped to a company that puts tne waste rignt into a smelter to dewater
it. Tne dewatered waste is held until a load is accumulated and then shipped
to a metals reclaimer. The fines produced from smelting are held and later sent
off-site for disposal.
A) Does the smelting company need a permit for storage?
B) Is the dewatered waste still FOU6?
C) Must the smelting company oe a storage facility to hold the dewatered
sludge after smelting?
D) Are the fines from smelting subject to storage standards since they were
derived from F006 which is suoject to storage standards when stored off-site
from the generator?
A) Since tne smelting company puts the waste right Into the saelter for
recycling, no storage permit 1s needed to accept the F006.
S) No; the material after reclamation is no longer considered I
solid waste.
C) Since tne dewatered sludge Is no longer a waste, a storage permit is
not needed.
0) No; the production of the fines is viewed as tne generation of F006 per
261.3(c)(2) and the fines can ae accumulated for less than
-------
9453.1985(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 84
A company owns several facilities which generate wast* solvents. The
company is considering using an outside contractor with a mobile recycling
unit to go to each facility on a regular basis to recycle the waste solvents
orrsite. The contractor would generate front the recycling process a useable
solvent product and still-bottom wastes. The contractor would leave both
ihe product solvent and still-bottom waste at the facility in which the
recycling took place. Under 3CRA, who is considered the generator of the
itill-botton wastes; the facility or the contractor with the mobile unit?
Mso, would the generator be allowed 90-day accumulation of the still-bottom
Bastes per $262.34?
This situation where one person owns and operates a manufacturing unit
and another person is used to reclaia spent solvents and spent catalysts
is addressed in the October 30, 1980 Federal Register (45 TO 72024). The
definition of generator in $2(0.10 is "... any person, by site, whose act
or process produces hazardous waste..." Thus, both the owner/operator of
the facility and the operator of the mobile recycling unit could be
considered generators of the still-bottom hazardous wastes. However
"the Agency ... reconnends that where two or more parties are involved,
they should mutually agree to have one party perform the generator
responsibilities. Where this is done, the Agency will look to that
designated party to perform the generator duties. It EPA does not know
which party by mutual agreement is appointed to carry out the generator
duties, the Agency will ... initially look to the operator of the unit
to fulfill the generator duties..." (45 HI 72020). The 90-day accumu-
lation period would apply in this ease per $262.34.
Source« Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217
Research! Gordon Davidson
-------
9453.1985(02)
I
m
Dr. Alex Katona MAK | 2 I9S5 g
Occidental Chemical Corporation X
360 Rainbow Boulevard South a
Box 728 N
Niagara Falls, New York 14302 r
Dear Dr. Katona: N
9
Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1985, which s.
was referred to me by Dr. Bell in. In your letter, you *
state that the Grand Island, NY Research and Development u»
Laboratory Complex of Occidental Chemical Corporation «
performs analytical work on samples that contain TCDD. JJJ
The laboratoryr therefore, generates laboratory wastes »-
consisting of used rubber gloves, contaminated disposable «
clothing, used disposable glassware, etc. that are ^
contaminated with TCDD at the ppt level. You requested w
clarification of certain questions relating to RCRA CD
permitting requirements. -t*
O
Before we respond to your specific questions, however, ST
we would like to clarify the scope of the listing. In *"
particular, wastes resulting from laboratory operations **
such as contaminated clothing, glassware, etc., are not o
currently subject to the dioxin hazardous waste listing.* £
Unused portions of the specific EPA hazardous wastes that °
-are analyzed by a laboratory however, are EPA hazardous
waste and are subject to the new regulation. With this in
mind, the answers to your questions are as followss
Is the exclusion (40 CFR 262.34) from the RCRA
permitting requirements available for generators
who accumulate dioxin-containing hazardous waste on-
site for less than 90 days?
- Yes. Generators who store their wastes in either
• tank or a container and are able to ship their
waste off-site within 90 days can take advantage
of the requirements in 40 CFR 262.34 (i.e., they
do not need a RCRA permit).
Although these wastes are not currently included in
the January 14, 1985 dioxin listing, we would suggest
that you manage them in a very careful manner (i.e.,
as if they were listed wastes).
-------
If we determine that wo cannot realistically take
advantage of the lesa-than-9u-<.ia/-accumulation-tine
exclusion for dioxin-containing waste, we will also
bo requiroo to suhnit a Part A application tor
Interim Status storage of the other nazaroous waste
that we generate in the laboratory coa^lox and which
we have been shipping to date without need for an
Interim Status pcrait?
No. Any waste that you are aole to snip ott-site
within yo days that is stored in either a tank or
a container can still take advantage of he require-
ments in 40 CFR 262.34* whether or not you need a
permit for any other part of your operation.
I hope this answers your questions. 1C you need
further clarification* you may wish to call Dr. fleliin at
(202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
waste Identification Branch (WH-5623)
-------
9453.1985(04]
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 85
4. Hazardous waste Fuel Marketers
Section 266.34 outlines the requirements of Hazardous Waste Fuel Marketers. This
section states that generators who "market" fuel directly to burners are subject
to prohibition* under Section 266.31(a), notification under $3010, applicable
storage requirement* under $262.34 and A through L of Parts-264 and 265, and
certain recocJkeeping and reporting requirements.
A generator ship* hazardous waste fuel to a burner without the occurrence of a
monetary transaction. Will the generator be considered a marketer under
Section 262.34?
Yes; the absence or presence of monetary transactions under Part 266 has no
bearing on a marketer's status. The act of initiating a shipment of hazardous
waste from a generator directly to a burner for legitimate energy recovery
constitutes marketing. A hazardous waste fuel blender/processor initiating
a shipment to a burner for energy recovery is also marketing'hazardous waste
fuel.
Source: Bob Hollowey (202) 382-7936
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN< 9453.1985(35)
Mr. Francis Torres-Fernandez
Cepeda, Sanchez-Betances t Sifre
Attorneys at Law
Suite 700
Banco Central Building
Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00917-1866
Dear Mr. Torres-Fernandezi
X am responding to your letter of November 2, 1985, in which
you raised the following two issuess
1. Can a generator of hazardous wastes that operates a TSD
facility isolate froa its waste stream a particular hazardous
waste and accumulate it on-site in a tank for a period not
exceeding 90 days and thus benefit froa the provisions under
40 CFR 262.34, although in the past it handled that waste in
the same TSD unit it operates?
2. Can an operator who owns a tank or a container having, inter in
status use that ease tank solely to accumulate hazardous wast*
under 40 CFR 262.34 without having to comply with the RCRA
provisions other than thoee specified therein?
In both situations, the answer is "yes". In the first
situation we assume the tank used to accumulate the "isolated"
waste stream was previously used for accumulating hazardous
waste for more than 90 days, but it will no longer be used for
that purpose. The applicant should check with the Regional Office
(or authorised State) to determine the closure requirements for
their facility.
Where facilities previously filed a RCRA permit application
that included the units that are now to be used for less than
90-day accumulation, the applicant should notify the Regionl Office
-------
(or authorised State) about the change in operation so the Agency
will not include this activity in the pervit. Also, the applicant
should aake it clear to on-site personnel, via a notice or sign,
that these units can not be used for accumulating haiardous waste
for core than 90 days and they aust be operated in compliance with
the provisions of 40 CPR 262.34.
Please contact we if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Peter Guerrero
Chief, Pernlts Branch
Pen its and State Programs Division
cct Barry Tornick, Region II, w/incoaing
-------
9453.1985(061
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 85
Satellite Accumulation
3. section 262.34(c) codifies the satellite accumulation provision promulgated in
the December 20, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 49568). This provision allows
a generator to accumulate up to 55 gallons or"~hazardous waste (or one quart of
acutely hazardous waste) in containers at or near any point of generation
witnout a storage permit or interim status, and without complying with the
provisions of $262.34(a) and (D). QMS this provision allow tf» generator
three days after tne accumulation limit is exceeded to transport the excess
waste to tne designated 90-day storage area? fchen does the 90-day storage
period oegin, the oay the accumulation limit is exceeded or tne day the waste
arrives in the designated $262.34 storage area?
The satellite accumulation provision in 262.34(c) allows the generator three
days after the 55-^allon accumulation limit is exceeded to transport the
excess waste to the $262.34(a) storage area. Section 262.34(c) states that
a generator who accumulates waste in excess of the accumulation limits "must,
with respect to the amount of excess waste, comply within three days with
paragraph (a) of this section or other applicable provisions of this
chapter.* Section 262.34(a) states that "a generator may accumulate
. hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a permit or interim
status provided that the requirements of $262.34 (a)(l)-(4) are met."
Thus* within three days of accumulating over 55 gallons, the generator is
required to comply with all applicable RCRA requirements with regard to
that excess, including $262.34(a). The 90-day storage period begins as
soon a* the three day period has expired when the excess amount becomes
subject co the $262.34(a) requirements.
Source: Oiaz Miller (202) 382-2220
-------
9453.1986(01)
April 16, 1986
Mr. W. Ernst Minor, Vice President
Government Affairs
Solid Tek Systems Incorporated
4412 Aicholtz Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Dear Mr. Minor:
Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1986, regarding
our regulatory program pertaining to the solidification/fixation
of containerized hazardous liguids.
You expressed concern about the permitting requirements
applicable to generators who use solidification or fixation to
treat hazardous waste which is accumulated on-site for 90 days or
less in conformance with 40 CFR §262.34. The current rules do
not require a permit for a generator who treats a waste when it
is in an accumulation tank or container in compliance with
§262.34. As the Agency has explained in the preamble to the
recent rule-making on small quantity generators, nothing in
§262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste in an
accumulation tank or container covered by §262.34 and Subparts J
or I of Part 265. See 40 Federal Register 10168 (March 24,
1986). Therefore, a generator is not required to have a permit
or interim status if the only on-site management the generator
performs is solidification/fixation (or other treatment) in an
accumulation tank or container during the period of accumulation.
You also inquired about a contradiction that you perceive in
our regulations. You stated that §262.10(b) allows a generator
to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste on-site and only
comply with specific sections of part 262. Therefore, you
believe that §262.10(b) may allow on-site solidification/fixation
without a permit. On the other hand, you point out that the
"Note" after §262.10(f) states that a generator who treats,
stores, or disposes of hazardous waste on-site must meet
applicable standards and permit requirements.
A generator who treats, stores, or disposes on-site must
comply with all applicable standards and permit requirements in
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266, and 270. Section 262.10(b) provides
that a generator who treats, stores, or disposes on-site must
only comply with certain of the generator (Part 262)
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
requirements. For example, such generators do not need to comply
with manifest requirements since the waste is not transported
off-site. Section 262.10(b) provides no exemption from our rules
other than certain of the Part 262 requirements. Therefore, the
statement contained in the "Note" after §262.10(f) is appropriate
and accurate.
A generator who treats, stores, or disposes on-site must
comply with all applicable standards and permit requirements in
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266, and 270. Section 262.10(b) provides
that a generator who treats, stores, or disposes on-site must
only comply with certain of the Generator (Part 262)
requirements. For example, such generators do not need to comply
with manifest requirements since the waste is not transported
off-site. Section 262.10(b) provides no exemption from our rules
other than certain of the Part 262 requirements. Therefore, the
statement contained in the "note" after §262.10(f) is appropriate
and accurate.
Finally, I would like to clarify when our containerized
hazardous liquids rule will be published. The rules'will be
proposed this summer and then finalized about a year later.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact Paul Cassidy of my staff at (202) 382-4682.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9453.1986(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 86
2. Snail Quantity Generator Accumulation
On March 24, 1985, EPA promulgated regulations allowing a generator
to operate two distinct on-site accumulation areas for wastes
generated at different monthly rates (51 FR 1014).
A generator has two accumulation areas on-site. In one area, the
generator stores waste identified as small quantity generator (SQG)
waste. According to 5262.34(d), an SQG that generates between 100
and 1000 kg. in a calendar month may store this waste on-site for up
to 180 days without a permit or interim status provided that the
ouantity of waste accumulated never exceeds 6000 kg. The SOG
waste can be stored Cor 270 days if it is transported 200 miles or
more*
In another area at the sane site, the generator stores large quantity
generator (LOG) waste which was produced during the months the
generator exceeded the 1000 kg/month limit. A LOG may store this
waste on-site for up to 90 days without a permit or interim status.
Must the generator count waste stored in his LOG accumulation area
when determining if the 6000 kg. accumulation limit is exceeded in
(S262.34(d)(l))?
Section 262.34(d) states that a generator who generates greater
than 100 kg. but less than 1000 kg. of hazardous waste in a
calendar month may accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 180
days or less without a permit or interim status provided that,
among other requirements, the quantity of waste accumulated on-
site never exceeds 6000 kg. This provision applies only to waste
stream produced during calendar months when less than 1000 kg is
generated. If more than 1000 kg is generated, it is fully
regulated as large quantity generator waste. The 6000 kg cap
for the SQG waste stream applies to all waste accunulated on-site.
•On-site* means all contiguous property ($260.10). The definition
does not refer to "units" or "accumulation areas". Therefore,
the generator must count all waste, including both SOG and LOG
that is on-site, in order to determine compliance with S262.34(d)(l).
Source: Bob Axelrad (202) 382-5218
Maureen Smith (202) 382-7703
Research: Ingrid Rosencrantz
-------
9453.1986(04)
July 25, 1986
Kevin A. Lehner
RMT, Inc.
Suite 124
1406 East Washington Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Dear Mr. Lehner:
Thank you for your letter of April 4, 1986, requesting
clarification of the Agency's recent statement with respect to
permitting of treatment activities occurring in a generator's
accumulation tanks or containers.
As noted in your letter, the preamble to the final small
quantity generator regulations promulgated on March 24, 1986,
states that "... no permitting would be required if a generator
chooses to treat their hazardous waste in the generator's
accumulation tanks or containers in conformance with the
requirements of Section 262.34 and J or I of Part 265." Although
this statement did appear in the small quantity generator
regulations, it is applicable to all generators who accumulate
waste in compliance with Section 262.34.
The following information may help to place this
interpretation in context and assist you in advising your clients
as to the most appropriate course of action. First, you should
be aware that this statement is based upon an interpretation of
what the existing rules allow at this point in time rather than a
deliberate and significant shift in Agency policy with respect to
accumulation or treatment. As the preamble states, "Nothing in
Section 262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste when it
is in an accumulation tank or container covered by that
provision." The interpretation is predicated on the fact that
the Agency has allowed certain types of storage to occur at
generation sites (i.e., accumulation for periods of 90, 180, or
270 days, depending on generator type) without the requirement
for permitting or interim status. Since the Agency has never
developed standards specific to treatment, the same technical
standards applicable to such storage (i.e., Subpart I or J of
Part 265) would also be applicable to treatment.
Thus, we do not believe that allowing treatment to occur
while wastes are being accumulated prior to subsequent
management, in full compliance with all §262.34 requirements,
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
including applicable tank or container standards, is currently
prohibited under the existing regulatory scheme.
Since the term "accumulation" is not defined in the
regulations, the Agency would not distinguish between
accumulation for handling other than treatment and accumulation
for the sole purpose of on-site treatment. Thus, each of your
process descriptions do not appear to be subject to permitting at
this time, provided all of the Section 262.34 requirements are
met.
With respect to the limits of treatment which may occur
without a permit on-site, this interpretation only applies to
treatment occurring in a generator's accumulation tanks or
containers subject to, and in compliance with, Section 262.34.
This means that the tank or container in which treatment occurs
must be appropriately marked with the date the accumulation
period began, the tank or container must be completely emptied
every 90 days (or 180/270 days for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo),
and must be operated in strict compliance with Subparts I or J of
Part 265. Treatment in other than tanks or containers (e.g.,
incineration, land treatment or treatment in surface
impoundments) would continue to require a permit.
We would expect that generators that treat hazardous waste
on-site in tanks or containers and who have obtained interim
status, a full permit, or have a Part B application pending might
wish to exit the permit process on the basis of this
interpretation. Since such on-site treatment without a permit
has never been precluded under RCRA, those who now wish to avail
themselves of this exemption may do so, provided they comply with
all applicable rules respecting withdrawal of permit
applications. Specifically, these facilities will need to comply
with Part 264 or 265 facility closure requirements unless they
can dempnstrate that their treatment tank or container has always
been operated in strict conformance with the requirements of
Section 262.34. In addition, these generators would also be
subject to Section 3008(h) corrective action provisions.
Finally, we would also caution those generators who may wish
to alter their accumulation practices in order to conduct
treatment without a permit, not to rely upon the continued
existence of this exemption, particularly where making process
changes requiring substantial capital outlays may be involved.
Specifically, EPA has recently published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking that discusses eliminating the accumulation
exemption for large quantity generators. Should the Agency
decide at some time in the future to either modify the
accumulation rule in some manner or to write specific standards
for treatment, the obligations of generators with respect to
treatment in accumulation tanks could change.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-3-
If I can be of any further assistance, or if you have
additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has Jbeen retyped from the original document.
-------
9453.1986(05)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 86
4. Releases fron 90-Day Accumulation Tanks
Are releases of hazardous waste from 90-day accumulation tanks (40 CFR
262.34) regulated under RCRA?
Such releases are not generally covered by the RCRA regulations.
The generator is not subject to corrective action under Section
3OO4(u) of RCRA unless the generator is engaged in other activities
which would require that he obtain a permit. Section 3004(u) only
applies to permitted facilities. Section 3008(h) administrative
orders only apply to facilities with interim status. Therefore,
the existing RCRA corrective action authorities do not apply to
releases from 90-day accumulation tanks unless other units at
the facility require interim status or a permit.
A leaking 90-day tank which is not cleaned up could be considered
open dumping under RCRA and could be covered by Section 7003, the
imminent hazard provision of RCRA.
EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in
the July 14, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 25487) requesting comments
on the possibility of requiring permits for 90-day storage tanks.
Source: Dave Pagan (202) 382-4740
Research: Betty Wilson
-------
9453.1986(06)
RCRA/SUPEKFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 86
3. Prohibition on Storage of Restricted Wastes
The land disposal restrictions rule for listed solvents and dioxin wastes
was promulgated in the November 7, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 40572).
40 CFR 268 subpart E establishes prohibitions on storage of restricted
hazardous wastes. The wastes restricted as of November 8, 1986 are
those meeting the F001 through F005 listings under S261.31 except for
wastes generated by a small quantity generator of 100 - 1000 kg/mo, or
a CERCLA response action or corrective action required under RCRA, or
a solvent-water mixture or sludge, solid, or soil containing less than
one percent total F001 through F005 constituents listed in Table CCWE
of 5268.41 (51 FR 40642). According to S268.50(a)(l), generators who
store hazardous waste solely for the purpose of accumulation of quantities
as necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal
beyond the 90-day limit set in S262.34(a) may qualify for interim
status under $270.70 and must apply for a permit. Section 268.50(a)
does not mention the possibility of obtaining a 30-day extension due
to extenuating circumstances, as provided in 5262.34(b). Does this
mean that the option of obtaining a 30-day extension no longer exists
for generators storing restricted wastes?
No, the generator may still qualify for an extension under
S262.34(b) if the waste must remain on-site for more than
90 days because of unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable
circumstances. The new land disposal restrictions regula-
tions do not delete or amend 5262.34(b), but rather impose new
restrictions on storage that apply in addition to the requirements
in 5262.34. Section 262.34 specifies the circumstances under
which a generator can store hazardous wastes without interim
status or a permit, while 5268.50 requires that storage of
prohibited wastes during that time must be for the specific
purpose stated above. In addition, according to 5270.10(e)(l)(ii),
the generator has thirty days from the date he first becomes
subject to Part 265 standards to submit a Part A permit
application, so it is conceivable that a generator may obtain
an extansion and still apply for a permit. The final decision
to grant an extension under 5262.34(b) on a case-by-case basis
still rests with the Regional Administrator.
Source: Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4805
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
9453.1986(07)
DEC sees
Ms. Janet L. Weller
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton
1752 N Street, N.V.
Vaehincton, DC 20036
Dear Ks. Veller:
Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1986, requesting
an interpretation of the activities allowed under 40 CFR 262.34.
In your letter, you refer to the preamble discussion in the
March 24, 1986 final regulations for small quantity generators
which states that no permit would be required if a generator
chooses to treat its hazardous waste in a tank or container that
is fully in compliance with all of the requirements Imposed by
§262.34. You are correct in noting that this interpretation
applies to all generators subject to §262.34*
Enclosed for your information is a memo which further
clarifles the scope and limitations of this Interpretation. If
you have any further questions on this issue, please feel free to
contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, at (202) 382-4769 or
Maureen Snlth in the Office of General Counsel at (202)
382-7703.
Sincer
ineeraly, fl ,#
rtfSrlr
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9453.1986(08)
*r. J. Alex Barber
Director
Division of Waste Management
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection
Fort Poone Plaza
IP Pe illy Road
Frankfort* Kentucky 40601
Dear Mr. Herbert
*y aoolooies for the delav In getting back to you on your
letter of Auoust 27, 198*, concerning the treatment of hazardous
waste in a generator** accumulation tanks and containers.
As you know, the Agency stated In the preamble to the final
small ouantity Generator regulations in the March 24, 1986,
*»»nister that treat-went coul* occur In a Generator's
accumulation tanks and container* without a permit, provided the
tre«tr»ont was performed strictlv in accordance with 40 CFR 262.34.
while T can appreciate the points you raise in your letter with
respect to consistency of interpretation, I believe that this
policy discussion was, and remains, appropriate for several
reasons.
First, while it appears on the surface to be a m*1or shift
in policy, it represents a long-standing opinion of our Office of
General Counsel that consistency dictates that treatment and
storage which is reoulated identically at permitted facilities
al*o be reoulated identically at qeneration sites. At this time,
we do not have special treatment standards in the regulations for
any treatment activities except for incinerators. Thus, when we
permit treatment facilities, or permit storage facilities, the
identical standards apply. If the storaae or treatment occurs in
a tank, the tank standards must be met. If the activity occurs in
a container, the container standards apply. It in true that
additional permit reouirements, including financial responsibility
and corrective action, are imposed at both treatment and storage
facilities where permitting it required and I fully agree that
this appropriate.
-------
-2-
while we have differentiated in the reoulations between long
term storage and accumulation at generation sites, they are
nevertheless at their core identical activities. We have chosen
to exempt from permitting reouirements (as well as associated
financial responsibility and corrective action provisions) storage
(i.«., accumulation) which occurs at generation sites (or less
than 90 days (or 180 or 270 days in the ease of small quantity
oenerators). Since the regulations do not impose additional
standard* for treatment when it occurs in • storage facility,
there is no basis for regulating treatment at an exempt storage
facility.
Whether or not the §262.34 exemption from permitting for
storage, as veil as treatment, is appropriate is an issue which
we are now beginning to re-examine. As you know, we published
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on July 14, 1986, which
sought comment on various aspects of the exemption. Should we
change the S262.34 regulations for on-site accumulation, it
would of course affect the etatus of treatment as well. Similarly,
if we develop treatment standards for additional activities
which we believe warrant special standards, these activities
would also lose their exemption from permitting.
We ultimately chose to cowuinlecte this l«
-------
-3-
Aqain, let me assure vou that I understand your nlsoivings
with respect to this discussion. However, T Bust also point out
that it is our position that this is and has been the legal
situation with respect to treatment in accumulation tanks and
containers since the S262.34 provisions were promulgated.
I hope that this has helped to clarify our position on this
issue. If you wish to discuss the issue in wore detail, please
feel free to contact Maureen Swith in the Office of General
Counsel at (202) 382-7703 or Bob Axelrad, of ny staff, at (202)
382-4769.
Sincerely,
Mareia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Haste
-------
9453.1987(01)
February 11, 1987
Brent C. Bradford
Executive Secretary
Utah.Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 16690
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0690
Dear Mr. Bradford:
Robert Duprey, Director of the Waste Management Division in
Region VIII, forwarded your letter of January 8, 1987 to this
Office. This letter contains our response to the questions you
raised regarding issues relating to the Federal regulations for
satellite accumulation under 40 CFR 262.34(c).
1. What is -the intent of the Federal regulation with respect -to
the total amount (volume) of hazardous waste at each satellite
accumulation area?
A generator may accumulate as much as 55 gallons of
hazardous waste, or one quart of acutely hazardous waste, in
containers at or near any point of generation where the waste
initially accumulates and which is under the control of the
operator of the process. EPA believes that only one waste would
normally be accumulated at each satellite area, and that the
exempted accumulation should be limited to 55 gallons. Although
the total amount of hazardous waste that may be accumulated at
any one satellite area is limited to 55 gallons, EPA
intentionally did not limit the total number of satellite areas
at a generator's facility nor specify the size of the containers
to be used for accumulation (though we believe many facilities
will use 55-gallon drums).
2. Does the Federal regulation limit the number of containers
that can be placed at a satellite accumulation area?
The Federal regulations do not limit the number of
containers that can be placed at a satellite accumulation area,
rather, the regulations limit the total gallons accumulated to
55.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
3. As described in the Utah proposed interpretation, will Utah
be equivalent to the Federal regulations if the State allows more
than 55 gallons of hazardous waste to be accumulated in more than
one drum.... but require personnel training, preparedness and
prevention and contingency plans?
No, a "satellite accumulation area" is limited to a total
accumulation of 55 gallons, not 165 gallons as proposed.
4. Is Utah's interpretation of "three davs" to mean three
"working" days equivalent to EPA's intent?
Yes.
5. Will Utah be equivalent to EPA if we require that the date be
placed on the full drum?
Yes, if a facility uses 55-gallon drums, then the date
excess accumulation began must be clearly marked on the drum.
I trust that the above discussion answers your questions and
concerns relating to the Federal satellite accumulation
requirements. If not, Chet Oszman of my staff (2O2-382-4499) is
willing to provide clarification as needed.
Sincerely,
Susan £. Bromm
Acting Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Kent Gray, State of Utah
Robert Duprey, Region VIII
Patricia Brechlin, Region VIII
Chester Oszman, PSPD
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
tor,
••#
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN( 9453.1987(02
WASHINGTON. D.C. 204«0
OMICE OF
• OLIO WASTE AND EMEMOENCY RESPONSE
25 is-::
Kathryn T. All ford
NL Treating Chemicals
NL Industries, Inc.
17402 Wallisville Road
Houston, TX 77049
Dear Ms. Allfordi
Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1987. Your
question concerning on-site treatment by a generator is covered
by 40 CFR $262.34, the "90-day generator" rule. You are correct
in your assessment of the rule. That is, a generator who otherwise
meets the requirements of 40 CFR $262.34 need not obtain a RCRA
hazardous waste permit to conduct treatment in a tank system. In
your specific situation, you are well within the 90-day time
limit, and as long as you meet the other requirements of $262.34,
you should have no regulatory problems in setting up your treatment
system.
If you have further questions, call Mike Petruska of my
staff at (202) 382-4761.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453.1987(03)
July 1, 1987
Bernard E. Cox, Jr., Chief
Hazardous Waste Branch
Land Division
Alabama D.E.M.
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Dear Mr. Cox:
This is in response to your letter of June 11, 1987,
requesting clarification of EPA's policies concerning the
regulatory status of on-site treatment by generators under 40 CFR
§262.34. The following addresses, first, EPA's general policy in
this area, and then the specific container-related examples you
provided.
1. General policy. Although you appear to believe that EPA
has amended its interpretation of the hazardous waste rules in
March 1986, EPA actually discussed the relationships between
storage treatment, and disposal in the preamble of the
January 12, 1981 Federal Register. (See 46 Federal Register
2806-2808). In particular, EPA noted that treatment can occur
either at a disposal or a storage facility and that the conduct
of treatment does not affect a facility's regulatory status.
(Id. at 2808.)" Nothing in §262.34, or in preambles
specifically related to the section (often called the "90 day
generator" rule) preclude treatment. EPA believes that treatment
activities should similarly not affect the regulatory status of
90-day generators.
Of course, EPA's most important consideration is protection
of human health and the environment. In discussing treatment at
storage facilities, EPA noted that the general requirement of
§264.17, which applies to all storage facilities, addresses
hazards posed by ignitable, incompatible, or reactive wastes.
(See 46 Federal Register 2806; January 12, 1981.) EPA concluded,
therefore, that the most serious hazards likely to be posed
during treatment would be addressed under these provisions.
(Id.) Ninety-day generators similarly must comply with special
i'We view this preamble discussion as more definitive than
the statements and guidance you quote from 1980.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
requirements for ignitable, reactive, or incompatible waste under
Subparts I and J of Part 265 (referenced by §262.34).
Finally, EPA notes that treatment often renders waste less
or nonhazardous, or more amenable for further treatment,
recycling, etc. The hazard posed by waste shipped off-site can
thereby be reduced, and recycling can be promoted. A requirement
to obtain a permit for any on-site treatment would very likely
discourage such practices.
2. Treatment in containers. Although nothing in §262.34
specifically precludes treatment in containers, 90-day generators
are subject to the container management standards of Part 265,
Subpart I. One provision of Subpart I (§265.173(a)) requires
that containers be kept closed during storage, except when adding
or removing waste. Other sections of Subpart I provide that
containers must be handled to prevent leaks or ruptures
(§265.173(b)), and address hazards pose by incompatible,
reactive, or ignitable waste (§§265.172, 265.176, and 265.177).
These requirements limit the extent that treatment could occur in
containers. The examples you provided (burning in open drums or
tanks) would be considered open burning under §260.10, and as
such, would generally be recognized as a method of disposal.
Disposal does change a facility's regulatory status, and is not
allowed under §262.34. Further, open burning (except for certain
explosive wastes) is prohibited under §265.382. Finally, if
there are cases of treatment that do not appear to be adequately
regulated under §262.34, EPA can take action to mitigate an
imminent hazard under RCRA Section 7003.
Please feel free to contact Michael Petruska at 475-6676 if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: James Scarbrough, Chief
Region IV Residuals Management Branch
Hazardous Waste
Division Directors, Regions I-X
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9453.1987(04)
July 14, 1987
Michael C. Weisberg
MCW, Inco., Consulting Engineers
101 Laughing Cow ,Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Dear Mr. Weisberg:
This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1987, in which
you reguest an interpretation of how the EPA hazardous waste
regulations apply to a generator recycling hazardous waste on-
site. First, from the information you provided, we start with
the premise that the generator has a spent liguid ink waste that
exhibits the characteristic of ignitability. The answers to your
specific guestions are as follows:
(1) A generator who complies with the special accumulation
provisions of 40 CFR §262.34 may treat his waste on-
site in his accumulation tanks or containers without
obtaining a permit or having interim status. Among
other things, the rules reguire that the waste remain
in the accumulation/treatment vessel for a maximum of
90 days. Further, a company may market treatment
eguipment to waste generators (or anyone else) without
a permit or any approval from EPA. EPA only regulates
those persons who actually manage hazardous waste.
(2) When a characteristic hazardous waste is treated so
that it no longer exhibits any characteristic, the
resultant waste is no longer considered hazardous.
(3) You may recycle waste at your customers' sites if you
so wish. Generators of waste (your customers) are
responsible for complying with 40 CFR Part 262. In
addition, if they store waste in tanks or containers
for more than 90 days (or store it in any other type of
unit for any length of time), they would need to get a
storage permit.
However, as you point out, EPA does not currently
regulate the actual process of reclamation, so the
distillation activity you describe would not lead to
additional reguirements for a waste generator.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska, of my staff, at (202) 475-6676.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
This has Jbeen retyped from the original document.
-------
9453.1987(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTJON AGENCY
AUG I 2 1987
Honorable Lane Evans
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Evansi
This letter is in response to your recent inquiry regarding
the concerns of Illinois State Representative Richard A.
Mautino. The issue he raises Involves the temporary storage
of hacardous waste by manufacturers pending disposal at a per-
mitted treatment or disposal facility.
Under regulations implementing the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), generators of hazardous waste may
accumulate waste on-site for 90 days or less without, a permit
provided that* the wastes are handled in a protective manner.
(40 CFR 264.34) These regulations further provide that a
30-day extension of this 90-day period may be granted if the
wastes remain on-site "due to unforeseen, temporary, and
uncontrollable circumstances." (40 CFR 264.34(b))
The provision allowing for a 30-day extension ha» not
been eliminated from the Federal regulations, contrary to
Representative Mautino's understanding. This Federal provision,
which has also been adopted in the Illinois State program,
would provide the flexibility that Mr* Mautino recommended.
Mr. Mautino suggests that a hacardous waste generator should
be granted an additional 30-day extension in certain cases,
e.g., if the generator's special waste hauler went out of
business or if a landfill closed, and the generator would
need extra time t.o find other haulers or an alternate landfill.
Both Federal and state regulations would allow this extension,
if t.he state found that it was necessary because of "unforeseen,
temporary, and uncontrolled circumstances."
-------
Illinois, a* a State authorized to administer their own
hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal program, may
grant a 30-day extension when it. deems appropriate without
obtaining clearance from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
I hope this information will prove useful to you. if I
can be of any further assistance, please let. me Know.
Sincerely*
J. Winston Porter
Assistant. Adminstrat.or
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC .
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9453.1987(07
NOV • 7 iWI OFFICE OF
SOLO WASTE AND EMERGENCY MC
Gary Smith
Burns and Levinson
Counsellors at Law
50 Milk street
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1987,
regarding labeling of steel drums.
The hazardous waste regulations under EPA's Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act do not require a shipper to provide
documentation listing all previous contents of a steel drum used
for transportation of used automotive parts. EPA's regulations for
preparation of hazardous waste for transport, found in 40 CFR Part
262, subpart C, require only that the generator comply with the
applicable packaging, labeling, marking and placarding requirements
under Department of Transportation (DOT) regulation (49 CFR Parts
172-179). In addition, there is no EPA requirement to list all
previously contained materials on the Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest. Furthermore, if the used automobile cores sent for
remanufacture are not hazardous wastes, EPA would not regulate
their transportation at all.
In summary, nothing in EPA's hazardous waste regulations
supports the claims in the flyers concerning documentation of past
materials held in steel drums. If such a documentation requirement
exists, it may be the result of a state or local ordinance.
Sincere!
Marcfla
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453.1987(08)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204«0
JC_, I 5 I^'OT SOLID AASTE AND 6ME«GENCv
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Requested Re-interpretation of On-site
Treatment Exemption N ((^-—'
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director / (fl^*
Office of solid Waste (WH-562B)
TO: Robert F. Greaves, Acting Chief
Waste Management Branch (3HW30)
This is in response to your request for a re-interpretation of
the on-site treatment exemption. We have reviewed your concerns
regarding our interpretation. While in general we continue to
believe that treatment in tanks or containers is allowed under
Section 262.34, tne questions you posed indicate that the rule as
currently written is unclear and should be clarified.
1. General policy. Although 40 CFH 270.l(c) does state that a
permit is required for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazard-
ous waste, please note that Section 270.l(c)(2)(1) exempts gene-
rators who accumulate hazardous waste on-site in compliance with
Section 262.34 from the requirement to obtain a RCRA permit. The
exemption does not depend on whether or not treatment is conducted.
The reason for this general policy is as follows. First, as you
have stated, Section 262.34 does not preclude treatment in
accumulation units. Also, the performance standards under Part
265, Subparts I and J, apply to the generator's containers and
tanks regardless of whether storage, treatment, or both processes
occur in them. In addition, both Subparts I and J contain special
handling requirements for ignitable, reactive, and incompatible
wastes, and these requirements should adequately control treatment
typically conducted in tanks or containers. Finally, treatment
often renders waste less hazardous, or at least easier to transport
or more amenable for recovery. For all of these reasons, OSW
believes that treatment is not only allowable under Section 262.34,
but also is consistent with sound waste management.
-------
2. Thermal treatment. You raised the concern that generators
could conduct thermal treatment such as detonation or open burning
under Section 262.34 and thereby avoid permitting for obviously
dangerous activities. Certainly, detonation and open burning were
never intended to be allowed under Section 262.34. As explained
aljove, a large part of the Agency's rationale in allowing treatment
under Section 262.34 was that the same standards would apply for
both treatment and storage. All thermal treatment is subject to
Part 265, Subpart P; if this was not the case, the standards would
not be the same, and the premise of the Section 262.34 exemption
would be violated. The regulatory language of Section 262.34 is
not clear on this point, and OSW is considering promulgating
amendments to clarify applicability of the section.
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael PetrusJca at FTS 475-8551.
cc: Waste Management Branch Chiefs,
Regions I, II, and IV-X
-------
9453.1987(09)
Eric.J. Dougherty
8409 H. Morven Road
Parkville, MD 21234
Dear Mr. Dougherty:
This is in response to your November 13, 1987 letter to
Robert Scarberry concerning land disposal of solvents. The answers
to your questions are as follows.
First, you are correct that industrial wastewater discharges •
subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) are excluded from-the hazard-
ous waste regulations, and it does not matter how the wastewater
was generated. YOU should note, however, that only the discharge
is excluded. If hazardous wastewaters are collected, stored,
treated, or disposed of prior to discharge, this prior management
is subject to the hazardous waste regulations (including the land
disposal restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268).
Second, EPA does not have groundwater discharge guidelines
per se. Facilities that have RCRA interim status or that seek a
RCRA hazardous waste facility permit are subject to a number of
requirements designed to protect groundwater in 40 CFR Parts 264,
265, 266 and 268 u as well as the corrective action provisions of
RCRA Sections 3004(u) and 3008(h). Facilities that generate
hazardous waste but which are exempt from interim status and
permitting requirements under the accumulation provisions of 40 CFR
Section 262.34 (this is likely the case for the automotive mainten-
ance facilities you asked about) are subject to container and tank
management standards designed to prevent releases to groundwater.
When releases do occur, EPA or the appropriate State agency can
take enforcement action under RCRA Sections 3008(a) and 7003 to
require the facility owner or operator to stop the discharge and to
clean-up contaminated soil and groundwater.
-------
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael Petruska at 9202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director,
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453.1988(32)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 88
2. "Lab Packs" at Generator Sites
Is a permit required for a service company (under
contractual agreement to manage a generator's hazardous
waste) to come onto a generator's site and re-package small
containers of hazardous waste into large containers with
absorbents?
A generator may accumulate wastes pursuant to Section
262.34, and nothing in Section 262.34 precludes a
generator from treating waste when it is in an
accumulation tank or container provided that the
performance standards under Subparts I and J of Part
265 are met (51 FR 10168), and provided that the
treatment is not thermal treatment or incineration
which are subject to Part 265 Subpart P and 0
respectively. Further, the addition of absorbent
material to waste in a container or the addition of
waste to a container holding absorbent material also is
exempt from permitting in accordance with Section
265.1(c)(13). Because a service company may act on
behalf of the generator, a permit would not be required
for a service company to re-containerize the wastes
and/or add absorbent material prior to shipping off-
site. The Agency's current policy on treatment at a
generator facility is that treatment often renders
waste less hazardous or at least easier to transport or
more amenable for recovery. For these reasons, EPA
considers that such treatment is not only allowable
under $262.34, but treatment is consistent with sound
waste management (memo, dated 12/15/87, from Marcia
Williams to Robert Greaves).
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475-8551
Research: Bob Adamson
-------
en » mu«*INTAL PRC^-CTION AGENCY
9453.1988(03)
Fi
K.G. Wiman FE3 25 !93?
Chief, Office of Engineering
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard (G-ECV-5B)
Washington, DC 20593
Dear Mr. Wiman:v
•
This is in response to your letter of September 23, 1987,
concerning the RCRA regulations and the generation of ATON
batteries. As you noted, my office recently issued an interpre-
tive memo to EPA Region X concerning generation of these
batteries. As discussed below, we do not view the memo as a
departure from past EPA policy, and for that reason, it did not
occur to my staff to consult with the Coast Guard.
The definition of generator for the purposes of RCRA is by
site, rather than by central facility. A site may include each
vessel that is a point of waste generation. EPA dealt with a
situation analogous to yours when it promulgated its small quantity
generator regulations on March 24, 1986. In the preamble to that
rule, we clarified that off-shore drilling facilities are separate
generation points, and as such are subject to the 40 CFR Part 262
generator requirements. (See 51 FR 10162.) Also, when EPA amended
the hazardous waste regulations to exempt waste generated in
product or raw material tanks and vessels, EPA used examples of
units that would be regulated absent the exemption that included
vessels (i.e., water craft). (See 45 FR 72025; October 30, 1987.)
Therefore, we have always considered waste generation at-sea as
potentially subject to regulation, and the July 30, 1987 memo to
Region X correctly interprets current EPA regulations.
• "\
Since the. July 30, 1987, memo was sent from OSW to Region X, I
understand that our staffs and staff from the U.S. Navy have met
and discussed this issue. From that discussion, there are three
points that I would like to clarify. First, if a buoy is brought
onto a ship and the ATON battery is removed, the ship can be
considered the generation site (instead of the buoy.) This may
help reduce paperwork for you, as each servicing vessel could
-------
- 2 -
comply with 40 CFR Part 262 instead of each buoy. Second, so
long as the spent batteries remain on-site, i.e. . on board the
ship, the 90-day accumulation provision of 40 CFR 262.34 would
allow storage of the batteries if the regulatory conditions are
met. Third, while it is generally true that a .facfcLJty must
have a RCRA permit or interim status to receiveSfilHbous waste
from off-site, please note that 40 CFR Section*«^^K does
allow storage of hazardous waste in DOT-approve4t^Hpainers for
10 days or less at transfer facilities without ajpfffcit or
interim status. Your shore bases may be able to .operate under
this "10-day rule" in lieu of becoming RCRA storage facilities.
Also, as a result of that meeting, my staff has concluded
that EPA should re-evaluate the exemption in Section 261.4(c)
for product and raw material vessels to determine whether it
should be expanded to cover other vessels. At this meeting we
also discussed resource limitations that would affect the
timing of a formal reevaluation of the exemption. One way to
expedite this evaluation and possible rulemaking would be for
•the Coast Guard to provide staff support for the project, i.e..
perhaps a three day per week detail over several months. If
this were possible, we could begin this effort much sooner.
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-9888. Also, please feel
free to contact Mike on whether a detail would be feasible.
sincerely,
Jeffery D. Denit
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
: IM»-4*F-I)J
-------
9453.1989(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 89
2. Generator Standards Applicable to Transporters
Are transporters eligible for the Section 262.34 accumulation time provision
when they mix wastes?
No. The accumulation time provision only applies to generators. Mixing
two or more wastes does not generate a new waste or make the transporter a
generator. Therefore, transporters are not eligible for the accumulation time.
The transporter may hold the waste pursuant to Section 263.12 for ten days or
less at a transfer facility. Storage periods of greater than ten days will require
the facility to apply for a permit or interim status.
Source: Emily Roth (202)382-4777
Research: Joe Nixon (202) 488-1487
-------
9453.1989(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 89
2. Generator Satellite Accumulation/Counting Requirements
A generator accumulates hazardous waste in a satellite accumulation area
pursuant to 40 CFR Section 262.34
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEr 9453-1989(04)
* -±\is^- * WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
H^^^^v**._
APR / 8 1989
OPFICE oe
SOLID WASTE AND EM-»GSNCV 3:S;
Mr. Eric E. Boyd
Sidley & Austin
One First National Plaza
Chicago, IL 60603
Dear Mr. Boyd:
This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1989 in
which you requested clarification of the regulations that apply
to still bottoms generated and removed from a recycling unit.
Specifically, you inquired as to when the waste accumulation
time begins in an on-site solvent recycling operation. The
accumulation time for still bottoms resulting from the recycling
of spent solvent begins when the still bottoms are removed from
the distillation unit. The recycling unit is exempt from
regulation, therefore, the still bottoms are considered to be a
newly generated waste eligible for accumulation under the
provisions of 40 CFR Section 262.34. They are also a "derived
from" waste and carry the same EPA waste code as the spent
solvent from which they were derived (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).
The spent solvent which is recycled by your client is a
hazardous waste subject to regulation. The generator must
determine his generator status, i.e. conditionally exempt
generator (40 CFR Section 261.5), small quantity generator (40
CFR Section 262.34(d-f)), or large quantity generator (40 CFR
Section 262.34(a-b)), based on the total amount of hazardous
waste he generates in a calendar month, which includes the total
amount of spent solvent before recycling. The accumulation time
for the spent solvent under the provisions of 40 CFR Section
262.34 is 90 days, or 180 days if your client is a small
quantity generator of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of
hazardous waste in a month.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact
Emily Roth at (202) 382-4777.
tee
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9453.1989(05)
^"""r">.
i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 204M
APR 21 1989
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY MESPO
Mr. Stephen J. Axtell
Smith & Schnacka
2000 Courthouse Plaza NE
Post Office Box 1817
Dayton, Ohio 45401-1817
Dear Mr. Axtell:
This letter is in response to your letter of February 23, 1989,
requesting clarification of the generator accumulation time
requirements of 40 CFR 262.34. You ask when the accumulation time
begins for an unknown waste that, upon analysis, is found to meet
the definition of hazardous waste. Initially, the container was
improperly labelled or not labelled at all. A sample of the
contents was sent off site for analysis, and was found to be
hazardous.
In your letter you relate that Chris Bryant of the RCRA Hotline
indicated that the accumulation time for an unknown waste begins
when the analytical results indicating that the waste is hazardous
are received. Unfortunately, this information was incorrect. The
correct reading of Section 262.34 in this instance follows.
Section 262.34(a) provides a limited exemption from the
requirement that' those who store hazardous waste must obtain
permits. To obtain the exemption, a generator must comply with
all the requirements of Section 262.34. If the date on which the
accumulation began was not marked on the drum (Section 262.34(a)
(2)) or the drum was not marked "Hazardous Waste" (Section 262.34
(a) (3)), then the generator has not met the pre-conditions for the
exemption from permitting requirements and is an operator of a
storage facility subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265 and the permit requirements of 40 CFR Part 270.
Where a generator does meet the conditions of Section 262.34,
the accumulation time begins when a waste is generated or when
it is first taken from a "satellite* accumulation area operated
pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34 (c). Waste is generated either when it
is produced or when it is first caused to be subject to regulation
(40 CFR 260.10), not when a generator first analyzes, the .waste..
If the waste in the drum was a listed or characteristic hazardous
waste when it was produced, then the one-time 90-day accumulation
time could begin only at the time the waste was produced-or -removed
from the satellite accumulation area.
-------
- 2 -
Zf the vast* vas not subject to regulation vhen it vac first
stored, fj^, the material had not yet been listed as a
regulated hazardous vasts, than th« 90-day p«riod would havt
btgun Whan tha vast* b«eaae subject to regulation—upon tha
•ffactiva data of tha nav listing. A generator's failure to
properly analyze, label, and accumulate vaste does not exempt
the vaste from regulation.
Zf ve can be of any further assistance, please contact
Emily Roth at (202) 382-4777.
Sin
Director
of solid waste
-------
ENYIHOHMEMTAL PROTBCT1OM ACEMCT
9453.1989(07)
I3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: "Satellite" Accumulation
FROM: Sylvia K. Lovrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Ullrich, Associate Division Director
Office of RCRA
Waste Management Division (5HR-13)
In response to your memorandum of June 13, 1989, ve have
addressed the questions posed by Ohio EPA regarding our
requirements of 40 CFR Section 262.34(c) concerning satellite
accumulation.
Specifically, in the attachment to your memorandum, Ohio EPA
asks if roll-off boxes meet the definition of containers and may
be used at satellite accumulation areas. It is our view that if
the roll-off boxes meet the definition of container found in
Section 260.10 and are managed in accordance with the applicable
container requirements of Sections 265.171, 265.172, and
265.173(a), they may be utilized in satellite accumulation.
Section 260.10 defines "container" as "any portable device
in which a material is stored, transported, treated, disposed of
or otherwise handled." A roll-off box is a portable device. The
container requirements include: (1) that the container be in
good condition (i.e., not leaking), (2) that the container be of
a material, or lined with a material, which is compatible with
the waste, and, (3) that the container be closed during storage,
except to *M or remove waste.
The eMg other requirement under Section 262.34(c)(l) states
that the dHEfciner be marked with the words "Hazardous Waste" or
other word* that identify the contents. This is the extent of
the physical requirements for satellite accumulation containers.
Therefore, as long as the quantity limits and time limits for
excess quantities are met, the roll-off box may be classified as
a satellite accumulation container.
-------
However, for containers used in off-site shipment of
hazardous"waste, the Department of Transportation (DOT) packaging
specif icaqiftfM for the hazard class must be met. DOT regulations
governing* mp transportation of hazardous materials are found in
49 CFR Par» 171 through 177.
Ohio EPA has also raised a concern about the ability of a
generator to determine when the 55 gallon quantity limit for
satellite accumulation of hazardous waste (or one quart of acute
hazardous waste), is exceeded if roll-off boxes are used. The
dimensions, or capacity, of the roll-off boxes are not mentioned
in the Ohio EPA attachment. Under our regulations any type of
container may be used as a satellite accumulation device provided
it meets the Section 260.10 definition for container, and is used
in accordance with the above-mentioned container provisions of
Part 265. We ask that Ohio EPA inform us if they find that the
use of roll-off boxes of various volumes and capacities
contributes to a generator's inability to quantify his waste.
In addition to answering these questions, we offer the
following observation. It appears that the Ohio EPA has a
thorough understanding of the Section 262.34 requirements and
provides an accurate interpretation of the regulations. However/
you should note that, upon removal from an accumulation storage
area, hazardous waste may also be managed in an on-site permitted
unit (45 IB 76624, November 19, 1980).
If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please
do not hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact Emily
Roth at (202) 382-4777.
-------
9453.1989(08)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG ? OFFICE of
r*A' £
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
T.R. Kirk, Environmental Scientist
Fehr-Graham & Associates
660 W. Stephenson St.
Freeport, Illinois 61032
Dear Mr. Kirk:
This is in response to your letter of July 6, 1989,
requesting a clarification of 40 CFR Section 262.34(c) , the
"satellite accumulation" provision. Section 262.34(c)(l) states
that, provided certain requirements are met, "a generator may
accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart
of acutely hazardous waste listed in Section 261.33(e) in
containers at or near any point of generation where wastes
initially accumulate, which is under the control of the operator
of the process generating the waste ..." Your question concerns
whether the 55 gallon limit on hazardous waste applies to the
total quantity of hazardous waste accumulated at the satellite
location, or if it applies to each waste stream accumulated at
the satellite location.
The 55 gallon limit applies to the total of all the non-
acutely hazardous waste accumulated at a satellite accumulation
area. In the enclosed Federal Register notice of December 20,
1984 (49 £B 49568) EPA explicitly states that the 55 gallon limit
on non-acutely hazardous waste applies to each satellite
accumulation area.
Although the total amount of hazardous waste that may be
accumulated at any one satellite area is limited to 55 gallons,
EPA intentionally did not limit the total number of satellite
areas at a generator's facility nor specify the size of the
containers to be used for accumulation. A case-by-case analysis
is necessary to determine whether a generator is accumulating
more than 55 gallons of waste at one satellite area, or whether a
generator has more than one satellite area. An example of a
situation that would not be in compliance with the regulations is
-------
-,
••"•••
Enclosure
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY 9453.1990(01)
APRIL 1990
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—APRIL 1990
A. RCRA
1. Satellite Accumulation Standards for Small Quantity Generators
Can small quantity generators establish satellite accumulation areas
according to 40 CFR 262.34(c) for their hazardous waste?
Yes, according to the March 24, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 10146)
"100-1000 kg /mo generators may accumulate up to 55 gallons of non-
a cutely hazardous waste in satellite areas without meeting the storage
requirements being promulgated today, so long as the requirements
of Section 262.34 (c) are met." (51 FR 10162) All generators subject to
40 CFR 262.34 may develop satellite accumulation areas for hazardous
waste according to 40 CFR 262.34(c) provisions.
Source: Emily Roth, OSW (202) 382-4777
Research: Cynthia Hess
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9453.1990(02
JULY 1990
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES—TULY 1990
RCRA
1. Adding Absorbent to Waste Containers
40 CFR Sections 264.1(g)(10) and 265.1(c)(13) exempt the following activity
from permitting requirements: "(t)he addition of absorbent material to
waste in a container...or the addition of waste to absorbent material in a
container, provided that these actions occur at the time waste is first placed
in the container; and sections 264.17(b), 264.171, and 264.172 are complied
with." To qualify for this exemption, must a generator add absorbent to his
waste the first time the waste is containerized, or may he treat or store the
waste in other units before performing absorption in a specified container?
This exemption applies solely to the activity of adding absorbent to
waste in a specific container. Treating or storing the waste in other
tanks or containers before absorbent is added would not cause a
generator to lose this exemption. Such treatment or storage,
however, is not included in the exemption, and therefore must either
be permitted activity or conform with the generator accumulation
requirements of 40 CFR Section 262.34. According to 51 FR 10168:
"(n)othing in Section 262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste
when it is in an accumulation tank or container covered by that
provision." Therefore, a generator following all applicable
requirements of Section 262.34 could treat his waste in one container
before adding absorbent in another.
Sources: Alessi Otte, OSW (202) 382-4654
Bill Kline, OSW (202) 475-9614
Research: Ken Sandier
-------
9453.1990(03)
RCRA/SUPERFDND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1990
1. Clarification of Section 26134(a) Accumulation Time for Excess of
55-Gallon Limit in Satellite Accumulation Areas
The owner/operator of a manufacturing company maintains a
generator satellite accumulation area pursuant to Section 26234(c). The
operator has exceeded the 55-gailon accumulation limit and according
to Section 26234(c)(2), has three days to remove this waste from the
satellite area and manage it either in a 90-day storage area as a large
quantity generator in compliance with Section 262.34U), manage the
waste at an on-site permitted unit, or ship the waste off-site. Does the
90-day accumulation time for large quantity generators in Section
26134
-------
9453.1991(01)
RCRA/SUPERFDND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 1991
2. Withdrawal of an Interim Status Part A Permit Application
A generator is treating hazardous waste that exhibits a toxicity characteristic on-site
in its 90-day accumulation tanks. Prior to the effective date of the Toxicity
Characteristic rule, he/she filed a Part A application for 40 CFR Part 265 Interim
Status. The generator subsequently discovered that a permit is not required for
treatment in accumulation tanks provided that the tanks are operated strictly in
compliance with all applicable standards referenced in 40 CFR 26134. (51FR10168)
What procedures should be followed for the Part A permit application to be
withdrawn? Would the generator be subject to interim status standards until the
application is withdrawn?
In an internal 1983 memorandum, EPA clarified the protective filer
procedures for withdrawal of a Part A application. The memorandum stated
that filings for facilities which have not been regulated under interim status
standards should be returned to the owner or operator, preferably after EPA
has (1) obtained written confirmation that the facility was not subject to the
permitting requirements, and (2) possibly conducted an investigation to
verify the data.
Such a facility is not subject to the Part 265 standards until the application is
withdrawn. Section 3005(e) of RCRA states that the interim status standards
apply to any person who owns or operates a facility required to have a permit
under that section. If the facility, in fact, has not managed hazardous waste in
a manner that would subject it to regulations, then the Part 265 standards
would not be applicable, even if a Part A permit application had been
mistakenly submitted (as in the case of protective filers). Thus, the generator
would not have to operate or close in accordance with interim status
standards.
Source: Wayne Roepe/OSW (202) 475-7245
Research: Amy Norgren
-------
9453.1991(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEP 2 0 199!
Mr. Thomas McCarley.
Hazardous Technical Information Services
Directorate of Technical Operations
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense General Supply Center
Richmond, Virginia 23297-5000
Dear Mr. MeCarley:
This letter is in response to a July 24, 1991 inquiry from
Mr. Allen J. Osborne of your office about the treatment of
hazardous wastes by large quantity generators under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Mr. Osborne cited a March 24, 1986 Federal Register notice
(51 FR 10168) which promulgated final regulations for generators
of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month
(small quantity generators). In that notice, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) stated that generators could treat
hazardous wastes on-site in accumulation tanks or containers
without a RCRA permit if the treatment were in conformance with
the requirements of 4O CFR Part 262.34 (accumulation time), and
with Subparts I and J of 40 CFR Part 265 (standards for
containers and tank systems). Mr. Osborne apparently desired
clarification that large quantity generators were included in
this statement. He also asked which kinds of hazardous wastes
could be treated by different categories of generators.
The Agency has not restricted treatment of any hazardous
waste to large or small quantity generators. However, all
generators who choose to treat their wastes in accumulation tanks
or containers must comply strictly with the requirements of 40
CFR Part 262.34 and with Subparts I and J of 40 CFR Part 265.
For example, the tank or container in which the treatment occurs
must be marked with the'date the accumulation period began. The
tank or container must be completely emptied every 90 days (or
every 180 or 270 days for small quantity generators). If these
requirements are met, no RCRA permit is required for large or
small quantity generators. Treatment other than that conducted
in tanks or containers (e.g., incineration, land treatment, or
treatment in surface impoundments) would continue to require a
permit.
-------
In addition, 40 CFR Part 268.7(a)(4) states that generators
who treat wastes in accumulation tanks or containers to meet
applicable land disposal restrictions (LDRs) must prepare a waste
analysis plan. Treatment of hazardous waste must also not
violate the dilution prohibition standards of 40 CFR 268.3.
The interpretation in this letter reflects the Federal
regulations governing hazardous waste. States with authorized
RCRA programs may impose more stringent requirements.
I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have
any further questions, please contact Mitch Kidwell of my staff
at (202) 260-4??*'.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9454 - RECORD
KEEPING AND
REPORTING
Part 262 Subpart D
ATKl/1104/25 kp
-------
9454.1984(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MARCH 84
4. Do generators in interim authorized States send biennial
reports to the State and/or the Region?
In interim authorized States, the State program is
operating in lieu of the Federal program (27l.l2l(b)).
The Phase I program under 271.128 covers generator and
interim status facility reporting requirements. Hence,
the State report (which may be a biennial, annual, or
even quarterly report) is sent to the authorized State
and not to the Region. However, since North Dakota's
Phase I authorization does not include reporting,
generators in North Dakota must send a biennial report
to Region 8.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9454.1986(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 86
2. Hazardous Waste Fuel Brokers
A waste broker makes purchase arrangements between generators and burners of
hazardous wastes fuel. Although the broker never physically possesses the waste
nor stores it on his property, he does own it temporarily and handles all Dill ing
and invoices. The generator ships the waste directly to the burner. Is the
broker a marketer of hazardous waste fuel, even though he never possesses it?
Sections 3010(a)(3) and 3004(q)(l)(C) of RCRA, as amended, require marketers
or distributors of hazardous waste fuel to notify the EPA of hazardous waste
fuel activities (see $266.34(b) and 50 FR 49204). Because the broker does
own the waste at one point, he is responsible for the waste fuel during tne
tine he owns it. Ownership, rather than physical possession, is the cruerioi
used in determining if one is a marketer because it is possible to possess
or handle the waste without owning it. For example, sane transporters
possess a waste during transportation but do not actually own it at any tine.
Therefore, the broker in this situation is a marketer or distributor of the
waste fuel and must comply with all applicable marketer requirements set
forth in $266.34 (50 FR 49204).
-------
9454.1986(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 86
3. Specification Used oil Fuel
The final rule for the burning and marketing of used oil fuel was published
IT6'' "' 198S ^eral faster (50 FR 49164). n» premie
^ °? S*9* 49199) ex?lalns »« a marketer who blends off-speci-
used oil fuel to meet specifications must only keep records of the
facility to which the specification fuel is first sent. ttiat happens if
the first facility to receive the specification fuel does not burn it,
out markets it to someone else? Is that subsequent marketer regulated?
The marketer who first claims that the used oil fuel meets specification
must keep records of the analysis (or other information) and records of
each shipment including the nane and address of the receiving facility
the shipment date, and the quantity shipped, according to 40 CTR 266 43
(b)(6). The marketer (as burner) who receives the specification used
oil fuel shipment is not regulated by Part 266 Sucpart E, per $266.43(a)
(2). He is not required to notify EPA of his waste as-fuel activities
analyze the oil, or keep records. If, however, the subsequent marketer
mixes the specification used oil with off-specification used oil or
with hazardous waste, he becomes subject to regulation as a marketer of
used oil or hazardous waste fuel.
Source: Bob Holloway (202) 382-7936
-------
9454.1986(05}
3 1996
SUBJECT! State /Regional Biennial Report,*
rroMt Harcia ^illiams, Director
Office of Solid taste
TOi David Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
This is in response to your July 29 i.ieiuoranduia recomraendins
that the additional itene required for inclusion in 1S£5 Stats
Eiennial Frograro Reports be delayed until 1907. fchile I air.
synpathetic to your concerns about already strained State ana
Keyion&l work loads, it is try desire to maintain the requirement*
tuat were added to the State Program reporting forma for 19&5.
I would like to note initially that we carefully considered
State and Regional workloads in aseessing the netd for chaises
in the State biennial Program Reports for 1935. As you are well
avare, the information provided to us in the 19£3 reports proveJ
to be insufficient to enable us to prepare & national summary
report* Considerable attention has already been directed at
EPA's failure to produce a 19E3 report, particularly iror. key
members of Congress* The General Accounting Office is currently
corr-pleting an extensive investigation into the causes of this
system breakdown and our ections to in.prove the systeir. for 19ub
end beyond. Z ajn personally coooiitted, as are uemter* of ny
staff, to ensuring the production of a national report suiraaricing
the information developed through the biennial reporting process
in 1V65. As noted in my July 3 Kccoranduu, the requiren«er»ta added
to the 1905 State reporting forms are designed to help produce
this national Bunwary report. "vv
Note also that tne nuober of item* actually added to the
State rerorting for ins for 1985 has been reduced fron. the number
of items specified in my July 3 r.-.encraridurc. Two iter.s that were
listed as additional reporting requirements in ir>y menor&ndur. (the
quantity of hatarcous waste shipped off-site by each generator
and the quantity received from off>-site by each facility) were
deleted fron the 19»>5 State reporting forms that accou.par.ieu i-ry
-------
remorandu« and will not be r•quired for tta 1985 reporting cycle.
The decision oot to require these ite»s for 19^5 was due, in
larce Haasure, to our own desire te nlnieica the additional work-
load imposed by oar change* to tha Stata reporting forna*
w« do not. eee tha additional itar.a required for tha 1965
Stnte prograro raporti to b« unduly burciensov*, nor do we aea
t^en. imposing significant additional work load* on Stata or
region*! personnel responsible for completing the r«porta.
Specifically* tha quantity Generated by each gent-r a tor and the
Quantity dank gee by each facility are it»t> • that woulc have to
t>e calculated anyway in order to report the total quantity of
h&iarouuc waste generated in each Stata in 19bb.
All that we are asking ia that theae already calculatao
quantities be provided to us as part of the listb of generators
and facilities. For States employing automated data n^nayeff.ent
systems, this requireneat poses virtually no additional turaen on
reporting personnel. For states that cocplata the reports manually,
the only additional burUan irafoa«d i» that associated wxth sir.ple
transcription of a sincle previously calculated figure for each
generator and facility.
Finally, Regional staff preparing reports for unauthorised
States will te usinc the FOCUS Dier.nial Report Data Entry and
Retrieval Eystact. This software aysten was develo^eo uain^
headquarters contractor support and is currently being expanded
to automatically curuplote this section (individual quantity
Generated and managed) and other sections of the State biennial
procrer reports. Cor.pleting theue first two additional itanfe
usinc the Focus syster will, therefore* poae no aduitional workload
on the regions*
Moreover* the value of these firat two additional reporting
requirements is substantial. Provision of figures for the
quantities generated end uaoagwu by individual Generators and
facilities vill enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the State-
totol-quantity-^enerated figures already reported utiiier a separate
Our understanding, based upon telephone converaations with
project Ofticera (including Region V's FPO), is that
the ftrgions will not be able to provide assistance in reviewing
and evaluating the accuracy and quality ol the State Pr&grat:
reports. Theee additional reporting iter* will enable headquarters
personnel to ensure the accuracy of the Stat»~by~State quantities.
Without this minimal quality control check, our ability tc {.loduce
a reliable national suraaary report would be aeverely hamperec*,
as evidenced by the 1903 problems. x
In addition to their role in CA/uXT efforts, tn«se two iteu-s
will help in carrying out our planned survey ot hetarcjous waste
generators in 19t>7. By Obtaining quantities for each gen«ratcr
-------
the biennial report, we vill eliairtate the need for a
»urv«y to define the generator uaiverae, savin? considerable tiae
•DCS resources for EPA as wall as allcj.natia9 report!no burdens
on the regulated community*
The second two new it*ns, lists of n&n-rec,ulateortiog generators and facilities, are essential in order to
attte»» ccnpliar.ee vith ths l»oi tisnci*! rvportin^ rcquir«J-«r.t«.
without th«»e additiooal lists, «• *r* unstlc t& dttsrtin* whether
t^.ft cuautitics rvpoxted through the process represent 4il of tne
quantities that we requlate or whether they represent a i.ere
'ccnveniencc sa*pl*" (a staple of thos« who tound it convenient
to report). The inability to stake such an assessment was one of
tbe rejor reasons we were unable to produce a credible 19&J
national report.
Liscussidfts witn Jutiy Stone, of yocr office, have led as to
conclude that the second i^art of each of these list*, the lists cf
non-reportin? fscilitiec anJ c«uer«tors« cao b* deduced frot the
first two lists, the lists of re;x>rtinQ gencratcrc and facilities
(already required) ac2 the li«t« of gen«r*tors and facilities
reporting non-regulated status (newly required). Thus, tLe
third list need not be subeittec, if States aoc Kegi&n* are
ccr.fortable with officially desienati&q entities as non-reporters
(a potential corpliacce violation) if t:\cy ar* (1) listed on
HVDf'S ae of-12-31-e5 and (2) not included or. either of the first
tvo lists. H*i.;ion« ano Lt6te» vill soon b« advised of tiuis
option in a Llennial Report u^Oate taetorar.iuc.
lu addition, we are now preparing fur fwgional Cictriuuticn
cocputer lists cf all HWLH£ 9enerators and facilities (as ct
12-31-o3), by state. These lists will allow convenient desig-
nation of re^ortina, noc-reportins, and non-reesc points sei'va to explaic our need for these
additional items and our reasons for believing the reporting
buruen t!-.*y ispoee is both slight and justified. If you have
any adcitlonal questions concerning these or related natters,
I leane do not bestitste to contact Francine Jacc££ (2C2-3L2-47C1)
or Kike iTurns (202-242-3155) directly.
cci RC^A Branch Chiefs,
Regions I-1V, VX-X
-------
UNITE TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO GENCY
9454.1987(01)
JUL 2 I 1987
Ms. Irene Ginsberg
Apartment 1-C
235 Fort Washington Avenue
New York, ;tew York 10032
Dear Ms. Ginsberg:
This is in response to your letter dated June 29, 1987,
regarding the promoting of source reduction. In 1976, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a policy
statement outlining its preferred hazardous waste management
strategy (41 PR 35050, August 18, 1976). That strategy,
which favors source reduction and recycling over treatment
and land disposal, has remained intact over the past decade
despite comprehensive statutory amendments and substantial
expansion of the hazardous waste program.
Source reduction is generally preferable to treatment
because of the following:
0 Few treatment technologies are 100 percent efficient.
0 Compliance with regulations under «£ the various
environmental programs will never be perfect, even
with the most stringent enforcement programs.
* In many instances, there is currently insufficient
capacity to treat all of the hazardous waste
streams generated in the United States.
0 Source reduction encourages a more wholistic approach
to designing manufacturing processes that do not
generate hazardous wastes.
However, it is impractical to assume that all waste can be
eliminated by source reduction. For example, certain products
simply cannot be manufactured without producing hazardous
wastes. Excessive waste minimization requirements could
remove products from the market. Further, wastes produced
by a given process may be comparatively easy to treat or
destroy, yet quite difficult to minimize through source
reduction or recycling. Thcfeiare^.EJA also inuafc encourage
-------
The reduction of waste has long been a goal of the EPA.
Our report to Congress issued last October on the minimization
of hazardous waste fully considered many options do promote
waste minimization. In the report, EPA has a specific definition
for waste minimization, which supports the use of both source
reduction and recycling (in descending order of preference).
iinclosed please find a copy of this report's Ehecutive Summary.
We are now in the process of acting on many of the recommenda-
tions presented in the report, including programs aimed at
data collection and technology transfer.
If you have any questions on the enclosed materials, you
should contact James Berlow, Chief of the Office of Solid Waste's
Treatment Technology Section, on (202)382-7917.
Sincerely,
Marcia £. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9455 - SPECIAL
CONDITIONS
Part 262 Subpart E
ATKl/1104/26 kp
-------
9455.1982(01)
JUL 7 1982
SUBJECT: Interpretation o^ Far'-T-r -y.,~n"C~ > • .- -*« •>*•> .
FROM: Bruce
Oeouty Director
State* Proorants and Pescnrr:" P*»covf»ry Division P7
TO: David A. Wagoner
Director, A1r and Hazardous Man«fl»**nt 91vfsmsty containers
and unused solutions relative to the size o* their operation.
In evaluating t*<> University of Nebraska's farm or farms,
1t 1$ clear that their ooeratlon meets the 1ntc-nt of the farmer
exemotlon activity. Although the word "rerearrh" 1s use* to d»s-
crlbe the University farms, this Is an Institutional word Indicating
their primary farming Interest 1s the Investigation of orowth and
yield 1nfor«at1on rather than production per se. Thus, the words
""research farm" do not oreclude them froinHFrrTni but. d*11nat» an
Interest or activity. However, to be eligible for the farmer
-------
(.2)
exemption, a farmer oust also dispose of his hazardous »*«ste
pesticides *rora Ms own me on Ms own oronerty 1n accordance
with the disposal Instructions on the label MO CFR 262.51).
I hope this answers your questions on this matter. If
you have any other questions, please contact we or Rolf H111
on FTS-382-4753.
WH-563/RH1ll-JThonTSpon/23 JUNE 82/Rolf s D1$k#II Doc.*22/
#516 Controlled Correspondence
Revised: Bruce Weddle/06 JULY 82
-------
9455.1985(01)
June 25, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: Harry Seraydarian
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
EPA Region IX
FROM: John H. Skinner
Director, Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
SUBJECT: Determining Who Assumes Generator Responsibilities for
Importations of Hazardous Waste
With respect to the importation of hazardous waste, you have
asked who should assume generator responsibilities: the
transporter or the United States facility arranging for the
importation of the hazardous waste.
Under current regulations "any person" who "imports"
hazardous waste must comply with the generator requirements of 40
CFR Part 262. 40 CFR §§262.50(c), 262.50(d); see also
§§262.10(c), 263.10(c). This broad language suggests that more
than one party may be an "importer" in a given situation. In the
situation you describe, both the transporter and the Untied
States facility arranging for the importation would be persons
who "import" hazardous waste. Where more than one person falls
within the scope of this language, all of the parties, as
contributors to the importation of hazardous waste, should be
held jointly and severally liable for compliance with the
generator requirements of Part 262.
Through mutual agreement, however, one of the parties may
assume and perform the generator duties on behalf of all the
parties. In fact, EPA encourages such agreements. Where such an
agreement exists the Agency will look to the designated party to
perform the generator responsibilities. EPA, however, reserves
the right to enforce against any of the parties if the
requirements of Part 262 are not adequately met providing such
enforcement is equitable and in the public interest.
In EPA's view, the party in the best position to assume the
generator responsibilities should normally take on these
responsibilities on behalf of other parties. In fact, EPA will
initially look to such a party where no party has been designated
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
or EPA is unaware of such designation. Under the specific
factual situation you describe, it appears that the Untied States
facility arranging for the importation of hazardous waste may be
in the best position to assume the generator responsibilities.
For a discussion of some relevant factors to consider in
determining which party is in the best position to assume the
generator responsibilities, see 45 F.R. 72024, 72025
(October 30, 1980) where an analogous situation is addressed.
You have also expressed some concern about the possibility
of unmanifested or improperly manifested shipments occurring
where the facility arranging for the importation is also the
treatment, storage and disposal facility. Under such
circumstances, the same facility must comply with both 40 CFR
Parts 262 and 264 or 265 (for the receipt of waste from off-site
sources). The fact that the facility receiving the waste must
also assume generator responsibilities, thereby eliminating the
presence of an independent treatment, storage and disposal
facility to help assure compliance with the manifest
requirements, should be of no greater concern than for shipments
between sites owned by the same company.
cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I-VIII and X
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9455.1986(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 86
2. Export of Hazardous Waste
A generator plans to send an unlisted, characteristic by-product to
a reclamation facility in Mexico. How do the new hazardous waste export
regulations, effective November 8, 1986, apply to the export of this
recyclable material?
The hazardous waste export regulations are in 40 CFR Part 262,
Subpart E. Revised export regulations, effective November 8, 1986,
require notification of the Administrator, consent fron the
receiving country, special manifesting procedures, recordkeeping, .
exception reporting and submittal to EPA of an annual report for
the export of most hazardous wastes. (See sections 262.52-262.57,
promulgated in the August 8, 1986 Federal Register, 51 PR 28664.)
According to $261.2(c)(3), Table 1, characteristic by-products
are not defined as solid wastes, and thus not hazardous wastes,
when destined for reclamation. Therefore, the characteristic
by-product is not subject to Part 262, Sub part E, because it
is not a hazardous waste. The burden of proof, however, is on
the exporter to demonstrate and document that the material to be
recycled is not a solid waste ($261.2(f». The exporter should
be able to demonstrate that there is a known market or disposition
for the material. A copy of a recycling contract, records
describing the Mexican reclamation facility, and/or evidence that
the facility has a license or approval front the Mexican government
would also support the exporter's claim that the recyclable material
is not a solid waste (see 51 PR 28670).
Source: Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
..'M |Q ,-, 9455.1987(01
w^l 1 I W ' *•(* |
Honorable Wes Watkins
House of Representatives
Washington-, DC 20515 :
Dear Mr. Watkins:
Thank you for your May 5, 1987 letter on behalf of your
constituent Mr. Joe Bonar regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) hazardous waste export rule.
Section 3017 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA) prohibits the export of hazardous waste unless
persons exporting such waste provide notification to the EPA.
The government of the country receiving the waste has to
consent to accept the waste. The final rule implementing
these statutory provisions was published on August 8, 1986
(copy enclosed) and became effective on November 8, 1986.
In developing the export rule* the Agency decided that
wastes which were regulated domestically should also be
regulated internationally. The rationale and purpose underlying
the domestic manifest requirements are similar to international
notification and consent requirements. The domestic manifest
notifies persons receiving or handling the waste of the nature
of the materials being dealt with and affords those persons
the opportunity to reject the waste or, if accepted, provides
sufficient information to ensure proper handling of the
waste. •-
Under EPA's domestic regulatory scheme, hazardous wastes
are generally subject to the manifest, but certain wastes
sent for recycling are exempt from the manifest requirement.
Such an exemption applies to persons who send batteries for
recycling. Thus, spent batteries sent to a foreign country
for recycling would be exempt from the requirements to file a
notification and receive written consent from the receiving
country. However, the exemption only applies if the batteries
are uncracked.
-------
-2-
Notitication, however, is required for exporting lead
battery plates and groups (as well as other hazardous wastes
requiring a manitest for domestic shipment). Notification
and consent can cover a period of up to 12 months. Thus, a
60 day waiting period for approval to export applies only
for the first shipment rather than each shipment of waste.
While EPA anticipates a maximum of 60 days to obtain written
consent from the receiving country, we believe that this time
frame can be substantially shortened as we gain experience in
obtaining written consents from receiving countries. Further,
Section 3017 provides that an international agreement with a
receiving country can take priority over the written consent
provision of EPA's export rule. While bilateral agreements
have been negotiated for only two countries (Canada and
Mexico), other countries may also want to develop bilateral
agreements with the U.S., particularly if a country wants to
expedite movements of hazardous waste between the two
countries.
I hope this explanation of EPA's export rule is helpful.
If you have any questions about the export requirements,
please contact Ms. Carolyn Barley at 202-382-2217.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9455. 1987 (-02)
JUN I 5 I95T
Eroanuel Bodner
Bodner Metal 6 Iron Corp.
3660 SchalKer Drive
Houston, Texas 77026
Dear Mr. Bodneri
This letter is in response to your letter of May 26, 1987,
to clarify the responsibilities of Bodner Metal t Iron Corp.
when transporting electric arc furnace (EAF) dust (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K061) to Mexico.
Please note carefully the two enclosed documents. The
Federal Register notice (51 FR 28664, August 8, 1966) is the
Agency's final rule on export of hazardous wastes. Essentially,
the export of hazardous waste is prohibited unless the require-
ments outlined in the rule are met. The second document is an
Agreement of Cooperation (also called a bilateral agreement)
between the U.S. and Mexico which defines terms and specifies
conditions for transport of pesticides and hazardous waste
between the countries.
Please be reminded that legal liability for a hazardous
waste does not end when a hazardous waste exits the United
States, and that hazardous wastes exported to foreign countries
must be manifested and handled in accordance with the terms of
consent from the receiving country.
If you have any other questions, please contact me at
(202) 382-4783.
Sincerely*
's.
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Permits Division
-------
9455.1989(01}
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN 271969
OFPICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Peter Bronner
Inversora Murten S.A.
237 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10017
Dear Mr. Bronner:
This letter is in response to your facsimile of November 13,
1988, your telephone conversations with Wendy Grieder of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of International
Activities, and your telephone conversation with Emily Roth of my
staff. In regard to the petroleum waste that you wish to export
to South America, the export requirements of RCRA as found in 40
CFR Part 262, Subpart E, apply to all petroleum wastes that meet
the definition of hazardous waste. Generators of solid waste
must determine if their waste is hazardous waste according to 40
CFR Part 261. If the petroleum waste is not hazardous according
to 40 CFR Part 261, there are no requirements under U.S. law.
However, there may be other restrictions that apply, such as
regulations in both the receiving country and any transit
countries regarding the transboundary movement of such waste, or
as you mention, the ban on the export of PCB containing oils as
found in 40 CFR 761.20(c). Therefore, you should contact any
country that the petroleum wastes will be exported to or through,
to determine what requirements, if any, may be imposed.
If you have any further questions regarding this letter, you
may contact Emily Roth at (202) 382-4777, or for questions
regarding the reglatory status of the petroleum waste you may
contact Ben Smith of my staff at (202) 382-4791.
Sincerely^ f
7
Matt Straus, Deputy Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
9455/1991(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 •
5 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCV RESPONSE
Thomas E. Linson
Hazardous Waste Management Branch Chief
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
105 South Meridian Street
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
Dear Mr. Linson:
This letter responds to your January 4, 1991 request for a
regulatory interpretation regarding the export of hazardous
wastes utilized for precious metals reclamation. Specifically,
you question whether Federal regulations require compliance with
40 CFR Part 262 Subpart E (which regulates hazardous waste
exports) when a precious metal-bearing sludge is exported for
reclamation. You request this interpretation because the export
requirements of Part 262 Subpart E are not specifically
referenced in either section 261.6(a)(2) or 266.70. However, as
Mr. Glenn Stemard of U.S. EPA's Region V office has indicated,
the preamble to the August 8, 1986 rulemaking (51 FR 28664),
which promulgated the export requirements for hazardous wastes,
implies that the export requirements do, in fact, apply to any
generator required to prepare a manifest under Subpart B of Part
262.
Mr. Sternard is correct. The export requirements of Part
262 Subpart E are applicable for precious metal-bearing sludges
that are exported for reclamation. EPA agrees that a specific
reference to Part 262 Subpart E in section 266.70 would clarify
this requirement and we will keep this in mind during any future
•rule changes. As the preamble to the August 8, 1986 rulemaking
discusses in depth (while not specifically referring to hazardous
wastes used for precious metals recovery) , the determining factor
in applying the export requirements is whether or not the
transportation of a particular hazardous waste requires a
hazardous waste manifest. (Indeed, the preamble actually
explains the Agency's position that the export requirements
applies only to hazardous wastes which require a manifest, rather
than to any hazardous waste, which is how some of the commenters
on the proposal to this rulemaking interpreted Section 3017 of
RCRA.)
Therefore, in the absence of any specific exemption from the
export requirements for a hazardous waste that requires a
manifest, the export requirements apply. Hazardous wastes which
Primed on Recycled Paper
-------
are subject to Part 266 Subpart F are not specifically exempt
from the export requirements.
I hope this clarifies the applicability of the export
requirements for the situation you must resolve. If you have any
further questions, you may contact Mike Petruska, Chief of the
Regulatory Development Branch, at (202) 475-8551.
Sine
Sylvii
Diredtor
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9455.1991(02)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY I 6 1991
OFFICE OF
Mark J SchlllZ SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
President
Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Industries
757 N. Eldridge
Houston, Texas 77079
Dear Mr. Schulr
This responds to your February 22, 1991 letter to David Bussard requesting a
determination regarding the regulatory status of pharmaceutical products that are
returned by the dispensers of these products to the manufacturers, wholesalers, or to a
third-party service company that will facilitate the processing, crediting, and, if needed,
appropriate disposal of the returned products. Currently, such products are returned
directly to the manufacturer or wholesaler, who credits the dispenser for the products
and determines whether the products are to be reused, reclaimed, or appropriately
disposed. BF1 Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (BFI-Pharm) intends to provide this reverse
distribution service to the pharmaceutical industry.
As I understand your letter, pharmaceutical products may be returned for many
reasons, including, among others: 1) an oversupply at the dispenser, 2) expiration of the
recommended shelf life, 3) a recall has been initiated by the manufacturer, 4) the
product was received as a result of a shipping error, and 5) the product has been
damaged. You state that, in general, the dispensers of the pharmaceutical products do
not know whether the returned products will be reused, reclaimed, sold overseas, or
disposed (Len they are not able to determine whether these materials are solid wastes).
Because the dispensers receive credit for the returned products (either because the
products actually have real value to manufacturer or because such credits are part of a
competitive marketing approach), the products have a monetary value to the dispensers
and they would not normally assume such materials to be wastes.
Under our current regulations, such returned products are not considered solid
wastes until a determination is made to discard these materials. The returned products
themselves (being "commercial chemical products" under our classification system) are
considered more product-like than waste-like (until a determination is made to dispose
of them) because recycling by use/reuse is generally a viable option. If the underlying
assumption is that the returned products will be recycled, until the manufacturer or
wholesaler determines otherwise (assuming that this determination is beyond the ability
of the dispenser), then those products managed within the reverse distribution system
are not solid wastes until the manufacturer or wholesaler makes the determination to
dispose of them. This view is based on our understanding that the system is established
as a means to facilitate the recycling of reusable pharmaceutical products, rather than a
Pfinttd oti ntcydod PBDOT
-------
waste management system. We will be interested to learn if your data, which will be
computerized, will support this assumption. At the current time there does not appear
to be any reason for EPA to change its policy regarding this type of reverse distribution
system simply because a third-party service company is involved, rather than the
manufacturers themselves.
I would like briefly to bring to your attention two issues that bear generally upon
reverse distribution systems, although neither appear to be of concern in the BFI-Pharm
situation. First, EPA does not intend for hazardous waste brokers to use a reverse
distribution system to relieve generators of the responsibility for making determinations
about the discarding of materials as wastes. It remains the generator's responsibility to
properly identify secondary materials. Second, a reverse distribution system cannot be
used as a waste management service to customers/generators without the applicable
regulatory controls on waste management being in place. Of course, as I discussed
above with respect to the BFI-Pharm situation, to the extent that the materials involved
are unused commercial products with a reasonable expectation of being recycled in some
way when returned, the materials are not considered as wastes until a determination has
been made to discard them.
This interpretation is based on the current set of Federal RCRA regulations.
However, as you know, authorized States may regulate or interpret the regulations
differently, and State requirements are the applicable standards in authorized States.
You should contact the appropriate State regulatory agencies for a more definitive
regulatory determination for their respective jurisdictions.
I hope this has sufficiently answered your questions. Should you have any further
questions regarding EPA's policies, you may contact David Bussard at (202) 382-4637.
Sincerely,.
Lowrance
Mrector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
,9455.1991(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC I 0 1991
E Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Jack Whalen
Hamanna Alloys Corporation
441 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Whalen:
Thank you for your letter of October 31, 1991 to Mike
Petruska in which you inquired about the regulation of recovered
lead and lead alloys from used batteries and other suitable
sources, and the export of these components to other countries.
There are potentially numerous regulations applicable to recovery
of lead and lead.alloys from batteries, depending on the
particular situation. Based on your letter I will list the major
ones here; however, please note that this list may not be
exhaustive: 40 CFR Parts 124, 260.10, 260.30(c), 261.1(c)(6),
261.2(0), 261.3(a)(2)(i), 261.6(a)(3)(iv), 261.22, 262.34, 263,
264.1(g)(6), 265.1(c)(10), 266 Subpart G, 266.80(a),
266.80(b)(l)-(4), 268.7(a)(4), and 270. Because analysis of the
appropriate regulatory scheme is material-specific, I cannot
address lead and lead alloy recovery from "other suitable
sources."
Hazardous waste export regulations are found at 40 CFR Part
262 Subpart E. The governmental notification process is
generally as follows. The exporter notifies EPA's Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement in writing of his/her intent to
export. This notification must contain certain information (see
the regulations cited above). EPA then sends the written
notification to the U.S. State Department, which then cables it
to the government of the receiving country. The receiving
country then cables the State Department with its consent or
rejection, and includes conditions for acceptance, if any. The
State Department forwards the cable to EPA, and EPA forwards it
to the exporter. Upon the exporter's receipt, this document is
called the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent (AOC). The exporter
must attach a copy of the AOC to the manifest accompanying the
shipment, and must forward a copy to the U.S. Customs Service (a
manifest may be obtained from your state if it has its own, or
from any source if it does not). Transit countries, if any, are
also notified within this process; however, if a transit country
refuses the shipment it is the exporter's responsibility to make
other arrangements.
Printed on Recycled Paptr
-------
Under the terms of separate bilateral agreements with Canada
and Mexico, this process is slightly different. For exports to
Canada, EPA deals directly with its counterpart, Environment
Canada, and the U.S. State Department and other diplomatic
entities do not become involved. The consent process is "tacit"
instead of written; that is, Canada has 30 days to accept or
refuse a shipment after which, if no acknowledgement is made, the
shipment may commence. For exports to Mexico, EPA deals directly
with its counterpart, SEDUE, but copies of all relevant documents
are forwarded to the State Department and normal diplomatic
entities.
As you may be aware, President Bush signed the Basel
Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes on
March 22, 1990. This may have additional implications for
hazardous waste exports depending on whether the U.S. formally
ratifies Basel, and on what form the implementing legislation
takes.
Sincerely,
vid Bussard, Director
aracterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosure
-------
9456 - GENERATOR
STANDARDS
Part 262
ATKl/l 104/27 kp
-------
«wxov 9456.1986(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 86
9. Export of"Recyclable Materials
Are generators and transporters of recyclable materials used for precious
metals recovery subject to the export regulations that were published on
FR 28664?
August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664}?
Yes, exporters of recyclable materials used for precious metals
recovery are subject to the export regulations in 40 CFR 262.50.
Subpart E of Part 262(§262.50) requires "primary exporters" to comply
with the export requirements. A primary exporter, as defined in
40 CFR 262.50, is any person who is required to originate a manifest for
a shipnent of hazardous waste in accordance with 40 CFR Part 262,
Subpart B, or equivalent State provision which specifies a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility in a receiving country as the facility
to which the hazardous waste will be sent. A primary exporter also
includes any intermediary arranging for the export.
Generators of recyclable materials used for precious metals recovery
must prepare a manifest in accordance with Part 262 Subpart B per
§266.70(b)(2). If a generator exports his wastes for precious metals
recovery, he meets the definition of a "primary exporter" and is subject
to the export requirements in Subpart E-Exports of Hazardous Waste.
These exports requirements include:
(a) written notification to EPA of intent to export 60 days prior
to the initial shipnent in a 12 month period;
(b) exporting only after receipt of an Acknowledgement of Consent;
(c) attaching the Acknowledgement of Consent to the manifest which
is prepared in accordance with special manifest requirements
of $262.54;
(d) filing exception reports, if needed;
(e) filing an annual report on his export activities
and waste minimization efforts
(f) keeping records for three years
Transporters involved with exports of recyclable precious metal
wastes must also meet certain export requirements. According to
§266.70(b)(2), transporters of recyclable precious metal wastes
must comply with the manifest provisions of SS263.20 and 263.21.
The export regulations of August 8, 1986 modified the §262.20
manifest requirements for exports. Transporters must ensure that
the Aknowledgement of Consent accompanies the waste shiptent and
cannot accept the waste without it. The transporter may not accept
the waste for export if he knows the shiptent does not conform to
the Acknowledgement of Consent (51 FR 28685). The transporter must
give a copy of the manifest to a U.S. customs agent at the point the
waste leaves the U.S.
Source: Carolyn Barley (201) 382-2217
Research: Betty Wilson
-------
9456.1987(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
5. Exporting Hazardous Waste
Are lead-acid batteries sent to Canada for
recycling subject to RCRA Section 3017 requirements?
N'o. T-ead-acid batteries sent to Canada for
-•recycling are not subject to the export
requirements of 40 CFR 262.53, which codifies
Section 3017. The regulations parallel the
statute, which requires that any person exporting
hazardous waste shall: provide notification to the
Administrator; obtain consent from the receiving
country; attach a copy of that consent to the
manifest; and ensure that the shipment and terms of
the written consent are in agreement. The
Cooperative Agreement between the governments of
Canada and the United States parallels the same
points outlined above. As explained at 51 FR_
29669, the definition of "exporter" excludes wastes
not subject t • regulation through the manifest
system. Because 40 CFR 26l.6(a)(2) and (3) exclude
lead-acid batteries that are being reclaimed or
regenerated from all substantive regulation until
the batteries are "cracked" or broken open, a
person exporting uncracked lead-acid batteries for
reclamation or regeneration is not an exporter
subject to Section 3017.
Source: Paul Mushovic (202) 475-7736
Research: Laurie Huber
-------
9457 - GENERATOR
STANDARDS
Part 262
ATKl/l 104/28 kp
-------
9457.1987(01)
25 MAR
Mr. Randy Bodley
Transbas Incorporation
1525 Lockwood Road
P.O. Box 957
Billings, Montana 59103
Dear Mr. Bodleyt
Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1987, regarding
the reuse of pesticide containers. Under the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations issued pursuant to subtitle
C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a
generator of a solid waste mist determine if he generates a
hazardous waste, and if so, sust comply with the regulations
at 40 CFR Parts 260-268, 270, and the notification requirements
of RCRA^Section 3010. The drum rinsate you describe would
probably be a hazardous waste because it contains 2, 4-D. (See
40 CFR $261.24, Table 1, "D016.") EPA has, however. Bade
special provisions in its regulations both for farmers
disposing of waste pesticides on their own property and for
management of properly emptied (i.e., rinsed) containers.
First, under {262*51, a farmer disposing of waste
pesticides from his own use at his farm (i.e., 2, 4-D rinsate)
is not required to comply with the hazardous regulations
provided that he triple rinses each emptied pesticide container
and disposes of the rinsate on his own farm (in a manner
consistent with the disposal instructions on the pesticide
label). This appears 'to be the procedure that Transbas is
proposing for Landmaster, and as long as farmers allow these
procedures, they would be excluded from further hazardous
waste regulations.
Second, EPA has provided, in |261.7(a)(1), that when a
container that otherwise holds hazardous waste is properly
emptied, the container is no longer subject to the hazardous
waste regulations. For hazardous wasted that are not. designated
as "acute hazardous wastes," a container is empty if all
wastes have been removed using practices commonly employed to
-------
renove materials from that type of container (i.e., pouring),
and no acre than one inch of residue remains in the container*
(See §261.7(b)(l).)* The procedure Transbas is proposing for
bandmaster, (i.e., triple rinsing), appears to ensure that
the containers would in fact be properly emptied, and as
such, they can be returned to Transbas without complying with
the hazardous waste manifest or any other hazardous waste
regulations. You should note, however, that if Transbas (or
any other party) subsequently cleans the containers, the
rinsate nay be hazardous waste. The party cleaning the drums
must make that determination, and if the rinsate is hazardous,
must comply with 40 CFR Parts 260-268, 270, and the notification
requirements of RCRA Section 3010, as applicable.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
* In the case of acute hazardous waste, the container is
considered empty under more stringent criteria. See $261.7
------- |