United States      Solid Waste and     EPA/530-SW-91-062H
             Environmental Protection Emergency Response      August 1991
             Agency         (OS-343)
® EPA    RCRA Permit
             Volume 8
             9483.1980 - 9489.1990

             TSDF Technical Requirements
             (Parts 264 & 265)
             • Surface Impoundments
             • Waste Piles
             • Land Treatment
             • Landfills
             • Incinerators
             • Miscellaneous Units
                                             ATKl/1607/7c .


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.

Tanks (Subpart J)

9483 - TANKS
Parts 264 & 265 Subpart J
                      ATK1/1104/42 kp

     If you should have any further questions please feel free to
call cne-at (202) 362-7917.
                                   Yours truly,

                                   William J. Kline
                                   Environmental Scientist
                                   Waste Management Division
cci Regional Division Directors

                   8 APR 83

SUBJECT:  Determination of Tanks vs. Surface Impoundments

FROM:     Bruce R. weddle
          Acting Director
          State Programs and Resource Recovery Division  (WH-563)

TO:       Thomas w. Devine
          Air and Waste Management Division, Region IV

     In your memorandum of March 23, 1983 you requested  headquarters
guidance on the subject of how regional offices should determine
what constitutes a "tank", as opposed to a "surface impoundment,"
for RCRA permitting purposes.  I hope that the following will
serve to clarify this issue.

     Distinguishing a tank from a surface impoundment is, as you
suggest, primarily an assessment of what provides the unit's struc-
tural support.  In making this assessment, the unit should be
evaluated as if it were free standing, and filled to its design
capacity with the material it is intended to hold.  If the walls
or shell of the unit alone provide sufficient structural support
to maintain the structural integrity of the unit under these condi-
tions, the unit can be considered a tank.  Accordingly,  if the
unit is not capable of retaining its structural integrity without
supporting earthen materials, it must be considered a surface

     The units for which the State of Florida is requesting guidance
should be assessed according to these criteria.  Prom the sketches
provided by Florida Power and Light, it would appear that the
Sanford, Port Myers, Manatee and St. Lucie units are probably
surface impoundments, and that the Cutler unit may possibly be  a
tank.  However, the information you submitted is not sufficient
to enable us to make a definitive judgement in this regard.  In
order to support the contention that the units should be considered
tanks, you should request that Florida Power and Light submit
engineering data and drawings which establish that each  unit meets
the above criteria.

SUBJECTi  Tank Shell Thickness  Requirement
          Firuce  3.
                 Pro^rans and Resource  Recovery  Division

TO:       RCP.A nranch  Chiefs
          Regions  I  -  X

     I would  like  to clarify PPA policy toward  the inclusion of shell
thickness as  a condition in  RCTA permits for tanks.   In Phil Rebel's
"arch 28 summary of  the recent  Branch  Chiefs Meeting,  the following
language appearst
                     tank  thickness,  rjy.jions  r»cc^»rt«nd
          secondary  containrsent  !>•» re^uir**^  i^. th*»
          where  tank  thickness  Intorrvition s«uppli«Hi hy
          applicant  is  inadequate.  Applicant m«y either
          «ccept secondary  containment or submit full tank
          thickness  documentation.
     This approach does  not  reflect current ^PA Regulations or policy.
Section 122.2S( b) ( 2 )  (5270.1S  in the nev •rtecc««olidated" regulations)
clearly requires  owners  and  operators of tanks to submit information
regarding shell thickness  which demonstrates compliance with »«rt 2f^
requirements.  Section 2^4.191  clearly requiren the Regional Admini*-
tr«tor to ««taMish mini^tu^  sh»ll thicknosn busod upon specified
f*esi^n factors.   TKese are not  discretionary or optional «>ler>ents of
     Purtn«rmore, the  current regulations do not require secondary
containment,  for  tanks.   X  would  remind you that the addition of such
a requirement  in a  *C/»A  permit (even with the applicant's approve 1)
may not be enforceable and *»ay not b« defensible in the event the
p*mit is challenged*

cc:  Steve Levy

                                           21 SEP 83
 SUBJECTS  Tank Inspection Procedures

 FHLrts     Bruce R. toddle, Acting Director
           State Programs and Resource Recovery Division

 ID:       Dennis Kueianer, Qiiei"
           State waste Piujiaue> Branch, Region I
      In your menorandun of August 29, 1983 to stev« Levy, you requestea head-
 quarters guidance regarding internal inspections of hazardous waste storage tanks
 I nope tnat the following aoequately answers cne issues you raiaeo.
          periodic inspection of tanks required by $264.194(b) should include
 a thorough visual inspection of the tank interior*  inis will usually involve
 cnptying the tank and having an individual enter it to perform the inspection.
Ntt is nur understanding that this can be done safely in all but very rare
 instances, so long as the piupei equipment is used and appropriate safety pre-
 cautions are followed.  If a RCRA permit applicant doss not wish to have its
 own facility personnel perfooB this type of inspection, there are a numer of
 tank testing and inspection firms that can be hired to do so.

      It may be possible, however, that an applicant could propose acceptable
 inspection procedures which do not involve physical entry into a tank,  bucn
 alternative procedures mild be substituted in lisu of an internal visual in-
 spection, if they were demons traced to be equally effective in detecting "cracks,
 leaks, corrosion or erosion which nay lead to cracks or leaks, or wall thinning...*
 [ref. $264.l94(b)].

      In answer to your question regarding alternative ^ecnodn of perfoming
 internal inflections, we are not aware of any mechanical devices (e.u.? video
 scanners) that are generally available and which would be effective for this
 type of inspection.
      As indicated in previous guidance, the frequency of these periodic oocpi
 nensive tank inspections should be established based on the nature of the
 wastes being stored, tank shell material and age of the tank, anticipated
 corrosion rates, the presence of liners or onatingn, and other relevant factors.

      Please let we know if you neve any questions.
  DFagansomf j9/21/83«disk Pagan 5



                             SEPTEMBER 83
An activated cerbon filtration unit 1s  attached to a hazardous
waste 'Storage tank vent pipe to capture the waste vapors.  Is this
filtration unit  considered a treatment  unit subject to permitting?

    The activated carbon filtration unit 1s viewed as an appurtenance
    to the storaoe tank and 1s not  looked at  Individually during
    permitting.  The carbon filtration  unit 1s treating i hazardous
    waste and RCRA has jurisdiction over Us  activity.  The carbon
    would be a solid waste when discarded and a hazardous waste If
    1t exhibited a characteristic or If it contained • listed waste.
    The permit would be Issued for  the  tank simply for storage.

        Source:  Dave Fagan

           waiver  of  •nniniun Sucll Thickness *o;;uireB>ent
                                 y  Jirector
           State  rTtxjrairs  and  -sesource recovery Ji vis ion

TOt        Conrad  sir-on,  Oi rector
           Air and waste  nanajement Division - Region II

     A« you know,  part ot  our ongoing etfort to monitor regional
RCRA permit programs  involves reviewing the final thermits
issued by  eacb Regional  of :t ice.  Me have generally been impressed
by the quality of  the permits issued by Region II.  However*
we recently noticed a serious omission in two of the permits
that I want to Dring  to  your  attention.  Specifically, the
requirement to »«taDiisn  minimum shell thicknesses for hazardous
waste storage/ treatment  tanks has been waived in tne pennies
issued to  C * D  batteries  in  Huguenot, NY, and the General
Electric R a D Center in  scnenectady.

     As stated in  S270.32(b), "taen RCMA permit shall include
permit conditions  necessary to achieve compliance with the Act
and regulations,  including each of the applicable requirements
specif iod  in 40 CFR Parts  264, 26*, and 270.*  One of these
requirements is  that  'the  Regional Administrator shall require
that a minimum shell  thickness be  aaintained at all times to
ensure sufficient  shell  strength*  ($264.191).  The regulations
contain no provision  for  « rant ing  a waiver of tne minimum shell
thickness  requirement.   Although I recognize that there are
difficulties in applying  the  minimum shell thickness concept,
it is nevertheless an important rvyulatory requirement, ana it
must be addressed  in  every KCRA tank perait.  I nope tnat
Region II  will act to ensure  that  the retirement will not be
waived in  future  ^erwits  issued by the Region.

     Pleas)* let ate *no*  if tnere are any questions.
ccs Peter Guerrero
    Terry Sro^an
    Dave Pagan
 Dfaganidmf il2/t?/33:^H-5*3idisk  Pagan 6


                             FE3 2 3  198^
 >:t.' ii -rvjrr'r;
s-UKJif'Ti   < ii Ida nc^  ^n  permi tt lrvj of  Hazardous waatw
           .. Lc;ra^,e Tan its

>-i!(i", :      John h. Sfcinn^r,  director
           of rice of  S
TO:  '      nogional  PCRA  Urancn Chiefs
     This memorandum  provides guidance  to permit  writers  on  several
issues  regarding permitting of hazardous  waste  treatment  and
storaye  tanks.  Several of the current  PCRA Subpart  J  standards,
particularly the requirement* for minimum shell thicknesses  and
i'erioaic  inspections,  have been difficult to implement and have
in sere  cases been  resolved differently by the  regional offices.
bcveral  regions have  requested guidance on these  regulatory  re-
quirements  to provide  a more consistent national  approach to
permitting  RCRA regulated tanks.

     The  following  guidance is applicable only  to tanks permitted
under the current Subpart J standards.

Lstafrlishing Minimum  shell Thicknesses

     The  current Subpart J standards  require that a  minimum  shell
thickness be specified in the permit  for  every  regulated  hazardous
waste storage/treatment tank'.  This requirement applies to all
tanks (except for covered underground tanks that  cannot be entered
tor inspection), and  it cannot be waived.

     The  current, actual shell thickness  of each  tank  should be
determined  prior to the issuance of a draft permit.   It is essential
that the  Applicant  demonstrate to EPA that the  tank  complies with
all applicable standards before the decision is made to permit  the
tank.  Current thickness data should  be obtained  from  the pre-permit
inspection, and included in the Part  B  application (see dis-
cussion  below).

     Several methods  can be used to determine the appropriate
mlninun  thickness for nctal tank shells.   Standard formulas  can
be used,  such as the  formula specified  in the API Code 650.   This
formula  (also presented in the early  "Tommy Tank* guidance)
snould be used, however, only for very  large (over 50,000 gallon

capacity) non-pressurized metal tanks.  For smaller iret.?.! tanks,
the thicknesses presented  in the ';L  142 corfo can be used, even
tnoujh tnis cede is  intended primarily for tanks storing ignitahle
liquids,  other ccues for more specialized tanks, such as the
AJ-ME Socticm VIII code tor  pressure vessels, can also be used
tor certain types of tanks'.  It should be understood that the
sii'.'ll tnicKnosses prescribed in industry codes are minimum thick-
nesses to ensure structural integrity, and do nor. incluco allowance
for corrosion.

     The use of standard industry codes nay not  be practical for
p.any metal tanks, such as irregularly shapea tank.s, older tanks
not built to standard cooes, and others.  In such cases, permit
writers should specify a minimum thickness that  is sufficient
nor. only to contain  the liquid contents, but also to withstand
normal operational stresses and minor accidents  (e.g., being hit
by a forklift), without massive failure.  Discussions with various
industry officials have suggested that as a general rule, a metal
shell thickness of 1/8" (0.125") is a satisfactory minimum thick-
ness to provide an adequate degree of safety against normal oper-
ational contingencies (this thickness would not  be sufficient,
however, for pressurized tanks, or most large tanks of over
50,000 gallons capacity).  Accordingly, it is recommended that
the minimum shell thickness specified in RCRA permits for metal
tanks be not less than 1/8".  If a RCRA regulated tank is measured
and found to have a  shell thickness of less than 1/8", the permit
writer should consider requesting that the applicant provide
additional information (such as-an engineer's certification) to
demonstrate that the tank is structurally sound  and can withstand
normal operational streses  and minor  accidents.

     For fiberglass  reinforced polyester (FRP) tanks, the standard
formulas for determining shell thickness based on structural
criteria, such as those used for metal tanks, are not appropriate.
structural strength  of FRP  tanks is more a function of how the
tanks are manufactured (e.g., filament wound, fibor mat, etc.)
and the specific bonding resins used* rather than the thickness
of the wall,  in general, the primary concerns for FRP tanks are
shell cracking (due  to improper installation or  other causes) and
erosion of the resin layer  of the interior tank  wall surface.
Each FRP tank should be inspected internally prior to permitting
to determine if the  inner resin layer is intact, or has deteriorated
or eroded such that  glass fibers are  exposed.  FRP tanks which
exhibit deterioration of the inner resin layer,  or other evidence
of wall deterioration, snould be repaired or taken out of service.
For FRP tanks in good condition, an appropriate  approach  to estab-
lishing minimum shell thicknoss is simply to subtract a small
amount from the actual measured shell thickness, to allow for
possible construction irregularities  and/or some limited  erosion
of thet inner resin layer.   This "allowance* should usually be
0.1" or less, since~the inner resin layers of most fiberglass
tanks as manufactured typically do not exceed 0.1*.

     Minimum shell thicknesses for concrete tanks  can be  estab-
lished in a similar manner.  Once the tank  has been  inspected



                                AUGUST 86
1.   Leak Detection Requirements for Hazardous Waste Tanks

    The EPA recently published the final regulations for hazardous waste
    tank systems on July 14, 1986 (51 PR 25422).  These regulations require
    many nore protective measures for tank systems, secondary
    containment, leak detection, and specific closure standards.

    Must the owner/operator of a new aboveground tank install a built-in
    continuous leak detection system?

         According to 40 CFR 264.193(c)(3), secondary containment systems
         are to be provided with a leak detection system that can detect
         the failure of either the primary or secondary containment
         structure or the presence of any release of hazardous waste or
         accumulated liquid in the secondary containment system within
         24 hours (or at the earliest practicable time if the owner/operator
         can demonstrate to die Regional Administrator that existing
         detection technology or site conditions will not allow detection
         within 24 hours).

         Furthermore,  40  CFR  264.193(d)  requires one of four devices to
         be used  as  the secondary containment system:   an external
         liner, a vault,  a double-walled tank,  or  an equivalent device
         as approved by the Regional Administrator.  Oily the standards
         for double-walled tanks  specify a built-in continuous leak
         detection system,  per 40 CFR 264.193(e)(3)(iii).

         Continuous  leak  detection  is specified for double-walled tanks
         because  it  is  a  standard feature  of these tanks.  For other
         types of secondary containment, continuous leak detection may
         not always  be  feasible or  necessary.   For example, a tank system
         that is  completely off the ground (e.g.,  tank on cradles or legs)
         and that is situated outdoors would be exposed  to precipitation.
         This device would likely be indicating a  release during each
         rain.  For  these situations, daily visual inspection would be
         acceptable  to  meet the leak detection  requirements.

         In any case, all secondary containment systems must be designed
         and operated to  enable the owner/operator to readily discern a
         release  from the tank  system.  All secondary containment systems
         should be designed to collect and transmit released waste to a
         OUHBLII point for detection and removal.  Although automatic,
         continuous  leak  detection  is preferred, a daily visual inspection
         will suffice in  certain  situations when an  automatic, continuous
         leak detection device  is not practical (e.g., for completely
         above ground tanks).

         Source:     Bill  Kline  (202) 382-4623
         Research:   Kim B. Gotwals



                                AUGUST 86
2.  Hazardous Waste Tanks and Ground-Water Monitoring

    The secondary contairment regulations for hazardous waste tanks were
    pronulgateri  n the July 14,  1986 Federal Register (51 FR 25422).
    These regulations establish  stx-ict~secxodary containment standards
    for new tank systems and require secondary containment retrofitting
    for existing tank systems.  The full secondary containment standards
    of 40 CFR 264.193(a) and 265.193(c)  include compatibility with  the
    waste stored, structural integrity,  a settlement-resistant base, an"
    a release removal system. The proposed rule printed published  in
    the June 26,1985 Federal Register (50 FR 26444) provided for ground-
    water monitoring as an alternative to full secondary containment.
    Vhy was the ground-water monitoring  alternative dropped in the  final

         Proposed 40 CFR 264.193U) and  265.193(e)  allowed tank owner/
         operators to use a combination  of ground-water monitoring  and
         partial secondary containment (a leakproof base and diking) in
         lieu of full secondary  containment.   This  alternative was
         dropped because effective full  secondary com -\inment and leak
         detection would make ground-water monitoring unnecessary.
         A risk analysis that was conducted subsequent to the June  26, 1985
         proposed rule showed that the ground-water monitoring alternative
         was not as effective and thus not equivalent to secondary  containment.
         In addition, numerous ccnments  from the regulated comnunity were
         submitted indicating that there ware nunerous technical difficulties
         in implementing an effective ground-water monitoring program  for
         tank systems.  EPA re-evaluated the ground-water monitoring option
         to secondary containment and concluded that it was neither practical
         nor as effective as secondary containment.  The final regulations
         require an interstitial leak detection system in addition  to  full
         secondary containment (40 CFR 264.193(c)(3) and 265.193(c)(3)).
         Interstitial leak detection monitors leaks in the space between
         the tank system and the secondary containment system, while ground-
         water monitoring detects releases after they have entered  the
         environment (51 F* 25439).  Early detection of well-contained
         leaks, therefore, is preferable to later detection of leaks
         from a partial secondary containment system.

         Source:    BUI Kline  (202) 382-4623
         Research:  Jennifer Brock


                                 AUGUST 86
3.  Hazardous Waste Tank Regulations

    New hazardous waste tank regulations were promulgated on July 14, 1986
    (51 FR 25470).   New tank systems or components trust have secondary
    containment,  according to 40 CFR 264.193.  Older tank systems must be
    retrofitted with secondary containment when they reach IS years of
    age, according to 40 CFR 264.193(a)(3).  If the piping is completely
    replaced on an older hazardous waste tank, most secondary containment
    be installed  around pipe joints when the tank is 15 years old or
    when the piping is 15 years old?

         If the piping is completely replaced before the effective date
         of the hazardous waste tank regulations, January 12, 1987 (51
         TO 25422), then the age of the piping is calculated from the
         day the  new pipe is installed and is independent of the age of
         the tank for purposes of the secondary containment requirements.

         Source:     Bin Kline  (202) 382-4623
         Research:  Betty Wilson

               UNITF  'TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO   CENCY     9483.1986(06
Mr. William P. Pierce
Branch Manager
Jones 4 Frank
701 Chester Street
Columbia, South Carolina  29202

Dear Mr* Pierces

     This letter  is  in response  to your letter of  September 29,
1986, in which you requested written confirmation  on  the classi-
fieation of a used oil tank as new or existing.

     As you stated in your letter, ussd oil  is not currently
listed or otherwise  classified as a hasardous waste.  Therefor*,
its storage is not covered under the revised hasardous waste  tank
system standards  that were promulgated on July 14, 1986 (51 PR
25422).  However, under the provisions of Section  3014 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as amended  by  the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of  1984, EfA is in the  process of
developing a regulatory strategy for used oil that will address
the storage of used  oil in tank  systems.  Standards for the
storage of used oil  will be developed as part of this later
rulemaking effort*   It is unlikely that the used oil  storage
standards would be issued in final form this year.  Thus, if you
installed a used oil tank in October of 1986, the  tank would  be
considered an existing tank at the time the used oil  management
standards are issued*

     Given that such standards for used oil have not yet been
promulgated, if the  tank is to be installed underground, you must
install the tank  in  accordance with the minimum standards for
underground tanks as mandated by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Masts Amendments*  These amendments to RCRA require that any
underground tank  installed after Hay 7, 1985, for  the purpose of
storing regulated substances (excluding hasardous  waste), meet
the requirements outlined in Section 9003(g) of RCRA.  These
requirements were codified in  40 CPR 280.2 on July 15, 1985 (50
PR 28702).  If you should have any questions regarding these
requirements, please call Steve  Glomb at  (202) 382-5866.

     Thank you for your interest in our rulemaking effort!.  If
vou should have any further question! regarding hazardous waste
tank issues, please contact Bill Kline at (202) 382-7917.  If you
noed further information on the used oil rulemaking effort,
please contact Bob April at the same number.

                                        John P. Lehaan
                                        Waste Management Division


                                   OCTOBER 86
3.  Hazardous Waste Tanks

    New hazardous waste tank regulations were promulgated on July 14,  1986
    (51 FR 25470).  The Federal effective date for most of the new tank regu-
    lations is January 12, 1987.  Existing tank systems are defined as those in  use
    for the storage or treatment of hazardous waste or for which installation was
    commenced on or before to July 14, 1986 (40 CFR 260.10).  New tank systems are
    those for which installation commenced after July 14, 1986.   New tanks  are re-
    quired to have secondary containment (§265.  193(a)(l) and a leak  detection  system
    (§265.1.93(c)(3)).   New tank systems must also be designed in accordance with the
    criteria in §265.192.

    Existing tanks must be retrofitted for secondary containment and leak detec-
    tion (§265.193(a)).  The timing of the retrofit depends upon the age of the
    tank and what it contains.  All existing tanks in which F020, F021, F022,
    F023, F026, and F027 is stored or treated must be retrofitted within two
    years of the effective date of the regulations ($265.193(a)(2)).  Tanks of
    known, documented age must be retrofitted within two years of the  effective
    date of the regulations or when the tank system has reached 15 years of
    age, whichever comes later (§265.193(a)(3)).   When the age of the  tank
    cannot be documented, it must be retrofitted within eight years of the
    effective date unless the facility is more than seven years old.  In the
    latter case, secondary containment must be installed by the tine the facility
    is 15 years old or within two years of the effective date, whichever comes
    later ($265.193(a)(4)).

    (a.)  'What is the status of the tanks at a new TSO facility if a RCRA
           permit is issued by EPA or an authorized state after July 14,
           1986 but before the effective date of the Federal or state  regulation?

    (b.)   How would interim status and 90-day accumulation tanks be regulated
           if they are installed between July 14, 1986 and the effective
           date of the new tank regulations?

              (a.) The permit would be written under the current regulations.
              Section 270.32(b) and (c) state that for an EPA or state-issued
              permit,  an applicable requirement is a state statutory or regulatory
              requirement which takes effect prior to final administrative
              disposition of a permit.  However, $270.32(b)(2) (50 FR 28742)
              states that each permit issued shall contain terms and conditions
              as the Administrator or State Director determines necessary
              to protect human health and the environment.  The Administrator
              or the State Director may incorporate the new tank regulations
              under this provision.  This general omnibus authority is a creation
              of HSWA and thus is implemented by EPA until the State is authorized.


                           OCTOBER 86
    When  the  permit  is  reviewed  (in 10  years  or less)  under  §270.50,
    all regulations  in  effect  at the time  of  the review must be
    incorporated  into the  reissued permit  per $270.32(d),  including
    the tank  regulations promulgated in 51 PR 25470.   The  is year  age
    limit for secondary containment retrofitting for  "existing"
    tank  systems  ($264.193(a)(3))  would not apply to  tanks built
    after July 14, 1986 because  the tanks  are,  by definition,  "new"

      Under the current regulations, a permit  may only be modified
      to incorporate new regulations at the request of the  permittee
      (§270.41(a)(3)(c)).  However, EPA proposed a change to  this
      regulation in the March 28, 1986 Federal Register.  Under
      the  proposed §270.41(a)(3)  permits could be modified  by EPA
      or a state when the standards or regulations on  which the
      permit was based have been changed by statute or new  or
      amended standards or regulations.   If this regulation is promulgated
      as proposed, permits could be modified to include the requirements
      of the revised tank regulations.

      (b.) Before the effective date of the new hazardous waste
      tank regulations,  interim status tanks may be installed under
      the current regulations for Subpart J.  However,  since  these
      tanks meet the definition of new tank systems because they
      were installed after July 14, 1986, they must comply  with all
      of the standards in the new regulations  ($265.192, $265.193)  once
      the regulation becomes effective.   Therefore, if the  tank is
      installed under the old standards, it must be retrofitted or  replaced
      to comply with the new tank standard in  $265.193 by the Federal
      effective date which is January 12, 1987.  These tanks  are also
      subject to the design standards in $265.192 including all certifications
      required in $265.192(a) and the inspections and  certifications
      required in $265.192(b) and (g).

      Source:    Bill Kline    (202) 382-4623
                 Lillian Bagus (202) 382-2233
                 Chet Oszman   (202) 382-4499

Research:   Betty Wilson

                     RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE  MONTHLY SUMMARY        9483..1386 {38)

                                      OCTOBER 86
Secondary Containment Variances for Tanks

New regulations promulgated in the July 14, 1986 Federal Register
(51 FR 25422) address secondary containment requirements for hazardous waste
treatment and storage tanks.  40 CFR 264.193(g) and 265.193(g) allow the tank
owner/operator to apply to the Regional Administrator for a variance frcm
the secondary containment requirements.  A tank owner/operator may apply for
either a technology-based variance or a risk-based variance.  How are these
two kinds of variances different?

               40 CFR 264.193(g) and 265,193(g) described the requirements for
               both technology-based and risk based variances.  The Regional
               Administrator may grant a technology-based variance if the owner/
               operator can demonstrate that alternative design and operating
               practices, combined with location characteristics, will be at
               least as effective as secondary containment in preventing the
               migration of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into the
               ground water or surface water.  The Regional Administrator may
               grant a variance based on risk if the owner/operator can demonstrate
               that there will be no substantial present or potential hazard to
               human health or the environment if there is a release to the
               ground water or surface water.  Risk-based variances will not be
               granted to new underground tank systems.
               According to S264.193(g)(l)  and $265.193(g)(l),  the Regional
               Administrator will base a decision  to grant  a  technology-based
               variance on (1)  the nature and quantity of wastes,  (2)  the  proposed
               alternate design and operation,  (3)  the hydrogeologic characteristics
               of the facility (e.g.,  - thickness  of soil between the  tank system
               and ground water), and  (4)  other factors related to the potential for
               hazardous constituents  to migrate into ground  or surface water.  For
               a risk-based variance,  the Regional Administrator will  consider, in
               addition to the nature  and persistence of the  waste and the facility's
               hydrogeology,  the potential effects on human health and welfare
                (i.e., - wildlife, crops,  vegetation,  physical structures).  The
               Regional Administrator  will evaluate these factors as they relate
                to the quality of ground water,  surface water, and the  land (see
               §S264.193(g)(2)  and 265.193(g)(2)).   In applying for a  risk-based
               variance, a tank owner/operator may demonstrate  either  that there
               will be no exposure pathways for hazardous constituents, or that
               exposure to hazardous constituents  through ground or surface water
               will not be high enough to pose a substantial  hazard to human health
               or the environment.  In the latter approach,  the variance would have
                to address current and  potential hazards (51 FR  25453).

               For both technology-based and risk-based variances,  the burden will
               be on the applicant to  demonstrate  either that the alternate  technology
               will be equivalent to secondary containment  or that  the tank  system
               will present no current or potential risk to human health or  the

               Source:    Bill Kline     (202) 382-4623
                           Ellen Siegler  (202) 382-7700

                Research: Jennifer Brock

                                                    9483. 1986(09)

November 28, 1986


SUBJECT:  Regulatory Interpretations for Tooele's Wastewater
          Treatment System

FROM:     Marcia E. Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

TO:       Robert L. Duprey, Director
          Waste Management Division
          EPA Region VIII

     Thank you for the information regarding implementation of
the July 14, 1986 tank regulations at Tooele Army Depot.  In
general, your staff has demonstrated both a comprehensive and
accurate understanding of the Subpart J reguirements and their
applicability to a wastewater (hazardous waste) treatment system.
As you suggest, we will consider using the Region's
interpretations as examples in our proposed question and answer

     We do offer the following comments on the Region's technical
interpretations and applicability determinations.  Our comments
elaborate on three of the four answers provided in Nathaniel
Miullo's November 5 memo to Dr. Parker.  We are delaying comments
on guestion #2 because the issue of the applicability of RCRA to
pipe systems associated with wastewater treatment units is under
legal review by the Office of General Counsel  (OGC).  We will
provide a response to guestion #2 as soon as OGC provides a
determination.  Our response to the other questions follow:

Question #1:  Does a wastewater treatment system, qualifying as a
wastewater treatment unit, need to meet the new tank rules for
secondary containment, etc.?

     The Region's determination is comprehensive and correct for
the case where the wastewater treatment system does not qualify
as a wastewater treatment unit.  Where a system qualifies as a
wastewater treatment unit, 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6) excludes such
"unit" from the permitting process.  Also, this exemption would
normally be extended to storage of wastewater before entering the
wastewater treatment unit.  It is our understanding that Tooele
may apply for classification as a wastewater treatment unit.  The
information we received does not appear to support such a
        This has been retyped from the original document.

     Durina the telephone conversation you had with Ms. Homer,
you requested any information developed by the Aqency to support
its finding that fume incinerators «re not totally enclosed
treatment facilities.  Enclosed are a memorandum and an Admin-
istrative Law Judge's decision on this sublect for a facility in
Los Anqeles, California.  In addition, I have enclosed a cooy of
an Agency letter addressinq totally enclosed treatment vis-a-vis
thermal treatment and a copy of the requlatory clarification on
totally enclosed treatment issued in 1980.

     Currently/ fume incinerators which are used te destroy
gaseous emissions from industrial processes are noc subject to
regulation under Parts 264 and 265 of RCRA/ according to the
enclosed preamble for incineration standards that were promulgated
on June 24, 1982 (47 PR 27530).. However, the fume incinerator
exclusion from incineration standard! only applies if che incin-
erator is burning gases, not liquids.  The fume incinerator that
you mentioned would be accepting not only vapor* but condensed
liquids.  Therefore, if the cyanuric chloride process waste
stream were a hazardous waste, your fume incinerator would be
regulated under 40 CPR 264 Subpart 0, even though the carbon
tetrachloride is piped directly to the incinerator.

     Please contact Dr. Gate Jenkins at (202) 475-8551 -for any
additional questions you may have regarding whether particular
wastes are considered hazardous or Irene Homer of my staff at
(202) 382-7924 for questions on the requlatory status of the
hazardous waste treatment units.

                                John P. Lehman
                                Waste Management and
                                  Economic Division
Enclosures:  5

Mr. Kenneth  L. Waeache
Waste !,  whicn aay be
010 re strios^eot and  also  acre extensl/e (i.e., siting approvals)
cnan che Federal rtquireaents.  and chat the Any  needs co work
with the States where their  facilities wlii be  located to ensure
chat all State requireaencs  are aet  in a ciaely aann«r.  t?A (HQ)
is heavily Involved in thia  project  to provide  technical guidance
« nd assure coordination  between the  Any, EPA Regional Ut rices,
and the States.  This involvement was supported by the States.
Ret. ions, and che Any, at th<> Hay 15-16, 1986.  iPA-State-Any
meeting.  Chip btewart of che Colorado Oepartoent ot Health
represented Colorado at  that meeting.

     The  permitting  clmeframe  chat va have eacabliahed tor the
Any co moec eha  Congr«a«tonally mandated deadline of 1994 is,
Admittedly, aaticioua.   There  are many aepecta of thia project,
• uch aa Pare B appiicaclon defielenclea end •Icing dlctlculcUi,
chat nay  affect th«  ability  co meec tha aandaccd dcadllna.  The
Any If w«ll aware of cha problem* and La working wicb. the State*
and Regions to reaolv*  ch«a« laauea early In ch« proceca.  The
LPA-scac«~Army workgroup! which have been accive chit lunaer la
one attempt co «niur« chac che Any* • application! are complete
and thereby elnlalta cha need  ;or aulClple and clae-conaming
Notice* of, Deficiency (HODa).  (Chip Stevart ha« baan a workgroup
participant and we appreclace  hla Inpuc.)

     Wich regard  co  che  alcin* Itauai, cha Amy ha« launched an
expanded  public inronaacion  prograB In An accetjpc co ««ke cha
public More recepclve co cha new taciltclea.  Tha Ar»y haa held
two public •eecloga on  chair e.nvirorai«ncai lapacc bcaceaanc (EIS)
tor chla  project  In  Pueblo,  Colorado, on April 28, and August 21,
1986.  Sliiliar public aaaclnga vara held cor cha ocher propoaed
alcaa, which ar*  locacad chroughouc cha U.S.  Tha porpoaa of tha
•eecinga on cha EIS  la  co inron cha public abouc cha acracegy
and che rlaka poaad  by  cha nerve aganc dlapoaal prograa, and to
aoltclc coamanta  regarding che EIS.  Tha deadline for public
coamenc on cha EIS la September 23. 1986.  It ia my uadaracandlng
chac cha Army piana  co  have  an expanded public mroraaclon prograa
during PY 1987 for all  tnetr permit application*.

     I appreciate your concern regarding tha dlrricultlaa which
may be vncouncered in procaaalng ch« p«rmic application for che
Pueblo Arny Dcpoc and your raiaing chtti co ma ac chla clma.  I
urge you  eo ralaa che permitting priority laaue and oth«r reaource
concerna during cha annual grant negotiation proe*aa with tha EPA
Region VIH Office, which I  baliava la underway now.

     Pluaoe reel  ire« to contact ma ir you have additional 'iueatlon»
or concarna.

                                      Arthur Glaaar
                                      Chief, PAT  Incinerator  b«ccion
cc:  drucw U«ddla                Larry Wapenaky
     Lit C^cavorth               Dcnla« Hawkins
     Kan iihuctar                 Bob  Dupray
     Robin Anderaon              JOB  Yaagiay

Mr. Garv  s.  Dietrich,  Senior  Vice  President
ICP Technoloqy
Ir.t«rr.atior.al Square,  1850  K  Street,  NW
Washington,  DC   2000*

Dear  Carv.

      r  recently  received  your letter  of  December  8,  19*6  In which
vou discuieed Vertac Chemical Company's  closure plan  for  the
hazardous waste  storaqe units at  its  shutdown manufacturing
plant at Jacksonville, Arkansas.   As  I understand  the problem,
Vertac  is under  administrative or4er  froej  the State of  Arkansas,
with  Region  VT support, to  submit  a revised  closure plan  for
the storage  units which contain P020  and P023 wastes.   The
central feature  of  the closure plan would  involve  the on-site
Incineration of  approximately 17 will lor. pounds of P020 «r.d
P023 waste.
             I will attewot  to answer  your  auestiors.   T  will
also discuss son* contemplated chanqes  to  our  r*oulatior.s
which may alleviate some of  the current  problems  w
vou described.

2,4-0 Process wastes
          It   Qo«s EPA  in  its  final  promulqation of  the
Seotomber 12,  IMS "residue rule",  intend  to inplemert the
ntatoment in  the) last  paragraph  of  51  flj  40615 by rec-irir.n
that P029 wastes b« disposed  in  a permitted  landfill  that
neeto the special requirements of 40 CPP.  264.317?

     As you know, the September  12,  1985  proposed  residue
rule has not y«t oeer. pronulqated.   As proposed, wastes  resultlrr>
fir on the incineration or  thermal  treatment of  EPA  Razardous
waste Ros. P020 to P023,  P026, and  P027 that contain  (at
the incinerator feed nozzle)  less than 10 ppn  of TCDD
eauival.er.ts are toxic (T)  Instead of acute hazardous  (R)
waste.  These wastes would be designated  as EPA Hazardous w««te
NO. P029.  As an P029 wants,  they would not be acute  hazardous
wastes and therefore, would not  be  subject to  the  special
management requirements of 40 CPU 264.317.  The requirements of
40 CP* 264.317 apply only  to  F020-23, P026, and P027.

     Since the September  12 proposal has  not yet bs«n finalized,
these residues are still  considered  acute hazardous wastes;
thus, the residues must be disposed  of in s landfill  that
%»ets the special requirements of 40 CPP  26*.317,  However,
if and when this proposal  is  finalized, th««>?  residues coule a rationale
for proposing a rule change that would designate the  cesiduals
from the incineration of  listed  dioxir. waste that  rrwet the
treatment standards of 40 CP* 26ft 41 by a different EPA
Hazardous Haste Nuab«r than that born by  the orioir.al waste?

     According to 40 CP«  261.3(b)(2)(i),  any solid waste
generated fro* the treatment, storage or  disposal  of  a hazardous
waste... Is a hazardous wsste.   EPA interprets this provision
to mean that the "derived frost"  wsste carries  the  same RPA
Hazardous waste dssignstlon as the  original waste.  (See
50 P* 37338 (Sep. 12, 1985)»  50  PP.  1995 n.  26  (Jan.  14,  1985);
cf. SO ft 619 n. 7 (Jan.  4. 1985).)

     *• prooosed,  the September  12,  1985  residue  rule desianates
residues resulting fro*  incineration of P020-P023, P024, «r.d
P027 waatea as P029  (T)  only when the waatee contain lees
than 10 £25, TCDO eouivalenta at  the  feed  notsle.  Residues
resulTTnqTr3TTncfr.eratior. of~>020 wastes, where the waste
exceeds 10 ppw TCDD equivalents  at the incineration nossle,
ar« therefore atill acute hasaidous waste and must be manifested
aa a P020 vaate.

     Thut, if we finalise thia oroposal,  the dioxin concentration
in Vertac't F020 vaete would not itaelf preclude  incineration
ceniduee from beinq claaaified at P029.  We would be intereated
in knowinq whether Vertac car. Mend  theee P020 waatee ao they
would contain 1+aa that  10 op» TCDC equivalents aa fired.

     Ir. answer to question 3» we do not believe that it is
necessary to have a new  hatardous waste nuaber for residuals
froa ineir.«r«tior. of listed dientn waste  that Met the
treatment standards of 40 CPR 248.41.  We do not  think it
aooropriate at this tine to link dioxin-vast« "anageswat
atar.darda to the S26R.41 treatment levels,  r^is  is because
other principal exoosure oathways of concern for  theee wastes
(such «» run-off to surface water or dispersion of airborne
particulates) are not evaluated  by the BOAT treatment levels.
Conaecuontly* the Jkaer.cy'a present view is that the concentration
of dioxlns (and furana)  in the waste itself (rathec than the
TCLP extract) is the appropriate aeans of determining whether
special nanaqement atandatds are needed.  KPA, in effect, is
Pursuing this approach in the propoaed rule relating to
reeiduen frow incineration.

OOESTXOM 4t  la it really CPA's  intent to require that listed
dioxin wastes that have  been treated to «eet th«  treatment
standard of 40 CPU 268.41 be landfill disnoaed only in a
landfill that meets the  special  requirementa of 40 CFT» 264.317?
     Tea.  According to the rerrulrenents of  40 CPR  268.41,
the waatea do not have to be treated,  they merely have  to
oMiet the traataar.t atandarda*   If  the  treatment  standarda
are met. than vaata can he safely  manaqed at a facility
•meting the apecial treetment standarda for  P020-P023,  P02^,
and P027 weatea.  These atandarda  help prevent problems
aneociated with run-off or wind diaper sal of cor.taainated
pArticlea and the problems aaaoclated  with the co-diapoaal
off theae waatea with other materials that may mobilise  dloxins.

     If ard when the September  12,  1985 proposed  residue  rule
is promulgated, these residues  could be wanaged tr. accordance
with the general waste management standards contained  In  40
CrR Psrtn 264 and 265.  He believe  as a practical natter  that
this approach would allow wany  wastes treated to  BOAT  level*
to be dinposed of without meeting th« special management  standards.

Contaminated Debris
QUESTION 5:  Car. debris, that is or potentially is contaminated
with 2,4-0 chemical or raw materials or intermediates  that
were used in the production of  2,4-D, he designated as D016
wastes (instead of P023) and be disnosed of in an inter in
status or permitted hasardous waste landfill?

     The P023 listing covers wastes frosi the production of
mattrlaln or. eoulpwer.t previously used for the production or
manufacturing us* of tri- and tetrachlorophenols.  The wastes
from th« production of 2,4-D are r.ot explicitly covered by
the dioiir. listings, unless the 2,4-n was manufactured on
eguipnent previously used to manufacture tri- or  tetrachlorophenol.
These wastes way, however, he D016  if they fail the characteristic
for EP Toxicity.

     Therefore, assuming r.or.e of the wastes cone  from  ecu insert
used to produce tri- or tetrachloronher.ola, you are correct
in your interpretation that the following iten*,  when  Discarded,
could ^e D016:

•   e*"fty baas that contained technical 2,4-n that were ewotied
   according to 40 CFR 261.7:

•   filter paper used to clarify formulations.

     You are also correct that  the  ecuipment used to produce
2,4-D, vton discarded, la not covered hv the scone o?  the

•   GMpty pipe, valves, puops, pipe  and tank insulation contami-
   nated with de minimis spills and leaks of 2,4-0 ch«mical;

•   Worker clothing containing 2,4-0 chemical; and

•   Laboratory equipment used to analyse 2,4-0 chemical.

      In addition, to the extent any of thete  itemt contain
dltcarded  2,4-0 cotwercial chemical product,  as defined  in
J261.33, then the items could be deemed to contain a  liattd
t»sste  (0240), at well at potentially being a  characteristic
watte  (tee question 6).  Whether the items contain a  litted
waste  it dependent on (a) whether the 2,4-0 got onto  the
Una  through uit of the che*lcal or by beino discarded, and
(b) whether the 2,4-0 wat in fact a commercial chemical  product
us defined in S261.33 when dttcarded.  The diatinctior.t
between listed and characteristic watte here  are not  practically
nlgnifleant if your client it planning to designate all  of
the accumulated material at 0016.

QUESTION «t  Does the Mixture rule of 40 CPU  264.3(a)(2)(iv)
Apply  to artlclet that are contaminated with  litted hasardout
wattet, thereby requiring pallett potentially contaminated
with P023 wattet to be detigntted at P023 wattet?

     The Mixture rule doet not apply to the pallett contaminated
with listed wastes.  This it because the pa Hot is not a
waste when in use, so that the spilled P023 <-«ttet are not
being mixed with a solid wests.  (See SO PR  1994, Jan. 14, 1985.)
Nevertheless, the pallets are contaminated with a listed waste
and are therefore still subject to regulation since they
contain a hazardous waste.  The treatment, storage, or disposal
of the pallets contaminated with haxardous waste matt be
handled at j_f they thewtelvet were haxardout  watte.   However,
if the paTlett are treated tuch that they no  lor.rjer certain
the hasardout watte, the pallett would no longer be subject
to regulation under Subtitle C of RCFA.  Thit interpretation
would alto apply to ditcarded glattware, gloves, boots,
coveralls, apror.t, tnd rant contaminated with listed  waste.
(Thit it the MM analysis we would apply to  spills of listed
wattet to other non-watte media such as toil  or qroundwater.
The tene retmoning alto it reflected in the emnty container

     I hope* thit adequately antwert all of your nuettlor.s.   w«
are awiire of many of the problems attoclated  with dioxln
dispoe«l and are trying to find tolutiont on  a nuvber of
different frontt.  We are currently resoondino to a netitior.
from) the Hasardout Watte Treatment Council*   The Council hat

p«titiofj«d th« Ag«ccy  to  incorporate  th« d«liatlng procvas
into a facility's op«ratinq  p«nit.   This would allow d«liiting
of v»tt»t that a««t  th« d«llttabl*  I»T«!» s«t in th« p«rait.
w« ar« alto r»-«vtluting  th« *rt«idu« tul«'.

     An you r«
 March 25,  1987

 Mr.  Brent  C.  Bradford
 Executive  Secretary
 Utah Solid &  Hazardous Waste Committee
 Utah Department of Health
 288  North  1460 West
 P.O. Box 16690
 Salt Lake  City, Utah  84116-0690

 Dear Mr. Bradford:

      I am  responding to your February 25,  1987,  letter to me
 requesting assistance concerning permitting issues associated
 with Department of Army munition deactivation "popping" furnaces.
 Sonya Stelmack of the OSW Incineration Permit Assistance Team
 contacted  Connie Nakahara of your staff to provide initial
 answers to some of your questions.   Sonya  sent Connie some
 informational materials and will be keeping her apprised of new
 developments  on these issues.   The following is a summary of our
 response to these issues.

      Based on a review of the proposed procedures for using the
 U.S. Army  Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA)  sampling train,
 and  from related discussions with the Army,  EPA has agreed that
"the  USAEHA train is acceptable for sampling of nitroglycerin and
 dinitrotoluene as trial burn POHC's,  providing that certain
 requirements  are complied with.  A memorandum outlining these
 procedures was included in the information sent to Connie.
 Rather than specifying QA/QC procedures for measuring stack
 emissions, we usually ask the applicant to propose a QA/QC plan
 and  then make a determination as to whether the plan is
 acceptable.  Connie was referred to several documents that should
 be of assistance in reviewing QA/QC plans  and was also sent some
 materials  covering this area.   I believe the DOA is aware of the
 documents  w«  referred to but I recommend you verify this with the
 DOA  staff  you have been working with.

      The issue of whether one waste feed can sufficiently
 demonstrate the ability of a popping furnace to  meet the RCRA
 requirements,  given the variety of  munitions to  be incinerated,
 has  been brought to our attention by the EPA Regional offices.
 For  any proposed trial burn feeds,  the applicant should give a
 rationale, acceptable to the permitting authority,  for why the
         This has been retyped from the  original document.


waste(s) proposed will provide a worst-case test of the unit.
EPA HQ will be discussing this issue further with DOA.

     According to your letter, Tooele Army Depot indicated that
EPA waived the automatic waste feed cut-off requirement for DOA
popping plants.  EPA Headquarters has not waived the waste feed
cut-off requirement.  We recognize that there are safety concerns
associated with possible explosion of the munitions close to the
furnace due to heat.  However, we believe that a system can be
devised by DOA to feed only those materials in the hot zone near
the furnace when shutdown conditions occur, while cutting off the
feed which has not yet approached the high temperature zone.  EPA
HQ has asked DOA to look into designing such a system.

     Enclosed is a copy of our comments on the DOD Draft
Instruction on "Hazardous Waste Management Requirements
Applicable to the Demilitarization of Conventional Military
Munitions and Ordnance," sent to DOA on January 7,  1987.  (I
believe you have a copy of the instruction.)  No further
discussions on this document have been held with DOA.  In
response to your question about Class C explosives, -these
explosives are not classified as hazardous waste under RCRA.

     My office is familiar with the Bureau of Mines' reactivity
test procedures which you submitted for review.   The methods
described have not been adequately validated for RCRA samples.
However, we have sent Connie a set of DOA test procedures for
reactivity due to explosive properties which is being used by EPA
until a validated set of methods is approved.

     The automatic waste feed cut-off requirement and
specification of worst-case feeds, as well as other issues you
mentioned such as products of incomplete combustion (PIC's),  will
be discussed at a meeting between EPA and DOA in mid-April.
Connie will be kept informed of the progress on these issues and
the resulting EPA guidance.  As you requested,  the Incineration
Permit Assistance Team will copy you on incineration policy and
guidance materials and will provide you with the opportunity to
review selected draft documents.  If you have further questions,
feel free to contact me or have Connie contact Sonya Stelmack
directly at (202) 382-4500.
        This has Jbeen retyped from the original document.


                              Marcia Williams
                              Director, Office of Solid Waste

cc:  Susan Bromm
     Incinerator Permit Writers' Workgroup
     Larry Wapensky, EPA Region VIII
     Elizabeth Cotsworth, EPA, Headquarters, OSW; enclosures
     Nat Muillo, EPA, Region VIII
     James Rakers, EPA, Region VIII
     Larry Fisher, Tooele Army Depot
     Myron Bateman, County Health Department
        This has been retyped from the original document.


SUBJECT:  "Clean Closed  Incinerators"

FROM:     Ossi Meyn
          Health Assessment  Section

THROUGH:  Reva Rubenstein, Chief
          Health Assessment  Section

TO:       Clara Chow
          Region I

     I have studied the  closure plan for  the  incinerator  in  East
Hartford, Region I.  The unit has  never met performance criteria
and was used only for test burns to determine operating parameters.
The incinerator is cylindrical with 3* of forced  cooling  air
between the stainless st.eel  outer  shell and the steel  inner
shell and lined with acid resistant refractory lining.  The  area
surrounding the (liquid  injection  waste)  incinerator and  storage
tanks is paved.

     I understand that only  the incinerator portion of the waste
treatment, plant will undergo closure procedure, which  includes
removal of all residues  steam cleaning, and wipe  tests (see
reference 2).  The refractory brick was analysed  for hazardous
constituents of the test burns.  Samples  were taken by scraping
the brick using a email  putty knife.

     I have talked to staff  people in the incinerator  section and
the assistance branch.   There have been no inquiries into incinerator
closure for at least 18  months.  I was told that  there are three
possible procedures for  the  disposal of the incinerator:

     1.  It could be clean-closed  and left on site.

     2.  It could be clean-closed  and shipped off site to a
         Subtitle D facility.

     3*  Tt could 5e shipped without further  treatment as
         hazardous we-st-e to  another--Sttbtitle-C facility.
                                                           OMICIAL FILE CO?'

Clean closure is important if the refractory liner is used in
another treatment device or broken up and sent to a Subtitle D
facility.  The process described looks like clean closure.


1.  Oppelt E.T. (January) 1987 APCA Critical Review:   Incinerator
    of Hazardous Waste DRAFT

2.  USEPA 1985 Guide for Decontaminating Buildings, Structures,
    and Equipment at Superfund Sites

cct  Sylvia Lovranca

Charlotte Johnson
Hazardous Waste Division - Permits  Section
Lousiana Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 44307
Baton Rouge, LA  70804

Dear Ms. Johnson,

     This letter is to confirm my response  in our  telephone
conversation last week regarding the trial  burn results from
the incinerator at Rollins Environmental Services, LA, Inc.
The Rollins facility should be required to  redo two DRI runs
for the reasons discussed below.

     As I understand the situation, incomplete VOST data was
received for two of the three trial burn runs.  According to the
trial burn plan, three sets of tubes were to be used for each run,
at 1 liter per minute for 20 minutes.  I also understand that
the trial burn plan for the facility specifically  states that
nine VOST samples will be analyzed  for the  test (consisting of
three runs).  However, one trap pair was lost in both run one
and run three.

     Although calculations with the available data yielded DRZ
values above five nines (or in some cases,  above six nines)
for carbon tetrachloride and dichlorobenzene, the  DRE values
for trichloroethylene were 99.995*  for run  one, 99.997* for
run two, and  -9.998* for run three.  Although run  two, for
which complete data was available,  does meet the four nines
DRE, the above values are not high  enough to provide a strong
indication that the lost samples would likely have resulted in
DRE'a for TCB above four nines for  runs one and three.

    According to current policy, minimum stack sampling time
for each run should be one hour (two hours  is recommended as
optimal).  A minimum of three VOST  trap pairs per  run is also
standard policy.  Because the Rollins trial burn plan clearly
requires analysis of nine samples in keeping with  the above
policy, and the results available for TCE are not  significantly
above four nines, the Rollins facility should be required to
retest for DRE.  This will provide  data which can  stand up to
                                                        OMICUL FILE COPY

ruMic scrutiny ani fcttpr p.saurc t*p.t the facility  can c?«r.
the DPI standard over a period o:* tiaa.

     Since the data, for one run was ?ood. It  Is only necessary
that two runo be redone.  Theee runs should,  to the  extent
possible considering availability of waste feeds, duplicate
the successful run from the first trial burn.  In planning the
retest, it should be kept in mind that taking the minimum
number of staples vould again Itave open  the  possibility for  a
need to reteat If any samples are lost.   Therefore,  it m«y be
desirable to take extra samples,  although all samples that
are analjzad auet be reported, it 10 only necessary  to analyze
the niniaua cuab*r of samples par run.  7**1  free to give me  a
call st (202) 382-4500 if you have any questions.

                           3ony« ff. Stelmack
                           Incinerator Parmlt Assifitar.ct
cc:  E«nry One^ar'*., P.e^ior. VI
     Larry Johnson. ORD-.T5L
     Al«»x Vclfe, OSW

December 9, 1987


SUBJECT:  Incinerator Trial Burn Schedules

FROM:     Marcia Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

ATTN:     Regional Waste Management Division Directors
          Regions I - X

     Last Spring your offices submitted multi-year strategies
that identified for the Office of Solid Waste  (OSW) those
incinerators in your Region that are subject to the November 8,
1989 deadline.  These strategies will be a very useful tool'-for
OSW to assess the Regions* capability and resource needs to meet
the deadline.  I commend your respective staffs for their
excellent work.

     According to current data in HWDMS, EPA must issue permits
to approximately 158 incinerators by November 8, 1989.  The
majority of these facilities will require trial burns before the
incinerator permit can be issued.  The Hazardous Waste
Incinerator Permitting Study indicates that it can take as long
as eleven months after the trial burn is conducted before an
incinerator permit is issued.  This means that most trial burns
must be conducted by December 10, 1988.  Unfortunately, the
number of firms capable of conducting and analyzing the data from
trial burns is limited.  Consequently, we may be faced with too
many trial burns scheduled in the same time period, thereby
forcing some trial burns to be delayed and thus jeopardizing the
incinerator permitting deadline.

     To avoid this possibility, OSW will need the dates for all
trial burns scheduled to take place in your Region.  OSW will
then create a special file in the FOCUS national data base with
the scheduled date for each trial burn.  If we notice a
significant bunching of trial burns, we will work with the
appropriate Regions to establish revised schedules.  On a monthly
basis, Lionel Vega, of the Incinerator PAT, will contact you to
determine if the trial burns scheduled for the previous month
        This has been retyped from the original document.


were conducted.  If so, this data will also be entered  into the
file in the FOCUS national data base.  The information  in this
file will become part of the printout for permit track
incinerators and will be available to you in the BASMENU system.

     Attached to this memorandum are lists of the stand alone
incinerators and the incinerators at land disposal facilities in
your Region which you have previously identified on a permitting
track.  In order to ensure that the information on trial burn
schedules is correct, we need information on how you intend to
permit these facilities.  For example, if the incinerators at
land disposal facilities will not be permitted simultaneously
with the land disposal facilities by the November 8, 1988
deadline, we will need an amended multi-year strategy for those
incinerator units.  The information for each facility comes
directly from HWDMS, using standard SPMS retrieval criteria and
is in the same format as the land disposal multi-year retrievals
available in OSW's BASMENU system.  If any of the information in
the printout is incorrect, please revise accordingly.  Also,
identify any of those incinerators that have switched from a
permitting to a closing multi-year track.  In addition, for
incinerator facilities that do not appear on the list,  please
provide the facility ID and the date its trial burn is scheduled.
Please make any necessary corrections to HWDMS for inaccurate
HWDMS data.  Non-HWDMS data such as the trial burn date can be
written in the margins of the printout.

     I appreciate your cooperation in this endeavor.  It is
important that we resolve this problem now so that it does not
prevent us from meeting the incinerator permitting deadline.
Please submit the annotated printouts requested above,  to Suzanne
Rudzinski, Chief of the Assistance Branch by January 11, and make
the necessary corrections to HWDMS by January 18,  1988.  If you
have any questions please contact Deborah Martin,  Chief of the
Incinerator/Storage PAT Section, at (FTS) 382-3132.


cc:  Rick McGraw
     RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
     HWDMS RPOs, Regions I-X
     Kate Bouve
        This has Jbeen retyped from the original document,


                          WASHINGTON. O.C. 204M
 \ *X

                             DEC  9 1988
                                                   SOLID WASTE ANO

Mr. Grant R. Trigger
Clark, Klein and Beaumont
1600 First Federal Building
1001 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI  48226-1962

Dear Mr. Trigger:

    This letter responds to your correspondence  of November 3,  1988
requesting clarification on the applicability of RCRA  "storage
facility" requirements to your client, St. Marys Peerless Cement
Company (SMP).  As stated  in your letter, the need for this
clarification arises from conflicting interpretations given by  the
Regional office and the Headquarters Office of General Counsel
concorning ths status of SMF's process, vhars hazardous vast* fualt
are fed into the process directly from tank truck vehicles.  It is
our understanding that these vehicles remain on-site for no more
than 24 hours.

    The Office of General Counsel's January 28,  1988,  letter statec
that "the trucks containing the hasardous waste-derived fuel are m
storage vessels when located on-site for short periods during the
transfer of hasardous waste into the kiln."  This interpreta-
tion is consistent with the Agency's current policy regarding such
practices.  The memorandum issued by Region V on September  2, 1988
is not consistent with existing policy.  SPA does currently allow
time for off-loading the waste into the process  without requiring
storage permit.

    Recently, SUP submitted its Part B application to  obtain a  fin
RCRA permit to operate the cement kiln am a hasardous  waste
incinerator, subject to 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart 0 requirements.
Pursuant to the Part 270 regulations, the Region V Regional
Administrator is authorised to impose permit conditions necessary
operate the) cement kiln in a manner that protects human health  and
the environment.  The authority to establish RCRA operating
conditions includes the hasardous waste food system, and we would
expect that Rogion V may impose additional requirements to

ensure that the hazardous waste being fed into the process
conforms with the physical and chemical characteristics
specified in the RCRA permit.  Additionally, we would expect
that under authority of RCRA section 3005(c)(3), conditions to
protect against any risks posed by potential spills or releases
during off-loading of the tank trucks would be addressed.
However, given our current policy, we would not require that the
tank truck vehicles obtain a storage permit for off-loading the
hazardous waste fuel.

    You should be aware that EPA Headquarters is currently
reevaluating the existing policies and regulations regarding
off-loading from tank trucks to storage facilities or directly
into exempt recycling units or into thermal treatment units.
This reevaluation may result in a rulemaking to modify our
existing regulations.

    Should you have any further questions, you should contact
Bob D

                            CCT  4
 Ms.  Carlota Markel
 Bureau of Solid and
 Hazardous Wastes
 South Carolina Department of
 Health and Environmental Control
 2600 Bull Street
 Columbia,  SC  29201

 Dear Ms.  Markel:

      As requested in your phone call, I am responding to your
 inquiry on whether  a "recovery kiln" proposed to process soils
 contaminated with hazardous wastes, into a material to be used as
 a  substitute for sand in the manufacture-of cement, meets the
 definition of  an industrial furnace under federal'regulation.
 Based on  current regulations this combustion device is classified
 not  as an industrial furnace, but rather as a hazardous waste

      In the January 4, 1985, (50 FR 614-668)  final  rule,  EPA
 divided the universe of combustion devices treating hazardous
 wastes through controlled flame combustion into three groups*
 incinerators, boilers, and industrial furnaces.   To be an
 industrial  furnace  a unit has to fall within the classes
 that  EPA has especially designated.  As of today, EPA has
 designated  eleven enclosed devices as industrial furnaces (see
 40 CFR 260.10).                                           *

    The "recovery kiln" described in the August 4,  1989  letter
 from Giant  Cement Company to South Carolina Department of Health
 and Environmental Control has not been designated as an  indus-
 trial  furnace nor does it meet the definition of a  boiler.
 Therefor*, this unit is classified as an incinerator,  which  is
 defined mm any enclosed device that is neither a boiler  nor  an
 industrial  furnace and uses controlled flame  combustion  to treat

     Giant Cement Company,  however,  may submit a formal  petition
to tho Agency for a determination on whether  this unit could be
listed as an industrial furnace based on the  criteria  outlined in
40 CFR 260.10.   Such a petition should be addressed to our Office
Director,  Sylvia Lowrance,  at the following address:	

              Office of Solid Wastes
              401 M St. S.W.
              Washington, D.c.   20460

             .?;y«j?:* ^"-i^r^1! su5j?ct or need
                               do not hesitate to call me at
                                     Sincerely yours,
                                     Lionel Vega
                                     Assistance Branch
cc:  Dwight Hlusticfc, OSW
    Sonya Stelmack, OSW
    Betty Willis, Region IV

                              WASHINGTON. D.C. .
                                                                V.ASTC AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Eliot Cooper
V. P. Environmental Operations
Waste-Tech Services, Inc.
18400 W. 10th Avenue
Golden, Colorado  80401

Dear Mr. Cooper

       This is in response to your September 13,1989, letter in which you expressed
several concerns about the hazardous waste incinerator metals emissions controls that
permit writers are applying based on recommended guidance from this Office. ! want to
address each of your concerns in turn.

Health-Based Limits Mav Be Too Restrictive

       I believe that the recommended acceptable ambient levels are not overly restrictive.
In this regard, the use of the health-based limits ensures that corrective measures are
required only when emissions may pose an unacceptable health risk. These levels for
carcinogens are based on Agency-approved unit risk values.  The values for
noncarcinogens are based on Agency-approved oral reference doses (RfDs) convened to
inhalation RfDs. Although issues arise when convening oral RfDs to inhalation RfDs, we
believe that this interim approach is reasonable and comports with acceptable procedure.
As the Agency's Inhalation RfD Work Group develops specific approved inhalation RfDs,
we will revise our guidance accordingly.

       Overall, I believe, this approach provides a reasonable balance that assures
environmental protection but which should minimize the impact of the controls on the
regulated community.

"Risk Assessment Methodology Is Inconsistent With Other Regulations

       You correctly noted that the guidance recommends control of carcinogenic metals at
a 10*5 risk level while the Agency's proposed standard for benzene emissions is based on a
10"* risk level Agency policy is that the appropriate risk level for a regulation will be
determined on a case-by-case basis depending on factors such as statutory mandate, nature
of the pollutant, control alternatives, fate and transport of the pollutant in the environment,
and potential human exposure.  The risk level that triggers a regulatory action need not be
the same for all regulations.

       After considering a risk level for the metals controls in the range of 10"4 to 10*6,
we selected the 10*5 risk level  We did not consider a 10"* risk level to be  acceptable for
these controls because:  (1) the total annualized cost of the controls at a 10*5 risk level is

not substantial ($6 million or an average of $26,000/facility) - thus, the margin of safety is
cost effective; and (2) indirect exposure from the metals is not considered in the risk
assessment methodology. We consideredi limiting the risk to 10'^ but determined that it
would result in setting risk levels for individual carcinogens on the order of 10~7 given that
the risk from each carcinogen must be added to determine the summed or aggregate risk.
We believe that limiting individual metals to levels that would result in (on the order of) a
10'7 risk level would be unnecessarily conservative considering the relatively low projected
cancer incidence (total population cancer risk) posed by metals emissions from hazardous
waste incinerators.

Risk Assessment Approach Is Difficult To Implement

       I appreciate your concerns about the difficulty in conducting a trial bum that
demonstrates conformance with the metals controls while allowing operating flexibility
during the life of the permit, and in complying with permit conditions that limit the feed
rates of metals. We certainly do not have all the answers.  We believe that our permit
writers are working with permit applicants to address issues as they arise and to develop
reasonable solutions to them.

       You may be aware that we have retained a contractor, Energy and Environmental
Research Corporation, to help permit writers and applicants to use the best available
information to develop an appropriate test burn plan, to interpret the test results, and to
develop reasonable permit conditions. Dr. Randy Seeker and his staff have assisted permit
writers at the site-specific level  on three occasions to date.

All Chromium Is Assumed To Be Hexavalent

       The recommended guidance assumes all chromium is in the highly potent
hexavalent state unless the applicant documents otherwise.  As you know, the guidance
takes this conservative position because, until recently, we did not have a reliable sampling
and analysis technique for hexavalent chromium emissions. The Agency has nearly
completed successful validation tests of a hexchromium technique - Sampling and
Analytical Methodology for Measurement of Low Levels of Hexavalent Chromium from
Stationary Sources (copy enclosed). Applicants may now use this methodology to
determine hexchromium emissions.
Health-Based Standard* Caj\ pp fyftfl By Increasing Stack Height Rather Than Emissions

       We agree mat one implication of health-based standards is that a facility can comply
with ambient limits on pollutants by increasing stack height to provide increased dilution
rather than by removing pollutants from the stack gas.  To address this shortcoming, we
are linntingto 65 meters the height of the stack mat can be considered for compliance
purposes. The Agency uses this same approach to implement controls promulgated under
the Clean Air ACL

Stringent Paniculate Standard Is Better Than Healtfr-Bqsfl/ft Standards

       Although health-based standards require collective measures only when public
health is likely to be adversely affected, we share a number of your concerns about the
implications of health-based standards - they can be difficult to implement and a facility
may be able to comply using means other than emissions controls. Moreover, emissions

standards cannot be developed when there are not enough health data to establish acceptable
ambient levels (e.g., for selenium).

       On the other hand, even a paniculate standard as stringent as 0.02 gr/dscf may not
be adequately protective in cases where metal-bearing wastes are incinerated and toxic
metals may comprise a relatively large fraction of emitted paniculates.

       We are considering developing a revised paniculate standard for proposal in the
future. However, we are not now prepared to propose or recommend as guidance to
permit writers any such revisions at this time. We need additional information to pin down
performance levels and to investigate the impact on the regulated community.

New Capacity Is At An Economic Disadvantage

       You expressed concern that new facilities are at an economic disadvantage because
existing facilities are not required to meet the metals controls. Only  about 80 incineration
facilities of the approximately 200 existing facilities were issued permits before permit
writers began to apply the metals controls.  I am advised that permit writers intend to add
metals controls as necessary to those 80 permits when they are renewed.

       I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions or comments,
please feel free to contact Bob Holloway, Chief of our Combustion  Section. Bob can be
reached on (202) 382-7936.
                                         Sincerely,  .
                                         Sylvia K. Lowrance, ]
                                         Office of Solid Waste

      '                   WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                            MAR 29 1990
                                                           0«'CE 3?
                                                   SOUO WAS" AND c

SUBJECT: Interpretation of How the Residues from Pfizer's Trial
         Burn Should Be Handled                .
                                       * •    fi 10
FROM:    Lionel Vega, Chemical EngineerVl .-/vaX l/^1^
         Alternative Technology and S«gjfort Sectiojn

TO:      Gerard Sotolongo, Chief
         CT Waste Regulation Section

     This is in response to your February 28, 1990, memorandum
seeking our interpretation on hov the incinerator residues from
Pfizer's trial burn should be handled.  After consulting with
Mitch Kidvell of our Characterization and Assessment Division
(CAD), we believe that residues generated during Pfizer's trial
burn will be considered hazardous wastes since they are derived
from the treatment of F003, U211, and U037 listed hazardous
wastes (see 261.3(c)2(i)).

     As described in your memo, Pfizer will spike their normal
waste (FOO3) with a mixture of carbon tetrachloride and
chlorobenzene.  The key question in this case is whether or not
the spiking mixture would be considered an U211 and U037 listed
hazardous waste.  Commercial chemical products are hazardous
wastes if and when they are discarded or intended to be discarded
by being incinerated (see 261.33, 261.33(f), 261.2(a)(2)(i) and
261.2(b)(2)).  Since the spiking mixture will be specifically
prepared for the purpose of testing Pfizer's incinerator system,
oven before the carbon tetrachloride and chlorobenzene chemical
products are blended there is an intention to discard these
materials.  Therefore, the spiking mixture is considered a listed
hazardous) vwtes carrying the U211 and U037 wastes codes.

     If you have any further question on this matter, please do
not hesitate to call me at FTS 475-8988.

cc: Mitch Kidvell, CAD
                                               FILE  COPY


                                   MHK I  9 I9SO


     SUBJECT: Chlorine Emissions  from Hazardous Waste Incinerators

     FROM:    Matthew  Hale, Acting  Director
              Permit and State  Programs  Division (OS-343)

     TO:      William Honker, Chief
              RCRA  Permits  Branch (6H-P)
              Region VI

          This is in response to  your March 13,  1990,  memorandum
     suggesting the need to control  chlorine emissions from hazardous
     waste incinerators and requesting interim guidance on  chlorine
     emission control and measurement.

          As mentioned at the last Incinerator Permit Writers
     Workgroup Meeting, EPA is  requesting comments  on a proposal to
     amend 264.343(b) so that the existing 99% removal standard  would
     apply to both  hydrogen chloride (HCL)  and free chlorine.  EPA is
     also proposing to require  a  health-based check to ensure  that the
     technology-based standard  for free  chlorine is protective.
     Accordingly, the applicant would be required to demonstrate that
     the Maximum Exposed Individual  (MEZ)  is not exposed to free
     chlorine emissions exceeding the proposed annual average
     reference air  concentration  (RAC) of Q.4 nierocrrama per cubic
     BfJiar..  This amendment is  included  in the proposed incinerator
     regulations signed by  the  Administrator on April 9, 1990.   A copy
     of that proposal was sent  to your Division Director under
     separate cover.

          Ac indicated in the proposed incinerator  regulations,
     compliance with the health-based chlorine standard would  be
     demonstrated by:  (1) emissions  testing and dispersion  modelling;
     (2) emission testing and conformance with the  chlorine emission
     screening limits; or  (3) waste  analysis and conformance with
     chlorine feed  rate screening limits.   The emission and feed rate
     screening limits for chlorine can be determined by multiplying
     1.33 times the corresponding limits established for mercury in
	Appendix E of  the boiler/furnace supplemental  notice  (see 54 FR
     *• j / *• 3 j •  X «• vlVfoevX wn ^wVeTw
..  y        F        i

Method for Determination of HCL Emissions from Municipal and
Hazardous Waste Incinerators" should be used (see attachment)

     As with the proposed controls for metals and HC1, the permit
writer can exercise his authority under Section 3005(c)(3) of
RCRA to develop permit requirements as may be necessary to ensure
that chlorine emissions do not pose unacceptable health risk to
human health and the environment.  If you have any further
questions on this matter, please contact Lionel Vega of my staff
at FTS 475-8988.


cc: Elizabeth Cotsworth
    Sonya Stelmack
    Lionel Vega
    Shiva Garg

     Taia. aatnod haa baan drafted baaad on tha raaulta of laboratory end field
studies carried out und*r contract to tha Sourea Branch of tha Quality
Aaauraaea Oiviaioa. Ataeapharie Raaaareh and expoaura Aaaaaaaant Laboratory
(QAO/ARSAL). Uaitad Stataa Cnvironaantal Protection Afaney (U.S. EPA). The
method ia still undar invaatlffation and ia iubject to raviaion.




     l.i  This method describes the collection of hydrogen  chloride  (HC1.  CAS
Registry S'uaber 7647-01-0) and chlorine  (C12. CAS Registry  Number ~782-=6-=}
in stack gas emission samples from hazardous waste  incinerators  and  municipal
waste combustors.  The collected  samples  art analyzed using Method XXXX.   This
method is designed to collect HC1/C1, in  their gaseous  forms.  Sources,  such as
those controlled by wet scrubbers, that emit acid particulate  natter (e.g., HC1
dissolved in water droplets) oust be sampled using  an isokinetic HC1/C1:
sampling train (see Method XXXX).


     2.1  An integrated gas saople is extracted from the stack and passes
through a particulate filter, acidified water, and  finally  through an alkaline
solution.  The filter serves to remove particulate  matter such as chloride
salts which could potentially react and form analyte in the absorbing solu-
tions..  In the acidified water absorbing  solution,  the  HC1  gas is solubilized
and forms chloride (Cl*) ions.  The C12 gas present in  the  emissions has a very
low solubility in acidified water and passes through to the alkaline absorbing
solution where it undergoes hydrolysis to form a proton (H*).  Cl*. and
hypocnloroua acid (HC10).  The Cl* ions in the separata solutions are aeasured
by ion chroaatography (Method XXXX).


     3.1  Volatile materials which produce chloride ions upon  dissolution
during sampling are obvious interferences in the measurement of  KC1.   One
interferent for KC1 is diatomic chlorine  (Cl,) gas  which disproportionates to
HC1 and hypochloroua acid  (HOC1)  upon dissolution in water.  Cl,  gas exhibits a
low solubility in water, however, and the use of acidic rather than  neutral or
basic solutions for collection of hydrogen chloride gas greatly  reduces the
dissolution of any chlorine present.  Sampling a 400 ppm HC1 gas stream
containing 50 ppm Cl, with this method does not cause a significant  bias.
Sampling a 220 ppm HC1 gas stream containing 180 ppm Cl, results in  a positive
bias of 3-4* In the HC1

     4.1  Sampllnc Train.  The sampling  train is shown in Figure  1 and
component parts are discussed below.

          fc.1.1  Probe.  Borosilicata glass, approximately 3/8-in. (9-«s)
     inside diameter, with a hemtinff system to prevent condensation.  When  the
     concentration of alkaline particulate matter in the emissions is high, a
     3/8-in.  (9-am) inside diameter Teflon elbow should be attached  to  the
     inlet of the probe: a 1-in.  (25-em) length of Teflon tubing  with a 3/8-in.
                                    XXXX - 1                 Revision
                               'Draft August 1989***

       Puap.   Leak-free diaphragm pump, or equivalent.  :=  r-_;
          gas  through train.   Install  a small  surge  tank becween  the  pusp  &,-.=
          the' rate meter  to eliainata  the  pulsation  effect of  the dia?nra?=
          puap on the rotameter.

       Rate meter.  Rotameter.  or equivalent,  capable  of
          measuring flow  race  to within 2  percent of selected  flow  rate of  2

       Volume meter.  Dry gas meter,  sufficiently  accurate :=
          measure the sample volume within 2 percent,  calibrated  at the
          selected flow rate and conditions encountered during sampling, and
          equipped with a temperature  gauge (dial thermometer  or  equivalent)
          capable of measuring temperature to  within 3°C (5.4°F).

       Vacuum gauge.  At  least  760  ma Hg  (30  in. Hg) gauge :o
          be used for leak check of the sampling train.

     4.2  Saaple Recovery.

          4.2.1  Wash bottles.  Polyethylene or  glass.  500 ml or larger,  two.

          4.2.2  Storage  bottles.  Glass,  with Teflon-lined lids. 100 ml.  to
     store impinger samples (two per sampling  run).


     5.1  Reagent grade chemicals shall be used  in all tests.   Unless otherwise
indicated, it  is intended that all reagents shall conform to the specifications
of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society, where
such specifications are available.  Other  grades may be used, provided  it is
first ascertained that the reagent is  of sufficiently  high purity to permit its
use without lessening the accuracy of  the  determination.

     5.2  ASTM Type II Water (AST* 01193-77 (1983)).   All references  to water
in the method  refer to ASTN Type) ZZ unless otherwise specified.   It is
advisable to analyse a blank sample of this reagent  prior to sampling,  since
the reagent blank value) obtained during the) field sample analysis must  be less
than 10 percent of the) sample  values (see)  Method XXXX).

     5.3  Sttlfuric acid (0.1 N). K,SO*.  Used  as the ffCl absorbing  reagent. To
prepare 100 ml., slowly add 0.28 mi. of  concentrated H,SO, to about 90  mi. of
water while) mtlrrlnf, end adjust the final volume) to 100 mL using additional
water.  Shake)  wall to mix the  solution.  It is advisable to analyse a blank
sample of this reagent prior to sampling?,  since  the  reagent blank value
obtained during the field sample analysis  must be leas than 10  percent  of the
sample values  (see Method XXXX).

     5.4  Sodium hydroxide (0.1 N), NaOK.   Used  as the Cl, absorbing  reagent.
To prepare 100 mL, dissolve 0.4o"g of  solid NaOH in  about 90 mL of  water and
adjust the final volume to 100 mi. using additional water.  Shake  well to mix
                                    XXXX - 3                 Revision
                            •••Draft August  1989

  Post-test calibration check.  After each field -as-
     series. conduct a calibration check as in Section above.
     except for the following variations: (a) the leak check is not -o.ie
     conducted, (b) three or more revolutions of the dry gas meter say =e
     used, (c) only two independent runs need to be made.  If the
     calibration factor does not deviate by acre than 5 percent from the
     initial calibration factor (determined in Section the dry
     gas meter volumes obtained during the test series are acceptable.   If
     the calibration factor deviates by more than 5 percent, recalibrate
     the metering system as Section and for the calculations.
     use the calibration factor (initial or recalibration) that yields  the
     lower gas volume for each test run.

     7.1.2  Thermometers).  Prior to each field test, calibrate against
mercury-in-flass thermometers at ambient temperature.  If the thermometer
being calibrated reads within 2°C (2.6*F) of the mercury-in-glass
thermometer, it is acceptable.  If not, adjust the thermometer or use an
appropriate correction factor.

     7.1.3  Rate meter.  The rate meter need not be calibrated, but should
be cleaned and maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions.

     7.1.4  Barometer.  Prior to each field test, calibrate against a
mercury barometer.  The field barometer should agree within 0.1 in; Hg
with the mercury barometer.  If it doc* not. the field barometer should be

7.2  Sampling.

     7.2.1  Preparation of collection train.  Prepare the sampling train
as follows: The first or knockout impinger should have a shortened stem
and be left empty to condense moisture in the gas stream.  The next two
midget impingers should each be filled with 15 «L of 0.1 N H,S04, and the
fourth and fifth impingmrs should each be filled with 15 i. of 0.1 N NaOH.
Place a fresh chart* of silica gel. or equivalent, in the Ma* West
impinger (or the drying tub*). Connect the impingmrs in series with the
knockout impinger first, followed by that two impingers containing the
acidified reagent and two impingmrs containing th« alkaline reagent, and
the Ma* W*st ispinger containing th* silica gel.  If th* moisture will be
determined. weigh th* impiag*r assembly to th* n*mr*mt ± 0.5 g and record
th* w*ifbt.                                            *

     7.2.2  L*ak eh*ck procedures.  Leak ch*ck th* probe and three-way
stopcock prior to insertinf th* prob* into th* stack.  Connect th*
stopcock to th* outlet of th* prob*. and coan*ct th* sample line to the
needle vmlv*.  Pluf th* prob* inlet, turn on th* sample pump, and pull a
vacuum of ae least 250 mm Kg (10 in. Hg).  Turn off th* needle valve, and
note th* vacuum gaug* reading.  Th* vacuum should remain stable for at
least 30 seconds.  Place th* prob* in th* stack at th* sampling location.
and adjust th* filter heating system to 250*P sad th* prob* and stopcock
heating systems to a temperature sufficient to prevent water condensation.
Connect th* first iapinger to th* stopcock, and connect th* saspl* line  ta
                               XXXX - 5                 Revision
                       •••Draft August 1969***          D«t* 	

     7.<*  Calculations.  Retain at least one extra deeiaal figure beyond :.w.cse
contained in the available data in intermediate calculations, and round off"
only the final answer appropriately.
          7-^.1  Nomenclature.
               Bw. ' w»ter vapor in the gas stream, proportion by volume.
                Mw » Molecular weight of water. 18.0 g/g-mole
                     (18.0 lb/lb-fflole).
              Pb4f • Barometric pressure at the exit orifice of the dry gas
                     aeter. am Hg (in. Hg).
              P(tA • Standard absolute pressure. 760 mm Kg (29-92 in. Hg).
                 R • Ideal gas constant. 0.06236 mm Kg-mV'K-g-aole
                     (21.85 ia. Hg-ftV°R-lb-eole).
                T. • Average dry gas aeter absolute temperature. °K (°R).
              Tlt< • Standard absolute temperature. 293*K  (528oR).
               Vl4 • Total volume of liquid collected ia impingera and silica
                     gel. mi.  (equivalent to the difference in weight of the
                     impinger train before end after sampling. 1 ag • 1 oL).
                V  » Dry gas volume as measured by the dry gas meter, dcm
           v«<.t«) ' Dr? *•» volume measured by the dry gas aeter, corrected
                     to standard conditions, dsem (dscf).
           V«<.t4> ' volu»* ot water vapor ia the gas sample, corrected to
                     standard conditions, scm (scf).
                 Y • Dry gam meter calibration factor.
                4, • Density of water. 0.9982 g/mL (0.002201 Ib/mL).
          7.4.2  Sample volume, dry basis, corrected to standard conditions.
     Calculate am described belov:
V.f..e)  • v. Y
        • 0.3858*K/mm Kf for metric units.
        • 17.64-R/in. Hg for English units.
                                    XXXX • 7                  Revision
                            •**Draft August  1969*~           Date	

U. S. Environaental Protection Agency. UO CFH Part 60. Appendix A  ye-
                             XXXX  • 9                  Revision
                      •••Draft Aufust 1969***          D»t« 	

                        PROTOCOL FOR ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES
     This aothod haa been drafted based on the results of laboratory and fiald
studies carried out under contract to the Source Branch of the Quality
Assurance Division, Ataospheric Reaeareh and Exposure Aaaeaaaent Laboratory
(QAD/AR1AL). United States Environmental Protection Afency (U.S. EPA).  The
method i« aeill under inveatiffation and is subject to revision.

     U.3  Ion Chromatograph.  Suppressed or non-suppressed, with a conductivity
detector and electronic integrator operating in the peak area node.  Other
detectors, a strip chart recorder, and peak heights may be used provided t*e
5 percent repeatability criteria for sample analysis and the linearity criteria
for the calibration curve can be net.


     5-1  Reagent grade chemicals shall be used in all  tests.  Unless otherwise
indicated, it is intended that all reagents shall conform  to the specifications
of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society, where
such specifications are available.  Other grades may be used, provided it is
first ascertained that the reagent is of sufficiently high purity  to permit its
use without lessening the accuracy of the determination.

     5.2  ASTM Type II Water (ASTM D1193-77 (1983)).  All references to water
in the method refer to .ASTM Type II unless otherwise specified.

     5.3  Sulfuric acid (0.1 N), H,SOt.  To prepare 100 mL, slowly add 0.28 oL
of concentrated H-SOt to about 90 mL of water while stirring, and adjust the
final volume to 100 mL using additional water.  Shake well to mix the solution.

     5.4  Sodium hydroxide (0.1 N). NaOH.  To prepare 100 aL. dissolve 0.40 g
of solid NaOH in about 90 mL of water and adjust the final volume to 100 mL
using additional water.  Shake well to mix the solution.

     5.5  Resgent blank solutions.  A separate blank solution of each sampling
train reagent used and collected in the field (0.1 N H,SO» and 0.1 N NaOH)
should be prepared for analysis with the field samples.  For midget'impinger
train sample analysis, dilute 30 aL of each reagent with rinse water collected
in the field as a blank to the final volume) of the samples; for isokinetie
train sample analysis, dilute 200 mL to the same final volume as the field
samples also using the blank sample of rinse water.

     5.6  Sodium chloride. NaCl, stock standard solution.  Solutions containing
a nominal certified concentration of 1000 mg/L NaCl are commercially available
as convenient stock solutions from which working standards can be made by
appropriate volumetric dilution.  Alternately, concentrated stock solutions may
be produced from reagent grade NaCl that ham been dried at 110*C for two or
more hours and then cooled to room temperature la a desiccator Immediately
before weighing.  Accurately weigh 1.6 to 1.7 g of the dried NaCl to within 0.1
mg. dissolve in water, mad dilute to 1 liter.  The exact Cl* concentration can
be calculate* umiag the) equation:

               ug CIVmL • g of NaCl x 10* x 35-453/58.44

Refrigerate the) stock standard solutions sad store no longer than one month.

     5.7  Chroaatograpoic effluent.  Effective elueata  for noa-euppressed ion
chromatography using a reein- or silica-based week ioa exchange column are a
4 mN potassium hydrogen phthalata solution, adjusted to a pfl of 4.0 using a
saturated sodium borate solution, and a mN 4-dydroxy bemoate solution.
                                    XXXX - 2                 Revision
                            •~Braft August 1989***          Data	

          7.2.3  After injecting the standards the first tiae. deterair.e :.-.»
     peak area or height for each standard.  Using linear regression, detem.-.e
     the equation for the calibration curve.  Compare the known concentraticr.
     of each standard to its concentration predicted by the calibration
     equation; the percent error as calculated below should be less :.K.an cr
     equal to 7 percent.
               * _ _.. . Predicted Cone. - Known Cone.   .nntt
               /» Error •                     ——— x ioo/»                (i)
                                  Known Cone.

          7.2.4  Following analysis of thm quality control sample,  the reagent
     blanks,  and tha field samples, tha calibration standards are injected a
     second tiae.

          7.2.5  Using thm average of thm initial and final injections of the
     standards and linear regression, determine thm formulas for the
     calibration curve to be used to calculate thm field sample concentrations.

     7.3  Sample analysis.  Between injections of thm series of calibration
standards, inject in duplicate the reagent blanks and thm field samples.
including a matrix spike sample.  Measure thm areas or heights (same as done
for the calibration standards) of thm Cl* peaks.  Each response (peak height or
area) for a duplicate injection should be within 5 percent of the average
response.  Use thm average response to determine thm concentrations of the
field samples, matrix spike, and reagent blanks using thm linear calibration
curve.  Thm results for a reagent blank shall not exceed 10 percent.of the
corresponding velum for a field sample.

     7.4  Calculations.  Retain at least one extra decimal figure beyond those
contained la thm available data la Intermediate calculations, and round off
only the final answer appropriately.

          7.4.1  Total ug HC1 per sample.  Calculate as described below:

                    mHC1 •  (S-B) x V. x 36.46/35.453                         (2)

          whmrm:    m^ • Mama of HC1 in sample, ug.
                       S • Analysis of samplm, ug Cl'/mL.
                       B • Analysis of reagent blank, ug CIVmL.
                      V( • Volume of filtered and diluted samplm. mL.

                   36.46 • Molecular weight of BC1, uaVug-mole. and

                  35.453 • Atomic weight of Cl. ug/ug-mole.

          7.4.2  Total ug Cl, per sample.   Calculate am described below:

                         .  (S-B) x V. x 70.90/35.45                          (3)
                                    XXXX - 4                  Revision
                              ••Draft August 1989*~          0«tm	


1.   Steinsberjer. S. C.  and J.  H.  Margcson.  "Laboratory and
     of a Methodology for D.t.«in.tioTof Hydrogen SSrS
     Municipal and Harardou. W«te  Incinerators." U. S. EnvJroental

         eCtAgen<=y'  °fflCe °f RMearch «*  Development. Report !j.
2.   State of California.  Air Rwources  Board, Method 421
     Hydrochloric Acid EhiMiou  frt» Stationary SoSce.!- Ma8  1987.
3.   Entropy EnvironMntalisti .  Inc.,  "Laboratory Evaluation of a Sampling and
     Analysis Method for Hydroftn Chloride Eaissions fro.             ourc
     Interim Report." EPA Contract Mo. 6fi-02-4442. Research TriaMle Park
     North Carolina.  January 22. 1968.                                   '
                                  XXXX - 6                 Revision
                           •••Draft Aufust 1989»»*          Date 	


                          FEB  5 1991
Mr. Janes Buckert, -Manager
Technical Support Unit,  Permits Section
Division of Air Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
P.O.,  Box 19276
Springfield,  XL  62794-9276

Dear  Mir.  Buckert:

      This is in response to your January 7,  1991 letter on POHC
selection for a RCRA hazardous waste incinerator trial burn.  You
inquired whether 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene would be acceptable to
use as  a solid  POHC,  considering that this compound is not listed
in 40 CFR Part  261,  Appendix VIII.

      My understanding from your letter and discussions with you
and Mike Davidson is that you believe that,  on a technical basis,
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene would be a good choice as a POHC because
1) it is a solid at  ambient conditions and .thus could be mixed
with  solid waste feed; 2)  with respect to incinerability, 1,2,3-
trichlorobenzene is  expected to perform similarly to 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene, an Appendix VIII compound which is in Class I
of the  Thermal  Stability at Low Oxygen (TSLo02)  ranking (This is
based on input  from  Dr.  Barry Del linger,  University of Dayton
Research Institute,  as relayed by Larry Johnson,  EPA Office of
Research and Development) ; and 3)  the compound is readily
available and can be sampled and analyzed by standard EPA methods
      Thus,  your inquiry primarily focused on whether the fact
that  1,2,3-trichlorobenzene is not on Appendix VIII would
eliminate this compound as a potential POHC.   As I mentioned to
you in our  telephone conversation, this issue was addressed in an
April 27, 1990 EPA proposal to amend the hazardous waste
incinerator regulations.  EPA believes that there are situations
where compounds not on Appendix VIII may be more suitable as
POHC's than Appendix VIII compounds (due to concerns such as
availability,  toxicity, etc.).  For this reason,  we proposed to
amend §264.342 (b) (1)  and §270.62 (b) (4)  to specifically state that
POHC's need not be listed in Appendix VIII or be present in the
normal waste feed provided the applicant demonstrates that the

     Therefore, your proposal to use a non-Appendix VIII compound
as a POHC is considered acceptable in terms of our most up-to-
date thinking on POHC selection.  Further, since it is planned
that the trial burn will include two additional POHC's which are
Appendix VIII compounds, the proposed set of POHC's would also be
consistent with the current wording of the RCRA incinerator

     If you have any further questions on this issue, feel free
to contact me at (202) 382-3132.

                              Sonya M. Sasseville, Chief
                              Alternative Technology Section
cc:  Y,,J. Kim, Region V
     Lionel Vega
     Larry Johnson
     Elizabeth Cotsworth

Mr. Samuel I. Gutter
Sidley & Austin
1722 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Dear Mr. Gutter:

     This is in response to your May 1, 1991, letter requesting
clarification of the regulatory status of an industrial furnace
burning hazardous waste under the boiler and industrial furnace
(BIF) regulation if the furnace ceases making product or halts
the industrial activity and burns hazardous waste for purposes of
destruction only.  You indicated that you had discussed this
issue with Steve Silverman and that he agreed with your
understanding that in these situations the furnace could continue
to burn hazardous waste under the BIF regulations.  However, you
noted that Bob Holloway in a recent Chicago meeting had stated a
contrary opinion.

     Bob Holloway of my staff has resolved this question with
Steve Silverman.  This letter confirms the answer which
Mr. Holloway has already verbally provided to you.  Although an
industrial furnace may burn hazardous waste solely for the
purpose of destruction under the BIF rule after the owner or
operator submits a certification of compliance as required by
Section 266.103(c), the device must continue to meet the
definition of an industrial furnace.  If the facility no longer
meets the definition of an industrial furnace, then it would
typically be subject to regulation as an incinerator.  For
example, if the owner of a cement facility operating in interim
status under the BIF rule determined that it was more profitable
to cease-making cement and focus the business on destroying solid
and liquid hazardous wastes, the device would no longer meet the
definition of a cement kiln.  The facility would have to cease
burning hazardous waste until it obtained an operating permit as
an incinerator under Subpart O, Part 264.  If the facility was
operating under a RCRA operating permit as a cement kiln, then it
could not burn hazardous waste without producing marketable


                               -  2  -
cement product until the permit was modified  to  classify the
device as an incinerator (and, most likely, increase the
hazardous waste burning capacity).

     If you have further questions or comments,  please feel free
to contact Bob Holloway at  (703)  308-8461.

                                         Sylvia  K.  Lowrance
                                         Office  of  Solid Waste

                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                            ^3 1991
                                              SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Alex McMillan
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.  20515

Dear Mr. McMillan:

     Thank you for your letter of August 2, 1991, regarding
Rexham Industrial's and Richard McClintocfc's concerns about
the recent regulations for burning hazardous wastes in boilers
and industrial furnaces (BIFs).  You requested information on how
the BIF regulations and the recently amended Clean Air Act would
affect the operation of Rexham1s boiler.

     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the
BIT regulations on February 21, 1991 (copy enclosed).  These
regulations require facilities that burn hazardous wastes to
monitor the combustion for high efficiency and to control any
pollutants in the flue gases that might pose a threat to human
health and the environment.  EPA developed these regulations over
a period of four years and requested public comments on them on
two different occasions.  After giving the industry opportunity
to submit comments, EPA responded to all comments and
accommodated many of them by revising the proposed regulations.

     In his letter, Mr. McClintocfc indicated that he is not sure
whether the spent solvents he has been burning as fuel are
actually regulated as hazardous waste.  The BIF rule applies to
boilers only if they burn hazardous waste.  Although I suspect
that the spent solvents are hazardous wastes, the state of North
Carolina can assist Mr. McClintocfc in making a final

     Mr. McClintocfc also indicated that the spent solvents are a
cleaner fuel than No. 2 fuel oil.  In developing the final BIF
regulations, EPA was aware that some hazardous waste fuels have
very low levels of toxic organic or metal constituents and may be
hazardous only because they are ignitable and pose a fire or
explosion hazard.  Accordingly, the BIF regulations exempt
boilers burning such low-hazard waste from many of the emissions
standards (e.g., particulate matter limits and emissions testing
for organic* and toxic metals).  These exemptions are

implemented, however, under the permitting process established by
the regulations.  Thus, although a boiler burning "low-risk
waste" may be exempt from certain emission standards, it would
still need a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA)

     Regulations that EPA will promulgate under the recently
amended Clean Air Act are not likely to affect the burning of
hazardous waste in boilers.  Amended Section 112 requires EPA to
establish standard's for toxic pollutants representing maximum
achievable control technology.  Although boilers are a source
category that EPA will consider in developing regulations,
amended Section 112 explicitly requires EPA to consider existing
RCRA regulations in determining whether additional controls are
necessary.  Given that EPA believes that the BIF regulations
adequately control emissions from boilers that burn hazardous
waste, additional controls under Section 112 may not be needed to
address waste burning in boilers.

     Thank you for your interest in the safe and effective
management of hazardous waste.

                                   Sincerely yours,
                                   Don R. Clay
                                   Assistant Administrator

                      3 0 1991
SUBJECT:  Response to Region VI Inquiry on Regulatory
          Classification of Quantum Tech Plasma Arc Unit

FROM:     Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

TO:       Allyn M. Davis, Director
          Region VI Hazardous Waste Management Division

     This memorandum is in response to your August 14, 1991,
memorandum requesting guidance on whether the Quantum Tech plasma
arc unit falls within the February 21, 1991, revised definition
of incinerator, even though the unit has no afterburner.

     The language of the February 21 revised definition of
incinerator unintentially includes all plasma arc and infrared
units, rather than just those with afterburners.  However, the
regulatory status of such devices does not immediately change in
authorized States.  Thus, at present, the state would make a
determination on the regulatory classification of this device
based on the definitions currently in effect in the state.  To
prevent problems in the future, we plan to make a technical
correction to the revised definition of incinerator.  Following
is a more detailed description of our interpretation and planned

Classification under Sufrpart O vs. Suboart X
     On February 21, 1991, along with the BIF  (boiler and
industrial furnace) rule, EPA published modifications to the
definition of incinerator.  One modification specifically added
plasma arc and infrared devices to the definition.  The reasons
for this modification were, as stated at 56 ££ 7204, that "(1)
although these devices use nonflame sources of thermal energy to
treat waste in the primary chamber, they invariably employ
controlled flame afterburners to combust hydrocarbons. . . "
(emphasis added); and "(2) the incinerator standards are workable
and protective for these units."

      EPA was unaware at the time the definition was being
 developed,  and commenters on the proposed rule did not indicate,
 that there  were plasma arc units without afterburners,  as
 indicated by the above preamble language.   Therefore,  the
 presence of an afterburner was not specifically included as a
 criterion in the new definition.  Under revised -§260.10, plasma
 arc incinerator is defined as "any enclosed device using a high
 intensity electrical discharge or arc as a source of heat and
 which is not listed as an industrial furnace."  Since  there is no
 mention of  afterburners in either the plasma arc incinerator or
 incinerator definitions,  the revised definition of incinerator
 does not exclude plasma arc units which do not have afterburners.
 This is also the case for infrared units.

      Since  the Regions are now aware of two such devices without
 afterburners,  we plan to make a technical  correction to the
 February 21 rule to only include plasma arc and infrared units
 with afterburners in the definition of incinerator.  Considering
 a  plasma arc or infrared device without an afterburner  as an
 incinerator is clearly not consistent with the intent of the
 regulation.   In addition,  the types of operating conditions and
 other performance requirements for incinerators may not make
 technical sense to apply to a non-combustion device.  For
 example,  carbon monoxide is a measure of combustion efficiency
 and therefore may not be a meaningful operating parameter for a
 non-combustion device.

      Permitting these devices under Subpart X will allow more
 flexibility to address the specific operating and emissions
 characteristics of the units.   Parts of Subpart O which do "fit"
 these devices can still be applied under Subpart X.

 Rule Does Not Impact Authorized States Immediately

      The revision to the incinerator definition is a non-HSWA
 rule and therefore does not take effect in an authorized state
-until the state becomes authorized for the rule change.   Thus,
 assuming that plasma arc (and infrared)  units have not  been
 considered  in the past to be incinerators  under the authorized
 Texas program, they will continue to be outside the incinerator
 definition  until Texas adopts the February 21 provisions.   Our
 goal is to  complete the technical correction well before
 authorized  states adopt the new rule.

 Recycling Exemption

      You also requested clarification on whether the Quantum Tech
 unit may be an exempt recycling device.  While incinerators (and
 boilers and industrial furnaces) cannot be considered exempt
 recycling units, other recycling devices can potentially be
 considered  for the recycling exemption.  Since plasma arc units
 would not presently be classified as incinerators in authorized

states, Texas will need to make a determination on whether the
Quantum Tech unit is a recycling unit.  If Texas determines that
the unit is not an exempt recyling device, then we agree that it
would be subject to permitting under Subpart X for miscellaneous
units.  Attached is a memorandum which provides criteria for
determining whether a unit is engaged in recycling.  You may wish
to provide this to Texas to assist them in this effort.
     In summary, plasma arc (and infrared) units without
afterburners were unintentionally included in the revised
definition of incinerator.  Our goal is to make a technical
correction to the rule before this provision is adopted by
authorized states.  In the meantime, the February 21 rule would
not affect the regulatory status of these devices in authorized
states, and Texas will need to determine whether the Quantum Tech
unit is an exempt recycler.

     We would like to remind you that if the facility has other
units which will be receiving a RCRA permit, the plasma arc unit
will be subject to the air emissions standards under Part 264,
Subpart BB, even if it is determined to be a recycling device.
It may also potentially be subject to the Phase II air emissions
rule proposed on July 22, 1991, when this rule is promulgated.

     We will keep you informed through the Incinerator and
Subpart X Permit Writers' Workgroups of the progress on the
technical correction.  If your staff have any further questions,
they may feel free to contact Sonya Sasseville at FTS 260-3132.


cc:  Oevereaux Barnes
     Elizabeth Cotsworth
     Incinerator Permit Writers' Workgroup
     Subpart X Permit Writers' Workgroup


                                       OCTOBER 1991
1 .
    Application of the Sham* Recycling
    Policy to Certified Boilers and Industrial
   The February 21,1991,
                                 Roister (56
£& 7134) promulgated regulations for hazardous
waste boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) in 40
CFR Pan 266, Subpan H,  The preamble (page
7183) to the rule explains that prior to certification
of compliance with the emissions standards under
Section 266.103(c), BIFs (other than BIFs burning
waste solely as an ingredient or solely for material
recovery) must comply with EPA's sham recycling
lolicy published in the March 16, 1983, Federal
  efister. (48 £& 77/57)  This policy requires
   ners of hazardous waste who claim that their
burning activities constitute legitimate recycling to
demonstrate that the waste has a heating value of
5,OOOBtuJlbormore.  How does the sham
recycling policy apply to BIFs which have certified
compliance with the Section 266.103(c) air
emissions standards under the BIF rule?

    Certified BIFs are no longer required to prove
that the wastes they are burning have an as-
generated heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb or more.
The requirement that burning be protective of
human health and the environment is now satisfied
through compliance with emissions standards.  The
February 21. 1991, BIF rule states that the sham
recycling policy stays in effect (except for wastes
fed solely as an ingredient or solely for material
recovery) until an existing facility certifies
compliance with the emissions standards of
Section 266.103(c). (56 ER7149)
The 5,000 Btu/lb policy was intended to prevent
the burning of hazardous wastes for destruction
purposes (i.e., incineration) rather than for energy
recovery in units which do not meet incinerator
standards. Wastes going to boilers which are not
legitimately burning for energy recovery are
likely to vent hazardous contaminants to the
atmosphere as unbumed or partially burned
combustion products, presenting a risk to human
health and the environment  By requiring burners
to demonstrate that a waste's heating value is
greater than or equal to 5,000 Btu/lb, the Agency
is able to assure a high enough temperature and
long enough residence rime in the boiler to
destroy hazardous constituents at a rate which is
protective of human health and the environment
After certification of compliance, however,
protection of human health and the environment
will be achieved through the new air emission

Waste Piles (Subpart L)

Part 264 Subpart L
                      ATU/l 104/12 kp


                           NOVEMBER 84
Waste Storage in a Waste Pile

1.   At land treatment units, operators often dump the waste to
     be treated on the ground, and within a few hours or a day,
     spread it on the land treatment area.  Does this dumping of
     waste constitute storage in a waste pile subject to

          This process is typical at many land treatment units.
          It may not be viewed as storage in a waste pile if the
          waste is dumped on the actual treatment area, and only
          remains for a limited period of time prior to
          spreading.  If the waste is dumped in an area other
          than the treatment area, then it should be regulated as
          a waste pile or landfill.  In general, though, EPA does
          not recommend such dumping and spreading of waste as an
          adequate land application procedure since the waste is
          not applied evenly.  EPA would specify another method
          of application in the permit for the land treatment
          Source:    Mike Flynn  (382-4489)
          Research:  Denise Wright
        This has been retyped from the original document.


                                     MARCH 1985

Waste Pile Liner

2.  An interim status  facility stores Us hazardous  waste  1n a waste pile.  The
    waste pile has been  in use since 1980.  The owner/operator 1s considering
    expanding the waste  pile in 1985.  How do the minimum  technological  require-
    ments contained in Sections 3004(o) and 3015 of  the RCRA amendments  apply to
    this facility?

         The Section 3004(o) double liner and leachate collection system(s}
         requirements  do not apply to waste piles; they 4PP1/ °nl> to landfills
         and surface impoundments.  The new RCRA Section 3015(a) which applies  to
         waste piles imposes the existing Part 264 liner and leachate collection
         requirements  (§264.251) on new interim status waste pile units, lateral
         expansions, and replacements of existing waste pile units.  In  deciding
         whether this  expansion must be lined, it must be  determined whether the
         expansion goes  beyond the boundaries of the existing waste pile unit.
         That decision depends on what objective evidence  (e.g., excavation,
         constructed base, permit specifications, facility plans) Indicates 1s
         the outer bound of the existing unit.  Placing waste beyond that boundary
         would require lining of that expansion.  Waste placed within the
         boundaries of the 'existing unit* might also require lining If  the area
         WAS not "operational' (constructed in conformance with state or local
         requirements) by November 8, 1984 (date of  enactment of HSWA).

         Source:    Bob  Tonettl (202) 382-4654

Land Treatment (Subpart M)

9486 - LAND
Parts 264 & 265 Subpart M
                    ATKl/l 104/44 kp


June 18, 1981

Mr. Gary Perket
Environmental Engineering & Management, Ltd.
Suite 400
7400 Metro Blvd.,
Minneapolis, MN  55435

Dear Mr. Perket:

     I am writing in response to your March 9, 1981 letter to
Mr. Jack Lehman  asking for clarification of the hazardous waste
regulations with respect to gray iron foundry waste.

     Your first  question, is it acceptable to test the combined
sands and cupola drop as a single waste stream presents us with a
problem.  In the example cited, you indicate that the hazardous
waste cupola material never really appears outside of a closed
system except in admixture with the sand.  Thus, one might think
that the sand-cupola drop combination should be tested as one
waste.  However, in reality things may not be so easy.  First, I
am not sure that the sand and cupola residue actually become
intimately mixed during the dropping operation.  If I correctly
understand the process you described, the sand just forms a base,
similar to a charcoal grill firebase, for the cupola residue.
Thus, the cupola residue actually does not become mixed with the
sand unless and  until it is mixed in the disposal site.  If my
understanding is correct, then the cupola residue should be
evaluated separate from the waste sand if one is trying to
determine if either is hazardous.  Also, the six different
sources of waste sand would also have to be evaluated separately.

     If the cupola dust is found to be a hazardous waste, but the
mixed waste entering the disposal site is not, then the plant
would only require a treatment permit since once the wastes are
mixed together they cease to be hazardous waste.  In order to
obtain a treatment facility permit, the facility would have to
meet the applicable Part 264 standards.

     If a waste  does not, at present, exhibit any of the
characteristics  of a hazardous waste and that waste is
subsequently listed as a hazardous waste, then in order to have
the waste delisted the generator would have to demonstrate that
it does not possess the property for which it was listed.  This
delisting would  require the filing of a formal delisting petition
(see §§260.20 and 260.22).
        This has been retyped from the original document.


     If a foundry applies for and receives a treatment facility
permit for a waste, because the waste exhibits one or more
characteristics, then that permit remains valid even if the waste
subsequently becomes a listed hazardous waste.

     I hope these answers serve to adequately clarify the
regulations.  If you need any additional information, please feel
free to give me a call at 202-755-9187.

                             David Friedman
                            Manager,  Waste Analysis Program
                  Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
        This has Jbeen retyped from the original document.

                                         ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
                                               & MANAGEMENT LIMITED
                                         Mmneaoons. MM 55435 • T>ieonone 6'. 2-82 ' -I -2'.

March 9, 1981
Mr . John Lehman
Environmental Protection Agency WE565
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr, Lehman:

I air. seeking clarification regarding the appropriate approach to.
testing wastes from one of our clients.

The client is a gray iron foundry which utilizes a cupola for melting
its iron.  The "cupola drop" after each charge has been designed
to fall to the floor onto a bed of material comprised mostly of
sands no longer useable for their original purpose in the foundry.
These sands come from six different locations in the foundry.

The cupola drop temperatures are high enough to have an effect on
the composition of the sands onto which they fall.  For example, they
could partly or completely oxidize phenolic substances in the sands.
Visually,.changes can be observed in the sand's colors after the
cupola residue is dropped on them.

Our questions are as follows:

1.    It can be documented that the procedure of dropping the cupels.
      residue oa the sands has been a long standing practice.at this
      foundry.  Is it acceptable to the Environmental Protection
      Agency to test*the combined sands and cupola drop as a single
      waste stream?  12 not, what should be tested (i.e. all six

2.    If the cupola dusts from this foundry are shown to be hazardous
      as a result of testing by the IP procedure, but a test of the
      composite of all waste is not, is this an adequate basis for
      proposing that the plant seek a permit as a treatment facility'
      If not, what additional tests are required?

3.    If the cupola dusts from this foundry are not found hazardous
      by the EP procedure (assume single test), will it be necessary
      to formally go through a delisting process if later this year
      the EPA lists foundry wastes from cupolas?

Ur.  John Lehman
llarch 9 , 1981
page 2
4.    If the foundry obtains a license as a treatment facility
      before any action is taken on dusts relative to its listing,
      and subsequently cupola dusts are listed, what actions are
      needed to preserve the treatment permit?

Your prompt review of this matter is- necessary to assist us in
helping our client reach compliance within the earliest possible
time frame.  If we can be of assistance to you, please call me at
612-831-2480.  We are requesting that a written response be sent to
us for documentation.  Thank you.

Carv/Perket,  P.E.

cc:  Mr. Alan Corson
     Mr. David Freidman

                            MAR 2 7
Pr. Richard C. Fortuna                                                  g
Executive Director    -•                                                 *
§aftardm>« Waste Treatment Council                                       w
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, I.V.                                          *
Suite 300                                                               ^
Washington, fc.C. -28001	•.•  • .    '• -    ..,,..  .  ....            o
Dear ftichi                                                              ^

     Thank you for your  latter of  February  15,  1985.  Me welcome        o
this opportunity to clarify several aspects of  O6K*a  land disposal      i
restrictions program for you.                                           H

     There aeests to be some confusion concerning  the  difference         ?
between  (1) tha us* of tha generic land dianoaal  restrictions           |
•odal, and (2) the determination of treatment standards.  This
particular a>odel is deslnnefl  to datereina for which hazardous           •
wasten land dispoaal is  protective.  These findings will be             £
          as 'health-based thresholds."  He agree with you that
tha rolativa riak of alta>rnativa traata*nt tachnolocUa should          7
net txs a factor in detarrininn these thrasholds.                        §
     ?f available treatn*ent technoloclaa can achieve these
threshold* , the treatment atandard will be set at the thresholds.       g
when ^eehnolooy cannot achieve the threshold*, treati»»nt atandarda      ^
will he based on the best available treatment technolory that           -j
suhstnntlally reducer tovieitv of the w««te or vibration of             If
hacardouK waste constituent*.  OSW will define the bent tech-           ^
nolecv as that which rlnlMres threats to huran health an«^ the          -3
environment from the land disposal of a waste.                          ^
     Xn both your February letter and your letter of Parch S,           V
1985 to Mck Moroenstem « you stated that you did not feel that         £
there was a place fft the land disposal restrictions procra* to          ^
consider any increased risks of alternative treatment technologies.     ^
Howevor, CSV feels that the Agency cannot 5»*tify • program that
allowit the use of alternatives that actually worsen the health
and environmental risks resulting fron the »anage»ent of hasardoua
waste*  Therefore, O6W is currently planning to evaluate the
overall risks of each alternative treatment aa a step in aetting
the treatnent standards.  Vhen the results of our analysia reveal
that nn alternative technology aignificantly increases the overall

risk to huwan health and the environment, that technology will
not be considered "available* for the purpoaes of setting treat-
went atandarde.  In no way will thia determination affect our
health-baaed threshold determinations.  Where expropriate , we
will then develop ttandarda to reduce unacceptable risks posed by
•ny such technology so that ever that technology could ultimateJv
be uaed.                                                        T

     Z bopo that thia explanation adequately addreases your
concerns about the use of relative risk assessment in OFW'i land
disposal restrictions proorasu  As alvaya ,  I we 1cor* eny cooments
or «ueation« that you have eonceminq OSV propram* , and I would
be happy to »eet with you at any tine to discuss these and other
iaauea.  Pleas/ feel free to contact »e in  this regard.
I--'" I .
                                  John B. Skinner
                                  Director	--•   -   -
                                 -Office of Solid Waate  (W-SC2)


July 15, 1986

SUBJECT:  Regulatory Interpretation of Depth to Water Table
          Requirement for Land Treatment Units/Second Inquiry

FROM:     Marcia E. Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Waste, WH-562

TO:       David A. Stringham, Chief
          Solid Waste Branch, 5HS-13
          Region V

     Thank you for your July 1, 1986, memorandum regarding
clarification of the regulations that specify that the treatment
zone in a land treatment unit be more than 1 meter above the
seasonally high water table  (40 CFR 264.271(c) (2)) .  I have
attached a copy of my response to your January 29, 1986,
memorandum requesting clarification of the same subject.  Perhaps
this earlier response did not reach you.

     Because this issue continues to be in litigation, and
because the current regulations do not provide for a waiver of
this requirement, my initial response to your inquiry remains
valid.  EPA has stated in litigation documents that there is no
waiver opportunity.  We will inform the Regions of any changes
that result from EPA's settlement negotiations in the litigation

     The rationale for the 1-meter separation standard is
outlined in the preamble to the July 26, 1982, rules (see page
32326, Vol. 47, No. 143 of the Federal Register).  Further
discussion is available in the attached report.

     If you have any further questions concerning this matter,
please contact Jon Perry at 8-382-4654.


cc;  John Lehman
     Bruce Weddle
     Mark Greenwood
        This has been retyped from the original document.


                                JULY 87
6.  Land Treatment
     The land treatment regulations at 40 CFR 264.271 (c) state that the
treatment zone may not extend more than  five feet into the soil and" *hat n
seasonal high waner table must be at  least three feet from the bottom of the
treatment zone.  In permitting land treatment units, it is assumed that the
treatment zone extends five feet down.   Can any variance be granted fron the
three foot requirement between the seasonal high water table and the bottom of
•-he treatment zone?

    >to.  However,  if the facility can prove that the treatment zone
    expends less than five feet into  the soil, the difference between the
    actual bottom of the treatment zone  and five feet may be considered
    as space between the bottom of the treatment zone and the seasonal
    high water table.  The total distance between the top of the soil and
    the water table can be less than  eight feet.

Source:    Nestor Aviles   (202) 382-2218
Research:  Randall Eicher


January 2, 1988

SUBJECT:  Headquarters's Clarification of the Regulatory Status
          of Drainage Water Beneath Land Treatment Units and
          Integration of the Region's Permitting Activities with
          the "No Migration" Petition Program

FROM:     Marcia E. Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

TO:       Charles E. Findlay, Director
          Hazardous Waste Division-Region 10

     This memorandum responds to your December 4, 1987,
memorandum in which you raised several issues on permitting of
land treatment units at oil refineries in Region 10.

     Your first question was whether ground water which is
seasonally drained from beneath land treatment units constitutes
a hazardous waste.  You concluded that the situation is roughly
analogous to situations described in the 1985 policy memorandum
clarifying application of the derived from and mixture rules to
petroleum refinery wastewater treatment systems.  Based on that
1985 policy, you concluded that the drainage water is not a
hazardous waste by definition.

     While we agree that ground water pumped from beneath a land
treatment unit is not necessarily hazardous, we do not agree that
ground water contaminated with hazardous waste leachate from a
land treatment unit can be categorically deemed non-hazardous.
The 1985 policy on wastewater treatment systems does not address
releases to ground water.  The regulatory status of contaminated
ground water is addressed more directly in Marcia Williams'
memorandum of November 13, 1986, which states that ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate much be managed as if
it were a hazardous waste.  This applies equally to land
treatment units and other RCRA units.

     You also questioned whether the drainage water, which is
returned to an NPDES treatment system, must be addressed in a "no
migration" petition.  Under the "no migration" standard, there
can be no migration from the unit.  If the drainage water is to
be excluded from the "no migration" petition, the petitioner must
demonstrate that the drainage water is not being contaminated by
hazardous constituents migrating from the land treatment unit.
        This has been retyped from the original document.


However, for a leachate collection system that is considered part
of the unit  (e.g., it is above a'liner), and where leachate is
pumped directly to a wastewater treatment plant, the leachate
would not be considered to be migrating from the unit.  However,
any ditches or pipes used to conduct leachate from a leachate
collection system, or runoff from the unit must meet the "no
migration" standard, since these conduits could be extensions of
the unit.

     With respect to your suggestion that a Part B land treatment
demonstration can be used in lieu of a  "no migration" petition
covering subsurface transport, we do not believe that an approved
Part B land treatment demonstration can replace a "no migration"
petition.  Although it is true that the subsurface transport
demonstrations for the permit and the petition are very similar,
the statutory standard that must be met for a "no migration"
demonstration is more stringent.  For example, "no migration"
must be demonstrated for "as long as the waste remains
hazardous," and not just for the permitted life of the facility.
Thus, a "no migration" demonstration may have to meet a standard
for a much longer time than the land treatment demonstration.  In
addition, "no migration" must be demonstrated for all media,
including soil, surface water and air.  We realize that much of
the information contained in a Part B application is relevant to
"no migration" demonstrations.  Thus, we have been encouraging
potential petitioners to attach a summary of all relevant Part B
data and/or specific sections of the Part B application.  We are
planning to work very closely with both the Regions and the
States when reviewing "no migration" petitions,  since the permit
writers can offer invaluable technical and historical information
on the site.

     In response to your suggestion that determination made under
a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) can replace an evaluation of
air emissions addressed in a "no migration" petition, we do not
believe that such a determination can automatically substitute
for a "no migration" demonstration.  The standard that must be
met for no migration from the unit will likely be more stringent
than the demonstration required under the RFI.  We are continuing
to evaluate the best way to handle the air pathway for "no
migration" demonstrations, and propose to use health or
environmentally-based exposure levels at the edge of the unit.
For the air pathway we have not yet defined what this will be;
but one option is that the edge of the unit be defined as the
surface of the waste.  In defining the "no migration" standard
the Agency must determine how this standard relates to the
section 3004(n) standards which will control air emissions from
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as "may be necessary
to protect human health and the environment."  Finally, RFI
information may not be available at the time a "no migration"
petition is submitted.  When it is available, it will be
        This has been retyped from the original document.


considered.  We are encouraging the use of all relevant site data
in the "no migration" petition, including information collected
for permitting or corrective action purposes.

     In your memorandum you requested that authority to grant "no
migration" petitions be delegated to the Regional Administrators.
We are planning to propose an interpretation of the "no
migration" language in the Federal Register for public comment.
Because of the controversy surrounding the interpretation of the
"no migration" statutory language, and the potential for changes
in policy, we believe that Headquarters should evaluate the
initial set of "no migration" petitions received.  We will
consider delegation to the regions after the program is developed
and initial petitions have been evaluated to assess issues and
establish precedent.  Therefore, you should advise facilities to
submit petitions to the Administrator.  It would also be
advisable to send a copy of the petitions to the Assistance
Branch of the Permits and State Programs Division, which will
have the lead on reviewing the petitions.  We will coordinate
individual petition reviews on a case-by-case basis.  The Agency
expects to receive relatively few viable petitions.  The petition
approval process should not affect the November 1988 permitting
deadline, since petition approval is not a prerequisite for Part
B permit approval.

     In addition, you asked Headquarters to have a staff person
devoted primarily to covering land treatment issues for the
Permit Assistance Team (PAT).  We understand your concern
regarding the need for technical expertise in this subject area.
Unfortunately, we do not have the resources to assign an
individual to land treatment on a full-time basis.  We will
continue to use the technical staff available,  and supplement
with contractual support when necessary.  If you need assistance
or wish to discuss this,  please contact Elizabeth Cotsworth on
(FTS)  382-4206.

     For further clarification on these issues, please contact
Stephen Weil at (FTS)  382-4770.
        This has been retyped from the original document.

        APR  / I  ,933
                                                      ASO Evtf «GESC» "6S»CNS<
Mr. Minor Brooks Hibbs, Chief
Permits Section
Hazardous and-Solid Waste Division
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
Dear Mr. Hibbs:

    This is in response to your March  17,  1988,  letter
requesting a clarification of the term  "initial  soil  surface" as
used in the 40 CFR 264.271(c)(L) land  treatment  regulations
promulgated under the  Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act.

    The Agency interprets  the initial  soil surface  to mean the
topographic level that was in existence when waste  was  first
applied to the unit.   Any  other interpretation would  be contrary
to the intent of the regulations.  The  intent of  the  rule  is
that the treatment zone be no more than five feet, below the
bottom of the initial  waste placement,  not that  the treatment
zone must be five feet thick.  The purpose of this  five foot
limit was to specify an appropriate  thickness for unsaturated
zone monitoring and to minimize the  practice of  burying waste at
depths not conducive to degradation.

    As you have pointed out,  in some cases, the  rise  in land
surface elevation that may result from  the accumulation of
nondegradable waste solids can be significant.   The Agency
considered this situation  during rule development and decided
that continually redefining the lower  treatment  zone  boundary
was not practical.  Therefor*, the Agency  defines the lower
boundary as a static value based on  the original  land surface

    You should not be  concerned with the permit  applicant  who
has raised the topographic level of  an  interim status land
treatment unit two feet if the permit  applicant  adequately
defines the initial soil surface in  accordance with the Agency's
definition and the treatment  zone is being monitored  properly.
However, one) concern the Agency has  in  the situation  that  you
describe is whether the applicant has  overloaded the  system by
placing more waste than is recommended. It is very important
that during the site reconnaissance, the permit  writer  observes
whether the built-up material is inert  or  is weste  that has not

degraded.  If the latter is the case, waste application should
be severely limited for an extended period of time until "old"
waste is degraded.  Also, where waste application is excessive,
it is questionable whether the site is being operated properly
and whether it should be permitted as a land treatment unit.

    If you have any further questions, please contact Jon Perry
of my staff at 202-382-4663.  Thank you for your interest in
this matter.
                                     Sincerely Yours,
                                     Sylvia K.
                                     Office of
                             Solid Waste
cc: Joseph Carra,
    Art Day, OSW
    Allyn M. Davis
  HWMD, Region VI



Mr. Marte'ifcBamara                                   MAR 3 0 1969
The Australian Gas Light company
Tennyson BBftd Mortlake
P.O. Box 35 Concord NSW 2137

Dear Mr. McNamara:

    You recently wrote the Agency requesting  information  on the
Agency's certification process on biotechnological  methods for
remediation of industrial facilities.

    The Agency does not certify remedial technologies  associated
with cleanup of industrial waste facilities.  Instead, the Agency
issues regulations that contain performance standards  that the
remedial technologies must meet.  Agency regulatory programs
governing remediation of industrial waste facilities base
decisions on site-specific or waste-specific  conditions,  such as
types and amounts  of wastes present, site environmental
conditions and hydrogeology, risks posed by residual wastes, best
demonstrated available technologies for treating the wastes, and
engineering feasibility.  Since no two industrial waste problem*
are alike, the applicability of remedial treatment  technologies
varies from aite-to-site.                                      |

    The Agency's Office of Research and Development provides
technical support  in the area of remedial technologies.   The
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada,
Oklahoma, is involved with examining biotreatment technologies
for remediation of soil and ground-water contamination.   Although
the Laboratory does not certify biotreatment  technologies, they
can be of assistance in determining applicability of biotreatment
technologies to various industrial wast* probl<
    Biotreatment is recognized as an emerging remedial  technology
by the Agency's hazardous waste and underground storage tank
programs.  Many hydrocarbon spills are treated with  in  situ use
of naturally occurring  organisms.  The Agency's remedial
programs do not preclude in situ use of biotreatment methods,  if
the methods ere shown to be appropriate for the site conditions.
    It, dsjpisjg cite remediation, off-site treatment  of  hazardous
wasted areVibeded, standards under the Agency's Land Disposal
Restrictienc Program are triggered.  In general, this program
requires that waste be treated according to Best Demonstrated
Available Treatment (BOAT) technologies.  BDAT is a  performance
standard generally based on reductions achievable by using

some form of incineration, chemical stabilization, or waste water
treatment.  Biological organisms are generally used in the
treatment of dilute liquid waste streams.  Typical BOAT standards
can be found in the enclosed Federal Register on page 40642.
Separate BOAT standards are being developed for contaminated

    We have forwarded your letter to Clinton W. Hall, Director,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 1198,
Ada, Oklahoma, 74820, for follow-up.

                                    Sylvia K. Lowrance
                                    Office of Solid Waste

cc:  Clinton W. Hall, ORD
     David Bussard, WMD

                       WASHINGTON, D.C. 2046C
                            APR 2 7 1990
                                                       OFFICE OF
                                              SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ralph Colieli, Esq.
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20005

Dear Mr. Colieli:

     This letter is in response to your request for an Agency
interpretation of 40 C.F.R. 254.272(a).  That section requires
that the owner/operator of a hazardous waste land treatment
facility show that each hazardous constituent in the waste will
be "completely degraded, transformed or immobilized in the
treatment zone" as part of the treatment demonstration necessary
to obtain a land treatment permit under RCRA.  Specifically, you
have asked whether the Agency interprets the language in 40
C.F.R. 264.272(a) quoted above to have the meaning which appeared
in the 1986 Perr.it Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment Demonstrations.  That document states that an
owner/operator must show that there will be no statistically
significant release to the environment from the treatment zone.

     The Manual accurately reflects EPA's current interpretation
of 40 C.F.R. 264.272(a).  Thus, EPA interprets the requirement of
complete degradation, transformation or immobilization in the
treatment zone to mean that the owner/operator of the facility.
must show, as part of the treatment demonstration, that there>
will be no statistically significant release to the environment
from the treatment zone.   (It should be noted, however, that the
standard for a treatment demonstration under 40 C.F.R. 264.272(a)
is not necessarily the same as the "no migration" standard for
purposes of the land disposal restrictions program.  The land
treatment demonstration standard was established without the
benefit of the Agency's experience in the RCRA and UIC programs
using health-based numbers to evaluate variance petitions under
the more recent statutory  "no migration" standard.)

     If you have further questions concerning  land  treatment
demonstrations or this interpretation, please  contact  Vernon
Myers of rr.y staff.  He r.ay be reached  at  382-4685.
                              Office of  Solid  Waste  (OS-300!

Landfills (Subpart N)

Parts 264 & 265 Subpart N
                     ATK1/1104/45 kp


                         WASHINGTON, O.C. 20440

                              'APR 2 I (986

                                                          Off ICE Of
                                                 SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RES'O

                                   OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE »9487.00-1A


    SUBJECT:  Use of Liquids  for  Wind  Dispersal Control  at
              Hazardous Waste Landfills
    FROM:     Marcia Williams/  Director
              Office of Solid Waste  (WH-562)

    TO;;       Robert L. Duprey, Director
              EPA Region VIII
              Waste Management  Division (8-HWM)

         This is in response to your request received in November
    1985 for guidance concerning the question of under what
    conditions, if any, it is acceptable to use water or other
    liquid chemical stabilizers to control wind dispersal of waste
    in a landfill cell.  We believe that the use of nonhazardous
    liquids for wind dispersal  control at hazardous waste landfills
    should not be subject to the restrictions under Section 3004(c)(3)
    of HSWA.  This use must, of course, be limited to amounts necessary
    to comply with wind dispersal control requirements.  Such amounts
    should be determined by regulatory authorities on a case-by-case

         As stated in your memorandum, Sections 264.301(f) and
    265.302(d) require the owner or operator of a landfill
    containing hazardous waste  that is subject to wind dispersal
    to cover or otherwise manage the landfill to control such
    dispersal.  Since the liquids that are used to control wind
    dispersal are usually nonhazardous (e.g., water), a response,
    to your question is contained in a guidance we have drafted
    concerning Section 3004(c)(3) (which addresses the placement
    of nonhazardous liquids in  hazardous waste landfills) of the
    1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA.
    This draft guidance will be sent to the regional offices in
    the near future.

                                   OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE 19487.00-1A

          We believe that the language and legislative history of
     Section 3004(c)(3) specifically, and of Section 3004(c)  generally,
     indicate that Congress' primary concern in banninc liquids was to
     control the placement of liquids in landfills for'treatment,
     storage/ and disposal.  We believe, further*  that Congress
     did not intend to require owners and operators to apply  for
     an exemption for uses of nonhazardous liquids in or near a
     landfill that are necessary in order to comply with the
     technical requirements of the RCRA regulations.

          You also inquired in your memorandum how wind dispersal
     control* including the use of liquid agents*  was being managed
     at other sites nationally* and Bunder what conditions.   It is
     unfortunate that we have little information'concerning the
     national management of wind dispersal.   We do know* however*
     that the use of water appears to be a common  management  practice
     for control of wind dispersal for dust  and particulate matter.
     Other methods include waste containerization* use of cover
     material (soil and other waste)* and waste treatment before
     disposal (e.g.* chemical fixation*  carbon adsorption).

          We hope this response clarifies the issue.   If you  should
     have any additional comments or concerns,  please contact
     Paul Cassidy* of my staff, at PTS-382-4682.

          Let me say finally that we were very impressed with your
     full and perceptive analysis of the issue  of  the limited use of
     liquids for controlling wind dispersal.

cc:  EPA Regions  I - VII and IX - X

                                                     ECT :V±  »943~.CC-8
                                 AUG 3   ,987


Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction over the management of solid wastes
with the exception of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material, which
are regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under the Atomic
Energy Act (AEAj.  Low-Level Radioactive Wastes (LLW) contain source,
byproduct, or special nuclear materials, but they may also contain chemical
constituents which are hazardous under EPA regulations promulgated under
Subtitle C of RCRA.  Such wastes are comnonly referred to as Mixed Low-Level
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (Mixed LLW).

Applicable NRC regulations control the byproduct* source, and special nuclear
material components of the Mixed LLW (10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 61, and 70); EPA
regulations control the hazardous component of the Mixed LLW (40 CFR Parts
260-266, 268 and 270).  Thus, all of the Individual constituents of Mixed LLW
are subject to either NRC or EPA regulations.  However, when the components art
combined to become Mixed LLW, neither agency has exclusive jurisdiction under
current Federal law.  This has resulted 1n dual regulation of Mixed LLW where
NRC regulates the radioactive component and EPA regulates the hazardous
component of the same waste.

The attached guidance document provides a conceptual design approach for Mixed
LLW disposal facilities.  It has been developed jointly by the NRC and EPA to
assist commercial LLW disposal site operators and State and Regional  Compact
regulatory agencies 1n designing disposal facilities that satisfy both EPA and
NRC regulations for Mixed LLW facilities.  Although EPA is currently In the
process of promulgating regulations that further define the technical
parameters for the leak detection, leachate collection, and double liner
systems, affected parties may proceed to develop designs for disposal units
that w1Tl accept Mixed LLW 1n accordance with existing regulatory requirements.
Owners and operators should, however, keep abreast of developing EPA
regulations In this area.  The attached guidance 1s based on NRC and EPA
regulations In effect on August 1, 1987.

The attached guidance presents a conceptual design approach that meets EPA's
regulations covering minimum technology requirements for liners and leachate
collection systems, and NRC's requirements for minimization of contact of waste
with water, while also assuring long-term stability and avoidance of long-term
maintenance which are required by both agencies.  The concepts proposed in this
document are presented as general guidance; specific design details are
'xpected to be complementary to particular site conditions, so that a license
application will have to address site characteristics and their  relationship to
a proposed design as well as the details of any engineered portion of the
facility.  The application of this guidance will not affect the  requirements
for waste disposal facilities to comply with all applicable NRC  and EPA

The attached guidance should permit  licen«*«< t« *   ,
designs for disposal  of Mixed LLW  thai  fu ?! ml°,d!re1op safe and
of both agencies.   Depending  on  tn   Mrt?wl.r?JDr!!fre9ulat0ry
selected by a  licensee,  EPA  may  permit  virlMc.Iy?! !l conceP^l design
liners  and leachate collection systents.      °   t0 the re^ip«"«nts  for

                                               of Nuclear
                                           Safety and Safeaua
                                         U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CowBl$$i0n
                                          /             w
                                        V Winston Porter
                                        5$s1stant Administrator
                                        Office of Solid Waste
                                          and Emergency Response
                                        U.S.  Environmental
                                          Protection Agency
As stated

                                          05WES  DIRECTIVE  *9437.30-d
                           WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES


The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA)
requires that the three operating low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal
facilities remain available through 1992.  By that time, all  states and  compact
regions are required to assume complete responsibility for LLW disposal.   Both
existing and new disposal facilities ray receive commercial nixed low-level
radioactive and hazardous waste (Mixed LLW), which is regulated by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under the Atonic Energy Act (AEA)f and by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undtr the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).  Mixed LLW is defined as waste that  satisfies the
definition of LLW in the LLRWPAA and contains hazardous waste that either (1)
1s listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 or (2) causes
the LLW to exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics Identified In
Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261.  To assist In applying this definition, NRC and
EPA issued joint guidance entitled "Guidance on the Definition and
Identification of Commercial Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste and Answers to
Anticipated Questions" on January 8, 1987.

This jointly developed NRC-EPA guidance document presents a conceptual design
approach that meets the regulatory requirements of both agencies  for the safe
disposal of Mixed LLW.  Other designs, or variation of the proposed design
concept may also be acceptable under the requirements of both agencies and will
be re.iewed on a case-by-case basis as received.

EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 264, Standards for Owners and  Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities,  identify  the
design and operating requirements for owners and operators that dispose  of
hazardous waste 1n landfills [264.300 to 264.317].  These regulations  involve
requirements for the installation of two or more liners and a leachate
collection and removal system (LCRS) above and between the liners to protect
human health and the environment.  Exceptions to the double liner and  leachate
collection systea requirements are allowed, if alternative design and  operating
practices, together with location characteristics, are demonstrated  to EPA's
Regional Administrator to be equally effective 1n preventing  the  migration of
any hazardous constituent Into the ground water or surface water.

NRC regulations 1n 10 CFR Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal  of
Radioactive Waste, Indicate that long-term stability of the waste and  the
disposal site require minimization of access of water to the waste [61.7(b)(2)]
and that the disposal site must be designed to minimize, to the extent
practicable, the contact of water with waste during storage,  the contact of
standing water with waste during disposal, and the contact of percolating or
standing water with wastes after disposal [61.5i(i)(6)j.  The primary objective
of the above NRC regulations 1s to preclude the possibility of the development
of a "bath-tub" effect in which the waste could Become  immersed  in liquid

                                                   IRECTIVE  * 943 ' . ; J- 3
 (e.g., from Infiltration of surface water runoff) within a disposal  unit belcw
 grade with a low-permeability bottom surface.

 The guidance on a conceptual design approach that is offered in the subsequent
 paragraphs is intended to present basic design concepts that are acceptable in
 addressing the regulations of both the NRC and EPA with respect to requirements
 for liners, leachate collection systems and efforts to minimize the contact of
 liquid with the waste.  It should b« recognized that the guidance is being
 provided at the conceptual level and that the design and details that are
 complementary to specific site conditions need to be engineered by potential
 waste facility owners-and operators.  The application of the guidance in this
 document will not affect the requirements for licensees of waste disposal
 facilities to comply with all applicable NRC and EPA regulations.

 Conceptual Design

 Sketches and a brief discussion of the design considerations for an above grade
 disposal unit are provided.  This design concept has been developed primarily
 to demonstrate the Integration of EPA's regulatory requirements for two or •or*
 liners and a leachate collection system above and between liners and the
 regulations of the NRC that require the contact of water with the waste be
minimized.  In addition, the design concept fulfills the need under both
 agencies' regulations to assure long-term stability and minimize active
maintenance after site closure.

 In this approach, the Mixed LLW would be placed above the original ground
 surface in a tumulus that would be blended into the disposal site topography.
Schematic details of some of the principal design features of an above grade
Mixed LLW disposal unit are provided in the sketches accompanying this guidance
document.  Figure 1 depicts the three dimensional overall view of a conceptual
Mixed LLW disposal unit; Figure 2 provides details of the perimeter berm,
 liners, and leachate collection system; Figure 3 presents a cross-sectional
 view of the covered portion of the disposal unit; and Figure 4 describes the
 final cover system.

 In the overall view of the Mixed LLW disposal facility, the double liners and
 leachate collection and removal system are Installed before the emplacement of
the Mixed UJt and the cover system is added at closure.  The leak detection
 tank and leadute collection tank are encircled by a berm that controls surface
water runoff fro» precipitation that would fall directly on the waste facility
 site.  The drainage pipes In the upper primary collection system would collect
 any leachate that could possibly develop above the top flexible membrane liner
 and below the emplaced waste.  Any leachate collected would drain through the
 pipes to the primary leachate collection tank where the leachatt would be
 tested and treated. If required.  Any leachate collected by the  lower leachate
 collection and removal system would drain to the leak detection  tank.  The
 development of significant amounts of leachate from the solidified waste after
 closure 1s not anticipated.  This 1s because the closure requirements provide
 that the cover must be designed and constructed 1) to provide  long-term
minimization of water Infiltration Into the closed disposal facility, 2) to
 function with minimum maintenance, 3) to promote drainage and minimize erosion,

                                                  DIRECTIVE  t9487.0C-j
 and 4) to have a pe..rmeabi1 ity less than or equal  r.0 the permeability  of  any
 bottom liner system.  It is anticipated that the  area shown on  Figure 3  between
 the slope of the final cover and the run-on control benn,  where the tanks are
 located, would be regraded and the tanks removed  at the end of  the post-closure
 care period (normally 30 years) when leachate development  and collection is  no
 longer a problem.

 Figure 2 provides the general details required by EPA regulations for the
 double liner and leachate collection and removal  syste*.   The perimeter  benn
 for leachate runoff control would assure that all leachate 1s collected  below
 the waste and safely contained and transported through the drainage layers and
 pipes to the tanks located outside the final cover slope.   NRC's regulations
 requiring minimizing contact of the waste with water are fulfilled by requiring
 the waste to be placed above the level of the highest water table fluctuation
 and above the drainage layers where leachate would collect.  The bottom
 elevation of the solidified Mixed LLW would be required 1n all  Instances to  be
 at elevations above the top of the perimeter berm.

 In Figures 3 and 4, the design concepts for the final cover over the  solidified
 waste zone and the perimeter benn are presented.   The actual zone for placement
 of solidified Mixed LLW may consist of different  options,  depending on the     •
 licensee's selection.  Options that would be acceptable Include use of stable
 high Integrity waste containers (HICs) that have  the spaces between containers
 filled with a cohesionless, low compressible fill material or placement  of the
 waste 1n an engineered structure, such as a reinforced concrete vault.  A cover
 system over the waste that would be acceptable to the EPA  and NRC 1s  shown in
 Figure 4.  The cover system would consist of (1)  an outer  rock  or vegetative
 layer to minimize erosion and provide for long-term stability,  (2) a  filter  and
.drainage layer that transmits infiltrating water  off of the underlying low
 permeability layers, (3) an Impervious flexible membrane Hner  overlying a
 compacted low permeability clay layer, and (4) a  filter and drainage  layer
 beneath the compacted clay layer.  If the solidified waste zone does  not
 consist of an engineered vault structure with a top roof,  an additional
 compacted clay layer should be placed Immediately above the emplaced  waste to
 direct any water Infiltration away from the waste zone. Mixed  LLW that
 contains Class C waste as designated by NRC's regulations  would need  to  provide
 sufficient thickness of cover materials or an engineered Intruder barrier to
 ensure the required protection against Inadvertent intrusion.

 Variations on the above described design approach may Include placement  of the
 Mixed LLW In an engineered reinforced concrete vault, a steel fiber
 polymer-Impregnated concrete vault, or double-lined high integrity containers
 that are hermetically sealed.  If proposed by license applicants,  these
 variations would be reviewed by both the EPA and  NRC on a  case-by-case basis to
 evaluate their acceptability and conformance with established Federal

 For questions related to NRC regulations and design requirements,  contact:

 Or. Sher Bahadur, Project Manager
 Division of Low-Level Waste Management
  and Decommissioning
Mail Stop 623-SS
 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC  20555

 Facility sp€df1c questions, permitting requirements, variances  and  other
 related concerns shouJd be addressed to either the EPA Regional  office  or State
agency authorized to administer the nixed waste program as  appropriate.  For
general questions related to EPA regulations and design requirements, contact:

Mr. Kenneth Skahn, Senior Engineer
Waste Management Division
Mall Stop WH-565E
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SU
Washington, DC  20460

                                            rtMAt coven
                                                               UNtR ltC*C*»
                                                       Fottf Cf tOHt RtltfWI. US
                                                              CCN.LCCIIOII nrt
                      UFACIMIE COiLCCTION MANIf OLD

               ICACIIAIC COltCCItON 1ANK
-LtM< OtltCTlOH

                                                             SEPARATION TO ASSURE.
                                                             \.CISCHA,T6. FLOW 1MTO UCRS
                           BOTTOM OF WA*T£


                                                       /    PtRIMEYCR  f)C»M  to*
          RtMOVM. SYstc.M
      fr MIL ^ COMPACfitD CtAY*)
                    UNSAf IMAf 10 SOII.
"* TUc
                        »s t» bt
                   Z- DOUBLE  UHEH AND

                                                     FtHM.  COVtR
                                                     CS««. Pig 4 )
                                     UMSKTORKTtD SOIL
      . \7

      FIGURE  3-  CROSS -SECTiOHM >i>E>N
           N/ERTiCM, SCALE

                Store t>es*GiJEi>
                                                          COMPACTED CIAY
  t>*itclHH) PIPt
                       FIGURE 4  • NNASTE  COVER  SYSTEM


  ,*                    WASHINGTON, O C. 20480
         988                                            2i"'Cg :*
                                              SOL.O AASTS AN3£M6«3esC-
SUBJECT:  Vertical Expansion at U.S. Ecology's
          Trench 10, Beatty, Nevada F*c>.ljftyi
FROM:     Marcia Williams, Director  _;•. ./.// ^i  •
          office of solid Waste   (WH-9fcyv*'MV
                                              v t
TO:       Jeff Zelikson, Director
          Toxics and Waste Management Division
          Region IX
    This is in response to your memorandum of December 30, 1987
requesting a written clarification as to whether th* Minimum
Technology Requirements would apply to a vertical expansion at
U.S. Ecology's Trench 10 in Beatty/ Nevada.  Based on our
understanding of the facts contained in your memorandum, we
agree with Region IX and conclude that the Minimum Technological
Requirements do not apply to Trench 10.  Our position is based
on the following:

    1.   The existing unit had obtained all necessary permits
         and was operational as of November 8, 1984.

    2.   The Part A submitted by U.S. Ecology in 1980 indicates
         a landfill capacity of 800 acre-feet.  Neither  the
         landfill nor the proposed vertical expansion will
         exceed that capacity.

    3.   The TSCA permit in effect on November 8, 1984  required
         a three-feet-below-grade limit on placement of  PCS
         wast* (this limit was rescinded in August 1987).  This
         applied to PCS wastes only and did not affect  the RCRA
         permit for this unit.  Other permits that would affect
         RCRA wastes placed in this unit placed no limitations
         on the elevation of RCRA waste.

    4.   The proposed vertical expansion will not allow
         placement of waste beyond the unit's existing  lateral

                              - 2 -
    5.   Dikes constructed to provide for additional waste are
         not addressed ;n any permit in effect on November 8,
         1984, and State and local permits do not require a
         permit change to address construction of the dikes.

    We are in agreement with your general conclusion that the
vertical expansion is permissible, however/ we believe your
discussion of "vertical expansion" should emphasize the  fact
that regardless of whether the expansion occurs within the unit
boundary or not, vertical expansions are limited by the  Federal,
State and local permits in effect prior to the enactment of HSWA
including any requirements for prc-approval of a vertical
expansion of RCRA wastes.  Thus, consistent with our May, 1985
guidance, where a permit concerning the placement of hazardous
waste includes an elevation Unit, a vertical expansion  beyond
that elevation limit after November 8, 1984 would constitute a
"new unit" subject to Minimum Technological Requirements.  This
is because the vertical expansion would not be "operational" due
to the legal impediment to its operation.   (See also, 50 PR
28702 & 28707, July 15, 1985.)  On the other hand where 'no
elevation or construction limits are required by applicable
permits and/or other State, local, or Federal requirements
concerning hazardous waste, as in this case, additional  waste
can b« placed on the area taking into consideration the  slope of
the final cover at closure.  Furthermore, the limitations
imposed on U.S. Ecology for disposal of PCB wastes are not
relevant in this case but would have been meaningful, as is
apparent from the preceding discussion, if RCRA hazardous wastes
had been included in the height limitation specified in  the TSCA

    I hope this clarifies Headquarters' position that the
vertical expansion at Trench 10 of U.S. Ecology's Beatty, Nevada
facility does not constitute a new unit or a lateral expansion.
To promote national consistency in determining the applicability
of the Minimum Technological Requirements to new units and
lateral expansions/ all Regions will receive a copy of this

    Should you have additional questions, please contact Chris
Rhyne, of my staff, on FTS 382-4695.

cc:   RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
      Permit Section Chiefs, Regions I-X
      Bob Tonetti
      Los Otte
      Frank McAlister
      Pam Savage

Response to Letter  fron 5CA re:  Ir.terin  Status of Propose
Landfill Cells

Bruce Weddie
Deputy Director
State Programs and  Resource Recovery  Division

Michael EonchonsV:y
Deputy Director, Enforcement Division
Region II
     Attached is a lettsr we received  froc  Mr. George  Kush  of
SCA Chemical Services,  Inc. requesting a  decision  on the  status
of their proposed scientific landfill  cell*.

     The issue raised  in the letter  concerns  whether proposed
landfill cells which were included in  the design capacity
described in the Part  A pernit  application  nay qualify for
interim status.  I have reviewed the circumstances  described
in the Application with CGC and the  Office  of Enforcement and
determined that In cases where  a proposed landfill  cell is
included in the design capacity described in  the original
Part A application, it may qualify for interim »tatu»,  assum-
ing of course, that the facility qualifies  for interin status.
If a proposed landfill cell has not  been  included  in the
original Part A application, it cannot qualify for  interin
status unless a revised Part A  perait  application  is submitted
and approved subject to the conditions of $122.23(c).   If you
have any questions or  disagree  with  ay analysis, please
contact either Ms. Deborah Wclpe or  ne at 755-9107.

     It is appropriate for Region II to respond to  the letter,
as the facility is located in Sew York.   I  therefore have
referred Mr. Xush to you if he  has any further questions.


cc: Jeffrey Zelikson w/attachment

VTH-563:Debbie Wolpetof sPa.2107:Ext.59107:3/11/91

February 7, 1984

SUBJECT:  Liner Design, Chemical Waste Management, Inc.,
          Emelle, Alabama

FROM:     John H. Skinner, Director
          Office of Solid Waste  (WH-562)

TO:       Thomas W. Devine, Director
          Air and Waste Management Division, Region IV

     I am writing in response to your January 17, 1984,
memorandum regarding the Headquarters position on Waste
Management, Inc.'s Emelle, Alabama liner design.  Waste
Management Inc. has chosen not to apply for an exemption from the
liner requirements (§264.301(b)) since they could not prevent the
migration of any hazardous constituents into ground water or
surface water at any future time.  Instead they have attempted to
show that the intragradient concept meets the requirements of
§264.301(a).  The intragradient concept relies on waste placement
below the saturated zone and subsequent ground-water flow into
the landfill.  The movement of ground water essentially becomes a
substitute for a synthetic liner.

     Section 264.301(a)(1) states that the "liner must be
constructed of materials that prevent wastes from passing into
the liner..." and §264.301(a)(1)(i) states that a liner must be
"constructed of materials that have appropriate chemical
properties and sufficient strength and thickness to prevent
failures..." (emphasis added).  The regulatory intent is that
compliance with §264.301(a)(1) is to be achieved by construction
of a liner rather than reliance on hydrogeologic forces.  (See
also terms such as "place" and "installed" in §§264.301(a)(1)(ii)
and 264.301(a)(1)(iii) respectively.)

     I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the proposed
unlined design at Emelle is not permissible under the current
RCRA land disposal regulations.  Our Office of General Counsel
concurred in this finding.
        This has Jbeen retyped from the original document.


     A further concern is Waste Management, Inc.'s request for a
waiver of the requirement to maintain a maximum one foot of head
in the leachate collection and removal system.  The regulations
do not allow a waiver of this requirement.  Waste Management
should, therefore, be required to install and operate a leachate
collection and removal system that will maintain a maximum one
foot head.

cc:  John Lehman
     Bruce Weddle
     Ken Shuster
     Peter Guerrero
     Terry Grogan
     Chris Rhyne
     Mark Greenwood
        This has been retyped from the original  document.


                    WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                           14 MAY 1934
         OFFICE Of

SUttJECT:  Headquarters Comments on the Liner Exemption Request,
          Chemical Waste Management, Inc.  (CWM), Emelle, Alabama

FROM:     John H. Skinner, Director ft-/   /[
          Office of solid waste     Jl*'—*w'

TO:       Thomas Devine, Director
          Air and Waste Management Division, Region IV

The Proposal;  Jim Scarbrough's memorandum of April 17, 1984,
requested Headquarters comments on an issue in CWM's permit
application for their Emelle, Alabama, facility.  CWM has applied
for a variance from the Part 264 landfill liner and leachate
collection requirements.  Section 264.301(b) allows such an
exemption if the Regional Administrator finds that the design
and operating practices together with location characteristics
"will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents...into
tne ground water or surface water at any future time." (Emphasis

     The proposed landfill will be constructed in a saturated
chalk formation which apparently transmits ground water so
slowly that the unlined landfill cells can be constructed and
operated below the water table with minimal seepage through the
bottom and sides during the operating life.  CWM claims that
after the cell is completely filled with wastes, ground water
will eventually migrate into and saturate the material.  Once
saturation is complete, leachate contaminated ground water will
then migrate from the unlined cell to a deeper potable aquifer
and a nearby stream.  However, CWM claims that migration is so
slow that the contaminants will not reach the aquifer for at
least 10,000 years.  The basis of CWM's argument is that they
have met the liner exemption conditions because the 10,000 year
period meets the "any future time" requirement.

Discussion- CWM has confused the term "ground water" with "aquifer.1
both, are aetined in §260.10: "Ground water" means "water below
the land surface in a zone of saturation"; "Aquifer" means a


formation "capable of yielding a significant amount of ground
water."  CWM has attempted to demonstrate that leachate will not
affect the nearest potable aquifer for at least 10,000 years;
however, leachate will enter the ground water (as defined above)
as soon as the buried materials become saturated.  This clearly
does not meet the waiver requirement.

     The preamble to the land disposal regulations of July 26,  1982,
(47 FR 32315) provides that an example of a case in which the
liner exemption may be appropriate is one where: (1) a large
unsaturated  (emphasis aaded) zone below the unit is capable of
attenuating any hazardous constituents in the leachate before it
reaches ground water or surface water; (2) the unit is located
in an arid area in which precipitation does not recharge ground
water; and (3) the unit handles only a small quantity of wastes.
None of these conditions exist at the Ernelie site.  The wording
of the regulation and the examples in the preamble clearly explain
that leachate must not enter ground water.

Recommendation- EPA should not grant the waiver because the
applicant does not demonstrate that hazardous constituents
will not enter the ground water, which is the requirement
for granting a waiver.

     In their March 17 response to the Notice of Deficiency, CWM .
also states that they have "made a management decision to remove-
the RCRA hazardous waste incinerator from the Part B application."
In order to avoid any future question regarding whether this
incinerator at the Ernelie site was built in violation of the
RCRA pre-construction ban, I suggest that you request that CWM
send a letter stating that they have no intention of ever using
this incinerator to incinerate RCRA hazardous wastes.

cc:  Jim Scarbrough, Region IV
     Bruce Weddle
     Jack Lehman
     Mark Greenwood
     Al Geswein
     Nancy Hutzel (OGC)

                    PERMIT POLICY Q & A REPORT


                        SEPTEMBER 10, 1984

1.   Question:  Can a facility comply with the liner requirements
by placing waste below the saturated zone so that ground water
flows into the cell, thus preventing waste migration out of the
cell.  40 CFR 264.301(3).

Answer:  No.  The regulatory intent is that compliance with
264.301(a) is to be achieved by construction of a liner rather
than reliance on hydrogeologic forces.

2.   Question:  Can an applicant receive a variance from a
specific design or operating requirement when the regulations do
not contain a variance provision for that standard?

Answer:  No.  The regulations have no general provision for
waiving specific sections on a case by case basis.  There are,
however, instances where the regulations provide alternative
means for complying with, or waiving, a specific section.

3.   Question:  Can a land disposal facility achieve compliance
with the double liner requirement by installing a synthetic
membrane over a clay liner or must both liners be synthetic? 40
CFR 264.301, 264.302.

Answer:  Both liners must be synthetic.  The land disposal
regulations provide an exemption from Subpart F requirements for
landfills if they meet certain requirements, one of which is that
the landfill must be underlain by 2 liners,  both of which meet
the liner design and operating standards.  Liners for landfills
must be constructed of materials that prevent wastes from passing
into the liners.  Clay liners do not meet this standard.
        This has been retyped from the original document.



                        AUGUST  84
EP Toxic leachatt from a sanitary  landfill (non-hazardous) is
collected and pumped back Into tne landfill.  I; the landfill
a RCRA TSO facility?

    Once the "leachate  Is collected. Its subsequent
    management 1s regulated by tne RCRA TSOF requirements.

    Source: Hark Greenwood
    Research: Tom Gainer

                                NCV  I 2 1S3A
?ubj«cti  StAbiliiation of Bulk  Liquids  in Landfill Cells

Proa:     John B. Skinner, Director
          Oriice of Solid v/aste  (WH-552)

Tot       Jar.es H. Scarbrough, Chief
          residuals Management Branch, Region ZV

     I A* writing in response to your request for an interpretation
of 5265.3l4(a) regarding handling of bulk liquid vaste.  You brounr.t
to ay attention the case of a disposal facility that has been
handling bulk liauida as follows:  These liquids are aorvarvntly
placed in a pit in the botton of an unlined (per $204.301(a))
landfill coll.  Soa*tire after nlacenent the liquids are aoliditied
with an absorbent material.  After the liquids are solidified they
are renoved and disposed of in another portion of the landtill cell.
This practice is not permitted under 5265.314(a).

Dlac ussi on

     52S5.314(a) prohibits the placenent of bulk or non-contair.«ri:e<3
liquid vasto or waste containing free liquids in a landfill unlbss
one of the following conditions  is nets

          1.  The landfill has a liner and Icachate
              collection and removal systea that aoets the
              requirenents of $2fe4.301(a); or

          2.  Before disposal* the liquid waste or
              waste containing free liquids is treated or
              stabilized, chcaically or physically, 9*0
              that free liquids are no longer present.

      Since  the  liner option  it not  available in this cast/ only
 tne  second  ootion  reaains.   A key phrase  in that option is 'be
 discos*!."  Tha  regulatory definition of "disposal" includes tho
 "...  a lac in.? of any solid waste or  hazardous waste into or on any
 land  or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any
 constituent thereof aay enter the environment or be eaitted into-
 the  air or  discharced into any waters, including ground waters
 ($2*3.10)*  (*r.phasis added).  3y nlaeinn  liquid wastes in a pit in
 tne  hot to*  of an unlined landfill cell the owner or operator is
 Miaroitr.q" of  bui* liquids,  in this case, stabilization occurs
 after disposal, whereas 5265.314 U) (2) requires treat-sent or
 stabilisation before disposal.  The stabilization process should
 occur outside the  landfill cell in  a tank or surface iapoundoent
 ccanlvinrj with  applicable regulations.

 Cone 1us ion

      facilities located in your Region that »ay be practicing
 bulk  liquids disposal as you descried should be notified
 that  this practice* is not allowed undor $263.314.

      feu should also sake note that RCJU  asendnents passed by both
 the  L'ouse and the  Senate will ban the disposal of
 bulk  liquids (with or without a&aorrxnts) la landfills
 six months after the effective) date of the aaendaents.

cci   Hazardous waste Branch Chiefs, Region* Z-JZI, V*2

 bcc: Paul  Cassidy
       Tony  Baney  (WH-527)
       Terry Grogan
       Peter Guerrero
       Bruco Meddle
       Jack  Lehnan
       Chria Rhyne

                         MAY 1 0 1985                                i ?
                                                                      rr Ut
                                                                      *( ON
                                                                      C NJ
                                                                      i- X
                                                                      2 >
                                                                      C 0
                                                                      •  C
                                                                      O en
                                                                      en o
Ms. Kathleen A. Ream                                                  S =
American Chemical Society                                             o<*
1155 Sixteenth Street, N.W.                                           £^
Washington,, D.C.  20036                                               ^ »
                                                                      » o
Dear Ms. Ream:                                                        *.^
                                                                      on 3
     This is in response to  your  letter  of  March  22,  1985,  in         a en
which you requested clarification of  the potential effect of          *. ™
Section 3004 (c) of RCRA, the 'liquids in landfills" provision         i £
added by Section 201 (a) of the  Hazardous and Solid Haste Amendments   * «
of 1984 (HSWA), on the continued  landfill disposal of "lab  packs.*      '
I an aware of the efforts of the American  Chemical Society during     *
the evaluations of the HSWA and appreciate your position supporting   -a 7
environmentally-protective standards for the management of lab        *
packs.                 '                                               »^
     Currently, 40 CPR 264.314(b) (4) and 265.314(b) (4) allow the      ' "
disposal of lab packs in landfills.  RCRA  Section 3004(c)(2)          ^<
requires the Agency to promulgate  regulations by February 8, 1986,    *£
which, among other things, minimise the disposal of containerized     a ^
liquid hazardous waste in landfills.   The legislative history        "Z.
to this provision suggests that Congress,  in enacting Section           •*
3004(c)(2), intended to allow the  continued landfillino of lab
packs in accordance with existing  regulations.  EPA plans to
develop regulations under Section  3004(c)(2) which are consistent
with this legislative history.

     If you have further questions, please call either Alan Corson
or Susan Broram, of ny staff (382-4770).

                                       Sincerely yours,
                                      John  R.  Skinner
                                      Office of  Solid Haste

Mr. Bernard L. Jones
Project Manager
GSX Services of South Carolina,  Inc.
Ronto 1, Box 255
Pinowood, South Carolina  29125

Dear Mr. Jonest

     I an responding to your concerns, outlined in your March 26,
1985 letter, about Section 3004(c) of the RCRA Amendments dealing
with the ban on disposal of liquids in landfills*  Z wish to
clarify a number of points that  you brought out in your letter*

     In your Background section, you state that the law specif-
ically prohibits the use of only biodegradable absorbents after
February 8, 1986.  The law (|3004(c)(2)) also prohibit* the
disposal of containerised liquid wastes when the liquids have
been absorbed in materials that  release liquids when oosjpressed
as might occur during routine landfill operations*

     You also state that by your interpretation* fixation by
direct cheaical reaction with any or all waste eosponents is
required for bulk liquid wastes, in order to convert the liquid
to a solid.  Chemical stabilisation is one option for dealing
with bulk liquid hazardous wastes but not the only option*
Enclosed is a revised guidance aseerandua (Hay 9, 1985) that
the Office of Solid Waste has developed for the bulk hazardous
liquid provision.  A copy of an  earlier draft was sent to
Mr.  Richard Moon* Director of Research and Technical Assistance*
GSX Services* on March 27, 1985.

     Your specific recomnendations appear to be generally consie-
t.sat with the policies described in the draft raamorandura.  I hope
the enclosed guidance clarifies the Agency's current approach
toward implementing the new statute.  If you should have any
questions or consents, please contact Paul Casaidy at 202-382-4682

                                Sincerely yours,
                                John H. SXinn«T, Director
                                Office of Solid Waste

cct  JaeX Lehman
     Kenneth Shuster
     Arthur Day
     Paul Cassidy

                         AUG  7 135-
Hr* Peter S. Daley
Director, Research and Development
Chemical Haste Management,  Inc.
Technical Center
150 west 137th Street
River dale, Illinois  60627

Dear Mr. Daley:

     This is in response  to your  letter of June 24, 1985,  in
which you requested clarification of a number of procedural
matters dealing with the  management of liquid hazardous wastes
in landfills.

     Your first issue concerns  the use of the Paint Filter Liquids
Temt for containerized materials.  You are correct in your under-
standing that the Paint Filter  Liquids Test  (Federal Register,
April 30, 1985) applies to  containerised materials only as a
means to verify, where needed*  that there are no 'free-standing'
liquids.  The current regulations ($$264.314 and 265.314) prohibit
ths disposal in landfills of  'free-standing  liquids" in containers,
not *free liquids* (see 47  Federal Register  12316, March 22,  1982).
The March 22 preamble described free-standing liquids as those
that form distinct pools  or layers above or  below the waste  in a
container.  The preamble  further states that where it is difficult
to determine whether a layer  is a free-standing liquid, the  paint
f lifter teat can be used.  Hhere there are no distinct layers  or
pools of liquid at the surface or within the waste there are  no
free-standing liquids.  Free-standing liquids are a subset of
free liquids*  Thus* the  waste might contain free liquids  (in
accordance with the Paint Filter Liquids Test) but might not  be
classified MI containing  free-standing liquid.  On the other
band, alazJljmm "Standing liquids are free liquids.
     IB tho march 22, 1982, rule and preamble, the Agency  stated
that landfill! operators should use readily available,  technically
feasible techniques, such as decanting of free-standing  liquids
from containers or other removal methods, or absorbing or  solidifying
tms- freestanding liquids in containers, to eliminate  free-standing
liquids prior to landfilling.  In most cases, determining  the

 presence or absence of  free-standing liquids  will  not  be
 difficult,,  ' S*er* it is difficult to determine whether a
 given  subvtance is  a free-standing liquid,  the preamble
 stated thnt the paint filter test can be used.

     The promulgation of the Paint Filter Liquids  Test on
 April  30,  1985, does not change how the current requirements
 for  containers  (i.e., free-it and ing liquids)  should  be. complied
 with.   Your suggestion  to supplement visual inspections with
 routine paint  filter testing is a good quality control

     Your second issue  concerns the stabilisation  of liquids
 standing on bulk loads  manifested as solids.   You  stats that
 theao  liquids  could be  the result of rain,  snow, or  transporta-
 tion vibrations, and that this  occurrence can be especially
 troublesome at  sites without treatment permits if  stabilisation
 of this liquid  in situ  is considered •treatment.*  You propose
 to apply a  stabilisation agent  to these standing liquids
 on bulk loads and verify the effectiveness  of this action by
 the  use of  the  Paint Filter Liquids Tsst rather than turning
 awav suci^, loade at  the  gate.  If the standing liquid layer
xupiB«)l*ae  poured off or decanted, then your concept  of applying
 a stabilisation agent to the surface of the load can be
 performed.   However, as you pointed out, this treatment
 would  require a treatment permit.  There is no exemption or
 exception  to the treatment definition for the chemical treatment
 of bulk liquids.

     A facility .that does not have a treatment permit  may be
 able to use ths exemption that  applies to wastes and absorbents
 when they are added to  a container for the  first time
     As  a matter  of  clarification, we assume that  by  "in situ"
you mean t** waste is  treated  in  the bulk container or other
container, tank,  or  device, and do not mean treatment  in the
landfill since all bulk hazardous wastes Bust  be treated
prior to placement in  the  landfill.

     Your third issue  concerns the disposal of  bulk liquid
wastes to which the  generator  has added an absorbent.  You
believe  that such waste can be chemically stabilized  through
the addition of sufficient stabilisation reagents, and that
the resulting product  will pass the Paint Filter Liquids
Test.  You asked  for guidance  on  the acceptability of  this.

     Based on the recent amendments to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act  (RCRA), we believe the Congress intended
that liquid wastes that can be safely incinerated or  otherwise
treated or that can  be reclaimed  and reused, especially
organic liquids,  should be so  treated or reclaimed.   Further,
we believe the language of Section 3004(c)(l)  of RCRA prohibiting
the landfilling of liquids that are solely treated by  the
use of absorbents is intended  to  encourage such treatment or
reclamation.  Therefore, generators should be  discouraged
frosa simply adding absorbent materials to such wastes.

     On the other hand. Congress  also intended  that the ban
on landfilling absorbent-treated  liquid waste  should  not be
construed to restrict  the  landfilling of chemically stabilised
or treated wastes.   Therefore, it is pur .belief that  bulk
liquid wastes to  which an  absorbent has been added can be
chemically stabilised  and  can  be  landfilled after  being
stabilised.* He believe this type of activity  is consistent
with the intent of Congress end is acceptable  as long as the
chemical stabilisation is  in compliance with the bulk
hazardous liquid  waste guidance (e.g., the treated waste
passes the Paint  Filter Liquids Test).

     Your fourth  and last  issue concerns the containerizatlon
and solidification of  bulk liquid wastes.  You asked  whether,
on a niiisi irmm.time.  basis, certain bulk wastes could  be  solidified
and laadflilsd in containers.  This is allowable under our
interpretatiom of the  statute.  Disposal of these  containers
in the landfill must*  of course,  comply with the current
disposal requirements  for  containers (40 CFK 264.314  or

     Z hope these responses fully answer your  questionsi  if
you should have additional concerns or commwnts, please feel
free to contact Hr.  Paul Cassidy  of my staff,  at 202-382-4682.

     Th« Ag«»cy is still cons Ids ring all coouMnts, including
yours, that hav* baan racaivad on tha bulk hazardous liquid
waste guidance.  wa hop* to issus rsvissd guidanc* as soon as
                                John P« L«haan
                                Wasta Htna^nwnt and
                                 Ccononies Diviaion

ccs  Kan Shuatar
     Paul Caaaidy
     Barbara Paea
     RCftA Division Directorai Ragiona I - X


                                     AUGUST  85
Mi.-.omun Technological Requirements

4.  section 3004(o)(5)(B)  of the  Solid Waste Disposal «ct, as amended, provides vac _K.e
    reciui.-Btntr.es Cor the installation of  two or nort li.iers my a* satisfied 3y the i.-serin
    statutory design prts«r.t«d.   This dMigr. includes "a cop l:.-»r cesigr^l, operated,  a.-i
    corscracted of omceriais co preve-c the nigncion of any corseitucer.t ir.co sucn Lir.er
    ^urirq tne period such facility  rene.L-j in operation (L-.cluding arty pose-closure nor.it-
    orir^ period)..." Should tiw  li.-ar meet tne $3004(o)(5)(B) criteria Cor tne openti.ng
    U!e of cne particular unit or of the entire facility?

       The design, construction,  and operation of the liners should prevent the migration c
       hazardous waste constituents  into  the top lirjer and through the lower lirjtr as Long
       as the particular unit reraeins in  operation.  The operating period includes any post-
       closure monitoring  period  of  the specific landfill or surface impoundment unit.

       Contact:   Les Otte  (202) 382-4654

                                SEP 20 1985
Mr*  Robert  fl.  Pyle
UPP  Services Incorporated
112  «sst 9th Street,  Suit*  CIS                                       £
Lot  Angelos, California  90015                                       ^

Ottr Mr. Pylti                                                        §
      This is in  response  to your letter of  August  29, 1985,           a
requesting  clarification  of the  use  of absorbent*  for                 •*
containerised  liquid  hazardous wastes.                                ^
      The RCRA  Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (see       ^
Section 3004(c)(2) attached)  require that not  later  than IS months    <"
after the date of  enactment (February 8, 1986), the  Administrator     \
shall promulgate final  regulations which minimise  the presence of     *
free liouids in  containerized hazardous waste  to be  disposed ot       «
in landfills*  The regulations shall also prohibit the disposal       «
of liquids  that  have  been absorbed in materials that biodegrade       7
or that release  liquids when compressed.                              QJ
      You requested clarification concerning what the February 8,      ^
1986, effective  date  means  in terms  of compliance.   The provision     ™
requires the Administrator  to promulgate final regulations.  This     -*
provision,  unlike  others, does not contain  a "hammert* i.e., the      *g
provision does not go into  effect automatically.   The provision       ^
requires EPA to  Issue final regulations before this  provision         2
becomes effective. On til such time  as a final promulgation           <§
becomes effective, industry does not have to comply  with this         ~
provision.                                                            m
      Until  the effective  date of final regulations issued by the      '
Agency, the current requirements contained  in  Sections 264.314        x
and  265.314 (attached)  concerning containerised hazardous liquids     £
will  remain in effect.  The current  requirements do  not prohibit      >
the  use of  absorbents nor do they restrict  the type  of absorbent      >•
that  can be used*   I  do wish to  point out that* and  although not      2
prohibited  in the  current regulations, the  Agency  strongly advises    •
against the use  of biodegradable absorbents such as  shredded paper    c
or sawdust.  We  believe that good management practices should not     £
allow- biodgradable absorbents to be  used because of  their ability
to degrade  and release  liquids and hazardous constituents.  Like*
wise* w« believe absorbents that do  not have structural stability
(i.e., that behave like a sponge and release liquids under
pressures found  in a  landfill) should not be used*

     Tbs last point OB which you r»qusst»d clarification concerned
the substance of the final regulation* to be published by the
Agency to implement f)004(e){2).  section 3004(e)(2) requires EPA
to "prohibit the disposal in landfills of liquids that bars been
absorbed in matsrials that biodsgrads or that rslaass liquids
vh«n eo«pr»ss«d as might occur during routifts landfill «psratioas.*
Clsnrly» Oongrsss intsndsd to allow ths «s« of aeesptabls physical
trs«t»snt uodsr S3004(c)(2) for oontainsrissd liquids as oontrastad
to ths chewical trsatasnt iaplisd by ths rsquirs«siit In |3004U)(1)
for bulk hazardous liquid wsstss.  It appears, at this tiaw, that
ths final rogulations for 13004(c)(2) will not roquirs chamicml
trsatasnt of eontainsrlssd liquids.

     Thank you for your intsrsst in this issus*  Should you
hare additional questions* plaas* contact Hr« Faul Cassidy at
(202) 3S2-46B2.

                                John P. Lahvan
                                Vasts Nanagsmsnt and
                                Bconoaics Division

bees  Ksri Shustsr
      Art Dsy


                             SEPTEMBER 85
Non-Hazardous Liquids Ban

2.  The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984  placed several  bans on the
    placement of certain wastes in FOA interim status or permitted  landfills.  One
    of the bans, as codified in $264.314(e)  and $265.314(f)  (50 FR 28749 - 28750,
    July 15,  1985), states that 'effective November 8, 1985, the placement of any
    liquid wnicn is not a hazardous waste in a landfill is prohibited  unless"
    certain conditions are met.  The !OA regulations do not define  what is meant
    by the term "liquid."  Is there any clarification available regarding the
    applicability of this ban to semi-solid or multi-phase) wastes?  Is the use of
    absorbents prior, to placement in a RCRA landfill  prohibited?

      The ban on the placement of non-hazardous liquids in RCSA landfills will apply
      to any waste that is a liquid or that contains  free liquids as determined by
      the Paint Filter Liquids Test, Method 9095 as described in Test Methods for
      Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods."  [EPA Publication No.
      SW-846]   The ban does not specify that the use  of absorbents to  solidify non-
      hazardous liquids prior to placement In a RGRA  landfill is prohibited.
      Therefore, if a nonhazardous liquid has been has been solidified and contains
      no free liquids as determined by the Paint Filter Liquids Test,  it may be
      placed  in a RCRA landfill, according to current staff policy.  Guidance will
      be available to the Regions in November.

      Source:     Paul Cassidy (202) 382-4682

                              .....M*. r*or6C.TWN AGENCY

                          flCT | 8 ::z.
Mr. V. Ernst Minor
Vice President
Government Affair*
SolidTek Systems, Inc.
4412 Aicholtz Road
Cincinnati, Ohio  45245

Dear Erniei

     This is in response to your letter of October 3, 1935,
as clarified by your telephone conversation with Bob Tonetti
on October 15, 1935.  Your letter requests our concurrence with
the 3-foot thick compacted clay bottom liner that is a component
of SolidTek'• patented landfill design.

     Consistent with the requirements of the Hazardous and Solid
waate Amendment* of 1964 (HSWA), our regulations now require,
under 40 CFR 264.301(c) and 265.301(a), the installation of two
or more liners and a le&chate collection system above and between
the liners for new landfill units.  The regulations state that
the bottom liner requirements nay be satisfied by a liner designed,
operated, and constructed to prevent the migration of any consti-
tuent through such liner during the period such facility (or
unit) remains in operation, including any post-closure care
period.  A 3-foot thick layer of contacted clay or other natural
material with a perrieabillty of no more than 1X10"7 centimeters
per second has been deemed by KSWA, atftaast on an interim basis,
to meet this bottom liner requirement.  Our regulations reflect
this provision of HSWA.  Since the SolidTek design includes a
bottom liner Identical to that described in f264.301(c), this is
an acceptable bottom liner design.

     However/ we do believe that other designs, such as a composite
bottom liner consisting of a flexible membrane (synthetic) top
component and a clay bottom component are more protective.
Until such tlM as our regulations may be revised, however, a
3-foot recompacted clay bottom liner with a permeability of no
more than 1X10"7 centimeters per second is acceptable.

     As a point of further clarification, the tertiary leachate
collection and removal system below the bottom liner in the
SolidTeX design is allowable by the new double liner system
requirement* in Parts 264 and 265.

     If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to
contact r.e.

                                     John P. Lehman
                                     Waste Management and
                                      Economics Division

November 20, 1985

Mr. Glenn Oakes
Land Reclamation, Ltd.
2250 S. Green Bay Road
Racine, Wisconsin  53406

Dear Mr. Oakes:

     This is in reply to your letter dated October 1, 1985,
regarding the need to regulate recovered landfill gas under the
hazardous waste regulations.  In your letter, you indicate that
this gas (which is produced by the natural decomposition or
organic matter) is passively venting to the atmosphere (if it is
not collected) and should be considered an air emission and
treated as such; applying any other logic to this situation would
seriously stretch the original intention of the rules.  You also
believe that if the Agency considered recovered landfill gas to
be subject to the hazardous waste rules, it could have serious
implications on the extraction and utilization of landfill gas,
and possibly could shut down all existing landfill gas recovery
projects currently operational.  You, therefore, request that we
exempt such recovered landfill gas from any controls under the
hazardous waste rules.

     First, let me thank you and other members of the landfill
gas industry for meeting with members of my staff to discuss this
issue.  We found the information and data provided to be quite
helpful.  Based on your input as well as our own analysis, we
have decided that recovered landfill gas that is burned for
energy recovery should not now be regulated under the hazardous
waste regulations.  Therefore, we have included a provision in
the final rule dealing with the burning and blending of hazardous
waste (which was signed by the Administrator on November 8) which
specifically exempts gas recovered from landfills that is burned
for energy recovery from the hazardous waste regulations.  (See
enclosed preamble discussion and regulatory provision regarding
recovered landfill gas.)
        This has been retyped from the original document.


     Please feel free to give Mr. Straus a call if we can be of
any further assistance; Mr. Straus can be reached at (202) 475-

                                        Marcia E. Williams
                                        Office of Solid Waste

        This has been retyped from the original document.



                      WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                      5  DEC 85
                                                       OFFICE OF
                                              •OLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY MEftPONSE

Fred W. Bowditch,  Ph.D.
Vice President
Technical Affairs
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
300 New Center Building
Detroit, Michigan  48202

Dear Dr. Bowditch:

     This is in  response  to  your  letter dated October  25,  1985,
requesting that  the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA)
clarify its interpretation of  the  prohibition of placing  liquids
in landfills as  regulated under 40 CFR 264.314(5) and  265.314(5)
as promulgated on  July  15, 1985.   you state  that the EPA  Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA) Hotline's  interpretation
of the above-mentioned  regulations is in contradiction with
the mandate of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
of 1984 and the  published EPA  interpretation as shown  in  the
July 15, 1985, Federal Register.

     I will first  respond directly to your concern over the RCRA
Hotline's interpretation  and,  secondly, I will  clarify points
that you brought out  in your letter.

     In regard to  the Hotline's interpretation  that SS264.314(b)
and 265.314(b) (bulk hazardous liquid prohibition) ban the place-
ment in landfills of hazardous liquids to which absorbents have
been added at non-landfill facilities, I believe this  statement
to be accurate.  I have enclosed a copy of the  Statutory
Interpretive Guidance concerning the treatment of bulk hazardous
liquids that the Agency has  developed.  This guidance  states that
the addition of an absorbent to a  liquid hazardous waste  that  is
intended to be disposed of in bulk form clearly violates  Congress1
intent behind the amendment.  The  Statutory  Interpretive  Guidance
on page 7 states that the statute  bans the placement  in a landfill
of bulk liquid hazardous  wastes if an absorbent was added to the
waste regardless of where the absorbent was  added.  The Agency's
published interpretation, as it appears in the July 15, 1985,
Federal Register, also supports the Hotline's interpretation.  In
50 FR 28705 (July 15, 1985)  EPA states:  'The statute  makes it
clear that the ban encompasses hazardous waste  containing free
liquids even if absorbents have been added to such waste."


 Although  these  proposals  typically include some design
 variation from  what has been conventionally perceived as a
 landfill,  we consider  these variations to be relatively minor,
 and  they  have not  altered our viewpoint that these "above-
 ground" facilities be  considered landfill*.

     Although your letter does not describe specifically the
 design and operation of the above-ground land emplacement
 facilities that the Siting Commission is considering, for
 the  purposes of this letter we assume that the tacilitios
 are  similar to  those above-ground facilities with whicn we
 are  familiar.   Therefore, we will answer your questions based
 on the assumption  that the units you refer to are landfills.

     You  posed  three questions in your letters

       1.  "Co the  land ban provisions of the 1984 Amendments,
          which prohibit the land disposal of toxic wastes,
          apply to New Jersey's so-called land emplacement

     Assuming that land emplacement facilities are deemed
 to be landfills, the land ban provisions would apply.  RCRA
 Section 3004(k)  expressly defines land disposal for purposes
 of the land disposal restrictions program to include "landfills.
 Moreover, even  if  it were to bt determined that the New
 Jersey units did not constitute landfills for purposes of
 federal law, such units are still potentially subject to
 the land ban.   we believe Section 3004(k) allows EPA to
 Include within  the definition of land disposal units other
 than those specifically enumerated, and the Agency has done
 so in its January  14,  1986, land ban proposal..  There, we
 proposed to add any "concrete vault or bunker intended for
 disposal" to the list  of facilities identified in the
 statute as land disposal.  Thus, if the proposed land
 emplacement facilities are concrete vaults or bunkers, our
 proposal would  subject then to the land disposal restrictions
 whether or not  they qualified as landfills.  (See proposed
 40 CPR S282.2 regarding the definition of land disposal (51
 PR 1602,  1607 (preamble), 1741 (proposed rule)).)

       2. "Has  EPA developed any standards, guidelines or other
          eritsria to  assure the Integrity of 'land emplacement
          facilities,• including 'above-ground, long-term
          storage' facilities?"

     Aoain, assuming that New Jersey's land emplacement
 facilities would be deemed landfills under the federal RCRA
 scheme, EPA's operating standards in 40 CFR Part 264 Subparts
 P and N would apply.   These includs requirements for liners,
 leachate collection and removal systems, groundwater monitoring,
corrective action, final covers and post-closure maintenance.

        3.  "The  1984 Amendments establish a variety of mini/turn
           technological reguirenenta for land disposal faciiiti<
           Would these  regulations be adequate to ensure the
           safe  disposal of hazardous wastes in a 'land ersLlacem

      Tf the New Jersey facility meets the federal definition
of a  landfill,  then the minimum technical requirements for
land  disposal facilities, introduced by the 1984 Amendments,
would apply.  The minimum technological requirements, together
with  other existing recuirewents such as the ground-water
monitoring and  corrective action standards, would ensure the
safe  disoosal of hazardous waste in such facilities.

      Me wish to address one additional issue not raised
explicitly in your letter, pertaining to the relationship
between federal  and state hazardous waste management programs.
It is not  possible to determine, on the basis of your letter,
whether a  Nev Jersey state permit for a land emplacement
facility would  constitute an authorization to operate under
P.CRA.   New Jersey is currently authorised to allow permanent
disposal of haiardous waste only in facilities that Beet the
definition of a  disposal surface impoundment, landfill,
injection  well,  or land treatment unit.  If New Jersey
regulations currently consider land emplacement units to be
landfills, then they must be permitted as such in.order to be
considered an authorized RCRA facility.  Any attcunpt to
permit  the land emplacement units as other than landfills
would be Inconsistent with the State's RCRA authorisation.
Therefore, if New Jersey elects to permit these units as
other than a landfill—either because it lacks authority
under New  Jersey law to permit them, as a landfill or because
it has  decided,  for other reasons, not to permit them as a
larrtf111—then  any authorization to operate would be effective
only  for state  law purposes and would not constitute authorization
to operate under RCRA.
*/ FPA intends to issue separate permitting standards
Tunder a new Subpart X to Part 264) for units that do not
logically fit into any pre-existing facility management
category. These nay include standards for land disposal
units that do not fit well under the land disposal unit
categories discussed above, we anticipate the Subpart X
standards will be issued in final by the end of this year.

If the Agency were to promulgate Subpart X rules that applied
to certain above-ground land emplacement units in lieu of the
landfill standards. New Jersey would have one or two years
after the new rules were issued to apply to CPA for authorization
to implement Subpart X. In the interim, such facilities would
have to continue to be permitted as landfills if they are to
be considered authorized RCRA units.

     we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with
information regarding the federal prooraw for hatardou*
waste management facilities.  Please feel free to contact
Marcia Williams, Director of the Office of Solid Waste, if
you have further Questions on this matter.

                                    J. Winston Porter
                                    Assistant Administrator

 • "•  *

            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                  MAR   6 1985
                                                              E OF
                                                  SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
    Mr.  H.  Lanier Hickman, Jr.
    Executive Director
    Governmental Refuse Collection
      and Disposal Association
    P.O.  Box 7219
    Silver  Spring, Maryland  20910

    Dear  Mr. Hickman:

         This is in reply to your letter to me dated  December  5,
    1985, in which you requested  a clarification of how  we  intend  to
    regulate gaseous emissions  from landfills.  In particular,  you
    asked us to consider regulating gaseous emissions from  hazardous
    and non-hazardous  waste landfills through the Clean  Air Act (CAA)-
    rather  than the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA).

         As we stated  in the recently promulgated regulations  on the
    burning and blending of hazardous waste (40 CFR Section 266.30),
    we believe it is clear that the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency  (EPA) has the authority under both Sections 3004(n)  and
    4004(a) of RCRA, as well as the CAA, to regulate  gaseous emis-
    sions from hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfills.  The
    lead  EPA office for developing air emission standards is the
    Office  of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).   Because
    OAQPS is only in the early  stages of development  of  policies
    and rules pertaining to gaseous emissions from hazardous waste
    land  disposal facilities, it  is too early to provide you,with
    anything definitive on this subject at this time.  In addition,
    no decisions have  been made regarding any revisions  to  the land-
    fill  gas provisions of the  "Criteria for Classification of Solid
    Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR  Part 257). We
    will  bo developing regulatory options for the Criteria  revisions
    during  the next several months.

         Because the GRCDA Landfill Gas Committee is  already working
    with  the EPA Subtitle D program on similar issues, it may  be
    appropriate to discuss this issue at the meeting  planned  for
    March 17,  1966, in Newport  Beach, California. I  have asked
    Allen Geswein of my staff to work with OAQPS to put  this  issue
    on the  agenda for  this meeting.

     I hop* that
that through
     i nwKw w..«w this information is helpful to you and expect
that through a coordinated effort we can develop an appropriate
approach for dealing with gaseous emissions from non-hazardous
waste land disposal facilities.  If you have any specific
questions on the development of the air emission standards
for hazardous waste land disposal facilities, please contact
Susan Thorneloe or Randy McDonald of OAQPS.  Both can be reached
at (919) 541-5671.  Or,  contact James Berlow of OSW at (202)
382-7917.                                                  '

                                Sincerely yours,
                                Marcia E.
                                Office of

                                          Solid Waste
cc:  Susan Thorneloe (OAQPS)
     Randy McDonald (OAQPS)

                                    MAR 261986
      Honorable Jaraes J. Florio
      Subcommittee on Commerce, Transoortation
        and Tourism
      Cormitto* on Energy and Commerce
      U.S. House of Representatives
      Washinoton, D.C.  20515

      Dear Mr. Chairvani

           Thin is in response to your letter of February 26, 19*6,
      regardinq the regulatory status of "above-around land emplacement
      facilities' under the federal hazardous waste regulatory

           The phrase "above-ground land emplacement facilities*
      is not a term used in the federal regulations for treatment,
      storaoe, and disposal of hazardous waste.  However, baaid on
      the infoirmation in your letter, it appears that the New
      Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities Sitino Commission defines
      that phrase as permanent placement of wastes on or in the land.
      Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
      implamentinq regulations, permanent placement of hazardous
      waste, including perpetual 'storage*, falls into the regulatory
      category of land disposal.

           Over the oast several years, we have reviewed a number
      of proponals for 'above-ground* long-term storage or disposal.
      Without exception, we have viewed each of these oroposals as
      land disposal, and, wore specifically, as landfills* V
      */ EPA permitting regulations for hazardous waste facilities
      recognize .five kinds of land-based treatment, storaoe, or
      disposal unitss surface impoundments, waste piles, land
      treatment units, underground injection wells, and landfills*
      The permanent placement of hazardous waste is oermitted only
      at land treatment units, disposal surface impoundments,
      underground injection wells, and landfills.  Under EPA regulations
      (40 CFR $260.10), a landfill is defined as a 'catchall'
      category, encompassing land disposal of hazardous waste that
      doea not constitute disposal in anv of the other three categories.
(•A I>M 1326-1 (fj.70)                                                /  ^OFFICIAL «ILI COPY
                                                                 00 : 1M1 0 - «OJ-»1

      I  would  like  to  also  clarify  certain  points  in  your letter.
 You  state  on  page  2 that,  "Therefore,  the  ban applies when the
 addition of absorbents  fails  to  convert  the  liquids  into a non-
 liquid  form or  fails  in eliminating  free liquids  in  the waste."
 As stated  above, the  bulk  hazardous  liquid ban applies even if
 (or  when)  an  absorbent  has been  added  to the waste and changed
 its  physical  character  (i.e., changed  the  waste from a liquid to
 a solid).

      Another  point that you raised on  page 2 is that the bulk
 hazardous  liquid ban  does  not apply  to non-liquid (i.e., solid)
 hazardous  waste or wastes  containing no  free liquids, whether or
 not  absorbents have been added.  This  statement is true only if
 a bulk waste  is initially  determined to  be a solid by the Paint
 Filter Liquids Test (Method 9095).  This amendment does not
 prohibit a landfill owner  or operator  from adding an absorbent
 to a  solid hazardous  waste  if he/she so  chooses.  If, however,
 the  bulk waste is initially determined to  be a liquid by the
 above test, the addition of an absorbent to  treat the waste
 (i.e., make it a solid) converts the waste into a material that
 cannot be  placed in a landfill.

      I wish to caution  you  on your reading of S3004(c)(l)  and
 (c)(2).  You  appear to  be  combining these  two paragraphs into
 one.  The Agency interprets $3004(c)(l)  to regulate bulk, liquid
 hazardous wastes while  $3004(c)(2) regulates containerized liquid
 hazardous wastes.  The  bulk hazardous  liquid amendment prohibits
 the  use of absorbents while the containerized hazardous liquid
 amendment allows absorbents that are non-biodegradable and struc-
 turally stable (i.e., do not release liquids when compressed).
 These two paragraphs  ((c)(l) and (c)(2)) are exclusive with
different legislative histories  (one originated in the House,
 the other  in  the Senate), and thus should  not be read to address
 the same universe of  waste.

     In regard to the example that you provided on page 4, I
wish to point out that  the  Hotline's interpretation does not
prohibit "these types of liquid elimination processes."  Your
example refers to free  liquid molecules  that are bonded within
 the structure of the  solidified product  (similar to the hardening
of concrete that binds  water molecules).   I understand this
process (i.e., bonding) to  be a chemical reaction and is often
 referred to as chemical stabilization  or encapsulation.  These
bonding processes are what  Congress envisioned to be acceptable
 treatment methods for bulk  liquid hazardous wastes.  Again, what
 the Hotline's interpretation would prohibit  is the bulk (or
 non-containerized) disposal in a hazardous waste landfill of a
 liquid hazardous waste  that has been treated only by absorption
rogardless of where the absorption (or where the addition of an
 absorbent)  took place*  Me  interpret the Congressional meaning of
absorption to be the  addition of an absorbent, where a physical,

 and  not  a  chemical,  reaction  with the liquid  fraction  takes
 place.   This  distinction between physical  and chemical  processes
 is discussed  further in  the enclosed  guidance.            «v-«ases

      I hope that  this discussion responds  satisfactorily  to
 your  concerns.  If.you should have any additional  comments or
 questions/ please  contact Paul  Cassidy,  of my staff, at (202)
 3 82-4682.

                                J. Winston Porter
                                Assistant Administrator

SUBJECT:  Regulatory  Interpretation of Ban on Use
          of Liquids  in  Landfills

PROM:     Marcia  E. Williams,  Director Grljissl Slated E-.
          Office  of Solid  Waste  (WH-562 J^-ia 2.  r

TOj       David A. Stringhan,  Chief
          Solid Waste Branch  (5HS-13)
          Region  V
     Thank you  for  your  memorandum of March 27, 1986, requesting
Glorification on  the  use of  hazardous and nonhasardous liquids in
landfills*  The applicant/ LTV Steel  Company,  proposes to use one
of two typea of liquida  to improve the handling properties of
electric arc furnace  dusts and grinder dusts as they are placed
in the landfill.
     The first  Utjuirf  p>:r:$>OM*£ ?t»r  use is contact runoff from the
active portions trf  (?,h® >.£!rtd£ltic  This runoff is considered to be
a hazardous liquid  t/aafc*,  bccfiuse it is likely to have nixed with
leachate,, which is  a listed hazardous waste.  Section 3004(c)(l)
of SWDA bans the placement of bulk  liquid hazardous waste in
landfills, even if  absorbents are used to treat the liquid.  The
use of such a hazardous liquid waste for treatino the dusts would
violate this ban.

     LTV also proposed using a nonhazardous liquid (noncontact
runoff) to treat the wastes.  You asked if this spraying activity
would be banaaxl by  Section 3004 (c)( 3), the nonhazardous liquids
provision.  This section states thatt "the placement of any
liquid which is not a  hazardous waste in a landfill, is prohibited
unless the owner or operator of such landfill demonstrates to
the Administrator,  or  the Administrstor determines, that (a) the
only reasonably available alternative to the placement in such
landfill is placement  in a landfill or unlined surface impound-
ment .....  and  (b)  placement in such owner or operator's landfill
will not present a  risk of contamination of any underground
•OUtee t*t drinking  iMfr.ar.* __
Cft, POT 1320.1 (11.7«)
                                                         OFFICIAL FILE COPY

Miscellaneous Units (Parts 264,
Subpart X, Part 265, Subparts P,
Q and R)

Part 264 Subpart X
Part 265 Subparts P,Q,and R

                        WASHINGTON. O.C. 204«0

                                      OSWER Directive 9489.00-2

                      APR ;. 2  •-•
                                                       of ice of
                                              SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY


SUBJECT:  Issues Relating to Miscellaneous/-Units
FROMJ     Sylvia K. Lowrance, Di
          Office of Solid Waste     /

TO:       RCRA Division Directors,
          Regions I to X

    The purpose of this memorandum is to provide implementation
guidance on the newly promulgated Subpart X regulations for
miscellaneous units published in the Federal Register
(52 fB 46946, December 10, 1987).  A more detailed explanation
of these issues will be contained in an upcoming 'Federal Regis-
ter correction notice to the December 10th rule.  This memoran-
dum will briefly cover the major points to be clarified.

Regional Authority to Implement Miscellaneous Units Standards
fSubpart X) in RCRA Authorized State*

    There has been confusion about EPA's authority to implement
Subpart X in authorized states.  This issue was originally
discussed in section VII(b) of the preamble to the December
10th rule.

    An you know, Subpart X requirements are not HSWA require-
ments.  Therefore, we are not relying on HSWA authority to
support EPA implementation in authorized states.  Rather, other
RCRA authority exists for direct EPA implementation.  The Agen-
cy is Baking UM of the authority provided under
40 CFR 2*4.1(f)(2) to implement the Subpart X program in all
states at the) sama time, regardless of their authorization
status.  This authority was created to avoid a gap during which
permits could not be issued in those states which had obtained
RCRA program authorization but had not been authorized for new
Part 264 standard* for specific facility/unit types  (such as
Subpart X).  The Regions will, therefore, implement the program
and issue Subpart X permits until the states revise their pro-
grams in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.

                                      OSWER Directive 9489.00-2

    In this regard, EPA's authority to issue permits extends
both to new and existing facilities.  Prior to Subpart X, many
existing miscellaneous units had interim status and operated
under 40 CFR 265, Subpart P for thermal treatment, and Subpart
Q for chemical, physical, and biological treatment units.
These interim status units will now be subject to EPA permit
authority to apply Subpart X standards until the state receives
authorization to permit these types of units.

Permitting Deadlines for Subpart X facilities

    The 1984 HSWA Amendments in section 3005(c) contain the
statutory permit deadlines applicable to Subpart X facilities.
The permit application deadline of November 8, 1988 and the
permit issuance deadline of November 8, 1992, are relevant to
Subpart X units.  The only Subpart X facilities subject to the
permit application filing and permit issuance deadlines of
section 3005(c), however, are those that had interim status by
November 8, 1984.  Furthermore, the permit application due by
November 8, 1988 need only cov«r those units that v«re
identified in (or that needed to be identified in) the Part A
as of November 8, 1984.  Submission of the Part B application
for these units by November 8, 1988 will secure the
continuation of interim status for the unit in the event that
the Agency is not able to make a final determination on the
application by November 8, 1992.  Note that any unit added
during interim status after November 8, 1984 or any facility
receiving interim status after that date, is not subject to the
1988 Part B application deadline.  Note also that any final
determination by November 8, 1992 on the application may take
the fora of a partial permit, since the determination only has
to cover units under interim status on November 8, 1984.

    Nona of the foregoing require* the Regions to initiate a
call-in of Part B applications for Subpart X.  The upcoming
Federal flfgifl^p correction notice will generally notify hazard-
ous wast* •anagaaant facilities owners and/or operators of
these KM* daadlinas and the impact upon their Subpart x
units.  In addition, however, Regions ars encouraged to notify
intsria status) facilities in ordsr to give thea the opportunity
to meet tha November 8, 1988 deadline.

                                      OSWER Directive 9489.00-2
    Since Open Burning/Open Detonation (OB/OD) is one of the
most common miscellaneous units, OSW is working on a guidance
document for OB/OD of military waste explosives.  A separate
guidance for commercial explosive waste is under initial devel-

Technical Corrections to Suboart %

    Several mistaken citations of regulations have been detect-
ed in the December 10th final rule. They are on page 46965 of
the Federal Register, and should be corrected as follows:

     i) in 270.14(b)(5): change the citation "264.194" to
        "264.193(i) and 264.195", and,

    ii) in 270.14(b)(13): the citation should read "the
        post-closure plan required by 264.112, 264.118 and

    These issues will be discussed in more detail in the upcom-
ing correction notice in the Federal Register. If you have any
questions, please contact Nestor J. Aviles at FTS 382-2218,
Chester oszman at FTS 382-4499, or Frank McAlister at
FTS 382-2223.

cc:  RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I to X
     RCRA Permit section Chiefs, Regions I to X
     Bruce Weddle, OSW
     Susan Broma, OSW
     Elizabeth Cotsworth, OSW
     Suzanne Rudzinski, OSW
     Matt Hale, OSW
     Frank McAlister, OSW
     George Garland, OSW
     Fred Chanania, OGC
     Kant Anderson, osw
     Ana H. Aviiea, osw
     Tim Xaatan, OWPC

           onucu i^ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A>iNCY           9439.1985
                         SE.: 2-C
SiJBJECTi  Performance and  Permitting  Standards  Relating to
          Section 3004(b),  the  Prohibition of  the Placement
          of Hazardous waste  in Salt  Domes
FROM!   ^Tarcia^T/rmaraaV director
          Office of Solid  '.'aste  (WH-562B)

TO:       Allyn M. Davic,  Director
          Air and waste Management Division  (6AW)
     This is in response  to your June  27,  1985,  memorandum
concerning a permit application from united  Resource  Recover/,
Inc. (URR) to the Texas Department of  water  Resources (TDWR)
that involves the injection,  throuqh a well,  of  hazardous
waste into a salt done.

     Section 3004(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (tiCRA) contains strict controls on the placement  of
hazardous waste in underground formations  (i.e., salt dome
formations, salt bed formations, underground  mines and caves).
The requirements of Section 3004(b) that are  applicable  to
the URR proposal depend on whether the hazardous waste fills
into one of two categories).

     Section 3004(b)(l) state* that the placement of  noncon-
tain«irised (or bulk) liquid hazardous  waste  into underground
foriRAtions) of these types is  prohibited untilt   (1) the
EnvirofUMAtal Protection  Agency (EPA)  has determined,  after
notice and opportunity for hearings on the record in  the
affected areae, that such placement is protective of  human
health and the environment* (2) EPA has promulgated performance
and permitting standards  for  such facilities  under Subtitle
C) and (3) a PCRA permit  has  been issued for  the facility.
Section 3004(b)(2) statee that the placement  of  containerized
liquid hazardous waste and all nonliquld hazardous waste in

these underground formations  is prohibited  until a  RCRA  permit
Mas been issued for the facility.  Congress  intended  the
cerr.i "placement* to cover all type* of hazardous waste handlinq,
including the use of salt Jomes for disposal,  temporary
storage or as treatment chambers.  See 129  Congressional
record Ildl39 (oaily ed. Oct.  6, 198TT~( sect ion-by-section
analysis of Jreaux amendment)!  id. at 38141 (statement of
Rep. Forsythe).

     Therefore, the determination of whether the wastes
that URR proposes to inject  into salt dome  caverns  are either
liquid or nonliquid ia of critical importance.  We  believe
that Congress intended the terra "liquid"  in Section 3004(b)(l)
to include both liquids and  free liquids.   Baaed on the  legislative
history regarding the term "placement" cited above,  we interpret
the prohibition on liquids to extend to wastes that are  liquids
When placed Into a salt done for further  treatment,  including

     The legislative history for Section  3004  Indicates  that
Congress intended EPA to develop a uniform  definition of
"liquid" and to prescribe a  teat for liquids  and free liquids
that is applicable regardless of ths method  of placement of
naxardous waste.  See S. Rep. No. 284* 98th  Cong.,  2d Sess.
22 (ia83)i 129_ Congressional Record H8139 (dally ed. Oct. 6,
1983) (sectionby-section analysis of Breaux  amendment)}  id.
at H8I41 (statement of Rep.  Forsythe).

     On April 30, 1935, we published a final  rule including
a methodology for determining the presence of free  liquids
in hanardous wastes.  This methodology is known as  the paint
filter liquids test (Method  9095).  The preamble to the
April 30, 1985, rule identified severs! uses  for the paint
tliter test within the Federal hassrdous waste regulatory
program.  Although the use of the paint filter test for
determining the presence of  noncontsinerlsed  or bulk liquid
haiardoua waste for the purposes of compliance with Section
3004(b) was not referred to  in that preamble, based on the
language end legislative history of Section  3004* we believe
that the paiat filter test is entirely aopropriate  for this
purpose Mi rocoasMnd its use.
     Therefore* we believe that any noncontainerised or bulk
haiardous waste) that does not pass the paint filter test
(i.e., it is a liquid due to the presence of free liquids)
is prohibited by Section 3004(b)(l) from being pieced in a
salt dome cavern.  This prohibition is in effect until BPAt
(1) has determined, following notice and hearings* that such
placement is protective of human health and the environment,
(2) has issued performance and permitting standards for such
facilities, and (3) has issued a permit.

     For hazardous wastes other  than noncontainerized or  bulk
liquid hazardous wastes  (as determined using  the paint  filter
test), Section 3004(b)(2) allows placement  in a salt dome or
other underground formation provided that a RCRA pernit has
neen issued,  with reference  to  the URR proposal,  the waste
stream rcust pass the paint filter  test at the point  just
prior to its being injected underground.

     At present, EPA has permitting rules for underground
injection wells (Part 144) that  can potentially be used for
permitting the injection of certain hazardous wastes into
salt dome caverns that are below all underground sources of
drinking water (USDW).  An Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program permit, under Part 144, for a Class  X underground
injection well is considered  to  be a RCRA permit by rule,
provided the conditions of 40 CPR  5270.60 (which was amended
on July 15, 1995) are met.  However, tne underground injection
rules apply only to the injection of "fluids.*  A fluid is
defined in Part 144 as "any material or substance which
flows or moves whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge,  gas,
or any other form or state.* Therefore, for the'purpose of
permitting tfte placement of fluid, non-liquid, hazardous
wastes in salt dome caverns below all USDWs, the UIC regulations
can potentially be used at this time.  Under EPA regulations
(40 CFR 5144.13), and under Section 7010 of RCRA, injection
of hazardous waste into or above a USDW is prohibited.
Thus, any salt dome into which hazardous waste is injected
must underlie the lowermost USDW.

     Currently, it is not clear whether the Agency has  permit-
ting regulations that arc fully applicable to the placement
of nonfluid or containerized  liquid hazardous wastes in
salt domes or other underground formations.  However, we are
currently developing rules that will create a new Subpart x
of Part 2(4 that could be used for permitting practices,
other than underground injection, that involve the placement
of nassjrdovm waste in any form in salt donee and other under-
ground fonmtions.  we expect to promulgate the Subpart X
regulation* in the fall of 198C.

     In summary, EPA, and States that are authorized to issue
Class I UIC permits, are able to proceed with consideration
of permit applications for the placement of only fluid,
nonliquid, hazardous wastes via  injection wells into salt
domes and other underground formations.  Therefore, if URR
intends to inject only fluid, nonliguid, hazardous wastes,
tnen TOWR is authorized to issue a UXC permit that also
meets the requirements of $270.60.  The UIC permit will

aUJress tn« facility trow the well head down, including the
injection lone,  of course, a RCRA permit is required for any
surface haiardous waate nanaqement units, such as tanks or a
container storage area, at the facility.

     I hooe that this information has answered your questions
on this ''a

 JUL 22 1987


SUBJECTt  Ragulatoxy ftaqulxaaaota  for  rixa Txaining Pits

rtOMl     MUCia E. MiUiaaa, DixaCtOt /O/ X\ *J ft/ *4 uJ
          Offiea Of Solid tfaata       //  W

TO i       Rannath 0. Faignax, Chiaf
          waata Managaaant Bxanch
          ETA Ration X

     This ia to addxaaa tha  iaauaa and quaationa xaiaad In  youx
Juna 24 f 1M7, Maoz«adu« eonc«xnin9 buzni&g of igaittbl* Mt«il4l*
«• p«xt of fix* txaittiag •x«xei««*.  Th«  two a*ia l«cu«« eottc«tnt
(1) en* z«gul«tozy atAtua of ta« burolaq  lta«lf; aad  (a) th«
•tatun of aacaxiala that aaap into tha gzouad dux ing  taa «xaxcUaa«
              butnlnq.  Und«t 4O era $2*5.382, op«a burning of
         haaaxdooa vaata  (axcapt fox datoaatioa of vaata »*plo»iv««)
         la pxohiblta4.y Whan a vaata la aithax liatad ox if it
         aahlbita ooa of tha ehaxactaxiatics* it eaaaot b« buzocd
         la a pit aa thia vouid ba opaa buxning.  Nataxiaia such
         aa ehasaetaxiatie aaad oil aad apant solvaata could not
         ba butaad ia thia aaaaax.*/ Coaaaxcial fuala auch aa
         katoaana* gaaoliaa* aad avaa jat fual« howavax, could ba
         oaa4 ia thaaa aaaxeiaaa*  Tbaaa aataxiala axa normally
         aaad aa faala aad thaix baiag buxaad ia tixa fighting
         aaaxeiaaa would appaax to ba within noxaal uaa*  A
         tula-of*thuab to diatinguiah coaaaxcial fuala fxoa
         waataa ia that whan a aataxial ia eoaaaxcially avtiia'ola
         to tha public aa a fual, buxning tha aataxiai «ould not
         ba oonaidaxad waata aan«v**ant.
l/ Tina aaa» tse« Kaxan waltax to Miehaal S«ndataon that  you
   aootioa atataa thia kind of haaaxdoua waat* buxnln* ia thaxaal
   traataaet, auajaet to Faxt 265, subpazt F.  wot a, howavax,
       pcoviaioa ia Subpaxt P ia tha opaa buxning
2/ You ahould aota that buxning apaat aataxiala  in thia aannat ia
   not a fox» of xacyeliag baeauaa no anaxgy xacovaxy  xa involved.

         Contaminatad aoila.  In th« caaa whaxa hazaxdoua waataa
         axa buxnad in pfti" and wast* •••pa into auxxounding toil*,
         tha eoataalnatad aoila may coo tain hasaxdoua vast*,  if
         llatad waataa aia buxnad, aoil containin? any amount, of
         tha waata (ox • wa*ta conatitu«nt) would b« raguiatad as
         th« ha«aidou« ««•!• until th« vast* ia x«aov«d.  If
         chaxactaxiatic waetaa axa buxnad, tha contaminated aoil
         it only subject to it^ulation if it axtoibita on* of tha
         chaMACtaiiatic*.  In «ith«x ca««, th« zal«aaa of haaaxdoua
         wast* into aoil ia a form of diapoaal.  UalMa tha
         facility is pzop«zly p«xmittad (ox haa int^xim atatu*),
         th* xal«aa« into aoil would b« illa^al.
     You ahould nota that av«a wh«n ooBaaxcial fu«la axa uaad
ia thM« •x«xcia«a, a aoil contamination ptoblam BAY davalop.
Tho :i•!•*•• of % nat*xial that is «ith«x liat«d ia $2*1.3.) ox
that •shibitt on* of th« oaaxaet«xiatioa (a.a., i9»itai>ility>
onto OK into land o> wata* ia haaaxdoua vaat« ditpooal.  Anyoo*
wimhiBf to ooaduet th*a« •s«xcia«« with ignitatola mataxial «h«n.
would b« advlaad to ooaduet th« buxa ia a tank ox a liaad pit to
px«voat ill«9al diapoaal.
eet  Waata Manaoaaoat Division Dixaotoxa (R«giona I-X)
     Solid Waata ixanch Chiafa (Eogioaa I-x)


     f                    WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460

                             MAY | 8 1988
                                                          OFFICE OF
                                                 SOLID WASTF. AND EMEHCf.NCV OCSPONSE

    SUBJECT:   Morton Thiokol Thermal  Treatment Units

Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director X/A.  *K.  j	'
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562A)&
    TO:        Robert L.  Duprey,  Director
               Hazardous  Waste Management Division
               Region VIII

         This is in response .to your April 13,  1988 memorandum
    requesting a clarification concerning the scope of Subpart. X as
    related to thermal treatment,  and the .interaction of Subpart X
    standards and the land ban restrictions for mixed solvents..  I
    would like to address your concerns in the same order as
    discussed in your memorandum.

    What is the scope of units comprising Suboart X?

         Subpart X covers miscellaneous units not regulated under
    the standards for specific types of treatment, storage, and
    disposal units in Part 264, Subparts I through o, or Part 146.
    Likewise, Subpart X will not supersede or replace any specific
    restrictions on activities contained in another subpart of the
    regulations, nor provide a vehicle-for escaping from these

    Specifically, are the units which are operated bv placing the
     liquid wastewater containing reactive wastes into the pit or
     surface impoundment and then allowing evaporation and
    percolation of the liquid prior to burning, regulated as
     thermal treatment units, surface impoundments, or both?

         The ten units which are operated by (1) depositing liquid
     wastewater, containing varying amounts of reactive wastes,
     directly in unlined pits,  (2) allowing the liquid to
     evaporate/percolate, and then (3)  igniting.the residue, are
     surface impoundments.  The described pits are specifically

                              - 2 -

included in the definition of surface impoundment in 40 CFR
260.10 (that is, aeration pits).  Being such, the units will
require permfte based on Part 264 Subpart K.  40 CFR 264.220
states that Subpart K applies to facilities that use surface
impoundments to £££a£, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
However,  the permit applicant can be required to supply
additional information as required in 40 CFR 270.23 (i.e., for
miscellaneous units) if the Subpart K standards do not provide
adequate protection for human health and the environment.  For
example,  the Regional Administrator may write permit conditions
based on the Subpart X standards which would protect the air or
surrounding soils during the burning phase of the treatment

What land disposal deadlines and restrictions are applicable to
the units aa defined bv the answer to the above question?  Must
the units meet the Noy^^fry 8. 1988. retrofit deadline or

    The Agency has concluded that open burning/open detonation
(OB/OD) of waste explosives in a Part 265, Subpart Q,  or a Part
264, Subpart X, OB/OD unit does not constitute land disposal
because it is treatment, not disposal (52 FR 46592).  This is
true except in cases where the residuals from the OB/OD
operation remain a hazardous waste.  Therefore, OB/OD
activities are not automatically subject to the land disposal

    As we indicated above, the treatment pits are properly
classified as surface impoundments; therefore, all land
disposal deadlines and restrictions and the surface impoundment
retrofit deadline remain applicable.  Furthermore, a unit is an
OB/OD unit under Parts 264 and 265 when it is not a surface  .
impoundment and when it open burns/detonates waste explosives.
As mentioned in §265.382, non-military waste explosives can be
open burned/detonated only when they have the potential to
detonate.  According to the information we have on Morton
Thiokol's treatment pits or impoundments, wastewater that does
not have the potential to detonate is placed in a pit and is
treated by dewatering and subsequent burning.

Does the burning of solvents which are contaminated with
reactive material constitute a violation of 40 CFR 265.382
hazardous waste open burning prohibition?  Does the solvent
mixed waste meet the Subpart X burning requirements?

    The open burning of solvents is strictly prohibited. Only
waste explosives that have the potential to detonate,  and bulk
military propellants which cannot be safely disposed of through
other modes of treatment,. can be open burned in a Part 264
Subpart X, or Part 265, Subpart Q, ur.it. (See 40 CFR 265.382)
If the waste solvent is a waste explosive that has the
potential to detonate, then it can be open burned provided that

                              - 3 -

the unit fits the appropriate criteria.  The descriptive
information, on unit #11 is not definitive but we suspect that
"trough" referred to in your memorandum may be a tank, and
therefore, also does not qualify as a 264, Subpart X, or Part
265, Subpart Q unit.

    More information is needed for us to make a final
determination on the potential to detonate (e.g., exact
concentration of explosive or ratio of materials is not known
nor is its fulfillment of the definition of "detonate11 in
265.382 fully known). However, we do not think the open burning
of the 1,1,1-trichlorethane or any other solvent will prove to
be proper when this information is provided.

What land ban requirements are applicable to the solvent
wastes?  Can the solvents be opened burned and do the land bar^
requirements apply to the solvents?

    Because disposal of the solvents is not likely to qualify
as OB/OD in a Subpart X or Subpart Q unit, all of the land
disposal restriction requirements, including those at 40 CFR
268.4, would appear to be applicable to the management of
solvents in the situation you outlined.  In such event, the
solvents cannot be open burned.

    If you have a question regarding these clarifications or
would like to discuss the issues in more detail, please contact
Chester Oszman (382-4499).
cc:  Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
     Lisa Reed, Region VIZI
     Fred Chanania, OGC
     Kent Anderson, OSW
     Chester Oszman, OSW

                        WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
Mr. Douglas MacMillan, Director
Hazardous Wast* Policy
National Solid Wastes Management Association
Suite 1000
1730 Rhode Island Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
                                              SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCY »ESPOf
Dear Mr
       . ijSSllan
     This is a follow-up to our letters of July 31 and August  8,
1990, that responded to all but one of the questions raised  in
your l«tt«r of Jun* 13, 1990.  This letter responds to the
remaining question, question 43, concerning capacity variances
and underground injection.  We worked with the Office of Water to
answer question 43.

     Question 43 asked, for a commercial facility that is using
injection to handle on-site clean up wastes, how does the on-site
capacity variance apply?  The Agency will evaluate the generation
of wastes disposed of at commercial injection facilities on  a
casa-by-case basis.  Any underground injection capacity variance
would most likely apply if the facility was generating the
injected waste as a result of treatment (for example, scrubber
blowdown wastewater generated by an incinerator and then deep-
well injected would receive any appropriate capacity variance) .

     Multi-source leachate wastewater that is deep-well injected
has been granted a two-year capacity variance whether it is
disposed of at a commercial (i.e., off-site) or on-site injection
facility.  A correction notice to the June 1, 1990 publication of
the Third Third rule that clarifies this variance for Part 148
will be published shortly.

     In a practical sense, to the Agency's knowledge, all
commercial facilities with hazardous waste injection wells that
are disposing of on-site clean up wastes have applied for and
have already received final approval of their no migration
petitions.  Having received an exemption, these facilities no
longer need any capacity variances.

         ,«v further questions in regard to underground
you have any furtherques           the Office of Water
                           Sylvia'K. Lowrance, Director
                           Office of Solid Waste

                        WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                   I 5 1991
Francis S. Blake, Esq.                         .
Swidler & Berlin                              souo WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
3000 K Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C.  20007-3851

Dear Mr. Blake:

     This letter responds to your January 18,  1991 correspondence
requesting a follow-up response to the October 28, 1990 meeting
between representatives of Texas Industries,  Inc.  (TXI) and  EPA.
The meeting focused on TXI's use of hazardous  wastewaters  as
quenchwater in the production of cement, as well as on the use of
such wastewaters as a slurrying agent in the  production process.

     The Agency presented its position under  current  regulations
on the use of hazardous wastewaters as slurry  water used in  the
production of cement in the final rule regulating the burning of
hazardous'waste in boilers and industrial furnaces (BIF rule)
which was promulgated December 31, 1990.  Basically,  EPA has
ruled that the practice of using hazardous wastewaters in  this
manner is a form of waste management that is  subject  to
regulation as treatment, rather than a recycling activity  that is
exempt from regulation.  (I note that there may be cases for
which a hazardous wastewater could legitimately be used in this
manner, but such a determination would be case-specific.)  The
main consideration in this determination is that, in  general, the
hazardous constituents in the wastewater are  not necessary to the
operation of the production process, but are  being treated in the

     While the preamble to the BIF rule did not specifically
address the use of hazardous wastewaters as a  quenchwater  in the
production of cement, the determining factors  would be the same
as in all such regulatory determinations regarding the use of a
hazardous secondary material as an ingredient  in a production
process, or as a substitute for a commercial  product.  To  the
extent that the hazardous constituents in the  wastewater are not
also present in the analogous raw material or product that the
wastewater is replacing and are also not necessary to the
production process, but are being destroyed or otherwise treated
in the process (or incorporated into the product), the process
itself would be regulated as a treatment process.  The Agency
agrees that the use of the wastewaters as a quenchwater in the
hot end of the kiln may be conducted in an environmentally safe
manner, provided that adequate controls are in placo.  The BIF
rules will ensure that the process is, in fact, saf>5.  However,
the fact that the hazardous wastewater may adequately serve  as a
                                                          Printed on Recycled Paper

quenchwater and that the hazardous constituents are efficiently
destroyed in the process without detrimental effect to the
product does not, in itself, demonstrate that such use of the
wastewater is legitimate recycling, unregulated under the current
Federal requirements.  The destruction of hazardous constituents
without any significant benefit to the process or the product
identifies the process as hazardous waste treatment, subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
     As you noted in your letter, the Agency is currently
reevaluating the regulatory provisions applicable to the
recycling of hazardous wastes.  The discussion of regulatory
determinations regarding the use of the hazardous wastewaters
presented in this letter reflects the application of the current
regulations.  While EPA is continuing to explore possible
alternative regulatory approaches to encourage environmentally
sound hazardous waste recycling, we are unable to state with
certainty at this time whether the answer to the question you
pose would be different under a new regulatory scheme.  In the
meantime, of course, the existing regulations are applicable.

     I hope this letter has answered your questions regarding the
factors used to determine the regulatory status of using
hazardous wastewaters as a quenchwater and as a slurrying agent.
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me at
(202) 382-4637.

                                   David Bussard
                                   Characterization and
                                     Assessment Division

                          MAY 3 I 1991

SUBJECTS  Drippage In Wood Preserving Storage Yards

FROM:     Sylvia K. Lovrance, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

TO:       Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
          Regions I-X

     A question has arisen regarding the regulatory status of
drippage front treated wood that occurs in wood preserving plants'
storage yards.  The final rule requires that treated wood must be
held on process area drip pads until drippage ceases (see §§
264.572 (k), 265.443 (k)).  Even so, infrequent and incidental
drippage may occur from the treated wood after its removal from
the drip pad.  Infrequent and incidental drippage may occur due
to the effects of weather, type of wood, or type of preservative.
EPA recognized in the rulemaking that the de minimis losses that
could occur would not require the storage yard to be equipped
with a drip pad (55 PR at 50456, December 6, 1990).

     We note further that this type of incidental drippage would
not constitute illegal disposal of a hazardous waste provided
that there is an immediate response to the discharge of the
drippage (§§ 264.1 (g)  (8) (i) (A) and 265.1 (a) (11) (i) (A),
persons responding immediately to discharges of hazardous wastes
are not subject to regulatory standards for the response
activities, although the hazardous wastes become subject to
subtitle C regulation after they are removed).  Determination of
what constitutes an "immediate response" to storage yard drippage
would be a site specific determination.  Wood preserving
facilities should prepare a contingency plan which includes
measures to respond to drippage by removing the contaminated
media in a timely manner and documenting by appropriate records
the actions taken to respond to such drippage.  Once removed from
the drippage area, the contaminated media would be a hazardous
waste carrying the F032, F034 or F035 waste code and be subject
to subtitle C regulatory standards  (48 PR at 2510, January 19,



                              JUNE 1991

I.  Administrative Stay for Wood Preserving Wastes

   On June 13,1991, EPA announced an administrative stay that extends the date by
   which owners aiwTbperators of facilities that manage F032, F034, and F035 wastes on
   drip pads are required to comply with the standards of 264/265 Subpart W. (56 £R
   27332)  How does this affect the management and disposal of wood preserving

         Three new listings for wastes generated by wood preserving processes, F032,
         F034, and F035, were finalized on December 6,1990. (55 £R 50450)  Due to
         the inability of a significant portion of the affected facilities to comply with
         the new drip pad standards by the effective date of June 6,1991, EPA
         announced an administrative stay that postpones the applicability of the new
         listings to certain process areas and drip pads at facilities that Intend to
         comply with the Subpart W standards and that are willing to make bona fide
         efforts to do so during the stay period." (56 FR 27333)  In order to qualify for
         the stay, by August 6,1991, affected facilities must notify the appropriate
         authorized State or EPA Regional office of their intent to comply with the
         new regulations or to cease operation. (56 EE 27333) By November 6,1991,
         affected facilities must submit a second notification providing evidence that
         they expect to comply in good faith.

    1.  Administrative Stay for Wood Preserving Wastes (Cont'd)
             Provided the facility gives proper notice, certain activities that would
             otherwise constitute disposal of F032, F034, or F035 wastes into a process area
             or onto an existing drip pad are not regulated during the stay. However, the
             removal or subsequent management of such wastes outside of the process
             area or drip pad, including soil contaminated with these wastes, would be
             considered generation of a hazardous waste and cause the waste to become
             subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. The scope of the stay is,
             therefore, limited and applies only to those wood preserving wastes managed
             in process areas or on existing drip pads. (56 FR 27333) In addition, any
             active management of previously unregulated wastes after the expiration of
             the stay would constitute generation of an F032, F034, or F035 waste.

             Although the administrative stay does postpone the effective date of the F032,
             F034, and F035 listings for certain wastes, these wastes may already be
             regulated as hazardous if they exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic (TO.
             During the stay, wood preserving wastes which exhibit the TC  are subject to
             full Subtitle C regulation, and cannot be disposed of on the land except in a
             properly permitted land disposal facility.  According to 40 CFR 264.570(a),
             and 265.440(a), Subpart W standards "apply to owners and operators of
             fadlities that use new or existing drip pads to convey treated wood drippage,
             precipitation, and/or surface water run-on* to an associated collection
             system". Therefore,  owners and operators who manage wood preserving
             wastes that exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic on drip pads can use pads to
             collect their wastes.

             See 55 PR 50470-71 (technical correction notice signed June 21,1991).

Source:      Ed Freedman, OSW                   (202)245-3657
Research:    Peter LeTourneau

                                     2 1991
SUBJECT:  Regulatory Status of Carbon Regeneration Units

FROM:     Sylvia K. Lovrance, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

TO:       Bruce P. Smith, Director
          Office of Hazardous Waste Programs
          Region III

     This is in response to your June 7, 1991 memorandum
requesting that we provide our interpretation of regulatory
situations involving carbon regeneration units in light of the
provisions on such units in the February 21, 1991 boiler and
industrial furnace (BIF) rule.  Below is a brief summary of the
rule's provisions related to carbon regeneration units, followed
by our responses to each of the scenarios and issues outlined in
your memo.

     The February 21 rule added a definition of "carbon
regeneration unit" to 40 CFR 260.10.  The preamble stated that
both flame and non-flame carbon regeneration units should be
permitted as hazardous waste thermal treatment units under Part
264 Subpart X and existing units should be regulated until then
under Part 265 Subpart P.   The rule also reopened until August
21, 1991, the period for existing carbon regeneration units to
obtain interim status under RCRA, due to the substantial
confusion among the regulated community, as well as permitting
authorities, as to whether these devices were exempt recycling
units or regulated treatment units.  Since the carbon
regeneration unit portion of the rule was promulgated under RCRA,
not HSWA, authority, it does not take effect in authorized states
until they adopt these provisions.

Regulatory Status of Existin? units

     We agree with your interpretation that the regulatory status
for an "existing* unit doegpneuhmctaanqe in an authorized State"
                aeten&inep-itacexibtanq jnilbanOHl sufficient br,

if they are not, makes the necessary regulatory change to ensure
(equivalency with the Federal standards.  We would like to clarify
that, in either case, the change would not become effective until
EPA approves the rules and interpretation as consistent with the
§260.10 definitions.  In the meantime, a State may continue to
regulate the facility consistent with the policy and regulations
in effect at the time of authorization.

     If the State determines that the carbon regeneration unit
provisions of the BIF rule can be implemented in the State under
its authorized State program without a regulatory change, the
State Attorney General would need to certify that the existing
State authorities are equivalent to the Federal requirements set
out in the February 21 rulemaking.  EPA could then authorize the
State for this portion of the rule.  If the State, or EPA,
determines that a regulatory change is required, these provisions
would not become effective in the State until the State modifies
its program and is authorized to implement the rule in lieu of
EPA.  (However, States may adopt and implement comparable rules
under State authority prior to authorization by EPA.)  In either
case, in adopting the new regulatory approach for carbon
regeneration units, the State could provide a "window" similar to
that established by EPA in the February 21 preamble for existing
units to qualify for interim status.

     We also agree that the status of residues is not affected by
the February 21 rule.  Residues, such as scrubber blowdown,
continue to be regulated as hazardous wastes if they result from
processing listed hazardous wastes, or if they exhibit a
hazardous waste characteristic.

     In cases where the authorized State is not yet authorized
for the new provisions, you also proposed to impose conditions on
the carbon regeneration unit, if determined necessary to protect
human health and the environment, when issuing a permit to
another TSD process at the facility.  We would not recommend EPA
imposing Subtitle C requirements while the carbon regeneration
units remain unregulated by the State.  The February 21 notice
was explicit that the new carbon regeneration unit provisions
would not take effect in authorized States until the states pick
up the new provisions.  We feel that regulating these units prior
to the State becoming authorized for these provisions would work
against our goal in the February notice to finally end the
confusion on the regulatory status of these units. In addition,
if we took this approach, there would be substantial question as
to whether we provided affected facilities with adequate notice.

Units not "in existence" as of August 21. 1991

     We disagree with your interpretation that because the State
is not authorized to issue Subpart X permits, units which are not
"in existence" as of August 21, 1991, must obtain a Subpart X
permit from EPA before constructing.  Section 264.l(f)(2) gives

the Agency authority to issue Subpart X permits in States that
are not authorized for the Subpart X regulations.  However, this
section simply gives EPA authority to permit regulated
miscellaneous units in authorized states; it does not authorize
EPA to permit unregulated units.  The definitions and
interpretations related to carbon regeneration -units in the
February 21 rule do not go into effect in an authorized state
until the state becomes authorized for those new provisions.
Until that time, as you correctly observed in the first issue you
raised, the regulatory status of carbon regeneration units in the
state does not chaftge, but rather is determined by the
regulations and policies currently in effect in the state.

     Thus, the effective date of the authorized state's approved
redefinition of carbon regeneration unit, rather than the
effective date of EPA's rule, determines when new carbon
regeneration units become subject to regulation, including
Subpart X permitting.

Effect of February 21 rule on past management of waste in carbon
regeneration units

     Although we did state in the BIF rule preamble that direct
controlled flame carbon regeneration units have met the
definition of incinerator and were subject to regulation as such,
we also stated that we believe there has been legitimate doubt as
to these units' regulatory status.  Thus, we did not intend to
provide basis for enforcing against past operation of such units
without interim status or permits, but rather to address the
prospective regulation of these devices.  (See 56 FR 7200-7201.)

     According to §270.10(e)(2), the Administrator may extend the
date by which owners and operators of specific classes of
existing hazardous waste management facilities must submit Part A
of their permit applications if he finds that there has been
substantial confusion as to whether the owners and operators of
such facilities were required to file applications and that the
confusion is attributed to ambiguities in the regulations.  The
Agency made such a finding of "substantial confusion" as to the
regulatory status of carbon regeneration units.  Therefore, since
the date for obtaining interim status was extended, the Agency
should enforce only prospective compliance with the regulations
for carbon regeneration units.

     Authorized States, however, would determine compliance based
upon their current regulations and policies.  Therefore, we
disagree with your proposal to rely upon the August 21, 1991 date
to treat all carbon regeneration units as subject to RCRA.
Carbon regeneration units should be treated consistent with state
policies and regulations which have been in effect until the
State program is revised to reflect the §260.10 definition of
carbon regeneration unit and revised incinerator definition.
Thus, in an authorized state which has considered carbon

regeneration units to be unregulated, these devices should be
treated as "newly regulated" as of the effective date of the
§260.10 definition changes in that state, which will likely be
later than August 21, 1991.  In contrast, there may be authorized
states that have always considered carbon regeneration units as
incinerators or thermal treatment units, and therefore will not
be treated as "newly regulated" in the future.

Carbon regeneration units managing TO wastes

     We also disagree with your interpretation that all carbon
regeneration units managing toxicity characteristic (T.C) wastes
are subject to regulation by EPA as of August 21, 1991.  In an
authorized state which has not yet picked up the TC listing, the
waste is regulated by EPA, and EPA applies Federal regulations
rather than issuing permits based on State laws.  However, EPA
does not have authority to issue permits to types of units which
are exempt from regulation.  The applicable RCRA program, which
in this case would be the authorized State program, determines
which classes of units are RCRA-regulated.  Thus, EPA would not
regulate the treatment of TG waste in a carbon regeneration unit
until such units are regulated under the approved state program.

     Thank you for raising these issues.  They are nationally
significant for effective program implementation.  While we could
not agree with all the recommended solutions that Region III put
forward, the careful thinking that was put into framing the
issues was commendable.  If your staff has further questions,
they may call Sonya Sasseville at FTS 382-3132 or Frank McAlister
at FTS 382-2223.

cc:  Subpart X Permit Writers' Workgroup
     Incinerator Permit Writers' Workgroup
     Permit Section Chiefs, Regions I - X

                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                       OFFICE OF
                                              SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
David Case
General Counsel
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 310  .
Washington, D.C.  20005

Dear Mr. Case:

     Thank you for your letter of November 21, 1990, regarding
performance standards for disposal of hazardous waste  in salt

     Enclosed is a legal opinion from the Environmental
Protection Agency's  (EPA's) Office of General Counsel  concerning
a permit application for placing hazardous waste  in a  salt  dome,
along with the remand in Natural Resources Defense Council  fNRDCl
v. EPA. 907 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir.).  This opinion  generally  agrees
that to lift the specific prohibition in Section  3004(b)(1)(B) of
RCRA, EPA must promulgate specific regulations for placement of
liquid hazardous waste in salt formations.  EPA further agrees
that the placement of any hazardous waste in salt domes or  other
geological repositories should be pursuant to appropriate
standards consistent with the RCRA mandate to protect  human
health and the environment.

     To the extent that this practice could now occur  under
Section 3004(b)(2), it would be limited to non-liquid  or
•containerized hazardous waste subject to a RCRA permit issued
pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 270.  As you are aware, a
RCRA permit allowing such disposal may be issued  only  when  human
health and the environment are adequately protected.   For
example, a Subpart X permit—which would be appropriate  for
disposal in salt domes—may contain any provisions needed to
achieve this overall standard of protection, including those
found in other parts of the RCRA regulations, or  other relevant
standards, such as those at 40 CFR Part 146 implementing the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.  Of  course, a  state
authorized to implement RCRA might also use some  analogous
standards when writing an environmentally protective RCRA permit
for the disposal of hazardous waste in salt domes.  I  believe
that this comprehensive approach can provide the  type  of
environmental protection envisioned by Section 3004(b)(2) of

     Unlike RCRA Section 3004(b)(1), Section (b)(2) does not, as
a prerequisite to receiving a permit, require promulgation of
specific performance or unique permitting standards for salt dome
formations.  Of course, any RCRA permit covering disposal in salt
domes would contain a full set of requirements to ensure
protection of human health and the environment.  Neither the NRDC
opinion nor any EPA statements in the Federal Register notice (53
;EB 28118) that is the subject of the court opinion purport to
construe RCRA Section 3004(b)(2).  Thus, as explained above, EPA
or an authorized state can permit disposal in salt domes or other
geologic repositories under Section 3004(b)(2) using the existing
Subpart X permit standards found in 40 CFR Part 264, as well as
other appropriate state or federal standards.

     We will most certainly consider any rulemafcing petition you
may wish to submit for hazardous waste disposal in salt domes, as
mentioned in your letter.  However, for the reasons discussed
above, we believe that existing RCRA permit procedures and
standards are fully protective of human health and the
environment,,  Given EPA'a limited resources and formidable
regulatory agenda in the RCRA area, I anticipate that, for the
near term, EPA or the authorized states will use existing
standards to regulate the disposal of containerized and non-
liquid wastes in the geological repositories covered by RCRA
Section 3004(b)(2).  If you have any suggestions on how to
improve the contents of such permits, or on RCRA's applicability,
please feel free to call Elizabeth Cotsworth at (202) 382-4206.
If you have further questions regarding UlC-related rulemakings,
please contact Francoise Brasier at (202) 382-5530.

     I appreciate your continuing interest in this issue and your
concern for the safe management of hazardous waste.

                                   Sincerely yours,
                                   Don R. Clay
                                   Assistant Administrator


classification, but possibly they may have additional information
we are not aware of.

Question #2:  Does the definition of a closed loop exclusion
apply to wastewater system Alternative A?

     The Region's response is very good here.  Additionally, to
meet the closed loop exclusion the reclaimed material must be
returned for reuse in the production process (not apparently the
case here).   By production process, the Agency means those
activities that tie directly into the manufacturing operation or
those activities that are primary to the operation at an
establishment.  It does not include ancillary or secondary
activities that are carried out as part of the total activities.
Given this,  recycled water generally would not be considered a
secondary material.  (See 51 FR 25442.)

Question #3:  Can a manhole in a wastewater distribution system
be classified as a tank?

     The Region's response suggests that manholes (sumps) if used
as part of the secondary containment system, would be subject to
the secondary containment requirements of 40 CFR 264.193(b).
This is not true as 40 CFR 264.190(b) exempts tanks, including
sumps, that serve as part of a secondary containment system from
the requirements of §264.193.  Secondary containment tanks/sumps
must comply with all of the standards of Subpart J,  except

     We appreciated the opportunity to review the Region's
determination/interpretation relating to Tooele's wastewater
treatment proposal.  Should you have any questions concerning
this review please feel free to call Chet Oszman in the Storage/
Incinerator (PAT) at (FTS) 382-4499.

cc:  Bruce Weddle
     Jack Lehman
     Susan Sawtelle
     Mark Greenwood
     Mat. Miullo
        This has been retyped from the original document.


                               NOVEMBER 86
2.  Generator Accumulation and Secondary Containment

    A full quantity generator accumulates waste according to 40  CFR  262.34
    standards.  The accumulation tanks,  in operation  since 1982, are
    underground and cannot be entered for inspection.   Is the generator
    subject to secondary containment standards for hazardous waste tanks/
    which were promulgated on July 14, 1986 and are effective January  12,
    1987 (51 FR 25422)?  The generator's state has final  authorization :o
    implement the RCRA program except for HSWA provisions.

           The tank rule was promulgated pursuant to  both HSWA and pre-
           HSWA authorities.  Those provisions promulgated pursuant  to
           HSWA are effective on the same date in all states regardless
           of state authorization (Section 3006 of RCRA,  as amended  by
           HSWA).  Those HSWA tank provisions are listed  in a section
           of the preamble of the final rule (51 FR 25464).

           Generator tank accumulation standards are  affected by the
           final tank rule, since generators accumulating in tanks
           are subject to many of the Part 265 Supart J tank standards.
           Currently, a generator in an authorized state  is only subject
           to applicable tank provisions promulgated  pursuant to HSWA  and
           state authorities.  Those HSWA provisions  listed at 51 PR 25464
           include secondary containment for all new  underground tanks.
           In addition, HSWA provisions include permitting standards
           (including requiring secondary containment) for new and
           existing underground storage tanks that cannot be entered for
           inspection.  Because the generator's tanks are not new (installed
           after July 14, 1986) and they are not subject  to Part 264
           permitting standards, no HSWA provisions will  be applicable.
           The generator will, therefore, be subject  to secondary containment
           requiranents only when the state adopts the July 14,  1986 rule
           as part of its program.

           Source:   Lillian Bagus (202) 382-2233
           Research: Kim B. Gotwals


    DEC I 9 1966
Mr. Hadley Bedbury
Senior Environmental Engineer
Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company
1149 Ellsworth Drive
Pasadena* Texas  77501

Dear Mr. Bedburyt

     Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1986, in which you
raised several questions related to the final hazardous waste
tank systems rules (51 FR 25422).

     Your first question concerned the applicability of the
••condary containment, requirements to production tanks dur'ing
periodic cleanouts.  40 CFR 261.4(c) States that "a hazardous
waste which ie generated in a product or raw material storage
tank* a product or raw material transport vehicle or vessel, a
product or raw material pipeline, or in a manufacturing process
unit or an. associated non-waste-treatment-manufacturing unit is
not subject to" the containment regulations "until it exits the
unit in which it was generated, . . ., or unless the hazardous
waste remains in the unit more than 90 days after the unit ceases
to be operated for manufacturing, or for storage or transportation
of product or raw materials."  Thus, if you are able to clean out
your process tank within 90 days after production or product
storage is stopped* that process tank would not be considered a
waste accumulation tank and, therefore, would not be subject to
secondary containment standards*  The waste removed, however, is
subject to the hazardous waste control system if it is determined
to be a hazardous waste*

     A related question concerns the applicability of the hazardoue
waete tank system standards to process transfer equipment normally
ueed for production purposes, but also used to transfer hazardous
waste residua to either a NPDES wastewater treatment system or an
oneite RCRA treatment/storage facility.  Assuming it is removed
within 90 days after production or product storage is stopped,
the hazardous waste generated within product/raw material process
tanks does not become subject to the hazardous waste tank system

standards until it exits the unit in which it was generated.  The
tank system standards apply to ancillary equipment used to handle
the hazardous waste during transfer from i*s point of origin to a
hazardous waste storage/treatment tank.  We consider the point of
exit from the process tank to be the introductory point for the
hazardous waste into a hazardous waste tank system.  Therefore,
any process transfer equipment, even if normally used for produc-
tion purposes, that is also used to transfer hazardous waste residue
during equipment washout/cleanout procedures to a hazardous waste
storage/treatment tank, would be considered part of a hazardous
waste tank system and thus subject to the standards for such.  If
the hazardous waste residue is transferred to a wastewater treat-
ment tank that ii exempted from the regulations under §264.Kg)(6),
the hazardous waste tank regulations now appear to apply to->.he
ancillary equipment.  The Agency is considering whether to address
this issue in the near future.

     Another related question concerns hose lines that are normally
used in connection with product storage but are also used as
loading/unloading equipment for hazardous waste.  During any
hazardous waste transfer operation* CPA intends that appropriate
controls and practices be provided to ^prevent the release of
hazardous waste to ground water, surface water, or soil should a
leak, spill, or other incident occur during the loading/unloading
process.  Prior to returning hose linee that were used for this
purpose to their normal use in product storage* good practice
would be to clean the hoses so that all hazardous waste residues
are removed or decontaminated.

     Another question addresses the applicability of the closed
loop recycling exclusion under 40 CFR 261.4 to tanks that are
used in the reuse of materials.  Given your description of the
process, these reused materials that result from the incomplete
conversion of raw materials to final products* would not be
defined as solid wastes and thus would not be hazardous wastes
(see 40 CPR 261.2(e)(1)(iii)).  Thus, such reused material would
not be regulated under RCBA Subtitle C.

     Finally* you questioned what effect future interpretation or
guidance manuals would have on the acceptability of a certifica-
tion made by an independent professional engineer prior to the
availability of such guidance materials*  EPA ie developing a
technical guidance manual to assist both permit applicants and
permit writers in more fully understanding the revised tank
system regulatione.  A notice of the availability of this guidance
manual will be published* in the near future* in the Federal
Register*  A certifying engineer* in making an assessment of a
tank system, must take into account all the factors listed in
Sect iotas 264.191 and 265.191 (for existing tank systems) and
Sections 264.192 and 265.192 (for new tank systems).  If a tank

 •ystea is. judged by an independent, qualified, registered pro*
 f««»ional engineer to be appropriate for the storage or treatment
 of hazardous waste, in accordance with the regulations, that
 certification should not be affected by guidance materials made
 available subsequent to the assessment.

     If you need further clarification of these responses or if
you have any additional questions, please call William Kline at
 (202) 382-7917.

                                   Joseph E. Carra
                                   Acting Director
                                   Waste Managenent Division
cci  Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs


DEC 30 1966
Mr. John Albert Slaughter, Jr.
Morton Thiokol, Inc.
P.O. Box 524
Brigham City, Utah  84302

Dear Mr. Slaughter:

     This letter is in response to your  letter  of  September  30,
1986, to William Kline of my staff.  You requested clarification
on the applicability on the recently revised hazardous waste tank
system standards jto a series of in-building floor  drains and
outside-building trenches that are used to transfer wastewater
contaminated with propellant ingredients to an  inground storage
tankfat Morton Thiokol's Wasatch Operations.

     Based, on your description of the processes at the Wasatch             '•
Operations, I would consider the floor drains as well as the              J
outside-building trenches that are used to transport the waste
materials to an inground tank to comprise an integrated tank              1
system used for the management of a hazardous waste.  As is               "(
explained below, the entire system must comply with the secondary          <
containment requirements of the regulations.                               r
     The system you describe appears to fit within the definition
of "tank system."  In section 260.10 of the regulations, "tank             c
system" is defined as "a hazardous waste storage or treatment tank         £
and its associated ancillary equipment and containment system."            2
"Ancillary equipment" is defined as:                                       (
          any device including, but not limited to, such                   '
          devices as piping, fitting, flanges, valves                      ^
          and pumps, that is used to distribute, meter,                   ^
          or control the flow of waste from its point
          of generation to a storage or treatment tank....

In the system you describe, the hazardous waste is generated when
the cleaning process takes place.  The in-building collection
drains and outside-building trenches are devices used to transfer
the hazardous waste to the tank outside the building.  Accordingly,
both the collection drains and trenches are ancillary equipment
to the tank.

     Alternatively, the trenches inside the building may be con-
sidered a "sump."  Section 260.10 of the regulations defines
"sump" as "any pit or reservoir that meets the definition of
"tank" and those troughs and trenches connected to it that serve
to collect hazardous waste for transport to storage, treatment or
disposal facilities."  "Tank" is defined at 40 CFR §260.10 as:

          a stationary device, designed to contain an
          accumulation of hazardous waste which is con-
          structed primarily of non-earthen materials...
          which provide structural support.

The inside trenches clearly fall within that definition.

     The hazardous waste tank regulations require that sumps
and tank systems meet the requirements for secondary containment
unless a variance is obtained or unless a tank or a sump is part
of a secondary containment system (see 40 CFR §&264.190(b) and

     A system in which wash water from the periodic cleaning
operation is deliberately introduced into the floor drain woujLd
need to be provided with secondary containment regardless of
whether it is a tank system or a sump system, since the system
does not: qualify for the exemption for sumps or tanks that are
part of secondary containment systems.

     EPA's intent to fully regulate sumps that meet the defini-
tion of "tank" in the same manner as other tanks was made clear
in the preamble of the final rule where EPA stated that ". .  .,
it is EPA's intention that hazardous waste tank systems, including
sumps used to transport hazardous wastes, are managed in a manner
that would ensure protection of human health and the environment"
(51 PR 25441).*
     Your interpretation that the outside-building trenches and
tanks must be> •aaaged in accordance with the revised hazardous
waste tank systea standards, is correct.  These are "tank systems.'
However, contrary to your understanding, we believe that the
inside-building floor drains, being a integral part of the system,
are subject to the same regulations.  They are either part of a
tank system or are trenches connected to a sump.

     I hope I have adequately addressed your questions.  If you
should have any further questions, please call Bill Kline or me
at (202) 382-7917.

                                   Robert W. Dellinger
                                   Chief, Waste Treatment 3ranch
cc:  RCRA Branch Chief
     Region VIII


                            DECEMBER 86
2.   Leak Testing for Existing Hazardous Waste Tanks

    Hazardous waste tank regulations,  prcnulgated in the July 14,  1966
    Federal Register (51 FR 25422), establish secondary containment
    standards for both new and existing hazardous waste tank systems.
    According to 40 CFH 264.192 and 265.192, new tank systems rtust be
    constructed to meet the secondary containment requirements,  -which
    include sufficient structural strength, a leak detection system,  and
    corrosion protection.  Sections 264.193 and 265.193 establish general
    schedules of compliance for existing tank systans to meet secondary
    containment requirements.  Although new tanks and their ancillary
    equipment mist be installed with special leak detection and collection
    systems, many existing tank systems may not have a mechanism to
    detect and contain releases.  Do the new July 14, 1986 regulations
    have any leak testing requirement for existing tank systems prior to
    installation of secondary containment?

         Ves, the new liazardous waste tank regulations do provide for
         leak testing in existing tank systems prior to installation of
         secondary containment.  40 CFR 264.193U) and 265.193U)  rsquira
         all -existing tank systems to be evaluated for leaks in some
         Banner.  Nbn-enterable underground tanks must be tested for
         leaks at least annually.  All other tanks (i.e. all above
         ground and enterable underground tanks) under interim status
         must be leak-tested, inspected internally, or examined for
         cracks, leaks, corrosion and erosion at least annually,  other
         permitted tanks must be either leak-tested annually or olaced
         on a schedule for overall integrity assessments.   The
         frequency of assessments would depend on the material of
         construction of the tank, the age of the system,  the type of
         waste stored or treated, the type of corrosion or erosion
         prot.ect.Lon, and the rate of corrosion or erosion of the tank.
         The annual leak testing requirement also apolies to all ancillary
         equipment.  In addition, §264.191 and §265.191 require the
         o««er/operator of an existing tank system that does not have  a
         secondary containment system meeting the requirements of §§264.193
         and 265.193 to obtain a written assessment that attests to the
         tank system's integrity by January 12, 1988.   All assessments
         must be certified ty an independent,  qualified,  registered
         professional engineer and must be kept on file at the facility.

         Source:   Bill Kline        (202) 382-4623
         Research: Jennifer Brock


                              MARCH  87
3.  'flanks Holding Hazardous Waste

    Would video monitoring of the above-ground portion* of a tank system
    meet the daily inspection requirements  under §264.195(b)(l) and
    §265.195(a)(2)? Would video monitoring  meet: the requirements for a
    leak detection system for an above-ground tank system under §264.193(c)(3)
    and §265.193(c)(3)7

         The regulations do not specify that any particular methods have
         to be used to meet the requirements of inspection or leak
         detection.  As a result the use of video monitoring is not
         categorically excluded for either  of the above uses.  There
         would/ however,  be careful scrutiny of the effectiveness of
         such a system.  The system would have to provide a level of
         performance comparable to actual close-up visual inspection of
         the entire system and the capability of effectively detecting leaks
         within 24 hours.

         Source:      William Kline         (202) 362-7924
         Specialist:  Randy Eicher

                                                  '    9483.1987(03)
                               APR   8 :9£T
Honorable Jka Jontz
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.  20515

Dear Mr. Jontxt

     Thank you for your March 10, 1987, letter in which you
requested information regarding regulations on the disposal
of storage tanks.

     As you are probably aware, EPA regulates storage tanks
under both Subtitle C and Subtitle I of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA).  Tanks that are
used for the storage or treatment of hazardous waste are
r«gulat«d und*r Subtitl* C of RCRA.  On July 14, 1986, EPA
promulgated revised standards for hazardous waste tank systems
(51 PR 25422).  A copy of these standards is enclosed for
your convenience.

     The hazardous waste tank system standards require that
the owner or operator, at closure of a tank system, remove or
decontaminate.all waste residues, contaminated soil, contaminated
containment system components and structures/equipment contami-
nated with wasto.  If these materials cannot be removed or
decontaminated, the site itself must be managed as a hazardous
waste landfill in accordance with $$264.310 or 265.310.

     Tanks, piping and other parts of the tank system that do
not contain hazardous waste are not subject to any further
Subtitle C requirements.  The owner or operator may do what
ne wants with this equipment.  For example, it could be
salvaged* used elsewhere on site for another purpose, or
abandoned on-site.

     EPA recently published and made available to the public
a document "Technical Resource Document for Storage and
Treatment of Hazardous Haste in Tanks System* (NTZS No. PB-
07-134391) that provides information regarding compliance
with the hazardous waste tank system standards.  Chapter 12
of this document (a copy of which is enclosed) addresses
closure and post-closure requirements.  Among other things.

there is a discussion regarding the abandonment of tank
systems, in place.  EPA recommends that the guidelines of the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), as contained in
"NFPA 30-Plammable and Combustible Liquids code, Appendix C.
(Abandonment or Removal of Underground Tanks)" be followed.
A copy of these guidelines is also enclosed.

     Under Subtitle Z of RCRA, EPA is currently developing
separate standards for underground storage tanks containing
"hazardous substances" as defined under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation! and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) or petroleum.  These standards (which do not
address storage of hazardous waste) are expected to be pro-
posed in early April 1987, and will, like the Subtitle C
rules, build upon the guidelines of NPPA 30.

     If X can be of any further assistance, please let me

                              J. Winston Porter-
                              Assistance Administrator

             UNITED * ..TES ENVIRONMENTAL PfatfCTlOii JL JcY     948 3 .198 7 (04)
 APR 201987
Mr. Gerald R. Dorgant
S«nior Environmental Control  Engineer
Celaneott Chemical Company,  Inc.
Box 56190
Houston, Texas   77258-O190

Dear Mr. Dorganti

     This letter is in  reponse to your  letter of March 11,
1967, in which you requested  clarification on the requirements
of IPX1 IB hazardous waste tank system regulations for temporary
                                                                  * r
     The term "temporary tank" used in  the preamble to the .
July 14, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 25422) referred to any
tank syotem that is located or brought  onsite for the temporary
storage of hazardous waste  in response  to an emergency or cata-
strophic event.  To classify  a tank system as a temporary tank
system, it must be used in  response to  en unexpected occurrence.
A temporary tank system would be subject to all applicable re-
quirements of Parts 264, 266, and 270 as provided in am emergency
permit under f270.61.  Unless a tank system is brought on-line in
response to an emergency situation* it  is subject to all applicable
requirements for hasardous  waste tank systems, including secondary
containment.  However, a tank system that itself serves as part of
a secondary containment aystern used to  collect or contain releases
of hasardous waste from the primary tank system does not need to
have secondary containment  (see ff264.190(b) and 265.190(b)).
Generally speaking, any tank  system into which hazardous waste ie
deliberately introduced, regardless of  frequency or duration of
storage, is met considered  part of the  secondary containment
system and therefore must be  provided with secondary containment.
See 51 PR 25442  (July 14. 1986).
            r. ^
     Of the four examples described in  your letter where the
primary tank may be out of  service or unusable, only example (a),
leaking primary storage/treatment tanks, would clearly present a
situation where a temporary tank system might be needed to respond
to an unexpected event, i.e., a tank leak.  Thus, an emergency
permit issued by the permitting off lei al under $270.61 would
imalueto all those requirements necessary to protect human health
amd the environment.  Tho •seams' example, tank overfilling dee

to operator error or level control Malfunction, it not clearly
an unexpected occurrence or emergency situation.  A tank that
Ls designated as a stand-by tank for bypass of overfills (see
H264.194(b)(2), 265.194(b)(2)) fro. primary or secondary con-
tainment systems is not considered to be a temporary tank.
Accordingly, such tanks are not exempt from the requirements for
hazardous waste tank systems.  However, under $264.190(b) and
|265.190(b), a stand-by tank would not be required to have
secondary containment if used solely as a means of secondary
containment.  Additionally, a tank system that it installed in
parallel with another tank system (where one system t» intended
to be brought on-line during shutdown of the other system) does
not constitute a temporary tank system.  However, unlike the
previous example where the stand-by tank was used solely for the
purpose of secondary containment, this example of 'stand-by tank"
would need to have secondary containment since it would serve the
function of primary containment of the waste.  Thus, such tanks
would not be exempt from secondary containment requirements.
The other two examples that were listed in your letter, i.e.,
(c) routine maintenance cleanouts of sludge/residual material and
(d) mechanical integrity inspections do not constitute scenarios
that are unplanned.  Thus, a tank system brought on-line for
these purposes would not be classified as a temporary tank system,
and would be subject to secondary containment requirements.

     In some cases, such as where there is complex piping and
manifolding of tank eyeterns, preciee information may be required
to determine whether a tank system is a temporary tank system or
is pert of the eecondary containment system and thus exempt from
the secondary containment requirements.  In these instances, we
recommend that you consult with the EPA Region or State permitting
authority, as appropriate.  If you have any further questions,
pleaee contact Bill Kline (202) 382-7917 or Chester Oecman (202)

                                         Marcia E. Williams
                                         Office of Solid Waste
cc:  Regional RCKA branch Chiefs
     Chester Oszman, PSPD
     bill Kline, wriD
     Suzanne r.udsiniki, FSPC

                MAT 291987
Mr. David £. Sauer
Manager £nviron«ental Affairs
Buffalo Color Corporation
P.O. Box 702?
Buffalo, New York 14240*7027

Dear Mr. Sauer:

     After reviewing the schematic drawing for th*» "pipe in a
trougn in a trench" system included in your M&y 6, 1987 letter,
and talking with you over the phona, I believe your proposal to
bo consiwtint with the new tank regulation* in terns of second6ry
contaiiment.  However, other provisions »ay apply.

     In addition to proper secondary containment a new tank
system and its coaponcnts siust, among other things, be designed
to be combat ibid with wastes managed, protect against corrosion
structural failure, flotation, dislodgtment or frost heave, anc
witnstand vehicular (and other) overhead stresses.  Along witn
appropriate design, the tank system Bust be installed properly
and tested for tightness before being place into service.

     For your information, I've enclosed a summary of applicable
Part 2

      [Effective in all unauthorized States and in all States
       regulating  new underground tanks or underground tanks
       that cannot be entered for inspection.]
     Generators may accumulate hazardous waste  less than 90 days

  1) complies with Part 265 Subparts C, D, 4 J  (except $$265.197(c)
     & 265.200) and $265.16.  Need not comply with Part 265
     Subparts G fc H (as required in $265.197) except must comply
     with §§265.111 fc §265.114;

  2) date of starting accumulation is marked fc visible for inspection;

  3) labeled "hazardous waste".

Note:  262.34(b) offers 30 day extension to be granted by RA.


                                  MAY  87
1.  Inspection Requirements for Hazardous Waste Tanks
    An existing flat-bettered tank containing hazardous waste sits on a
    concrete pad.  The owner/operator cannot inspect the bottom of the
    tank nor the concrete pad for integrity.  Is an inspection of the
    visible portions of the tank a satisfactory method for detecting
    leaks and corrosion under 40 CFR 264.195 and 265.195?
        Any above-ground portions of a tank system are to be inspectel
        daily for leaks and corrosion.  .Areas surrounding the externalL/
        accessible portions of the tank are to be inspected each Jay as
        well.  In this case, the tank's bottom and the concrete pad cannot
        be observed.  The intent of 40 CFR 264.195 and 265.195 is that all
        accessible and visible above-ground portions of tank systems be
        inspected at least once each operating day.  In a case where the
        tank bottom is obscured from view (e.g./  sitting on concrete),
        such an inspection is not feasible.  However, special efforts
        should be made to carefully observe any leakage around the base  of
        the tank.  Such leakage would indicate releases from the tank

        Furthermore, when see*iJ .ry containment is provided in accordance
        with 40 CFR 264.193 and 265.193, the owner/operator must also
        provide a leak detection system capable of detecting any release
        from the tank bottom.  Data gathered from leak detection equipment
        also must be inspected each operating day, and the owner/'operator
        mat inspect overfill controls and cathodic protection systems  in
        accordance with 40 CFR 264.195 and 265.195.  However, the owner/
        operator is not required to lift the tank in order to conduct this
        daily inspection.  Likewise, daily internal  inspections are not

        Source:(s)  Chester Oszman  (202) 382-4499
                    William Kline   (202) 382-4623

        Research:   Mark Janaskie


                                 MAY 87
6.  Hazardous Waste Tanks

    An existing above—ground hazardous  waste  tan*  is -roved to -mother
    location at the same facility.   Does  it become subject to new tank
    standards when it is .-novel?  What would the  situation be if the tank

       For both above-ground and underground  tanxs, the tank would be
       classified .is a new tank after being moved and  reinstall®! (see 50
       FR 25446,  July 4, 1986).  The tank 'would  be subject to the
       requirements for new tank systems.  The tank would have to be
       reinstalled with secondary containment .neeting  the requirements
       specified in §264.193(a) or 265.193.

       Source:    Ciet Oszman         (202) 382-4499
       Research:   Randy Eicher


                              MAY  87
Applicability of Contingent Closure and Post-Closure Plans
Section 264.197(c)(1) and (2) requires that,  unless  a  tank has
secondary containment, a contingent plan for closure as  a landfill
and a contingent post-closure plan trust be prepared.   40 CFR
264.193(a)(3) requires that an existing tank be retrofit with
secondary containment by the time it reaches 15 years  of age.   If the
owner of an existing tank is planning to install secondary containment
before the tank reaches 15 /ears of age, is the owner/operator  required
to prepare the contingent plans?

   Yes, the contingent closure and contingent post-closure plans are
   required for all tanks not having secondary containment, even if
   the owner/operator is planning on installing secondary containment.
   The plans would be required until the secondary containment  meeting
   the requirements of §264.193 or 265.193 is installed.

   Source:    William Kline  (202) 382-7912
              Chet Oszman    (202) 382-4499

   Research:  Randy Eicher


   f                    WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460

                            JUN 251987

                                                         OFFICE OF
                                                SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Mr. Thomas G. Neltner
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Affairs Division
Eli Lilly and Company
Lilly Corporate Center
Indianapolis, Indiana 46285

Dear Mr. Neltner:

     I am sorry for the  delayed response to your  letter  of
May 6, 1987.  However, I have attempted to resolve the  issues
concerning the definition of welded flanges and your proposed
use of plastic- or teflon-lined, threaded pipe  joints without
secondary containment.

     In general, your interpretations are correct.  However, I
have several comments/concerns which are attached and follow the
same format as the attachment to your letter titled:  "Hazardous
Waste Tank Interpretations of the July 14, 1986 Regulations".
Please be reminded that  Lilly facilities must comply with  all
applicable provisions relating to the management of hazardous
waste, not just the July 14, 1986 tank rule.

     If you have any questions or need additional clarification,
please feel free to call me at (202) 382-4499 or Bill Kline
at  (202) 382-7917 or our Region V office.
                                Chester J*7 Oszman Jr.
                                Environmental Engineer
                                Office of Solid Waste

cc:  Bill Kline, OSW
     Gary Victorine, Region V


  1.   Dike Design

     I generally agree with your "Dike Design" concept.  However,
you should be prepared to demonstrate compatibility of the
impermeable interior coatings with the stored wastes.  If the
dike system is designed like a "vault" (e.g., built in the ground
with concrete floors and walls) and if the dike/vault is subject
to hydraulic pressure, then the design must include an exterior
mosture barrier or be otherwise designed to prevent migration of
moisture into the dike/vault.

  2.   Leak Detection

     Again, all impermeable barriers must be compatible with the
stored waste(s).  If existing technology or site conditions will
not allow detection of a release within 24 hrs, for the "vertical
tank" and the "insulated tank" situation, the EPA Regional
Administrator will make a determination which will define the
"earliest practicable time" to report releases.  This determination
will be based on your design and subsequent demonstration.

  3.   Assessment and Certification

     In the third and fourth paragraphs the word "system" should
be'inserted after the word "tank" wherever the word "tank" is
not followed by the word "system".  Doing this adds clarity to
your interpretation of the inspection and construction require-


  1.   Pipe Arbors

     Large, sudden failures,  although uncommon, must be accounted
for in the facility's contingency plan.  Being in the contingency
plan, sudden failures could influence the design of the tank

     Flanges bolted together, with the pipe welded to the flange,
with a gasket between the flange faces, will not require secon-
dary containment.  However, it is essential that welded pipe to
flange systems be tested for tightness before being placed in use
and that the flange be inspected daily for leaks.  If the welded
pipe to flange system is dismantled and reassembled, then the
system would have to be retested for tightness before being
placed back in service.

                              - 2 -
     It is the intent of the rule to require secondary containment
for any threaded joint system.  The plastic- or teflon-lined,
threaded pipe joint would be no exception.  Your description of
the plastic- or teflon-lined, threaded pipe to flange joint is
inadequate to determine the reliability of the system.  To use
this threaded pipe to flange system without secondary containment
you will need to demonstrate to the applicable permitting authority
(EPA Region or authorized State) that the joint is significantly
more reliable than other (unlined) threaded pipe to flange systems.
If you choose to make this demonstration, we at Headquarters would
like to see the data and complete design.

  2.  Loading/Unloading Stations

     Your description of the sump in the loading/unloading stations
is inadequate.  More detail relating to the design and operation
of the sump is needed before we can judge its adequacy.   Why was
the containment volume of 10% picked?  The sump should be designed
to provide capacity to hold any expected spill or leak plus any
subsequent wash-down products.  Also, additional capacity is needed
to contain precipitation from a 25 yr.,  24 hr. rainfall event if
the stations are in the open.  Your design should consider how/
when the sump will be inspected, sampled and emptied.   Also, the
loading/unloading station sump will have to be designed to prevent
any uncontrolled release of hazardous waste to the environment.

Mr. Irving D. Press
vice Prenident-Technology
Resistoflfcx Company
rfoodland Ho ad
Roseland, New Jersey  07068

Dear Mr. Press:

     Thin letter is in response to your letter of June 16, 1987,
in which you expressed concern with EPA's regulations and sub-
sequent interpretation regarding secondary containnent of piping

     EPA appreciates your concern and  is likewise aware of the
problems associated with piping systems.  As appropriately pointed
out in your letter, the piping is one  of the most vulnerable
areas of a tank system and needs to be given careful and special
consideration during its design, installation, and operation.
You also correctly stated the Agency's determination that secondary
containment with leak detection provides the most reliable means
of preventing releases to the environment.

     For underground piping, EPA believes that secondary containment
with leak detection is an absolute necessity.  Not only is under-
ground piping more prone to failure due to corrosion and other
soil related stresses* than is aboveground piping, but it is also
impossible to visually observe any impending or actual failure of
the piping system, particularly for less than catastrophic releases.

     On the other hand, EPA believes that with aboveground piping,
where corroeUte related failure is minimized, visual inspections
performed daily will enable the owner/ opera tor to promptly remedy
observed impending or actual failure.  Furthermore, for any
release that does occur from an aboveground piping system, the
response actions required by the regulations should prevent, in
all but the most unusual circumstances, any contamination of
ground water or surface water.  It is  EPA's opinion that the
risks associated with aboveground piping do not justify the
necessity of providing secondary containment for the entire

aboveground piping systems.  However, the Agency is requiring
that secondary containment be provided where threaded connections,
packing-type puop seals, and other equipment with greater risk of
failure is used.

     The revised hazardous waste tank system standards place an
emphasis on proper design and installation of the piping systen,
daily inspections of equipment, and the requirement of secondary
containment for all underground piping and for the more failure
prone areas of aboveground piping systems.  Given this focus, EPA
believes that its revised standards for piping and other ancillary
equipment will be protective of the environment.  Thus* the Agency
has no intention of amending $$264.193 or 265.193 to eliminate
paragraph (f).  A Federal Register notice to clarify certain
terms in paragraph (f) is, however* being prepared.  For example,
the term "welded flange" will be clarified as meaning a flange that
is 3oin«d to the pipe by some type of welded connection.  EPA will
not interpret "welded flange" at being the sealing of assembled
flange points.  The notice is expected to be published this summer.

     If you should have any further questions, or wish to further
discuss your concerns, please contact Bill Kline or Bob April
of my staff at (202) 382-7917.

                                    Robert W. Dellinger
                                    Chief, Waste Treatment Branch

              UNITE  FATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOi   JENCY      9483.1987(11)
                                 20 1987
Geraluine V. Cox
vice President-Technical  Director
Chemical Manufacturers Association
2501 .". i»tr«et, Ntf
Waanington, D.C.  20037

Dear Me. Cox:

     This letter is  in response  to your  letter  of May  20,  1987  to
Bill Kline of ay staff, in which you expressed  concerns  with
certain aspects of EPA's  regulations and guidance materials for
hazardous waste tank systems.  Specifically,  two concerns  were
raisedi 1) requirement for an  "independent* qualified, registered
professional engineer to  conduct tank  •/•*••  ••••••••nt«/c«rtiification
and 2) interpretation of  the term "welded flange*.

     The first concern addressed in your letter, i.e., independent
engineers, raises two issues 1)  the need for  such an engineer
and 2) iitate registration of such engineers.  On the first issue,
£PA believes tnat it is necessary to ensure that the engineer who
is attesting to the  condition  of a hazardous  waste  tank  system
feel no obligation or other pressure to  certify a tank system as
being sound, regardless of its actual  condition*  EPA believes
that although such a situation might occur infrequently, the
circumstances creating such a  predicament could undoubtably occur
at certain facilities and should be avoided.

     The CMA is correct in stating that  the July 14. 1986, revised
hazardous waste tank system standards  do not  require that  the
certifying engineer  be licensed  in the same state in which the
facility is located.  Likewise,  the CM*  correctly cites  the
•Technical Resource  Document for the Storage  and Treatment of
Hazardous Mamie in Tank Systems", December 1986, as stating that-
such state registration io desireable.

     The Agency did not intend to mandate that  engineers must be
licensed in the State in  which the facility's tanks that, are
being certified are located.   However, EPA believes registration
in-state is certainly desireable.  -For example, registration  of
tne engineer in the  state of the facility would ensure that the
applicable and appropriate State laws  are abided by as well as
tne federal regulations.

     The other issue rained by the CMA concerns the Manirvg of
the term "welded flange".  The Agency has received numerous other
inquire* regarding this issue.  EPA has reached an opinion on the
•eaning of this tern and is now developing a notice to be published
in the Federal Register (hopefully, by the end of the sunner of
1987) that will clarify the scope of the teni 'welded flange'.

     In general, the tern 'welded flange", for the purpose of the
revised hazardous wast* tank system standards, will be inteprated
as neaning a flange whereby A welded connection between the
flange and piping is provided.  As such, weld neck flanges, lap
joint flanges, slip-on flanges, and also socket welds will be
accepted as being a welded flange.  As EPA will point out in its
interpretive notice, the primary concern of the Agency is to
ensure that threaded connections are provided with secondary

     Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter.  I hope
that we have clearly responded to your concerns.  If you have any
further questions or concerns, please contact either Bill Kline or
Bob April of my staff at (202) 382-7917.

                                     Yours truly,
                                     Robert Dellinger
                                     Waste Treatment Branch

 cc:  Bill Kline
      wob April
  bcc:  Suzanne Rudzinski
       Matt dale
       Cnet Osznan

              UNlTEf  'ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOK  ENCY      9483.1987(12)
                                  29  1987
    i'noiiias 'J. .•.sitner
          tal Ln-jineer
£.ii Lilly and Company
      Corporate Center
          is, Indiana  462d5
Dear Mr. Lieltner:

     This letter  is  in  response  to  your  letter of  May 28,  1973,
requesting that EPA  re-examine the  validity of data in the
Technical Resource Document  for  Storage  of  Hazardous Waste in
TanK Systems, regarding the  compatibility of ethanol with  stainless

     We have reviewed the  information that  you submitted supporting
your contention that ethanol is  indeed compatible  with stainless
steel.  The Agency also evaluated additional information gathered
from contacts with tank manufacturers, ethanol producers,  and
corrosion experts.

     As a result  of  our evaluation  of all of the above data,  we
believe that it is reasonable to correct the TRD so as to  indicate
that ethanol and  stainless steel are compatible.   EPA plans  to
update the TRD this  Fall and will make the  necessary correction  at
that tine.  If you have any  further questions,  please call me at
(202) 362-7917.

                                         Yours truly,
                                          William J.  Kline
                                          Environmental Scientist
 bcc: Matt Hale
              l^h 1 4 tvi


                                JULY 87
5.  Secondary Containment for Tanks
     The hazardous waste tank restrictions promulgated  in the July 14, 1986
Federal Register (51 FJR 25422) included requirements  for secondary
containment (§265.193).  One of the three methods of  secondary containment
is a vault (§265.193(d)(2)).  The vault system must be  designed or operated
to contain 100 percent of the capacity of the largest tank within its
boundary.  If the largest tank within the boundary contains non-hazardous
waste, must the vault be designed to contain the capacity of the non-hazardous
waste tank or the capacity of the largest hazardous waste tank?

   The hazardous waste tank regulations are not applicable to tanks
   containing non-hazardous waste; therefore the vault  must be designed to
   contain 100 percent of the capacity of the largest hazardous waste tank.

Source:    Bill Klin*     (202) 382-4623
Research:  Betty Wilson

               UNI  y STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT, .AGENCY        9483.1987(14)

                               AJ6 -3
 Mr.  Timothy P.  Love
 Allied  Corporation
 Fibers  Division
 Margaret  and Bermuda  Streets
 Philadelphia,  PA.   19137-1193

 Dear Mr.  Love:

     This letter  is in response to your  letter of  February  19,
 19U7, requesting  confirmation  of  a telephone  conversation on
 February  9,  1987,  between you  and Bill Kline  of my staff.
 The  topic of that  telephone conversation was  the intent  of
 §265.193(f)(4)  regarding  whether  secondary  containment  is
 required  for pressurized  aboveground piping systems  that are
 provided  with automatic shut-off  devices.

     As was  discussed in  the telephone conversation,  I can
 confirm that the  §265.193(f)(4) provision,  as now  written,  would
 exempt pressurized piping systems with automatic shut-off devices
 from the  secondary containment requirement.   Furthermore, this
 provision would allow this exemption even if  welded  flanges,
 welded  joints,  welded connections,  sealless valves,  and  sealless
 or magnetic  coupling  pumps are not used.

     The  Agency has been  reconsidering the  ramifications of this
 provision, as currently written.   EPA may have over-estimated
 the  effectiveness of  automatic shut-off  devices.   Although  these
 devices should  certainly  limit the quantity of waste released
 in case of  a substantial  failure  somewhere  in the  piping system
 (e.g., pipe  rupture),  they would  unlikely have any effect on
 reducing  the number or size of releases  in  piping  systems due to
 small or  slow leaks at valves, connections, flanges,  etc.

     It was  not EPA1s intent to prescribe less importance to
 smaller than major leaks  in pressurized  piping systems.  In fact,
 sucK less than  major  leaxs «oA&9u£ftM5? greater concern  in pres-
surized piping systems compared to non-pressurized  systems
due to their potential to release larger  quantities of
hazardous waste.

     Thus, the Agency believes .that it may be prudent to require
all aboveyround piping systems, pressurized as well as non-
pressurized^ even if automatic shut-off devices are used, to use
welded joints, sealless valves, sealless or magnetic coupling
pumps, etc., in order to be exempted from the secondary contain-
ment requirement.  In fact, we are contemplating that automatic
shut-off devices should likewise be welded so as not to be a
source of leakage.  Using this approach, automatic shut-off
devices might, rather than serve as a means for a piping system
to be exempted from secondary containment, would b« used to
protect against catastrophic releases and serve as a means to
Unit the size of the secondary containment system(s), where
needed.  EPA is considering proposing such an anendnent to the
tank system standards.

     We appreciate your comments on this issue.  Please accept
our apology for any inconveniences caused by our delayed response.
If you have any further questions, please contact Bill Kline or
bob April at (202) 382-7917.

                               Robert w. Del linger
                               Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
ccs  Regional Hazardous
       Waste Branch Chiefs
     Chet Osznan, PSPD


                     AUGUST 87
2.    Tank  Integrity Assessments

     40 CFR  254.191  of  Che  hazardous  waste  tank
regulations was  promulgated in the July  14, 1986 Federal
Register.   It requires  owner/operators  of existing tank
systems without secondary  containment to  conduct  an
integrity  assessment  by  January  12,  1988, "to determine
that  the  tank  system  is  not leaking  or unfit  for use.
Is  an  integrity assessment  necessary for a hazardous
vaste  tank  system  where  the  tank  has  secondary
containment but  the above-ground piping  does  not?   Does
the  interpretation change if the  tank  is above-ground,
in-ground  or  underground?

     No.  An integrity  assessment is not  required  for
     hazardous waste  tanks  that  have   secondary
     containment even when  the above-ground   piping does
     not.   40  CFR 264.191  states that existing  tank
     systems  that  do  not  have secondary containment and
     meet  40  CFR 264.193 requirements must  perform  an
     integrity  assessment.  A  "tank system"  includes
     both  the tank and its ancillary  equipment  (e.g.,
     attached piping).
     Since the  tank  has  secondary  containment (proviied
     it is in compliance with Section 264.193) and 4")
     CFR  264.193(5)  excludes   above-ground  piping
     (exclusive  of flanges,  joints,  valves  and  other
     connections)  that is visually inspected for  leaks
     on a  daily  basis  from secondary containment
     requirements,  the "tank  system" has  secondary
     containment meeting the  requirements   of  Section
     264.193.   Therefore,  it  is not  subject to the
     initial  integrity  assessment requirement.   The
     above-ground,  in-ground  or  underground
     classification of the  tank would  not influence  the

Source:   Chet  Oszman    (202) 382-4499
Research:   Rate  Anderson

              UNITED:   e- t«V|RONMENTAL PROTECTION A   JCY      Q.a, 1QO,,,
                                                          •J10 o • 17 8 / ( 16 )
                            SEF  ! t  1387
Mr. Philip L. Couella
Environmental Counsel
Chemical Waste Management,  Inc.
3003 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, Illinois  60521

Dear Mr. Coaellai

     This letter is response to your  letter of July  16,  1987,  in
which you requested confirmation of an interpretation given to
you by Doth the RCRA Hotline and Bill Kline of my  staff.
Specifically, you are seeking confirmation that, in  unauthorised
states, the integrity assessnent for  existing hazardous  waste  tank
•ystaas« as required in |$264.191(a)  and 265.191U)  need not be per*
zoned if secondary containment is installed in accordance with
})2o4.193 or 265.193 by January 12, 1988.

     Your interpretation of this provision is correct.   Your
efforts to provide secondary containnent for your  tank systems are
appreciated*  If you have any further questions, please  call Bill
Kline of ay staff at (202)  382-7917.

                                       Yours truly.
                                       Retort Dellinger
                                       Chief* Waste Treatment Branch
 bcci  Susanna Rudcinaki
       Matt Bale
       Bill Klin*
 OSWsBill  Kline's disk!2ijpj»8-4-87


                              SEP 23  B8?
Ms. Wendy S. Goerss
Environmental Engineer
SSOE, Inc.
1001 Madison Ave.
Toledo, Ohio  43624

Dear Ma. GoerSB:

     This letter is in  response  to your  letter of September  I,  1987,
requesting confirmation of 40 PR 264.193 interpretations given
to you by ne in recent  telephone conversations.  Specifically,
our dincussions centered on the  applicability of EPA's requirement
for secondary containment of aboveground welded flanges and  the
scope of the tern "welded flange*.  You  likewise inquired of
the applicability of secondary containment  for aboveground'
sealleus valves.

     An Z pointed out in our telephone conversations, one of SPA'S
primary concerns with aboveground piping is the threaded connection.
As such, the Agency's intent is  that secondary containment be
provided at these type connections*  An exemption from secondary
containment is allowed for welded piping connections due to  EPA's
belief that the threat of a release from these location's will be
substantially lower than for a threaded  connection.  Of course,
EPA realizes that even Aboveground welded connections are not
completely leak-proof and will need to be inspected on at least
a daily basis and properly maintained.

     EPA has been asked by numerous parties of concern to define
the scope of meaning of the tern "welded flange".  A clarification
of thin tem is being prepared and should be published in the near
future in the Federal Register*  Although X cannot send you  a copy
of the draft upcoming FJR, notice, I can comment on EPA's intended
clarification regarding the types of flanges that you referred  to
in an attachment to your letter  taken from  Perry's Chemical  Engi-
neer's Handbook, Fifth edition.  Your assessment of the applicabil-
ity of secondary containment to  the five pictured flanges is correct.
That is, the threaded flanges would need secondary containment.
The other four flange types (slip-on, socket, lap joint, and welded
neck) will be viewed as falling  within the  intent of EPA's definition
of welded flange and thus would  not require secondary containment.

     The Agency Also believes that aboveground sealless valves that
are visually inspected on a daily basis should be exempt from the
secondary containment requirements.  EPA alluded to this in the
preamble to the July 14, 1986 PR (SI PR254SO) but, due to an over-
sight failed to include this tern in the $5264.193(f) and 265.193(f)
regulatory language,  vie plan to likewise make this correction in
the above-mentioned upcoming PR notice.  The Agency does not,
however, intend to define "sealless valve" specifically.  Given the
wide and ever changing array of valves available on the market, EPA
believes it would be impractical to define the waning of this
term,  instead, the Agency would rather allow that a determination
of whether or not a valve is •%ealless"be Bade on a case by case
basis by Regional/state permitting authorities, keeping in mind
that the intent of the exemption is to encourage the use of valves
that employ a design that strictly minimizes valve stem leakage,
particularly in comparison to valves using traditional packings.
AS an example of this type of valve, EPA is aware of a valve that
uses a welded aetal bellows to teal the valve stem.  This or other
valve designs that essentially achieve containment within the valve
body would meet EPA's intended meaning of •••!!••• valve.

     I hope that X have adequately addressed your questions.  Please
call BMB at (202)382-7917 if you have any questions.

                                     William J. Kline
                                     Environmental Scientist
cc:  Chet Os2man, PSPD


                        WASHINGTON. O.C. 204fO
                                         OCT 16 1987
                                              fOLlO «WASTI AND IMf MGINCT MS'ONfC
Mr. P. E. Gerwert
Industrial Waste and Toxic  Substances
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
30400 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan   48090-9015

Dear Mr. Gervert:

    Thank you for  your  letter of  September  25,  1987, to Mr. J.
Winston Porter of  the Environmental Protection  Agency  (EPA)
regarding General  Motor's interpretation of the term "operating
day*, as it is used in  the  regulations promulgated under  the
Resource conservation and Recovery Act.

    Your interpretation of  "once  each operating day* in Section
265.195 (hazardous waste tanks),  to mean once each day during
which manufacturing operations are being conducted, conforms
with EPA'a interpretation of the  term.  EPA's interpretation of
the term "operating day" in Section 265.226(a)(1) (surface
impoundments) is that inspections must occur on every  day that
any waste is placed in  the  surface impoundment.

    I would like to emphasize that Section  265.193(0(3)  states
that secondary containment  systems must, at a minimum, be
provided with a leak-detection system that  is designed to detect
the release of hazardous waste within 24 hours.  This  mandates
daily checking of  secondary containment systems, including days
in which manufacturing  operations are not conducted.   Also,
section 2i55.193(f) requires visual inspection on a daily  basis,
whether or not manufacturing operations are being conducted.

    I hope that these comments resolve the questions you have
about interpretation of these regulations.  If you have an?
further questions, please contact Bill Kline of the Waste^
Treatment Branch for questions about tanJcs at  (202) 382-7917 or
Paul cassidy of the Land Disposal Branch for questions about
surface impoundments at (202) 382-4654                 ««vut
                                       Mate i a E. Williams
                                       Office of solid Waste


                     WASHINGTON. DC 204«0
                                            SOUOWASTf AND
SUBJECT:  Hazardous Waste Tank Regulatory Clarification

FROM:     Marcia Williams, Director N«/\t'V«-'
          Office of Solid Waste
TO:       Robert L. Duprey, Director
          Hazardous Waste Management Division

    This is in response to your November 20, 1987 memorandum
requesting a clarification concerning a hazardous waste tank
regulatory issue submitted to you by the Utah Bureau of solid
and Hazardous Waste.  The Bureau requested a determination
concerning whether an engineer in the Army Corps of Engineers
would meet the criteria for an independent, qualified,
professional engineer for assessments, installation, and/ or test
for the Department of Army facilities (specifically TooeJ? Army

    The Corps of Engineers is "independent* in that the corps is
generally considered a separate entity from an Army facility
like Tboele.  As such, the Corps could provide the needed
certifications.  EPA believes that this reading is consistent
with previous discussions of "independent" as described in the
preamble to the July 1986 rule and the tank rule question and
answer document (EPA/530-SW-87-012).  The Corps' relationship to
the owner/operator  (e.g., Tooele) is similar to the rela-.ionr.iup
between a private company and a consultant.  Thus, Tooele and
the corps maintain sufficient independence.

    TIM Corps would continue to be considered "independent" even
when it certifies its own design drawings, construction
projects, etc.  That is, if Tooele retained the corps  to design
or install a tank storage system, then the Corps could also be
retained to certify proper design or construction.

    I hope I have adequately addressed your questions,  if you
should have further questions, please call Chester oszman at
(202) 382-4499 or Bill Kline-at  (202) 382-7917.

cc:  Chester Oszman
     Bill Kline
     Carrie Wonling
     Regional Tank contacts

                UNITEl  .ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO,  JENCY     9483.1988(01
                                JAN 27
Mr. Peter S. Puglionesi,  P.E.
Unit Manager
Roy F. Weston,  Inc.
Weston May
West Chester, Pennsylvania   19380

Dear Mr. Puglionesi:

    This letter is  in response to your  letter of December 22,
1987, in which  you  requested confirmation on the applicability
of the July 14,  1986, revised hazardous waste tank system
standards to ancillary equipment and to exempted elementary
neutralization  systems.

    You are correct that  these revised  standards do not apply to
ancillary equipment that  is  associated  with non-regulated units,
e.g., surface impoundments or exempted  tanks.   It was  indeed
EPA's intent not to regulate ancillary  equipment itself.  In the
three examples  you  gave in your letter, I question only the
wording that seemingly differentiates the level of regulation
between the Federal and State governments.  For States to
receive authorization from EPA to implement their own  programs,
they must show  that their programs are  as stringent as the EPA
program.  As such,  I would expect that  both the existing
enterable underground tank and the aboveground  tank, described
in your third example, would be subject to the  hazardous waste
tank system standards.

    A second issue  raised in your letter is related to the RCRA
exemption for vastewater  treatment/elementary neutralization
units.  In your particular case, elementary neutralization is
used as a pretreatment of acidic wastewater prior to discharge
to a POTW.  You question  whether equipment used in association
with a RCRA exempted pretreatment system is likewise exempted.
As stated previously in our  conversation, such  equipment would
likewise be exempt  so long as it is used exclusively for the
purpose of handling the hazardous wastewater in conjunction with
the exempted unit.  However, if this equipment  is used, even

intermittently, for storage/treatment of a hazardous waste or
wastevater prior to shipment offsite as a hazardous waste, the
exemption is not'applicable.  The revised hazardous waste tank
system standards of July 14, 1986, would then apply.

    Please call me at (202) 382-7917 if you have any further

                                   William J. Kline
                                   Environmental Scientist
                                   Waste Treatment Branch, WMD
cc: Bob April
    Bob Dellinger
    Chet Oszman
    Sherry Gallagher, Region 3
    Carrie Wenling

                 UNIT.  iTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTk  AGENCY     9483.1988(03)
                                           FB -8
Mr. David Millman, P.E.
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
855 Springdale Drive
Exton, Pennsylvania  19341

Dear Mr., Millman:

    This letter is in response to your letter of January 15, 1988,
requesting confirmation of our telephone conversation on the proper
classification of tank systems as new vs. existing once these
systems become subject to RCRA Subtitle C standards subsequent to
July 14, 1986, as a result of changes made to the definition of
hazardous waste.  For example, a tank system that was being used to
store a substance that was previously not considered to be a
hazardous waste becomes, as a result of changes to the definition of
hazardous waste, a hazardous waste storage tank system.  As I had
previously stated in our conversation, such a tank system that was
in existence prior to time when its contained material becomes a
hazardous waste is considered an existing tank system.  These tank
systems would need to provide secondary containment per the phase-in
schedule presented in 40 CFR 264.193(a)(3)-(5).  Of course, a tank
system that is used to store/treat a hazardous waste subsequent to
the waste being newly identified as a hazardous waste, but that was
not used to store the material prior to it* becoming a hazardous
waste, would be regarded a new tank system.  These tank systems
would need to have secondary containment prior to being put into
service and would also be subject to other new tank system
standards, including design and installation requirements.

    If you have any further questions, please call me at

                                         William J. Kline
                                         Environmental Scientist
                                         Wast* Treatment Branch

               UNITEL  ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  uENCY      9433.1988:34
                                MAR 16

SUBJECT:      Concrete Liners for Hazardous Waste Tank Systems

FROM:         Robert W. Dellinger
              Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
              Office of Solid Waste

TO:           Stan Siegel
              Chief, Hazardous Waste Facilities Branch
              Region 2

    This memorandum is in response to a February 24, 1988 memorandum
from Clifford Ng of your staff to Bill Kline of my staff, requesting
guidance on evaluating the acceptability of concrete liners.

    Concrete structures are used widely as primary or secondary
containment of hazardous wastes.  Although these structures can be
expected to perform well, we are concerned about several unique
problems posed by the use of concrete, for example, settling,
cracking, permeability, and detectability of cracks or leaks.  In
general, we believe that a concrete structure, if properly designed,
installed, and maintained, is acceptable as either a primary
storage/treatment unit or as a secondary containment structure.  This
memorandum focuses on the use of concrete as a liner for the purpose
of secondary containment.  Please note, so as not to cause future
uncertainty, that concrete liners (structures), as discussed in the
memorandum, refer to structures that are typically constructed of
steel-reinforced concrete and are essentially self-supporting.  Any
endorsement of this type of concrete structure for secondary
containment of tank systems should not be construed to mean similar
approval of concrete liners that are non-steel-reinforced and of
relatively small thickness such as have been used for lining of
surface impoundments.

    The purpose of secondary containment is to contain any releases
from the primary.storage/treatment tank system until the released
material is detected and removed.  Hence, an objective of "no
migration" is sought.  The term "no migration" means that released
material is prevented from entering the environment and preferably
from entering into the secondary containment liner.

    Many, if not most, above-grade tank systems use concrete on the
floor and dikes as the means for providing a secondary containment
liner or structure.  Synthetic membrane liners also are used.  We
believe that most concrete, of itself, is relatively permeable.
Also, most concrete structures are subject to cracking sooner or
later.  For these reasons, we believe that concrete
liners/structures should be provided with a coating or lining, for
example, an epoxy, to minimize these deleterious conditions.  Such
a coating/lining will not only make the concrete "impermeable" but
will also enhance the drainage capability of the secondary
containment system, enable easier and quicker clean-up of releases,
and ultimately allow for easier clean-closure of the tank system.
In 40 CFR 264.193(e) and 265.193(e), vaults constructed of concrete
are required to be provided with an impermeable coating or lining
that is compatible with the stored waste and that will prevent
migration of waste into the concrete.  We intended that other
concrete structures likewise should meet this requirement.  A
Federal Register notice of clarifications is now being prepared
that, among these subjects, will provide a discussion regarding
impermeable coating/lining for concrete structures.

    Although a permeability of 10~7 cm/sec has been traditionally
required of liners used in the management of hazardous waste, we
have deliberately avoided quantifying a permeability for concrete
liners/structures.  We are not aware of a standard method by which
to determine the permeability of concrete.  In any event,
permeability measurements would likely be difficult to interpret
given that the permeability of the concrete may substantially vary
from location to location within the structure, depending upon, for
example, the number of pours of concrete, and the manner in which
any individual pour is placed.  As such, the degree of permeability
afforded a concrete structure, with or without a lining, must be
subjectively and qualitatively determined by a visual inspection of
the structure.  That is, one must ensure that the coating/lining
entirely and uniformly covers the surface of the concrete structure
that could come in contact with a released material.  Obviously,
regular inspections will play an important role in ensuring that
the integrity of the concrete structure is properly maintained.
The lining/coating, as well as the concrete structure, must be
inspected for wear, cracks, etc.  Any cracking of the concrete
structure/lining/coating must be promptly repaired.  Similarly,
abnormal or uneven wear of a lining/coating should be repaired.

    Concrete is an acceptable material of construction for
secondary containment structures and, in fact, may be preferable in
many situations.  We believe that these structures, if built in
accordance with the standards of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, will
provide containment of releases from primary tank systems thus
ensuring protection of the environment.

    If you have any further questions on the issue, please call Bob
April, Bill Kline, or me at FTS 382-7917.

cc: EPA Regional Branch Chiefs
    Clifford Ng, Region 2
    Bob April WMD
    Bill Kline, WMD
    Matt Hale, PSPD
    Elizabeth Cotsworth, PSPD
    Les Otte, WMD
    Chet Oszman, PSPD
    Carrie Wehling, OGC


                          MARCH 88
2.    Applicability of Subtitle I

     A  facility  currently  considering  altering  its wastewater
     treatment system,  uses a  water   detergent  mixture  to  clean
     engines in  an auto  body shop.    The resultant wastewater is
     collected in  a sump  in the  vicinity of   the cleaning  area.
     The wastewater,  when collected,   contains up  to ten percent
     (10%)  used oil  removed from the surface of the engines.    The
     contents of  the sump are discharged  to an on-site wastewater
     treatment facility which is  subject  to a National  Pollution
     Discharge  Elimination  System  (NPDES)  permit under Section
     307(b)  of the CWA.   The wastewater contained  in the sump is
     always  contaminated  with a certain fraction of used oil.   It
     is  conceivable,  depending on  volumes of  used oil contained,
     that  the  wastewater  could  fail the levels  for toluene,
     benzene,  phenol,  etc.,  as specified in  the proposed Toxicity
     Characteristic   Leaching  Procedure  (TCLP).    The wastewater
     would  therefore be  hazardous  waste  (once  the  procedure is
     codified).    Assuming  this  sump meets  the definition of a
     tank, would it  fall  under the jurisdiction of  Subtitle  I  for
     used oil  tanks   (currently  deferred  in  the  proposed  DST
     regulations), or  since it could be hazardous  wastewater  based
     on   the  TCLP,   would  the sump   holding   it be a wastewater
     treatment unit  as defined in 40 CFR Section 260.10?

         The  regulatory  status of the  sump would  be  dependent on
         its  contents.    Because  the  sump contains oil,  it  falls
         within the jurisdiction of the Subtitle  I program.    The
         requirements for DSTs under Subtitle  I will  be  finalized
         later  this year.   The rule   may  contain  exemptions or
         deferrals  for   these types   of  sumps.   The Subtitle I
         regulations may also exclude   any  tank   regulated under
         Subtitle C.   Thus,  if at some future date,  the  waste is
         deemed hazardous  based on  the  TCLP,  the sump (meeting
         the  definition   of tank)  would  no  longer be subject to
         the  Subtitle I  regulations.   However,  even if   the tank
         were regulated   solely under  the Subtitle C program,  the
         sump  would  meet   the   regulatory   exemption   for a
         wastewater treatment  unit in 40 CFR  Section 260.10.  It
         may, therefore,  not  be subject to either the Subtitle I
         or  Subtitle  C tank standards.   In that case release
         detection,   secondary   containment   and   other  tank
         specifications   could   be    either   written  into   the
         individual  NPDBS  permit   or   specified   by   a   CWA

     Source:   Carrie Hehling  (202)  382-7706
     Research: Andy O'Hare


                                 APRIL  88
2. Secondary Containment for Hazardous Waste Tanks

   A facility intends to install a series of underground hazardous waste accumulation tanks.
   The projected facility design specifies provisions for double walled tanks to meet the
   secondary containment requirements of Section 265.193.  Section 265.193(e)(3)(i) states
   that the tank "must be: designed as an integral structure (i.e., an inner tank within an outer
   shell) so that any release from the inner tank is contained by the outer shell...." Does this
   imply that the void space between the primary waste tank and the secondary outer shell
   needs to be capable of containing one hundred percent (100%) of primary tanks contents?

    No, secondary containment requirements for double walled hazardous waste tanks do
    not include provisions for containment of one hundred percent (100%) of the waste in
    the system's interstitial void. For the majority of such tank systems, inherent design
    criteria would make it unnecessary for such a specification. If a portion of the primary
    tank were to fail, the release would result in the two (2) tank systems acting as one (1)
    unit, whereby the entire contents of the primary tank would be confined within the
    overall structure. The properties of fluid dynamics would prevent a release (as long as
    spill and overfill protection where adequate) due to equilibrium of the waste volume
    between the primary tank and secondary tank.

  Source:       Bill Mine    (202) 382-7924
  Research:     Andy OHare


                                 MAY  88
6.  Hazardous Waste Tank - Leak Detection

 40 CFR Sections 264 and 265.193(b)(2) require that hazardous waste tank systems
 must be provided  with secondary containment  systems that are  capable  of
 detecting releases.  The leak detection system must be able to detect the presence
 of any release of hazardous waste or accumulated liquid in the secondary
 containment system within  24  hours as  specified  in  Sections 264  and
 265.193(c)(3). The type of leak-detection method used is afforded some flexibility
 according to the October 2, 1987 OSWER Policy Directive No. 9483.00-3 titled,
 "Questions and Answers Regarding the  July 14,  1986 Hazardous Waste Tank
 System Regulatory Requirements."  The directive  explains that "In some cases,
 daily visual inspection  will be allowed  as a means to comply with the  leak
 detection requirement."

 Can a daily visual inspection be  used as a  means  to comply with the leak-
 detection requirement when a hazardous waste tank is resting on a concrete pad?

    For completely aboveground tank systems, or portions thereof, a daily visual
    inspection of the hazardous waste tank system is an  acceptable method  of
    leak-detection.  When a tank is resting directly on a concrete pad, it is not
    possible to  visually inspect the  bottom portion of the tank that is in contact
    with the concrete.

    In this situation, if the owner/opera tor can demonstrate that any release  of
    hazardous waste from the tank  bottom will be  promptly detected by a daily
    visual  inspection before the released material potentially migrates to the
    environment (e.g., via cracks in the concrete),  then a daily visual inspection
    may be allowed by the appropriate permitting authority.  To enhance the
    detectability  of releases in these  situations,  the concrete pad must be
    impermeable and free of cracks.   The pad would  have to be sloped  or
    otherwise designed to facilitate  the flow of released waste from beneath the
    tank to  a  point  where it can be  readily  detected in  order for the
    owner/operator to make a showing that a release can be detected within a 24-
    hour period.  Other methods of leak-detection for the secondary containment
    may also be used.

    Other options are being used by the regulated community to provide release
    detection for this situation.  When a tank, especially one of greater  than 20,000
    gallons, is resting directly on a concrete pad and is not tightly surrounded by
    any structural walls, an area for a leak detection system can be created by
    physically entering the tank and welding a new tank bottom above the
    existing bottom of the tank (double bottom or false bottom tank). The space
    between the two tank bottoms is the area where the leak detection system will
    be installed.  Assuming the rest of the  rest of the tank is not double-walled, a
    secondary containment system, such  as diking the perimeter area of the tank,

6.  Hazardous Waste Tank - Leak Detection (Cont'd)

    If the tank is within a concrete vault and resting directly on the floor of the
    vault, a leak-detection system can be installed between the outer tank  wall
    and the inner vault walls.  The leak-detection system may be positioned at the
    lower end of the sloped vault floor and all portions of the floor including the
    area on which  the  tank rests  must be lined  or coated.   These specific
    requirements and all other applicable provisions in Sections 264  and 265.193
    must be met. The leak-detection system, installed entirely within  the walls of
    the vault, is sufficient.  No leak-detection system outside of the  vault walls,
    such as monitoring wells, is required.

    Another possibility for leak detection if the tank is resting on a concrete pad
    unsurrounded or on the floor of a concrete vault, is raising the tank above
    the floor or pad permanently with structural support such as  metal legs.  If
    the support is provided and the tank bottom is exposed, a visual inspection
    may be used to fulfill the leak-detection requirement for the hazardous waste
    tank's secondary containment system.

 Source:        Bill Kline   (202) 382-4623
 Research:      George Kleevic

                                MAY  88
7.  Hazardous Waste Tanks - Existing vs. New Tank

 An interim status treatment and storage facility stores liquid hazardous waste in
 several concrete sumps  that are isolated from the other treatment and storage
 units on-site.  The owner of the  facility  intends to install a  hazardous waste
 storage tank inside of each sump. These sumps will now serve as secondary
 containment to the newly installed storage tanks.

 Is this type of tank system modification regulated as a new tank installation, or is
 this practice recognized as providing secondary  containment for  an existing
 hazardous waste storage  tank?

    40 CFR Section 265.193 requires that secondary containment must be provided
    for new and existing  tanks that treat or store hazardous waste at an interim
    status facility.  Installing a tank in an existing hazardous waste sump or
    another  tank to  facilitate  compliance  with  secondary  containment
    requirements is one  method being employed by the regulated community.
    This hazardous waste storage tank installation must be in compliance with
    the regulatory requirements for the design and installation of a new tank
    system or component  in 40 CFR Section 265.192.  A sump, now serving as

   secondary containment to the tank must be provided with a menas of leak
   detection and must meet the technical  requirements of Section 265.193(e)0)
   and (2) and all other applicable provisions in Section 265.193.

 Source:        Bill Kline   (202) 382-4623
 Research:      George Kleevic

Messrs. Daniel W. Conway and
  Victor 0. Marz, Jr.
Oven Ayres and Associates,  Inc.
2445 Darwin Road
Madison, Wisconsin   53704

Dear Messrs. Convay  and Marz:

    This letter is in response to your  letter of May  16,  1988, to
me, requesting confirmation of several  points that we discussed
during our May 11 telephone conversation.  The  focus  of our
conversation was the 40 CFR 264.193  requirements for  containment
and detection of releases from hazardous waste  storage tanJc

    In 40 CFR 264.193  (c)(3), a  leak detection  capability must be
provided integral to a secondary containment system.  As  I
mentioned in our conversation, daily visual monitoring may be an
acceptable means of  leak detection,  where appropriate.  For
example, daily visual monitoring would  be appropriate for most
tanks that are elevated above ground-level such that  the  entire
external surface area of the tank can be inspected.   If the
external bottom of the tank is not accessible for visual  inspec-
tion, e.g., it is set directly on a  foundation, the appropriate-
ness of visual leak  monitoring is dubious, pending an acceptable
demonstration by the tank system owner/operator that  a prompt and
reliable means of leak detection is  provided.

    The system that  you propose  to use  in which a tank is placed
on a ijrnmrs^j rjiarrets pedestal above the secondary containment
system may Rpvide an acceptable means  of leak  detection. You may
want to ermjddjsr sloping the grooves in the concrete  pedestal to
enhance thtjir&SfUc detection  capabilities of the  system further.
Also, re»«atb*fT tb« concrete must be  impermeable.  The final
determination as to  the acceptability of your proposed design
will be made by the  appropriate  EPA  Regional or Stats authority.

                              - 2 -

    The otJMjTpoint for which confirmation was sought involves
the requir«FT»pacity of a secondary containment system.  As
40 CFR 264.l93(e>(l)(i) and (ii) provide, the secondary contain-
ment system must be designed/operated to contain 100% of the
largest hazardous waste tank within its boundary.  If the
secondary containment system is exposed to precipitation, an
additional capacity equal to the precipitation from a 25-year,
24-hour rainfall event must also be provided.

    If you have any further questions on these or other issues
regarding the standards for storage/treatment of hazardous waste
in tank systems, please call me at (202) 382-7917.

                                         Yours truly,
                                         William J. Kline
cc: Bob April
    Bob Dellinger
    Chet Oszman
    Carrie Wehling
    Suzanne Rudzinski
    Matt Hale


June 9,  1988

Mr. Timothy P. Love
Environmental Engineer
Allied Signal Inc.
Fibers Division
Margaret and Bermuda Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19137-1193

Dear Mr. Love:

     This letter is in response to your letter of May 17, 1988,
requesting EPA to make a determination as to if pumps using the
"Barrier Fluid Pump Sealing System" would be exempt from the
requirement for secondary containment.  You stated in your letter
that you believe that this "system" provides the same level of
assurance against the possibility of a release of hazardous waste
to the environment as do sealless and magnetically sealed pumps
which are allowed an exemption from secondary containment in 40
CFR 264(5).193 (f)(3).

     As you are aware, the primary reason for EPA requiring
secondary containment of pumps is the high incidence of seal
failures that occur using traditional packings (e.g., flax,
rubber, metallic braids, teflon), resulting in releases to the
environment.  Other pump types, e.g., sealless pumps,
significantly lessen the probability of a release.  Based on the
description of the Barrier Fluid System that you provided with
your letter, we believe that it may meet EPA's intent insofar
that the system seemingly rectifies the problem of packing seal
failure.  However, this system is not, to our knowledge, well
established and your description of the system does not include a
sufficiently detailed analysis of potential failure modes.

     Rather than attempt to make a determination of approval/
disapproval for this specific system or any other of the many
types of pumps, seals, etc. that currently are or will be
available in the marketplace, such determinations should be made
by the appropriate EPA region or State authority having
responsibility for implementation of the standards at a
particular facility.  We believe that these officials, being
cognizant of the intent of the provisions for hazardous waste
tank systems, can best make the determination regarding the
acceptability of a specific device or technology for a given tank
        This has been retyped from the original document.


     If you have any further questions on this matter, please
call Bill Kline of my staff at (202) 382-7917.

                             James R. Berlow
                             Acting Chief
                             Waste Treatment Branch
cc:  Bill Kline
     Chet Oszman,PSPD
     Carrie Wehling,OGC
     RCRA Branch Chiefs
        This has been retyped from the original document.


                               JUNE 88
1. Hazardous Waste Tanks

  An above ground tank was installed in 1976 and used to store product diesel
  fuel.  In 1979 the tank ceased to store product and was used for hazardous
  waste storage.  For purposes of 40 CFR 264.193 requirements, is the age of the
  tank, calculated from 1976 or 1979?

     The 1976 date should be used.  The primary cause for tank failure, i.e.,
     external corrosion, acts on the tank regardless of what substance is stored
     in the tank. Thus, the older the tank the higher the probability of failure.
     Likewise, although perhaps not in the same degree, many other modes of
     failure of tanks become increasingly probable with an increase in age of the
     tank.   Because the intent of the regulation is to ensure  secondary
     containment for aging tanks, the age of the tank itself, and not the time for
     which it has been subject to hazardous waste regulation is pertinent.

  Source:     Bill Kline         (202) 382-4623
  Research:   Laurie Huber


                              JUNE  88
4.  Hazardous Waste Tanks—Installation/Certification of Secondary

  The owner of an interim status hazardous waste storage facility is installing
  secondary  containment on his tanks  which were  in existence and in use
  before July 14, 1986.  If installation occurs  after July 14, 1986, must it be
  certified by an independent installation inspector or independent registered
  professional engineer? If a piece of ancillary equipment, such as a pump or
  valve, needs to be replaced, must the replacement also be certified by an
  independent installer or engineer?

      The standards in 40 CFR 264(5).192 require that  the correct installation of
     new tank systems or components be certified by an independent registered
     professional engineer or independent qualified installation inspector.  The
     Agency's  intent  in  promulgating this provision  was that such  a
     certification provides EPA with a means of knowing that hazardous waste
     tank systems were initially installed in a correct manner.  EPA  was
     concerned  that many  tank  systems  were being improperly  installed
     thereby resulting in failure of the tank, piping, etc. The failures were of
     particular concern because in the absence of secondary containment many
     of these releases could go undetected indefinitely.

4.  Hazardous Waste Tanks—Installation/Certification of Secondary
   Containment (Cont'd)

      Proper installation on new tank systems and components is an ongoing
      concern to the Agency.  However, it was not EPA's intent that every
      minor  or routine  replacement of  a tank  system  component  need
      recertification each time it is replaced.  Replacement of valves, pumps, or
      even  small   sections  of  piping  were  not  envisioned as  needing
      recertification since they do not affect the structural integrity of the tank
      system.  Rather, the Agency  intends  this  requirement to  apply to
      components  affecting the  system's structural integrity,  e.g.,  the more
      major, non-routine and complex retrofit/replacement tasks.  For example,
      the installation of new tanks including reinstallation of existing  tanks, the
      installation of new secondary containment systems, and the replacement
      of extensive  piping are relatively complex tasks  that  are critical to
      structural integrity and require oversight  to ensure proper installation.
      This  oversight is supplied  by the independent registered professional
      engineer or independent qualified installation inspector.

      It is not feasible for the Agency to lay out a detailed menu of the  items that
      do or do not need certification of installation.  Facility owners and
      operators should contact the appropriate EPA Regional or State authorities
      to determine  which new tank system components need  certification of
      proper  installation.

   Source:     Bill  Kline               (202) 382-7917
   Research:   Becky Cuthbertson


                                JUNE  88
 5.  Hazardous Waste Tanks/Containers — Capacity of Secondary Containment

    A hazardous waste storage facility is in the design stage. The owner/ opera tor
    is designing the storage area for both hazardous waste tanks, and hazardous
    waste containers. A vault system will be designed to fulfill the requirements
    of secondary containment.  The vault system will have sufficient capacity to
    contain 100% of the largest tank within its boundary.  Hazardous waste
    containers will also be managed inside the vault system.  The  containers
    must be provided with a containment area which has sufficient capacity to
    contain 10% of the volume  of containers, or the volume of the  largest
    container, whichever is  greater.   The  vault system, as designed  for the
    hazardous waste tanks, has sufficient capacity in excess of the 10% container
    requirement. Must  the owner/opera tor  design the vault system for 100% of
    the largest tank plus 10% of the largest  container, or will the  100% capacity
    supplied  for the tanks also fulfill the containment requirement  for the

      In order  to prevent  the release of  hazardous  waste  or hazardous
      constituents to the environment, secondary containment is required for
      new  hazardous waste tanks per Section 264.193.  Container storage areas
      are also required to have secondary  containment which  will meet these
      same goals per Section  264.175(b)(3). Hazardous waste tanks, using  a vault
      system, must be supplied with a volume equal to 100% of the  largest
      capacity per Section 264.193(e)(2)(i).  The container storage areas must be
      supplied with a volume of secondary capacity equal to 10% of the volume
      of containers or volume of the largest  container, whichever is greater.

      As long as the vault system has sufficient capacity to hold 100% of the
      largest tank inside the system, and that volume is greater than the amount
      of secondary containment required for the  container storage area,  both
      requirements have been fulfilled. The owner/operator would not have to
      supply the  summation  (i.e.,  110%)  of the required volumes for the
      secondary containment system.

Source:        William Kline     (202)382-7924
Research:     Craig Campbell


                                 JULY 88
2. Wastewater Treatment Unit/Generator Accumulation Tank

  A manufacturing facility generates a wastewater which is a listed  hazardous
  waste.  The wastewater is pumped to a tank for treatment where a wastewater
  treatment sludge is generated and subsequently sent off-site for disposal as a
  hazardous waste. The treatment effluent is discharged to a lake under a NPDES
  permit.   When the  facility operates in this  manner,  the tank  meets  the
  definition of a wastewater treatment unit in 40 CFR 260.10.  However, regularly
  occurring batch processes produce a wastewater which cannot be treated to the
  standards  specified  in the  facility's NPDES permit.   When this occurs,  the
  wastewater is removed from the tank and sent off-site for disposal.  Is this tank
  classified as a wastewater treatment unit or a  generator accumulation tank
  subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34 and 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart J?

    The tank would  not be classified as a wastewater treatment unit under 40
    CFR 260.10.  The exemption  from RCRA TSD Standards in 40 CFR Parts  264
    and 265  for wastewater  treatment units  applies to any  tank system that
    manages hazardous wastewater and is dedicated for use with  an on-site
    wastewater treatment facility. However, if a tank, in addition to being used in
    conjunction with  an on-site wastewater treatment facility, is used on   a
    routine or occasional basis to store or treat a hazardous  wastewater prior to
    shipment off-site for treatment, storage, or disposal, it is not covered by the
    exemption. If the facility stores the hazardous wastewater in the tank prior to
    off-site treatment  or disposal for 90 days or less, it will be subject to  the
    requirements of 40 CFR 262.34.

  Source:       Emily  Roth (202) 382-4777
  Research:     Jim Styers


                              SEPTEMBER 88
1.  Changes During Interim Status

An interim status facility owner or operator wants to retrofit his hazardous waste
tank system in order to comply with the secondary containment requirements in
40 CFR Section 265.193. Is this retrofitting activity considered a change  during
interim status and thus prohibited  if the cost exceeds 50 percent of what a new
facility would cost (under the 50% reconstruction limit in Section 270.72)?

   According to 40 CFR Section 270.72(e) (as amended in the July 14,1986 Federal
   Register. 51 FR 25486) changes made solely for the purpose of complying with
   the requirements of Section 265.193 for tanks and ancillary equipment are not
   subject to the reconstruction limit  in Section 270.72(e).   However, Section
   270.72(e)  was also amended in the July 8,1987 final rule (see 52 FR 25792, July 8,
   1987 Federal Register) to include changes solely for purposes of complying with
   the land disposal restrictions in 40 CFR Part 268 or RCRA Section 3004. When

    Section 270.72(e) was amended, the original language regarding changes made
    in order  to comply with Section 265.193, was inadvertently left out.  Therefore,
    retrofitting a  hazardous waste tank solely for purposes  of complying with the
    requirements  in Section 265.193  would constitute  a change during  interim
    status that is subject to the 50% reconstruction limit
Source:   Chester Oszman   (202) 382-4499
Research: Joe Nixon

                               - 2 -

    You also asked if a secondary containment system must be
designed to prevent lateral migration of the waste in the event of
catastrophic failure of the tank or ancillary equipment.   That is,
for example, should a secondary containment system be designed and
constructed with a capability to withstand and contain the impact
of an overland tidal-like wave of waste resulting from a spon-
taneous worse-case failure of a tank wall, similar to that
experienced in the collapse of the Ashland Oil Company tank on
January 2, 1987?  Simply, the answer is no, but let me elaborate
on this matter.

    In the process of developing the revised hazardous waste tank
system standards, EPA identified the causes of tank system
failure.  Thus, the revised standards are designed to address
these causes of releases and thereby prevent the introduction of
hazardous waste into the environment.  For example, much emphasis
is placed on the proper design and installation of tank systems,
including secondary containment systems.  We believe that if the
owner or operator complies with these regulations and likewise
adheres to proper operation and maintenance of the tank system,
the secondary containment system will rarely, if ever, be needed.
Also, the regulations require that special consideration be given
to the design of tank systems located in areas that pose risks of
seismic activity or flooding.  In addition to being able to
contain at least 100% of the volume of the largest tank within the
containment structure, many secondary containment structures may,
to some degree, be able to handle a catastrophic failure due to
the requirement that such structures must be designed to handle
the precipitation resulting from a 25 year, 24 hour storm.

    The bottom line is that we are confident that the standards
for hazardous waste tank systems are completely adequate for fully
protecting the environment under all but the rarest of circum-
stances.  Although compliance with the regulations should
eliminate most catastrophic failures, the Agency recognizes that
no system can provide an absolute zero risk.  Because of the type
and frequency of catastrophic failures that could still occur
(e.g., airplane crash), the Agency does not believe it necessary
to mandate that secondary containment systems be designed and
constructed in anticipation of such catastrophes.

    Another question you raised regards the required  reactionary
capability and effectiveness of an automatic shut-off device as
mentioned in 40 CFR 264(5).193(f)(4).  This is an issue that EPA
perhaps needs to more definitively address with regard to
hazardous waste tank systems.  We have to some extent addressed
this issue in a recent Federal Register notice  (53 FR 34084,
September 2, 1988).  As you know, it is EPA's intent  to prevent
the migration of hazardous waste  into the environment.

                              - 3 -

    Therefore, a device that is designed to automatically
shut-off the flow in a pipe should a failure occur in the piping
must ensure that a minimum of waste is released.  Of course, the
greater the quantity of waste released, the greater is the
facility's potential clean-up costs.  In lieu of specifying that
automatic shut-off devices be capable of restricting a release
to a defined quantity, we have allowed the permitting authori-
ties the discretion to approve the use of these devices, in
accordance with those constraints provided by the facility's
piping system, e.g., pipe size, amount of piping, and pressure.
The acceptance of a particular automatic shut-off device is
predicated on its demonstrated capability to meet the underlying
intent to minimize, to the extent feasible, the quantity of
waste that might be released in a failure of the piping system.
Subsequent to promulgation of the hazardous waste tank system
standards, the Agency has developed specific requirements for
automatic shut-off devices used on Subtitle I underground
storage tank systems  (see 53 FR 37082, September 1988).

    The data in this notice reflects EPA's most recent thoughts
on this issue.  As you will notice, §280.44(a) of these
regulations requires that such devices be capable of detecting
leaks of three gallons per hour at 10 pounds per square inch
line pressure within 1 hour.  We are considering whether to
apply those same criteria to automatic shut-off devices on
hazardous waste tank systems.

    The final question in your letter seeks clarification of the
term "pressurized" as applied to aboveground piping in 40 CFR
264(5).193(f)(4).  EPA has not assigned a specific numerical
value to distinguish pressurized from non-pressurized piping.
Many aboveground tanks use a pipe located at or near the bottom
of the tank to transfer waste from the tank.  Such piping, due
to the inherent static head provided by the level to which the
waste is stored in the tank, could technically be referred to as
"pressurized" piping.  However/ the Agency's intent in using
this term in 40 CFR 264(5).193(f)(4) is that only aboveground
piping through which waste is transferred via a pump  (not
including suction pumps) be referred to as being pressurized.
It is intended that aboveground pressurized piping when used  in
conjunction with an automatic shut-off device represent a
situation whereby such a device is used with a known positive
"constant"' pipeline pressure as provided by a pump.

    If you have any further questions on these or other issues
related to the technical standards for hazardous waste tank
systems, please call Bill Kline at (202) 382-7917.

                                         David Bussard
                                         Acting Director
                                         Waste Management Division
cc:  Bill Kline, WTB
bcc: Robert Tonetti, WMD
     James Berlow, WTB
     Chester Oszman, PSPD
     Kirsten Engle, OGC
     Timothy Hasten, OWPE
     Thomas Schruben, OUST

            RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY  SUMMARY       9483.1989(01)

                             APRIL 89
3.  Generator Closure/Financial Requirements

Under 40 CFR Section 262.34 generators may accumulate waste on-site for less
than 90 days if they comply with the container/tank regulations of  Part 265.
Generators are exempt from  the requirements of Part 265 Subparts G and H,
except for Sections 265.111 and 265.114.  The operation of a generator's tank
system has  resulted in the contamination of  soil  around and under the tank
system. If the generator cannot remove ail of the contaminated soil at closure of
the tank system, must he then comply with all sections of Subparts  G and H
including Section 265.197(b)?

   Yes. Under 40 CFR 262.34, 90-day generators must dos<» their accumulation
   units in accordance with the closure performance standards of Section 265.111
   and the standards for  disposal  of decontamination of equipment, structures,
   and soils under Section 265.114. Section 265.111 specifically requires these
   generators to close their units in a manner  that "minimizes or eliminates, to
   the extent necessary to protect human health  and the environment, post-
   closure  escape  of hazardous  waste,  hazardous constituents,  leachate,
   contaminated run-off, or hazardous waste decomposition products to the
   ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere."

   There are no specific closure  requirements for small quantity generators
   under 262.34; however, small quantity generators (SQGs) must comply with
   the tank closure requirement specific to them, Section 265.201. Under Section
   265.201 (d), SQGs must "remove all hazardous waste from tanks, discharge
   control equipment, and discharge confinement structures."  Furthermore,
   generators of 100-1000 kilograms per month must respond  to spills and
   "...dean  up the hazardous waste  and any contaminated materials or soil."
   (Section 262.34(d)(5)(iv)(B))
   Ninety-day generators who operate  tank  system accumulation units must
   also meet certain additional closure requirements. Tank system accumulation
   units  must be closed in compliance with  Sections 265.111,  265.114,  and
   265.197(a) and (b), which call for the removal or decontamination at  dosure of
   all waste  residues,  contaminated containment  system  components,
   contaminated soils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste.
   Furthermore, if the generator demonstrates that all contaminated soils at the
   tank  system   accumulation  unit  cannot be practicably  removed  or
   decontaminated at closure, then the generator must dose the tank system and
   perform  post-closure  care in accordance with the closure and post-closure
   requirements that apply to landfills (see  Section 265.310). Such a tank system
   is then considered to  be a landfill and the generator must comply with all of
   the requirements for landfills  specified in Subparts G and H of Part 265.
   Owners  and operators of hazardous waste management units must have
   post-closure care permits during the post-closure care  period for any units
   that  received  waste  after  July  26,  1982,  or certified  closure after
   January 26,1983. (See  Section 270. l(c).)

Source:        Emily Roth              (202) 382-4777
Research:      Renee Pannebaker       (202)382-3112

                    .MTlSDlV«e»«EXTAt PROTECTION-JEMCY     9483.1989(02)
                        JAN  9
Mr. Larry Drake
Manager, HWST Programs
ENSR Constructors
3000 Richmond Ave.
Houston, Texas  77098

Dear Mr. Drake:

    This letter is in response to your correspondence of
November 22, 1988 to Bill Kline of my staff, in which you
requested an additional clarification regarding the 40 CFR
264.193 and 265.193 standards for secondary containment of
hazardous waste tank systems.  Specifically, you asked if
existing concrete secondary containment systems that are to be
coated in accordance with §§ 264.193 and 265.193 must be
certified by an independent, qualified, registered professional
engineer (IQRPE).

    As stated in paragraphs 264.191(a) and 265.191(a), any
existing tank system (including the secondary containment system)
that does not comply with the secondary containment requirements
of §264.193 or §265.193, must have an integrity assessment that
is certified by an IQRPE.  Therefore, an existing concrete
secondary containment system to which a coating or lining is
applied to provide the enhanced level of impermeability to the
concrete structure, required by 1264.193 and §265.193, must be
certified by an IQRPE.

    Likewise, a coating or liner that is installed in conjunction
with a n«w **nk systn (including secondary containment) or a
liner that*»B*installed to serve as secondary containment of an
existing *^f «y•,£•&, must receive an IQRPE's certification.

    In sittMreicn^vncn an IQRPE certification is not required, we
would recommend, however, that the owner or operator obtain and
keep on file a statement from the coating/liner manufacturer or
installer that indicates the compatibility of the coating/liner
with the type of wastes that will be stored within th»  •«•	—•

                   «iATH INVntONMEMTAL PROTECTION »*EMCY
. 1 Bill Kline  at  (202)382-7917  if you have any
',1'one regarding the  hazardous  waste tank system
                                    DavttdJA.  Bussard
                                    Acting Director
                                    Waste^Management Division
cc: Bill Kline, WTB

bcc:Jim Berlow, WTB
    Chet Oszman. PSPD
    Kirsten Engle, OGC
    Tim Kasten, OWPE
    Tom Schruben, OUST
    Region 1-10 Haz. Waste  Division Directors


Mr. Yuh-Jer(Burt) Lee, P.E.
Senior Engineer
NUS Corporation                     MAR  f 4 ?j;
163.6.0. Park Ten Place
Suite 300
Houston, Texas  77084

Dear Mr. Lee:

    This letter responds to your letter of February 9, 1989,
to Mr. James R. Berlow,  in which you requested clarification
of the requirements regarding the design and  installation of
secondary containment  for existing hazardous  waste tank
systems,,  I, rather than Mr. Berlow, am responding to your
letter because responsibility for the hazardous waste tank
system standards has recently been transferred to me.

    You asked which provisions of the tank system standards
need to be complied with when designing and installing
secondary containment  for existing tank systems, noting that
the section 260.10 definition of "component"  does not
explicitly address secondary containment.  We consider
secondary containment  to be a vital part of any tank system
and, as such, have defined the term "tank system" in section
260.10 to be inclusive of secondary containment.  Our intent
is that all new portions of a tank system, including secondary
containment, be properly designed and installed in accordance
with the requirements  in sections 264.192 and 265.192.
However, in addition to  these general design  and installation
requirements, the owner/operator must also comply with other
specific requirements  for secondary containment systems, as
contained in sections  264.193 and 265.193.

    As you correctly stated, the section 260.10 definition of
"component" does not specifically mention secondary
containment.  In defining "component," we did not attempt to
include an exhaustive  list of devices that are considered to
be components of a tank  system.  EPA has determined that a
secondary containment  system is a component of a tank system.
As such, both the design and installation of  a new secondary
containment system for an existing tank system must be
certified by an independent party as required in sections
264.192 and 265.192.   This interpretation is  consistent with
our intent that all new  tank systems and new  components of
existing tank systems  be properly designed and installed.  The

                             - 2 -
owner or operator must obtain a certified written assessment
that do.curaents .the "integrity and acceptability of the tank
system or component for use in storing or treating hazardous
waste.  This certification provides EPA with reasonable
assurance that these systems will be protective of human
health and the environment.  Furthermore, the certified
written assessment should provide the necessary information
for both the permit writer and enforcement official to
evaluate the basis for the certifier's assessment of the tank
system or component.

    If you have any further questions on these or other issues
regarding the standards for storage/treatment of hazardous
waste in tank systems, please call Bill Kline of my staff at
(202) 382-7924.

                                 Arthur Day, Chief
                                 Land Disposal Branch
cc:  Jim Berlow, WTB
     Bill Kline

bcc:  Les Otte
      Chet Oszman, PSPD
      Kirsten Engle, OGC

              RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY         9483.1989(04)

                        OCTOBER 1989

3.  Integrity Assessment for Hazardous Waste Tanks and Post-Closure

An owner of an existing hazardous waste tank wants to dose the tank.
The tank does not have secondary containment.  The owner successfully
performed a tank integrity assessment in accordance with 40 CFR 264.191.
Even if the tank passed the integrity assessment, must the owner  still
perform post-closure  care  if  the tank does not  have secondary
    Regardless  of the  success of  the integrity  assessment,  an
    owner/operator of a tank that does not have secondary containment
    must comply with the closure and post-closure care requirements of
    40 CFR 264.197. Neither 40 CFR Sections 264.191 or 264.197 exempt
    tanks from the closure and post-closure requirements based upon a
    successful tank integrity assessment.  However, some special closure
    requirements do exist for owners/operators of tanks which do not
    have secondary containment.  According to 40  CFR  264.197, an
    owner/operator of a hazardous waste tank system which does not
    meet the secondary containment requirements of Section 264.193(b-f)
    must submit a closure plan which complies with both paragraphs (a)
    and (b) of Section 264.197.

    Such a closure plan must include a plan for decontamination of the
    tank system and  a contingency  plan for post-closure care.  The
    contingency plan  for  post-closure is required  in  case  the
    owner/operator  cannot  comply  with  the  decontamination
    requirements of Section 264.197(a).

    The owner/operator of this existing hazardous waste tank,  which
    does not have secondary containment, must submit  a contingency
    plan for  post-closure care in addition to the closure plan required
    under Section 264.197(c).  He would only  have  to  perform post-
    closure care if he  demonstrated that he could not practically remove
    or decontaminate  all contaminated soils in accordance with Section

Source:        Bill Kline              (202) 475-9614
Research:      Renee  Bench



                         OCTOBER 1989

8. Temporary Closure of USTs

Owners and operators of UST systems which are temporarily closed are
subject to certain technical standards, according to 40 CFR Section 280.70.
In the case of a temporarily dosed empty UST, does the owner/operator
have until December 22,1998 to comply with upgrading requirements or
would the tank have to be permanently dosed after twelve months of
temporary dosure if not upgraded?

    The owner/operator has until December 22,1998, to comply with the
    upgrading requirements.   Owners/operators  of temporarily closed
    UST systems are required to continue operation and maintenance of
    corrosion protection and release detection, according to Section 280.70
    However, release  detection is not required  if the  UST system is
    empty. After twelve months of temporary dosure, owners/operators
    must permanently dose the UST system  if it does not meet either the
    performance standards  in Section  280.20 or  the upgrading
    requirements   in  Section  280.21.   Under  this  provision,
    owners/operators of operating existing USTs have until December 22,
    1998, to meet the upgrading requirements. Thus the owner/operator
    may postpone  upgrading  his or her temporarily dosed UST until
    December 22, 1998, but not after this date. After December  22, 1998,
    any tank that is temporarily dosed for more than 12  months  must
    permanently close  unless  it meets the new UST  performance
    standards of Section 280.20 or the technical upgrading requirements
    under Section 280.21.

Source:        Kim Green             (202) 475-9395
Research:      Mary Beth Clary

           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Mr. Al Patton
Environmental Specialist
C-K Associates, Inc.
11200 Industriplex Boulevard
Suite 150
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809
                                    SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Dear Mr. Patton:

     Thank you  for your  letter of October 30, 1989, requesting
EPA's interpretation of  the phrase "operated to contain" as found
in the 40 CFR 264.193 and 265.193 secondary containment require-
ments for hazardous waste tank systems.  We appreciate your
obvious work in developing the example assessment document that
was enclosed with your letter.  This document focuses "on the
concept of using auxiliary equipment or procedures, such as a
sump and pump arrangement that operates on a continuous basis to
remove accumulated liquids, as the means of achieving full
secondary containment.   You are seeking EPA concurrence that such
a system fully  meets the intent of the regulations.

     As you are aware, the primary intent of the hazardous waste
. ..ik system standards is to prevent the migration of hazardous
waste or accumulated liquid into the environment.  Secondary
containment is  a critical component of a tank system management
plan for achieving protection of the environment.  As such, EPA
places a strong emphasis on the need for properly designed,
operated, and maintained secondary containment systems.  At the
same time, it is EPA's intent to be flexible and not needlessly
limit the design and operation parameters of secondary
containment systems.  Conceivably there is room for employing
both design and operation controls so that complete containment
(no releases into the environment) is achieved.  However, any
system that uses operation controls as a partial substitute  for
standard secondary containment  (barriers) will be closely
scrutinized to  ensure that the level of environmental protection
afforded by barriers is  not compromised.

     EPA believes that a secondary containment system that  is
designed to hold 100% of the volume of the largest hazardous
waste tank within its boundary, as well as the volume of
precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour storm  (if applicable), will
provide the most reliable and fail-safe means of protecting the
environment from hazardous waste spills,  leaks, or  accumulated

 liquids.   In  the  example that you provided, the curbed area
 (using  a  12 inch  high  curb) around the 9700 gallon tank, although
 of  sufficient capacity to adequately contain the full contents of
 the tank,  would not be sufficient to likewise contain the volume
 of  precipitation  from  the 25-year, 24-hour storm ( in this case,
 twelve  inches of  precipitation).  For this situation, however,
 increasing the height  of the curb to 18 inches would provide the
 volume  of  secondary containment needed.  We recommend, wherever
 feasible,  that the secondary containment be designed so that it
 is  capable of holding  the entire volume of precipitation expected
 from a  25-year, 24-hour storm,  in addition to the volume of the
 largest tank  within its boundaries.  EPA believes that the risk
 of  release to the environment is much less when a full barrier is
 used, as opposed  to relying on a downsized barrier operated in
 conjunction with  pumps.  The chances of a mechanical device
 (pump)  malfunctioning  are significantly greater than with a
 passive measure,  i.e., a barrier.  Examples of failure-that may
 be  associated with pumps are loss of power and clogging.  As
 such, the  owner/operator would need to address protective
 measures,  such as backup power availability and redundant pumps.

     Although EPA has  strong concerns about using operational
 controls  , e.g.,  pumps, as a means of achieving complete
 secondary  containment  for hazardous waste tank systems, we
 believe that  certain situations may warrant their use.  In
 locations  where,  for example, space considerations restrict the
 area available for constructing an adequately sized secondary
 containment structure  or make retrofitting infeasible,
 operational controls may be appropriate.  Where operational
 controls are  employed, EPA believes that the burden of
 demonstrating their adequacy is placed upon the facility
 owner/operator.   It is the responsibility of the facility
 owner/operator to demonstrate that the system being proposed as
 an alternative means of secondary containment does not  increase
 the risk of a release  of hazardous waste or hazardous
 constituents  into the  environment above that expected from a
 system  using  a passive secondary containment barrier.   The
acceptability of  operational controls as part of a secondary
containment system should be determined on a case by case basis,
with the appropriate EPA Region/State authority making  the
decision regarding the adequacy and reliability of such a system;
I do not believe  that  your proposed use of operational  controls
 (rather than  passive ones) is acceptable as a generic
demonstration of  compliance with the secondary containment

     If you have any further questions on this issue or regarding
other requirements for the proper management of hazardous waste
tank systems, please call Mr. Les Otte or Mr. Bill Kline of my
staff at (202)475-8860 or (202) 475-9614, respectively.
                                Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
                                Office of Solid Waste
cc: Chester Oszman
    Bill Kline
    Les Otte

                                                              9483  1 9
                   RCRA/SUPERFUND  HOTLINE  SUMMARY              '  y

                            NOVEMBER  1989
2.   Secondary Containment Systems for Hazardous Waste Tanks

An owner/operator of a hazardous waste tank facility wants to install several
above  ground petroleum tanks within the secondary  containment system
maintained for the hazardous  waste  tanks.  Is this permissible under  the
hazardous waste tank regulations in Title 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart J?  If so,
what additional requirements apply?  Specifically, must an external liner or
vault secondary  containment system  be  capable  of containing 100% of  the
capacity of the largest tank within its boundary per Section 264/265.193(e) if that
tank contains petroleum?

    There  are no provisions in  Subpart  J  that prohibit the  installation of
    petroleum tanks within the same  secondary containment area  with
    hazardous waste  tanks.   Under Sections  264/265.193(b), secondary
    containment systems must be "designed, installed and operated to prevent
    any migration of wastes or accumulated liquid out of the system...." The
    term "accumulated liquid"  was  intended  primarily  to encompass
    accumulated  water from precipitation.  However,  this term would be
    expanded to include leaks or spills of petroleum that may accumulate from
    petroleum tanks within the secondary containment structure.  No matter
    how extensive the secondary containment area containing petroleum tanks,
    if  hazardous  waste  tanks  occur  within the  same structure, the entire
    secondary containment system is subject to all applicable requirements
    under Parts 264/265 Subpart J.

    An external liner or vault system constructed to satisfy the requirements of
    Sections 264/265.193(e)  must be "designed and operated to contain 100% of
    the capacity of the largest  tank within its boundary."  This requirement
    refers to the largest hazardous waste tank within the boundary of  the
    secondary containment system.  Certain above ground  petroleum tanks
    would be required to have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
    Plan under 40 CFR Part 112 of the Clean Water Act regulations to address
    leaks and spills  from those  units.   The  Agency would encourage
    owners/operators of hazardous waste tanks and above ground petroleum
    tanks to segregate  them into separate secondary containment  areas for
    logistical purposes.  There  are currently no provisions  under RCRA  that
    apply to above ground t  .loi.om  tanks, regt.    - of their ^acement  in a
    secondary containment structure  for  hazardous waste  tanks.  This may
    change in the future  with passage  of House Bill  1993, the Tank Spill
    Prevention Act.  If enacted,  this  legislation will expand on Subtitle  I of
    RCRA,, the underground storage tank  program. The new law will address
    above ground tanks containing petroleum and hazardous substances.

Source:       Bill Kline, OSW         (202) 475-9614
Research:     Jenny Peters

  MAR I  7  1988
                                               iO WASTE
          Inclusion of Loading/Unloading Area in the Definition
          of Tank System
          Bruce R.  Weddle,  Director
          Permits and State Programs Division  (WH-563)
          Stanley Siegel,  Chief
          Hazardous Waste  Facilities  Branch
          Region II
    This is in response to Clifford tig's memorandum dated
February 24, 1988, and provides interpretation of the definition
of a tank system  in relation to loading/unloading areas
associated with tank piping components.  Apparently, hazardous
waste is off-loaded from a transport vessel at a loading and
unloading area which is a concrete pad with a surrounding 6 inch
curb.  This area also serves as a common loading point for raw
materials to raw material tanks.  The vessel is coupled (dry
disconnect)  to the appropriate tank (waste or raw material) by
way of a piping component.

    A tank system is a hazardous waste storage or treatment
tank, its associated ancillary equipment, and its containment
system.   Ancillary equipment means any device including, but not
limited  to,  such devices as piping, fittings, flanges, valves,
pumps, that are used to distribute, meter, or control the  flow
of hazardous waste from its point of generation to a storage or
treatment tank(s), between hazardous waste storage and treatment
tanks to a point of disposal on-site, or to a point of shipment
for disposal off-site.  In the above scenario, the piping
component to which the transport vessel couples is considered
part of  the hazardous waste tank system as ancillary equipment.
The transport vessel would not be considered part of the above
hazardous waste tank system.  However, in some cases the
transportation vessel may be considered a tank system or a  large
storage  container.

     As  ancillary equipment,  the piping from the
 loading/unloading area must  be provided with secondary
 containment  unless  it is above ground piping (exclusive of
 flanges,  joints, valves, and other connections) that is visually
 inspected  for  leaks on a daily basis.  The dry disconnect couple
 could be  considered a welded connection or a pressurized pipe
 system; therefore,  secondary containment would not be required
 for  the connection.   (See 40 CFR 264.193(f)).  However, if you
 determine  that the  dry disconnect is neither a welded connection
 or a pressurized pipe system, then secondary containment would
 be required  for the dry disconnect couple.  In this case, the
 concrete  pad with its surrounding 6" curb would serve as the
 connection's secondary containment and the exemption in 40 CFR
 264.190(b) applies.  Therefore, the  pad itself does not need
 secondary  containment.

    To  the extent the concrete pad with the surrounding 6" curb
 serves as  secondary containment, it  must be designed to meet the
 requirements of 40  CFR 264.193(b)  and (c)  as indicated in
 Section 264.193(f).  Section 264.193(b)(2) states that the
 secondary  containment system must be "capable of detecting and
 collecting releases and accumulated  liquids until the collected
 material  is  removed."  This  answers  your last question.
 Adequate secondary  containment for the connection would be the
 expected volume of  a spill  (up to the size of the largest
 transport  vessel)  before it  can be remedied.

    Clifford Ng's memo indicated that the loading/unloading area
 would qualify as a  solid waste management unit.  As explained in
 a memo from Marcia  Williams  to Hazardous Waste Division
 Directors dated July 24, 1987, areas which have become
 contamin.. - ?d through routine and systematic releases of
 hazardous  wastes or hazardous constituents are considered to be
 solid waste management units.  One time accidental spills which
 cannot be  linked to a discernible solid waste management unit
are not included.    If the loading/unloading area meets these
criteria,  than this area would be considered a solid waste
management unit.

    If you have any further  questions or would like further
clarifications, please contact Chet  Oszman at 8-382-4499 or Bill
Kline at 8-382-7917.

cc:  Clifford Ng,  Region II-
     Chester Oszman, OSW
     Bill Kline, OSW
     Carrie Wehling, OGC

                         «JS   I 1990
Mr. Michael J. Farley
McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe
One James Center
Richmond, Virginia  23219

Dear Mr. Farley,

    This letter responds to your January 11, 1990 request for a
regulatory determination on a system developed by your client,
AMUSON, to treat vastewater and associated solid wastes
generated by radiator shops.  I apologize for the delay in
responding to your request.

    As I understand your letter, the "AMUSON" system reclaims
and reuses rinsewaters and generates metal-rich residues which
the shops send to AMUSON for further shipment to a metals
reclaimer.  Your client's system is used to consolidate and
treat two types of waste streams: 1) a pressure washer
rinsewater and 2) the residues generated during each of the five
cleaning operations  (i.e., boilout tank, ultrasonic cleaner,
pressure washer, glass bead machine, and the test tank).  These
residues exhibit  (or are likely to exhibit) a characteristic of
hazardous waste.  Neither your letter, nor the enclosed process
diagram, indicate that the other rinsewaters  (i.e., heated waste
and alkaline solution from the boilout tank) are pertinent to
the AMUSON treatment tank process or its regulatory status.
Likewise, there is no indication that the system may involve the
presence or generation of a listed hazardous waste  (e.g., a
spent solvent  from a prior cleaning operation) which may impact
the regulatory status of the system.

    As  I understand your client's system, the pressure washer
rinsewater is  recirculated within a closed system until it needs
cleaning and is then pumped directly into the treatment tank
 (thus initiating treatment).  Additionally, small amounts of
residues generated in the other process operations are
transferred directly into the treatment tank.  It would appear
that neither the pressure washer rinsewater nor the process
residues would be counted when determining the regulatory status
of the  hazardous waste generator  (i.e., to determine whether the

                                             N AGENCY
                              - 2 -

generator qualifies as a conditionally exempt snail quantity
generator).   However, this is dependent upon: 1) a determination
by the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e., the State agency or
EPA Regional office) that the treatment tank is a "reclamation
unit" and 2) that no intervening storage of the rinsevater or
residue occurs prior to those materials introduction into the
treatment tank (see the preamble discussions found in the April
4, 1983 Federal Register (48 ££ 14489) and March 24, 1986
Federal Register (51 ZB 10152), respectively).

    In your letter you state that radiator shops using the
AMUSON system usually qualify as conditionally exempt small
quantity generators.  To substantiate this claim, you explain
that these generators are not required to count the vastevater
from the treatment tank because it is recycled back into the
cleaning process and reused.  However, in the January 4, 1985
Federal Register (50 ££ 634), EPA addresses the regulatory
status of "reclaimed" wastewater.  While the regulatory language
allows for flexibility in determining whether a reclaimed waste
may be considered a product  (thus losing its status as a solid
waste), the preamble discussion indicates that reclaimed
wastewaters are not to be considered products.  The bases for
this approach  (i.e., that wastewaters are not ordinarily
considered to be commercial products and are often discharged,
and that the Agency did not intend to allow facilities to exempt
their vastevater treatment surface impoundments from regulation
by being classified as "recycling" facilities) are not
necessarily applicable in this case.  Accordingly, after the
wastevater is reclaimed and fit for reuse, the regenerated
rinsewater would lose its status as a solid waste pursuant to
40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i), provided it is truly reclaimed as an
effective substitute for what is typically used in radiator shop
cleaning processes  (subject to the State regulatory agency's
determination on a site-by-site basis).

    The regulatory status of the treatment tank residues which
are collected in the conical tank bottom depend upon whether  the
residues  are being legitimately recycled rather than being
subjected to further treatment under the guise of recycling.  As
Table  1 of  40 CFR 261.2(c) states, a characteristic sludge is
not a  solid waste  (and thus, not a hazardous waste) when
reclaimed.  This status applies at the point of generation
 (i.e., when the sludge is removed from the treatment tank).   You
should note that, pursuant to 40 CFR 261.2(f), your client would
bear the  burden of proof that the residue  is not a solid waste
 (e.g., documentation that the sludge contains recoverable levels
of metals and  is processed by an appropriate metals reclaimer).

                              - 3 -
    Your interpretation of two possible regulatory exemptions
which may apply to your client is essentially correct.   You have
correctly stated that if the radiator shop qualifies as a
conditionally exempt small quantity generator, the waste is
subject to the reduced requirements of 40 CFR 261.5.  In
addition, the treatment tank may be exempt from regulation
pursuant to the 90-day accumulation tank exemption found at
40 CFR 262.34.  However, you should be aware that this
interpretation is derived from Federal regulations.  Thus,
relevant provisions and interpretations of State regulations may
differ.  For example, some States may not allow a 90-day
exemption for the accumulation of wastes in tanks; others may
allow 90 days for accumulation of wastes in tanks, but may not
allow treatment in the accumulation tanks without a permit.
Regulatory determinations from the appropriate State regulatory
agencies and/or the appropriate EPA Regional office could differ
from site tc^site.

    In summary, your assessment of the regulatory status of your
client's process is essentially correct.  There are, however, a
number of variables which may require a case-by-case
determination from the appropriate State or Regional regulatory
agency.  If you have any further questions or require additional
clarification, you may contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at
(202) 475-8551.

                                  David Bussard, Director
                                  Characterization and
                                   Assessment Division


                      AUG  15 1990
Mr. Ted A. Hopkins
Environmental Specialist III
Department of Environmental Quality
Willamette Valley Region
750 Front Street, Northeast
Suite 120
Salem, Oregon  97310

Dear Mr. Hopkins:

     This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1990 regarding
an electroplating plant inspection and how the facility's
treatment processes are regulated.  You described the facility as
a circuit board manufacturer which conducts common metal
electroplating, precious metal electroplating, etching, stripping
and sulfuric acid anodizing.  The facility also treats and stores
the vastewaters from these processes in tanks and containers.

     In responding to your questions related to the status of
various containers, the units are addressed in the order that
they occur in the process.  That is, the vastevater containers
(the subject of your second and third questions) will be
discussed first.

     Containers are used initially to store process vastevater
prior to introduction into a 500 gallon round tank used for pH
adjustment and settling.  You vanted to knov vhether the
containers vere "ancillary equipment" to the tank which you
classify as either an elementary neutralization unit or a
vastevater treatment unit.  It vas never EPA's intent to include
containers in the definition of "ancillary equipment", which is
defined in 40 CFR 260.10.  Also, since the containers are
apparently not used for elementary neutralization, they are not
exempt from regulation as elementary neutralization units.  The
containers used for rinsevater storage prior to treatment are,
therefore, subject to generator standards including the
accumulation time limits under 40 CFR 262.34, provided that these
rinsevaters are hazardous.  These standards require, among other
things, labelling-and dating of the containers.

     This interpretation also applies to the second container
area (item #3 of your description of system #1),  used for
additional settling of sludges which are generated in the round
500 gallon tank.  As stated above, these containers are not
ancillary equipment and are not exempt elementary neutralization
units.   Note that the generator accumulation time limits began
when the rinsewaters were placed in the first containers used for
storage prior to tank treatment (if these rinsewaters are
hazardous).   Thus, a storage permit would be needed for either
container area used for storage or sludge settling should the
rinsewaters remain in the containers for more than 90 days.

     Your remaining questions relate to wastewater treatment and
elementary neutralization.  First, you asked whether the Agency
has ever formally defined "wastewater."  The Agency has never
defined "wastewater11 in the Subtitle C regulations.1   Typically,
EPA has used a very broad interpretation in other regulatory
programs  (e.g.. the Effluent Guidelines Division's Development
Document for Electroplating Pretreatment Standards defines
wastewater as "any water that has been released from the purpose
for which it was intended to be used").  The "few percent source
contaminant" criterion reflected in your question is not a
regulatory definition of wastewater and, thus, not part of the
definition of a wastewater treatment unit.  While at the time
•that the referenced memorandum was issued we intended to modify
the wastewater treatment tank definition, we never finalized that

     Next, you requested the definition of wastewater treatment
sludge and asked whether a wastewater treatment sludge can be
generated in an elementary neutralization unit.  "Sludge"  is
defined at 40 CFR 260.10 as "any solid, semi-solid, or liquid
generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater
treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution
control facility exclusive of the treated effluent from a
wastewater treatment plant."  Thus, wastewater treatment sludge
is any material that precipitates or otherwise is separated  from
wastewater during treatment.

     The identity of wastewater treatment sludge, for the  purpose
of the hazardous waste listings, is independent of the permitting
status of the unit in which the sludge  is formed.  Accordingly,
sludge generated from the treatment of  electroplating wastewaters
in an elementary neutralization unit meets the definition  of
     1  The Agency has  defined  wastewater under the Land  Disposal
       Restrictions program for the purpose of establishing
       BOAT treatability groups; however, this definition is not
       pertinent to this issue.

     Your next question dealt with whether a unit could be a
wastewater treatment unit one day and an elementary
neutralization unit the next.  The definitions of "elementary
neutralization unit" and "wastewater treatment unit" differ
primarily in the type of waste that is influent to the unit.
Influent to an ENU meets the hazardous waste characteristic of
corrosivity (or is listed due solely to corrosivity) whereas
influent to a WWTU either is hazardous or forms a hazardous waste
upon treatment.  Thus, the two definitions are not mutually
exclusive (a unit that neutralizes a corrosive wastewater could
potentially meet either definition).  Further, the same unit
could meet different definitions at different times, depending
upon the influent.  However, it is important to keep in mind that
the unit is exempt from permitting if it meets either definition,
but the sludge, upon removal, is subject to all applicable

     Your next question related to the treatment of a specific
type of waste.  Generally, you cannot treat a waste that is both
corrosive and otherwise hazardous  (due to listing or by
exhibiting a different hazardous characteristic) in an ENU since
the influent must be corrosive only in order to meet the
definition of an ENU.  Units that treat wastes such as that
mentioned in your example are likely to meet the "wastewater
treatment unit" definition, so long as they meet the remainder of
the 40 CFR 260.10 stipulations regarding Clean Water Act
regulation and the definition of tanks.

     You next asked about the status of tank systems related to
treatment units.  Tank systems used to treat or store wastewater
are excluded if they meet the definition of wastewater treatment
unit in 40 CFR 260.10 and are dedicated for that purpose.  If
these wastewater tank systems are ever used for hazardous waste
storage or treatment prior to off-site disposal, they would not
be excluded units and would be subject to storage and treat-
ment standards for hazardous waste tanks  (see 53 PR. 34079,
September 2, 1988).

     With regard to the manufacturing of printed circuit boards,
you correctly note that, although the industry is no longer
specifically included in the listing, the processes used  (e.g..
chemical etching) still cause the wastes to meet the F006
listing.  The F006 reinterpretation, which was published  in the
December 2, 1986, Federal Register was essentially  a correction
to reflect the Agency's policy of referring to "processes"  only
rather than a specific industry  (e.g.. printed circuit board
manufacturing) in the "non-specific source" F listings.   The
notice did not otherwise change the scope of the listing  with
respect to this industry.

     As to sludges from sulfuric acid anodizing, these wastes do
not meet the F019 listing since anodizing is not considered to be
a "conversion coating" process.  Anodizing is an electrical
process wherein the part is made anodic, whereas conversion
coating uses non-electrical processes.

     Should you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact my staff.  Contact Dave Topping for electroplating
questions at (202) 382-7737 and Chet Oszman or Bill Kline  on
wastewater treatment and tank issues at (202) 382-4499 and
(202) 475-9614 respectively.

                              Sylvia K. Lowrance
                              Office of Solid Waste

                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                            SEP 2 01990
                                              SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Philip F. Fox
Heritage Remediation/Engineering, Inc.
P.O. BOX 51020
Indianapolis, IN 46251

Dear Mr. Fox:

     This letter is in response to your letter dated July 16, 1990,
requesting several regulatory interpretations of the Federal
hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260 - 271.  In your
letter, you had outlined your assumptions about the Federal hazardous
waste regulations' applicability in certain situations.  You also
requested answers to a number of questions related to listed
hazardous wastes from petroleum refining, as well as the exemption
from permitting requirements available for certain wastewater
treatment units (WWTU's).

     My staff has prepared responses to the assumptions about the
regulations that you outlined in Sections I and II of your letter,
and to the questions in Section III of your letter.  The responses
are enclosed.  However, please note that State or local regulatory
agencies may have regulations that are more stringent or are broader
in scope than the Federal hazardous waste regulations.  Thus, any
facility-specific questions must be addressed by the EPA Regional
Offices, authorized States, and/or localities.  If you have questions
on the responses provided here, please contact Becky Cuthbertson of
my staff at  (202) 475-9715.
                                      Sylvia Lowrancef  Director
                                      Office of Solid Waste

                                                    Enclosure 1
I.  Response to Section I.

     This section responds to certain points in Section I  of the July
16, 1990 letter that we would like to clarify.
     •  In Part A., Wastewater Treatment Unit Exemption, your
     discussion refers to facilities in several places. Please be
     aware of the specific meaning attached to the word "facility" in
     the federal hazardous waste regulations; the wastewater
     treatment unit exemption only applies to wastewater treatment
     units that, among other things, meet the definition of "tank" in
     40 CFR 260.10.

     •  In your discussion of the 1981 Lehman letter,  the broad
     interpretation of "tank" in the Lehman letter refers  to "unit
     operations which are not obviously tanks such as filter presses,
     filters, sumps, and many other types of processing equipment.1*
     It does not specifically mention filter pressing and  cake
     drying.  [You should also be aware that EPA has proposed
     regulating sludge drying units that do not qualify for the
     wastewater treatment unit exemption.   See Enclosure  2 (the July
     18, 1990 Federal Register. 55 ZB 29230).]

     •  At Line 70, the tank systems you refer to are subject to
     permitting requirements if they are not eligible for  another
     exemption  (including,  but not necessarily limited to, the 90-day

     •  In Part B., Ninety Day Storage Exemption, we presume you meant
     40 CFR 262.34(a)(l) - (4).

II'  Response to Section II.

     The discussion of the regulations in II.A. and II.B.  of the July
16, 1990 letter is fairly accurate.  The determination of  petroleum
refinery listing applicability is not addressed here; we presume that
the listing applicability has been correctly determined at the
refineries in question.

     The discussion in II.C. of the July 16, 1990 letter contains
three terminology problems:

     •  In Line  155, the exemption includes tanks and ancillary
     equipment  - not all process units.

     •  In Line  156, we would say "which treat or store a sludge of a
     wastewater treatment plant" - the term by-product has a specific
     meaning and use in the Part 261 regulations (§§ 261.1 and

                                                    Enclosure 1

     bottoms are specifically listed under §261.32 as K052, and by-
     products that are specifically listed are hazardous wastes when
     reclaimed (40 CFR 261.2(c)(3)).

     • In lines 208 through 214, you state broadly that 40 CFR Parts
     262 - 270 apply to recyclable materials.  However, certain
     recyclable materials are not subject to regulation, or are
     subject to reduced requirements, when they are managed according
     to the terms of their exemption in Section 261.6.

III. Response to Section III.

     Listed below are portions of the questions in Section III of
your July 16, 1990 letter, along with responses.

     A.I. Doea the refinery stand to lose its coverage under the
exemption if it accepts vastevater treatment aludcres from other
facilities, auch as neighboring refineries* for davatering at its

     We initially addressed this question in the July 31, 1981 letter
from John Lehman to Richard Boynton.  In this letter, Mr. Lehman
explains that although the Agency contemplated limiting the exemption
to on-site wastewater treatment units, the Agency decided not to
differentiate between on-site versus off-site wastewater treatment
anits.  This policy was reiterated in the September 2, 1988 Federal
Register (53 fB 34079), where we explained that "the applicability of
the exemption does not depend on whether the on-site wastewater
treatment facility also treats wastewater generated off-site."
Accordingly, the refinery may be able to use the wastewater treatment
unit exemption in 40 CFR 270.1(c)(2)(v) when accepting wastewater
from off-site.  However, your question asked about wastewater
treatment sludge; while wastewaters may be accepted under the
exemption,  the Lehman letter goes on to state that the facility can
receive wastewaters, but not concentrated chemicals or non-aqueous
wastes.  As long as the wastewater treatment sludge is not a
concentrated chemical or non-aqueous waste, the receiving facility
may receive it and still be potentially eligible for the wastewater
treatment unit exemption.

     In addition, we note that the accepting refinery must qualify as
a "designated facility" in order to accept hazardous waste shipments
from off-site via air, rail, highway, or water  (see the definition of
"designated facility" in 40 CFR 260.10, recently revised at 55 ZB

     2. Does it matter whether th« company that owns th« refinery
accepting sludge from the neighboring refineries also owns the
neighboring r«fineri«»?

                                                    Enclosure 1

      5. If the wastewater treatment unit exemption covers an cnsite
 facility, is the exemption modified or endangered iff the facility

 recyclable material  (hazardous waste)?  Does it patter that the tank
 bottoms cone from an offsite facility such aa another refinery or a
 product terminal?  Does it make anv difference whether or not the
 exempted onsite facility's owner ovns the tank bottoms?

      Addressing your first question in this scenario, is the
 exemption modified if the facility treats tank bottoms [which are a
 non-waste] - we reiterate our explanation from Section II. that only
 in certain situations are the tank bottoms not a waste (i.e., if they
 are not listed and are reclaimed for use as feedstocks in a
 lubricating oil refining process and not in a process where fuels are
 made).  In such situations, the placement of the tank bottoms in the
 wastewater treatment unit has no effect on the availability of the
 exemption, because the hazardous waste regulations govern only those
 materials that are hazardous wastes.  Addressing the variation where
 the tank bottoms are a hazardous waste that is a recyclable material,
 the wastewater treatment unit exemption is not available because the
 tank  bottoms are neither wastewater nor sludge (the two types of
 material that can be managed in an exempt wastewater treatment unit).
 The question of the tank bottoms' origin is thus moot, as is the
 question of who owns them.

      6. Do the answers to any of the above questions depend on
 whether or not 50% or aore of the treated waste is wastewater
 treatment sludge generated onsite at the facility operating under the
 wastewater treatment exemption?

      No.  There are no criteria that limit the exemption's
 availability based on the facility where the sludge is generated.

      B.I. If the flisted sludges K048 and K051 arel taken offsite ro
 a raeility owned by a third party who is in the hazardous waste
 treatment business and if the sludge treatment at the offsite
 facility consists of dewaterincr (centrifuge/belt press/filter
 press/or similar). is the offsite dewaterincr system eligible for the
 40 CFR 270.l(c)(21(v) wastewater treatment system exemption?

      If the off-site facility meets the conditions in 40 CFR 260.10,
 then  it may be eligible for an exemption under §270.l(c)(2)(v).  The
 definition of wastewater treatment unit is specified in §260.10.
Assuming the unit is a tank and is subject to regulation under
 sections 307(b) or 402 of the Clean Water Act, the remaining
 criterion specified in §260.10 is the type of material received and
 the activity conducted ("Receives and treats or stores an influent
wastewater...generates and accumulates...or treats or stores a
 rfastewater treatment sludge which is a hazardous waste...").  Mr.

                                                    Enclosure 1

 requirements.  However, the wastewater treatment unit exemption
 itself  is not altered by the TC.

     5. Is the answer to the main question starting at Line 276
 different if tvo or nor* refiners jointly ovn the offsite facility as
 a partnership and if the refinery partners each send their respective
 vastevater treatment sludges to the offsite facility?

     The answer is not affected by the joint ownership (i.e.,
 partnership) of the off-site facility receiving the sludge.

     «. If the vastevater treatment unit exemption covers an offsite
 facility, is the exemption endangered or modified if the facility
 accepts petroleum tank bottoms, either as a non-waste or as a
 recyclable material (hazardous waste)?

     The exemption's applicability is indeed "endangered," or rather
 the wastewater treatment unit's owner/operator would not be able to
 claim it, if s/he did not meet the terns of the exemption in the
 definition of wastewater treatment unit in §260.10.  Specifically,
 the unit must receive and treat or store a wastewater, generate and
 accumulate a sludge, or treat or store a sludge.  As explained in the
 response to question A.5., when the tank bottoms that are a hazardous
 waste are neither a wastewater nor a sludge, the exemption is not

     Note that if the recycling process where the tank bottoms are
 (reclaimed is legitimate recycling, then under §261.6(c)(1) the
 recycling process is exempt from regulation.

     When the tank bottoms are not a waste (i.e. in the limited case
where they are being recycled for use as a lubricating oil refinery
 feedstock, and are not specifically listed) or when they are not a
hazardous waste (i.e. are neither listed not exhibit a characteristic
 of hazardous waste) the exemption's applicability is moot because the
hazardous waste regulations apply only to hazardous wastes.

     C.I. Can the refinery preserve the vastevater treatment unit
exemption for units dovnstre*"1 of the storage tanks if it obtains
RCRA permits for the storage tanks for the offsite vastevater
treatment sludge and/or for the petrol f*"*^ tank bottoms?

     The wastewater treatment unit exemption is not altered by the
regulatory status of other storage tanks located at the same
 facility*  If a hazardous waste storage tank does not meet the
necessary criteria in the definition of wastewater treatment unit,
that unit cannot be eligible for the wastewater treatment unit

                        WASHINGTON, D.C, 20460
  JAN   4 1991


SUBJECT:  Request  for Solid Waste Management  Unit

FROM:     Sylvia K. Lowrance, Directpi7\
          Office of Solid Waste    J^T

TO:       David A. Ullrich, Director
          Waste Management Division, Region V
     We have reviewed your memorandum of July 10, 1990, and
your follow-up memorandum of November 20, 1990,  in which were
requested a determination as to whether an area which
formerly held a leaking product tank constitutes a solid
waste management unit (SWMU) subject to corrective action
under RCRA §3004(u).

     The information provided in your correspondence
describes the unit in question as a concrete chamber built
into the floor beneath the chromium plating apparatus, which
functioned to temporarily store chromium plating solution
whenever the plater was drained for servicing.  After the
servicing, the contents of the chamber were returned to the
plater.  We further understand that releases have occurred
from this tank, and that some remedial measures have been

     Based on this information, it seems reasonably clear
that the holding tank itself would not be considered a SWMU,
since it appears that it was used exclusively to store
product (i.e., plating solution), rather than solid or
hazardous waste.  However, the primary issue in this case is
whether the area surrounding and underneath the holding tank,
which was apparently contaminated from leakage from the tank,
should be considered a SWMU.

     The leakage from the tank which apparently caused
contamination of soils and ground water at the facility was
presumably the result of some type of defect in the tank's
structure.  Thus, the releases were in essence caused by the
lack of physical integrity, of the unit.  As you may know, the
Agency addressed the issue of "passive" leakage from product
storage tanks in the preamble to the proposed Subpart S rule.
Several policy memoranda  (two of which we have enclosed) have

also dealt with the issue.  As you might expect/ however, a
substantial number of comments that were submitted on the
Subpart S proposal also addressed this particular aspect of
the definition of "solid waste management unit".  We thus
recognize this to be an important issue for further review in
finalizing the Subpart S rulemafcing.

     In the meantime, however, we support Regions V's
decision to use the §3005(c)(3) "Omnibus" provision to
address the releases in question at the GM Oelco facility.
The contamination problem clearly appears to warrant further
investigation and remedial action.  Although GM has appealed
the permit partly on the basis of this use of the Omnibus
authority, we believe that its use by the Region in these
circumstances is both appropriate and consistent with the
mandate of $3005(c)(3).  Several recent permit appeal
decisions dealing with this same issue and under very similar
fact patterns have consistently upheld the Agency's authority
to deal with non-SWMU releases in this manner.  We have
enclosed copies of two of these appeal decisions.

     If you have any further questions, please contact Dave
Fagan  (FTS 382-4497)  or Judy Goldberg  (FTS 382-4534).


cc:  Regional Branch Chiefs

Surface Impoundments (Subpart K)

9484 - SURFACE
Parts 264 & 265 Subpart K
                   ATKl/l 104/43 kp

                                      policy  Directive  No.  j ; £ 4 . : 1 - =
                       Second Corracted Version;  Supercedes All Other Ccpies

   .                    WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
       5  0^
 SUBJECT:   Surface  Impoundment  Retrofitting  and  Time  Allowed
           for  Closure

 FROM:      Marcia  E.  Williams,  Director
           Office  of  Solid Waste  (rtH-563)

 TO:        Waste Management  Division  Directors,  Regions  I  -  X


     This  memorandum is distributed  in  anticipation  of  the
 November 3,  1988  deadline prescribed by Section 3005(j)  of  the
 Hazardous  and  Solid  Waste Amendments of 1984.   The memorandum
 clarifies  the  relationship  between retrofitting and  closure
 requirements for  surface impoundments.   It  supplements  the
 guidance document  dated July 8,  1936, entitled  Interim  Status
 Surface Impoundments Retrofitting Variances (OSWER Policy
 Directive  No.  9894.00-1B).

 November 8,  1988 Requirement

     Under 53005(j), surface impoundments that  were  in  existence
on November 8,  1984  and eligible  for the  authorization  to operate
 under interim  status must meet the minimum  technological  require-
 ments (MTRs) of S3004(o)(1)(A) by November  8,  1988.   These  MTRs
 for double liners  and leachate collection systems must  be met
 unless an  exemption  was requested under §3005(j)* and has been
  An exemption may also be granted  under  $3004(o)(2)  (§264.221(0)
  There are no specific deadlines applicable  to CPA review and
  approval of S3004(o)(2) exemption requests.   However,  if a
  $30G4(o)(2) exemption request  is  not  approved by November 8,
  1988, then the unit  in question must  be retrofitted or cease
  receipt of hazardous waste by  November  3,  1988.

                              OSWER  Policy Directive No. 9434.30-5 -a


      The  surface  impoundment  retrofit  requirements are not affected
 by the  recent  decision  of  the  D.C.  Circuit Court of Appeals  in
 United  Technologies  Corporation  v.  EPA,  which  remanded EPA's cod-
 ification  rule for  MTRs under  $3004(o).  Section 3004(o)  requires
 permits to  impose MTRs  on  new,  replacement,  and expansion  surface
 impoundments and  landfills.   The  court  held  that this  requirement
 applies only to new,  replacement, and  expansion units  at  facilities
 that  submitted permit applications  after the enactment of  tne
 1934  amendments.  Section  3005(j),  however,  addresses  existing
 surface impoundments, which are  generally a  different  set  of
 units.  Moreover, $3005(j) establishes  its own separate set  of
 apolicability  reauirements based  on  the  physical existence of
 the  surface  imooundments rather  than the submittal of  a permit
 apolication.   Conseauently, EPA  does not believe that  the
 applicability  requirements in  $3004(o)  apply to $3005(j).
 "owever, the statutory  language  of  $3005(j)  imposes retro-
 fitting requirements  on all surface  impoundments qualifying  for
 interim status on November 9,  1984.  Surface impoundments
 permitted prior to November 9,  1934  did  not  qualify for interim
 status  on that date,  and therefore  are  not subject to  $3005(j).

 Closure Requirements

      As stated earlier,  surface  impoundments that have not been
 retrofitted or have  not  received  a  waiver must cease to receive
 hazardous waste by November 3,  1938, and they  must begin  closure,
 because §$264/265. 113 trigger  closure  after  final receipt  of
 hazardous waste.  However, 55264/265.113, are  currently the
 subject of litigation.   Existing  requirements  regarding timing
of closure will oe affected by any  settlement  agreement associated
 with  this litiqation.   Further,  regardless of  the success  of on-
 going settlement negotiations, SPA  believes  that adjustments to
 SS264/265.113  requirements are desirable.  We  are currently
drafting a proposed  regulatory amendment that  would allow  the
continued receipt of non-hazardous  waste at  units that no  longer
receive hazardous wastes in certain  circumstances that assure
the continued  protection of human health and the environment.
A notice of proposed rulemaking  is  anticipated for January 1933.
Until specific regulation changes are  finalized, however,  current
requirement* remain  in  full force.***   We will provide additional
guidance, early in 1988, on how  these  proposed changes will
affect the closure requirements,  timeframes, and priorities  for
closure activities prompted by the  November  1988 deadline.
  *** Some states still may not have changed  their  program require-
    ments to conform to the May 2,  1986  rulemaking.   As  a  result,
    there may still be existing,  less  stringent  requirements on
    a temporary basis.  However,  these  requirements  will not
    affect the retrofitting deadline.   In  no  case can applicable
    state law authorize the continued  receipt  o  hazardous  waste
    at surface impoundments subject to  the statutory deadline.

                             OSWER Policy Directive No. 9434.00-5 -a

      Under  current  regulations, a facility owner/operator without
 an  approved closure plan who intends to close an interim status
 surface  impoundment must submit a closure plan to the Regional
 Administrator  by  no later than June 13, 1988  (130 days before
 the  "expected  date" of closure - which is December 8, 1988 - as
 required by S265.112(d)(1) and (2)).

      An  owner/operator with an approved closure plan who intends
 to  close a  permitted or an interim status surface impoundment must
 notify the  Regional Administrator 60 days prior to the time closure
 is  expected to begin, as required by $5264/26$.112(d)(1) and (2)).
 Since closure  must begin no later than December 8, 1988, notificatior
 must  occur  by  October 10, 1988.

      Closure Activities

      For facilities with approved closure plans, the activities
 presented in the  approved closure plan must begin within 30 days
 after the final volume of hazardous waste is  received
 (55264/265.112(d) (2)).  The one-year extension period that may
 be allowable for  owner/operators (SS264/265.112(d)(2)) does not
 apply to surface  impoundments which must close.  These impound-
 ments are barred  by statute from further receipt of  hazardous
 wastes.  Additionally, under 55264/265.113(a) within 90 days
 after receipt  of  the final volume of hazardous waste, the owner/
 operator must  treat, remove from the surface  impoundment, or
 dispose of on-site all hazardous wastes in accordance with the
 approved closure  plan.  For interim status facilities without an
 approved closure  plan, these actions must occur within 90 days
 after the last receipt of hazardous waste or approval of the
 closure plan,  whichever is later (5265.113(a)).

     Under 55264/265.113(b), facilities with approved closure plans
 must complete  closure activities within 180 days after receipt  of
 the final volume  of hazardous wastes.  For interim status facili-
 ties without approved closure plans, the deadline is 180 days from
 the last receipt  of hazardous waste or the approval  of the closure
 plan, whichever is later.

     Sections  264/265.112(e) allow for the removal of hazardous
wastes prior to notification of partial or final closure.   In
 the case of interim status facilities, the removal of hazardous
wastes, or any other closure activities, may  be conducted prior
 to the approval of the closure plan if the activities are con-
 sistent with the  closure requirements  (51 FR  16430,  May  2,  1936).
 The activities would be included and reviewed in  the closure
plan.  The activities conducted prior  to approval  would  only
 be considered  unacceptable if they are inconsistent  with the
 closure regulations.

                             OSVZ3 Policy Directive No.

     While  the unit or facility is undergoing closure, it say
 continue  to receive non-hazardous wastes, provided that such
 receipt does not delay or  impair the effectiveness of the
 closure activities.

     Extension of Closure  Period

     Under  §§264/265.113 (a) and (b), the Regional Administrator .-ay
 approve a closure period longer than the 90/130 days prescribed
 in the regulations if the  owner/operator can demonstrate that
 certain specified circumstances are met.  Specifically, in the
 case of interim status surface impoundments undergoing closure
 as a consequence of the §3005(j) requirements, the Regional
 Administrator could approve a longer closure period if the
 owner/operator demonstrates that the closure activities will of
 necessity take longer than 130 days to complete.  This might be
 the case, for example, if  owner/operators treat hazardous wastes
 during closure or clean close, and if such activities would
 require more than 180 days.

     Closure Priorities

     As stated earlier, interim status surface impoundments which
 have not retrofitted or received an approved exemption from the
 §3005(J) requirement, or received a waiver under §264.221(c),
 shall cease the acceptance of hazardous wastes no later than
 November 8, 1988.  Closure of these units should proceed expedi-
 tiously thereafter.  Regional priorities for the approval of
 closure plans for these facilities should be established within
 the context of the facility management planning process.  In
setting priorities, you should take into consideration that
 impoundments which fail to meet the §3005(j) requirements are
likely to allow for the escape of hazardous constituents into
 the environment.

     Please contact Sharon Prey at PTS 475-6725, if you have any

cc:  J. Winston Porter
     Jack McOrav
     RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
     Regional Cqunsel, Regions  I-X

         Protective Covers for Interim Status  Surface  Impoundments
|U-   Section 265.223 requires surface impoundments with earthen dikes  to
       have a protective  cover.  Does 264, Sucpart K have a similar  requirement?
       If not, would  an interim status facility need to comply with  this
       interun status requirement prior to permitting?

            The January 12,  1981, Federal Register did have a 264.223 requirement
            far protective cover on a cufce.  However, the July 26,  1982,  Federal
            Register  regulation replaced the 1981 version, and Part  264.223
            is now reserved.  Regulation 264, Subpart K indirectly addresses
            protective cover through tne 264.221(d) and 264.226(5)(4) performance
            standards.  RCRA guidance specifically recomends protective cover
            (see Draft Permit Writers Guidance Manual for Hazardous  Waste Land
            Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facilities, Volume 1, page  6-79,
            October,  1983).  An interim status facility would need to comply
            with the  Part 265 requirement prior *•-£> Permitting.

                               Source:  Chris Rhyne, OSW

      Post-Closure Requirements for Surface Impoundments
                     Located  in  a  100-Year Plan
An owner/operator of a disposal surface  impoundment proposes  to  lower
the dikes  of  tne jjnpoundment at closure  and cap to avoid several  feet of
fill.   Since  tne unpoundment is in a  100 year floodplain, oust the owner/
operator show ccryliance with 264.16(b) during post-closure?

     Even  during post-closure,  conpliance with 264.18(b) is required.
     If the dikes are lowered,  the owner/operator would have  to denonstrate
     that  the desi^ of the cap,  etc. will prevent washout, or if washout
     occurs,  there will &e no adverse effects on human health or  on the

                    Source:   Alex Vtolfe, CSW

SUBJECTt  Interpretation of Section  3005(j)(l)

TROMt     John H. Skinner, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

TOi       James H. Scarbrough, Chief
          Residuals Manageaent Branch
          Region IV
     This is in respon>« to your memorandum of June 26,  IMS,
requesting an interpretation of Section 3005(j)(l) of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments  (HSWA) of 1984.

     Section 3005(j)(l) requires that interim status surface
impoundments not receive, store, or treat hazardous wastes
after November 8, 1908, unless the impoundment in question
is in compliance with the minimum technological standards
or the impoundment has obtained one of the four exemptions
listed in the provision.

     You asked what has to be done by the November 8, 1986,
deadline by the owner/operator of an  interim status surface
impoundment who seeks a storage permit but does not intend
to retrofit with the minimum technological standards, and
who does not seek and obtain a waiver.  You asked if the
owsMg^^mjer;iqms)rmtjog of such a facility  by that date had tot
1) ettollfe-misveiag hazardous waste in the surface impoundment,
2) omffsjftCy.elonre, or 3) conduct some other step in the
elosmisj'fjssjuess-.  You proposed issuing RCRA permits to  the
owners or operators of such units with a condition to stop
placing hazardous wastes in the impoundment on or before
Hovember 8, 1988, thus triggering closure.

     The  statute  requires,  in the case of • storage impoundment,
that the  impOttBdammt not.  receive or store hazardous wast* after
          •tate Alreet way to demonstrate compliance with ••ction
3005(j)(l)~is to provide a certification of closure by November
3, 1988.  If the owner or operator has obtained a certification
of closure, the Agency can be  sure that the impoundment is not
storing hazardous waste after  November 8, 1986.

    If, however, a certification of closure is not presented
by November 8, 1988, an owner  or operator may still show
compliance with section 3005(j)(l) by demonstrating compliance
with  the technical cloeure requirements in 1(264.228(a)(1) or
265.228(a) and (b) to the satisfaction of the Regional Administrator.
If the owner or operator has complied with the technical requirements
of these sections, as appropriate, then the impoundment would be
considered to be no longer storing hazardous waste*.  This
second approach is necessary because it may not be poesible to
present a certification of cloeure for the surface impoundment in
question by November 8, 1988.

     Therefore, what is required by November 8, 1986, it either
a certification of cloeure or  a demonstration by the owner or
operator that the technical closure requirements have been oosytletf

     The Agency is examining what the statutory language requires
concerning the addition of non-haxardous wastes to an impoundment
after November 8, 1988.

     If you have additional concern* regarding this issue, please
contact Mr. Paul Cassidy (FTS  382-4682) of «y staff.  Thank you
for your interest in this matter.

cci  RCRA Division Directors,  Regions I-IXI and V-X
     Jack Lehman, O8W
     Ken Shuster, OSW
     Paul Cassidy, OSW
     Barbara Pace, OOC

                                                        9484.1985  (Olb)

                                 14 1935
SUBJECT:  Surface Innounrtnent at Al Tech's Watervliet

FROMi     Alan S. Corson, Chief
          Studies and Methods Branch  (WH-562B)

TO:       Richard M. Walka, Chief
          Solid Waste Branch

     In your letter of November 12, 1985, you requested our
determination of the status of Al Tech's Watervliet, New York
facility surface impoundment.  You defined the surface impoundment
as the receptor for l*achate fron an adjacent landfill.  The
leachate exhibits the characteristic of EP toxicity because it
exceeds the RCRA regulatory threshold for chromium.  (The
characteristic is based on total chromium contenti  if the leachate
exceeds the threshold on the basis of hexavaient chromium it must,
of necessity, also fail for total chromium.)

     Baaed on the information you provided it is clear that the
leachate is a hazardous waste.  Thus, the facility  (the Al Tech
inpoundnent) is a hazardous waste facility, subject to ?CRA
reoulations.  If you need additional information, I can be
at FTS 382-4770.


                                     AUGUST  85
Leak Notification

3.  Title 40 CFR $264.222  was  removed  in  the  'codification rule," July 15, 1985 (50 FR
    28748).   Section 264.222 contained the exemption  from Subpart F groundwater protection
    requirements for douole-lined  surface impoundments.  Deleted $264.222(b)(l) and (2) cor-
    cainwj notification requirements for  occurrence of a leak into the leak detection systan
    at a douole-li.-ied surface  impoundment.  Are  there any notification requirements for de-
    tect ior.  of a leak under the  regulations found  in  $264.221 of the 'codification rule* (sr
    anywhere else)  as required by  HSVA of 1984  (P.I.  98-616)?

       Sections 264.221 and 265.221 of the 'codification rule" contain revised design and
       operating requirements  for  r.ew  surface impoundments, new surface impoundments at
       existing facilities, and  lateral expansions and replacements of existing surface
       impoundments.   Sections 264.221 and 265.221 require the installation of two or acre
       li.Ters and a leachate collection system between liners.  Notification requirements
       for detection of a  leak are not found  in  this  section.  However, the 'Draft Minimum
       Technology Guidance on  Double Liner Systems for Landfills and Surface Impou.-a3mer.ts'
       (EPV530-SW-85-014  dated  Hay 24, 1985) contains operating instructions for the use
       of secondary leachate collection systems  between liners.  The draft guidance (page
       46) states:   'As a  general  matter  EPA  will  include in draft permits a requirement
       that  the owner or operator  notify  the  Regional Administrator, in writing, of the
       presence of  liquids ir.  the  secondary leachate  collection system Li a timely manner.
       Such  notification aay include,  if  necessary:

             I.  leakage rate (quantity);
             2.  the concentrations of  hazardous  constituents
             (indicator parameters specified  by  $264.98(a)).'

       In addition,  if a leak  la detected during interim status, the owner/operator must
       modify tae tart S application.

       Souroet   Kane Anderson  (202) 382-4490

*    '*.

                          WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
   MEMORANDUM                  MAR 2 6 IQ86        SCUD WASTE ANDEMlRGENcv RESPONSE

   SUBJECT:  Definition  of  Replacement  Unit
   FROM:      Marcia  Williams,  Director
              Office  of  Solid Waste  (WH-56S)

   TO:        Harry Seraydarian,  Director
              Toxics  and Waste  Management Division  (T-l)
              Region  9
        This  is  in  response  to your March 10,  1986, memo  requesting
   confirmation  that  the  IT  Corporation surface  impoundments
   (D-2,  D-3,  and E)  at Martinez,  California are  replacement
   units  under Section 3015  of RCRA.   Based on the  information
   contained  in  your  memo and  my  staff's conversations with
   Bob Boesch  of your staff, we agree  with your conclusion that
   the units  should be regarded as replacement units under the

        The legislative history to the Hazardous  and Solid Waste
   Amendments  (as noted in the draft guidance  entitled, "Guidance
   on Implementation  of the  Minimum Technological Requirements of
   HSWA of 1984, Respecting  Liners and Leachate Collection Systems"
   dated  May  24, 1985) reveals that Congress intended EPA to
   consider three criteria in  the  definition of a replacement
   unit:   (a)  the unit is taken out of service;  (b) all or
   substantially all  of the  waste  is removed;  and (c) the unit
   is reused.  The  attachment  to  your  memo, along with information
   provided to us through phone conversations, indicate that the
   units  stopped receiving wastes  and  were emptied  of 95% or
   more of the liquid and sludge  that  they had contained.

        As explained  in the  May 24,  1985,  guidance, we believe
   that an impoundment has been taken  out  of service if the
   normal flow of waste to the impoundment has ceased.  We
   also would  consider removal of  95%  of the waste  in each of
   the impoundments to be "substantial" removal.  When the
   impoundments  again begin  to receive hazardous waste, this
   will constitute  reuse.  Further,  we agree that it is consistent
   with the legislative history to argue that, based on this
   information,  the units Qualify  as replacement units.
                                                              EXHIBIT 2

                                2  -
Therefore, before hazar "OP.,  v;^.  ^s  (..in  be  jgain placed  in
these units,  they must be  retrofitted to comply with  the
requirements  of Section  265.221  for liners and leachate
collection systems.

     If there are any questions  on  this matter, please  call
Les Otte of my staff at  475-8860.
cc:  RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions  I-VIII  and X


April 2, 1986


SUBJECT:  Closure of a DOE Surface Impoundment Unit that has Lost
          Interim Status

FROM:     Marcia Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

TO:       James H. Scarbrough, Chief
          Residuals Management Branch, Region IV

     Thank you for your memorandum of December 30,  1985, in which
you requested clarification of several issues relating to the
closure of a DOE surface impoundment unit in South Carolina that
has lost interim status.  This memo addresses your questions in
the same order in which you stated them.   Your first issue is
further divided into two related issues.

     1.   Can hazardous waste be removed from a surface
          impoundment unit, and then be placed back in that unit
          at closure if it has lost interim status?

              Yes—if the wastes are removed during closure for
          the purpose of treating them to enhance the
          effectiveness of the closure.  The closure period
          occurs after the active life of the unit and calls for
          activities not normally carried out during operation of
          the unit (e.g., application of the final cover).
          Removal of waste, treatment, and replacement for the
          proposes of enhancing the closure process may be
          essential to assuring long-term integrity of the
          closure (e.g., stabilization may be required to prevent
          differential settlement of the final cover).  Other
          activities which may be necessary to effect proper
          closure of the unit may also be allowed.    (We note that
          a contrary policy would merely act as a disincentive to
          taking appropriate steps to enhance closure.)

               The position outlined above is consistent with
          closure regulation language at §265.113(a):  "within 90
          days after receiving the final volume of hazardous
          waste... the owner or operator must treat, remove from
          the site,  or dispose of on-site all hazardous
          wastes..." (emphasis added).  EPA took a similar
          position regarding the closure of surface  impoundments
          after January 25, 1983 when it stated that removal and
        This has been retyped from the original document.


     replacement of waste in the same unit after January 25,
     1983 does not constitute "receipt" of waste for the
     purposes of determining whether a unit is a regulated
     unit.  (See attached letter from Dr.  John Skinner to
     Dr.  Reva Rubenstein, Director,  Institute of Chemical
     Waste Management, January 11,  1983,  response #4.)

          However, if the surface impoundment wastes are
     treated with wastes from other units, the combined
     treated wastes may not be placed back into the surface
     impoundment.  Moreover, treatment outside the unit may,
     in some cases, require a permit.  For example,
     treatment may involve constructing a unit with a
     capital investment of greater than fifty percent of the
     capital cost of an entirely new facility (see §270.72).

2.    Would removal, treatment, and replacement of the waste
     in a surface impoundment unit as a part of closure
     constitute "reuse" of the unit and,  thus, require the
     retrofitting of that unit with a double liner?

          As you know, replacement units at interim status
     facilities  (as well as other specified units) are
     subjected to the HSWA Minimum Technology Requirements
     under Section 3015(b).  Based on the legislative
     history of Section 3015, EPA's Guidance on
     Implementation of the Minimum Technological
     Requirements of HSWA of 1984,  Respecting Liners and
     Leachate Collection Systems (EPA/530-SW-85-012),
     defines "replacement" as occurring when:  (a) the unit
     is taken out of service  (i.e.,  the unit has stopped
     receiving waste or the "normal" rate of waste receipt
     is significantly decreased); (b) all or substantially
     all of the waste is removed; and (c)  the unit is

          EPA believes that the references in the
     legislative history to a unit that is taken out of
     service and "reused" indicate that Congress intended
     the replacement requirements to apply when the unit was
     in the process of actively managing hazardous waste,
     i.e., during the active life.    (See S. Rep. No. 284,
     98th Congress, 2nd Session 24 (1983).)  Since the
     impoundment in question is removing,  treating, and
     replacing the waste as part of closure and is not
     managing any new waste, it is not continuing to operate
     and "reuse" does not occur.  Hence,  the double liner
     retrofitting requirement does not apply when waste is
     removed from an existing unit,  treated and replaced in
     the same unit as part of an approved closure plan.
   This has been retyped from the original document.


  As part of closure,  can hazardous waste be removed from
  the Lost Lake area and placed in the settling basin?
  Assuming this can be considered to be one waste
  management area, is it acceptable to remove waste from
  one part of the waste management area and place it in

       In reviewing the drawings contained in the
  "Closure Plan for the M-Area Settling Basin and
  vicinity at the Savannah River Plant" (July 1985),  it
  is apparent that the waste in the settling basin is the
  same as that found in the Lost Lake area.  In fact,
  these two areas are hydraulically connected by an open
  ditch such that these areas could be construed to be a
  single waste management unit for the purposes of
  closure.  As such, waste movement during closure from
  one part of a single unit to another part of that unit
  is permissible, and may be desirable from an
  environmental standpoint.  In this case it would appear
  that removal of waste from the Lost Lake area to
  consolidate these wastes in the settling basin enhances
  environmental protection far more than leaving the
  waste where it is and applying the final cover to the
  entire area.

       It should be noted, however, that a significant
  change in the configuration of the impoundment
  structure during the closure process, i.e., moving
  existing dikes to increase the areal extent of the
  impoundment, does constitute a lateral expansion and
  will require retrofitting with a double liner.
  Mounding of waste or soils within the existing dike
  area for the purpose of promoting runoff and preventing
  ponding is allowable, since it may be necessary for the
  proper construction of the final cover.

  A remedial action program to remove chlorinated
  organics from the ground water in M-area is in
  operation.  DOE would like to remove sludge and soils
  from the ditch, seep area, and Lost Lake and not cap
  these units.  All metals contamination can be removed
  but some chlorinated organics will remain.  Is it
  absolutely imperative that these units be capped?

       As discussed in issue 13, this area could be
  considered one unit.  Since all constituents are not
  going to be removed during closure, the requirements of
  §265.210  (including final cover) apply.  In this case,
  however, delay of the final cover may be desirable if
  it is found that construction of the final cover might
  interfere with the objectives of any corrective action
This has been retyped from the original document.

          program that may be instituted as a result of a 3008
          order or a post-closure permit.


cc:  Bruce Weddle                  Mark Greenwood
     John Lebran                   Barbara Pace
     Lloyd Guerci                  Dov Weitman
     Peter Guerrero                Lori Weise
     Ken Shuster                   Chris Rhyne
     Bob Tonetti                   Lee Otte
     Terry Grogan                  Kent Anderson
     Dave Fagan                    Bill Hanson
        This has been retyped from the original document.

                       Attachment A
Diagram 2
                                                      Diagram 1

                           ATTACHMENT B

SUBJECT:      Facts Relevant to Decisions on the Regulatory
              Jurisdiction of Impoundments Associated with
              NPDES Permits

PREPARED BY:  Solid Waste and Emergency Response Division
              Office of General Counsel
     This document presents a discussion of the multiple
considerations which are relevant in a decision on the
regulatory status of wastes discharged 1) into waters of the
United States and 2) into impoundments from an NPDES discharge

     Whether a particular unit can be controlled under RCRA
depends, a rung other things, on whether the waste discharged.
into it is a RCRA hazardous waste or is covered by the industrial
wastewater exclusion contained in 40 C.F.R. §261.4(a) (2).
That determination, in turn, depends on whether the unit is in
waters of the United States, and whether a NPDES point
upgradient of the unit is a discharge point or just a monitoring

     The wastewater exclusion covers wastewater discharges
subject to regulation under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. §1342.  This section regulates point source discharges,
which include any addition of any pollutant to waters of the
United States from any discernible, confined, and discrete
conveyance (except discharges of dredged and fill material
regulated under Section 404).  See CWA $502(7),(12),(14).
I/A discharge point neans the place at which the discharge
~~    of a pollutant occurs.  See 40 C.F.R. $122.2.  This should
be distinguished from a monitoring point, which is the place
either upgradient or downgradient of the discharge point or at
the point of discharge at which information about the discharge
is gathered.  See 40 C.F.R. §§122.44(i), 122.48.  A discharge
point sfeould also be distinguished from points at which NPDES
controls are placed upstream of the point of discharge since
EPA has authority under §402 to impose controls not only at the
point of discharge but further up the waterstream or internally
so long as there is a rational connection between the control
imposed and the attainment of applicable effluent limitations.
See Opinion of the General Counsel No. 43, Friendswood Development
Co. and 40 C.F.R. §122.45(h).

     Thc purpose of the wastewater exclusion is to avoid
potentially duplicative regulation of point source discharges
unc'er RCRA and the Clean Water Act.  See generally 45 FR 33098,
May  19, 1980.  Once wastewater flows frcm an NPDES discharge
point into waters of the United States, that wastewater is
exempt frcn RCRA regulation (but not necessarily materials
settling out of that wastewater).  This is true even if the
discharge could be regulated under §402, but is not.  A point
source discharge without an NPDES permit would not be subject
to P.CRA.  Such a discharge would be a violation of the CWA,
and  should be subject to an enforcement action under that Act.
Even if the waste water contains hazardous constituents other
than the 126 priority pollutants currently addressed by the
NPDES program, these constituents cannot be regulated under
RCRA, since they could be regulated under $402.

     The purpose of preventing dual coverage also implies that
the  exemption applies only to the actual point source discharge
and  not to the wastewater, or sludges generated from the
wastewater, before discharge.  These imterials are not directly
regulated under the CWA.  See CWA §§402, 502(12),(14).  They
also do not fit the language of the statutory exemption, which
is limited to "industrial discharges which are point sources."
RCRft §1004(27); see also OVA §502(12), (14).  The wastewater,
and  sludges generated fron this wastewater, before discharge
can  be regulated under RCRA.  See 45 FR 3309S, May 19, I960;
Comment following 40 C.F.R. §261.4(a)T?) •

     One could argue that the term "subject to regulation" in
the  regulatory exclusion, §261.4(a) (2), includes all imterials
examined under authority of the CWA rather than just the actual
discharge.  This would include at least all material fron the
NPDES monitoring point furthest upstream to that monitoring or
discharge point furthest downstream.  As the conment following
§261.4(a) (2) and the CWA definitions make clear, however, only
the wastewater discharge itself is excluded.  It is thus critical
to find the NPDES discharge point, which depends on where the
was test ream enter* the waters of the United States.

     Waste treatment «ysterns, such as lagoons or settling ponds,
generally are subject to regulation under RCRA.  Certainly,
wnstewater, and sludges generated from such wastewater, above
the  NPDES discharge point are subject to regulation under RCRA.
The  definition of waters of the U.S. is ambiguous on whether
certain treatment systems are included in waters of the U.S.
The answer will determine whether the NPDES discharge point is
at the outflow from or inflow into those treatment systems.

     EPA's regulatory definition of waters of the U.S.  2/
includes a provision indicating that waste treatment systems
designed to meet the requirements of the CWA are not waters of
the United States.  40 C.F.R. §122.2.
2/   Waters of the United States or waters of the U.S.  means:

     (a)  All waters which are currently used, were used in the
past, or ray be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and
flow of the tide:

     (b)  All interstate waters,  including interstate "wetlands,"

     (c)  All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers,
streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats,  sandflats,
"wetlands,: sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,  playa lakes,
or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which-
would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce
including any such waters:

     (1)  which are or could be used by interstate or foreign
travelers for recreational or other purposes;

     (2)  From which fish or shell fish are or could be taken
and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or

     (3)  Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes
by industries in interstate commerce;

     (d)  All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as
waters of the United States under this definition;

     (e)  Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this definition;

     (f)  The territorial sea; and

     (g)  "Wetlands" adjacent to waters (other than waters that
are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through
(f) of this definition.

     Waste treatment nys terns, including treatment ponds or
lagoons designed to met the requirements of CWA (other than
cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11 (m) which also meet
the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United

     Exactly what constitutes a waste treatment system "designed
to meet the requirements of the CWA" is unclear.   An exclusion
for waste treatment systems was first added to the regulatory
definition of "waters of the United States" on June 7, 1979
(44 FR 32854, 32901).  The exclusion simply provided that "waste
treatnent systems ... are not waters of the U.S."  The tern
"waste treatment system" was not defined.  On hay 19, 1980,
EPA revised the definition of waters of the United States to
exclude only waste treatment systems "designed to meet the
requirements of the CWA* and created an "exclusion from the
exclusion" which limited the scope of the waste treatment system
exclusion to "manmade bodies of water which were  neither created
in waters of the U.S....nor resulted from the impoundment of
waters of the U.S."  45 FR at 33424.  The preamble to this
regulation explained that the CWA was "not intended to license
dischargers to freely use waters of the U.S. as waste treatment
systems and that the revised definition "makes clear that
treatment systems created in those waters or from their impound-
ment remain waters of the U.S."  45 FR at 3298.  This "exclusion
from the exclusion," was however,  subsequently suspended in
response to industry's objections that it would require them
to obtain permits for discharges into existing waste treatnent
systems which had been in existence for many years and for
which EPA had issued NPDES permits for discharges from, not
into: these systems.  EPA agreed that the regulation might be
overbroad and suspended its effectiveness pending further
rulenaking.  45 FR at 48620.  Such rulemaking has not yet

     One could argue that the suspension of the "exclusion from
the exclusion" i_s an affirmative statement by EPA that any
"waste treatment system" which is "designed to meet tne
requirements of the CWA" is excluded from the definition of
"waters of the U.S.," notwithstanding its creation in or by
impounding such waters.  Such interpretation, however, is
inconsistent with EPA's intent.  The "exclusion from the
exclusion" was included in the May 19, 1980 rule  as a clari-
fication to the existing regulations.  The clarification,
however, was overbroad in that it would have required NPEES
permits for discharges into existing waste treatment systems
which had been in existence for many years.  EPA suspended
the applicability of the "exclusion from the exclusion,"
45 FR 48620 (July 21, 1980) thereby restoring the ambiguity
of the earlier regulations, so that each case must be
decided on its own facts.  In this respect, the preamble
to the May 19, 1980 regulation suggests that prior CWA
regulations, like the CWA itself,  were "not intended to
license dischargers to freely use waters of the U.S. as
waste treatment systems" (that is, even prior to the "ex-
clusion from the exclusion" such use was not intended) and
that the new definition "makes clear that treatnent systems


created in those waters or from their impoundment renBin
"waters of the U.S."  (emphasis added) 45 PR at 33298.  In
light of the regulatory history and the intent of the
suspension not to require NPDES permits for treatment
systems which have been in existence for many years, EPA
retai.is the discretion to determine what constitutes a
"waste treatnent system."  In applying this interpretation
to specific cases EPA applies a standard which treats
newly created impoundments of waters of the U.S. as "waters
of the U.S.," not as  "waste treatment systems designed to
meet the requirements of the CWA, " whereas impoundments of
"waters of the U.S."  that have existed for many years and
had been issued NPDES permits for discharges from such
impoundments are "wastewater treatment systems designed to
meet the requirements of the CWA" and therefore are not
"waters Of the U.S."  The Region should consult with the
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Permits Division,
if there is any question about whether a particular impound-
ment or treatment unit is a water of the U.S.  If waste-
water is discharged into a treatment system which is not
waters of the United  States, the treatment facility is not
exempt from RCRA regulation.  See the comment following 40
C.F.R. §261.4(a)(2).

     Once the wastewater has been discharged under the CWA,
it is usually exempt  from regulation under RCRA.  By the
definitions of discharge and navigable waters, the waste-
water must be going into waters of the United States,
which qenerally consist of a large volume of natural,
flowinq water, such as a stream.  The wastewater would
lose its separate character and simply merge into a stream.

     The mixture of the NPDES discharge, which is not a solid
waste, and the stream, which is not a waste, is not a solid
or hazardous waste.   (See RCRA $1004(27)).  The sediment
downstream of the NPDES discharge point, however, may be
subject to regulation under RCRA.  This sediment is not
specifically covered  by the statutory or regulatory exclusion,
which apply only to point source discharges.  (RCRA §1004(27),
40 C.F.R. §261.4(a)(2), CWA §502(14).  Where the sediment can
be related to the discharge, such as an accumulation directly
underneath the pipe discharging the wastewater, the sediment
could b* solid waste  under the theory that it is discarded
material resulting froa industrial activities.  (RCRA §1004(27)).
The interposition of the wastewater exclusion does not man
that these sediments  (or the wastewater) do not result from
industrial activities, but only that the wastewater discharge
itself is not subject to regulation under RCRA.


      Ifoen an upstream  discharge  point was installed is
 irrelevant  to  the RCRA status  of  any downstream treatment
 impoundment.   The westewater exclusion applies, whenever the
 discharge began.

      There  has been  a  suggestion  that the exclusion is limited
 to  final discharoe points  (e.g. ,  at the property boundary)
 beyond which the owner does no further treatment, and that
 owners of impoundments could avoid regulation  under RCRA by
 rewritina their NPDES  permits  to  include an NPDES point up-
 gradient of their impoundment.  The applicability of RCRA
 regulation  depends on  whether  the impoundment  is upstream or
 downstream  of  the NPDES  discharge point, and whether the dam
 treatment systen conotitues an industrial wastewater treatment
 plant, not  where the property  boundary is located.  An impound-
 ment  owner  cannot stoply rewrite  an NPDES permit to include an
 NPDES discharge point  upgradient  of the TSDF.  A discharge
 point must  be  a discharge  into waters of the United States;
 that  a TSDF is downstream  of a monitoring point does not exclude
 an  impoundment from  RCRA regulation.

      To summarize, RCFA  staff  should consult with the Office
 of  Water Enforcement and Permits, Permits Division, if there
 is  any question about  whether  a particular impoundment is a
 water of the U.S.  If  wastewater  is discharged into a treatment
 system which is not  waters of  the United States, the treat-
 ment  facility  is not. exempt from  RCRA regulation.  See the
 comment following 40 CFR $261.4(a) (2)

      If the surface  impoundment  is found to contain hazardous
 waste and is subject to  RCRA,  all applicable RCRA regulations
 apply to that  pond (which  are  applicable is determined by
 whether the surface  impoundment is a treatment, storage, or
 disposal unit), including  corrective action and other HSWA

      If the surface  impoundment  contains solid, but not hazardous,
 waste, it is a solid waste management unit, and is subject to
 corrective  action requirements under RCRA if any unit at the
'facility is subject to a RCRA  permit.

      Sediments or sludges  beyond  the discharge point, are
 release* from  solid waste  management units and are subject to
 RCRA  corrective action requirements so long as any unit at the
 facility is seeking  a  RCRA permit.

      Questions about this  discussion should be directed to
 Steve Hirsch at 382-7706.

                                                          9434 .1986(03;
                            APR  91986
fr. will Ian B Lacy, burn
Trsvsnol Laboratories, Inc.
Deerfield, Illinois  60015

Dear Pr. Plackhurni

     Thi« is In reaoonse to your letter of Auaust 8, 1985, to
John Skinner/ then Director of the Office of Solid Waste,
reoarairu; whether or not ground-water monitoring is • required
conOition for closure of your firm's interim status equalization/
neutralization lagoon at Cleveland, Mississippi.

     We are providing you with this response even though the
issue of "beneficial reuse* of your deionization waste (raised
in your letter of November B, 1985) is not yet resolved.  On
that issue, we are awaiting further information from you.  We
recoonize thet resolution of the "beneficial reuse" issue may
imoact the need for implementation of the options discussed
in this response.

     From the information that you have provided us, it
aopears that you intend at closure of this hazardous waste
surface impoundment nerely to stop managing "hazardous waste"
(this may include removal of liquids in the impoundment at
the tine of closure).  Apparently, your basis for the
aporonriateness of this closure action is found in Section
265.228(b) of our interim status regulations, as well as in
an equivalent requirement of the Mississippi Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR).

     Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), surface impoundments could close
under interim status and b« exempt from all future Part 265
ground-water monitoring obligations by demonstrating under
S265.228(b) that any standing liquids, waste and waste
residues, liners, and contaminated soils left in place at
closure were not "hazardous wastes."  However, Section 3005(i)
of HSWA imposes additional requirements on certain interim
status land treatment, storage, and disoosal units (including
surface impoundments) that received hazardous waste after
July 26, 1982.  Section 3005(1) requires "any" surface

 Impoundment  that  receives hazardous waste after July 26,
;1932,  to meet the Part 2*4 Subpart P requirements that are
 applicaole to new permitted units.  EPA believes that Congress
 intended all surface  impoundments that received hazardous
 waste  after  that date to meet the applicable Part 264 Subpart P
 recuirerents, regardless of whether interim status closure
 reauirerents are satisfied.  Since the equalization/neutrali-
 zation ir'poundment at Cleveland, Mississippi, has received
 hazardous waste since July 26, 1982, the requirement* of
 Section 3005(i) apply.

     Section 3005(1) does not prohibit you t'rotr. closing your
 unit under the existing interim status closure standards;
 rather, it means  that you cay be required, depending on the
extent of contanination that remains after Part 265 closure,
 to undertake additional activities at a later date to come
 into compliance with applicable Part 264 ground-water monitoring
and corrective action standards.  The final test of whether
additional activities will be required is whether the closed
unit would have had additional Part 264 ground-water monitoring
and corrective action obligations had it closed pursuant to
a permit (recall that 53005(1) imposes the same Subpart F
requirenents on interin status units that they would have had
if they had  been perait ted).

     Since under Part 264 the type of closure determines whether
a permitted  unit has outstanding Suboert F requirenents, the
relevant question for determining which interim status closures
nay have additional obligations vis-a-vis S3005(i) is whether
the unit has met the tart 264 closure by "reroval or decontamination
standard ($264.228(a)). (1) v.here the applicant can demonstrate
that he has  already met the Part 264 'removal or decontamination*
standard, no outstanding Part 264 Subpart P requirements
would be- deemed applicable under $3005(1), and, thus, the Aoency
would not compel additional activities through a post-closure permit,
1    There is a substantial difference  in the "removal or
decontamination* requirement of Section  264.228(a) from closure
under Section 265.228(b).  A material that  is demonstrated to
no lonoer meet the regulatory definition of  "hazardous waste"
unoer Section 265.228(b) nay be left in  place; even if the
material is contaminated.  Under Section 264.228(a), removal
or decontamination in such a situation must  proceed further.
The presence of contamination would be evaluated by analyzing
the presence and levels of Appendix VXXZ constituents.  Interim
status surface impoundments that cannot  meet the Section 264.220(a)
removal or decontamination standard would be required by the
Agency to comply with Subpart P of Part  264.

     To close under Section 264.228(a), all waste residues (if
 these contain hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of
 Part 261), contaminated containment system components (liners,
 etc.), and structures and equipment contaminated with waste and
 leachate rust be removed or decontaminated.  In addition,
 unsatura ted subsoils underlying the impoundment and saturated
 subsoils (ground water) should be sampled and analyzed for the
 presence of Aonendix VIII constituents that are expected to have
 entered the impoundment.

     Therefore, although your company has several options for
 closure of the equalization/neutralization lagoon, all of the -
 options at some tine will require monitoring for constituents
 in ground water.  The issue is one of timing.  Your company
 either (1) close the lagoon under Section 265.228(b) without
 installing wells but renain subject to future requirements
 including oround-water monitoring and corrective action as necessary
 through * post-closure permit; (2) close the lagoon under
 Section 235.22R(c) and install wells once your post-closure permit
 is called (neutralization impoundments are not exempted from
 Part 264 ground-water monitoring and, therefore, would have to
 generate the ground-water monitoring data needed to decide
 which Part 264 Subpart P program—- detection monitoring, compliance
monitoring, or corrective action— should be incorporated in
 your permit)) or (3) close the lagoon under Section 265.228(b)
 and voluntarily install wells and keep records of the levels
 of ground water and soil contamination found and removed at
 the impoundment- to substantiate your position that you have
 met the Part 264 closure by removal standard and* therefore,
 should not be required to obtain a post-closure permit*

     I hope that this has answered your questions regarding
 the need for ground-water monitoring at closure of your interim
 status equalization/neutralisation lagoon at Cleveland,

                               Marcia Williams
                               Office of Solid waste

ccs  Toa Devine, Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division,
       L'PA Region IV
     Janes H. Scarbrough, Chief, Residuals Management Branch,
       EPA Region IV
     David Lee, Mississippi Department of Natural Resources

 DCCI  Solid and Hazardous v.'aste Division Directors,
         EPA Regions I-III and V-X
       Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs

                              '  1986
SUBJECTS  Effect of RCRA Amendments on Neutralization
          Surface Impoundments

PROMi     Marcia Williams* Director  Orte'"a' signed by
          Office of Solid Waste      MtrcJa fi, WiUlams

TOs       Merrill S. Hohman, Director
          Haste Management Division
          EPA Region I

     This is in response to your February 8* 1965* request for
interpretation of Sections 213 and 215 of the 1984 RCRA amendments,
as it relates to nsutralization surface impoundments.  I reqret
the delay in this response*

     Regarding the interim status surface Impoundment retrofittinq
variances* you asked several questions on the $3005(j)(4) variance.
Section 3005(j)(4) allows interim status surface impoundments to
receive a modification from the minimum technology standards if
the impoundment is designed* located* and operated in such a way
as to assure that there will be no migration of any hazardous
constituents to surface water or ground water at any future
time.  The exemption request could be made* similar to qualifyinn
for a §265.90(e) ground-water exemption* by a showing that the
waste is neutralised and there will be no migration of any hazardous
constituents at any future time.

     In order to auike this showing* one must know what hazardous
constituents are in the waste.  This can be done by a chemical
analysis of the influent wastewster* the contents of the surface
impoundment* and/or the ground water*  One way to do this would
be through a full or modified Appendix VIII analysis*  Given the
analytical problems with Appendix VIZI* I suggest using the Appendix
VIII guidance we recently sent you*  I should note that if there are
any Appendix VIII constituents in the waste that are not very
efficiently destroyed by neutralization*  this exemption will be
quite difficult to get*

     You-also mentioned the f3005(j)(2) retrofittino exemption
although you asked no particular question* concern1 no the exemption.
You are correct, however/ in assuaina that this exemption niqht aluo
be available to neutralisation impoundments.

     I have attached a copy of the latest draft guidance document
that we are preparing on the surface impoundment retrofit
variances.  It contains a few revisions fron the draft sent to
you in early January*  This document will soon be sent to OMB for
review prior to noticing it to the public*

     Regarding your questions concerning certification of ground-
water monitoring requirements (S3002(e)(2)(B)) for neutralisation
surface impoundments, your proposed approach is reasonable!
certification that the $26S.90(e) exemption rightfully applies
and a monitoring schedule in the permit application for developing
the Part 264 Subpart f ground-water monitoring system.  The
requirements of Section 270.14(c), especially paragraphs (2), (3),
and (5), nust be net, however, in order to determine that the
permit application is complete*

     If you have any questions please feel free to contact Paul
Cassidy, at PTS 361-4682.


cci  J. Lehman
     K. Shuster

'' r. • •'. .A .  •> r u ne r
C''« v r o n u . .j . A. »  Inc.
.-. u. -.0*  7
       nd, 'JIUO   43002

     :lr.  Jrjner:

     i'his  letter  is  in  reference  to your let tor j*tud April ^J,
      rsqaruiiu;  tne  status  of  your  lime sludge i impoundment
     t-  (KU4'J anu  rvUbl).   Kou  state  tnat tne lime sludge
imooundnent is not suDject  to  KCKA  permitting and closure
requirements since no nCKA  hazardous wast* has oe«n treated*
stored, or disposed  of  in it,  as  detineo in KCKA regulations,
since ."oveciijer 1^, l*d(J.  iou,  tneretore,  relieve t,nat the letter
we sent you dated March  10,  1986, ooes  not attect the status
ct the  n^e sludge contained  in the impoundment*  ^ou do
state, however,  that you are  still  planning to su&mit tne
adoi t iotial intormacion  requested  oy us  in  order to c«list
the sludge contained in  the impoundment.

     It is ^y understanding that  you nave  Deen in contact
with >
                nav-*  jny  ' •, r t -i ,- -
                                           •-^tice  >..
OC:   :;^l o  ~i., i ,^^t.


                             JULY  86
Interim Status Corrective Action

A facility consists of an interim status surface  impoundment and a
Subtitle 0 solid waste landfill.  The owner/operator  (o/o) complied
with the loss of interim status provision by submittinq  his Part w
application and certification on November 8, 1985,  but his Part B
has, not been acted upon.  The o/o decides to clean  close the surface
impoundment.  He accomplishes clean closure in February  1986.  In
July 1986, tie EPA finds that hazardous constituents  are beina
released from the Subtitle D solid waste landfill.  May  EPA reouire
corrective action for this release under Section  3008(h)  of RCRA?

     Corrective action under Section 3008(h) applies  to  releases
     from solid waste manaaement units at interim status facilities.
     The facility in question remains in interim  status. Interim
     status terminates only:

     1.  uoon final administrative disposition of a permit application;

     2.  as provided in 40 CFR 270.10(e)(5) (failure  to  furnish a
         requested Part * on time, or to furnish  in full the
         information required);

     3.  under Section 3005(e)(2) of RCRA (the loss of  interim status
         provision); or

     4.  if revoked pursuant to a Section 3005(h) administrative order.

     Althouqh the impoundment may not be further  subject to  the
     requirements of 40 CFR 265 (see $265.228(b)) after  certifying
     clean closure of the impoundment, certification  does not terminate
     interim status.  Since this facility is still  in interim status,
     EPA may use authority under Section 3008(h)  of RCRA to  require
     corrective action for releases of hazardous  constituents from
     any solid waste management unit at the facility.

     Source:    Tina Kaneen (202) 382-7706
     Research:  Ingrid Rosencrantz

                           SEP  5
Honorable Arch A. Moore, Jr.
Governor of west Virginia
Charleston, west Virginia  25303

Dear Governor Moore:

     This is in response to your letter of August 15, 1986,
regarding the regulation of hazardous waste management
facilities.  You expressed concern that the "Holz Pond"
surface impoundment will be affected by the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) May 2, 1986, regulation.

     EPA has received a number of comments since the regulation
was promulgated.  The matter is currently in litigation.
Please be assured that we will consider your concerns in our
analysis of this issue.  However, EPA disagrees with the
legal view contained in your letter that Congress specifically-
provided that hazardous waste surface impoundments could
remain open indefinitely, without retrofitting, to receive
non-hazardous wastes.  In fact, the 1984 amendments to RCRA
do not address this question.  A single colloquy between
Senators Chafee and Randolph constitutes the sole reference
to this issue in the legislative history.  We read this
colloquy to state that the 1984 amendments do not in themselves
establish a requirement that mandates closure of such impoundments,
provided that the impoundments are operated in a manner that
is protective of human health and the environment.  Nor,
however, do those amendments mandate the continued operation
of such facilities.  EPA has thus been left to decide whether
a facility should be allowed to remain open after it ceases
to receive hazardous wastes* the May 2, 1986, rule contains
EPA's decision and the preamble to the rule sets forth EPA's
environmental rationale.

     For your information, an administrative record (prepared
for the court) containing pre-promulgation comments and
background information on the regulation's development, will
be available in the Office of Solid Waste's public docket  as
of September 9, 1986.

If I can be of  further  assistance,  please  let me know.

                     , S/J.  Winston  Porter
                    /   /Assistant Administrator

                      WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
                                             • OLIO WASTE AND CMEMQENCV RCSPONS

SUBJECT:  Request for Guidance on RCRA Requlation of Impoundments
          in Various Relationships to NPDES Permitted Discharaes

FROM:     Marcia Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

TO:       James Scarbrouqh, Chief
          Residuals Management Branch, Region IV

     This memorandum is intended to provide further
guidance regarding issues which have been raised by Region
IV on the regulatory status of surface impoundments as they are
related to NPDES permitted discharge points.  This guidance
follows up on Bruce Weddle's memo to you of May 2, 1986.

     The scenarios you present are complex, and reouire the
application of multiple regulatory definitions and standards
from both RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA).  The Office of
General Counsel some time ago developed an analysis of
the applicable principles, definitions, and legal interpreta-
tions which are relevant to the issues you have raised.  This
analysis is attached for background purposes.  The followina
discussion responds more directly to the scenarios you pre-
sented as we understand them.

     In your memorandum of March 20, 1986, you state ("item
one") that you plan to regulate water bodies into which
wastes are discharged as RCRA TSDPs if they are wholly within
the property boundary and are upgradient of a NPDES permitted
discharge point.  Diagram 1 illustrates our understanding of the
situation.  In this scenario we assume the NPDES discharoe
point to be at location A in the diagram.  We further assume
that the unit in question is a "surface impoundment" in which
hazardous wastes were managed, and that the unit was not created
by impounding water from a "water of the U.S.*   In this case,
the unit would b« subject to all applicable RCRA Subtitle C

     However, if the impoundment was actually created by
impounding the larger body of water (see Diagram 2), the
regulatory status of the impoundment is less straightforward.
Whether such an impoundment is subject to RCRA depends largely
on whether it is determined to be a "water of the U.S."  As


explained  in the attached backoround paner, the determination
of whether such an impoundment is or is not a water of the U.S.
is essentially a case by case decision which is made by the
Regional Water Division.  If the impoundment is found to be
a water of the U.S., it is not subject to reoulation under
RCRA.  If the impoundment is not a water of the U.S., it
would be subject to reoulation under RCRA Subtitle C.

      In Item Two of vour memorandum, you describe several
scenarios in which the "pond" in Question (which we interpret
to h« an impoundment) is located rtowngradient of one or more
NPDES permitted discharae points.  Under the CWA, a discharae
is defined as "any addition of a pollutant or combination of
pollutants to the waters of the U.S." (see 40 CFR $122.2).
Therefore, any pond located downaradient of a NPDES permitted
discharae point is, by definition, a water of the U.S.
The exact location of the point of discharoA is obviously a
key factor in any determination of the regulatory status of such
surface impoundments.

     Your memorandum also suooested that the exclusion from
RCRA for discharges subject to NPDES permits applies only
to the discharae point closest to the facility boundary.  This
is not the case.  Nor is it true, as implied in the memo, that
an owner/operator would be able to direct a chanoe in a
NPDES permit to position a discharae point uporadient of a TSDF
and thereby avoid regulation of the TSDF under RCRA.  Permit
conditions are established by the relevant EPA nroaram office.
Where complexities reqardino program jurisdiction arise,
EPA will resolve the issues internallv.  A judoement by an
owner/operator regarding which programmatic jurisdiction
offers more favorable regulatory status for the facility should
not influence which regulations and/or standards, in fact, apply.

     The case by case decisions which are necessary to determine
the status of impoundments closely related to waters of the U.S.
must be made in close cooperation with the Water Division and
the Office of the Reoional Counsel.  The Office of Oneral Counsel's
discussion provides a useful overview of the issues involved.

     If you have any Questions concerning this memorandum,
please call Hichele Anders, FTS 382-4534.



March 11, 1987


SUBJECT:  Clarification of What Constitutes a Replacement Unit -
          Final Response

FROM:     Marcia E. Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

TO:       Karl E. Bremer, Acting Chief
          Solid Waste Branch
          Region V

     I am responding to Dave Stringham's October 23, 1986,
memorandum requesting clarification of what constitutes a
replacement unit.  You inquired as to whether or not the
consolidation of waste from several impoundments into one
impoundment at closure makes the receiving impoundment a
"replacement unit" and thereby requires the implementation of the
minimum technological requirements of HSWA.  As noted in my
November 14, 1986, interim response, Chris Rhyne of the Land
Disposal Permit Assistance Team has been working with our legal
counsel and your staff to resolve the issues raised in your
memorandum concerning the Ross Incineration Services facility.

     A "replacement" surface impoundment or landfill unit is a
unit that is taken out of service and emptied by removing all or
substantially all waste from it.  The unit must be brought into
compliance with the minimum technological requirements before it
can be reused (see 50 FR 28706, July 15, 1985).  These criteria
must be applied to your factual situation.

     Discussions with Ken Chin of your staff as well as with Tom
Roberts of PEI (Consultant to Ross Incineration Services)
indicated that the impoundment in question (designated number 7
by Ross Incineration) is bisected by a normally-submerged earthen
mound.  This mound will become a dike when the northern section
is totally dewatered.  The facility intends to leave a
substantial amount of liquid in the southern section.  Normal
waste receipt to the northern section will be halted while waste
will continue to be received at the southern section.  The
northern section will be reused to dispose of wastes from several
other closing on-site impoundments and a waste pile.
        This has been retyped from the original document.

     The guidance on nonhazardous liquids ("Restriction on the
Placement of Nonhaiardous Liquids in Hazardous Watt* Landfills')
which I intend to issue shortly, will specify that nonhasardous
liquids used to meet other regulatory requirements are not
considered to be subject to the restrictions in Section 3004(c) (3).
One of these requirements is to control wind dispersal of
particulate matter at landfills (Section 2«4.301(f».  Use of
nonhaiardous liquids for dust suppression purposes is specifically
mentioned in the guidance as not being subject to restrictions  of
Section 3004(c) (3).  XI! the spraying activity proposed by LTV is
txuly for dust supprassion purposes (vs. achieving stability/density
of the wsste as specified in your memorandum), the activity would
be acceptable.

     I reeoflunend that you determine if the proposed use of the
nonhasardous liquids in for dust suppression purposes, or to
facilitate optical placement of tb« wastes in the landfill.
If LTV demonstrates to your satisfaction that the purpose is
to prevent the wind dioplfeal of these dusts prior to pi see went
of a soil cover, Z believe that tfce activity can be permitted
without requiring the demonstrations called for in |3004(c)(3)(a)
and (b).

     Should you or your staff have any additional questions,
please; contact Allen Naples in the Land Disposal Branch, who can
be reached st PTS 382-4683.

cct  John Lehman
     Bruce Weddle


            WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
                                                           9 4 8 7 • 1 9 8 6 ( 0 8 }
 \ *&*'
                                                  SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENT aESPQNSE
    Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
    Ranking: Minority Member
    HUD-Independent Agencies
      Appropriations Subcommittee
    Committee on Appropriations
    United States Senate
    Washington, D.C.  20510

    Dear Senator Leahy:

         Thank you for your letter of May 1, 1986, regarding an
    inquiry from your constituents in Bristol, Vermont.  You
    requested information regarding residues from municipal waste
    resource recovery facilities and any federal laws that apply
    to the disposal of these residues.
         Solid residues frore munieigite?. v?aste combustion (MWC)
    processes consist of fly ash and fecrubbct sludge recovered from
    air pollution control equipment, and bottom ash.  Disposal of
    these residues is accomplished by landfilling.  Ply ash as well
    as other residues from MWC processes sometimes exhibit the
    characteristics of hazardous waste and/ therefore, are regulated
    under the applicable disposal standards in 40 CFR Parts 260 through
    265.  Other than those occasions when the wastes meet the definition
    of hazardous waste, the Federal regulations that apply to the
    landfilling of any nonhazardous solid wastes, including most
    residues from MWC processes, are the "Criteria for Classification
    of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices* (40 CFR Part
    257), which were promulgated on September 13, 1979, under authority
    of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  The Criteria
    include general performance standards that are used to determine
    which solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable
    probability of having no adverse effects on human health and the
    environment.  A copy of these standards is enclosed for your

         The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to
    RCRA require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
    complete several new efforts with regard to solid waste disposal.
    By November 8, 1987, EPA must complete a study and report to
    Congress on nonhazardous waste land disposal facilities and
    practices to determine whether the current Federal Criteria

are adequate to protect human health and the environment.  In
addition, by March 31, 1988, EPA must revise the current Criteria
(40 CFR Part 257) for disposal facilities, including municipal
waste landfills, that receive household hazardous waste and
small quantity generator hazardous waste.  HSWA also requires
the Agency to develop a report to Congress and guidelines on
dioxin emissions from municipal waste incinerators or resource
recovery facilities.

     In response to these HSWA mandates, we have recently
initiated several projects in an effort to address problems per-
tinent to your inquiry.  EPA is currently developing a technical
information document for use by State and local governments in
evaluating municipal waste combustion projects.  We anticipate
that this document will be available in February 1987.  The EPA
contact for this effort is Stephen Greene, (202) 382-4608.

     We are also currently engaged in a comprehensive study to
determine the characteristics of ash from MWC processes and to
assess the potential health and environmental impacts from the
disposal of these residues.  The results of this study will
be incorporated into the February 1987 information document
mentioned above.  The Agency contact for this ash study is
Gerri Dorian, (202) 382-4688.

     Your letter presented several questions regarding this
matter.  I have specifically addressed each of them below.

     1.  Has EPA tested the wastes from municipal waste
         resource recovery facilities to determine the
         characteristics of such wastes?  If so, what did
         those tests find? Have such wastes ever been *
         characterized as hazardous?

     Various agencies, domestic and foreign, have performed a
range of analyses on these residues.  A list of technical papers
available to the public is enclosed for your information.  EPA
will not complete its full evaluation of this until February
1987.  However, it is known that ash residues  (predominantly fly
ash) sometimes exhibit the characteristic of EP toxicity as
determined using the RCRA Extraction Procedures (EP) for toxicity
(40 CFR Parts 260.20 and 260.21), because of the presence of
certain metals, such as lead and cadmium.  If a waste is charac-
terized as EP Toxic, it is a RCRA hazardous waste.  Additionally,
recent testing of fly ash and flue gas from municipal waste
combustion processes has, in some cases, demonstrated the presence
of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans
and polychlorinated biphenyls in both media in relatively small
concentrations.  EPA has not determined whether the presence of
these organic constituents pose a hazard when  landfilled.

     2.  Do EPA's tests for toxicity of the waste include
         a full range of organic chemicals?

     The EP toxicity test (40 CFR Part 261.24) addresses eight
inorganics and only six organic constituents.  These organics
include:  Endrin,  Lindane, Methoxychlor, Toxaphene,  2,4-D,  and
Silvex.  EPA is currently developing a new toxicity characteristic
and associated leaching procedure (TCLP) that will result in the
evaluation of a broader range of organics.  For further information
on the TCLP,  your constituents should contact Todd Kimmel at
(202) 382-4795.

     3.  If the waste were determined to be a hazardous waste,
         what requirements would apply to a landfill in which"
         the waste is disposed?

     Owners and operators of hazardous waste landfills must
comply with all applicable requirements in 40 CFR Parts 260
through 265.

     You should be aware that certain States have more stringent
or specific standards for the disposal of MWC ash, whether or not
the ash is classified as a RCRA hazardous waste.  The State of
Vermont, has proposed regulations that, address the disposal of
MWC ash.  For further information on the State of Vermont regula-
tions  (existing and proposed), your constituents should contact:

             Mr. John Malter, Director
             Waste Management Division
             Agency of Environmental Conservation
             State Office Building
             Montpelier, Vermont  05602
             (802) 828-3395

     4.  Under the Clean Air Act, are there any authorities
         for controlling the blowing dust particles that
         may result from the disposal of these wastes?

     Under the Clean Air Act, the Agency has the general authority
to investigate and regulate emissions, including particulate
emissions, from various sources that may pose a threat to human
health or the environment.  The Agency also has authority under
RCRA to control dust.  For your general information, the State
of Delaware has experienced some dust control concerns regarding
municipal waste combustor residues.  For more detailed information
on the approach Delaware has used, your constituents may wish to

                Mr. William Razor, Supervisor
                Solid Waste Management Branch
                Department of Natural Resources
                  and Environmental Control
                P.O. Box 1401
                Dover, Delaware   19901
                (302) 736-4781

     5.  Under the Clean Water Act or any other water-
         related federal statutes, are there any authorities
         for controlling leaking ground water from a landfill
         in which such waste is deposited?

     The Clean Water Act does provide EPA some autho&ity for
ensuring ground-water protection, but these authorities are
less specific to this purpose than those delegated under RCRA.
EPA's primary authority for ground-water protection at active
landfills is derived from RCRA.  For more detailed information
regarding these Federal authorities, your constituents should
contact our Office of General Counsel, either Dov Weitman at
(202) 382-7703 or Ken Gray at (202) 382-7706.

     I hope this information is useful to you and your constituents.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate
to contact us again.


cc:  Mr. John Malter
     Mr. William Razor
                                J. Winston Porter
                                Assistant Administrator

June 12, 1986


SUBJECT:  Bulk Liquids and Drain/Leaching Fields

FROM:     Marcia E. Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Waste  (WH-562)

TO:       James H. Scarbrough, Chief
          Residuals Management Branch
          iRegion IV

     This is in response to your April 30, 1986, memorandum
concerning the April 7, 1986, note I received from Jack Lehman
addressing two issues that you are concerned about.  You believe
Mr. Lehman misunderstood your point on both issues.

     Regarding bulk liquids, we disagree with your conclusion
that Section 3004(c) (1) can and should be used to force "organic
waste streams" toward incineration or other treatment other than
"simple solidification" prior to the implementation of Section
3004(d).  First, Section 3004(c)(1) applies only to "bulk...
liquid hazardous waste or free liquids contained in hazardous
waste".  It does not apply to non-liquid waste nor non-hazardous
waste, as you imply.  Further, Section 3004(c)(l) says nothing
about applying to organic waste, let alone forcing alternative
technologies for organic wastes, nor does the legislative
history.  Jnstead, as you are aware, other sections in RCRA
address the disposal of specific hazardous constituents and
wastes, including organic wastes, and the use of alternative
treatment technologies (i.e., the land disposal restrictions
requirements of Sections 3004(d),  (e), (f) , (g), (h), (i),  (j),
(k) , and (;m)) .  The Congressional findings in Sections
1002(a)(4), (b)(2), (b)(6), and  (b)(7) do not give different
interpretive authority to EPA regarding the language of
3004(c)(1)  as you imply.

     Second, as we have previously discussed with you and your
staff, the "10% rule" you propose is arbitrary and unsupportable.
Different organics behave differently, and different
solidification treatment systems behave differently for different
        This has been retyped from the original document.


organics.  Thus, different concentrations of organics could
effect the performance of solidification based on the organic
type and solidification process.  We do not have information to
support a 10% or any other percent rule.

     Third, as you point out, a "10% rule" is rather meaningless
anyway because dilution still enables landfill disposal under
your proposal.

     In summary, while we agree that a number of organic wastes
(especially solvents) should not be placed on the land, it is
through the land disposal restrictions provisions cited above
that Congress intended to address these wastes.  Section
3004(c)(i) is simply concerned with treating bulk liquid
hazardous waste, not hazardous constituents.

     Regarding your second issue concerning drain/leaching
fields, these facilities are regulated under RCRA if they are
surface drain fields and under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
if they are subsurface drain fields.  Surface drain fields for
hazardous waste are regulated as land treatment facilities under
Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart M).
Surface drain fields for non-hazardous waste are regulated by the
Subtitle D "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices."

     Subsurface drain fields are regulated by the Office of
Drinking Water, Underground Injection Control Program (UIC),
which develops regulations under Part C of the SDWA.  Under these
regulations, septic tank and drain field systems are classified
as either Class IV or Class V injection wells.  If the waste is a
hazardous waste or radioactive waste and is injected into or
above a formation which contains an underground source of
drinking water within one quarter mile, the septic system is a
Class IV injection well.  The construction, operation, and
maintenance of Class IV injection wells are generally prohibited
by 40 CFR 144.13 (copy attached).  Further, Section 7010 of RCRA
prohibits underground injection of hazardous waste into a
formation or above a formation which contains an underground
source of drinking water within one quarter mile of the injection
well.   This prohibition became effective May 9, 1985.  As I
understand your issue, the facilities you described are Class IV
wells and are, therefore, prohibited.  If the waste in the septic
system is neither a hazardous waste nor radioactive waste and the
septic system serves a multiple dwelling, business establishment,
        This has been retyped from the original document.


community, or regional business establishment, the septic system
is a class V injection well.  For further information on the UIC
program contact Mario Salazer (FTS 382-5361) in the Office of
Drinking Water.

I hope this clarifies our position on both issues.
        This has been retyped from the original document.



SUBJECT:  Supplementary Guidance on  Determining  Liner/
          Leachate Collect ion  System Compatibility

FROM:     Bruce R. Weddte, Director
          Permits and State Programs Division

TO:       Hasardoua Vast* Management Division  Directors
          Region* I-X

     A number of queationn have arlaen regarding the owner*1  and
operators' responsibility to demonstrate the chemical resistance
of liner and leachace collection and removal system components
to the vasts or leachate to which they are exposed (see especially
40CFR 264!. 301, 264.251, and 264.221).  This memorandum answers
flone of these questions and further  clarifies  existing guidance
(See especially the draft Minimum Technology Guidance on  Double
Liner Systems for Landfills and Surface Impoundments - Design.
Construction, and Operation. May,
Is MDPE* a universal material  for  liner and  leachate collection
system) components that needs .no additional waste/ leachate
iamersiola testing?

     No.  HDPI la s relatively inert  synthetic material  that  can
chemically withstand a wide variety of substances;  however,
there are chemicals that can seriously affect the performance of
HUPE (e.g., many aromatic and  halogenated hydrocarbon  compounds)
Many of these chemicals are found  in  measurable concentrations
in leachates generated at hazardous waste facilities.
   HDPI (High Density Polyethylene)  la one type  of polyethylene
   liner material.  Polyethylene materials are the most popular
   synthetic liner material being^ proposed for new units.
                                                           OFFICIAL FILE COPY

     Long-tern immersion teat results from low level exposure to
chemicals or concern showed measurable deterioration of HOPE
properties.  Therefore, low concentration! of cheaicala of
concern must be tested for liner compatibility if they will be
present in the waste.

     EPA has been asked by the Institute of Chemical Waste
Management (IWM) to consider approving HDFE liners as being
chemically resistant to certain classes of vastes without
chemical resistance testing.  EPA Is investigating this
possibility by reviewing the available data and by discussing
this issue with technical experts in the polymer cheaistry
field.  At this tiae we have not completed our review of tn«
technical Issues or received enough data to grant blanket
approvaln for HOPE.  In addition, preliminary conclusions
rrom an EPA meeting with polymer cheaistry experts indicate
that in the case of a typical land disposal unit, they do not
have the ability at this tiae to establish classes ot chemicals
that specific flexible aeabrane liner aaterlals are universally
chemically resistant to, priaarlly because of the coaplexity
of the wastes, liner stresses posed by the typical land disposal
environaent (e.g., temperature ranges and differential loading),
and variations in liner properties [See also response to next

     Theretore. in general. EPA is unable at thla tiae to approve
HDPE (or any other liner material) for use at any hazardous waste
unit without unit-specific verification of chemical resistance
based on the specific liner aaterial and waste for that unit.
(Method 9090 or equivalent).

Does the generic tern HDPE laply that all HOPE*a are alike?

     No.  Polyethylene plantics, as defined by ASTM D 1248
(Polyethylene Plastics Holding and Extrusion Materials), are
plastics or resins prepared by the polymerisation of no less
than 8SZ ethylene and no less Chan 95X of total oleflns, by
weight.  Within thia category HOPE is defined aa having a density
of greater than 0.940g/ca3.  This higher density la an  Indication
of incraaneri CrystalUnity that, with all other things being
equal, prodaeea a aaterial that is larder, stiffer, aore chealcal
and heat resistant, and stronger than less crystalline aaterial.
Aa density increases, the propartlea of elongation, resistance
to environmental stress cracking, impact strength and permeability
decrease.  In addition, coaonoaers are addad during resin aanufacture
that affect the degree of crystallinlty and other aatarlal properties
(depending on the processing technique and the type and amount
of comonomer).  Process type and process additives, such aa
carbon black, thermal/ultraviolet stabilisers and antiblocks,
will also affect material properties.

     The attached guidance tor "fingerprinting" it very general.
It the owner or operator aelecta this option, agreeing on the
nature of the testing program and interpreting teat reaulta
will present difficulties.  The effect of a change in any given
"fingerprinting" characteristic (e.g., percent ash) is poorly

What other liner and leachate collection system components
are required by current regulations to be compatible vith

     Landfill design and operating requirements state that the
leachatt collection and removal fysceo, •• vtll ai che liner,
•ust be constructed of materials that are chemically resistant
to the waste managed at the landfill and the leachate expected
to be generated (1264.301(a)(2)).  Landfill, waste pile, and
surface impoundment design and operating requirements also
state that liners and leachate collection systems must protect
human health and the environment.  It ia, therefore, incumbent
upon owners and operators to aasure EPA chat each component of
the liner(s) and leachate collection system(s) Is compatible
with the leachate or waste to which it it subjected.  Suggested
general procedures for various components are aa follows;

     1.  Piping - Piping should be prepared for strength
         testing per ASTM D 2412 or equivalent.  At least
         one prepared saaple should be subjected to the
         sane immersion test aa performed on the liner
         material (e.g., the immersion test outlined in
         Method 9090).  After the Immersion test, the pipe
         saaple should be dried (per Method 9090) and
         subjected to a strength test (see especially ASTM
         0 2412 paragraphs 6-9).  Testing of a control
         specimen (a sample not subjected to the immersion
         test) should be performed.  A report should be
         prepared similar eo chat outlined in ASTM D 2412
         paragraph 11 (including 11.1.7 and 11.1.9) comparing
         Che test results of the immersed and control

     2.  Gmoeaxtilaa - Ceo textiles can be used co perform
         any of three major functions in the land disposal
         uniti  1) protection of the flexible membrane
         limar, 2) uaa aa fHearing media, or 3) use  in
         ch« transmission of liquid (water or leachate).
         Testing procedures for a given geotexttie depend
         on lea function,  when the geotextile ia used
         either aa a filter or aa a protective madia  for
         che flexible membrane liner, immersion  testing
         Ilka that for flexible membrane liners  ahould  be
         performed.  After drying che  immersed apaclmen(s),

     both Che immersed specinen(i) tnd Identical control
     • p«cimen(») should be subjected Co the ASTM D
     1662 Crab Strength Test and the ASTM D 751 Puncture
     Strength Teat to determine if A significant loss
     of strength has occurred.

          Synthetic fabrics used for drainage, such
     as nets, should also be imersed In the expected
     waste/leachate.  Following tamers ion, both a
     control specimen and the immersed specimen should
     be tested for in plane trmnsmlsslvity.  At this
     time no ASTM method exists Co evaluate in-plane
     cranamisslvlcy; however, Che Federal Highway
     Administration's Ceotextile Engineering Manual
     references a technique by Koerner and love.'

          This method (or another method to determine
     in-plane transoissivity) can be used to coopare the
     in-plane crininiislvicy of the immersed spec la en to a
     control specimen.

          Two specific recommendations need Co be made
     to implement the test.

          (1) The final pressure exerted on the geotextile
          should be at least 1.5 times Che maximum expected
          pressure to be experienced during Che active
          life and post-closure period of the unit.

          (2) The geotextile should be placed in the
          apparatus under expected field conditions;
          i.e., boch sides of Che geotextile should be
          piaced againsc Che materials experienced in
          Che field (e.g., soil, sand/travel, flexible
          meobrane liner, or ocher geotextile).

     Earthen Materials - When rock or gravel are used in
     che leachace collection ayscea, the owner or operator
     should verify that che mineral concenc of che rock is
     compatible with the waste/leachate mixture.  The
     owner or operator will need to demonstrate that the
     rock will not bo dissolved or ton a precipitant that
     would clog the leachate collection system.
Koerner, R.M. and Bove, J.A., "In-Plane Hydraulic
Properties of GeoCextiles," Ceotextile Testing Journal,
CTJODJ, Vol. 6, No. 4, Dec.  1983, pp. 190-1957

     For toil used as a liner or a component  of  a  liner,
the material ihould be subjected to tPA Method  91Ou,
using the expecteu leachate to determine its  effect
on the hydraulic conductivity ot the contacted  low
permeability soil.  The oimer or operator may use  the
rixed-wall or ^riaxial test.  (Hote: Method 9100 is
currently under revision.)

Should environmental stress cracking be considered
as a modification to Method 9090?

     Although environmental stress cracking (ESC)
is not currently Included in Method 9090, recently
reviewed data and discussions with technical
experts, Includine polymer manufacturers, have
reemphasized the need to require an ESC test  for
crystalline and senicrystalline polymeric membrane
liners.  We are currently making revisions to Method
9090 that will outline available? that ESC testinp
be metnods.

     Until specific test procedures for ESC can be
developed that represent land Disposal facility
condition*, we suggest that permit writers discuss
the need ror LSC data on these materials and  suggest
that the owner or operator conduct ESC testing.
The type of te»t and initial interpretation of
the data would be the responsibility of the

Should the leachate be changed during the immersion

     Some of the constituents of greatest concern
in the chemical resistance immersion test are those
that are volatile or that enter into the material
being tested.  The owner or operator must assure that
the chemical composition of the leachate remains
relatively constant during the test to provide a
representative Atmosphere for samples being immersed.

    The owner or operator must atteapt to seal the
immersion vessel as tightly aa possible to prevent
loaa of volatiles.  In addition, the concentration
of cheaicsls in the leachate that are suspected to
affect the samples (such aa aliphatic and halogenated
hydrocarbons) must be determined prior to immersion
testing, and ahould be checked when samples are
removed at the first 30-day testins period (for
Method 9090).  If the composition ot the  leachate

         hat changed eignif icancly, che owner or operator
         ahould change Che leachate in che inner*ion vessel*
         and continue co change che leachace on a frequent
         baaii (frequency co be negotiated with che permit
         writer) Co aaaure chac Che liner staples are expert*
         •ncing exposure condlciona alnilar to choae in
         che field.


cc:  RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regiona I-Z
     RCRA Perniti Section Chiefs, legions I-X
     Paul Ingrisano, Region 2
     Frunk Langone, Region 2
     Greg Uecrechc, Region 6
     Harvey King, Scace of New York, DEC
     Bob Tonecci
     Ken Shuacer
     Terry Grogan
     Lea Occe
     Roberc LandreCh
     Chria Rhyne
     Pecer Guerrero
     Ana Avilea
     Agnea Oreit

  DEC  4

StJBJTCTi  Pequeat for Aaaiatance In Determining Doable-Liner
          Equivalency(3004(o)(2))-A»erican Cyana»ld

FPOMt     Marcia E. William, Director  A/
          Office of Solid Wait*        I'

TO:       Conrad Siaon, Director
          Air fc Wa»t« Manag«B*nt Diviaion (2AWM)
          Ration II
     We have received your Novaaber 7, 1966 raqoaat for eoam«nt
on th« •quivalanc* daaonatration proposed by Aa«rican Cyana,aid
to M«t tha BinivuB tachnological raqulraawnta  (••ction 3004(oX(2))
Sine* «• racalvad thla raquaat, wa hav« b*«n informed that AMi
Cyana»id haa aubvlttad a eovprahanaiv* report dcaonatratlnq
•l*nc«. w« will r«««rv« co«*«nt on th« pralivinary aabviaalon
attached to your raqueat until we rec*iv« American Cyanaaid'a
co«pr»h«naiva report.  Thla report ahoald b<* eabaitted to
Chria Khyne of our Land Diapeeal Permit Aaalatance Tea* for evalu-

     with reaard to the iaauc of what atandard a aection 3004(o)(2)
•outvalence deeonatration ahould be evaluated aoainat, it etiat
be equivalent to the interia atatutory double-liner deaign provided
in aection 3004(o)(5)(B).  (See alao Guidance on Inpleventation
of the Minivua Technological Bequireewnta of HSWA of 1984, P»e-
pecting Linera and Leaehate Collection Syateae, P.eauthorieation
Statutory Interpretation fSD, EPA/S30-8W-85-C12, l«ay 24, 1965,
Page 27).

     Thd fiaal rule •edifying the Biniaa* technological reouire-
•enta la e«hed«led to be publiehed in the Federal Pegiatar in
Septeafcor, itt7.

cci  Bmce Meddle
     Ken Shnater
     Bob Temetti'
     Terry drogan
     Leu Otte
     Chz'ia Bhyne
     Angel Chang, Region II

                        DEC 30  1986
-r. Jim Gilbert
Office of Commodity ^anaqement
General Services Administration
Federal Supply Service
Washington, D.C.  20406

Dear Pr. Gilbert!

     This is  in reference to our telephone conversation on
December 23,  1986, concerning a GSA letter addressed to a
nr. Michael A. Taylor of Andesite of California, Inc.          f
(Enclosure A).  Z would like to summarise oar conversation for *
the record.                                                    »

     We discussed a statement extracted from another letter
(unavailable  to EPA) written to GSA by an Arsy lab in tfatick,
MAt 'The only commercial product which meets the EPA's criteria
tor adsorption is 'Safestep,1 an absorbent/anti-slip compound
manufactured  by Andesite of California, Inc., Los AnQeles,
California."  This statement is incorrect.

     The EPA  has no criteria for adsorbents such as those alleged
by the statement.  In the regulatory lanouage of 40 CFP Parts
264 and 265 (Sections 264.314 and 265.314), which governs che
disposal of both bulk (non-containerised) and containerized
liquids, the Agency allows any absorbent material to oe used as
a treatrent method for containerised hasardous liquids, and does
not allow any ab- or adsorbent material to be used as the sole
method of treatment for bulk liquids.

     T8»e> eve/rant regulations for the disposal of containerised
hazardous squids specify that an absorbent used in a container
nust raswjwe) free-standing liquids (enclosure B).  The Agency
has proposed a regulatory change that will require the use
of non-biodegradable absorbents for the treatrent of contain-
erised liquid*.  The proposal (Enclosure C) will also require

 that  the  aaiejBfeicdegratfable  aosoroent/waate  Mixture  not release
 liquid* weaVf treasure.   Until  this  proposal  la  finalited and
 becoaes e»   Clearly,
 th« u«« of «t>- or adsorbents  as •  soie treatawnt »«chod Cor
 bulk  liquids  is  not allowed,  thus  renderlnc inaccurate the
 claisi made in the above stateswnt  to Mr. Taylor.

      In suamary,  the  claisi  that Mr.  Taylor*c  product, "Safestap,
 is the only coeuaercial product  which Beets  LPA's criteria for
 adsorption*  is conpletely incorrect.  If you  should have any
 further questions,  pleaee call  me  at (202)  382-4682.

                              Yours  truly.
                               Paul  P.  Cassidy
                               Bnvironeental  £n
                            DEC 3 I 1986
Mr. Gary Bdelstein
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Bos 7f21
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Dear Mr. Rdelsteini

     Thin  is  in response to your request for clarification
concerning the relationship between Sections 264.315 and 2(5.315
and Sections  264.314(4) and 265.314(c).  Tour question vac
whether $$264.315 and 265.315 took precedent over Jf264.314(d)
and 265.314(c).  The answer Is that these sections do not
take precedent over 11264.3l4(d) or 265.3l4(c).
     Batteries and capacitors do not have to be tot fall
placed in the landfill nor vould they have to be crushed,
• hr«dd«d, or reduced in volu»e to the MX law practice! ezt
before burial. Batteries and capacitors are a specific exemption
froa the containerised liquids requirements since the Agency
believes that the difficulty of opening and «mptying the* appears
to outweigh the small benefits gained fro* elininatlng their
liquid content.  In order to copnly with $$2*4.315 and 265.315
a battery or capacitor would need to be openeo or emptied which
would run counter to $264.3l4(a) or $26S.3l4(c).

     Lab packs are another specific exemption from the contain*riaed
liquids requirements and are further regulated under $$264.316
And 265.316.  The lab pack requirements (i.e., $5264.316 and
265.316) override the containerised liquids regulatory language
in $$264.314(4) and 26S.3l4(c).

     I hope tha\t this response helps and if you need any additional
information fcpe>l free to call ve at (202) 382-46S2.  Sorry tor
the delay in ^4»ttlng this response to you.

                                          Yours truly,
                                          Paul  P. Cassidy
                                          Environmental  Engineer
                                          Office of  Solid  waste
                                          Land  Disposal  Branch


                            DECEMBER 86
3.   Existing Units and Minimum Technology

    The owner/operator of an existing landfill unit which is
    holding F006 waste,  wants to remove  all  the waste fron the
    landfill in order to stabilize  it.   Once the waste is stabilized,
    it will be put back in the same landfill and the landfill will
    then be closed.   Will this action change the status of the
    landfill from an existing unit  to a  replacement unit? If the
    landfill was then considered a  replacement unit, would it
    have to meet minimum technology requirements under §3004(u)
    of RCSA before the stabilized waste  is replaced?

         A unit is considered a replacement  if it is taken out
         of service and all or substantially, all waste is removed
         front it, and then reused.   If the removal, stabilization,
         and replacement of the waste is part of closure, and no new
         waste is being added to the landfill, then EPA does not consider
         that the unit has been "reused".  Therefore, the landfill would
         retain its status as an existing unit and would not have to
         .-nest minimum technology standards prior to replacing the waste.

         Source:   Barbara Pace (202) 382-7703
                   Susan Schmedes (202)  382-7706

         Research: ftobyn Neaville

                                 Z 0 IS67
Dr. Suellen Pirages
Institute of Chemical Waste
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington/ D.C.  20036

Dear Dr. Piragest

     Thank you for your December 15, 1986, letter concerning
the Institute's review of the Agency's guidelines developed
for the management of bulk liquid hazardous wastes.  You
raise two specific concerns, and I will address them in the
order in which they were presented.

     A value of 50 pounds per square inch (psi) for the uncon-
fined compressive strength test was selected for a number of
reasons.  A minimum allowable strength was needed as a measure
of adequate bonding level in a chemically stabilized waste.
Our analysis indicates that 50 pfi is characteristic of a
bonding level in excess of that achieved with only absorbents.
As you know, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Section 3004(c)(l) prohibits disposal of bulk liquids
treated with only absorbents.  I have enclosed a copy of
Exhibit 2 as it appears in our bulk liquid guidance document.
As can be seen in Exhibit 2, stiff clays have an unconfined
compressive strength of 14 to 28 psi, while very stiff clays
are in the 29 to 57 psi range*

     In your letter you state that currently available pro-
cesses do not meet this high strength level (i.e. , 50 psi).
You reported that compressive strength data obtained from
the Institute's members who solidify wastes and sludges
indicate "a range from 10 to 45 psi depending on setting

     Exhibit 3 (also attached) in our guidance document
indicates the type of unconfined compressive strengths that
can be achieved with the addition of 3 or 5% cement or lime
to a soil sample.  Another Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) guidance document, "Guide to the Disposal of Chemically

actual wastes.  Table 3-5 of the latter document shows that
wastes treated with a lime-based portolan product yielded
corepressive strengths from 26.2 to 169 psi, with all but one
value being above 50 psi.  Table 4-1 of the same guidance
lists results of physical properties achieved by sludge stabi-
lization vendors; these values range from 0.014 psi to 3046
psi, with 6 of the 9 reported values greater than 50 psi.  I
believe that these data indicate that compressive strengths
above 50 psi can be routinely achieved by conventional waste
chemical stabilization technology.

     In addition, moreover, I think it it important to remem-
ber the role of the unconfined conpressive strength test as
explained in the bulk liquid guidance.  The unconfined com-
pressive strength test is to be used when the regulatory
agency is uncertain whether unacceptable treatment has occurred
(i.e., solely by absorption) as opposed to an acceptable method
(i.e., chemical stabilization).  When a landfill owner or
operator demonstrates to a permit writer that the treatment
method for the bulk liquids is not solely by the addition of
an absorbent but rather by a chemical stabilization method,
the unconfined compressive strength test need not be ueed.

     Your second concern deals with generator and landfill
owner/operator responsibility/liability.  You state that the
"intent of RCRA clearly gives generators responsibility for
the fate of their wastes."  The bulk liquid management require-
ments are contained in the land disposal facility management
standards section of RCRA (i.e., Section 3004).  These stan-
dards are enforceable against only the owner or operator of
the facility, and not against a waste generator who is a
client of such a facility.  Consequently, the owner or operator
is responsible for ensuring that the treatment of bulk liquids
does not occur solely by the use of absorbents.  While commer-
cial landfill owners or operators may have private contractual
agreements with generators regarding the use of absorbents,
such agreements in no way relieve the landfill owner or operator
from compliance with the facility management standards of RCRA.

     If you should have any additional questions, please feel
free to contact Paul Cassidy, in our Land Disposal Branch,
at 382-4682.

                               J. Winston Porter
                               Assistant Administrator

February 3, 1988
SUBJECT:  Stabilization of PCB-Contaminated Wastes

FROM:     Marcia E. Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Waste

          Charles Elkins, Director
          Office of Toxic Substances

TO:       William J. Muszynski, P.E.
          Deputy Regional Administrator
          Region 2

     This ,is in response to your letter of December 24, 1987,
concerning the stabilization and disposal of PCB-contaminated
lagoon sludges and metal hydroxide sludges at the SCA Chemical
Services facility in Model City, New York.  Your specific issue
concerns whether, under RCRA, a minimum unconfined compressive
strength of 50 psi is required before placement of stabilized
bulk liquids in a hazardous waste landfill.  The issue arises due
to the January 16, 1987 Policy for Managing Leachate at PCB
Landfills (pg. 8) referencing the OSWER Policy Directive
#9487.00-2A, June 11, 1986.

     Briefly, the January 16, 1987 Policy states that any PCB-
containing treatment residue (sludges or slurries) or PCB-
containing phases, which are not incinerated, be stabilized in
accordance with the OSWER guidance on the "Liquids in Landfills
Ban" prior to being placed in chemical waste landfills.  OTS
referenced the OSWER Policy Directive as guidance to the TSCA
permit writer on methods that can be used to determine whether a
material is a non-liquid and, therefore, may be landfilled.

     Some history concerning the development of the OSWER 50 psi
unconfined compressive strength criterion is in order.  Section
3004(c)(1) of HSWA prohibits the direct placement into a landfill
of bulk liquids that have been solely treated by the addition of
an absorbent (or adsorbent, according to the OSWER policy
        This has been retyped from the original document.


directive mentioned above.)  Therefore, bulk wastes that are
treated solely by the addition of an absorbent or adsorbent are
prohibited from being placed in a landfill unless further
treatment is performed.  Bulk wastes to which no absorbents or
adsorbents have been added are required to be tested by the Paint
Filter Liquids Test (PFLT).  If the bulk waste passes the PFLT
(i.e., it is a solid) it is allowed to be disposed of in a
landfill.  If the bulk waste fails, then additional treatment,
without the use of absorbents or adsorbents, is necessary before
the waste can be landfilled.

     The issue of 50 psi arises when further treatment is
performed on the bulk waste.  One acceptable form of treatment is
chemical solidification/stabilization.  It is acceptable because
it is not a treatment technology that solely involves the
addition of an absorbents or adsorbent material.  When reviewing
a solidification/stabilization process, if it is not obvious that
a chemical reaction has taken place (i.e., if there are any
concerns that stabilization is occurring primarily due to the
addition of sorbents), then it is recommended that representative
samples of the treated waste pass the unconfined compressive
strength test with a minimum value of 50 psi.

     The policy directive, however, is quite clear that meeting
the 50 psi value is neither a requirement nor a condition that
must be applied in all cases.  It should be noted that the
guidance states that if an owner/operator using his/her data
demonstrates to the permit writer that something more than
absorption or adsorption is occurring, then this is acceptable
and the 50 psi issue should not arise.  One way to demonstrate a
chemical solidification/stabilization process is to demonstrate
an increase in strength over time for the treated waste.  This
increase in strength would not have to reach a 50 psi value.  For
example,  a day-one value of 3 psi for the treated waste and a 28-
day value of 37 psi would be an acceptable increase in strength
over time.  In some cases, more data (i.e., various waste to
reagent recipes) may be required in order for the permit writer
to agree that an increase in strength over time has occurred.

     In regard to the SCA facility, if a decision is reached that
the previous treatment of the leachate did not involve the
addition of absorbents or adsorbents,  then the wastes (i.e., the
salts and sludges)  are only required to be tested using the Paint
Filter Liquids Test.  If they pass, the wastes are allowed to be
disposed of in a landfill.  If they fail, then additional
treatment that does not solely involve the addition of an
absorbent or adsorbent is required in order for the sludges to be
bulk disposed.
        This has been retyped from the original document.


     If the decision is reached that previous treatment has
solely involved the addition of an absorbent or adsorbent, then
further treatment must be performed before the wastes are allowed
to be bulk disposed.  An acceptable form of treatment is chemical
stabilization/solidification, as discussed above.

     In order to determine that an "appropriate recipe" has been
developed and followed by the owner or operator for
stabilization/solidification, some data collection would still be
necessary.  This data collection would enable the permit writer
to determine that the wastes will be "effectively encapsulated in
the stabilized matrix."  Data collection is necessary to
determine this "effective encapsulation in the stabilized matrix"
because a sufficient mixture of reagent to waste must be used to
achieve an acceptable increase in strength over time, as
discussed above.

     If you should seek help in determining whether any previous
treatment solely involved the addition of an absorbent or an
adsorbent, then you should talk with the following people who can
help make that determination.  Carlton Wiles, of EPA ORD in
Cincinnati, Ohio at FTS 684-7795 or John Cullinane of the Army
Corp of Engineers in Vicksburg, Mississippi at 601/542-3723.

     The discussion above relates to the OSWER policy directive
mentioned in the first paragraph.  One point to consider is that
if the Region's sole intent is to provide SCA with a draft RCRA
Section 3008(h) order, this type of activity allows the Region to
impose any type of response measures to protect human health and
the environment.  If the Region were to decide that the salts and
sludges were not subject to the bulk liquids ban (i.e., Section
3004(c)(1) does not apply since no absorbent or adsorbent have
been added and the wastes pass the PFLT), additional controls
through the Section 3008(h) order could be imposed.  If the salts
and sludges pass the Paint Filter Liguids Test, but do not have
sufficient strength to support a final cover that would be placed
over the landfill, then additional treatment of the salts and
sludges could be undertaken to increase their strength so that a
final cover will not experience settlement and subsidence.
        This has been retyped from the original document.


     If you should have any general questions concerning this
memo, please call Paul Cassidy of the Land Disposal Branch at
FTS-382-4682 or Denise Keehner of the Office of Toxic Substances
at FTS-382-3835.
cc:  Carlton Wiles, ORD
     John Cullinane, USAE
     Denise Keehner, OTS
     Paul Cassidy, OSW
     Dave Eberly, PSPD
        This has been retyped from the original document.

Incinerators (Subpart O)

Parts 264 & 265 Subpart O
                    ATKl/l 104/46 kp

                                              OSWER Directive 19488.00-1A

               WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                                   SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RES'ON
      SUBJECT:   Dioxin Trial  Burns  for Purposes  of  Certification or
                a £CRA Permit
1''. Bruce w"edd"Ie,  Director
   Permits and State Program Division

   Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs,  Regions I-X
           The  dioxin  listing regulations  (50 FR 1978-2006,
      January  14,  1985)  require facilities  to either  be  certified
      under interim status  or to have  a RCRA permit to treat  dioxin
      waste before such  waste may be treated*  The facility must
      provide  evidence (e.g., trial  burn data) that the  treatment
      unit  is  capable  of meeting performance standards under
      Subpart  0 of Part  264 to support the  certification or the
      permit.   He  have received questions  regarding the  need  for
      certification prior to a trial burn  involving dioxin waste.
      The purpose  of this memorandum is to  confirm in writing that
      certification is not  required  in order for an applicant to
      conduct  a trial  burn.

           We  recognize  that this issue has been confusing because
      the regulations  are silent on  the need for certification
      prior to  a trial burn involving  dioxin listed waste.  The
      intent of the regulations, however,  is to allow this activity
      without prior certification because  the trial burn process
      itself! provides  adequate safeguards  to public health and the
      environment.  The  regulations  for both new and  interim
      statun incinerators require the  applicant to submit infor-
      mation on the design  of the unit and  the trial  burn plan in
      accordance with  $$270.19 and 270.62  and the Director must be
      satisfied that the unit is likely to meet the  $264 Subpart 0
      performance  standards before the trial burn may occur.

     The. preamble  to the requlations indicates a preference
 for  the use of actual dioxin  listed waste for the trial
 burn.  Specifically, the preamble states that the trial
 burn may involve "...spiking  the  [dioxin] waste with a
 compound that is more difficult to incinerate ...it is
 possible to use a  trial burn  to predict compliance with
 the  6-9's  [destruction and removal efficiency] ORE..."
 (see 50 F£ 1991).  The advantage of using actual dioxin
 waste for the trial burn is that it provides the most
 accurate test of the treatment unit performance.  This is
 particularly true  in those situations where the waste
 material has a very complex matrix which is difficult to

     Although certification is not required prior to the
 dioxin trial burn, there may  be cases where it is advisable
 to perform a pre-trial burn using a synthetic material to
 demonstrate the potential performance of the treatment unit.
 A case in point is when the public has a high concern regarding
 a trial burn involving dioxin waste and information resulting
 from a trial burn using a synthetic waste material would
 ease the public's concern.  Another case is where the per-
 formance of the treabnent device is in doubt and supporting
 evidence using a waste material for which the 6-9's OR£ is
 not a regulatory requirement would provide the necessary
 assurance.  In no case, however, is certification required
 in order for the trial burn involving the dioxin waste to

     Questions on  this policy may be addressed to Robin Anderson
 of my staff at 382-4498 or Jim Cummings of the Dioxin Management
Task Force at 382-4686.
cct  Peter Guerrero
     Art Glazer
     Jim Cummings
     Robin Anderson
     Steve Silvenwn
     Incinerator Permit Writer's Workgroup


                       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                  9488 .  00-2

                         IflBM                         OMIC10*
                         I U MOD                SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS
SUBJECT:  Permitting of Incinerators
FROM:     Bruce Weddle, Director
          Permits and State Programs Division (WH-563)

xu:       Sam Becker, Chief
          Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch, Region VI  (6H-C)

     I am writing in response to your memorandum of May 7 , 1986,
in which you requested guidance on whethe.r a RCRA permit for a
hazardous waste incinerator under interim status could be issued
prior to the performance of the trial burn.  Although the regula-
tions are silent on this issue, the intent of the regulation is
to require performance of the the trial burn and receipt of
trial burn data prior to permit issuance for existing incinerators.
This issue was discussed with Henry Onega rd of your staff on
May 22, 19b6, and this memorandum confirms in writing that Agency
policy is to require performance of the trial burn prior to
permit issuance.

     As you know, the regulations require the Director to set
permit conditions such that the incinerator will comply with the
performance standards of Part 264 subpart 0 ($270.62). Results
of the trial burn (or data in lieu of the trial burn) are the
critical piece of information in setting these conditions. Estab-
lishing permit conditions this way provides for maximum protection
of human health and the environment since the permit conditions
will be based on actual performance information, rather than
theoretical conditions.  Except in rare cases, we do not foresee
why existing incinerator facilities would not be able to provide
this information since these facilities have had ample  time to
obtain performance data and have known that such information
will be necessary to obtain a permit.

    One case when it may be appropriate to permit an interim
status incinerator prior to performance of the trial burn
is where the unit requires major modifications.  In this
case, the permit should be issued as though the unit were a
new incinerator.  The permit must specify the allowed operating
conditions in accordance with the appropriate portions  of
SS 270.62 and 264.344  (c).




     Please contact Robin Anderson (FTS  382-4498) of my staff if
you have further questions on this issue.

cc:  Art Glazer
     Robin Anderson
     Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs,  Regions  I-V, VII-X
     Incinerator Permit Writer's  Workgroup

                           05* yi receive r»uir.cer


            WASHINGTON. O.C. 204«0
                                               SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENT "ESPQNSE

SUBJECT:  Acceptability  of  Thermal  Relief  Vents  on
          Hazardous  Waste  Incinerators
                     -«--~~^>       /*      • /11'
                      __2C» . i«...e.  £ C'- «•<< /*• •*-^—.
FROM:     Bruce Weddle,  Director
          Permits and State Programs  Division

TO:       James H. Scarbrough, Chief
          Waste Management  Division,  Region IV

     Marcia Williams asked  that  I respond  to your June  20,  1986,
memorandum in which  you  requested guidance on  the acceptability
of using a thermal relief  vent (dump  stack)  on a commercial
incinerator seeking  a RCRA  permit.  As was discussed  with
Beverly Spagg of your staff on June 26, dump stacks are allowed
on hazardous waste incinerators  to  protect the air pollution
control system (APCS) during failure  of ancillary systems,  such
as, power and water  cooling systems.  However, the use  of dump
stacks during operation  of  the incinerator should be  severely
limited since direct venting of  stack emissions  is expected to
result in violations of  the Part 264, Subpart  0,  performance

     The operation of a  dump stack  should  be limited  either
through the use of a back-up power  and water cooling  system, or
through adding an emission  control  system  (e.g.,  fume incinerator
and an APCS if particulate  or acid  emissions pose a risk) on the
dump stack.  Also, a condition should be  included in  the permit
that limits the use  of the  dump  stack.  Discussions with
Don Oberacker of the Office of Research and Development, indicate
that back-up power and water systems  are  in common use  in Europe
and Canada to avoid  the  necessity of  venting emissions  through
the dump stack.  We  believe, however, that there may  be occasions
(e.g., back-up power system or water  cooling system fails)  when
emissions must still be  vented through the dump  stack to avoid
damage to the APCS and their inclusion  in  the  design  may be a
reasonable option.

     The use of dump stacks should be limited via the methods
discussed above or equivalent methods and the permit should
include a limit on the frequency of the dump stack use.  The use
of these measures does not preclude the necessity of automatic
waste feed shut off during episodes of primary power or water
coolant failure.  Please contact Robin Anderson at FTS-382-4498
if you have questions or comments on this issue.

cc:  Susan Bromm
     Ken Shuster
     Art Glazer
     Robin Anderson
     Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Region I-III and V-X
     Incinerator Permit Writer's Workgroup

April 1, 1985

SUBJECT:  Acceptable Levels of Residual Contaminants in the
          EPA Incinerator Residues  (Revision)

FROM:     Jack W. McGraw
          Assistant Administrator  (WH-562A)

TO:       Morris Kay
          Regional Administrator
          EPA Region VII

     On January 18, 1985, I sent you a memorandum (attached)
providing detailed guidance on the toxic constituents which
should be analyzed for in the incineration residues resulting
from the trial burn to be held in Missouri.  In that memorandum,
I indicated, among other things, that the level of concern for
polychlorinated biphenyls in the solid residues (kiln ash, Cheaf
filter medium, other solids) should be 50 ppm.

     We have just been informed by OPTS, that they are setting a
different level (i.e.. 2 ppm) for solid residues resulting from
the incineration of PCBs.  In a recent permitting process, Region
II specified that requirement, and Region VI is changing the
requirements for the EMSCO and Rollins facilities burning PCBs
(i.e..  the level of PCB in the solid residues will be 2 ppm)
Our guidance should use this same level of concern.

     I, therefore, recommend that you analyze the solids
resulting from incineration for polychlorinated biphenyls so as
to detect contamination at 2 ppm (instead of the 50 ppm listed in
Table 2 of my January 18, 1985 memorandum).  If you have any
questions, please contact Matt Straus at 475-8551.
        This has been retyped from the original document.

cc:  Mike Cook
     Matt Straus
     Don Barnes
     Barry Korb
     Jim Poppiti
     Paul des Hosiers
     Conrad Kleveno
     Ralph Hazel
     David Wagoner
     Judy Be11in
     Frank Freestone
     Jared Flood
        This has  been  retyped  from  the  original  document,

                             aft) ^
3 I
rr W
1 ffv
O u»
i— «•

O ~
ui *-
                                                                     o •
HgHORANDUM                                                           -J -
•                                                                     *~ m

SUBJECT i  Modification of ORO  Incinerator  Permit for                  5
          Danny farm Sit*                                             £
r*0*i     John H. Skinner                                             *
          Director                                                    -
          Office of Solid Maat*  (WH-S62)                              £
TO>       David A. Wagon*r                                            5,
          Director                                                    \
          Wait* Management  Division,  Region  VIZ                       £
     In your memo of April  It,  1915,  your  interpretation,  that a     *
permitted incinerator does  not  n*ed certification to  handle  dioxin   a
wa«t*a, ia correct*  Aa you alao indicated a permitted  incinera-     ^T
tion facility nuat notify th*  »*^ional Adainlatrator  in accordance   *•
with 40 CfR f2(4.343(a)(2)  of  th*ir intent to burn dioxin  waatea     ^
and the Region aiuat determine whether the  facillty'a  permit  needa    gj
laodification before the operator may  burn  the vaatea.   Zf  th*         r
wxiating p*rnit atataa th*  incinerator »ay burn  apeciflc dioxin      S
waatea and the pemit requirea  the incinerator to acheive  a           ^
99.9999% ORE on theae waate* fchofi the perait would not  ne>*d  to
b* modified to incorporate  fehi  rerie*d Part  2€4  regulations.

     Baa*d on telephone diacuaoiona with Jo* Calbraith  of  your
ntaff, it appeara that th*  p*mlt Region VIZ issued for th*  oper-
ation of th* EPA eofiil* incinerator at th* Denny Pana sit*
do*a »**t the criteria described abov* and would not  n**d  to b*
i«odifi*d.  It ia our understanding that th*  R*gion is considering
incorporating th* wast* codes  for those wastes into the perait*
we do not believe this is neceaaary because  the  permit  is  specific
in describing the dioxin waste  which  can be  incinerated.  How*v*r,
If th* Region do*e want to  incorporate the waste codes* we agree
'with the Region that this type  of modification would  be minor and
fits into the general category  of 40  CPR S270.42U) (correcting
typographical *rrors).

     Zf you hav* any guastions  regarding any other modifications of
th* Danny Parm permit, pleas* contact Arthur Claser at  PTS 382-4692.

cct   Barry Kerb
     Matt Strauss
     Conrad Kleveno
     Peter Guerrero


 SUBJECT:  Effect of Water-Stripped  POHCs on
          Incinerator DRE

 PROM:     John H. Skinner
          Office of Solid Waste  (WH-562)

 TO:       Roland W. Schrecongest
          Acting Director
          Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region III

     In your memorandum of June  11  (attached), you requested
 Headquarters' guidance regarding the calculation of Destruction
 and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for a  RCRA incinerator using plant
 process water in its scrubbers.  As was discussed in the Inciner-
 ator Workgroup conference call held on June 18, we agree with
 your opinion that: (1) toluene and  acrylonltrile, found in the
 process water, are suitable POHCs for Union Carbide's unit; and
 (2) all POHCs in the exhaust gases, including any POHCs stripped
 from the scrubber, should be included in the DRE calculation.
 Please contact Pablo Vaquer of my staff on PTS-382-4535 if you
 have further questions regarding this issue.


 cc:  Permit Branch
     Incinerator Permit Writers' Workgroup
WB-563:PVaqu«r:pv:S2*3:24535:6/25/85:Diak Pablo  II
Control No. OSW-107


                             MARCH 86
4.  Fume Incinerators

   A pesticide manufacturer has a fume incinerator which incinerates  fumes
   from the pesticide production process.   He also uses listed hazardous
   wastes as a supplemental fuel for the incinerator.   The hazardous  waste
   fuels have sufficient f3Tu value to constitute legitiinate recycling (as
   determined by the enforcement guidance  issued in the March 16,  1933,
   Federal Register (48 FR 11157)).   May the manufacturer claim that  since
   the listed hazardous wastes will  be recycled for their energy value,  then
   the unit in which the wastes are  being  recycled is  itself not subject to
   regulation?  In other words, must the fume incinerator burning  listed
   hazardous wastes as a supplemental fuel operate under a RCRA permit?

       The fume incinerator itself must be regulated under Subpart 0  of
       Parts 264 or 265.  Two points must  be clarified in answering the
       question.  First, a fume incinerator used only  to destroy gaseous
       emissions from an industrial  process is not subject to RCRA regulation
       since the fume input, being an uncontained gas, is not a solid waste
       (per the June 24, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 27530)).   The  fjme
       incinerator would be subject  to regulation under the Clean Air \zt.
       However, this pesticide manufacturer's fume incinerator burns  an
       additional and identifiable material which is a solid waste and a
       listed hazardous waste.  A unit burning listed  hazardous wastes for
       energy recovery is only exanpt from Parts 264 or 265 Subpart 0
       incinerator regulations if the unit is an industrial "boiler"  or
       "industrial furnace" as defined in  5260.10.  The exemption is  in
       S261.6(a)(2)(iii) of the November 29, 1985, Federal Register (50  F3
       49203).  There is no exemption for an incinerator burning hazardous
       wastes as fuel.  Therefore, the pesticide manufacturer's fume
       incinerator must be operating either under RCRA interim status or
       final permit regulations.

       Source:    Bob Holloway  (202) 382-7917
       Research:  Margaret Kneller

                             I/  .966


SUBJECTt  RCRA Peraitting Requirements for a PCB Incinerator
FROMt     Marcia William* , Director
          Office of Solid Waste   (WH-562)

TOt       David Wagoner, Director
          Waste Management Oiviaion
          Region VII

     This i* in response to your M&sreh 25, 1986, memorandum in
which you request guidance on several issues regarding the RC8A
requirements as they apply to a PCD incinerator.  The presence
of trichlorobenzene or other Appendix VI I I constituents in PCB
liquids does not, in and of itself, make a waste a RCRA hazardous
waste and therefore doee not require a facility to obtain a RCRA
permit.  Only if a solid waste exhibits one of the characteristics
of 40 CFR, Part 261, Subpart C or is listed as a hazardous waste
in 40 CFR, Part 261, Subpart D, is it a RCRA hazardous waste,
the incineration of which requires a RCRA permit*  Furthersjore,
pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR, Sections 264.940, 264.342,
264.343 and 270.19(c) (1) (iii), if a hazardous waste is to be
incinerated, Appendix VZXI constituents reasonably expected to
be found in the hazardous waste must be identified and addressed.
If there are no RCRA hazardous wastes to be managed, Z concur
with your first proposed action not to require a RCRA permit for
the storage or incineration of PCB liquids*

     As to your second proposed action, Z cannot concur with your
presumption that PCB liquid sludges or soils containing listed
halogenated solvents in excess of 100 ppra are spent solvents and
therefore a RCRA hazardous waste.  However, they may be a hazardoua
waste by a different line of reasoning.  Using 100 ppm as a rule
of thumb method for solving the PCB storage for reuse vs. the
PCB storage for disposal problem does not follow the regulatory
scheme for determining the expandability of a solvent*  The
expendability of a solvent is a function of its quality and use,
not its concentration*  On February 25, 1996, the Agency amended
40 CFR, Part 261 and more clearly defined a solvent as a substance

•used as a cleaning or degreasing agent, a Medium for chemical
reaction*, an extraction agent, a diluteot and similar
uses . . . .'  Such solvent* are considered "spent" and aro
regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA "when they no longer can be
used because they have become contaminated with physical or
chemical impurities and are no longer fit for use without being
regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise re-processed."  If the
wastes concerned are listed solvents and considered spent, accord-
ing to the above cited guidance, then the coopeay would need a
RCRA permit, as well as, a T8CA permit for the incineration of
these wastes.

     We agree with your interpretation of 40 CTR, 270.10(f)(3).
The facility you refer to was designed to incinerate PCBs pursuant
to an approval issued by the Administrator under Section 6(e) of
TSCA.  On July IS, 1985, in order to implement provision of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Araendnent of 1984, the Agency amended
40 CFR 270.10(f) to exertpt facilities constructed pursuant to
an approval issued by the Administrator under Section 6(e) of
TSCA, for the incineration of PCBs, from the requirement to
have a RCRA permit prior to construction.  Any person owning or
operating such a facility may file an application for a RCRA
permit to incinerate hazardous wastes at any time after commenc-
ing construction or operation*  However, the facility must first
receive a RCRA permit before managing any RCRA hasardous wastes.

     As to the presence of dioxina and furans in the PCS liquids
incinerated by this facility, the presence of these substances
would not make this waste a lieted &CRA acute hazardous waste
unlesa the waete etream ie of the specific nature of those listed
pursuant to the provision* of 40 CTR, Part 261.  Since the
majority of the) dioxin and furan wastes listed on January 14,
190S, are associated with the chemical manfacturing industry, the
wasted you refer to most likely are not regulated under RCRA.

     Your proposed action with respect to a trial barn seems
prudent and expedient* should it be determined that a RCRA
permit is required.  However, instead of monitoring for dioxins
and fursju, we suggest that a surrogate parameter be utilised.
T8CA bum data may be utilised in eetabliehing any RC1A permit

     Finally, you should be aware that in order to resolve many
of the inconsistencies between the waete management regulations
of TSCA and RCRA and to eleviate many of the regulatory problems
associated with mixed PCB-RCRA hasardoos wastes, the Administrator
has decided to list PCS wastes as a RCRA haxardous waste, pursuant
to the provisions of 40 CTR Part 261.  As Z am certain you are

aware, a listing action of this magnitude requires th« resolution
of a mueber of complex issues.  Therefore, the TSCA/RCRA issues
which you have referred to in your memorandum, as veil as aany
othern, muet be> dealt with and resolved over the next several
nonthii.  with this in ntind, I would like to enphasice that the
Agency has always taken the position that for mixed RCRA-PCB
hacardous wastes, compliance with both the TSCA and tCRA regu-
lations is required.

     X hope this guidance addresses your concerns and will assist
you in your dealings with this facility.  Should you wish to
have ootxeone from your office participate as a oember of the PCB
listing Workgrouo, please contact Al Fsldt at FTS-3S2-2791.
Your experience in this area could greatly benefit this listing

SUBJECTi  Destruction at Dioxin Contaminated Soil Using Mobil*

          Marcia E. Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Maate (WH-562)

          Thomas w. Devine, Director
          Waste Management Division, Region XV

     In response to your letter oC February 21, 1916, you
requested clarification on tvo issues concerning the ftCRA research,
development, and demonstration (kfitD) permit application for the
U.S. Air force in Cultport, Mississippi.  The issues you raised
involve dellsting the residues resulting from treatment and allow-
ing site construction prior to permit issuance.


     You requested the use of delisting information- from the
fcN&CO trial burn or EPA's burn at Times Beach to expedite NCBC's
delisting petition.  (During the EWSCQ trial burn* trichloroethane,
monochlorobeniene, and trlchlorobensene were incinerated and the
uit£ (at the stack) was calculated.) This Information can only be
used indirectly to support the MCBC petition.  The delisting
regulations explicitly state (see 4U Cfft $2€0.22(k)) that 'an
exclusion will only apply to the waste generated at the individual
facility covered by tae demonstration and will not apply to
waste frost any other facility'.  In addition, RCRA |3005(f)(l)
requires tae petitioner to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of
the Administrator, that the waste does not meet any of the criteria
for which it is listed nor contain any other additional constituents
which could cause the waste to be hasardous.  The delisting
demonstration, therefore, is required to be made on the waste
itself, and cannot be made on surrogates (i.e., POHC's).

     MCBC may, however, incinerate a smell portion of  the
contaminated soil from Gulfport, Mississippi on another BNSCO
unit certified as achieving six 9's Dftfi as a basis for their

                              -  2  -
delisting petition.  NCBC would need to demonstrate thatt   (1)
the two IttCD unit* are essentially identical, and  (2) the  vast*
incinerated during the "teat burn* is representative or a •worst-
case* of the wast* that will be incinerated during  the field
demonstration.  Furthermore, NCBC Bust provide "test burn*  data
on a minimum of four representative samples of the  solid  residue
and of the scrubber water.  These samples must be analyied  for the
characteristics of a hasardous waste and for all the Appendix VIII
constituents that are reasonably expected to be present in  the
waste.  The Appendix VIII constituents would be chosen based on
the results of the analyses on the contaminated soil from
Uulfport, Mississippi.  Providing that the concentrations of the
hasardous constituents in the waste meets the dellsting require-
ments, the Agency could propose to grant a conditional exclusion.
The conditional exclusion is needed to verify that the two  KMSCO
units do Indeed achieve the same destruction efficiency.

     Site Construction

     ROtA |300S(a), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Haste
Amendments of 19i4, requires owners and operators of all hasardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilitiee to obtain a
ftCAA permit prior to constructing a RCXA facility.  While I can
appreciate the USAF's intent to expedite the testing of the
mobile incinerator, RfitD permits are also subject to this
restriction. (Section >270.«S(b) only allows EPA to modify  or
waive the permit application and procedural requirements of
40 C.f .JR. Parts 270 snd 124, not the statutory requirements
of RCJlA.)  This means that the mobile incinerator can be prefab-
ricated and transported to the proposed treatment site, but
construction of the site Itself, such as pouring concrete founda-
tions and connecting the NTU to physical structures on-site
csnnot occur until the ftD«D permit is Issued (RCRA  |1004(2)).

     If you have any additional questions oo these  issues,  please
contact Doreen Sterling st PTS/47S-t551 with regard to delistlng
and Msocy Pomerleau st PT8/34I2-4500 with regard to  site

ccs  Bruce Noddle
     Peter Guerrero
     Art Glaier
     Msncy Pomerleau
     Doreen Sterling (WM-562B)
     Nstt Straus (Wl-5e2fi)
     Urn Gray (L1-132S)
     Nyles Morse (MB-Se2D)


                        APR 30 1986
Mr. William H. Howard
Chief Chemist
Environmental Department
Degussa Corporation
P.O. Box 606
Theodore, Alabama  36590

Dear Mr. Howard:

     This is  in response  to your  inquiry  dated  April  3,  1986,
regarding the regulatory  status of  a  thermal  oxidation unit
planned for installation  on your  cyanuric chloride  production
process.  In order to eliminate the use of  a  fluorinated solvent
currently being disposed  of by deep well  injection, you.  state
that you designed a new production  method that  will produce  car-
bon tetrachloride  as a by-product.  Both  the  carbon tetrachloride
vapor and liguid produced by the  new  process  will be  sent to the
thermal oxidation unit, which you identified  as a fume  incinerator
in a recent telephone conversation  with Irene Homer  of  my staff.

     According to your conversations  with Dr. Gate  Jenkins of
the Waste Identification  Branch of  the Office of Solid Waste,
your cyanuric chloride process waste  would not  meet the  listing
description of the proposed Hazardous Waste Number  K025.  In
addition, the carbon tetrachloride  is not listed as Hazardous
Waste Number U211 because it is a discarded by-product,  not  a
commercial chemical product.  In  conversation with  Ms. Horner
of the Waste Treatment Branch on  April  16,  you  stated that the
waste stream is not a reactive waste  that would produce  hydrogen
cyanide nor is it hazardous by any  other  listing or characteristic.
Based on your description, your waste stream  does not appear to
be a RCRA hazardous waste.  Therefore, the  only RCRA  regulations
that currently annly are  those  in 40  CFR  240.205-1  for  solid
wastes that are not hazardous.  These regulations require incin-
eration emissions  to neet the emission standards set  by  EPA  in
40 CF3 °arts 52, *0, and  61 under the authority of  the  Clean Air
Act, or the ?tate or local emission standards effective  under  the
Clean Air Act, if more stringent.
13JO.I (12-70)                                                    OFFICIAL FILE C

                                                            •>..« "3K  '.«»•«•"


     Ross proposes to convert the northern end of the surface
impoundment to a landfill.  If this change is allowed, then there
will be two units.  The northern "unit" qualifies as a
replacement unit because it satisfies the replacement criteria
set forth above.  The southern unit is an existing surface
impoundment that will become subject to the minimum technological
requirements under the retrofitting requirements of HSWA, if it
continues operation after November 7, 1988.  The southern unit
would also be subject to the minimum technological requirements
if it were to meet the replacement unit criteria (i.e., taken out
of service, substantially emptied, and reused) prior to November
7, 1988.

     You expressed concern with our position that an interim
status surface impoundment can become a landfill as an allowable
change during interim status (§270.72).  It is clear from the
language of §270.72(c) that such a change in process is allowable
if the criteria specified in §270.72(c) and (e)  are met.
However, even if the northern unit of the surface impoundment
changed process to become a landfill, the landfill would be a
"replacement" unit and thus subject to the HSWA minimum
technological requirements.

cc:  Susan Bromm
     Lloyd Guerci
     Bill Hanson
     Ken Shuster
     Suzanne Rudzinski
     David Bussard
     Mark Greenwood
     Ken Jennings
     Matt Hale
     Bob Tonetti
     Terry Grogan
     Les Otte
     Susan Schmedes
     Carrie Wehling
     Chris Rhyne
     Frank McAlister
     Charles DeSaillon
     Bob Brooks, DOJ
        This has been retyped from the original document.

April  15, 1987


SUBJECT:  Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Requirements

FROM:     Bruce Weddle, Director
          Permits and State Programs Division

TO:       Lloyd Guerci, Director
          RCRA Enforcement Division
     In your memorandum of February 19, 1987, you raised several
points related to the enforcement of the surface impoundment
retrofit requirement.  I agree with you that enforcement of this
requirement will require careful preparation, and that we should
provide guidance to the Regions on the relation of the retrofit
requirement to permitting and closure regulations.  Staff in the
Permits Branch recently met with your staff to discuss the issues
you raised in your memorandum and agreed that Permits and state
Programs Division would take the lead in developing a directive
to the Regions on these issues.

     In your memorandum, you asked to be advised of regulations
and guidances on permit requirements for surface impoundments
that do not meet minimum technology requirements.  OSW issued
guidance to the Regions on this question in November 1985; I have
attached the guidance for your information.  Specifically, the
guidance stated that permits issued to existing surface
impoundments must include a condition that ensures that the
impoundments will be retrofitted to meet requirements for double
liners and leachate collection systems within four years of the
effective date of HSWA, unless a retrofit waiver is granted (page
3 of the attachment to the memorandum).  The directive that PSPD
is developing will reemphasize this requirement and will further
state, as you suggest, that permits should require closure of the
impoundment if it does not retrofit or receive a waiver.

     You also raised the issue of surface impoundments operating
under interim status after November 8, 1988 that failed to
retrofit,, and you suggested that we consider developing a rule
that would terminate the interim status of these units.  In view
of the heavy workload facing the Division, I would be reluctant
to prepare such a rule unless the enforceability of the statutory
language is in doubt.  I don't think that is the case.  The
statutory language is clear that surface impoundments that fail
to retrofit or that do not receive a retrofit waiver will be
        This has been retyped from the original document.


required to cease receiving hazardous waste after November 8,
1988.  Under current regulations, the unit would then be required
to close.   (Section 265.113 requires units to close after final
receipt of hazardous waste.)  I believe that these requirements
are sufficient to force closure of impoundments that do not
retrofit.  If you disagree, please let me know.

     Finally, you asked about the applicability of closure
requirements to surface impoundments that do not retrofit.  As I
stated above, the closure regulations require these units to
close after final receipt of hazardous waste.  This requirement
applies both to permitted and interim status facilities.
Permitted facilities, under §264.113 would be required to close
according to their approved closure plans in their permits (or
according to a plan modified according to §270.41 or §270.42).
Furthermore, under §264.112(d), these facilities would be
required to notify EPA 60 days before they expected to begin
closure, which would ordinarily be no later than 30 days after
final receipt of hazardous waste.  In other words, permitted
facilities that fail to retrofit will be required to notify EPA
30 days before the retrofitting deadline that they were intending
to close.

     In the case of interim status facilities that failed to
retrofit, the owner/operator would be required under §265.113 to
close within 180 days of final receipt of hazardous waste (unless
the closure period is extended by EPA or an authorized state).
In addition, §265.112(d) would require these facilities to submit
their closure plans to EPA 180 days before they expected to begin
closure.  This would require these facilities to submit their
closure plans to EPA 150 days before the retrofitting deadline.

     The closure regulations were published in the Federal
Register in May 1986 and became effective in October.  Under the
cluster rule for state authorization, authorized states will need
to modify their programs to reflect the May 1986 rule by July 1,
1987 or by July 1, 1988, if statutory changes are needed.

     We intend to address these and other issues in our directive
to the Regions on surface impoundment retrofitting, and we will
work closely with your staff developing the directive.  Please
let me know if you have any questions on this response to the
issues you raised, or wish to discuss any points further.

        This has been retyped from the original document.


April  30,  1987

SUBJECT:  Performance of FML Top Liners and Secondary Leachate
          Collection and Removal Systems

FROM:     Walter DeRieux, Environmental Engineer
          Disposal Technology Section

TO:       Les Otte, Chief
          Disposal Technology Section

     This memo summarizes actual field information on the design
and performance of  1) top liners consisting of a flexible
membrane liner (FML) and  2) leachate collection and removal
systems between the liners.

     The first facility is in the eastern central portion of the
country.  The facility has two surface impoundment units which
utilize a minimum technology double liner system with a granular
leachate collection and removal system between the liners.  The
top liner consist of a 60 mil High Density Polyethylene (HOPE)
FML underlain by a granular media leachate collection and removal
system which is in turn underlain by a composite bottom liner.
Both surface impoundment units were constructed about 2 years
ago, are 1/2 acre in size each and the liquid depth is
approximately 20 feet.

     During the first 6-8 months of operation approximately 15-30
gallons of liquid were removed each week.  During the 6-8 month
period the volume of liquid removed diminished and clarity of the
removed liquid improved.  Liquid removed from between the liners
was analyzed for chemical constituents.  The TOC concentration of
the liquid ranged from 10-40 ppm.  Pond influent during this
period of time averaged about 400 ppm of TOC.  After this 6-8
month period to the present no liquid was detected between the

     The second facility is located in the southwest and consist
of 32 surface impoundments units.  These units were constructed
during the mid 80's.  The impoundments consist of a minimum
technology double liner system with the top liner being 100-mil
HDPE and the bottom liner is of a composite design which is
constructed with a 100-mil HDPE immediately adjacent to a low
permeability soil liner.  Leachate between the liners is
        This has jbeen retyped from the original document.


collected in a 4.0-mil geo-net connected to drainage pipes.  It
was reported that no top liner leakage was detected in the leak
detection system after the units went on-line.  The leak
detection system is located between the liners.
        This  has been retyped from the original document.


                                APRIL 87
5.  Closure o£ Interim "Status Surface Lipoundments

    Final regulati§ns for closure of interim status  surface  impoundments
    appeared in theXflarch 19, 1987 Federal Register  (52  FR 8704) whicn
    amended section 265.228.   The regulations still  provide  for  the
    option of "clean closure" or closure as a landfill with  subsequent
    post-closure care, but they are now consistent with  the  Part 264
    standards for closure of  permitted surface impoundments.  What are
    che major differences between the new and old §265.228 requirements?
    How must waste from a closed interim status surface  impoundment be

         The major difference between the old and new $265.228 standards
         lies in the extent of removal required to "clean close" the
         impoundment.  The standards currently in effect allow the
         owner/operator to remove materials from the impoundment until
         he can demonstrate,  through 40 CFR 261.3(c) and (d), that
         hazardous waste no longer remains in the impoundment
         (40 CPR 265.228(b)).  For example, if an impoundment held only
         unlisted characteristic wastes (e.g., corrosive, EP toxic),  the
         owner/operator could stop removing materials once he demon-
         strated that the remaining residues exhibited no hazardous
         characteristics.  Under the new $265.228 standards, however,
         which will be effective September 15, 1987, the owner/operator
         will have to continue removal and decontamination activities
         until the residues in the impoundment meet  health-based
         standards.  The owner/operator must test for Appendix VIII
         constituents.  Examples of health-based levels, which are
         discussed in more detail in the preamble to the March 19 rule,
         are water quality criteria and standards and limits based on
         verified reference doses and carcinogenicity (52 FR 8706 and
         d707).   if no EPA health-based standard exists  for  a particular
         constituent, the owner/operator must submit adequate data  for
         CPA to determine environmental and health effects of the
         constituent or follow the requirements for  closure  and  post-closure
         can of landfills (52 FR 8706).

         The waste from closure of the impoundment must  be managed  as a
         hazardous waste unless it no longer meets  the definition of
         hazardous waste under $261.3(d), per $265.228(a)(l).  Therefore,
         if the impoundment held a waste that is listed  under  Part  261,
         Subpart D, the waste from closure must be managed as  a  listed
         hazardous waste unless it is delisted under $260.20 and 260.22.
         If the impoundment held only characteristic hazardous waste,
         the waste fron closure would have to be managed as  hazardous
         waste as long as it  exhibits a characteristic under Part  261,
         Subpart C.

         Source:    Ossi Meyn (202) 382-4654
         Research:  Jennifer  Brock

                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC1   3484.1987(05;
                               JO) - 8 1987
     SUBJECT t   Union Carbide.  Ponc«,  Puerto Rico,  Surface Impoundment
                Retrofitting Waiver Request

     FRQH:      David Eberly,  Environmental Engineer
                Land  Oiepoaal Permit Assistance Teaa (PAT)

     TO         John  Gorman
                Caribbean Facilitiee Section (2MfM-fftVF)

          You have requested an interpretation of  the July/  1966
     Interim Statue  Surface Impoundments Retrofitting Variance* Guidance
     Document for two ieeuee that  are pertinent to the  waiver request
     submitted  by Union Carbide in Ponce,  Puerto Rico.    Ae  we under-
     stand, Union Carbide ie applying for a waiver under $3G05(j)(3),
     the waste  water treatjnent exemption.   The impoundment in question
     hae not recieved or treated the  waste for which the original
     bJPDES permit waa issued since 1984.  Since 1979, the impoundment
     hae been operating under an extension of the  original permit,
     without any changes to account for changes in the  waste flow.
     Also, when the  impoundment begins to receive  hazardous  waste
     again, the waste will not be  the same as that for  which the
     original permit was issued, and  a new MPDES permit will be required.
     The tacility has been in compliance with the  original UP DCS permit,
     and has monitored for all the parameters specified in the permit.

            Your question arises from the instructions  in the guidance
     that the previous year's compliance history be- reviewed to determine
     if the unit ha* been achieving a significant  degradation of the
     hazardous  constituents and from the poesible  interpretation that
     a full Appasjftix VIII analysis is necessary to demonstrate that such
                      occur edn
             Unicmi Carbide is unable to supply relevant data for the
     previous  operating year for the surface impoundment because it
     ha«  not b«ea erne rating as designed since 1984.  Therefore, they
     would only be required to submit data for tfceir moat recent year
     of normal operation as a demonstration that they are in compliance
     with the  effluent limitation* of their permit.  In particular,
     Union Carbide would use the data from 1984 to show that significant
     degradation of hazardous constituents was being achieved.  Because
fPA F— IMO.I (12.70)                                                   OMICUL FIL* COPY

                               -  2 -

Union Carbi-dc was not required to monitor  for hazardous  constituents
in thtsir "inilucrt and effluent, howevtr, the necessary data is
not available.  Additionally,  such data would not necessarily be
evidence either ior or against a claim that the waste treatment
process will be affective in achieving significant degradation of
the Hazardous constituents that will be recieved in the  future.

     Therefore, we recommend that the limited data available
frca Union Carbide for the 1984 operating year be considered
sufficient to determine  "compliance".  Should Union Carbide fail
to maintain conpliance with the new trtDES permit, they would be
subject to the change of condition provision of S3005(j)(6)(B).

     As we understand, Union Carbide has not performed a full
Appendix VIII analysis of their ground water, although they have
analyzes for a number of the hazadous constituent! on thr list.
The Guidance does not require a full Appendix analysis.  The
applicant oust only identify "those toxic pollutants and hazardous
constituents that, based on the hazardous wastes in the waste
streajtib, are known to be, or that thore is reason to believe
are,  in the the untreated waste stream".  Thus, if you are satis-
lied that Union Carbic1^  has not emitted any constituents that
ar«; likely to have been in the waste stream, and that the available
data support a clwim oi significant degradation, then they would
be considered to b«. in compliance with $3OO5 ( j ) ( 3 ) (C) (ii ).

     Should you have any further questions, pleas  do not
hesitate to call a.t on UTS)

cc:  Marca.a Vvilliaras
     bruce keddle
     Suzanne RudzinsXi
     Terry urogan
     Paul Caosioy
     Conrad Simon, Region II
     FiCh Walka, Region  II
     Barry TornicK, Region II

                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC1   9484.1937(06)
                          JUN 261967
     SUBJECT:  Proposed Closure  Plan  For th« North Lagoon
               and Contiguous Wait* Piles at Clba-0«igy'a
               Main Plant, Glens  Falls,  Hew York

     FROM:     Robert H. Kayser,  Acting  Chief
               Land Disposal PAT  Section (WB-5C3)

     TOi       Andrew Bellina, Chief
               Hew York Facilities Section (2AWM.-HW5)

          The Land Disposal PAT Section  has reviewed your Memorandum
     regarding the closure plan  lor the  Ciba-Geigy Glen Falls,  New
     York facility, dated June 11, 1987.   Ea»

July 14, 1987


SUBJECT:  Interim Status Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Waiver
          Request; Occidental Chemical Corporation,  Delaware
          City, Delaware

FROM:     Robert Kayser, Acting Chief
          Land Disposal Permit Assistance Section  (WH-563)

TO:       John J. Humphries III, Acting Chief
          DELMARVA/DC/WV Section (3HW32)

     As you requested, we have reviewed the material relevant to
the surface impoundment retrofitting waiver request submitted by
Occidental under §3005(j)(2).  These materials are the:

     1.   Aquifer Connection Study, Diamond Chemicals Company,
          Delaware City, Delaware; February, 1985

     2.   Request for Existing Surface Impoundment Retrofitting
          Variance for Cell No. 2 Occidental Electrochemicals
          Corporation; November 6,  1986

     3.   Letter, Stephen Wassersug to Mr. I.F. Polask,
          Occidental Electrochemicals Corporation; February 19,
          1987 (with enclosures)

     4.   Retrofit Waiver Request,  Response to EPA Document Dated
          2/19/87; April 8, 1986 rsic]

     Specifically, you requested our evaluation of the relevant
information pertaining to the requirement of S3005(j)(2)(B),
which requires that the surface impoundment be located at least
one-quarter mile from an underground source of drinking water
(USDW).  The impoundment that is the subject of the waiver
request, the mercury brine sludge cell No. 2, is underlain by two
aquifers, both within one-quarter mile of the impoundment.  In
their request for the exemption under S3005(j)(2), Occidental
claims that the upper aquifer, in the Columbia Formation, is
unusable as a USDW and that the lower aquifer,  in the Potomac
Formation, cannot be reached by migration of contaminants.  Our
comments below address both claims.
        This has been retyped from the original document.


1.   The Columbia Aquifer

     The Columbia Aquifer is a regional aquifer used as a water
supply source in Northern Delaware, primarily  for private
household wells.  It is not used as such, however,  in the
vicinity of the Occidental site.  Occidental attributes this to
the poor water quality, specifically high chlorides.  Occidental
also states that future use is not anticipated.

     The Columbia Aquifer is immediately under the  site, which
would make the impoundment ineligible for a waiver  under
§3005(j)(2) unless the aquifer is not a USDW.  As noted in the
1986 interim status Surface Impoundments Retrofitting Variance
Guidance Document (p. 2-8), "any portion of a nonexempted USDW
within a 1/4-mile radius disqualifies an impoundment from the
first exemption".  Further, on page 2-9, the Guidance provides an
elaboration on the term "aquifer" by explaining that the term
"refers to an entire hydrogeologic unit, not only the points at
which water is or could be withdrawn (emphasis added).

     Thus, regardless of the condition of the aquifer in the
immediate vicinity of the surface impoundment at Occidental, the
fact that the impoundment is within one-quarter-mile of the
Columbia Aquifer, which is a regional aquifer used  for public
water systems, would disqualify Occidental from receiving a
waiver under §3005(j)(2).

     In section 3.2 of the original application of  November 6,
1986, Occidental admits that the Columbia Aquifer meets the
criteria of a USDW, but then precedes to confuse the requirements
of §3p05(j)(2) with those of S3004(o)(2).  Design,  operating
practices, and location have no relevance to a S3005(j)(2)  waiver

2.   Potomac Aquifer

     The Potomac Aquifer is extensively used as a water supply
source by municipal and industrial users in Northern Delaware.
The Upper Hydrogeologic Zone (UHZ)  of the Potomac Aquifer is
separated from the Overlying Columbia Aquifer by a  layer of clays
and silts having an average permeability of 1.9 x 10"r cm/sec.
The claim by Occidental is that the layer acts as "a significant
aquitard between the two aquifers" (p.  5 of April 8, 1987
Response).  While extenuating circumstances may exist that could
preclude hazardous constituents from reaching the Potomac Aquifer
for, as Occidental claims, 20,000 years, neither S3005(j)(2) nor
the Guidance provide for such circumstances to be considered.
Therefore, the waiver request does not satisfy the  criteria in
§3005(j)(2) because the Potomac Aquifer is a USDW that is within
one-quarter mile of the impoundment.
        This has been retyped from the original document.


     If you or your staff wish to discuss any aspect of this
review, please call Dave Eberly at FTS 382-4691.

cc:  Marcia Williams
     Bruce Weddle
     Suzanne Rudzinski
     Dave Eberly
     Paul Cassidy
     Bob Greaves, Region III
     Stephen Wassersug, Region III
     Diane Schott, Region III
        This  has  been  retyped from  the  original document.


July 14, 1987

SUBJECT:  Alternate Concentration Limit  (ACL)  Policy  for  HSWA

FROM:     Marcia E. Williams, Director
          Office of Solid Waste  (WH-562)

TO:       Robert E. Greaves, Acting Chief
          Waste Management Branch (3HW30)
          Region III

     This is in response to your June 19, 1987, memorandum
concerning the applicability of alternate concentration limits
(ACLs) to the surface impoundment retrofitting provision  under
§3005(j)(3).  The facility in question is located in West
Virginia, which has a ground-water nondegradation policy  under a
delegated RCRA program  (pre-HSWA).

     The retrofitting exemption in §3005(j)(3) for aggressive
biological treatment surface impoundments requires that the
interim status impoundment be in compliance with ground-water
monitoring requirements that are generally applicable to
permitted facilities.  For facilities that have not been  issued a
final Part B permit, we have interpreted this requirement, in the
July 1986 guidance entitled "Interim Status Surface Impoundments
Retrofitting Variances," to mean compliance with 40 CFR Parts 264
and 270,,

     Facility permits must include either a detection,
compliance, or corrective action monitoring program.  Facilities
that have detected leakage of contaminants to the ground  water
must propose concentration limits, which could include ACLs, for
each hazardous constituent detected in the ground water.  The
ACLs, like the other concentration limits, are used to determine
which ground-water monitoring program (i.e., compliance or
corrective action) should be included in the facility permit.
Therefore, ACLs should be considered part of the ground-water
monitoring requirements that are generally applicable to
permitted facilities.

     Section 3005(j)(7)(C) states that if a qualified wastewater
treatment impoundment is found to be leaking, the impoundment
must retrofit unless EPA determines retrofitting in not necessary
        This has been retyped from the original document.


to protect human health and the environment.  One way for an
owner/operator of a leaking surface impoundment to demonstrate
protection of human health and the environment is to obtain an
ACL.  Generally, ACLs are applicable and should be reviewed to
determine compliance with §3005(j)(7)(C).

     For a facility in a State authorized for RCRA, the
applicability of ACLs in EPA's evaluation of an exemption request
under §§3005(j)(3) and (j)(7)(C)  is governed by State law and
regulations.  As previously stated, the statutory language under
§3005(j)(3) states that to qualify for this exemption the
facility must be "in compliance with generally applicable ground-
water monitoring requirements for facilities with permits ..."
The retrofitting exemption should be reviewed based on West
Virginia's ground-water monitoring permit requirements, which
include a nondegradation standard  (i.e., they do not provide for
the setting of ACLs).  As a result, ACLs would not be applicable
under the §§3005(j)(3) and (j)(7)(C) provisions for this specific

     Should you have any questions on this matter please contact
either Paul Cassidy of the Land Disposal Branch at 8-382-4682 or
Mark Salee of the Technical Assistance Branch at 8-382-4755.-

cc:  Joseph Carra
     Bruce Weddle
     Suzanne Rudzinski
     Art Day
     Mark Salee
     Paul Cassidy
        This has been retyped from the original document.

                                                            9484.1987 (09)

                                  JULY  87
3,  Retrofitting fot Pennitted Surface  Impoundments

     Section 3005(j) of the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act  (RCRA)
requires owner/operators of interim status  surface  impoundments  to
retrofit the impoundments to meet  trie minimum  technological  requirements
of RCRA Section 3004(0)(1)(A) Dy November 8, 1988.  Minimum  technological
requirements include installation  of double liners and a  leachate collection
system oetween the linens.  The alternative to retrofitting,  aside  from
•eceiving a variance under RCRA Sections 3005(j)(5) or (j)(13),  is  to stop
receiving, storing, OF creating hazardous waste in the impoundment  by
Novemoe- 8, 1988.

  Once the facility receives a permit,  it becomes subject  10  the  standards
  under 40 CFR Par*. 254.   40 CFR 264.221 (a)  requires perrj.i-.ed surface
  impoundments to have single Liners that are designed  no  prevent migration
  of was-es nti* of t^e iirT>mnr»m*nt to adjacent  subs'irface  soil or •grcur.c v/2tcr
  or surface water at any time during the active life of the  impoundment.
  The minimum technological requirements for permitted  facilities apply to
  new units, lateral expansions and replacements of  existing  units,  but not
  existing units (see 40 <3"R 264.221(c)).

  If a surface impoundment that was previously subject  to  RCPA Section 3005(;)
  receives a permit before November 8,  1988, does it escape the double
  liner/leachate collection system retrofitting requirements?

      Ms, the surface impoundment is still subject to the  retrofitting
     requirements of RCRA Section 3005(j).   Receiving a permit by Jtovember  8,
     1988 is not the factor that determines the impoundment's eligibility
     under RCRA Section 3005(j).  The surface impoundment  is  subject to the
     retrofitting requirement because it was under interim status on the date
     of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) (November 3.
     1984).  In addition,  RCRA Section 3005(c)(2)(A)(i) requires  EPA to
     issue or deny permits by November 8, 1968 for all  land disposal units
     that were under interim status on November 8,  1984.  In  order  to be
     effective, RCRA Section 3005(j) would have to apply to impoundments that
     receive permits by November 8, 1988 anyway, since EPA must grant or deny
     permits by November 8,  1988 for all surface impoundments that were under
     interim status on the date of enactment of HSWA.

  Source:    David Eberly  (202) 382-4691
  Research:  Jennifer B.  Planezt

                  UNI'EUV '.TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY-      9484.1987(11)
                                      AUG -T  S8T
     Subject:  Thern»ex Energy /Radian's request for guidance on
               the compliance dates for submitting a Part B permit
               application, issuing or denying a RCRA permit, and
               complying with the minimum technological
               requirements for surface impoundments.

     To:        Michael J. Sanderson, Chief
               RCRA Branch
               EPA Region VII

     Front     Suzanne Rudzinski, Chief
               Assistance Branch
               EPA Headquarters
          On July 2, 1987 and July 10, 1987 Thermex Energy/Radian
     requested Guidance on the regulatory status (i.e., permitting
     requirements) of Thermex*s manufacturing and laboratory
     facilities located in Hallowell, Kansas from both the Kansas
     Department of Health and Environment and EPA, respectively.
     Specifically, Thernex/Radian has asked us to Identify (1) the
     minimum technology requirements (MTR) compliance date for
     the three surface impoundments at the Hallove11 manufacturing
     facility; (2) the date Thermex must subait a Part B application
     for the three surface impoundments and tank at the laboratory
     in order to prevent the loss of interim statusr (3) the date
     that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment must issue
     a final permit or final permit denial; and, (4) the date closure
     of the three surface impoundments must begin if a closure plan
     in submitted by November 8, 1987.

          In response to their first question, Section 3005(j)(l) of
     the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires that
     all surface impoundments either meet the minimum technological
     requirements (MTR) of Section 3004(o)(!)(•) of RCRA by
     Uovemsor 8, 1988 or stop receiving hazardous wastes.
     Section 3005(j)(6) of RCRA, however, specifies that any
     surface impoundment brought into the hazardous waste management
IPA F— •«—<—-—                                                 OFFICIAL FILE COPY

sy»ten, aa a result of the promulgation of additional
hazardous wait* listing* or characteristics,  shall have
four year* from the date of_propulgation of a new hazardous
waste listing or characteristic to either meet the MTR or
•top receiving hazardous wastes.  The revocation of Thermez's
temporary exclusion was promulgated on July 17, 1986 (see
51 FR 25887).  As a result of the revocation of Therwex'a
temporary exclusion, Thernex's vasts was brought back into
the hazardous waste management system.  We agree with
Thernex/Radian's Interpretation of Section 3005(j)(6) that
revocation of a temporary exclusion has the sane impact as
bringing a waste into the system by a new listing.  As a
result, Therraex should have four years from the promulgation
date of the revocation of it* temporary exclusion and
final denial of its delisting petition to either conply
with the MTR or to stop receiving hazardous waste*.  The
date by which Thernex must either comply with the MTR or
stop receiving hazardous waates, therefor*, is July 17,

     The second question raised in The neex/Radian's letter asks
by what date nust The me x submit a Part B permit application
for the impoundment* (at the manufacturing facility) and the
tank (at the laboratory facility) to prevent the lo*s of
incerin statue.  RCRA Soction 3OOS(e)(3) doe* not apply to
facilities having temporary exclusions.  As long a* Thermex
had originally filed Part A applications for their three surface
impoundments and for thalr tank and did not modify their Part
A application* to deleto the unit* handling the temporarily
excluded waste*, the facilite* have not lost interim status
and no futher action i* required by the facilitle*.  We note
that Part B permit application* for the three aurface
impoundment* and the tank are not required until the State or
Region call* in the permit application*, however the facilities
are *ubject to interim atatu* *tandard* until the permit 1*

     Their third question a*k* by what dat* mu*t the Kan*a*
Department of Health and Environment (KOKE) i**ue a final
permit or final permit denial if Thermex *ubnit* a pemlt
application for th* Hallowell aurface inpoundment* by
November •« 1987.  Ac indicated above, Thermex i* not
required to *abnit a Part B permit application unle** a
Part B peoalt application i* called in by the State or
Regloo.  fbould Thermex, however* *ubmit an application on
November 8* 1987, KOBC i* not required to process the Part
B permit application for the Ballowell aurface Impoundnent*
by November 8. 1988.

     Thermex/Radian'8 fourth question asks us to identify the
date implementation of closure of the three surface impoundments
must begin after submittal of a closure plan on November 8,  1987.
Again, as stated in response number two, Thermex does not have to
submit a closure plan or implement closure.  If Thermex voluntarily
submitted a closure plan or stopped receiving hazardous waste,
they would, under federal regulations, be required to initiate
Part 265 closure within either 90 days after the surface
impoundments stop receiving wastes or the closure plan is approved
by the State Director or Regional Administrator, which ever is
later.  Closure would then have to b« completed within 180 days
(see 40 CFR Part 265.113).  We note that the State Director or
Regional Administrator may extend the time period in which closure
must be implemented or completed if Thermex were to demonstrate
the requirements of 40 CFR Part 265.113(a) or (b), respectively.

     We are not planning on responding directly to Thermex on their
substantive issues, rather we are directing them back to the Kansas
DHE.  I trust you will be conveying our guidance on this issue to
the Kansas Bureau of Waste Management so that they can respond to

                   MUTED STATES lHV«eHHCi|TAL PvSJmYCTlO* AGENCY
                                                               9484. 1987(12)

                                        NGN  25I9ST


      SUBJECT:   Regulatory Options Available to Wood Preservers
                for the Continued Use of "Treatment Impoundments"

      FROMi      Bruoe R.  Weddle, Director
                Permits and State Programs Division  (VH-56Sfc

      TO:        Marola Wllllans. Director
                Office of Solid Wait*  (VH-562)

           You  asked P3PD to Investigate regulatory options available
      to  the  Wood Preservative industry for the continued use of
      "treatment surface impoundments."  These regulatory options
      included  the use of RD4D permits for these units.

           In general, the Wood Preservative industry has utilised
      biological treatnent as a form of disposal for highly organic
      hazardous wastes.  Through the use of 'treatnent surface
      Inpoundnents", ciicrobial interaction degrades and biologically
      transforns these wastes into less toxic degradation products.
      Like  land treatment, this specific utilisation of biological
      treatment is feeling a high Impact frosi KSWA.  Compliance with
      P.CRA  requirements for the continued use of "treatment surface
      lopoundnents* by this Industry are both expensive and tine

           The  issuance of RDAD permits is not a viable option for the
      "treatnent surface Inpoundnents" eaployed by the Hood Preservative
      industry.  Based on specific criteria described in HSVA legislative
      history,  these units do not qualify as experimental units, nor
      can the biological treatnent taking place within these units
      pass  for  a hazardous wast* management experiment.  Specifically,
      the legislative history states, "If a unit or process is used at
      any time  to store or treat waste for any reason other than the
      conduct of a hazardous waste experiment, the unit oust be permitted
      In  accordance with 40 CFR Part 264.•  Zn addition, the legislative
      history describe* a hazardous waste experiment, •••• to mean the
      treatment of hasardoua waste la s> unit or devlee a*6sj frlmarily
      from nonoarthon materials* that la other than a surfa** Impoundment
      or  land trtatisont*"  By failing these criteria, othosj viable
      regulatory option* must bo implemented.
IPA ?— 113*1 ni'N)                                                   OFFICIAL Ht.« COPY

                                                                 w.l. 90  II«»-'.M-H»

                             - 2 -
     At this tine, three viable regulatory options exist for
the Wood Preservative industry.  These options are:

     1„  Meet HSWA Minimum Tech. Requirements for Surface
         Inpoundnents and Permit These Units - These units can
         continue to be called "treatment Impoundments", thus
         the:'wood preservative wastes going into these units
         do not have to meet BOAT.  However, "treatment Inpoundnents"
         do hav« to dredge once a yeaP and the residuals must
         meet^DAT prior to land disposal.
     2»  Close Surface Impoundments - Move the wastes Into
         permitted tanks.  Wastes leaving tanks must meet BDAT
         prior to land disposal.  If RD4D permits are the
         mechanism of choice by the Wood Preservers for the
         continued biological treatment of their wastes, perhaps
         the use of tanks can achieve this goal.

     3.  Land Treat Wastes - Apply for a land treatment
         demonstration under §270.63 and shift from "treatment
         surface Impoundments" to land treatment.  However,
         the land treatment unit must meet the "no migration"

Corrective action provisions, called for under HSWA, apply for
all the above options, In addition to the existing "treatment
surface Impoundments" currently In use by the Wood Preservers.

                                                      9484.1938 (03)
                          WASHINQTON, D.C. 20460             ^ O I 1 (  Pi

                            JUN  20
                                                           OFFICE OF
                                                  SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPO'

General Roy Goodwin
Director, Engineering Services
Langley AFB, Virginia  23665-5001

Dear General Goodwin:

     The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the Agency's
decision regarding the outstanding sampling issues concerning
the draft delisting petition for Holloman Air Force Base  (No.
D0660) to exclude from regulation as hazardous, the wastes
contained in seven on-site surface impoundments, a drainage
ditch, and two lakes.  This letter also addresses ground-water
monitoring data and other delisting information requirements.

     As discussed in our October 14, 1987 letter, we have
evaluated the Air Force's request to reduce the number of
samples to be collected for analysis.  We agree that the large
size and volume of the impoundments, drainage ditch, and lakes
in question warrant a departure from standard delisting sampling
procedures.  The sampling plans for the impoundments and lakes
should have several components.  We will require an in-depth
characterization of the impoundments (labeled A through G)
because the history of waste discharge to the impoundments is
unclear and not completely documented.   For the ditch that
drains impoundment wastes to Lake Holloman, you should
demonstrate that the soils in and around the ditch do not
contain contaminated residues or soils that pose a threat to the
environment.  For Lakes Holloman and Stinky, we are concerned
with understanding the compositional nature of the hazardous
constituent-bearing sludges and liquids and the deposition
pattern of these residues.  The sampling plan, therefore, should
focus on characterizing soils and liquids at key locations
likely to represent the greatest concentrations of contamination
that might exist in the soils, sludges, and liquids associated
with the units.  The sampling required for each area is
discussed below.

Surface Impoundments

     Holloman submitted analytical data that demonstrate that
the first two impoundments are known to contain concentrations
of some toxic constituents which exceed levels of concern used
in delisting decision making.  As a result, we cannot delist
these impoundments unless you demonstrate that the

 impoundments C through G, we will  review the data  and  identify
 those acres which do  not show hazardous constituents at  levels
 of concern.  These acres will not  have to be tested further.
 Those acres which do  show hazardous  constituents at levels  of
 concern will have to  be tested using the protocol  outlined
 previously for impoundments A and  B  (that is,  15 grabs per  acre,
 from an off-set  fixed grid sampling  array, with every  five
 samples composited into one sample).

 Drainage Ditch

     For the ditch that links the  impoundment  network  to Lake
 Holloman, we will require that you characterize the soils and
 residues associated with this trench.  However, we cannot detail
 the minimum required  sampling until  you send us the following

     o   Dimensions of the ditch  (length, width, and depth);

     o   Flow rate of material through the ditch;

     o   Likelihood or documented  cases of overflow; and

     o   Likelihood or documented  cases of the ditch drying out.

 Lakes Holloman and Stinky

     For Lakes Holloman and Stinky,  as discussed previously, the
 sampling plan will be dependent on the size and nature of the
 lakes.  Because  we do not have sufficient information  describing
-the dimensions of the lakes, we are  unable to  suggest  a  sampling
 plan that will adequately characterize the waste in the  lakes.
 Therefore, please send us descriptions and diagrams of the  lakes
 so that we can suggest an appropriate sampling plan, including:

     o   Approximate  length of the perimeter of the lakes.

     o   The distance from the influent point  to points  across
         the lakes, including all  effluent points.

     o   Positions of any past or  present access roads that lead
         to Lakes Holloman and/or  Stinky.

     o   Positions of both the influent area to Lake Holloman
         and outfall  to Lake Stinky.

     o   The distance from Lake Stinky to the  nearest  well used
         as a water supply (for human or livestock consumption).

     o   The location of any outfalls from Lake Stinky to any
         other surface waters or publicly-owned treatment works

This information will provide useful additional information
about the past and present impact that your petitioned wastes
have had on the underlying aquifer.  Your petition will not be
considered complete without this information.  Further, evidence
that the units have contaminated the underlying ground-water
aquifers at concentrations which exceed levels of concern used
in delisting decision making can be used as a basis for denial
if a formal petition is submitted to the Agency.

Other Information Requirements

     The information that you submitted on November 11, 1986
does not contain all of the information needed for a complete
petition.  EPA has developed a guidance document, "Petitions to
Delist Hazardous Wastes — A Guidance Manual" (NTISI
PB85-194488), that explains the information that is needed for a
complete petition.  This manual can be ordered through NTIS at
5285 Port Royal Road, Sprigfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650.

     I hope that this letter has clarified the sampling needed
to satisfy our petition requirements.  If you have any questions
about these or any of the other information requirements, please
call Kevin Palmer of Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC),  (703) 821-4630, our consultant assisting in
the review of your petition, or Terry Grist of my staff at (202)

                                       Terry"Grogan, Chief
                                       Variances Section

cc:  Terry Boone, HAFB
     Lt. Col. Warren Hull, DOD Liaison to EPA
     Kevin Palmer, SAIC
     Jim Kent, EPA
     Terry Grist, EPA
     Lee Haze, Region VI
     Sam Becker, Region VI
     Robert Regis, Region VI
     Court Fessmeyer, Region VI
     Richard Mitzelfelt, NMHED
     Richard Sanderson, Office of Federal Activities



r~ ~~\
0 0
v^ J

/• *\
0 0

r~ ~\.
0 0

f "\
0 0

r ^\
0 0
v J

r ^>
0 0

Figure 1.  Example of Sampling  and  Compositing
          For impoundments A and  B

Figure 3. General Representation of Sampling
         Plan  for Lake Holloman

                            MAR   8 1991

SUBJECT:  Regulation of Surface  Impoundments that  Exhibit  the
          Toxicity Characteristics  (TC)

FROM:     Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
          Office Of Solid Waste

TO:       Kristine A. M. Leopold
          Assistant Regional Counsel  (6C-WT)

     In your November 7, 1990 memorandum to our office, you
conveyed the concerns of Ms. Paula  Floeck of ENSR  Consulting and
Engineering, Houston, Texas, regarding the regulation  of sludges
within surface impoundments that may have the potential to become
newly regulated units as a result of the Toxicity  Characteristics
(TC) rule.  This memorandum responds to Ms. Floeck's and your

     In Scenario one (1) of Ms.  Floeck letter  (see Attachment)
she asked, if it were "true that the sludge becomes regulatory
concern (sic) at the point it is intended to be discarded, that
is, when the impoundment is cleaned or closed?11  Before answering
that question1 I would first like to address some specifics in her
Stormwater Impoundment Scenario  (II).  For example, Ms. Floeck
stated that in determining whether  the sludge  (in  the
impoundment) would render the impoundment a hazardous  waste
management unit, we must first determine whether the sludge at
this point is classified as a waste.  According to 40  CFR  261.2,
she states, a solid waste is defined as any discarded  material
that is:

                 o  abandoned;
                 o  recycled; or
                 o  considered inherently waste-like

She concludes that the sediment  (sludge) within the impoundment
does not meet any of these criteria and therefore  should not be
defined as a solid waste.

      The Agency disagrees  with her interpretation  of the  above
 prescribed federal  regulation with respect  to sludge within an
 impoundment.  The Agency interprets the  federal definition of
 solid waste to apply to the sludge generated  within an
 impoundment (unit) ,  and believes  that the unit would become
 regulated for these following reasons:

      1.  The RCRA regulation define a solid  waste as any discarded
      material.   This includes materials that  are abandoned by
      being "accumulated, stored,  or treated (but not recycled)
      before or in lieu of  being abandoned by  being disposed of,
      burned,  or incinerated."  (Emphasis added; see §261.2
      2.  Our past interpretations  include  sludge  as  a  solid  waste.

      "Any pollution abatement technique such  as  the land
      treatment,  disposal,  or storage  of a wastewater  will
      invariably  generate a sludge.  The mechanisms  for  sludge
      formation involve either precipitation,  adsorption, or
      accumulation of biomass.   These  units would be subject to
      regulation  ...if the sludges exhibit a characteristic..."
      (See enclosed July 17,1985 memo  from Skinner to  Scarbrough) .

      3 .  The Agency has always maintained  that sludges are
      generated at the moment of their deposition at the bottom  of
      the unit ("point of generation").  Note  that deposition is
      defined as  a condition where there has been at least a
      temporary cessation of lateral particle  movement (See  55 FR
      46380,  November 2,  1990).

 Therefore,  in response to Ms.  Floeck's question, the  sludge does
 become  of regulatory concern at the point it  is  intended to be
 discarded.   However,  "discarded"  does hot mean only when the
 impoundment is cleaned or closed. If sludge  in  an  impoundment,
 which is considered to be a solid waste under 261.2,  exhibits the
 TC,  then the sludge and unit would become subject to  Subtitle C
-requirements. Under the federal  regulations  accumulation and
 storage of TC-hazardous waste in  a unit subjects that unit  to the
 hazardous waste  program.  Note, however,  that the solid waste
 determination in an authorized State  is a State  call.   If State
 law  is  more stringent or broader  in scope than federal  RCRA
 regulations,  then compliance with those regulations would also  be

      In addition, on September 27, 1990  (55 ££ 39409) an Agency
 clarification notice was published regarding  a variety  of TC-
 related issues,  including the regulatory  status  of  surface
 impoundments managing newly regulated TC  waste.  The  third
 surface impoundment scenario discussed in the notice  is clearly
 applicable to both of Ms.  Floeck's situations (Scenarios #1 and
 #2) .  That is, a TC waste is generated from non-hazardous

wastewater on or after the TC effective date.  This could occur
where hazardous constituents in wastewater become concentrated,
or if a new TC sludge is formed by settling.  Once the TC waste
is generated and stored or disposed in the unit, the unit is
subject to Subtitle C regulations.  This clarification also
confirms your stated reasoning as to why the sludge in the
surface impoundment would be covered by the TC.

     I hope this response clarifies the issues you raised.  As
rioted previously, 1^ encourage you to contact the appropriate
State and local regulatory agencies for additional assistance or
clarification.  If you or Ms. Floeck have further questions
regarding the TC rule, please contact Daryl Moore at FTS 475-8551
or (202) 475^8551.