United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-SW-91-062H
Environmental Protection Emergency Response August 1991
Agency (OS-343)
® EPA RCRA Permit
Compendium
Volume 8
9483.1980 - 9489.1990
TSDF Technical Requirements
(Parts 264 & 265)
•Tanks
• Surface Impoundments
• Waste Piles
• Land Treatment
• Landfills
• Incinerators
• Miscellaneous Units
ATKl/1607/7c .
(A
-------
DISCLAIMER
The compilation of documents in this Compendium, as well
as the policies, procedures and interpretations outlined
in the documents themselves, is intended solely for the
guidance of employees of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This compilation may not include all
documents discussing Agency views on particular subjects.
In addition, these documents are not intended and cannot
be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with
the United States. The views expressed in these
documents do not necessarily reflect the current position
of the Agency, and EPA reserves the right to act at
variance with these views or to change them at any time
without public notice.
-------
Tanks (Subpart J)
ATKl/1112/21sm
-------
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,
V
William J. Kline
Environmental Scientist
Waste Management Division
cci Regional Division Directors
-------
9483.1983(01)
8 APR 83
"EMORANDUM
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
Director
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
impoundment.
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.
-------
9483.1933(02)
APK
SUBJECTi Tank Shell Thickness Requirement
Firuce 3.
Director
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
the
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
-------
9483.1983(03)
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
-------
9483.1983(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9483.1983(05)
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
-------
9483.1934(01)
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
-2-
-------
9483.1986(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9433.1936(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
rule?
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
-------
9483.1986(051
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
OCT
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.
Sincerely,
John P. Lehaan
Director
Waste Management Division
-------
9483.1986(07}
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMHARY
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.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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"
tanks.
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
environment.
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-4623
Ellen Siegler (202) 382-7700
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
9483. 1986(09)
November 28, 1986
MEMORANDUM
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
brochure.
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.
Sincerely,
John P. Lehman
Director
Waste Management and
Economic Division
Enclosures: 5
-------
9488.1986(1;
II
Mr. Kenneth L. Waeache
Director
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.
Sincerely,
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
-------
9488.1987(01
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?
-------
-2-
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).)
-------
-3-
*• 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.
-------
-4-
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
listir.o.
• 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.
-------
-5-
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
rule.)
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«
-------
9488.1987(03)
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.
-------
-2-
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.
-------
-3-
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director, Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
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.
-------
UNI", STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTk. AGENCY
9438.1987(0
I2BB7
MEMORAI:DUM
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.
References
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9483.1987(09
OCT
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.
Sincerely,
3ony« ff. Stelmack
Incinerator Parmlt Assifitar.ct
cc: E«nry One^ar'*., P.e^ior. VI
Larry Johnson. ORD-.T5L
Al«»x Vclfe, OSW
-------
9488.1987(10)
December 9, 1987
MEMORANDUM
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.
-------
-2-
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.
Attachments
cc: Rick McGraw
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
HWDMS RPOs, Regions I-X
Kate Bouve
This has Jbeen retyped from the original document,
-------
9488.1988
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204M
\ *X
DEC 9 1988
0*
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CCT 4
FILE
9488.1989(02
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
incinerator.
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
vasten.
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:
.aesaL.
OFFICIAL
-------
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL P
WASHINGTON. D.C. .
9488.1989(03)
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
Control
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
Enclosure
-------
! UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE 9488.1990(01)
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 29 1990
0«'CE 3?
SOUO WAS" AND c
MEMORANDUM
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9488.1990(02)
MHK I 9 I9SO
MEMORANDUM
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.
Attachment
cc: Elizabeth Cotsworth
Sonya Stelmack
Lionel Vega
Shiva Garg
-------
METHOD
MIDGET IMPINGES HC1/C1, EMISSION SAMPLING TRAIN
DRAFi
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.
0-2
-------
METHOD
MIDGET IMPINGE? HC1/C1.- EMISSION SAMPLING TRAIN
1.0 SCCPi AND APPLICATION
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).
2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD
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).
3.0 INTERFERENCES
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
4.0 APPARATUS AMD MATERIALS
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***
0-3
-------
4.1.8.2 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.
4.1.8.3 Rate meter. Rotameter. or equivalent, capable of
measuring flow race to within 2 percent of selected flow rate of 2
liters/min.
4.1.8.4 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).
4.1.8.5 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).
5.0 REAGEHTS
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
0-5
-------
7.1.1.2 Post-test calibration check. After each field -as-
series. conduct a calibration check as in Section 7.1.1.1 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 7.1.1.1). 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 7.1.1.1. 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
adjusted.
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*
0-7
-------
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
(dcf).
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
*»here:
(1)
• 0.3858*K/mm Kf for metric units.
• 17.64-R/in. Hg for English units.
XXXX • 7 Revision
•**Draft August 1969*~ Date
0-9
-------
U. S. Environaental Protection Agency. UO CFH Part 60. Appendix A ye-
6.
XXXX • 9 Revision
•••Draft Aufust 1969*** D»t«
D-ll
-------
METHOD
PROTOCOL FOR ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES
FROM HC1/CL. EMISSION SAMPLING TRAINS
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.
0-13
-------
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.
5.0 REAGENTS
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
0-15
-------
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.
4
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
0-17
-------
REFERENCES
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
0-19
-------
UNITED STATES EHVIHOHMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . . 00 ,oai ,_.,
9488.1991(01)
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
procedures.
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
rotandaard
-------
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
regulations.
If you have any further questions on this issue, feel free
to contact me at (202) 382-3132.
Sincerely,
Sonya M. Sasseville, Chief
Alternative Technology Section
cc: Y,,J. Kim, Region V
Lionel Vega
Larry Johnson
Elizabeth Cotsworth
-------
9488.1991(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUH-6B9I
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- 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.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9488.1991(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
determination.
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)
permit.
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
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9488'1991 (04)
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
follow-up.
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.
Attachment
cc: Oevereaux Barnes
Elizabeth Cotsworth
Incinerator Permit Writers' Workgroup
Subpart X Permit Writers' Workgroup
-------
9488.1991(05)
RCRA/SUPERFDND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1991
1 .
Application of the Sham* Recycling
Policy to Certified Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces
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
standards.
-------
Waste Piles (Subpart L)
ATKl/1112/23sm
-------
9485 - WASTE PILES
Part 264 Subpart L
ATU/l 104/12 kp
-------
9485.1984(01]
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARIES
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
regulation?
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
unit.
Source: Mike Flynn (382-4489)
Research: Denise Wright
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
y485.1985(01
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT
MARCH 1985
APPLICATION OF MTRs TO WASTE PILES WHICH EXPAND
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)
ATKl/1112/24sm
-------
9486 - LAND
TREATMENT
Parts 264 & 265 Subpart M
ATKl/l 104/44 kp
-------
9486.1981(01)
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.
-------
-2-
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.
Sincerely,
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
sources)?
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.
Sincerely,
Carv/Perket, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
& MANAGEMENT, LTD.
cc: Mr. Alan Corson
Mr. David Freidman
-------
9486.1985(01)
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
S
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 .
Sincerely,
John B. Skinner
Director --• - -
-Office of Solid Waate (W-SC2)
-------
9486.1986(03)
July 15, 1986
MEMORANDUM
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
case.
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.
Attachments
cc; John Lehman
Bruce Weddle
Mark Greenwood
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9486.1987(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9486.1988(01)
January 2, 1988
MEMORANDUM
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.
-------
-2-
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.
-------
-3-
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.
-------
9486.1983(02!
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
elevation.
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.
Director
Office of
Lowrance
Solid Waste
cc: Joseph Carra,
Art Day, OSW
Allyn M. Davis
OSW
HWMD, Region VI
-------
9486.1939(01,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACEHCT
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.
t».
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
-------
-2-
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
soils.
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.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: Clinton W. Hall, ORD
David Bussard, WMD
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2046C
9486.1990(01)
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.
Sincerely
Office of Solid Waste (OS-300!
-------
Landfills (Subpart N)
ATKl/1112/25sm
-------
9487 - LANDFILLS
Parts 264 & 265 Subpart N
ATK1/1104/45 kp
-------
4% \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20440
'APR 2 I (986
Off ICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RES'O
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE »9487.00-1A
MEMORANDUM
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
basis.
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
'0 THE STATES, COMPACT REGIONS, AND ALL NRC LICENSEES
SUBJECT: JOINT NRC-EPA GUIDANCE ON A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN APPROACH FOR COMMERCIAL
MIXED LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
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
regulations.
-------
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
doubl
Sincerely,
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
Enclosure:
As stated
-------
05WES DIRECTIVE *9437.30-d
JOINT NRC-EPA GUIDANCE ON A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN APPROACH FCP
COMMERCIAL MIXED LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Introduction
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
regulations.
-------
DIRE
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
FIGURE i- MIX1.D
DISPQSM.
-------
SEPARATION TO ASSURE.
\.CISCHA,T6. FLOW 1MTO UCRS
BOTTOM OF WA*T£
V.CRS
TOP VU4tR(FLIXlBLR MEMBRANE LINER FMt)
/ PtRIMEYCR f)C»M to*
RtMOVM. SYstc.M
BOTTOM LINER (COMPOSITE
fr MIL ^ COMPACfitD CtAY*)
UNSAf IMAf 10 SOII.
"* TUc
»s t» bt
coinduciiMtti|
Z- DOUBLE UHEH AND
COtUCTtOH
-------
ARCfV RE6RKDED FOLLOWING
POST-CLOSURE CM?E. PERIOD
FtHM. COVtR
CS««. Pig 4 )
PtfMMtLTCft
ro*
RUN-OH
COHTHpL
ROHOFF
CONTROl
DOU0UL UNtft/ k ULKCUKTE. COLLECTION SYSK
UMSKTORKTtD SOIL
t>ETECTlOH TIVHK
(To EPA
. \7
COHTROV
GROUHOWATER
FIGURE 3- CROSS -SECTiOHM >i>E>N
N/ERTiCM, SCALE
-------
M4L
Store t>es*GiJEi>
COMPACTED CIAY
UCf*S
t>*itclHH) PIPt
FIGURE 4 • NNASTE COVER SYSTEM
-------
y487.00-9
•* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
,* WASHINGTON, O C. 20480
988 2i"'Cg :*
SOL.O AASTS AN3£M6«3esC-
MEMORANDUM
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
boundaries.
-------
- 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
permit.
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
memorandum.
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
-------
9487.1981(01)
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.
Attachment
cc: Jeffrey Zelikson w/attachment
VTH-563:Debbie Wolpetof sPa.2107:Ext.59107:3/11/91
-------
9487.1984(01)
February 7, 1984
MEMORANDUM
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.
-------
-2-
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.
-------
9437.1984(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
14 MAY 1934
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
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
aaaea.)
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
-------
-2-
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)
-------
9487.1984(03)
PERMIT POLICY Q & A REPORT
DESIGN AND OPERATING STANDARDS
SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
DESIGN AND OPERATING STANDARDS
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.
-------
9487.1984(04
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9487.1984(05)
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
-------
9487.1985(02)
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
\D
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
Director
Office of Solid Haste
-------
9487.1985(03)
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.
PCassidyivhjWH-565E»OSW*rm2102Mi382-4658i04/17/85idskPCM
-------
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
Enclosure
cct JaeX Lehman
Kenneth Shuster
Arthur Day
Paul Cassidy
-------
9487.1985(04)
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
practice.
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
(f270.1
-------
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
265.314).
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
possibls.
Sincerely,
John P« L«haan
Director
Wasta Htna^nwnt and
Ccononies Diviaion
ccs Kan Shuatar
Paul Caaaidy
Barbara Paea
RCftA Division Directorai Ragiona I - X
-------
9487.1985(04a
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9487.1985(05)
SEP 20 1985
Mr* Robert fl. Pyle
President.
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. ^
m
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
n
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
in
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.
Sincsrsly,
John P. Lahvan
Director
Vasts Nanagsmsnt and
Bconoaics Division
Attachments
bees Ksri Shustsr
Art Dsy
Cassidy
-------
9487.1985(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
9487.1985(08)
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.
Sincerely,
J"/
John P. Lehman
Director
Waste Management and
Economics Division
-------
9487.1985(09)
November 20, 1985
Mr. Glenn Oakes
President
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.
-------
-2-
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-
8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9487.1985(10)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
Association
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."
-------
-2-
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
facilities?"
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
facility'?-
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.
-------
-4-
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.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
• "• *
mi
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9487.1986(0:
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.
Director
Office of
Williams
Solid Waste
cc: Susan Thorneloe (OAQPS)
Randy McDonald (OAQPS)
-------
MAR 261986
9487.1986(04)
Honorable Jaraes J. Florio
Chairman
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
program.
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.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES EMVIRONWENTAL PROTECT
9487.1986(07)
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)
ATKl/1112/27sm
-------
9489 - MISCELLANEOUS
UNITS
Part 264 Subpart X
Part 265 Subparts P,Q,and R
ATKl/1104/84kp
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204«0
OSWER Directive 9489.00-2
APR ;. 2 •-•
of ice of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORANDUM
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.
-2-
-------
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-
opment.
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
264.197".
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
-3-
-------
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
solidification.
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
-------
9489.1987(02}
JUL 22 1987
MBMORAMDUM
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)
-------
9439.1988(01)
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
•"kn-nP"
MAY | 8 1988
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTF. AND EMEHCf.NCV OCSPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Morton Thiokol Thermal Treatment Units
FROM:
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
restrictions.
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
process.
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
close?
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
restrictions.
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
-------
9489.1990(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
tfa
J-f-jP
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
Sincerely
Sylvia'K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9489.'199HUi;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
process.
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.
Sincerely,
David Bussard
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9489.1991(02)
MAY 3 I 1991
MEMORANDUM
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,
1983).
-------
9489.1991(03)
RCRA/SDPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
wastes?
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9489.1991(04)
2 1991
MEMORANDUM
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
-------
9489.1991(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB2*-,
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
domes.
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
RCRA.
-------
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
Enclosure
-------
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
264.193.
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.
-------
9483.1986(10)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
UMITEpTATESEMVIfcCMMtNTAL
9483.1986(11)
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.
Sincerely,
Joseph E. Carra
Acting Director
Waste Managenent Division
cci Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs
-------
UNI' i STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT AGEK
9483.1986(12)
I
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
K
«
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: (
c
c
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
265.190(b)).
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.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Dellinger
Chief, Waste Treatment 3ranch
cc: RCRA Branch Chief
Region VIII
-------
9483.1986(13)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9483.1987(02!
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
UN ITtD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEMC Y a ,
' 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
know.
Sincerely,
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
tanks*
* 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)
382-4499.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Regional RCKA branch Chiefs
Chester Oszman, PSPD
bill Kline, wriD
Suzanne r.udsiniki, FSPC
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9483.1987(05)
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
-------
LESS THAN 90 DAY ACCUMULATION TANK SYSTEMS
[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
provided:
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.
-------
9483.1987(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 87
1. Inspection Requirements for Hazardous Waste Tanks
i
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
bottom.
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
required.
Source:(s) Chester Oszman (202) 382-4499
William Kline (202) 382-4623
Research: Mark Janaskie
-------
9483.1987(07)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
underground?
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
-------
9483.1987(08)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9483.1987(09)
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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.
Sincerely,
Chester J*7 Oszman Jr.
Environmental Engineer
Office of Solid Waste
Attachment
cc: Bill Kline, OSW
Gary Victorine, Region V
-------
ATTACHMENT
INCINERATION/STORAGE PAT SECTION
COMMENTS RESPONDING TO "LILLY"
REGULATORY INTERPRETATIONS
I. TANKS
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-
ments.
II. ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT
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
system.
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.
-------
9483.1987(10)
UNITED \TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TNCY
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
system*.
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.
Sincerely,
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.
-------
-2-
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
containment.
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
Chief
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
steel.
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
-------
9483.1987(13)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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.
Sincerely,
Robert w. Del linger
Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
ccs Regional Hazardous
Waste Branch Chiefs
Chet Osznan, PSPD
-------
9483.1987(15)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
requirement.
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
-------
UNITED S. . ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Av .,CY
9483.1987(17)
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.
-------
-2-
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.
Sincerely,
William J. Kline
Environmental Scientist
cc: Chet Os2man, PSPD
-------
UNITED: ;ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A
-------
9483.1987(19)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204fO
OCT 16 1987
fOLlO «WASTI AND IMf MGINCT MS'ONfC
Mr. P. E. Gerwert
Manager
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
Sincerely,
Mate i a E. Williams
Director
Office of solid Waste
-------
9483.1987(2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENO
WASHINGTON. DC 204«0
5
SOUOWASTf AND
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Tank Regulatory Clarification
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director N«/\t'V«-'
Office of Solid Waste
u
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
Depot).
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
questions.
Sincerely,
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
(202)382-7917.
Sincerely,
William J. Kline
Environmental Scientist
Wast* Treatment Branch
-------
UNITEL ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION uENCY 9433.1988:34
MAR 16
MEMORANDUM
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
-------
9483.1988(05)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
rulemaking.
Source: Carrie Hehling (202) 382-7706
Research: Andy O'Hare
-------
9483.1988(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MOHTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9483.1988(08!
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9483.1938(09!
HOHTH"
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
-------
9483.1988(10;
UHffID STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUN-3B88
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
systems.
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
-------
9483.1988(11)
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
system.
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
If you have any further questions on this matter, please
call Bill Kline of my staff at (202) 382-7917.
Sincerely,
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.
-------
9483.1988(12)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9483.1988(13;
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 88
4. Hazardous Waste Tanks—Installation/Certification of Secondary
Containment
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
-------
9483.1988(14)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
containers?
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
-------
9483.1988(15,
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9483.1988(16)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
UMITfD.iATESEHVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ~
-------
- 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.
-------
-4-
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.
Sincerely,
L>
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
PI
further
standards
. 1 Bill Kline at (202)382-7917 if you have any
',1'one regarding the hazardous waste tank system
Sincerely,
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
-------
9483.1989(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACENCY
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.
Sincerely,
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
Requirements
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
containment?
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
264.197(a).
Source: Bill Kline (202) 475-9614
Research: Renee Bench
-------
9483.1989(05}
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9483.1989(06
NOV30I989
Mr. Al Patton
Environmental Specialist
C-K Associates, Inc.
11200 Industriplex Boulevard
Suite 150
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809
DF
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
standards.
-------
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
-------
9483.1989(08}
,\
MAR I 7 1988
iO WASTE
\SE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM:
TO:
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
-------
9483.1990(01)
«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.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
9483.1990(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
definition.
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
F006.
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
regulations.
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.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9483.1990(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 2 01990
Of
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
Enclosures
-------
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
exemption).
• 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
facility?
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
2353).
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
available.
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
-------
9483.1991(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C, 20460
JAN 4 1991
SOL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Request for Solid Waste Management Unit
Determination
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
initiated.
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).
Attachments
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs
-------
Surface Impoundments (Subpart K)
ATKl/1112/22sm
-------
9484 - SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
Parts 264 & 265 Subpart K
ATKl/l 104/43 kp
-------
policy Directive No. j ; £ 4 . : 1 - =
Second Corracted Version; Supercedes All Other Ccpies
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
sot::
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
Introduction
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.
-------
OSWES
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9434.30-5 -a
-3-
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
-4-
Notice
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
questions.
cc: J. Winston Porter
Jack McOrav
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Cqunsel, Regions I-X
-------
9434.1984(01)
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
-------
9484.1984(02)
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
envirorment.
Source: Alex Vtolfe, CSW
-------
»4«4.1M5(01)
JUL25S85
MEMORANDUM
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
Nov«
•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
with.
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
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Surface Innounrtnent at Al Tech's Watervliet
Facility
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.
-------
9484.1985(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
* '*.
9484.1986(01]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
statute.
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
-------
9484.1986(02)
April 2, 1986
MEMORANDUM
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.
-------
-2-
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
reused.
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.
-------
-3-
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
another?
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.
-------
-4-
program that may be instituted as a result of a 3008
order or a post-closure permit.
Attachment
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
Wastewater
Treatment
System
Wastewater
Treatment
System
-------
ATTACHMENT B
BACKGROUND PAPER
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
point.
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
point.^/
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).
-------
-2-
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.
-------
-3-
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
States.
-------
-4-
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
occurred.
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
-------
-5-
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.
-------
-6-
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
requirements.
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,
Mississippi.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
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
-------
9434.1986(04)
' 1986
MEMORANDUM
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.
Attachment
cci J. Lehman
K. Shuster
-------
9434.1936(05)
'' 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 >
-------
/ou
nav-* jny ' •, r t -i ,- -
^H-.»CtO!
•-^tice >..
OC: :;^l o ~i., i ,^^t.
-------
9434.1986(07)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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;
or
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9484.1986(08)
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.
Sincerely/
, S/J. Winston Porter
/ /Assistant Administrator
-------
94S4.1986(09)
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
• OLIO WASTE AND CMEMQENCV RCSPONS
MEMORANDUM
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
regulations.
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
-------
-2-
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.
Attachments
-------
9484.1987(01)
March 11, 1987
MEMORANDUM
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
-------
V
\
UNITED STATES FN VlRONMENTAL PROTLCT
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
information*
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
contact:
-------
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.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Malter
Mr. William Razor
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9487.1986(09)
June 12, 1986
MEMORANDUM
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.
-------
-2-
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.
-------
-3-
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.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9487.1986(10)
AJ6-TB86
MEMORANDUM
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
-------
-2-
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
question].
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.
-------
Wh
-------
-4-
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
understood.
What other liner and leachate collection system components
are required by current regulations to be compatible vith
wastes?
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
samples.
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),
-------
-5-
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
-------
-6-
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
applicant.
Should the leachate be changed during the immersion
test?
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.
Attachment
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
MEMORANDUM
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-
ation.
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
-------
1986(12
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
-------
9487.1986(13
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
-------
9487.1986(14)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9487.1937(
Z 0 IS67
Dr. Suellen Pirages
Director
Institute of Chemical Waste
Management
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
time."
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
r>n
-------
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.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9487.1988(01)
February 3, 1988
MEMORANDUM
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.
-------
-2-
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.
-------
-3-
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.
-------
-4-
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)
ATKl/1112/26sm
-------
9488 - INCINERATORS
Parts 264 & 265 Subpart O
ATKl/l 104/46 kp
-------
OSWER Directive 19488.00-1A
tafej
Nwo^
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY
/
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RES'ON
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Dioxin Trial Burns for Purposes of Certification or
a £CRA Permit
FROM:
TO:
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.
-------
-2-
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
duplicate.
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
occur.
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9488 . 00-2
IflBM OMIC10*
I U MOD SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS
MEMORANDUM
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).
-------
u.Ku.nYE
9488.00-2
-2-
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
UNITED STATES EN VIRONMENTAL PROTEC*"^
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204«0
9488.00-3
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENT "ESPQNSE
MEMORANDUM
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
standards.
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.
-------
-2-
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
-------
9488.1985(03)
April 1, 1985
MEMORANDUM
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.
-------
-2-
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) ^
9488.1985(04)
3 I
rr W
1 ffv
O u»
i— «•
00
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) £
u»
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
-------
3488.1985(07)
26
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Effect of Water-Stripped POHCs on
Incinerator DRE
PROM: John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Roland W. Schrecongest
Acting Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region III
(3HWOO)
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.
Attachment
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
-------
9488.1986(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
-------
9488.1986(04)
I/ .966
MEMORANDUM
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
conditions.
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
effort.
-------
9488.1986(05)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTi Destruction at Dioxin Contaminated Soil Using Mobil*
Incineration
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.
Delistinq
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
constructlorn*
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)
-------
UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT! AGENCY
9488.1986(06;
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 '.«»•«•"
-------
-2-
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.
-------
9484.1987(02)
April 15, 1987
MEMORANDUM
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.
-------
-2-
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.
Attachment
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9484.1987(03)
April 30, 1987
MEMORANDUM
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
liners.
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.
-------
-2-
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.
-------
9484.1987(04!
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
managed?
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
MEMORANDUM
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»
-------
9484.1987(07)
July 14, 1987
MEMORANDUM
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.
-------
-2-
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
request„
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.
-------
-3-
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.
-------
9484.1987(08)
July 14, 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL) Policy for HSWA
Provisions
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.
-------
-2-
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
case.
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
Bob;Tonetti
Suzanne Rudzinski
Art Day
Mark Salee
Paul Cassidy
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9484.1987 (09)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
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
MEMORANDUM
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,
1990.
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*
i**ued.
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
Thermex.
-------
MUTED STATES lHV«eHHCi|TAL PvSJmYCTlO* AGENCY
9484. 1987(12)
NGN 25I9ST
MEMORANDUM
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
consuming.
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"
standard.
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)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINQTON, D.C. 20460 ^ O I 1 ( Pi
JUN 20
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPO'
General Roy Goodwin
Director, Engineering Services
HQ TAC/DE
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
-------
-3-
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
information:
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
(POTW).
-------
-5-
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)
382-4782,,
Attachments
Sincerely,
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
-------
b^
r~ ~~\
000
0 0
v^ J
/• *\
000
0 0
V J
r~ ~\.
0 0
000
V J
f "\
0 0
000
V J
r ^\
000
0 0
v J
r ^>
000
0 0
V J
^^
IMPOUNDMENT AREA EQUALS TWO ACRES
Figure 1. Example of Sampling and Compositing
For impoundments A and B
-------
Figure 3. General Representation of Sampling
Plan for Lake Holloman
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT10M AGENCY 9484.1991(01J
MAR 8 1991
MEMORANDUM
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
concerns.
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
required.
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.
------- |