v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9488.0K85)
*
: ~ Dilution of a Characteristic Waste as a Treatment
'- Process to Qualify for the §264.340 Exemption
APPROVAL DATE: i-io-85
* * "**
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1-10'85
ORIGINATING OFFICE: :': off ice
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
Solid Waste
t-v]-v£A-"Pending OMB approval :' /
' AA-OSWER approval
[/11 ^J?vIn"deyelopmehtTbr",circulatir
R EF E R E N C § TO'iker~doculmerftsj"
OS WER OS WER OS WER
E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Di
-------
PARTS 264-265 SUBPART 0 - INCINERATOR DOC: 9438.01(35)
Key Words: Exclusion, Characteristics of Hazardous Waste, Appendix VIII,
Dilution
Regulations: 40 CFR 264.340
Subject: Dilution of a Characteristic Waste as a Treatment Process to
Qualify for the §264.340 Exemption
Addressee: James Scarbrough, Chief, Waste Management Branch, Region IV
Originator: John H. Skinner, Director, Office of Solid Waste
Source Doc: 09488.01(85)
Date: 1-10-85
Summary:
Dilution of a characteristic waste by mixing with other hazardous and non-
hazardous waste is an acceptable treatment process under RCRA. Dilution is
considered' to be treatment, since the definition of treatment includes: "...
any method ..'.-.' designed-, to change the physical, chemical, or biological
character or composition of any hazardous waste ... so as to render such
waste non-hazardous, or less hazardous . . ."
.-. ......Dilution ,is also an acceptable treatment technique for a D001, D002, or
D003 waste.streami with significant concentrations of Appendix VIII constituents.
If.after treatment, the wastes are rendered non-EP toxic or "the^cohcentrations
of Appendix VIII constituents are insignificant, then the incineration of these
wastes will.either not be regulated under RCRA or ma;/ qualify for the exemption
for- a''-'ch'aracteristic -waste- according to :§264.340(c).
,r..->'-^I.n.'brderr'tp. estab'lish'.-compliance -with the 264.340 exemption, applicant s
must submit:
a) A list of all' Appendix VIII constituents reasonably expected to be in
.-..-..- . :..., the-waste; . . , .... ... ... .
b) A justification for the exclusion of any Appendix VIII constituents
cited in (a), indicating that the particular Appendix VIII constituents
are not used as a raw material, are not a constituent or contaminant in
the raw materials, and are not products,- by-products, or intermediates
in the production process; and
c) An analysis of the waste for each of the constituents identified in (a),
-------
9438.01 (3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JAN 10 1985 o.,,
SCUD WASTE AND =
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Region IV's Application of the 40 CFR 264.340 Exemption
to du Pont'Xp1ant -- EPA I.D. Number NCD047369046
FROM: Joh-n H. Skinner, Director
Office of Sol id Waste (WH
TO: James Scarbrough', Chief
Waste Management Branch, Region IV
I am responding, to. your memorandum of December 11, 1984,
raising two-' issues 'in North Carolina's processing of du Pont's
..Cape. Fear, perm it application. .--The' two. issues are whether dilution
i s an-..acceptable means, of converting hazardous wastes that do not
qualify for the exemption at 40 'CFR 264.340 into wastes that do
qual i fy ; and. what information is necessary to demonstrate compliance
with this exemp.ti.on ...
' Herb .Mi 11er, 'of your staff, discussed the first issue with
Alan Cor son and Randy Chri'smon. .At that time, both Alan and Randy
agreed that dilution can be used to treat a waste exhibiting any
..of. .the .charac.te.rvs.t ics, of -i gnrt.abi.l 1 ty, corros i v i ty, react i v i ty
or EP toxicity. 'Dilution by' mix'ing with other hazardous and
,no.n-haz.a.rd;o.-u-s, w-as.te ,,i s.;.an..,accepta.b.l.e. ..-ne-thod. of. trea t^ent tha t
i's "sub j ect' to .'perrrii't'c'ond 1 t i ons , as is proposed in the drift du
Pont, permit-. Treatment is defined as "... any method, technique,
or- .proces s , i-ncl jdi ng neu tral i za t i on , designed to cnange the
physical, chemi.cal.,. or biological character or composition of any
haza'rdbus ~ was te .".'.' so" as to render such waste nc.n-h* za rdo^s , or
less hazardous, safer to transport, store or dispose of...."
Also discussed during the conversation among Alan, Randy, and
Herb was whether dilution could also change a characteristic waste
stream (either D001, D002, or D003) with significant concentrations
of Append!x -VII I hazardous constituents into a characteristic -
waste stream with insignificant concentrations of such constituents
and thereby qualify for the exemption at 40 CFR 264.340. At the
time of their discussion, both Alan and Randy thought that this
may not be acceptable. However, after consideration of the
information you sent in your memorandum and using the analysis
outlined above, we have now concluded that dilution is also an
acceptable treatment technique for a 0001 , D002, or 0003 wast-e
stream with significant concentrations of Appendix VIII cons', tu tents
-------
-2-
According to the du Pont permit application, 100 gallons of
hazardous waste would be blended with 2700 gallons of solid waste
to produce a waste that is 3.5% of the original concentration.
According to the accompanying information, the waste streams #20
and #24 (which are hazardous only because of EP toxicity) would
be. sufficiently di.luted by. the .blending to no. longer be EP toxic.
The burn-ing of 'these wastes, after" di Vutiorv, would not be subject
to RCRA since the wastes are no longer hazardous even though
they may contain relatively high.concentrations of Appendix VIII
constituents.
Samples #30 and #40 apparently do not meet any hazardous
waste criteria. Ignitability is determined by use of the Setaflash
or Pensky-Martens closed cup or equivalent methods. According to
these methods, a flash outside the cup, such as experienced by
du Pont, does not render a sample ignitable. If you have other
data indicating that samples #30 and #40 are RCRA ignitable
wastes,, then blending or dilution would be appropriate to reduce
the Appendix VIM constituents below concentrations of concern.
'In add-i ti on ,.'s:ampl e #40 .i s apparent! y the analysis of a blended
mixture," which has be'tween 111 and 140 pp.- of a chlorinated
fluorocarbon. This concentration of Appendix VIII hazardous
constituents may qualify for a 40 CFR264.340(c) exemption.
. the 'ma teri al .incl uded with your memorandum indicated chat
du Pont also plans to incin-erate £P toxic spill residues. This
material is.not blended prior to incineration but du Pont claims
that "the mixture is likely no longer EP toxic." The du Pont
"com;pa"ri'y:'-m:ust' ensure "'th-a t the "EP --'to'x i c' s'pi 1 1 residues will never
be EP toxic or must obtain a permit to incinerate these hazardous
.wastes ;.; A sv w-vth: 'the .other- was-te :s treats , -du Pont may dilute
this waste stream to ensure that it is no longer EP toxic.
Your'memorandum also asks what minimum information is necessary
to-es-ta-bl.i-s.h,. co^-p-l-i ance. wi th . the- 40 CFR 254.340 exemption. As
your memorandum correctly identifies, an applicant must submit:
a. A list of all Appendix VIII constituents which would
reasonably be expected to be in the waste.
b. A justification for the exclusion of any Appendix VIII
constituents from the list in (a).
c. An analysis of the waste for each of the constituents
identified in (a).
The justification for excluding wastes from the list identified
in (a) must indicate that the particular Appendix VIII constituents
are not used as a raw material, are not a constituent or contaminant
-------
-3-
in the raw materials, and are not products, by-products or inter-
mediates in the production process. The applicant may demonstrate
this by describing the process which generates the waste and
listing the chemical constituents of the raw material, catalysts,
expected intermediates..products, .and ..by-products.
It appears you also asked the applicant to submit calculations
of the expected concentration of Appendix VIII constituents in
the sta.ck gases based on the constituent's concentration in the
waste feed. Although .there is no specific requirement for this
information in the regulations, the Region is within its discretion
to request' this material. The information should assist the
Region in determining whether the ^oncentration of Appendix VIII
hazardous constituents is significant.
To summarize the conclusions in this memo, dilution of a
character! sti c -was-te. is-.a treatment process under RCRA. Generally,
this treatment wi.11 occur in tanks or containers which will be
permitted-under Subpart .'I' or J of Part 264, and subject to the
general fa'ci 1 i ty- standards of RCRA. If, after treatment, the
wastes..are rendered non-EP toxic or are 0001, DGU2, or 0003 waste:
with Insignificant concentrations of Appendix VIII constituents,
..then. the;-..i.rtc.inera-t i.on ..of-..'the.se- was tes wi 11 either not be regulated
under RCRA. or .m_ajr_o,ua 1 i fy'. for the- exempt ion for characteristic
wastes ' at-40' CFR 264.340(c). This exemption will be granted, at
the Directo'r's discretion, if the waste does not pose a threat to
human health and. the environment when burnea in an incinerator.
I-f -the-1 re a'-tment-p'r.oces-S'reduces' the' concent ra t i on of Append i x VIII
constituents so that they are undetectable using the appropriate
''proc;e.d-\ur;es';:V^ , then the facil i ty
."lust be 'granted the exemption at 40 CFR 25^.34G(b).
Thank you for'your memorandum raising 'these important issues.
If.-yau h.ave any,, q.ues t i ons. -pi ease -conta.ct Irene Homer (FTS 382-4304)
regarding waste characterization issues or Randy Chrismon (FTS 3o2-
4691) regarding incineration issues.
Attachments
cc : Waste Management Branch Chiers
Regions I-III, V-X
Bruce Weddle
Alan Corson
Peter Guerrero
-------
TO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
jeer Region IV' 3 Application of the 40 CF3 §264.340 cxe.-ption from a Trial 3um
to E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Cape Fear, ^orth Carolina Plane -
EPA I.D. Nunber NCD 047 369 046
Chief, Residuals Management Branch
Waste Management Branch
John- H.. Skinner, Director -.. ;.- . ; : ...
Office of Solid Waste
We are.requesting your written concurrence by January 2, 1985 with our
approach on two important permitting issues that arose £ron our overview of
North Carolina's processing of Dupont's application and which are discussed
below: »
1. We need written confirmation of the verbal agreement given in the
November 7, 1984 telephone conversation when Aian Corsan and Randy
Chrismon agreed with Herb'Miller of my staff that:" ^
. '. Dilution by mixing with other! hazardous and non-hazardous
'" wastas is not an acceptable means of converting hazardous
wastes that do not .qualify for tha exemption (40 CFS §264.340)
into wastes that do qualify.
2. ' Me also request your agreement that at a minimum, any applicant requesting
the exemption must.supply the following information for each waste
stream subject to the exemption. ('See Comment two of attachment 4.)
'"a."A "List'of 'Appendix v"IIl constituents'which would reasonably be
.. . ..expected to.-be in the.waste. ... ,...-..
'->. Justification for the exclusion if an/ Appendix" '/III constituency
. ..from.the -list: in.-a.-:. -.-._.- -. ..
C-. 'An'analysis''of the wasta for each of the constituents identified In a.
d. A suirmary of the steps taken to develop tne list in a. and/or t.-ie
justification in b. The summary must include a description of che
process which generates the wasta, and a list -of the cnenical con-
stituents of raw materials, catalysts, expected intermediates,
products, and by-products involved.
e. A calculation of the concentration in the stack gases of each Appendix
Vlli constituent identified in c., above, based on their concentrations
found by that analysis. (The calculations should assume the following
destruction efficiencies: 0%, 50%, 99.0%', and 99.99%.}
13204 (R.v. 3-76)
-------
-2-
We have ^ttacr.ed the following items:
(1) Cover sheet and pages 14 and 15 of the stat-? prepare-} preli/ni.-.ary
draft permit which would have specified treatment of hazardous
wastes by dilution.
(2) Sections D-2c, D5b(l) and D5b(2) of Oupont's application that vere
referenced in the draft permit regarding dilution oc hazardous
vastes.
(3) Dupont's Justification for Incinerator ExemptionSection 0-5c,
Exhibit IV and cxnioit V of the application.
. (4) Region IV's November 23, 1984 letter and comments tj North Carolina
on the subject application.
Thank you for ycfcir assistance in these unporta'nt ^rmitting issues. Ic you
have any jueocions, olaase call Mr. Herb Miller at FTS 257-3067.
James H. Scarorouh
cc:- allan .Corson
Randy Ci-.rismc-n
-------
Plr. Allan 8. Abramson, Director
Division of Fnvironaent j
v.anaas Departn^nt of Health and £nviroraent
7ort>«a Fi«ld . =
Topeka, Kansas 66620
" "
D*ar »te. Abraasoni : ' -
Tour February 27 , 1985, letter points out a topic
which has already been subject to review. Let «e augment *"
the points that. the January 10, 1985, memorandvsa covered con-
cerning the du Pont per* it application submitted to Region IV i
his led to the conclusion that dilution was an acceptable '~. ?
reatment technique for waste streams prior to incineration.
nothing in the RCRA regulations prohibits dilution aa a ......
treatment method* indeed, there are times when dilution is '
a necessary step in a treatment train that renders hazardous
was te nonhai ardou*. - --'-v^ - -: .;.. .._.-:...-...:....-.,..... ' .... --," .-,
The May :19r 1980> Federal ft eo later discussed provisions
of the definition of hazardous waate outlined in 40 CTO 261.3.
The waste mixtures provision is a clarification which
has been added in response to Inquiries about whether
viixtures of hazardous and nonhazardoun wastes would be
subject to Subtitle C requirements. This is a very
real issue in real-world waste management, since nany
' - hazardous wastes are mixed with nonhazardous wastes or
other hazardous wastes during storage, treatment, or
disposal.,. '
' ' ; " Waste mixtures containing only wastes which meet
the characteristics are treated just like any other
solid waste, I.e., they will be considered hazardous
only if they exhibit the characteristics. EPA recog-
nizes that this may not be an altogether satisfactory
regulatory approach. While it would no doubt encouraqe
aone desirable mixina of wastes, it would also allow
sccse wastes (principally wastes caught by EPA's extraction
procedure) to escape regulation merely by beinq mixed
with other wastes or other materials. We Know of no
solution to this problem which does not create najor
inconsistencies in the way wastes are determined to be
hazardous under Subpart C of this regulation. (45 PP.
33095.)
-------
* Sections 261.3(o)(1) and (d)(l) say that an unlisted - §
hazardous waste remains a hazardous waste until it no longer i
exhibit* «ny of the characteristics identified tn tubpart C.- _r - £
-After sufficient dilution, -a* characteristic waste is no lonoer ~- ' " !±
.hazardous unlike listed waste mixtures which Bust still obtain <
exclusions according to f2<0»20 and 260*32 In order to beT' . £
nonhazardous. . ..^^ ,_,_._,, ........ ,^,.,_:.. __,_..:,_-,-. ,H..v^ ....... °
: .-,_- -'' ;.--.:-. ,_-:» :. v^v-r -v -. . v- --...-. 3
Dilution is considered to be treatment, since the definition £
of treatment includes "...any atethod.. .designed to change the ^
physical* chemical* or -biological character or composition of *
amy hazardous waste.*,so as to render such waste nonhssardonsr -;.'- V
or less hazardous...* In the case of ignitable, corrosive, *
reactive and BP toxic waste, dilation perforsied according to v '. ^
the perait conditions can effectively render waste nonhasardous. \
n
. 'g
In the du Pont request, after dilution, ignitable waste
will have concentrations of Appendix VIII constituents that --. + *
fall below the suggested 100 ppn range acceptable for the" ~' ^
f2(4.340(b) exclusion discussed in the June 24, 1984, preamble -..-,_- «~
(41 FR 27525). In tKa»ir February 11, 1985, followup letter/ v' ,L
Region ZV requested du Pont to provide further classification ~ f
of the Appendix VIII constituents remaining in the ignitable -. »
waste in order to determine whether or not the incinerator csn .- \
qualify for the type of reduced Bubpart O permit covered by. - ,~ £
the f264.340(b) exclusion. .. , m
'.. ' O
As you know, a State with interim status may be more . . "£
stringent than RCRA. Since Kansas has interim status, you may .. v-
choose to have stricter regulations than «PA, as the f271.1(1) . - M
and S271.121(i) standards allow. Indeed, if you can distinouish ^
.between, desirable, necessary dilutions, and dilutions intended
to avoid regulation, we would like to benefit from your insight.
Dilution is a treatment process that can be permitted under
Federal regulations unless our standards are changed to identify
unacceptable forms of treatment.
'.' . " ' '
^ * %
If you have any further concerns regarding this topic,
please feel free to contact Alan Corson or Irene Homer of my
staff at (202)382-4770, .. ' .'. / /'
^ .' * ^
Sincerely yours.
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
C.MC«T-O. O«PE" .
------- |