vvEPA
                United States
                Environmental Protection
                Agency
             Office of
             Solid Waste and
             Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9444.15-84
                    : Response to questions from State Pestcide Control Office: What is
                    .Disposal Cinteria for Waste with only 1 Active Ingredient?
APPROVAL DATE: flugust 8, 198U

EFFECTIVE DATE: flugust 8, 198H

ORIGINATING OFFICE:

0 FINAL
                                    of Solid Waste
                D DRAFT

                  STATUS:
          [  ]  A- Pending OMB approval
          {  j  B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
          [  ]  C- For review &/or comment
          [  ]  D- .In development or circulating

                         headquarters
                REFERENCE (other documents):
  OSWER       OSWER      OSWER
fE   DIRECTIVE    DIRECTIVE

-------
 vvEPA
                                    Wasnmgton. DC 2CW60
               OSWER Directive Initiation Request
                                                              9444.15-84  ,
Name of Contact Person
  Skinner
                               Mai. Cooe  -    Branch
                                                       Telephone f«umoer
Leaa 0'
-------
                           9444 .-,5-8   4-<:-    8  AUG7984


  Response to Questions from State pesticides Control Officers

  John H. Skinner
  Director
  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (WH-562)

  Amy E. Schaffer
  Program Analyst
  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (WH-527)

     The following responses are presented for the questions  and
issues posed by the State Pesticides Control Officers concerning
RCRA.  Some of the questions were quite difficult to interpret
and were answered to the best of our ability.  If additional
information or clarification is required, please  contact
Francine Jacoff at 475-8551.

(1)  NEW MIXING, LOADING AND TEMPORARY STORAGE STANDARDS -
     Currently no standards exist which indicate  acceptance
     methods.  Society must lay out its level of  accepta-
     bility if actions taken today are not to result in
     similar concerns to the old sites issue.

          RCRA does have existing standards that  apply to
          temporary storage, that is, for less than 90 days.

(2)  Are there reasons which would justify the "economically  and
     technically feasible" standards for some pesticide disposal?

          The question is taken out of context and is difficult\x
          to answer.  None of the RCRA disposal standards are   xx
          based on economics but instead are based on a "protect   \
          human health and the environment" study.  They may  be    \
          referring to tailored standards for particular pesticides.;
          RCRA either requires compliance with Subtitle C standards;;.
          for listed hazardous wastes or excludes them for specified
          reasons.                               '           ' ; •..    -',
                                                             t "   '
(3)  Container disposal, particularly ULV products and in
     impregnated fertilizer situations.  What if  triple rinsing
     is  impossible?                          .         -. = .' . '/v :    ••"-

          Section 261.7 is pertinent only if the  product is  ,
          listed in $261.33.  Section 261.7, Residues of  •
          hazardous waste in erapty containers, is explicit./

(4)  Bulk pesticide storage standards - are they  needed?^-/-c;

          RCRA is concerned with waste storage, not product
       .   storage.  OPP should answer this question. .-...

-------
 (5)   Old products disposal - A reasonable policy to rid the
      storage area of "unusable" material is needed with emphasis
      on  recycling.

           RCRA encourages recycling of hazardous wastes by
           exempting them from Subtitle C standards when recycled..-
           Old products disposal are only regulated by RCRA if
           product is listed in §261.33.

 (6)   Small dip tanks associated with local lumber facilities
      accumulate sludge (PCP).  A policy which allows annual
      purging, of the system requires the material to be landf illed
      in  a regulated hazardous waste site but removes the require-
      ment of being  a generator would assure better disposal.
      Is  such a policy obtainable?
               is presently studing the wood preserving industry
           in order to determine additional listings of hazardous
           waste.  It should be noted though, that there is an
           existing exclusion for generators of small amounts of
           hazardous waste,  (<1000 ks/ma)

 (7)   What aid for developing recycling incentatives exist?  What
      funding is available?

           RCRA does not provide for financial assistance.  However
           if unique ideas are presented to SPA's ORD, there might
           be a possibility of a research and development grant.

 (8)   Is use of a pesticide regulated under RCRA?

           NO .
                •

 (9)   At what level (if any) does decontaminated water become
      unregulated?

           If the contaminated water is listed as a hazardous waste/
           the generator that "decontaminates" it must submit a
           delisting petition to the OSW.

(10)   What analysis has been done of existing disposal techniques  •-,
      and systems to determine their acceptability for decontamina-
      tion?  For exaraple, the Purdue system causes operators to : ;
      become generators.  Is that the intent of proper disposal ,i--^
      policy? .--.  ,     ..--; ' ,  •;..       /       ..  .-  :,.-?_.^.;;?>....::.:;;^^

           EPA is constantly interested in updating their disposal:;
           standards.  This issue may be better addressed by OPP. '.^

-------
(11)   Pits used for breaking down residual chemicals are now
      considered to be disposal sites and are regulated as such.
      Many sites forced applicators to adopt this "new" technology
      several years ago.  How these sites have caused individuals
      to be regulated the same as major hazardous waste sites.
      Is a lesser classification reasonable and obtainable?

           It depends on whether the pit is a tank or a surface   '
           impoundment.  If a tank, the waste stream is exempt
           frora RCRA when subject to an NPDES permit.  If a surface
           impoundment, and the waste stream is hazardous, it is
           'regulated by RCRA.  Lesser classification would be
           cumbersome and confusing and would not b« in keeping
           with the intent of RCRA which is to protect human health
           and the environment.

(12)   What EP toxicity testing is required when chemicals which are
      intended for disposal are mixed together?

           EP toxicity testing ia the same for all wastes that ara
           meant for disposal.  See SW-846.

(13)   When a waste contains only one active ingredient, how do«a
      disposal criteria differ from more than one active ingredient
      waste?

           Discarded commercial chemical products are only regulated
           as hazardous waste where the chemical listed in $261.33
           is the sole active ingredient.

(14)   We seem to b« indicating storage of types of pesticide
      wastes, i.e., herbicide waste or insecticide waste, together
      is acceptable procedure today.  Is that correct?

           Yes, if there is no reactivity between the wastes and
           the wastes are compatible with the container.

(15)   Exemptions, are they fair and do the existing standards
      really safeguard the environment?
               V                                        ' . ' '
      This is a rhetorical question.  EPA regulations and concerns.
      are dynamic and always subject to change if warranted.      /• v

-------