03/Z5/99 11:1Z:1Z -> ZB6 553 B11B Office of Solid Uast Page 001
PPC 9551.1996(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C.
20460
February 27,1996
T. L. Nebrich, Jr.
Technical Director
Waste Technology Services Inc.
640 Park Place
Niagara Falls, New York 14301
Dear Mr. Nebrich:
Thank you for your letter of November 14,1995 regarding clarification of
the "mixture rule," the "contained-in" policy, LDR issues, and "point of
generation" for U096, (a,a,Dimethylbenzylhydroperoxide). The U096 waste itself
is subject to the LDR requirements in 40 CFR Subpart 268.42 and must be treated
by the methods specified. When wastes exhibiting a RCRA characteristic (such as
U096) are mixed with a solid waste, if the resulting mixture does not exhibit the
characteristic (in this case of reactivity), then the waste is not required to be
disposed in a Subtitle C landfill, but can be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
However, the waste is still subject to treatment by the methods specified in 40
CFR Subpart 268.42 (see 40 CFR Subpart 261.3(a)(2)(iii)).
If U096 waste was spilled on soil, the EPA or authorized State Agency
overseeing the cleanup could determine whether the soil did or did not contain
hazardous waste, based on the "contained-in" policy. EPA's "contained-in" policy
does not specify levels at which "contained-in" determinations must be made.
Those decisions are left to the discretion of the EPA or State program that is
making the "contained-in" determination. Therefore, the "contained-in" policy
does not require that the U096 be analytically non-detectable in order to be
considered non-hazardous, although the EPA or State program could require that
(or alternative levels) based on their discretion.
Issues similar to those you raised regarding contaminated soil were
discussed in a September 15,1995 letter that I wrote to
Peter C. Wright of the Monsanto Company. That letter is attached. Also, these
issues will be discussed more fully in an upcoming EPA proposed rulemaking
"Requirements for Management of Hazardous Contaminated Media" commonly
referred to as the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Contaminated Media or
HWIR-media. We plan to publish that proposal in March, and I will forward a
BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK14045
-------
03/25/99 11:16:14 -> 206 553 8110 Office of Solid Past Page 002
copy to }x>u as soon as it is available. We suggest you look to the proposal's
preamble discussion for guidance regarding the situation you describe in your
letter. Of course, it should be noted that the requirements that apply to
contaminated media could change when EPA finalizes that rulemaking.
Thank you for your concern about protecting the environment. I apologize
for the delay in responding to your letter that was caused by the two government
furloughs. Your staff may wish to contact Carolyn Hoskinson at (703) 308-8626, if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely Yours,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
cc:
Matt Hale, OSW/PSPD
Barbara Pace, OGC
RCRA Regional Branch Chiefs, Regions 1-10
Attachment
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC.
November 14,1995
Mr. Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am requesting a clarification of the "mixture rule" and
"contained-in" policy in regards to U096 (a,a,Dimethylbenzylhydroperoxide) and
LDR issues. This material is listed for reactive (R) and as such when mixed with
another solid waste would not be a hazardous waste if it did not meet the
reactivity requirement in 40 CFR 261.23. If this material was spilled on soil, the
"contained-in" policy kicks in. I understand that with this scenario the
BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK14045
-------
83/25/99 11:16:4Z -> ZB6 553 011B Office of Solid Uast Page BB3
identification as a hazardous waste is different than the above scenario (mixture).
That is, the U096 would have to be analytically non-detect to be considered as
non-hazardous.
If my assumptions are correct, and correct me if I'm wrong, what is the
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) ramifications? Does this material have to be
CMBST under both scenarios? At what point is the "point of generation" under
both scenarios.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to
call.
Very truly yours,
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
T. L. Nebrich, Jr.
Technical Director
TLN/kjl
BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK14045
------- |