&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9320.1-07
TITLE: Interim Guidance for Consideration
of sectionslOS(g) and 125 of SARA
Prior to NPL Proposal of Special
Study Waste Sites
APPROVAL DATE: MAY 2 9 1987
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
•
OFINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OS WE
fE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
J-k |— a-» m
OfcPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. DC 20440
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1 . Directive Number
9320.1-07
2. Originator Information
Nam* ol Contact Person
Ann Sarno
Mail Cod*
WH-548E
Office
OERR/HSED/HRLB
Telephone Number
382-4485
3. Tula
Interim Guidance for Consideration of Sections 105(g) and 125 of SARA
Prior to NPL Proposal of Special Study Waste Sites
4. Summary of Directive (Include br/e/ statement of purpottl
. Keywords
Superfund, CERCLA, SARA, RCRA,- Special Study Wastes, NPL
a. Docs this Directive Supersede Previous Directives)? [_J Yes f No What directive Inumtter. tit lei
Does it Supplement Previous Directives)? ffi^l Yes Q No What Directive tnumbor. tnt»l
9320.1-06, RCRA "SpeciaT Study1' Waste Definitions: Sites requiring
additional consideration prior to NPL proposal under SARA
Draft Level
[j A — Signed by AA/DA.A U B —
Signed by Office Director
LJ C —
For Review & Comment
In Development
his Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Signature of Lena Office Directives Coordinator
Dan
Name ano Title ot Approving Official
Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR
Date
OSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE >
-------
* m*..^ -
w
T^ fC»
4t pqO^
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION AGENCY
•; WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAY -2 9 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
OSWER Directive 9320.1-07
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Interim Guidance for Consideration of Sections 105(g)
and 125 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 Prior to NPL Proposal of Social Study
Waste Sites
fit
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial/Ejv^
Waste Management Division
IV, V, VII, and VIII
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Director,
Regions I
Director,
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III and VI
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
This memo is a follow-up to my March 10, 1987, memo (attached)
to the Regions that provided operating .definitions of special
study wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Ac-t
(RCRA). Th£_ purpose of this memo is to provide interim ^guidance
for fulfilling the requirements of Sections 105(g) and 125 of THg
Superfund AirfelTdifienTs"~ana"~Reau"th"orTzatipn~Act""6~f ~19B"6~~'fSSRAT.~~in '
order to propose special study waste sites for the National
Priorities List (NPL). This guidance is considered interim
because Sections 105(g) and 125 require that the Aaency fulfill
the additional requirements only until the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) is= revised. The revised HRS will consider, to the maximum
extent feasible, the relative deqree of risk to human health and
the environment posed by special study waste sites described in
Section 125.
Section 105(g) of SARA applies to sites that, (1) were not
on or prooosed for the :sfs>L as of October 17, .1986, and (2) contain
significant quantities or special study wastes as defined under
Sections 3001(b)(2), 3001 (b*) ( 3 ) (A) ( ii ), and 3001(b)(3)(A)(iii) of
RCRA. For these sites, SARA reauires that the following information
be considered prior to prooosal for the NPL:
(A) the extent to which the HRS score for the facility
is affected by the oresence of the special study
waste at, or released from the facility.
-------
OSWER Directive 9320.1-07
-2-
(B) available information as to the quantity, toxicity/
and concentration of hazardous substances that are
constituents of any special study waste at, or released
from, the facility; the extent of or potential for re-
lease of such hazardous constituents; the exposure or
potential exposure to human population and the environ-
ment, and the degree of hazard to human health or the
environment posed by the release of such hazardous
constituents at the facility.
Section 125 of SARA applies to facilities that were neither
on nor proposed for the NPL on the date of enactment of SARA and
which contain "substantial volumes" of waste described in
Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i) of RCRA. Until the HRS is revised to
include consideration of enumerated factors, these sites may not
be included on the NPL "on the basis of an evaluation made
principally on the volume of such waste and not on the concen-
tration of the hazardous constituents of such waste." Even
though Section 125 does not contain specific considerations
for the interim period, the Agency recommends that wastes covered"
under Section 125 follow the same requirements of Section 105.(g)^"
until the HRS is revised. . --
The Agency reviewed HRS packages for a number of special
study waste sites to determine if they contai-n the information
necessary to fulfill the requirements of Section 105(g). In
general, the data necessary to complete the HRS package provides
the needed information to fulfil-1 the requirements described in
Section 105(g). Although Section 105'(g) states that available
information should be used (e.g., sampling data from past or
present on-site or off-site examination of the facility or
releases from the facility), Section 105(g) does not preclude
the gathering" of additional information, if necessary, to
better evaluate the site.
In order to meet the SARA requirements for these special
study waste sites (as defined in the March 10, 1987 memo),
the Agency recommends that Regions prepare an addendum to the
HRS package....which addresses these requirements whenever special
study wastes-are present at a site. The following guidance
covers information that should be included in this addendum.
Basically/..the addendum is an assessment of risks based on
information contained in the HRS package. The addendum is
intended to complement the HRS package in. addressing the
requirements of SARA Sections 105(g) and 125.
Addendum
1. Effect of Special Study Wastes or. HRS Score
Section 105(g)(2)(A) of SARA requires an evaluation of the
extent to which the HRS score is affected by the presence of
the special study wastes at the site. In order to address this
reoulatorv reauirement, the following scenarios should be
considered:
-------
OSWER Directive 9320.1-07
-3- - '•'•
1) If the special study wastes are one"of several contam-
inants at the site, but there is insufficient information
to include them in the HRS score (e.g., no information
on-waste quantity), then the HRS addendum need only
include a discussion of the presence of the special
study wastes at the site and any information that is
available.
2) If the special study wastes are one of several contam-
inants at the site, and they do contribute to the HRS
score (e.g., the observed release originates from the
special study waste or they contribute to the waste
quantity score), then the HRS addendum should first
discuss the extent to which the score is affected. For
example, if the special study wastes are excluded from
the waste quantity calculation and the site still scores
above 28.50, discuss this point in the addendum. In
addition, due to the concern for the special study waste
at the site, the evaluation discussed below needs to be
performed.'
3) In the final scenario, if the special study wastes are T
the sole contaminants at the site, then the site needs -.•-
to -be scored solely on the basis of these special study
wastes and the evaluation discussed below needs to be
performed in depth.
2. Qualitative Analysis
A. Inf ornvat ion on Waste Constituents
The first step in...the qualitative analysis .section of the
addendum is to "identify the types of wastes at the site. Infor-
mation on the site's history should assist in determining the
types of special study wastes present. Site inspection and
sampling data may help to evaluate the quantity of waste at the
site that is special study waste. In addition to determining the
quantity of special study waste, to the extent possible based
on the available data, the quantity and concentration of the haz-
ardous constituents should be determined. Both concentrations in
the waste a=r»d concentrations in the environmental media should be
considered;-'^-
Information on the toxicity of the hazardous constituents,
.in addition to that available in the SAX reference required
in the HRS guidance, should be considered. Additional toxi-
city information can be useful in characterizing the potential
hazard at the site. The Superfund Public Health Evaluation
Manual (SPHEM) (OSWER Directive 9285.4-1, October, 1986)
-------
OSWER Directive 9320.1-07
includes toxicity values, e.g./ reference doses (RFDs),
health effect assessments (HEAs), carcinogenic potency values,
and drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), that
should be evaluated.
B. Exposure Information
The HRS package describes available sampling data on
releases, if any, to the surrounding area. The condition of
the containment structures along with the local geology and
hydrogeology are useful to evaluate the potential for release.
The factors affecting release potential should be considered
qualitatively to determine the likelihood that people will
be exposed.
The potential or actual exposures that may result- from a
potential or actual release are also considered qualitatively.
An environmental transport medium (e.g., air, ground water, or
surface water) for the released substance, an exposure point
where human contact with the contaminated medium may occur, and
a human exposure route (e.g., drinking water ingestion) at the
exposure point should be evaluated. A qualitative discussion
of the exposure analysis will aid in assessing the hazard
posed by the site.
The Regions nay have enough site information to do simple
exposure modeling that could contribute to the understanding
of the seriousness of the threat presented by the site."
Headauarters does not recommend any one exposure model to be
used during this interim period. If the Regions intend to sub-
mit an exposure model, .they should consult with Headquarters
on the specific model chosen prior to submission of the HRS
package. However, exposure modeling is not required and
should be considered at the Region's discretion.
C. Hazard Assessment
Section 105(g) al~o requires an evaluation of the decree
of hazard^ to-human health or the environment that may be posed
by the release of haz^raous constituents "to the environment.
This requirement is not intended to imply that a quantitative
risk assessment must be conducted for the site as is typically
done in an RI/FS. Rather, i:he goal is to provide a qualitative
assessment of the pro1*:j.!" 11 i i:y and magnitude of hazard due to
conditions at the sit*.
The assessment o.c •••••• .1 d is based on an analysis of the
amount and toxicity of '-'--? ' azardous constituents at the site
and. the likelihood ti-Mc "SHrj.-lp will b= exposed to them. The
toxicity information os--. :?e compared to site concentration
data to determine wheth-?r concentrations of hazardous constit-
uents on site are s ion i f. i ::ant. When connarino toxicity
information to sit-? concent r.3 t ion data, both concentrations
-------
OSWER Directive 9320.1-.07
-5- :-
in the waste and concentrations in environmental media should '-
be considered, if available. This comparison is intended to
indicate the relative concern warranted by the hazardous constit-
uents of the wastes at the site and the degree to which the
hazard at the site is due to hazardous constituents of special
study wastes.
Clearly, the most compelling evidence of significant hazard
at a site is an observed level of contamination at a point
where human exposure is likely. Even where there is no current
exposure, evidence that contaminants have migrated beyond the
waste itself into environmental media provides important documen-
tation that a significant potential for future exposure exists.
Where high levels of contaminants are present in the waste
itself, but have not been observed in surrounding environmental
media, a discussion of the reasons for this result should be
included.
It is imoortant to remember that the hazard assessment is
qualitative and should be conducted using existing data. It is
not necessary to gather additional data in order to satisfy
this requirement.
Format ' '
•A recommended format for documenting the analysis of the
requirements of Sections 105(g) and 125, and a sample site
analysis are attached.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter. We will
work with the Regions, ...to the extent feasible, to prepare the
special study waste adnendums in order to fulfill the require-
ments of Sections 105(q) and 125. If your staff has questions
regarding this Guidance, they should call Ms. Ann Sarno, of
my staff, at FTS-382-4485.
Attachments
cc: Dennis Huebner, Region T Bob Hannesschlacer, Region VI
John Czapor, Renion II Robert Morby, Region VII
Bob Wayland, Re~ion III Bill Geise, Reoion VIII
Richard Stonebraker, Reoion IV Keith Takata, Region IX
Mary Gade, Reai^". V Robert Courson, Reqion X
N?L Coordinator-, ^.i i on? I-X
-------
; RECOMMENDED FORMAT
Name of Site and Location
1. Introduction; Description of site, general discussion
of wastes present, physical setting, proximity to poten-
tially exposed population.
2. Information on Constituents of Waste:
Quantity—What wastes are present at the site, how much
of the wastes are special study wastes, estimated quantity
of hazardous constituents in all wastes at the site (if
available).
Concentration—Estimated concentrations of hazardous
constituents reported in the special study wastes,
estimated concentration of hazardous constituents in
all wastes at the site. "Provide the range of values
if there are observed releases, and not just the highest
value.
Toxicity--Toxicity or carcinogenicity of the hazardous
constituents of the wastes, comparison of reported
concentrations to the most sensitive toxicity value.
3. Exposure Information:
Releases--Reported-releases, site characteristics that
could lead to releases, new or additional releases likely
to occur given the site conditions.
Exposures—-Exposures that have occured, potential exposure
pathways.
4. Hazard to Human Health and the Environment; Assessment
of thr.sa.ts to human health and the environment based on
the ex^SSure potential and the concentration and toxicity
of wastes. Summary of releases, exposures, and toxicity
information.
5. Summary; Extent to which the special study wastes contribute
to the hazard at t'-.e site.
6. References: Provide references for all sources of infor-
mation used in the analysis, separately listing references
included in the HRS nackaqe and other sources of information,
-------
SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR HYPOTHETICAL SITE
SMITH OIL SERVICES INC.
OIL CITY, USA
1. Introduction
The Smith Oil Services, Inc. site is an abandoned oilfield waste disposal
area located north of Oil City, USA. The two pits on the site were used for
separation of oil, water, and solids used in oil drilling. Another pit, now
mostly dry, was reported to contain clean water. The 12 acre site began
operating in the late 1970s; owners claim to have stopped receiving wastes in
1982.
The site and surrounding area are quite flat, with a surface .elevation of
approximately 1023 feet above sea level and a mean elevation change of about 5
feet across the site. The material within the pits is an oily sludge,
containing liquids such as ethylbenzene, acetone, toluene, and xylene. No
domestic or public water supply wells have been contaminated, but one water rr
supply well used by employees on site has been contaminated by low levels of "
heavy metals and organic chemicals associated with oil drilling muds. Ground
water from wells within 3 miles of the site serves as public water supply for
14,000 people, domestic water supply for 700 homes, and irrigation water
supply for 350 acres of corn and soybean fields. Contaminants could migrate
off site in surface water run-off, with the potential to reach a river used
for fishing.
2. Information on Constituents of Wastes
Quantity. Evidence from the site inspection report and interviews with
local residents and officials indicates that the only wastes disposed at the
site are oil-based muds used in the drilling of oil and gas wells. Such muds
are classified as special study wastes under RCRA Section 3001(b)(2).
Therefore, all wastes at the site are special study wastes and all threats
from the site are due to special study wastes.
Sampling conducted on-site indicates that the pits contain oily mud with
elevated levels of chromium, lead, zinc, manganese and barium, as well as
toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and other hydrocarbons characteristic of oily
material. Other organic, compounds are reported in the liquid of-the two pits
in very high-concentrations, including phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, and
benzo(a)pyrene, all of which are priority pollutants. The liquids and muds in
the pit also 'contain large quantities of unresolved hydrocarbons characteristic
of oily material. A maximum of 29,000 tons of waste have been estimated to be
present on-site.
One soil sample from the middle of a former pond on the west side of the
site does contains hydrocarbons similar to those found in the pits, as well as
elevated levels of barium, chromium, and lead.
-------
-2-
Concentration. Liquid in the pits contains, barium at 17 mg/1, chromium a.t
10 mg/1, zinc at 73 mg/1, lead at 50 mg/1, and .manganese at 1.5 mg/1.
Manganese is found at similar concentrations in:-uncontaminated surface water
in the area,'and its presence is not likely to be associated with site
contamination. High concentrations of lead and chromium were reported in soil
samples taken from the former pond. Both metals were found in concentrations
approaching 500 mg/kg.
Organic compounds reported in the liquid of the pits are phenanthrene (360
mg/1), fluoranthene (175 mg/1), pyrene (190 mg/1), benzo(a)pyrene (960 mg/1)
and other oily, unresolvable material characteristic of oil drilling mud.
Sediment in the pits contains toluene (25 ppb), ethylbenzene (45 ppb), and
xylenes (100 ppb). Water in the on-site water supply well contains nine
tentatively identified organic compounds with concentrations ranging from
0.003 to 0.6 mg/1. These compounds appeared to be weathered oily material but
could not be positively characterized (Ref 4).
Thorough sampling of soil, sediment, and liquids in waste pits around the
site and off-site has been carried out for this site in the course of site
investigations starting in 1980. Results of these samplings serve as the
basis for the concentration data used in this analysis.
'• n.
Toxicity. Toxic components of the drilling mud and sludge found in the'
pits include barium, chromium, lead, acetone, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total
xylenes. The metals (barium, chromium, and lead) were determined to have the
highest combined toxicity and persistence score on the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS). They were present in waste liquids at concentrations above their
drinking water standards, which indicates a concentration of some concern.
Chromium is found in the liquid of the pits at concentrations 200 times higher
than the drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCL), lead in
concentrations 100 times the MCL and barium in. concentrations 17 times the MCL
(Ref 4). Uncharacterized hydrocarbons were found in the pits and in the
liquid remains of the former pond on the western half of the site.
Phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, present in very high
levels in the pits. These compounds are all polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and are potential carcinogens. The concentration of PAH mixtures
associated with a 10-s cancer risk is approximately 3 ng/1 -- nine orders of
magnitude lower that concentrations reported in Pit #1. Benzo(a)pyrene is a
fairly potent suspected human carcinogen, having a cancer potency of 11.5
(mg/kg-day)-1 as determined by EPA's Environmental Criteria Assessment
Office (SPA,. 1985). All of the above listed PAHs are listed as highly toxic
in Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials (Ref 3), the standard
reference for toxicity classifications in HRS scoring. PAHs are also
persistent, which would give them the highest HRS toxicity score of 18.
Another concern is the unspecified mixture of hydrocarbons. Because they
could not be identified, they have not been considered in the HRS scoring.
Complex mixtures related to petroleum often contain hundreds of compounds,
many of which are PAHs similar to'those reported in Pit --'I. Some of these are
likely to be potential carcinogens and are likely to exist in significant
quantities and concentrations on site.
-------
-3-
.3. Exposure Information
Releases. At present, contaminants may leach from the pits-and soil into
the ground water. This type of release is indicated by contamination in the
on-site drinking water well adjacent to the pits (Ref 4). Contamination does
not appear to have migrated to off-site ground water exposure points yet,
because no oil-related contamination was found in drinking water wells
off-site. The contamination could not be well-characterized but appeared to
be weathered oily material. The waste pits are reported to be unlined,
increasing the ground-water contamination potential.
Runoff from pits and the former pond to the adjacent stream is also a
potential problem. Sediment and soil samples indicate that oily contamination
has not been released from the pits into the adjacent stream, because samples
from downstream of the site showed no observable contamination. In addition
to the pits, a tank on sice is reported to contain "oily material" of unknown
composition and the tank is reported as potentially unsound and lacking
containment structures. Contamination characteristic of o'il has been reported
around this tank as well. The former pond on the west half of the site was
reported to be seeping into the adjacent stream in one site investigation in
1984 (Ref 13). Sampling has not confirmed evidence of contamination in the
stream, however (Ref 14). This release was not considered in the HRS scoring.
Exposures. A thorough investigation of ground water and surface water
users in the area appears to have been made. A large number of potential
exposure points were identified. Currently, no exposures to site-related
contaminants have been reported off-site, although ground water is an
important resource in the area. The town of Oil City (population 14,000), as
well as 700 homes with private wells, obtain their water from wells within the
three mile limit considered in the HRS (Ref 10, 11, 17).. the closest well is
less than 1100 feet from the site (Ref 10). The productive aquifer is believed
to be the same as the one contaminated at the site (Ref 8). Direction of
ground-water flow was not 'reported, so it is not possible to determine which
wells are actually threatened by site contamination. Ground water pumping in
the area has affected the direction of ground-water flow. However, the
general flow is to the north, toward the Oil City water wells.
The potential for surface water contamination is also -significant.
Contamination is present in soils that could easily wash into the adjacent
stream and contaminate the Cooper River, which receives runoff from the site.
This rivex is an important recreational resource and is popular with fishermen.
Another significant possible release to surface water is overflow from the
pits, particularly ?it.-vl. This pit was reported to have a freeboard of only
1.5 feet in the 1984 site investigation (Ref 13). Significant rains could
conceivably raise water levels in the pit to a level that would overflow the
pit. Runoff would likely and up in the stream and adjacent fields to the east.-
-------
-4-
4. Hazard to Human Health and the Environment I
".The site is not now endangering the health of surrounding residents, bu.t
the potential for harm is significant. Oil drilling muds, a special study
waste under Section 3001(b)(2) of RCRA, is present on the site in large
quantities. This oily waste contains lead, barium, and chromium, as well as
high concentrations of a variety of organic chemicals including potentially
carcinogenic PAHs stored in unlined pits. These contaminants have leached
into ground water and are likely to affect local water supply wells, the
closest of which .is 1060 feet from the nearest hazardous substance. Evidence
in the HRS package demonstrates that the contaminated aquifer is the same
water-bearing system that is used as the water supply in the area. The tank
on site has been used to store "slop" oil and is surrounded by soil and
puddles contaminated by waste oil. Contaminants in the soil may be carried
off site to the Cooper River, which is a popular recreational resource.
Constituents of the oil drilling mud are highly toxic and the PAHs are also
carcinogenic. Pit #1 contains chromium and lead at 200 and 100 times their
drinking water MCLs, respectively. Both pits contain PAHs at a concentration
nine orders of magnitude above the 10-s excess cancer risk. Depth to ground
water is approximately 20 feet below the bottom of the pits and the vadose
zone is composed of clays, sand, and gravel that evidently have not provided
an adequate buffer against site 'contamination, increasing the likelihood of
releases and exposures. Rainfall is moderate -- net precipitation is 2 inches
a year --suggesting ground-water infiltration and surface runoff are likely
to be significant exposure pathways. In conclusion, the sice presents a
significant potential hazard to human health and the environment.
5. Summary
The quality of information relevant to the provisions of CERCLA Section
105(g) is generally quite good. • Site information indicates clearly that all
wastes on-site are oil drilling mud wastes. Consequently, the entire threat
at the site is due to special study waste. The constituents of these wastes
are widely recognized to pose risks to human health and the environment.
Available information indicates that releases of these constituents have
already occurred, that there is a potential for additional releases, and that
human exposures to these constituents, while not reported as yet, is a strong
possibility. Thus, the site presents a threat to human health and the
envircnr.ent.
-------
6. References
References from HRS Package
All references cited in the HRS package were evaluated for this analysis.
Specific reference cited are listed below.
Reference
Number Description of the References
3 Sa-x, M.I. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Sixth Ed.
4 Sampling Inspection Report, 9-26-1985 by FIT Environmental
Engineer-A Sarno.
8 Johnson, L., and Ford, G. Hydrogeology of Berk County, Dept. of
Conservation, State Geological Survey, 1967.
10 Jones, B. Regional Engineer, State Dept. of Health and Human
Resources. 1-17-83 RE. Well information.
11 USGS Topographic Maps: NV/4.0il City 7;5 minute Quadrangle,
1983; Killsboro Quadrangle, 7.5 minute; Smithville Quad 1975;
Berk East Quad, 1975.
13 Site Investigation Report at Smith Oil - TAT Region 0. 12-29-84.
17 HRS Support Report - FIT, 12 June 86.
Additional References
In addition to references listed in the Documentation Records for Hazard
Ranking System, the additional references were used:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Assessments for
Benzo(a)pyrene. Environmental Criteria Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OK,
1985.
-------
.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
I 0 1987
Of-F'CE Or
SOLID WASTE ANO
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM;
TO:
RCRA "Special Study" Waste Definitions: Sites
That Require Additional Consideration Prior to
NPL Proposal Under the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
j)
Henry L. Longest II
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedi.
sponse
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, and VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II '
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III and'VI . -
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
The purposes of this memo are to discuss Sections 105(g) and/
125 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) and, to the extent now possible, to outline the" scope of
these provisions by providing appropriate definitions. Both
of these sections require that, until the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) is revised, the Agency evaluate additional, data for sites
at which "special wastes," as defined under the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA), are present in significant quanti-
ties before these sites are proposed for the NPL.
This.vmemo does not address the specific data and information
needed tq^'fulf ill the additional requirements of Sections 105 (g)
and 125. •""".We are in the process of developing guidance that will
explain both the data needs and how the Agency will use the
information to list special waste sites. We expect to issue this
guidance in March/April 1987. Until it is available, we recommend
that the Regions continue to-work on developing HRS packages for
such sites with
acquisition may
the un-Jers tanking that additional information
be necessary in the future.
It must be understood that, with only minor exceptions,
neither RCRA nor CERCLA includes precise definitions of the
wastes covered by these provisions, and the interpretations
-------
-2-
'given in this memo could change at\5some future point. It is
unlikely/ however, that such changes will occur prior to the
promulgation of the HRS.
The information contained below has been reviewed by all
Offices within OSWER and by the Office of General Counsel.
SARA SECTION 105(g)
Section 105(g) of SARA applies to sites that, (1) were
not on or proposed for the NPL as of October 17, 1986, and (2)
contain significant quantities of "special study" wastes as
defined under Sections 3001(b)(2), 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii), and
3001(b)(3)(A)(iii) of RCRA. For these sites, SARA requires
that the following information be considered prior to proposal
for the NPL:
(A) the extent to which the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
score for the facility is affected by the presence of
the special study waste at, or released from, the facility,
(B) available information as to the quantity, toxicity, "•'
and concentration of hazardous substances that are
constituents of any special study waste at, or released
from, the facility; the extent of or potential for re-
lease of such hazardous constituents; the exposure or
potential exposure to human population and the environ-
ment, and the degree of hazard to human health or the
environment posed by the release of such' hazardous con-
stituents at the facility.
The relevant paragraphs of RCRA are defined below:
(1) RCRA Section 3001(b)(2)(A); "Drilling fluids, produced waters,
and other wastes associated'with the exploration, development, or
production of crude oil or natural gas or geothermal energy..."
The Office of Solid Waste drafted a technical report on
wastes from the exploration, development and production of crude
oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy, dated October 31, 1986.
In this report, EPA made some tentative determinations as to which
wastes are" subject to the oil and gas exemption. To make these
determinations, EPA relied on RCRA's language and the legislative
history to develop tentative criteria for determining which wastes
are included. These criteria appear below:
1. Only waste streams intrinsic to the exploration for, or
development an
-------
2. Exempt wastes must be associated with "extraction" process
which include measures (1) to remove oil, natural gas, or
geothermal energy from the ground or (2) to remove impurities
from such substances, provided that the purification process
is an integral part of normal field operations.
3. The proximity of waste streams to primary field operation is
a factor in determining the scope of the exemption. Process
operations that are distant from the exploration, development,
or production operations may not be subject to exemption.
4. Wast'es associated with transportation are not exempt. The
point of custody transfer, or of production separation and
dehydration, may be used as evidence in making this deter-
mination .
In its report, the Agency noted that these determinations may
not address all exempted wastes and solicited comment on its find-
ings. The following wastes were tentatively classified as exempt
under this section (i.e., special study wastes):
treatment,
fluids
Oil and Gas
0 drilling media
0 drill cuttings
0 well completion
and stimulation
0 packing fluids *
0 produced waters *
0 produced sand
0 workover fluids
0 field tank bottoms
0 waste crude oil and' waste
gases from field operations
0 waste triethylene glycol used
in field operations
Further information on oil, gas
found _in the 10/31/36 report.
Geothermal Energy
' drilling media and cuttings
' reinjection well fluid wastes
1 precipitated solids from brir.
effluent
' settling pond wastes
' piping scale' and flash
tank solids (except for those
associated with electrical
power generation)
and geothermal wastes can be
2) RCRA Section '30Cl(b%, (3) (A) (iii): "Cement kiln dust waste"
This category of
has not been contrive
that gees up the st :•.:'<
commingling of the :-?
either in a baghouse
collected dust is a h
Cement kiln dust is .:
by land reclamation.
wastes is fairly self-explanatory and
rsial. Cement kiln dust is the material
s a result of fuel combustion and the
:-.ert additives. The dust is collected
or in an electrostatic precipitator. The.
LYi volume waste that is strongly alkaline.
suilly disposed of in on-site landfills or
-------
- 4 -
( 3 )" RCRA Section 3001 (b ) ( 3 ) (A) ( ii ) ; "Solid waste from the"''
extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals,
including phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of"
uranium ore" : ~~~ "
"Extraction, " in the context of RCRA, refers to the beginning
or front-end operations associated with mining, including the removal
of overburden in surface mines, quarrying, and other forms of
collecting raw materials that contain economic concentrations of
elements (ore). "Overburden" is the general term for wastes
resulting f-rom extraction operations in surface mines. Other
examples of extraction operations are: dredging of placer
deposits or beach sands, cutting or blasting whole rock
from surface quarries, and removal of rock to construct underground
tunnels. It should he noted that one form of extraction, in-situ
mining, was excluded from RCRA solid waste coverage in 40 CFR
261.4(a){5), and is not, therefore, a "special study waste."
i
"Beneficiation" refers to processes used to concentrate
the extracted ores or minerals. This can be accomplished with
simple physical processes such as crushing, screening, and washing.
Beneficiation can also involve chemical processes such as leaching
of metallic elements (e;g., copper, silver, gold) from ore or
mill tailings using acid or cyanide solutions.
Industry uses the term "milling" to refer to most of the
above operations. Tn is. term comes from the most common process
in beneficiation, that of breaking, crushing, grinding, and screen-
ing the rock in large rotating rod and ball mills. Mill tailings
are the most common wastes from beneficiation.
For more information on the above two categories of minino
waste, the reader is referred to, "Report to Congress: Wastes
from the Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic Ores, Phosphate
Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining, and Oil Shale."
(EPA/530-SW-35-033, December 1985)
"Processing" generally includes operations that further
refine- or purify the product being mined beyond the beneficiation
step. "Processing" is the term associated with the RCRA mining
waste exclusion that has caused the most confusion and regulatory
uncertainty. In i?80, EPA stated in the preamble to the hazardous
waste standards that the term "processing" included the smelting
and refining 6'f or^s anc' minerals. The Agency stated at that
time, however, that it was not sure that this interpretation was
consistent with th-3 intent of Congress and that the issue would
be addressed- in fut.:r- rulemakinc. On October 2, 19S5, the
Agency proposed to retract its inclusion of.smelting and refining
in the mining waste exr ] us ion., with the exception of a few large
volume processing wastes (see Attachment I). 'The proposed rule
was withdrawn on October 9, 1986 (see Attachment II).
-------
At the; present time, therefore, the term "processing." is. -
broadly interpreted to include most post-beneficiation processes,
specifically including smelting and refining of ores and minerals.
It may be:_difficult to determine at what point processing ends
and fabrication or manufacturing begins. Generally, wastes that
result from combining the mineral product with another material
(e.g., alloying) or from fabrication (a change in shape that does
not cause a change in chemical composition) are not ""special
study" (i.e. "processing") wastes, although exceptions may exist.
SARA SECTION 125
This section applies to facilities that were neither on nor
proposed for the NPT, on the date of enactment of SARA and which con-
tain "substantial volumes" of waste described in Section 3001(b)
(3)(A)(i) of RCRA. Until the HRS is revised, these sites may not
be included on the NPL "on the basis of an evaluation made princi-
pally on the volume of such waste and not on the concentration
of the hazardous constituents of such waste."
RCRA Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i); "Fly ash waste, bottom ash waste,
•slag waste, and flue gas emission control waste generated primarily
from the combustion of coalor otherfossilfuels."
The temporary RCRA exemption for fossil fuel combustion wastes
noted above includes all fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and
flue gas emission control waste resulting not only from the com-
bustion of coal,, but also from combustion of oil, natural gas, and
coke. The fossil fuel component must be over 50% of fuel mix for/
the exemption to apply,. These waste materials are included whether
generated by electric utility generating plants or by industrial
and commercial facilities.
When fossil fuels are burned, the noncombustible materials
are converted to ash. The proportion of noncombustible material
in coal is referred to as the ash content. (Petroleum also
contains ash, but in ir.ir smaller quantities). The smaller ash
particles ^entrained by the flue gas are referred to as fly ash
and are produced in varying degrees by all plants. Larger ash
particles^hat settle on the bottom of the boiler will form
either bottom ash or boiler slag, depending on the furnace
design. Another wasr.e product, called FGD (scrubber) sludge,
is generated when sulfur dioxide (formed from the burning of
sulfur present in the coal) is removed from other flue gases. .
This removal process, -/hich is required by environmental regulations
for some power plants, is usually accomplished with a flue gas
desulfurization (FC-D, or scrubber) system.
-------
- 6 '-
Although these definitions are rather broad, we hope that
this information will assist you in identifying sites that
may fall_under the relevant sections of SARA. We also solicit
your input.on the scope of the terms contained in this memo and
will modify them in the future if appropriate.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and expect to
work closely with your staff to resolve any problems. If your
staff has site specific questions, they should call Ms. Ann
Sarno, of my staff, at FTS-382-4485.
cc: Dennis Huebner, Region I Bob Hannesschlager, Region VI
John Czapor, Region II Robert Morby, Region VII
Bob Wayland, Region III Bill Geise, Region VIII
Richard Stonebraker, Region IV Keith Takata, Region IX
Richard Bartelt, Region V Robert Courson, Region X
NPL Coordinators, Regions I-X
bcc: Meg Silver, OGC
Susan Schmedes, OGC
Ephraim King, OGC
Ellen Siegler, OWPE
'Ginny Steiner, OWPE
Truett DeGeare, OSW
Oan Derkics, OSW
Rob Walline, Region VIII
------- |