&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

-------