PA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
OH.ce of
Solid Waste ana
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9441.31(84)
TITLE: Clarification of Federal Register Notice Pertaining
to Lime-Stabilized Waste Pickle Liquor Sludge
(LSWPLS) from the Iron and.Steel Industry (June 5,
1984)
APPROVAL DATE: 10-25-34
EFFECTIVE DATE: 10-25-34
ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of solid waste
Q FINAL
D DRAFT
LEVEL OF DRAFT
DA Signed by AA or DAA
D B Signed by Office Director
DC Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
OS WER OS WER OS WER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
PART -2.61 SUBPART A - GENERAL DOC: 9441.31(84)
f
Key Words: Pickle Liquor, Exclusion
Regulations: 40 CFR 261.31
Subject: ~ Clarification of Federal Register Notice Pertaining to Lime-
Stabilized Waste Pickle Liquor Sludge (LSWPLS) from the Iron
and Steel Industry (June 5, 1984)
Addressee: Tom Carlisle, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management,
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 361 East Broad
Street, Columbus, Ohio 43216 Xx
Originator: Eileen M. Claussen, Director, Characterization and Assessment
Division
Source Doc:
Date: 10-25-84
Summary:
The final rule excluding LSWPLS generated by the iron and steel industry
becomes effective December 5, 1984. The exclusion applies only to the sludge
from lime treatment of waste pickle liquor. The sludge is considered non-
hazardous and may be disposed of in a Subtitle D or municipal landfill. The
supernatant from the treatment of this waste remains a hazardous'waste-,
unless delisted. The exclusion, therefore, does not apply to the entire waste
stream.
The spent pickle listing is interpreted by'the Agency to include spent
pickle liquor generated from all steel finishing industries regardless of
industry category.
-------
(84)
OCT251984
en
to
e
c-
01
o
*%
Tom Carlisla Jl
Division of Solid and Hazardous w
Waste Management a
State of Ohio Environmental £
Protection Agency . 4J.
361 East Broad Street 3
Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 \
it
3
Dear Mr. Carlisle: . w
NJ
This letter, responds to your inquiry of October 5, 1984, «
regarding further clarification of the Federal Register notice ^
pertaining to lime-stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge (LSWPLS) <=
from the iron and steel industry (June 5, 1984). *\
A
*J
Each point raised in your letter and our responses are -J
outlined below. Please keep in mind, however, that the Porcelain \
Enamel Institute has filed a petition for review against the' ^
Agency (August 24, 1984) regarding our interpretation of the i
spent pickle liquor listing. £j
co
1) Although the June 5 exclusion applies only to iron and steel *
industries (SIC codes 331 and 332), Mid-West Fabricating Company 3
(SIC code 3714) received notice from EPA that the exclusion £"
applies to LSWPLS generated at their facility. - *
C4
' The Agency is aware that due to computer error a few o
facilities listed in the June 5- notice are not actually in ^f
the iron and steel industry. At this time, we are working £
to identify these facilities and to determine a course of *
action. At a minimum, we would expect to notify them in
writing of the error and inform them that their LSWPLS is
not excluded by our decision on June 5, 1984.
2) How does EPA interpret the term "moot" as it pertains to
delisting petition^ submitted to^exclude LSWPLS generated
from the iron and steel industry;
EPA used this term in stating that site-specific delisting
petitions submitted by the iron and steel industry (to
exclude LSWPLS) no longer require Agency action since the
June 5 final rule automatically excludes these waste from
regulation (effective December 5, 1984). Administrative
procedures dictate that comments are not solicited when
rules are promulgated in final form.
-------
3) Data from dolisting petitions submitted by the iron and steel
industry, as cited in the June 5 notice include at least four
facilities from industry categories other than iron and steel
(O.uanex Fabricating, Olin Corporation and Onion Carbide) . HOW
can this data bo used to support a rulemaking for the iron and
steel in«1ustry, and aro these petitions also considered raoot by
the ruleoaking?
Data fro"i the Hazardous Waste D.Tta Management Systen
indicates that Union-Carbide (Ohio)- SIC codes 331S, 3471,
3436, 33-53; Olin Corporation (Conn,)- SIC codes 3 31 >,. 3351,
3355; and Ouanex Corporation (Michigan)- SIC code 3317 aro
within the iron and steal industry or have processes that
generate «*pent picklo liquor and are in the SIC codes (i.e.,
331 and 332) covered by the exclusion. Since EP»\ data
conflicts witn your data, I suggest soneone fron your staff
contact Jac.juoline Sales, of 'ay staff, at (202) 332-4770 to
further discuss this natter.
4) You state that although fifty percent of porcelain enamolers
have notified as* generating K0*2, this does not indicate general
knowledge of the broad applicability of tho listing since many
of those notifiers are "protective filers." You further state
that the spent pic'
-------
-3-
I trust that this letter adequately addresses your concerns,
Should you have questions or require additional information,
please call Jacqueline Sales, of ray staff, at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely yours,
/*/
_s
Eileen M. Claussen
Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
(WH-5623)
------- |