-------
portions of the 40 CFR 265 Subpart J standards, as provided in
§262.34(a)(1)(ii).
Based on the information we have received, EPA Headquarters
therefore would advise EPA Region VIII to use a case-by-case
approach in determining how these RCRA regulated treatment units
are addressed. Because Region VIII personnel are more thoroughly
familiar with particular aspects of the WRC refinery, we leave
the final determination to you.
If you have any further questions on this issue, please
contact Jim Michael, Acting Chief, OSW Assistance Branch at
(202) 260-1206.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9489.1994(01)
FEB 23 1994
OFFICE OF
Mr. David D. Emery SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
President RESPONSE
Bioremediation Service, Inc.
P.O. Box 2010
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035-0012
Dear Mr. Emery:
This is in response to your December 21, 1993, letter
requesting clarification on the distinction between thermal
desorbers and incinerators. In particular, you questioned
whether temperature was a criterion for distinguishing between
desorbers and incinerators and whether chlordane contaminated
soil can be effectively and safely treated by thermal desorption.
Under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
regulations, thermal treatment units that are enclosed devices
using controlled flame combustion and that are neither boilers
nor industrial furnaces are classified as incinerators subject to
regulation under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart 0. Definitions of
boilers, industrial furnaces, and incinerators are established in
40 CFR 260.10. Thermal treatment units that do not use
controlled flame combustion and that are not industrial furnaces
are classified as "miscellaneous units" subject to regulation
under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart X.
The use of "controlled flame combustion" determines whether
EPA regulates a device used for thermal desorption as an
incinerator or a "miscellaneous unit". Consequently, a thermal
desorber would be subject to regulation as an incinerator if it
was equipped with a fired afterburner to destroy desorbed organic
compounds, or if the desorption chamber was directly fired,
irrespective of how the desorbed organics were controlled. On
the other hand, if the desorption chamber was indirectly heated
and the desorbed organics were not controlled using controlled
flame combustion (e.g., no afterburner), the thermal desorber
would be subject to regulation as a "miscellaneous unit". Thus,
in response to your questions, temperature is not a criterion
that is used to determine the regulatory status of a thermal
desorber.
EPA's regulations for miscellaneous units are not
prescriptive given the variety of devices that fall into this
category. Rather, the regulations require the permitting
Recycled/Recyciabi*
-------
official to establish permit conditions that are necessary to
protect human health and the environment. For "miscellaneous"
thermal treatment units, permit writers will generally require
compliance with all of the Subpart 0 incinerator standards that
are appropriate for the technology and then determine if
additional controls are needed to ensure that emissions are safe.
Please note that I have described EPA's regulatory
classification approach for thermal desorbers. Under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA authorizes the States
to implement the hazardous waste management regulatory program.
State regulations may be more stringent or broader in scope than
EPA's. Therefore, you should check with the State in which the
facility in question is to be located to identify any applicable
standards.
With respect to your question as to whether chlordane
contaminated soil can be effectively and safely treated by low
temperature desorption, you should contact EPA's technical expert
on thermal desorption, Paul de Percin, Office of Research and
Development, for assistance. Mr. de Percein can also be
consulted about TCOD conjugation but, without full thermodynamic
and kinetic data regarding the process involved, it may be
difficult to give you any definitive assistance. He can be
reached at 513-569-7797.
I hope that this information will be helpful. If you have
further questions about the regulatory classification of thermal
desorbers, please contact Bob Holloway of my staff at
703-308-8461.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Paul de Percin
Bob Holloway
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9489.1994(02)
SEP I 9 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Randall W. Steger, Manager
Operating Permits Bureau, Permits and Enforcement
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
1410 North Hilton, Statehouse Mail
Boise, Idaho 83720-9000
Dear Mr. Steger:
This letter is in response to your request for a written
position paper concerning the primer neutralization unit "popping
furnace" located at the Blount Industries, *CCI Operation in
Lewiston, Idaho. Specifically, you asked if this unit is.exempt
from RCRA permitting requirements based on Blount's claim that it
is used for legitimate recycling operations. We have determined
that this unit is not exempt, and is subject to RCRA permitting
regulations.
According to 40 CFR 264.Kg) (2) and 40 CFR 261.6 (a) (2),
certain recyclable materials are regulated under Part 266 and not
Part 264 or Part 265. However, this exemption from Part 264 and
Part 265 standards does not apply to incineration operations.
Any process that involves burning in an incinerator is regulated
as incineration whether or not some energy or material recovery
occurs.
The Blount Industries' popping furnace unit is classified as
an incinerator. The unit uses controlled flame combustion, but
is neither a "boiler" nor an "industrial furnace" as these terms
are defined in 40 CFR 260.10. Since these rules provide for only
three types of controlled flame combustion units (boilers,
industrial furnaces, and incinerators), the unit must be
classified as an incinerator.
EPA has consistently classified munitions popping furnaces
and military demilitarization furnaces as incinerators (see
enclosed letters). Material recovery in these devices is
secondary to the destruction of munitions and munitions
components. These units are thus properly classified as
incinerators. Burning hazardous waste in an incinerator is
always subject to Subpart 0 requirements under 40 CFR 264 or 40
CFR 265, and is never an exempt type of recycling.
R«cycl«d/R»cyclabl«
Printed wtth Soy/dnola In* on piper (h»l
contrira it lee* 10% recycled fiber
-------
EPA explained its reasoning in the preamble to the April 4,
1983 proposed amendments to the regulations on recycling at 48 FR
14484: "Second, we wish to clarify that materials being burned in
incinerators or thermal treatment devices, other than boilers and
industrial furnaces, are considered to be abandoned by being
burned or incinerated under 40 CFR 261.2(a) (1) (ii), whether or
not energy or material recovery also occurs... In our view, any
such burning (other than in boilers and industrial furnaces) is
waste destruction subject to regulation under either Subpart 0 of
Part 264 or Subpart 0 and P of Part 265." In the preamble to the
January 4, 1985 final rule at 50 FR 625, EPA reiterated that
"incinerators are built to destroy hazardous wastes, so wastes
burned in them are obviously being burned for the primary purpose
of destruction".
Therefore, the popping furnace unit at Blount's CCI facility
is subject to the RCRA permitting regulations as an incinerator.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Andrew
O'Palko at (703) 308-8646.
Sincerely,
Frank McAlister, Chief
Assistance Branch
Enclosures
cc: Waste Combustion Permit Writers' Workgroup
Devereaux Barnes, OSW
Matt Hale, OSW
Matt Straus, OSW
Fred Chanania, OSW
David Bussard, OSW
Mitch Kidwell, OSW
Steve Silverman, OGC
Larry Starfield, OGC
-------
A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9494.1994(03)
JUN - 7 894
OFFCEOF
SOUO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Curtis D. Lesslie
Environmental Engineer
Division of Environment
Bureau of Waste Management
Forbes Field Building 740
Topeka, Kansas 66620-0001
Dear Mr. Lesslie:
This is in response to your March 10, 1994, letter regarding
the Agency's sham recycling policy as it pertains to the Boiler
and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule promulgated on February 21,
1991. You requested clarification on the applicability of the
term "burning for legitimate energy recovery" and on the land ban
requirements that apply to cement produced by a facility that has
certified compliance and is burning hazardous waste with a
heating value less than 5,000 Btu/lb. In addition, you asked
whether the heating value limit applies to the as-generated or
as-fired waste.
It is true that the BIF rule supersedes the Agency's sham
recycling policy for a facility that has certified compliance
with the emissions standards under interim status or is operating
under a RCRA permit. See 56 Federal Register 7183. Thus, a BIF
that has certified compliance may burn hazardous waste with a
heating value lower than 5,000 Btu/lb (as-generated). However,
if an industrial furnace burns a listed hazardous waste with a
heating value less than 5,000 Btu/lb and the facility does not
document that the waste is burned for legitimate energy recovery,
then any product applied to or placed on the land in a manner
that constitutes disposal (e.g., cement) would be a waste-derived
product subject to regulation as hazardous waste. This waste-
derived product, however, could be eligible for an exemption from
regulation as a hazardous waste by compliance with the treatment
standards for land-disposed hazardous waste found in 40 CFR
268.42 - 268.44 and associated notification requirements (40 CFR
266.20(b)).
R*cycl«dfR»cydabl«
-------
It is important to note that the "legitimate fuel"
determination is on an as-generated, not as-fired, basis.
Blending to augment the as-generated heating value cannot be used
to meet the "legitimate fuel" test (i.e., either the waste must
have a heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb, or the facility must
document that lower heating value waste contributes significant,
useable energy). However, the as-generated heating value of a
hazardous waste may be increased to meet the "legitimate fuel"
test by bona fide treatment (e.g., decanting).
I hope that this information will be helpful. If you have
further questions or comments, please feel free to contact Frank
Behan of my staff at 703-308-8476.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: John Smith, . EPA Region VII
Gene Evans, EPA Region VII
Bob Kolloway
Frank Behan
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 "!
9489.1995(01)
JAN 3 0 1995 ;
OFFICE OF
SOLD .WXSTE AND EMERGENCY
. -RESPONSE .
Mr. John .M. Smith, Director
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 301643
Montgomery, AI, 36130-1463
Dear Mr. Smith:" . ,-.;..'." - :' .,'''.".-..
The purpose of this letter is to respond to an inquiry
the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on the
U.S. Environmental Protection.Agency's (EPA1s).position regarding
the inclusion of emissions from .open burning/open detonation
(OB/OD) units at the Anniston Army Depot in the,health risk
assessment for'the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility.
On May 5, 1994, the Office of Solid Waste transmitted the
latest revision to the implementation 'guidance for conducting risk
assessments at RCRA hazardous waste combustion units.. ~ In the
revised guidance EPA 'stated that the. analysis of risks from
combustion units burning hazardous waste should ideally address air
emissions from all sources that are an integral, part of --the
combustion operation, including- activities such as storage,
blending, and handling of wastes fed to the combustion unit itself,
as well as storage and handling of combustion residues. '
*' - ' '
. After discussions with ADEM staff, we have reached the"
conclusion that the OB/OD units at the Anniston Army "Depot are not
an integral part of the combustion.operation associated with the
planned chemical agent disposal facility, nor are they the type of.
activity we would expect the health risk assessment to address.
Therefore, in our view, the emissions from these units do not need
to be included in the health risk assessment for the chemical agent
disposal facility. Risks associated from the operation of OB/OD
units would be addressed during the permitting process for these
units. ...
Recyclrt/Recydrtto . .
MMM » soy/ouwu »* on pcpv mat
oontttm « MM 50% ncycM ntav
-------
- 2 -
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
James Michael of my staff.at (703) 308-8610.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Gerald Hardy, State of Alabama
James Michael, PSPD, OSW
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9489.1995(02!
AUG 02 1985 OFFICE OP
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Donald T. Robertson, PhD
Delphi Research, Incorporated
701 Haines Avenue, NW
Albuquerque, MM 87102
Dear Dr. Robertson:
Thank you for your letter describing Delphi Research's
DETOX wet oxidation process. Your letter requests a
determination of whether the p.rocess would be regulated under 40
CFR 264 Subpart X (miscellaneous units) or under Subpart O
(incinerators), when used to manage hatardous wastes.
f *
Based on the information you provided regarding the DETOX*1
wet oxidation process, it appears that, when used to treat
hazardous wastes, the process-would be regulated under the
miscellaneous unit.standards of Subpart X, and not under the
incinerator standards of Subpart 0. We believe the miscellaneous
unit standards would apply because the wet oxidation process does
not involve direct flame combustion, but uses heat provided by a
hot oil heat exchanger .apparatus.
Please note that Subpart X imposes environmental performance
standards, and not unit specific standards as with other RCRA
hazardous waste management units. Permits for Subpart X units
are to contain such terms and provisions, as necessary to protect
human health and the environment. Furthermore, please note that
individual States may have bore', stringent standards than the
Federal.program. For site-specific requirements, you should
contact the appropriate State regulatory agency.
In your letter, you also asked whether someone from EPA
Headquarters can act as a secondary stakeholder in your
demonstration. The Agency's Technology Innovation Office (TIO)
is interested in the DETOX*" technology and any demonstrations
which may be forthcoming. They, however, are not in a position
to issue letters of acceptance or approval. A contact for you
within TIO is Jim Cummings, at (703) 308-8796.
. With respect to the proposed demonstration project at the
Department of Energy - Morgantown 'Energy Technology Center, that
you mentioned in your letter, please be' sure to work closely with
the State of West Virginia and. EPA Region III before proceeding
with any RCRA hazardous waste-management' activity. Furthermore/
Printed on Recycbd Paper
-------
because West Virginia is not authorized for Subpart X permitting,
you would need to contact the EPA Region III office in
Philadelphia, PA regarding the permitting requirements.
Again, thank you for your request: If you have any
questions, please call me at (703) 308-8655.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey t. Gaines, Environmental Scientist
Disposal Technology Section (5303W)
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Frank McAlister, OSW
Jim Michael, OSW
Sonya Sasseville, OSW
Jim Cummings, TIO
Mary Beck, Region III
Subpart X Permit Writers' Workgroup, Regions I-II, IV-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB 8 1995
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE.
9489.1996(01)
Mr. Chris Wentz, Coordinator
N.M. Radioactive Waste Consultation Task Force
Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department
State of New Mexico
P.O. Box 6429
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-6429
Dear Mr. Wentz:
Thank you for your November 29; 1995 letter requesting a copy of a recent EPA letter to
Senator Larry Craig of Idaho. We hope the enclosed copy will clarify for you EPA's position
with regard to the applicability of the land disposal restrictions to WTPP-destined transuranic
mixed waste.
In your letter you also ask EPA to explain several specific statements in our letter to
Senator Craig. First, you ask for an explanation for the statement that"... a No-Migration
Variance is duplicative, because the WIPP is held by other statutes to a higher standard." You
will note as you read the enclosed letter that this statement is not in our letter to Senator Craig,
and we did not argue that one set of standards wasjiigher or lower than the other. Our basic
point, rather, was that the RCRA no-migration determination would not significantly add to the
protection of human health and the environment if Atomic Energy Act and RCRA standards were
met.
The second statement you cite that"... a demonstration of no-migration of hazardous
constituents will not be necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment."
was included in our letter to Senator Craig, and was the basis for the position we took in the
letter. In our view, the greatest risk to human health and the environment associated with the
WIPP is posed by the radionuclide portion of the waste, and that by compliance with the
comprehensive regulatory scheme under the Atomic Energy Act (40 CFR part 191), and the
extensive WIPP Compliance Criteria (40 CFR part 194), human health and the environment will
be adequately protected from long-term releases of radionuclides and RCRA hazardous
constituents. Furthermore, to the extent that any risks during the operational phase (e.g.,
accidents) specific to hazardous wastes remain, these can be addressed through RCRA permit
requirements (40 CFR part 264).
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed wtth Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains «t least 50% recycled fiber
-------
Our position can be better understood in light of the broad range of permit authority
delegated to the State of New Mexico under the RCRA permit regulations, including the 40 CFR
part 264 standards for "miscellaneous" units. These regulations contain performance standards
that allow the State of New Mexico to issue a single permit protecting human health and the
environment. For example, paragraph 264.601 of the subpart X standards require the permit to
protect against"... any releases that may have adverse effects on human health or the
environment due to migration of waste constituents to the ground water or subsurface
environment..." Paragraph 264.601 further protects human health and the environment by
requiring "[prevention of any releases that may have adverse effects on human health or the
environment due to the migration of waste constituents in surface water, or wetlands or on the
soil surface..."
Finally, you asked for documentation supporting EPA's position. Because the State must
issue a permit that provides adequate protection of human health and the environment (including
substantial equivalence to the no-migration demonstration should the State deem that reasonable),
and because of the protection afforded by the comprehensive 40 CFR part 191 standards, EPA
did not find it necessary to perform a specific risk assessment or technical analysis on this issue
defending its position.
Should you need additional information please don't hesitate to contact Chris Rhyne of my
staff at 703-308-8658.
Michael) H. Shapiro, Director
Office
-------
^gi^gaaa^^
November 29, 1995 /,*3Z*J A
/~^~- \
' s \1
Mr. Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste p ^> &
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v *'"
401 M Street (MS #5301)
Washington, D.C. 20460
"Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Recently, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho introduced S. 1402, entitled the WIPP Land Withdrawal
Amendment Act. In his statement on the Senate floor about the purpose and provisions of this
legislation, Senator Craig noted the bill deletes the requirement for a No-Migration Determination
and then referenced a September 8, 1995, letter he received from EPA.
He went on to say "...[EPA stated in the letter that] a No-Migration Variance is duplicative
because the WIPP is held by other statutes to a higher standard." Continuing, Senator Craig
quoted the following from the referenced EPA letter:
"A demonstration of no-migration of hazardous constituents [in the WTPP wastes]
will not be necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment."
Based on the preceding information, I am requesting your assistance in obtaining the following:
1. A copy of the September 8, 1995 letter from EPA to Senator Craig.
2. What specifically the author of the EPA letter was referring to when stating that WIPP "...is
held by other statutes to a higher standard." If the reference is to the disposal standards in 40
CFR Part 191, where precisely is the duplication?
3. In reference to the statement by EPA that "...a demonstration of no-migration of hazardous
constituents will not be necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment," any
analyses, risk assessments, or other documentation supporting this contention.
In light of hearings possibly being scheduled on the Craig bill in the near future, I would greatly
appreciate anything you could do to expedite a response to the preceding request for information.
Additionally, I respectfully request that your Office, as well as the Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air, take the appropriate steps to ensure the State of New Mexico is kept apprised of all such
significant EPA correspondence concerning WIPP. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chris Wentz
Coordinator
N.M. Radioactive Waste Consultation Task Force
OfflCf Of THl iiCRtTARY - f>. O. BOX 6439 - SANTA H. NM 87505-6439 - (SO5) 837-S9SO
ADMINIJTWATTVtHRVICK DIVISION - P. O. BOX 6*29 - SANTA H. NM 875OS-6419 - (505)837-5915
tNIRCY CONSERVATION AND MANACCMINT DIVISION - P. O. 6OX 64J9 - SANTA f I. NM 87505-6439 - (JOS) B37-59OO
fORISTRY AND RfSOURCU CONSERVATION DIVISION - P. O. BOX 19«8 - SANTA H. NM 875O4-1948 OO5) 8J7-583O
MININC AND MINERALS DIVISION - P. O. 8OXMJ9 - iANTA f 1. NM 875OJ-M19 - (5O5) 8J7-597O
OIL CONSERVATION DIVItlON - P. O. BOX 6439 - 4ANTA H. NM 87JO5-M19 - (5OS) 837-71J1
PARK AND RKREATION DIVISION P. O. BOX 1147 SANTA II. NM 875O4-1147 - (505)837-7465
-------
c: Jennifer A. Salisbury, EMNRD Cabinet Secretary and Chair
N.M. Radioactive Waste Consultation Task Force
Mark Weidler, Task Force Member and Cabinet Secretary
N.M. Environment Department
Ramona Trovato, Director
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
. .
9489.1996(02)
JUN I 0 1996
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Scott M. Churbock
Director, Environmental Affairs
Envirotrol, Inc.
432 Green Street, P.O. Box 61
Sewickley, PA 15143-0061
Dear Mr. Churbock:
Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1996 in which you
raised several issues regarding the issuance of a draft permit
for your Pennsylvania-based carbon reactivation facilities. We
address each of your concerns below.
The key issue you raised is whether the proposed use of
Envirotrol's unit to treat filtration media comparable to
activated carbon (e.g., activated alumina) would be permitted as
a thermal treatment unit or as an incinerator. In its 1991 rules
for boilers and industrial furnaces, EPA amended the definition
of "carbon regeneration unit" to indicate that these units are
not incinerators, but are to be regulated as thermal treatment
units (56 FR at 7200, February 21, 1991). The definition of a
carbon regeneration unit is "any enclosed thermal treatment
device used to regenerate spent activated carbon." Therefore,
your question is whether a device that regenerates spenb
activated carbon, but also is used to regenerate other spent
materials, can remain a "carbon regeneration unit" as defined.
EPA does not interpret the definition to require a
regeneration device to be used exclusively to regenerate spent
activated carbon. The literal language of the definition
contains no such exclusivity requirement. The purpose of the
revised definition was to clarify that carbon regeneration units
were classified as other thermal treatment units rather than as
incinerators, a 'purpose which would not be well served by
interpreting the definition to require exclusive regeneration of
spent carbon, since this would result in more regeneration
devices being classified as incinerators. Therefore, we believe
that a device which regenerates hazardous wastes other than a
spent activated carbon can be a carbon regeneration unit.
However, the Agency further interprets the provision to
require that a carbon reactivation unit be used primarily to
regenerate spent activated carbon, and that its other hazardous
FaxBack* 11955
-------
waste regeneration activities be similar. Regeneration means
restoring the hazardous waste material to its original use (for
example, restoring spent activated carbon to a usable activated
carbon) . This interpretation is based on the language of the
definition: the device, after all, must be a carbon regeneration
unit.
We will recommend to the permitting authority that it review
your proposed activity to determine if it may be classified as a
carbon regeneration unit under the above interpretation and
thereby permitted under part 264, Subpart X authority. The
permitting authority should review each of the proposed
filtration media, including spent activated carbon, to determine
whether the media is treated by regeneration. It will also be
important to determine whether the current permit conditions and
treatment standards adequately address these additional
materials, or whether additional testing or permit modifications
would be needed. The permitting authority would make a final
determination based on the particular facts presented in the
permit application.
You also expressed concern about the potential delay of your
permit due to uncertainty about the regulatory status of the
unit. We do not believe there has been an undue delay in the
preparation and notice of the EPA thermal treatment permit for
this facility. It is our understanding that EPA Region III
prepared and issued for comment a draft permit to Envirotrol on
March 19, 1996. This draft permit (prepared in only 19 days)
contains permit conditions designed to protect the community in
which Envirotrol operates.
Please note that in the April 2, 1996, letter from
W. Michael McCabe to Senator Rick Santorum, EPA Region III
deferred to EPA Headquarters the final interpretation of the
regulations given the need for national consistency and the
precedent-setting nature of the interpretation. As such, this
letter is intended to clarify EPA1 s position on the matter. We
plan to make this letter widely available to states, industry,
and environmental interests so that they too may be informed of
our opinion on this topic.
I hope we have addressed all of your concerns with respect
to these issues. If you need any further assistance, please
contact Val de la Fuente, Permits and State Programs Division, at
(703) 308-7245. '
Sincerely yours,
cc: Senior RCRA Policy Manager
el H. Shapiro, Director
e of Solid Waste
-------
Standards For Managing Specific
Hazardous Wastes And Specific
Types Of Facilities (Part 266)
WD
*k
so
-------
9490 - STANDARDS FOR
MANAGING SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND
SPECIFIC TYPES OF FACILITIES
Part 266
ATKl/l 104/48 Icp
-------
9493 - RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
USED IN A MANNER
CONSTITUTING DISPOSAL
Part 266 Subpart C
ATKl/l 104/49 kp
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9493.00-1A
MAY 31 -aSfc
Mr. Pill Poss
Cor>n iss ioner ^ .'~ >-'
Alaska Perartment of
Fnvironmen tal Conservation
Pouch "0"
Juneau , Alaska 99811
Pear Mr. Poss:
Thank you for your correspondence of May 7, 1985. As I
understand the matter, you are concerned that the dust suppression
regulations Alaska has promulgated may conflict with the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. i do not think there
is a conflict. The HSV'A prohibits the use of hazardous waste as
a dust suppressant. EPA's regulations in 40 CFP Part 261 define
what materials are solid and hazardous wastes. Alaska is free to
impose its own regulations on dust suppressants that are not
hazardous wastes. With respect to used oil, probably the most
common dust suppressant, the HSWA prohibition only applies to
those used oils that are themselves hazardous waste or mixed with
other hazardous waste identified or listed under the current
Part 261 definition.
In response to the four specific Questions you asked:
(1) Federal law does not presently set a maximum lead level
for used oils, waste oils, or any other dust suppressant. As
described above, the HSWA prohibits the use of. hazardous waste as
a dust suppressant. One way that a solid waste may be identified
as a hazardous waste is if it exhibits the characteristic of FP
toxicity, defined by $2*1.2* (and Appendix II of Part 261). When
the extract from a solid waste, obtained throuah the FP toxicity
procedure, contains lead at a concentration oreater than 5 ppm ,
it then is a hazardous waste and therefore is subject to the HSWA
prohibition, riscd oil, because of its often viscous nature, does
not always exhibit FP toxicity even if relatively hiah concentra-
tions of lead are present.
(2) If a ouestion arises as to whether a person is violatina
the HSWA prohibition, analyzing the extract froi" a sample of the
road oil using the EP toxicity procedure would be necessary to
determine compliance with federal law. However, neither EPA
reoulations nor the HSWA reouire a State to set up an analysis
program for road oilers.
-------
(3) EPA need not Issue any formal rules to enact the HSWA
prohibition 7 it became effective when the President sinned the
HSWA (November 8, 1984). EPA will, in the very near future,
issue rules codifying and explaining certain HSWA requirements
including the dust suppressant ban.
(4) With respect to 'guidance and expertise," EPA is plan-
ning to regulate used oil management under special standards to
be proposed later this year.
Later this year, FPA will also propose to list all used oils
as hazardous waste. A final listing determination will not he
promulgated until the fall of 1986. If you need more information
on the status of the proposals , contact David Sussman (202-382-7927)
of my office. FPA Region X can, of course assist you if necessary
in interpreting current EPA regulations.
Sincerely ,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
cc: Lisa Friedman, Associate General Counsel* EPA
Kenneth Feigner , EPA Region X
-------
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9493.00-1A
Attachment
MAR 2 0 1935
--: s.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interpretation of Section 3004(1), the
Dust Suppression Prohibition
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief
Waste Management Branch (M/S 530)
Region X
The following is OSW's position on the dust suppression ban
mandated by Section 3004(1) of P.CPA, as amended.
(1) Used oil (or any other material) that has been mixed
with a listed hazardous waste, including wastes generated by
small quantity generators, must not be used as a dust suppressant.
However, the mere presence of hazardous constituents (for example,
trichloroethylene or toluene) is not sufficient proof that the
material has been mixed with hazardous waste. EPA bears the
burden of proof to show that mixing has occurred.!
(i) Used oil that exhibits a characteristic (other than
ignitability) must not be used as a dust suppressant.2 You should
know that althouah OGC feels this is a strono position, it is not
a direct reading of Section 300401) (which speaks of "mixtures").
In the soon-to-be-proposed Federal Register notice codifying parts
of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, EPA will
propose the interpretation that the prohibition applies to all
hazardous waste (except those hazardous only due to ignitability)
not just mixtures.
1 As a point of information, we have proposed [50 FP 1691-1692,
January 11, 1985] that for used oil used a£ fuel , a total
chlorine content exceeding 4000 ppm is presumptive evidence of
mixing with hazardous waste.
2 This does not necessarily conflict with Alaska's 300 ppm lead
limit. Due to the properties of used oil, a given quantity of
used oil may be high in lead, and yet not exhibit EP toxicity.
-------
(3) The prohibition does not apply to mixtures of charac-
teristic hazardous waste and non-hazardous materials where the
resultant mixture no longer exhibits a characteristic. This
interpretation is based on the following logic:
0 Section 3004 applies only to .hazardous waste? and
0 Paragraphs (c) and (d) of 40 CFR $261.3 provide that
a mixture of characteristic waste and other material
is hazardous waste only if the resultant mixture
exhibits a characteristic.
Finally, you should be aware that OSW is working on a proposal
to list used oil as a hazardous waste. That rulemaking, following
the logic that the prohibition is meant to apply to all hazardous
wastes, would also propose to prohibit the use of used oil as a
dust suppressant. When the EPA rule is promulgated, any rule by
Alaska allowing up to 300 ppm lead in used oil used as road oil
would be superseded by the Federal prohibition. However, Alaska
could still regulate other "waste oils" besides used oil using a
lead limit.
cc: Mark Greenwood, OGC
Regional Hazardous Waste Division
Directors, Regions I-X
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X 9493.00-1A
1200 SIXTH AVENU Attachment
3 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9«ioi
...A3 1 1985
M/S 530
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interpretation ofJteste 013 Regulations
FROM: Kenneth .'7egnefrChief3
Waste Management Branch (M/S 533)
TO: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Currently, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation is
proposing to amend their regulations to prohibit the use of oil for
surface oiling or as a dust suppressant if that oil contains lead 1n
concentrations of 300ppn by weight or greater.
The state has requested EPA comments, particularly regarding whether
their proposal is consistent with existing or emerging Federal
requirements, including the new statuatory provision reguarding dust
suppressants. A copy of their letter and proposal is attached.
Section 3004 (1), the ban on dust suppression states:
"The use of waste or used oil or other material which is
contaminated or mixed with any other hazardous waste identified or
listed under Section 3001 (other than waste Identified solely on
Ignltability), for dust suppression or road treatment is prohibited".
We are interpreting this to mean that the 40 CFR 26T.3 mixture rule
does not apply in this case. That 1s, a waste oil which has been mixed
with a characteristic waste is prohibited for use as a dust suppressant
regardless of whether or not the"resultant mixture exhibits a"
cTjaracTeristlc. Also, the us'e of a waste oil as a dust suppressant is
prohibited If It exhibits a characteristic but has not been mixed with
other hazardous waste. And furthermore, it is prohibited if it contains
listed- hazardous waste constituents (e.g., chlorinated solvents), unless
the owner/operator tan deuiunstrTfe" that the source of the constituents did
not com from hazardous waste.
We are requesting OSW's position on the application of this provision
and ask for your response as soon as possible given that the comment
period on the state's proposal closes March 1.
Attachment
ccMichael Petruska (WH565A)
Keith Kelton, AOEC
-------
DEFT. OF ENVIRON Jf ENTAL CONSERVATION r./«,/><»«..7907;
-Sl..
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 9493.00-1A
POUCH 0, JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 Attachment
Z~- * "Cc
May 7, 1985
Mr. John H, Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste --
WH-562, Room M2804 - -- -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Skinner:
As you know, the new road oiling regulations of the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) became
effective on May 2, 1985. These regulations allow waste oil
to be used as a dust suppressant if it contains lead concen-
trations less than 300 ppm. The State does not require the
E7 ^.oxicity method of testing in the required waste oil
i a-.jsis.
In your March 20 memorandum to EPA, Region X, you stated
several propositions which" left us uncertain about how to
proceed with the implementation of our regulations. You
referenced the 1984 amendments to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act as the basis for your positions. However,
yau.vweht on to say that this did not mean ADEC's new regula-
tions were inconsistent with the amendments. Hence, I am
having trouble interpreting your memorandum.
Since we received your memo on April 24, EPA has given ADEC
differing and conflicting verbal positions on the applica-
bility of the 1984 amendments to Alaska's road ciling permit
program and the methods b'f' analysis for deterrriining lead
content in waste oil. J. would like clarification on several
issues:
Does federal law prohibit the use of waste oil
on roads as a dust suppressant if it contains
lead levels equal to or greater than 5 ppm?
If so, is it mandatory that the State use the
EP toxicity testing method to determine if a
liquid road oil meets the federal 5 ppm lead
standard?
Ml.*. OO .
-------
Also, if the 1984 Amendments do indeed prohibit
the use of waste oil with lead concentrations
of greater than 5 ppm, does EPA need to
promulgate formal rulemaking in order to
implement this prohibition?
*
If waste oil cannot be used on the roads as a
dust suppressant and the majority of states
allow road oiling, what guidance and expertise
will EPA offer the States to manage this new
potential hazardous waste management problem?
I would appreciate receiving your response to these questions
as soon as possible. I want to resolve these differences
quickly so that we can determine if the State or road oilers
are potentially liable under federal law for damages result-
ing from road oiling operations in the State .conducted after
this date. Please contact me if you would like to discuss
this matter further.
Sincerely,
Bill Ross
Commissioner
BR:PO:mt
cc: Lisa Friedman, Associate General Counsel, EPA/
Kenneth Feigner, EPA, Region X
Ronald Kreizenbeck, EPA, Alaska Operations Office
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH.NGTON.O.C. 20460 9493.00-lA
JULI2.38S Attachment
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Prohibition on Use of Hazardous Waste for Dust
Suppression or Road Treatment (Your memo dated 6-25-85)
j flu/i' /
FROM: /UJohn H. Skinner, Director UuIf///\fii/
Y Office of Solid Waste (WH-'sdZ)
TO: * Charles E. Findley, Director
Hazardous Waste Division (M/S 529)
Region X
Based on the legislative history to Section 3004(1), and
on the structure of the statute and EPA's current regulatory
policy, we believe that the ban in Section 3004(1) applies only
to materials that are themselves hazardous wastes. The provision
will be codified in Part 266, a subpart reserved for hazardous
waste uses constituting disposal.
The language of Section 3004(1) does not specify whether
the mixture of used oil and hazardous waste must, itself, be a
hazardous waste in order for the ban to apply. However, the
conference report to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 explains that Congress intended for the ban to apply to
the use of "dioxin contaminated wastes or any other hazardous
waste as a dust suppressant" (H.R. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong.,
2d sess. 88 (1984)). [Emphasis added.]
In addition, Congress placed the prohibition on dust
suppression in Section 3004 of RCRA, where regulatory juris-
diction is generally limited to hazardous wastes identified or
listed under Section 3001. Congress, if so inclined, could
have expressly extended the prohibition to used oils or other
materials that are not hazardous wastes. For example, the
prohibition could have been placed in Section 3014(a) of RCRA,
which applies to all used oils that are recycled, whether or
not the used oils are hazardous waste.
-------
In Section 3001 of RCRA, Congress gave EPA the authority to
define in regulations the hazardous wastes subject to regulation
under Subtitle C. Section 261.3(a)(2)(iii) provides that if a
mixture of a solid waste and a characteristic waste no longer
exhibits any of the characteristics, it is not a hazardous waste
and is no longer subject to Section 3004. This is not an exemp-
tion but rather is part of EPA's definition of hazardous waste.
Absent a clear indication* in the statutory language or legislative
history that Congress intended to override EPA's current regulatory
policy relating to the definition of hazardous wastes, we believe
that the policy should apply in this case.
Based on the above rationale, our positidn remains as stated
in the June 6 memorandum.
cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - IX
Mark Greenwood, OGC
-------
0
*i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT ---- -^
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9493.00-lA
-/ Attachment
JUN 6 1985
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Prohibition on Use of Hazardous Waste for
Dust Suppression or Road Treatment
FPOM: John H. Skinner, Director ol (c*^ (*-\&.(,
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) ban
the use of hazardous waste and materials mixed with hazardous
waste as a dust suppressant. This memorandum explains how EPA
interprets the new provision.
THE HSWA
Section 213(1) of the HSWA amended Section 3004 of RCRA by
adding a new paragraph (1) to read as follows:
"(1J Ban on dust suppression. The use of waste or used oil
or other material which is contaminated or mixed with dioxin or
any other hazardous waste identified or listed under Section 3001
(other than a waste identified solely on the basis of ignitability )
for dust suppression or road treatment is prohibited."
EPA recently amended (in the Codification Rule, signed by the
Administrator April 20, to be published in the next two weeks)
$266.23, the standards for persons using hazardous waste in a
manner constituting disposal, to include verbatim the prohibition.
In addition, $261.33 (setting out requirements for discarded com-
mercial chemical products) has been amended to provide that the
materials and items listed in S261.33 are hazardous wastes when
they are mixed with waste oil or used oil or other material and
applied to the land for dust suppression or road treatment. In
effect* this conforming change provides that the requirements of
Section 3004(1) will apply to any $261.33 product that is mixed
with waste oil or used oil or other material and used for dust
suppression or road treatment.
-------
STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS
Several questions may arise as you implement this prohibition.
EPA interprets Section 3004(1} to impose the following requirements
8 Any material used as a dust suppressant is at least
potentially subject to the prohibition. Although
"used" or "waste" oil is the most common material
used for dust suppression, the Act's language
includes the term "...or other material..."
0 The prohibition applies when a material is mixed with
any listed hazardous waste including a waste listed
for ignitability.1 This means a mixture containing
hazardous waste from small quantity generators,
otherwise exempt under 5261.5, is subject to the
prohibition nonetheless.2
0 The Agency interprets the prohibition to apply to
hazardous waste (whether or not it is part of a mix-
ture). Under this interpretation used oil exhibiting
EP toxicity, for example, must not be used as a dust
suppressant.3
0 For the prohibition to apply, the material being used
for dust suppression must actually be a hazardous waste.
For example* a characteristic waste that is blended
with petroleum so that the resultant mixture no longer
exhibits any of the characteristics would not be subject
to the prohibition.
!_/ The statutory language makes it clear that the provision
exempts from the prohibition any material that is mixed with
a waste hazardous solely because it exhibits the ignitability
characteristic. Materials mixed with any listed wastes are
subject to the ban.
2/ The mere presence of constituents identified in Appendix VIII
of Part 261 is not alone sufficient proof that any mixing has
occurred. EPA continues to bear the burden of proof in any
individual case to show that mixing has occurred. As a point
of information , EPA proposed on January 11 , 1985 , that used
oil used aa fuel with a chlorine content exceeding 4000 ppm
total chlorine would be presumed to be mixed with hazardous
waste. [See 50 FR 1691-1692.]
V In contrast, used oil that contains hazardous constituents but
has not been mixed with hazardous waste and does not exhibit a
characteristic may be used as a dust suppressant. This is
because used oil is not presently listed as a hazardous waste.
-------
Because the ban applies to hazardous waste and
materials mixed with hazardous waste, a mixture
containing dioxin is subject to the prohibition
only when the dioxin comes from a hazardous waste
or when the material is otherwise a hazardous
waste. [As stated in footnote 2, the presence of
a hazardous constituent is not alone sufficient
proof that mixing has occurred.]
USED OIL LISTING
The HSWA requires EPA to propose a listing determination for
used car and truck crankcase oil by November 8, 1985, and to make
a final listing determination on all used oils b'y November 8, 1986.
[Section 3014(b) of the amended RCRA.] Under the interpretations
discussed above, any used oils eventually listed as hazardous waste
would be prohibited from use as a dust suppressant.
cc: Mark Greenwood, OGC
-------
MP1.Y TO
ATTN Of:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO!
REGION 10
Seattle, Washington 98101
M/S 533
9493.00-1A
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Prohibition on Use of Hazardous Waste for
Dust Suppression or Road Treatment
Charles E. Findley, Director
Hazardous Uaste Division (M/S
John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
,
-
One of the interpretations in your June 6. 1985. subject memorandum
is of concern. Specifically, the concern is that the interpretation may
encourage the mixing of characteristic hazardous waste to be "disposed"
through use as a dust suppressant. We fail to understand the basis for
the interpretation listed as the fourth bullet on page 2 of the subject
memorandum. The statutory language clearly states that any waste, used
oil, or other material which is contaminated or mixed with any hazardous
waste Identified or I1s- r: under Section 3001 cannot be used for dust
suppression or read tre. *r..jnt.
Any solid waste exhibiting a characteristic is a hazardous waste
under Section 3001. If waste, used oil, or any other material is
contaminated (i.e. contains) or is mixed with such characteristic
hazardous waste (unless the only characteristic exhibited is ignitanility)
then that waste, used oil, or material cannot be used for dust suppression
or road treatment irrespective of whether 1t exhibits the
characteristic. We fail to understand how any other interpretation of the
statutory language can be made.
The interpretation 1n your memo, :1n fact, would tend to encourage
p.lxing of characteristic hazardous waste with waste, used oil, or other
material and hence avoid regulation if the resulting mxt.ire no longer
e> hi bits the characteristic. The mixture rule under §261.3 allows such an
^-"exemption" with respect to the Subtitle C regulations, '.he statutory
amendment does not provide such an exemption for such mixtures with
rerpect to the ban as a dust suppressant.
The Interpretation (fourth bu11et> 1n your memo concludes that
"...the material being used for dust suppression must actually be a^
hazardous wasteJL That conclusion appears to be" contradictory to tne
statutory language. We assume the interpretation in your memo is based on
first applying the mixture rule of §261.3, then determining if the
resultant mixture is a hazardous waste. The statutory language would not
appear to allow the regulatory mixture rule to be applied as a means to
avoid the ban.
We strongly urge reconsideration of t.he interpretation.
cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions 1-9
Mark Greenwood, OGC
-------
9493.1985(01)
JUL \ 2 |98E
tr
f
*-
s ?
i t
tn rf
> f
\ (9
HEHORAKDC* w3
SUBJECT! Prohibition on Use of Rasardous Waste for Dust v?
Suppression or Road Treatment (Tour memo dated $-25-85) 1»
S rt
PRO*i John R. Skinner, Director 3c
Office of Solid Waste (VB-SC2) ^J
9
TOt Charles E. Pindley, Director a r
Rasardous Waste Division (H/S 52») M_
Region X £
Based on the legislative history to Section 3004(1), and ="|
on the structure of the statute and CPA's current regulatory a a
policy, we believe that the ban in Section 3004(1) applies only 2^
to materials that are themselves hasardous wastes. The provision u^
will be codified in Part 2fC, a subpart reserved for hasardous
waste uses constituting disposal.
-j r
The language of Section 3004(1) does not specify whether *?
the mixture of used oil and hasardous waste must, itself, be a \-e
hasardoua waste in order for the ban to apply. However, the ^.£
conference report to the Rasardoua and Solid Waste Amendments ^B
of If84 explains that Congress intended for the ban to apply to -jo
the use of "dioxin contaminated wastes or any other hasardoua j,^-
waste as a dust suppressant* (H.R. Rep. Ho. 1133, 98th Cong., \ r*«
2d seas, tt (19S4)). [Emphasis added.) «r
In adtfltiop, Congress placed the prohibition on dust
suppressiom in Section 3004 of RCRA, where regulatory juris-
diction is generally limited to hasardous wastaa identified or
listed under Section 3001. Congress, if so inclined, could
have expressly extended the prohibition to used oils or other
materials that are not hasardous wastes. Por example, the
prohibition could have been placed in Section 3014(a) of RCRA,
which applies to all uaed oils that are recycled, whether or
not the used oils are hasardous waste.
-------
Zn Section 3001 of RCRA, Congress gave EPA the authority to
define in regulations the hazardous wastes subject to regulation
under Subtitle C. Section 261,3(a){2)(iii) provides that if a
mixture of a solid waste and a characteristic waste no longer
exhibits any of the characteristics, it is not a hasardous wasta
and is no longer subject to Section 3004. This is not an exemp-
tion but rather is part of BPA's definition of hasardous wast*.
Absent a clear indication in the statutory language or legislative
history that Congress intended to override BPA's current regulatory
policy relating to the definition of hasardous wastes, we believe
that the policy should apply in this case.
Based on the above rationale, our position remains as stated
in the June memorandum.
ccs Waste Management Division Directors, Jtegions I - IX
Hark Greenwood, OGC
-------
9493.1985(02)
N&V 14 BBS
Everett* Wyatt
wire Division Engineer
Leggett ft Platt, Inc.
P.O. Box 695
No. 1 - Leggett Road
Carthage, Missouri 64836
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
Our office has received your letter dated July 29. 1985,
requesting a decision from the Agency in regard to the proper
classification of the liquid mlcronutrient fertiliser (Ferrous
Green*) produced by Leggett ft Platt from your spent sulfurie acid
pickle liquors. Based on the Agency's recent amendment to the .
definition of solid waste published in the federal Keqister on
January 4, 1985* the fertiliser produced from your pickle liquor
is not presently subject to regulation (although the material it
still a solid and hazardous waste).
The raw material for the fertiliser production/ waste pickle
liquor, is both a solid waste (since it is a soent material; see
the Federal Register, January 4, 1985 - $261.2) and a hazardous
waste (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062). If a fertilizer is produced
from this waste, the fertilizer (if hazardous) is normally regulated
under Subpart C of Part 266 (see 50 FR 666, January 4, 19*5).
If the fertilizer is produced for use by the general public, how-
ever, this product is exempt from regulation (see $266.20(b)).
As you know, Leggett ft Platt originally received a temporary
exclusion for their spent pickle liouor on December 16, 1981.
This exclusion was for treated It062 waste, and was based on the
Agency's proposal to change the F.P toxicity characteristic fron
total chromium] to hexavalent chromium. This proposal has not
been made fiaal by the Agency, nor do we expect to make that
proposal final. After treatment, the pickle liguor has pR values
ranging from 2.5-3.5, and hexavalent chromium levels are low
«0.005 mq/1). The treated liquor, however, contains 16-19 mg/1
total chromium, which exceeds the RP toxicity limit for chromium
(5 mg/1). Leggett ft Platt'* treated pickle liouor is, therefore,
classified as hazardous due to the characteristic of RP toxicity,
and so it cannot be delisted under IS260.20 and 260.22 of the
RCRA regulation*.
-------
The chromium levels in the untreated liquor (28-63 mg/1)
also exceed th« BP toxicity limit for chromium. Due to it*
exceptionally low pa level (0.3-1.7), the untreated liquor is
also classified as a corrosive waste. Such a characteristically
corrosive and BP toxic waste is likewise not dellstable under
SS260.20 and 240.22. Leggett fc Platt's untreated pickle liquor
is also considered a hazardous vaste, and Bust be handled and
stored in accordance with 40 CPft Parts 262 to 265 and the
permitting requirements of 40 CPR Part 270) that is, the spent
pickle liquor is subject to requlation before it is used to
produce a fertiliser. Since the pickle liquor, when treated,
becomes a commercially available fertilizer product, the treated
pickle liquor is exempted from requlation, although the treated
liquor is still a hazardous waste. Should any portion of Legqett
i Platt's pickle liquor not be handled in this manner, that
portion would be subject to regulation under RCRA.
As mentioned above, the Agency has not acted on the proposal
to alter the EP toxicity characteristic from total chromium to
hexavalent chromium, and your treated waste is, therefore, not
delistable due to the high levels of total chromium. Due to this
findinq, the Agency will recoraend to the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and emergency Response that the temporary exclusion
granted for your treated waste on December 16, 19tl be withdrawn
and that your petition be denied. This action do«s not have any
bearing on the regulatory statue of your fertiliser product, but
indicates that because of the characteristics that the treated
waste exhibits, the waste is not eligible to he removed from the
Agency's list of hazardous wastes (4261.32).
At this time, we would like to close our files. The Agency
is required to publish all delistinq decisions in the federal
Register, so our office will reconatend to the Assistant
Administrator that a denial notice b« published in the near
future, we, however, have been offering petitioners the option
of withdrawing their petitions rather than having the Agency
publish a denial in the Pederal Register. If you would like to
exercise this option, we require that a letter be sent to us
retracting your petition and stating that the waste is hazardous
and will be managed appropriately. We would appreciate that if
such a letter is sent, it be forwarded to our office within one
month from the date of today's correspondence.
As indicated above, the Agency is not currently regulating
commercial, hazardous waste-derived fertilizers. As more infor-
mation becomes available about these products, the Agency reay
propose to regulate their use. We will keep you advised of any
further developments in this area.
-------
If you h«*« any questions, please contact Scott Kaid, of my
staff, at (2tl) 312-4783.
Sincerely yours,
Eileen Claussen
Director
Characterisation and Assessment
Division (VR-562B)
cct Joe Davis, Missouri ONR
Chet fcLaughlin, EPA Feqlon VII
-------
9493.1985(03)
NOV 25 1985
Ms. G. Mahoney
Environmental Engineer
Bridgeport Brass Corporation
P.O. Box 51519
Indianapolis, Indiana 46251
Dear MS. Mahoney:
This letter is in response to your request cor an
interpretation of the January 4, 1985 hazardous waste regulations,
concerning the regulatory status of two characteristically
hazardous sludges that are recycled. (The specific exanples
you are interested in are described in your letter dated
August 14, 1985, and in our telephone conversation.) in
your letter, you indicate that both of these Materials are
recycled in such a manner that you believe they are not
solid wastes and therefore not subject to the hazardous waste
regulations under RCRA. However, baaed on the January 4
rules, one of the materialsthe zinc oxide dust'-would be
oetined as a solid waste and would be regulated under the
hazardous waste regulations. The remainder of the letter
will describe how these materials are covered under these
rules.
First, I would like to apologize to you for ray delay in
getting back to you. My schedule has been very busy and hope
ray delay has not caused you any problems, with respect to
your specific examples:
0 A zinc oxide dust (a characteristic hazardous sludge) is
sold to a facility where it is processed into zinc sulfatt;
the resulting sine sulfate is then sold to bulk tertiiizer
blenders who use the zinc sulfate as an ingredient in
fertilizers. The fertilizer is then sold to smaller
distributors.
Under the example, the zinc oxide is processed
to produce zinc sulfate (as this is described in
the attachment to your letter), under the rules,
such activities do not normally constitute solid waste
management. However, when the material (that is, the
zinc oxide dust) is to be incorporated into a product
that is placed on the land, we would detine the entire
recycling activity as "use constituting disposal."
-------
Under the January 4 rules, all sludges that are hazardous
(whether or not they are listed) are defined as wastes
if they are placed directly on the land for benefical
use or incorporated into a product that is placed on
the land for benfical use. (See 40 CPR Part 261.2(c)(l)
and Part 266 Subpart C; see also preamble discussion
at 50 PR 627 and 646.) Therefore, the zinc oxide
dust is subject to the hazardous waste regulations
(i.e., the generator of the zinc oxide dust is subject
to the requirements of Part 262, transporters of this
dust are subject to the requirements of Part 263, and
the facility that processes the zinc sulfate would be
subject to the storage requirements of Parts 264 and
265). You should also be aware that if the zinc
sulfate is hazardous (i^e^, exhibits any of the charac-
teristics of hazardous waste), it would also be subject
to the hazardous waste regulations.
A characteristic hazardous sludge is generated from an
air pollution control device. This sludge can be reclaimed
to recover its copper content; in addition, any lead
recovered can be produced into a low grade lead solder.
Under this scenairo, the hasardous sludge would not
be defined as a waste (and thus not be subject to the
hazardous waste rules) as you have correctly indicated in
your letter. In particular, under the January 4 rules,
sludges that are reclaimed are only detined as solid and
hazardous wastes if they are specifically listed;
since the sludge is not listed (but is hazardous solely
because it exhibits the characteristic of EP toxicity),
the material is not detined as a solid waste. See 40
CPR part 261.2(c)(3)> see also preamble discussion at
50 PR 633. (This material may still be subject to
regulation it it is accumulated speculatively.)
I hope this letter responds to your request. Please
feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or
comments. Hy telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Haste Identification Branch
-------
9493.1985(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 85
3. L'se Constituting Disposal
The January 4, 1985 (5Q-PT* 614) redefinition of Solid Waste brought into regulation
certain hazardous waste management activities that were previously exempt fron
regulation because these activities were deemed to be beneficial use, reuse, or
reclamation under S261.6(a)(1). On this date, EPA added a new section (Part 266
Suopart C) which outlines the regulations on the use of hazardous waste in a
manner constituting disposal. This section now regulates beneficial use or
reuse of hazardous wastes via placement or application of the hazardous waste
(recyclable material) on the land.
For training purposes, a fire department sprays virgin diesel fuel on the ground.
The fuel is set ablaze and then extinguished. The .resultant residues are collected
and properly disposed of as RCRA hazardous wastes. -
Does the act of spraying the virgin diesel fuel meet the use constituting disposal
classification?
No; spraying virgin fuel on the ground foe firefighting practice does not meet
the use constituting disposal classification. In this case, the fuel is a
primary material and not a waste. Had the fuel been spent or a secondary
material, such usage could be considered use constituting disposal.
Source: Steve Silveeman (202) 382-7706
Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
-------
9493.1985(05)
DEC 11 Q85
Mr. Michael D. Boruch
P.O. Box 236
Bast Setauket, New Tork 11733
Dear Mr. Boruch»
This letter in in response to your inoulry of October 25,
1985, regarding the de-characterisation and disposal of hasardous
wastes that have undergone chewleal solidification. Per our
discussion, the waste treatment scenario you have described
would result in a waste which the Agency classifies as a
recycled Material to be used in a manner that constitutes
disposal.* The latest regulations addressing such a waste
product can be found, in full, in 50 Pf^ 14-6(8, dated
January 4, 1985 and 40 CPR, Part 266, revised date of July 1,
1985. To briefly summarise, the Agency's jurlsdlcation over
waste products extends to all hasardous secondary Materials,
when they are applied to land or used In water as fill or
support material. This jurisdiction extends to all such
material, whether or not the waste has been mixed with other
materials or chemically altered before disposal. The tyt>e of
processing or treatment of the waste may be relevant in determining
what regulatory scheme to adopt for the waste or in deciding if
the derived product is still hasardous, however, the act of
processing, in and of itself, does not deprive the Agency of
RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction when the waste containing product
will be disposed of. Thus, such products a« fertilisers,
asphalt, and building foundation materials that use hasardous
wastes as ingredients are subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
In essence, the Agency maintains that if a waste product
is fully or partially composed of a hasardous material, then it
is under RCKA jurisdiction and must be managed accordingly
unless and until an exclusion is petitioned for and granted
pursuant to 40 CfH f1260.20 and 260.22. It should be noted
however* that the Agency* while having jurisdiction over these
wastes, has decided not to regulate these materials when they
are formulated into fertilisers that we sold to the general
public. (See f2«6.20(b))
-------
I hope this letter and the referenced regulations will
provide you »ore insight Into the Agency's responsibilities
for hazardous waste management, and in particular, for wastes
that have been chemically treated. Should you have any further
Questions regarding this, or any other subject, please do not
hesitate to contact ne.
Sincerely,
Jawes A. Poppiti
Manager
Waste Identification Branch
-------
9493.1985(06)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 85
Used Oil as Dust Suppressant
5. Can EP-toxic waste oil wnich has not been mixed witn hazardous waste se used
for dust suppression purposes?
Yes; 261.6(a)(3)(iii) currently exempts waste oil exhibiting a charact-
eristic from regulation under Parts 262-266, 124, and 270 when the used oil
is being recycled. Therefore, waste oil which exhibits a characteristic
and which has not been mixed with hazardous waste can be used as a dust
suppressant.
This ban, mandated by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Anendments of 1984
(HSVA) and codified in $266.23(b), prohibits used or waste oil which has
been mixed with dioxins or other hazardous wastes from being used as a
dust suppressant. Discussion in the preamble of the codification rule
(50 FR 28718) indicate that this ban would also apply to unmixed hazardous
waste. Therefore, in the future when EPA lists waste oil as a hazardous
waste, road oiling and other dust suppression methods involving used oil
would be prohibited.
source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
-------
U EL ..ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE ON -GENCY 9493.1986(01)
JAN 2 2 1986
Mr. Rar.rtall F. Andrews
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
Route 2
Box 521-C
Red Springs, H.C. 28377
Dear Mr. Andrews:
This is in response to your letter of December 27, 1985,
concerning the regulatory status of the copper plating solution
that you receive at your plant site. As I understand your
situation, you obtain from a copper plating operation a copper
sulfate bath (which exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity)
at your plant site and react it with a chelating agent to
produce a material that is registered with the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture as a commercial fertilizer. This
material no longer exhibits the corrosivity characteristic.
This material is then sold to farmers for use as a fertilizer
or is sold to fertilizer companies for inclusion into fertilizer
for resale.
Under this scenario, the copper sulfate bath that you
receive at your plant site ijB a solid and hazardous waste and
is subject to the transportation and storage requirements
under the hazardous waste regulations. The material that is
produced at your plant site (i.e., the commercial fertilizer),
however, is no longer subject to regulation under the hazardous
waste rules and may be managed as such. The basis for this
decision is as follows* On January 4, 1985, EPA promulgated
its final rules which deal with the question of which materials
are solid and hazardous wastes when they are recycled. Among
other things, these rules state that all hazardous secondary
materials that are placed on the land for benefical use or
incorporated into products (referred to as waste-derived
products) that are placed on the land for benefical use are
solid and hazardous wastes. (See enclosed copy of regulations.)
In the Agency's view, these practices are virually the equivalent
of unsupervised land disposal, a situation RCRA is designed
to prevent. The many damage incidents resulting from wastes
being placed on the land for benefical use bear out the
Agency's concern. This type of recycling activity has also
-------
a particular concern of Congress. in particular, iti a
tiucibor ot Congressional reports, they describe various damage
incidents involving wastes that arc? placed on the land tor
beni-tical use. These reports reflect net only Congress1
concern but its intent that EPA regulate this type of activity.
Therefore, we believe that this type of recycling activity
constituc-s waste management and need be subject to regulatory
control.
by asserting jurisdiction over waste-derived products
that are placed on the land, we are also asserting jurisdication
(and regulating) the materials that go into these products,
provided these materials are hazardous (i.e., exhibit one or
more of the- hazardous waste characteristics or are specifically
listed). Therefore, since the copper plating solution is
corrosive, it is subject to regulation. More specifically,
the generator and transporter of this material is subject to
the appropriate generator and transporter standards, including
the hazardous waste manifest, while you (being the recycler)
would be subject to the appropriate storage standards. (see
40 CFR 261.6(b) and (c) for specific regulatory requirements.)
As indicated earlier, however, the material that is produced
at your facility the commerical fertilizer is no longer
subject to regulation since this material is no longer'defined
as hazardous.
Since this regulation has gone through formal rulemaking,
your only alternative (at this time) is to submit a rulenaking
Petition under 40 CFR Part 260.20 (See enclosure for specific
information requirements). Please feel free to give me a
call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone
number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
-------
9493.1986(02)
guidelines or regulations have been issued under RCRA
Procurement of recovered materials?
The "Federal Procurement" provision in Section 6002 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is one of the few
provisions of the statute that directly mandates resource
recovery. In establishing this provision, Congress recognized
that the Federal Government is an enormous consumer of certain
materials. Hence, procurement practices of Federal agencies
can encouraqe the development of private sector companies which
use recovered materials to manufacture products for both the
Federal and private sectors.
The provisions of §6002 apply to procuring agencies that purchase
designated items when the price of such designated item exceeds
310,000 or when the cost of such an item purchased during the
preceding year exceeded 510,000. The statute incorporates two
mechanisms to accomplish the goal of establishing Federal recyclirq
practices. First, §6002(d) states that all Federal procuring
agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications
must review and revise their specifications in order to eliminate
any unfair discrimination against the use of recovered materials.
Second, §6002(e) requires the EPA to designate items that are or
can be produced with recovered materials and to set forth recommended
procurement practices for such items ("procurement guidelines").
Section 6002(c) requires all procuring agencies which use appropriated
Federal funds to procure designated items containing the highest
percentage of recovered materials, practicable, provided that
reasonable levels of competition, cost, availability and technical
performance are maintained. Section 6002(i) requires procurina
agencies to adopt an affirmative procurement program to ensure
that designated items containing recovered materials are purchase 1
to the maximum extent practicable.
EPA finalized guidelines for cement and concrete containing
fly ash on January 28, 1983 (48 FR 4230). Paper and paper produces
guidelines were proposed on April 9, 1985 (50 FR 14076). Guidelines
for Federal procurement of asphalt materials containing ground iir<«
rubber for construction and rehabilitation of paved surfaces were
proposed on February 20, 1986 (51 FR 6202). The EPA has establish.?-!
criteria for selecting additional items for which procurement -TJ Me lines
will be prepared (48 FR 4231). The criteria are:
1) The waste material must constitute a significant solid waste
management problem due to volume, degree of hazard or
difficulties in disposal;
2) Economic methods of separation and recovery must exist;
3) The material must have technically proven uses; and
4) Federal purchasing power for the final product must be subs'- \-\* \\.
Source: William Sanjour (202) 382-4502
Research: Kevin Weiss
-------
ITED : TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROT^-riON A NCY
9493.1986(03)
Mr. Gary D. Meyers
The Fertilizer Institute
1015 IStli Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 _.
G-2.'\ \936
Dear Mr. Meyers: ****
This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1986,
regarding the regulatory status of commercial fertilizers
that contain emission control dust/sludge from the primary
production of steel in electric furnaces (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. KUGl) under the Federal hazardous waste rules. In your
letter, you question an Interpretation I have taken regarding
the applicability of the hazardous waste rules to fertilizers
produced using zinc flue dust as an ingredient. In particular,
you disagree with my statement that such fertilizers are not
exempt from regulation pursuant to 40 CFR §266.20(b) until
they are in the physical form in which they were sold to the
ultimate consumer. Rather/ you believe that once the zinc
tluc- dust has been incorporated into the product and has
been properly processed, the material, while subject to our
authority, is currently exempt from regulation because it is
a "commercial fertilizer.I/ (We both agree that the
transportation and storage ot zinc flue dust prior to is use
in the production of fertilizer is regulated.)
I/ You also believe that the zinc flue dust would not be
regulated after it is reacted with sulfuric acid, the
first step in producing zinc micronutrient fertilizers,
since it has undergone a chemical reaction making it
inseparable from the product by physical means (see
S266.20(b)). This would only be true if the material can
be used as a fertilizer (and such fertilizer is produced
tor the general public's use) after the zinc flue dust
is reacted with sulfuric acid. As you state in your
letter, however, the zinc flue dust does not become a
commercial fertilizer (i.e.,, a fertilizer that can be
used by the general public) until it is reacted with
sulfuric acid, granulated, and sized. I, therefore,
believe this provision is not appropriate in this case.
-------
In reviewing your letter as well as the information
enclosed, I have reconsidered my interpretation and believe
that your reading of the rules is correct; that is, once a
zinc micronutrient commercial fertilizer is produced, it is
exempt trom regulation, provided it is being produced for the
general public's use. Therefore, zinc flue dust that has
been reacted with sulfuric acid, granulated, and sized]?/ would
be exempt trom regulation, except as described below, whether
it is sold directly to the public for their use or to a third
party who blends the zinc micronutrient fertilizer with other
nutrients prior to their being sold to the general public.
The only exception to this is if the material is not handled
in a manner commensurate with the management of zinc micronutrient
fertilizers. In particular, in your letter you state "...the
fertilizer is stored in bags or in bulk, awaiting shipment
to customers. Because excessive moisture must not be allowed
to contact the fertilizer until it is applied, the fertilizer
is stored indoors and transported in covered (hard top or
tarpaulin) trucks" (see page 4 of your letter). Therefore,
if a person were to handle the "zinc fertilizer" in open
piles outside of buildings or in ways that would not be
typical for managing commercial fertilizers and such management
is causing this material to escape into the environment, we
believe the material would not be a commercial fertilizer
and that the operation could be viewed as a sham situation
where recycling is not in fact occuring.
2/ As stated in your letter, zinc micronutrient fertilizers
do not become commercial fertilizers until they are
reacted with sulfuric acid, granulated, and sized.
Therefore, if a person were to just react the zinc flue
dust with sulfuric acid or perform this step and the
granulation step and then ship the material off-site to
be granulated and sized or just sized, the material would
be subject to the transportation and storage standards
since the material is not yet a "commercial fertilizer"
produced for the general public's use. In addition, any
wastes from the fertilizer production processsuch as
filter cake left after reacting the wase flue dustwould
be RCRA wastes, and would automatically be deemed to be
listed wastes if they derive trom treating a listed waste
(such as wate K061).
-------
Please teol free to give me a call if you have any
further questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-6551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
Karl Johnson, TFI
Carl L. Schauble, Frit Industries
Michael Steffensmeier, Neb. Dept. of Environmental Control
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9493'1986( 04)
- WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
v.
SEP 3 !S87
O«=e'CE OF
SOLiO WASTE AND EUEPGENCv OESPQNSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Requirements tor Agricultural Use
of Spent Acias
FROM: Matthew A. Straus, Cnief "^ ^'
waste Characterization Brancn (wH-5t>2fl)
TO: Bill Taylor, cnief
Enforcement Section (ba-CE)
Region VI
I am writing in response to your memo o£ August 1«,
The term "commercial fertilizer," as useo in >266.20, has che
same meaning as normally usea in agriculture, i.e., a material
added to soil to supply certain elements essential co tne
growth of plants.
materials addea to soil to alter soil propercies, i.e.,
pH adjustment, are callea soil amendments, not fertilisers.
further, tne exemption in 3266.201D) is meant to incluae
fertilizer products tnat contain hazardous waste, not hazardous
waste placea directly on tne ground, on ootn counts, the
spent acids you descrioe fail to meet the conditions o£
>266.20(b), and tnereiore are suoject to si266.21-266.2J.
-------
UNITED SI ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGi-,
-------
9493.1991(01)
mj
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JAN 8 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Frank Dixon
President
Thermal Waste Management
237 Royal Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Dear Mr. Dixon:
This letter responds to your August 9, 1990, letter to
Mr. Bob Holloway, as well as to phone conversations between
Mr. George Lane of Thermal Waste Management (TWM) and Mr. Mitch
Kidwell, of my staff. Your principal intent in writing to EPA is
to seek confirmation of your assessment that the fuels TWM
produces are exempt from hazardous waste labeling requirements.
You also ask for clarification of the regulatory provisions that
govern the production of fuels from oily hazardous petroleum
refinery wastes (i.e., 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)) and the impact of
various court opinions on these regulations.
As I understand your letter, TWM has a process that produces
marketable liquid and solid fossil fuel products from oily
hazardous petroleum refinery wastes. The liquid portion is
reinserted into the petroleum refining process and the solid
portion is marketed as a fuel. You assert that the TWM process
is unique because it leaves no residues that would require
subsequent treatment or disposal (aside from the wastewater,
which is further managed in the refinery's wastewater treatment
system) and use this as a basis for drawing a "significant
difference" between the TWM process and typical oil reclamation
processes that recover a liquid component, yet leave a solid
residue requiring disposal.
Regulatory determinations such as the one you seek (i.e.,
specific to your process or products) are made by the appropriate
State regulatory agency or EPA Regional 'Offices. I am able to
respond to your questions regarding which Federal regulations may
be applicable, clarifying the intent and meaning of various terms
used in the regulations, and provide some of the pertinent
factors to consider in determining the regulatory status of the
TWM process and the fuels produced; however, the determination
must be made on a case-specific basis by the regulating agency.
Under the Federal regulations, there is no regulatory basis
to draw a distinction between secondary materials processed by an
oil recovery process that does not generate a residue and
secondary materials processed by an oil recovery process that
Priiiltd on Kteyeltd Paptr
-------
does generate a residue. The emphasis you apply to the phrase
"no element of discard" as it describes the TWM process suggests
a misunderstanding of the Agency's use of the phrase in its
January 8, 1988 proposal (see 53 PR 525) on the definition of
solid waste. (This definition is used to determine whether a
secondary material is subject to hazardous waste regulations
promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).)
In the January 8, 1988 preamble discussion, the phrase "no
element of discard" is used to indicate that where there is an
element of discard evidenced in the management of a hazardous
petroleum secondary material (e.g., placement in a surface
impoundment) prior to reinsertion into the petroleum refining
process, the very element of discard indicates that the secondary
material is a solid waste subject to RCRA regulation.
Conversely, if a secondary material is managed prior to
reinsertion into the petroleum refinery process that generated it
such that there is no element of discard (e.g., by managing the
materials solely in tanks), the secondary material is considered
to be part of an ongoing continuous production process, and thus,
outside the scope of RCRA regulation. Whether or not the
processing of the secondary material (in this example, by
reinsertion into the petroleum refining process) results in a
residue that must be disposed of is irrelevant to determining
whether the secondary material, prior to reinsertion, is a solid
waste subject to regulation.
The January 8, 1988 preamble discussion, as well as the
exclusion proposed for oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials
that are reinserted into the petroleum refinery process (proposed
40 CFR 261.4(a)(10)), is neither relevant nor applicable to such
materials that are inserted into an oil recovery process other
than the petroleum refinery process that generated the secondary
material (regardless of whether the recovery process generates a
residue). Rather, fuel that is produced (and oil that is
reclaimed and used as a fuel) from hazardous wastes resulting
from normal petroleum refining, production, and transportation by
processes other than normal petroleum refining operations are
eligible for an exemption from hazardous waste regulation under
40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(viii).
/
Your first four questions indicate a concern regarding
whether the ownership of the unit, the operator of the unit, the
characterization of the unit's operation as intermittent (i.e.,
batch) rather than continuous, or the unit's characterization as
mobile rather than stationary has an impact on whether the
products produced are exempt from regulation. In general, under
Federal regulations such aspects of a process have little impact
on the regulatory status of the products produced or the residues
generated.
-------
The applicable regulatory provisions (40 CFR 261.6(a)(3))
explicitly state the conditions which must be net for fuels
produced from hazardous secondary materials from petroleum
refining to be exempt from regulation. (For example, in
261.6(a)(3)(v), "refining of oil-bearing hazardous wastes along
with normal process streams"; and in 261.6(a)(3)(viii)(A),
"reintroduced into a process that does not use distillation or
does not produce products from crude oil so long as the resulting
fuel meets the used oil specifications under § 266.40(e).")
In another question, you refer to the proposed 40 CFR
261.4(a)(10) (53 FR 529, January 8, 1988) which excludes:
"Oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials from petroleum
refining that are generated onsite and reinserted into the
petroleum refining process along with normal process
streams, provided that the materials are not stored in a
manner involving placement on the land, or accumulated
speculatively, before being so recycled. (Fuels produced
from such recycling activities are not solid wastes.)"
You ask for EPA's concurrence that TWM fuels are not solid
wastes, since the feed materials meet all of the above
requirements. Such an evaluation would need to be made on a
case-specific basis by the regulating agency.
It should be clear from the January 8, 1988 proposal
preamble discussion regarding RCRA jurisdiction that the
exclusion applies only to those secondary materials that are
reinserted into the petroleum refining process (rather than being
"inserted" into an onsite "recovery" process), thereby being part
of an ongoing, continuous production process. (This language is
taken from the statutory provision in section 3004(r).)
Materials that are processed by processes other than "the
petroleum refining process" would not be excluded under this
proposed provision (although, as stated above, there is an
existing rule that exempts fuels produced by such other
processes, provided the fuels meet the used oil specifications)
Please keep in mind that the Agency has not finalized the 1988
proposal, nor has any State, to our knowledge, adopted such a
provision in a final regulation. Conditions for meeting the
exclusion could change at promulgation.
A number of your questions refer to the January 8, 1988
preamble discussion and make an assumption that the TWM process
is a "petroleum refining process." EPA described what it means
by a petroleum refinery process (i.e., petroleum refining
facility) in a November 29, 1985 rulemaking that promulgated the
exemptions for fuels derived from petroleum refinery wastes (see
50 FR 49169). (This description was reiterated in the January 8,
1988 proposal preamble discussion, and is consistent with the
statutory language in section 3004(r).) As Footnote No. 11 in
the November 29, 1985 FEDERAL REGISTER notice states, the Agency
-------
does not consider used oil-based processes that produce fuel to
be refining operations "(in spite of the use of distillation)
because they do not produce fuels from crude oil." This footnote
further explains that if such processes use "... oilbearing
petroleum refining hazardous waste as a feed material, the
resulting fuels would be exempt if they a««t th« us«d oil
specification ..." (emphasis added). By requiring that such
fuels meet the used oil specifications of 266.40(e) to be exempt
from regulation as a hazardous waste fuel (assuming that the
fuels are derived from listed hazardous wastes or exhibit a
hazardous characteristic), the Agency clearly did not intend for
used oil distillation processes (and, by extension, other oil
recovery processes) to be considered petroleum refining
processes, even when oil-bearing petroleum refining hazardous
wastes are used as a feedstock in the used oil distillation
process.
The TWM process does not appear to meet the Agency's
definition of a petroleum refining operation because it: 1) does
not use crude oil as a feedstock, 2) recovers a liquid fraction
that must be rerefined in the petroleum refining process (and
therefore, -is not itself a refined hydrocarbon product), and
3) exhibits no evidence that the solid fuel produced is a typical
petroleum refining product rather than a hazardous waste fuel
(i.e., if there is no removal of contaminants in the processing -
- as would be the assumption if such fuel meets the used oil
specifications found at 40 CFR 266.40(e) then there is no
basis on which to conclude that such fuel is a refined petroleum
product rather than a petroleum refining waste recovery residue
with recoverable energy (BTU) value, or rather, a hazardous waste
fuel). Since it does not appear that the TWM process is a
petroleum refining operation, many of your questions are moot or
are otherwise unanswerable because there is insufficient
information on which to base a response.
In two questions you ask whether the January 8, 1988
proposal has been finalized and whether the Agency has considered
recent court opinions regarding the jurisdiction of RCRA in
responding to your questions regarding the status of the fuels
produced by the TWM process. EPA has not yet finalized the
January 8, 1988 proposal; however, insofar as the proposal and
relevant court opinions address the -scope of RCRA, particularly
in relation to secondary materials that are part of an ongoing
continuous petroleum refining processes, these considerations
were taken into account in responding to your questions.
In another question, you cite the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) 2911 for petroleum refining and ask whether
the TWM process is the "redistillation of unfinished petroleum
derivatives." While the TWM process does appear to be the
redistillation of an "unfinished petroleum derivative," the main
focus of the SIC classification seems to be the actual production
of petroleum products. Because the SIC description includes the
-------
phrase "other processes," the emphasis does not appear to be on
2he typ« of process involved, but rather on the feed materials
and the products produced. The TWM process is best characterized
as a recovery process that processes hazardous petroleum refining
wastes to recover a liquid component which is reinserted into the
petroleum recovery and a solid component which, assuming it meets
the used oil specifications of 266.40(e), is a hazardous waste
fuel that is exempt from regulation. If the solid fuel produced
by the TWM process does not meet the used oil specifications at
266.40(e), it is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste fuel.
In describing a petroleum refining process, EPA sought to
distinguish between actual petroleum production processes and
ancillary recovery processes. However, exemptions were also
promulgated to address fuels produced by recovery operations
where the contaminants were removed from the fuels, thus ensuring
that the use of the fuels would not pose an increase in risk to
human health and the environment over the use of normal petroleum
refining fuel products. You have provided no data indicating
whether the solid fuel produced by the TWM process meets the
266.40(e) used oil specifications; therefore we are unable to
determine the regulatory status of the solid fuel.
You specifically asked whether the Agency agrees that the
TWM process is a refining process. For the purpose of the
regulatory exemptions found at 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3), the TWM
process does not appear to be a refining process in the same way
that a used oil distillation process is not a refining process.
Rather, the TWM process appears to be a recovery process.
In summary, I reiterate that EPA Headquarters is not the
appropriate entity to make a determination on the regulatory
status of the TWM process as it operates at a particular facility
or on the products it produces. There is no basis on which to
conclude that the TWM process is a petroleum refining process,
and no information was supplied to make a regulatory
"determination on the status of either the liquid or solid
portions recovered (i.e., no data on whether the fossil products
meet the used oil specifications). If the liquid portion is sold
for direct use as a fuel, the fuel would be exempt from
regulation as a hazardous waste fuel only if it meets the used
oil specifications of 40 CFR 266.4-0(e). If the liquid portion
(i.e., oil) is reinserted into the petroleum refining process
along with normal process streams, it would be exempt from
hazardous waste regulation under 261.6(a)(3)(vi). If the solid
portion is marketed as a fuel, or further used to produce a fuel,
it would likewise not be regulated as a hazardous waste fuel only
provided that it meets the used oil specifications (assuming that
it meets other relevant criteria for a hazardous waste fuel). If
the recovered portions that are marketed as fuel do not meet the
used oil specifications, such fuels are hazardous waste fuels
(assuming that they are derived from listed hazardous petroleum
-------
wastes or are themselves hazardous by exhibiting a characteristic
of a hazardous waste) .
If you have further generic questions regarding the
regulatory status of recovery processes or fuel products derived
from hazardous petroleum wastes, you should contact Mr. Mitch
Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551. For specific questions
regarding the application of RCRA regulation to the TWM process
or TWM fuel products, you should contact the appropriate State
regulatory agency or EPA Regional Office.
Sincerely,
David Bussard
Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
bcc: Allyn Davis, Director
Waste ' Management Division, Region VI
Bob Holloway, Chief
Combustion Section
-------
9493.1991(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN 2 0 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Determination Regarding the Use of
Petroleum-Contaminated Soils as an Ingredient in
Asphalt BatchJ
FROM: Sylvia K.
Office of
TO: Merrill S. Hofaman. Director
Waste Management Division
Region I
This responds to your March 11, 1991, memorandum requesting
a regulatory interpretation regarding the use of petroleum-
contaminated soils as an ingredient in asphalt batching. This
use of petroleum-contaminated soils has become an issue because
the recently promulgated Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule may
result in such soils being hazardous wastes subject to
regulation, while the majority of such asphalt batching
operations have failed to apply for interim status. Thus, the
two main issues are: (1) determining the regulatory status of
the asphalt batching processes, and (2) the appropriate
enforcement approach to address those regulated facilities that
failed to apply for interim status, or were late in applying.
For the latter issue, I refer you to the April 10, 1991,
memorandum from Bruce Diamond.
In determining the regulatory status of the asphalt batching
operation, there are four different points of consideration:
1) whether the petroleum-contaminated soils are hazardous solid
wastes when used as an ingredient in a product used in a manner
constituting disposal, 2) whether the batching process itself is
legitimate recycling or treatment, 3) whether the asphalt product
meets the waste-derived product exemption found at 40 CFR
266.20(b), and 4) whether the storage of petroleum-contaminated
soils is subject to regulation.
1. Determining whether petroleum contaminated soils are solid
wastes.
In determining whether the contaminated soils are hazardous
wastes when used as ingredients in asphalt, the term "petroleum-
contaminated" may be too generic to enable a definitive
regulatory determination because this term could encompass too
Prinltd on Rtcyeltd Paptr
-------
broad a variation of contaminants. A more case-specific approach
may be necessary because certain "petroleum-contaminated" soils
may be subject to RCRA regulation while others may not.
In general, a hazardous secondary material (and soils
contaminated with a hazardous secondary material) used to produce
a product used in a manner constituting disposal is a solid
waste, unless it is a commercial chemical product that is
normally used in this Banner, such as a petroleum product
normally used as an ingredient in asphalt batching (see 40 CFR
261.2(c)(1)(ii) although the commercial product may not be
listed in section 261.33, the same regulatory approach applies).
The regulatory status of soils contaminated with crude oil would
be determined by using the same approach. The crude oil, while
not a secondary material, would be a solid waste because it is
being discarded by use in a manner constituting disposal, unless
crude oil is a normal ingredient in asphalt batching. We expect
that most petroleum-contaminated soils are not contaminated
with the petroleum product that normally is used in asphalt
production and would, therefore, be solid wastes. (For example,
if gasoline is not normally used in asphalt production, then
gasoline-contaminated soil is a solid waste when used in asphalt
production.) However, there may be specific cases where the soil
is contaminated with a petroleum product normally used to make
asphalt, in which case the contaminated soil would not be a solid
waste when used in asphalt batching.
Also, you should note that any media (including soil) or
debris resulting from remediation of an underground storage tank
cleanup under Part 280 is excluded from regulation as hazardous
waste (for the D018-D043 constituents) regardless of the intended
disposition, so these soils could be used in asphalt production.
(You should also note that we are presently reviewing a petition
from New York State that requests that the Agency exclude all
petroleum contaminated media and debris from regulation under the
TC. A rulemaking may be initiated to address issues raised by
this petition, but the remainder of this memo is based on the
current rules.)
In summary/ with the exceptions of soils contaminated with
petroleum materials normally used in asphalt production and
soils resulting from underground storage tank cleanups, soils
contaminated with petroleum materials that are listed waste or
exhibit one of the characteristics would be hazardous and solid
waste. The remainder of this memo discusses the issues relevant
for these soils.
2. Determining whether asphalt batchinj is legitimate recycling.
The act of mixing petroleum contaminated soils into the
asphalt production process may be a form of treatment, subject
to permitting under Part 270, or may ..instead be recycling,
-------
exempt from permitting under section 261.6(c). The main question
is whether the batching is "legitimate" recycling, as opposed
to treatment in the guise of-recycling ("sham" recycling).
In determining whether the asphalt batching is legitimate
recycling, the Agency compares the contaminated soil with the
analogous raw materials normally used in asphalt batching. To
the extent that the contaminated soils contain hazardous
constituents not found in the analogous raw materials, or contain
hazardous constituents in significantly higher concentrations
than in the analogous raw materials, the batching process would
be considered "sham" recycling, unless such hazardous
constituents can be demonstrated to be useful in the production
of the product or in the product itself. Another factor
indicating whether the batching process is sham recycling is
whether the contaminated soils are legitimately replacing a raw
material or ingredient normally used in the process. For
example, if the contaminated soils are being used in excess of
the amount of raw materials that would otherwise be used, sham
recycling would be indicated. Where sham recycling is indicated
(i.e., where contaminants in the soils are actually being treated
or disposed of by incorporation into a product), a treatment
permit may be required.
3. Determining the status of the asphalt product.
Whether the batching process is considered legitimate
recycling or not, the resulting waste-derived asphalt product is
a solid waste because it is placed on the land. Assuming that
the resulting product is a legitimate asphalt product, the
applicable regulations are found at 40 CFR 266 Subpart C. Doubts
regarding the legitimacy of the waste-derived product are
resolved by a comparison of the constituents found in the waste-
derived product to the constituents found in an analogous product
that is not produced using contaminated soils as an ingredient.
If the asphalt product is produced using soils contaminated
with a listed hazardous waste (e.g., K048-52), it would be
subject to hazardous waste regulations as a waste-derived
product. If the product meets the conditions of the exemption
found at 40 CFR 266.20(b), which include meeting the applicable
Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standard(s), the
asphalt product is exempt from further regulation as a hazardous
waste. If the product does not meet the terms of that exemption,
then it remains subject to regulation as hazardous waste, which
would amount to a de facto ban on the product's use. Also, if
the asphalt product does not meet the conditions of the exemption
until further processing, then the asphalt is subject to
regulation as a hazardous waste until the conditions have been
met.
If the asphalt product is produced using soil contaminated
-------
with waste hazardous only because it exhibits a characteristic
(e.g., the TC), then the above discussion applies for as long
as the material continues to exhibit the characteristic. Further,
there are currently no LDR treatment standards for TC waste.
You should note that over the next 1-2 years we will be
developing regulations that will address various issues
associated with waste-derived products. We expect those
regulations to further clarify the distinction between legitimate
and "sham" recycling.
4. Determining the status of stored materials.
With the exception of the materials described above in
number 1 (i.e., soils contaminated with petroleum normally used
in asphalt production or from underground storage tank
remediations), and the exception discussed below the
storage of contaminated soil that either contains a listed waste
or exhibits a characteristic is regulated under Parts 262, 264,
265, 268, and is potentially subject to permitting under Part
270.
In the case of asphalt product that meets the conditions
of section 266.20(b), no storage requirements apply once the
conditions are met.
I hope this has helped to resolve your issues. If you have
any questions regarding the late notifier guidance document sent
to you earlier by the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, your
staff should contact Hugh Davis at FTS 475-9867. If you have any
questions regarding the regulatory status of recycling processes,
your staff should contact Mitch Kidwell at FTS 475-8551. For
information regarding the New York petition, your staff should
contact Denise Keehner at FTS 382-4740.
Attachment
cc: Waste Management Division Directors
EPA Regions II-X
-------
9493.1991(03)
I ., * UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN 2 I 1991
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Kevin Young, Esq.
Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, New York 12660
Dear Mr. Young:
This letter responds to your letters of June 19, 1990 and
December 21, 1990 to Mr. Randolph Hill of EPA's Office of General
Counsel regarding the RCRA regulatory status of air pollution
control dusts (i.e., baghouse dusts) generated at facilities
owned by Norlite. These facilities burn hazardous waste fuels
and the baghouse dust will either be recycled to produce the
aggregate product or be directly used as aggregate.
Specifically, you have asked for a determination that the
baghouse dust, when recycled, meets the exemption from RCRA
regulation for waste-derived products used in a manner
constituting disposal found at 40 CFR 266.20(b). You have also
requested a determination that baghouse dust used as an
ingredient in the manufacture of concrete masonry is not solid
waste under 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(i).
There appear to be four different scenarios for recycling
the baghouse dust that you outline in your letters, two in which
the material is used directly as a product, and two in which the
material is used as an ingredient to produce a product. More
specifically, the scenarios are when the baghouse dust is used:
1) as a product used in a manner constituting disposal (e.g.,
when used as an aggregate material for asphalt production), 2) as
a product not used in a manner constituting disposal, 3) as an
ingredient in a process that produces a product used in a manner
constituting disposal, and 4) as an ingredient in a process that
produces a product that is not used in a manner constituting
disposal (e.g., when used as an ingredient of "block mix" for the
manufacture of concrete masonry that is not, in turn, used in a
manner constituting disposal). Although the uses of the baghouse
dust presented in these four scenarios may seem very similar, the
regulatory determinations differ based on the ultimate
destination of the baghouse dusts or products into which they are
incorporated. We have considered two issues raised by your
request: 1) whether the process or activity involving the
baghouse dust is legitimate recycling (i.e., not treatment or
disposal), and 2) whether the baghouse dust itself is a solid
waste or is excluded from being a solid waste because it is a
legitimate substitute for a commercial product or raw ingredient.
Printed on P- .
-------
We should note at the outset that a final determination on
these questions must be made by the authorized State regulatory
agency or appropriate EPA Regional office. As we understand it,
your request relates to the Norlite facility in New York; thus,
the regulatory determination must be made by the State of New
York. We provide below a discussion of the factors that EPA
would use to evaluate whether the recycling.of the baghouse dust
generated by the burning of listed hazardous waste fuels is
legitimate under Federal regulations; however, this discussion
does not constitute a site-specific regulatory determination for
the Norlite facility.
Scenario 1 -- Use as a product in a manner constituting disposal
The baghouse dust would be considered a waste-derived
product and, when used in a manner constituting disposal, subject
to the conditions placed on such products in the exemption
provided at 40 CFR 266.20(b). It appears from the data you
supplied that the baghouse dust meets the applicable treatment
standards. Thus the waste-derived product would be exempt from
further regulation, assuming it is otherwise determined to be a
legitimate product, which we discuss further in Scenario 2.
In section E of your letter, you suggest that the "contained
in" rule is not applicable to the baghouse dust, and thus that
the baghouse dust is not derived from the listed wastes burned as
fuel in the aggregate kiln and thus is not a listed waste. You
cite the Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third Wastes final
rule preamble discussion that presented the Agency's position
regarding the regulatory status of products produced using
hazardous waste fuels. The Agency stated that such products are
not deemed to be used in a manner constituting disposal because
hazardous wastes were not used as ingredients to produce them.
The hazardous waste burned as fuel does not contribute to the
product as an ingredient, but rather fires the production
process. 53 FR 31198. This preamble discussion is clearly not
applicable to the baghouse dust itself. The baghouse dust is the
residue from burning the hazardous waste fuel; it is not the
product. Thus, the baghouse dust itself would be a "derived-
from" waste. However, since the dust itself appears to meet the
section 266.20(b) waste-derived product exemption, this rule
would not affect the status of the dust used as a product.
In section D of your letter you also raise the issue of how
the Bevill rule affects "derived-from" wastes from mineral
processing. As you note, EPA has stated that mineral processing
wastes removed from the Bevill exemption are considered "newly
identified" for the purposes of the land disposal restrictions.
While the preamble discussion states that characteristic wastes
from mineral processing which were removed from the Bevill
exclusion are not subject to treatment standards pending further
-------
rulemaking, it is silent on how and whether listed wastes used in
the process, either as a fuel or as an ingredient, affect the
wastes newly removed from the exclusion, including residues
derived from listed wastes. We wish to clarify that the
aggregate kiln generates a residue, the baghouse dust, from the
treatment of listed hazardous wastes wastes that are not newly
identified and for which treatment standards are applicable. So,
the baghouse dust is subject to the land disposal restrictions
treatment standards applicable to the listed wastes burned in the
aggregate kiln. Nonetheless, since the data indicate that the
treatment standards are met, this issue is also moot.
Scenario 2 Use as a product in a Banner that does not
constitute disposal
The baghouse dust would be considered a waste-derived
product, although there are no regulatory requirements for use in
a manner that does not constitute disposal (e.g., the land
disposal restrictions treatment standards do not apply). We
believe that the State of New York should, however, evaluate the
baghouse dust to determine whether it is a legitimate product by
comparison with the aggregate that would normally be used. Based
on your letter, we assume the "normal aggregate" would be the
multiclone dust (i.e., the typical fines product). The data you
submitted indicate that the lead and cadmium concentrations in
the baghouse dust are double the concentrations found in the
multiclone dust. The State should determine whether this is a
significant difference and, therefore, determine whether the
baghouse dust is not a legitimate product.
Scenario 3 Use as an ingredient to make a product used in a
manner constituting disposal
Use as an ingredient to make a product that is used in a
manner constituting disposal would not exclude the baghouse dust
from the definition of solid waste (see 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2)(i)).
The aggregate (as a product that is to be placed on the ground)
continues to be a derived-from waste and would be required to
meet the treatment standard. Further, an evaluation of the
actual processing would be in order, i.e., a determination as to
whether the process would be considered legitimate exempt
recycling vs. fully regulated treatment or disposal by
incorporating the hazardous constituents into the product. To
the extent that there are hazardous constituents found in the
baghouse dust that are not found in the analogous raw material,
or that are found in the baghouse dust in significantly greater
concentrations, the process would be determined to be treatment,
unless a demonstration is made that the hazardous constituents
are necessary or beneficial to the process or product. In other
words, the hazardous constituents are being treated rather than
being used as ingredients, unless demonstrated otherwise using
the criteria mentioned above. We should note that EPA would
-------
generally use a total concentration analysis rather than a
leachate analysis to make this determination since we are
comparing the waste against the raw material rather than their
respective leachates. A demonstration of legitimate recycling
would also need to show that the baghouse dust actually replaces
a raw material (e.g., for every ton of baghouse dust used, there
is a roughly equivalent reduction of shale or other raw
materials). We note that your letter asserts that the baghouse
dust would be used as a direct substitute for additional raw
material consumption.
In section F, you cite EPA's "indigenous principle" to
suggest that the baghouse dust may not be a hazardous waste when
returned to the kiln. However, absent such a policy EPA
evaluates the baghouse dust as it would any secondary material
being used as an ingredient. The "indigenous principle" most
closely captured in the current regulatory language at 40 CFR
261.2(e)(1)(iii) (the closed-loop exclusion) is not applicable in
any instance where the product is to be used in a manner
constituting disposal (see 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2) (i)).
Scenario 4 r- Use as an ingredient to make a product not used in*
a manner constituting disposal
As in Scenario 2 above, there are no regulatory requirements
for a waste-derived product that is not used in a manner that
constitutes disposal (or burned for energy recovery). If the
baghouse dust will be legitimately used as an ingredient to
produce a product that is not used in a manner constituting
disposal, it would be excluded from the definition of solid
waste. The determining consideration, however, is whether the
baghouse dust is a legitimate substitute for a raw material (as
discussed in Scenario 3). If the baghouse dust is determined to
not be a legitimate substitute, the production process would be
considered treatment, and thus would subject the aggregate kiln
to RCRA regulation as a treatment process for the hazardous waste
burned as an ingredient.
Under Federal regulations, regardless of the scenario, since
the baghouse dust appears to meet the applicable treatment
standards, it could be used as a waste-derived product or
ingredient, assuming that it is marketed commercially and is a
legitimate product. When the baghouse dust is used as an
ingredient in the manufacturing process, the State of New York
must determine: 1) whether the baghouse dust is a solid waste
(i.e., whether the product will be used in a manner constituting
disposal) and 2) whether the process is legitimate recycling
(i.e., whether the baghouse dust is a legitimate substitute).
We must again emphasize that the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation must make the determinations regarding
the status of baghouse dust under each of these scenarios for the
-------
facilities operating in New York. The role of EPA Headquarters
is to provide technical and policy support to the Regional
offices (or to the States through the Regional offices). We have
provided you the factors that we would use to evaluate whether
the recycling of the derived-from baghouse dust is legitimate
under Federal regulations. The key considerations are whether
the lead and cadmium concentrations are considered to be
significantly greater in the baghouse dust than in the raw
material and whether the process that uses the baghouse dust as
an ingredient would be considered treatment.
If you have any further questions regarding the factors to
consider in evaluating the regulatory status of a secondary
material when recycled, please contact Mitch Kidwell at (202)
475-8551. For a specific determination regarding the regulatory
status of the baghouse dust when recycled at Norlite's New York
facility, you must contact the State regulatory agency.
Sincerely,
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
UNrTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTFCTION AGENCY 9493.1991(04)
OCT | | |99|
David Wisch
RCRA Unit Supervisor
Hazardous Waste Section
Land Quality Division
Department of Environmental Control
State of Nebraska
301 Centennial Mall South
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922
Dear Mr. Wisch:
Thank you for your letter of June 26, 1991 commenting on a
May 3, 1991 letter we received from Mike Bates of the State of
Arkansas requesting clarification of the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C regulations
governing the management of certain materials used as ingredients
in the production of fertilizers.
Mr. BateVslletter requested clarification of how materials
and activities would be regulated under the federal regulations
in a situation involving the facts listed below, in addition,
you request clarification on how such materials and activities
would be regulated if lead values were recovered from the
baghouse dust prior to its use as an ingredient in fertilizer
production. r\^~
A generator in yonr s tat exonerates a baghouse dust
that is not a listed waste identified in 40 CFR 261.32
or 261.33 (or, we assume, 40 CFR 261.31);
The baghouse dust, which has a high concentration of
zinc, fails the Toxicity Characteristic for lead;
The dust is a "sludge," as defined in 40 CFR 260.10
because it is generated in an air pollution control
facility; and
The generator would like to send the baghouse dust to a
producer that could use the dust as an ingredient in
fertilizer for the zinc content.
Tn det*f>r"nH no hntj frVie Parior-al V»af flT'^'VIS vastO rOtTUlntionP
apply *» ^T^g*.^* ~t »~y rfretffiHyffio firct. determination tUJL
must be dade is whlether thel material! in ouestllon is a tolid I
-------
2
UNITED |TATK ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEKOf. . .
waste, since by definition a Hazardous waste must Tirst be a
solid waste (40 CFR 261.3). For materials that are recycled, 40
CFR 261.2(c) defines those materials that are solid wastes. If
the material is both a solid waste and a hazardous waste, the
waste management activities must then be evaluated to identify
applicable requirements.
In the situation described by Mr. Bates, the baghouse dust
would be a solid waste because it is a sludge exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste which is to be used to produce
a product that is applied to or placed on the land (i.e., used in
a manner constituting disposal). (See 40 CFR 261.2(c)(1)(i)(B).)
Since the dust exhibits the Toxicity Characteristic, it is also a
hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2(i)).
Similarly, if the baghouse dust were sent to a facility at
which lead was recovered from the dust prior to shipment to the
fertilizer producer, the baghouse dust would also be a solid
waste under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(1)(i)(B) because it continues to be a
characteristic sludge which is to be used to produce a
fertilizer. The regulatory determination does not change because
some portion of the dust is to be used in a manner constituting
disposal, even though another portion (the recovered lead) will
not. In other words, the solid waste determination for a
recycled material is made at the point of generation of the
waste, and .takes into account the entire waste recycling process,
not just the first step in a waste recycling train. Any step
which involves use in a manner constituting disposal (or burning
for energy recovery) causes the waste to be a solid waste from
the point of generation on. Any portions of the waste that are
separated from the waste and recycled in ways that do not involve
use constituting disposal (or burning for energy recovery) may no
longer be solid wastes (depending on applicable regulations).
For completeness it should also be noted that the regulatory
status of the dust after the lead recovery step would depend on
whether the dust exhibited any hazardous waste characteristics.
Thus, if the dust exhibited a characteristic it would continue to
be a solid and hazardous waste, again because it would be a
characteristic sludge to be used in a manner constituting
^disposal. On the other hand, if the dust did not exhibit any
characteristics after the lead recovery step, it would not be a
hazardous waste at that point.
Once the regulatory status of a recycled material is
determined, the applicable management requirements are specified
in 40 CFR 261.6. For the characteristic sludge which is to be
used in a manner constituting disposal, the generator and any
transporters would be subject to the applicable requirements of
40 CFR Parts 262, 263, and 268 (including use of the manifest),
and the recycling facility (storer) to the applicable
requirements of Subparts A through L of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265
-------
3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
268, 270, and 124. (See 40 CFR §§ 261. 6(a) (2) (i) , 266.21, and
266.22.) The recycling process itself (lead recovery and/ or
fertilizer production) , assuming it is legitimate,; would not be
subject to Subtitle C regulation. A
Once the fertilizer is produced, if it meets the conditions
of 40 CFR 266. 20 (b) (i.e., is produced for the general public's
use and meets the applicable land disposal restrictions treatment
standards in 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart D) , the fertilizer is not
presently subject to regulation (although under 40 CFR
261.2(c) (1) (i) (B) the fertilizer remains a solid waste, and 40
CFR 268.7(b)(7) recordkeeping requirements would be applicable).
If the fertilizer did not meet the conditions of 40 CFR
266.20(b), use of the product would be subject to 40 CFR 266.23
(i.e., full Subtitle C regulation).
The above discussion addresses the federal regulatory
requirements applicable to the use of characteristic sludges as
ingredients in fertilizers. For your information, several past
letters and other material addressing this issue are enclosed.
However, individual state requirements may be different and may
vary from state to state.
In addition, there are several follow-up points that I would
like to make. First, I believe that some background on the
development of the use constituting disposal regulations will
shed some light on the reason the regulations are structured as
they are. When these regulations were promulgated on January 4,
1985 (50 IB 614), the preamble explained that RCRA Subtitle C
jurisdiction unquestionably encompasses wastes that are placed on
the land (used in a manner constituting disposal) because this
type of recycling is so similar to normal forms of waste
management (i.e., land disposal). In fact, placement on the land
is one of the activities that Congress most clearly intended to
control under RCRA. As with any other waste that is to be
managed in a manner that is analogous to disposal, generation,
transportation, and storage of any wastes that are (even in part)
to be used to produce waste-derived products are regulated (in
addition to those that are to be used directly on the land) .
Second, there was a discussion in the January 4, 1985
Federal Register notice explaining that in the future, the Agency
envisioned developing a more tailored regulatory system for
waste-derived products recycled by placement on the land. Such a
system would take into account the safety of the product (e.g.,
levels of hazardous constituents in the wastes, likely routes of
exposure, etc.). We will shortly be proposing a rule that will
allow producers of waste-derived products placed on the land to
make such a demonstration.
Third, as you may know, this proposal is part of a larger
effort that we are currently undertaking to reevaluate our
-------
4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
overall approach to regulation of hazardous waste recycling
activities and to make changes to ensure that the regulations
encourage environmentally beneficial recycling while at the same
time ensuring protection of human health and the environment.
I understand your concern that the hazardous waste regulations
may, as in the case discussed, discourage recycling activities.
We expect to publish an Advanced Notice, of Proposed Rulemaking in
the Federal Register soon which lays oulE- our current thinking on
this issue and solicits comment on a number of possible
approaches. I strongly encourage you to review this notice and
give us your thoughts on the issues discussed. The reactions and
ideas of state agencies implementing the RCRA program will be
very important to the success of this project.
Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. Should
you require any further information or have any additional
questions, please call Mike Petruska, Chief of the Regulatory
Development Branch, at (202) 260-8551.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors; Regions I-X
-------
UNITED STATES EMVIROKMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . 9493.1991(05)
OCT I |
N.G. Kaul, P.E.
Director
Division of Hazardous Substance Regulation
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Dear Mr. Kaul:
Thank you for your letter of June 21, 19 9 ^respond ing to a
May 3, 199 ^letter we received from Mike Bates of the State of
Arkansas. -'Mr. Bates' letter requested clarification of the
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C
regulations governing the management of certain materials used as
ingredients in the production of fertilizers. Your letter
discussed application of the federal regulations to this
situation and raised several additional issues as well.
*"!,
Batfs1 letter requested clarification of how materials
and activities would be regulated under the federal regulations
in a situation involving the following facts:
A generator generates a baghouse dust that is not a
listed waste identified in 40 CFR 261.32 or 261.33 (or,
we assume, 40 CFR 261.31);
The baghouse dust, which has a high concentration of
zinc, fails the Toxicity Characteristic for lead;
The dust is a "sludge," as defined in 40 CFR 260.10
because it is generated in an air pollution control
facility; and
The generator would like to send the baghouse dust to a
producer that could use the dust as an ingredient in
fertilizer for the zinc content.
We will also address the case raised by other states in which
lead is first recovered from the dust prior to its use as an
ingredient in fertilizer production process.
To determine how the federal hazardous waste regulations
apply to management of any material the first determination that
must be made is whether the material in question is a solid
waste, since by definition a hazardous waste must first be a
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
solid waste (40 CFR 261.3). For materials that are recycled, 40
CFR 261.2(c) defines those materials that are solid wastes. If
the material is both a solid waste and a hazardous waste, the
waste management activities must then be evaluated to identify
applicable requirements.
In the situation described by Mr. Bates, the baghouse dust
would be a solid waste because it is a sludge exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste which is to be used to produce
a product that is applied to or placed on the land (i.e., used in
a manner constituting disposal). (See 40 CFR 261.2(c)(1)(i)(B).)
Since the dust exhibits the Toxicity Characteristic, it is also a
hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2(i)).
Similarly, if the baghouse dust were sent to a facility at
which lead was recovered from the dust prior to shipment to the
fertilizer producer, the baghouse dust would also be a solid
waste under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(1)(i)(B) because it continues to be a
characteristic sludge which is to be used to produce a
fertilizer. This is the case because some portion of the dust is
to be used in a manner constituting disposal, even though another
portion (the recovered lead) will not be used in such a way. In
other words, the solid waste determination for a recycled
material is made at the point of generation of the waste, and
takes into account the entire waste recycling process, not just
the first step in a waste recycling train.
For completeness it should also be noted that the regulatory
status of the dust after the lead recovery step would depend on
whether the dust exhibited any hazardous waste characteristics.
Thus, if the dust exhibited a characteristic it would continue to
be a solid and hazardous waste, again because it would be a
characteristic sludge to be used in a manner constituting
disposal. On the other hand, if the dust did not exhibit any
characteristics after the lead recovery step, it would not be a
hazardous waste at that point.
Once the regulatory status of a recycled material is
determined, the applicable management requirements are specified
in 40 CFR 261.6. For the characteristic sludge which is to be
used in a manner constituting disposal, the generator and any
transporters would be subject to the applicable requirements of
40 CFR Parts 262, 263, and 268 (including use of the manifest),
and the recycling facility (storer) to the applicable
requirements of Subparts A through L of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265
268, 270, and 124. (See 40 CFR §§ 261.6(a)(2)(i), 266.21, and
266.22.) The recycling process itself (lead recovery and/or
fertilizer production), assuming it is legitimate/, would not be
subject to Subtitle C regulation. A /
Once the fertilizer is produced, if it meets the' conditions
of 40 CFR 266.20(b) (i.e., is produced for the general public's
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
.use and meets the applicable land disposal restrictions treatment
standards in 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart D) , the fertilizer is not
presently subject to regulation (although under 40 CFR
261.2 (c) (1) (i) (B) the fertilizer remains a solid waste, and 40
CFR 268.7(b)(7) recordkeeping requirements would be applicable).
If the fertilizer did not meet the conditions of 40 CFR
266.20(b), use of the product would be subject to 40 CFR 266.23
(i.e., full Subtitle C regulation).
Please note that fertilizers produced using solid wastes are
solid wastes under 40 CFR 261.2 (c) (1) (i) (B) . Although, as you
noted in your letter, 40 CFR 261.2(c)(ii) does include both
commercial chemical products that are listed and those that
exhibit characteristics, this provision applies only to non-
waste-derived products. Fertilizers that are produced using
solid wastes continue to be solid wastes under 40 CFR
There are several additional points that I would like to
make on this topic. First, I believe that some background on the
development of the use constituting disposal regulations will
shed some light on the reason the regulations are structured as
they are. When these regulations were promulgated on January 4,
1985 (50 ZB 614), the preamble explained that RCRA Subtitle C
jurisdiction unquestionably encompasses wastes that are placed on
the land (used in a manner constituting disposal) because this
type of recycling is so similar to normal forms of waste
management (i.e., land disposal). In fact, placement on the land
is one of the activities that Congress most clearly intended to
control under RCRA. As with any other waste that is to be
managed in a manner that is analogous to disposal, generation,
transportation, and storage of any wastes that are (even in part)
to be used to produce waste-derived products are regulated (as
are those that are used directly on the land) .
Second, there was a discussion in the January 4, 1985
Federal Register notice explaining that in the future, the Agency
envisioned developing a more tailored regulatory system for
waste-derived products recycled by placement on the land. Such a
system would take into account the safety of the product (e.g.,
levels of hazardous constituents in the wastes, likely routes of
exposure, etc.). We will shortly be proposing a rule that will
allow producers of waste-derived products placed on the land to
make such a demonstration.
In your letter you also raised the issue of how the use (or
fate) of hazardous constituents in a recycling process should be
viewed when evaluating the legitimacy of the process. We agree
with you that this is an important consideration in determining
whether a recycling process is legitimate, and thus whether
recycling exemptions are applicable (e.g., 40 CFR §§ 261.2(c)(3),
261.2(c)(4), 261.2(e), 261 . 4 (a) (8 ) , and 261.6). We have
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
addressed this issue in the past in several preambles (see the
January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 638, 648-9) and the
January 8, 1988 Federal Register (53 FR 526-7)) and in guidance
to the Regional Offices (see the enclosed April 26, 1989
memorandum from Sylvia Lowrance to EPA's Hazardous Waste
Management Division Directors in Regions I-X) . For example,
criteria to be used to evaluate the legitimacy of recycling
include the following:
Does the waste contain Appendix VIII constituents not
found in the analogous raw material/product (or at
higher levels)?
Does the waste exhibit hazardous characteristics that
the analogous raw materials/product would not?
Are the toxic constituents actually necessary (or of
sufficient use) to the product or are they not
necessary for the product?
Further, as you may know, we are currently undertaking a
larger effort to reevaluate the overall approach to regulation of
hazardous waste recycling activities and to make changes to
ensure that the regulations encourage environmentally beneficial
recycling. We expect to publish an Advanced Not^ce^gf Proposed
Rulemaking in the Federal Register soon which fayn nut* our
current thinking on this topic and solicits comment on a number
of possible approaches. -One of the -issues -to be discussiedin the
to improve implementation of the hazardous waste
regulations by more clearly defining sham recycling and/or by
requiring persons claiming recycling exemptions to notify the
implementing agency of their activities. I strongly encourage
you to review this notice and give us your thoughts on the broad
issues discussed as well as on the sham recycling issue. The
input of state agencies implementing the RCRA program will be
very important to the success of this project.
Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. Should
you require any further information or have any additional
questions, please call Mike Petruska, Chief of the Regulatory
Development Branch, at (202) 260-8551.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9493.1993(01)
SEP .73 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Ronald B.L. Jones
Environmental Consulting
15 Hollow Road
Watertown, Connecticut 06795
Dear Mr. Jones,
Thank you for your letters dated June 1, 1991, December 30,
1991, April 2, 1992, and January 12, 1993, requesting
clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulations as they pertain to the manufacture and use of
waste-derived fertilizer. I apologize for the long delay in
responding to your requests.
Your letters reference a scenario described in the EPA
guidance document RCRA Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Waste, in
which a characteristically hazardous material (flue dust) is used
to produce a commercial fertilizer. You correctly assert that,
in this scenario, the flue dust is a sludge used in a manner
constituting disposal, and under 40 CFR 261.2 is classified as a
solid waste. You then ask whether the classification of the flue
dust would be the same if:
The resulting fertilizer does not exhibit any
characteristics of hazardous waste;
The flue dust is reacted to generate a different
compound in the process of producing a fertilizer; and
Payment to the generator for flue dust exceeds the cost
of delivery.
The answer in each of these cases is that the classification
remains the same. The solid waste determination for a recycled
material is made at the point the waste is generated and takes
into account the entire waste recycling process. The
determination is based on the type of material (in this case
sludge) and the type of recycling activity (in this case use
constituting disposal). None of the aforementioned factors would
change either the type of material or the type of recycling
activity, and therefore do not change the classification of flue
dust as a solid waste.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canon ink on paper thai
contains it lean SO*/, recycled fiber
-------
While our current policy is clear in its application to the
scenarios you present, your letters do raise some valid concerns
regarding the regulation of waste-derived fertilizers. We agree
that a reevaluation of our existing waste-derived products policy
may be warranted. As a first step in this process, the Office of
Solid Waste (OSW) is currently conducting a broad review of the
system by which hazardous waste recycling is regulated under
RCRA. The Definition of Solid Waste Task Force was established
to evaluate many of the issues surrounding the definition of
solid waste, hazardous waste recycling, and waste-derived
products. The Task Force will be submitting their
recommendations to me later this year on how to improve the
regulatory and/or statutory framework to encourage the safe
recycling of hazardous waste. For more information on the Task
Force, please contact Mr. Jim Berlow at (202) 260-8104.
In the meantime, please note that EPA Regional offices and
States authorized to implement the hazardous waste program make
determinations regarding the requirements that apply to specific
materials and facilities. Some States have programs more
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. If you have
a facility-specific situation, you may contact the appropriate
Region or State for a determination on your specific situation.
Your EPA headquarters contact on this issue of the RCRA
regulations is Stephen Bergman who can be contacted at (202) 260-
8551.
Sincerely,
:ery D. Denit
Lng Director
ffice of Solid Waste
-------
9494 - HAZARDOUS
WASTE BURNED FOR
ENERGY RECOVERY
Part 266 Subpart D
ATK1A104/50 kp
-------
(XT I 885 9494.1985(01)
Mr. Thomas A. Waite
Senior Attorney
Boeing Computer Services
P.O. Box Box 24346
Seattle, WA 98124
Dear Mr. Waite:
This letter is in response to your letter dated August
30, 1985, and is a follow-up to our previous telephone
conversations regarding the regulatory status of a mixture of
lubricating oil and two jet airplane fuels which are sent to
a refinery where the fuel mixture is processed to produce
petroleum products. In particular, you indicate that in
performing repaires on F-4 type airplanes, the fuel contained
in the fuel cells (JP-4-type fuel) is first drained. To remove
the remaining fuel from the fuel cells, a mixture of JP-5
type airplane fuel and lubricating oil is then injected into
the fuel cells to decrease the volatility of any JP-4 type
fuel remaining in the fuel cells; put another way, the JP-5/
lubricating oil mixture is used to remove any JP-4 that remains
in the fuel cells. This JP-5/lubricating oil mixture is used
until the flashpoint of the mixture is lowered to approximately
120* P. At this point, the material is pumped to a tanker
truck and sent to a nearby refinery where the fuel mixture
is placed in the refinery process to produce petroleum products
you believe this mixture (when sent to the refinery) is
an off-specification, non-listed, commercial product and as
such would not be subject to regulation when sent for
reclamation. (Your letter lays out your basis for making
this argument.) I cannot agree with you. As we discussed
previously, the JP-5/lubricating oil mixture is used like a
solvent to remove the remaining JP-4 from the fuel cells; as
such, the contaminated JP-5/lubricating oil is a spent material
a material that has been used and as a result of contamination
can no longer serve the purpose for which it was produced
without processing.I/ Spent materials that are hazardous^/
I/ Even if you are correct that the JP-5/lubricating oil
mixture is not a solvent, this mixture would still be
defined aa a spent materal.
2/ As you indicate in your letter, this mixture (when sent
to the refinery) has a flash point about 120*7 and thus,
would exhibit the ignitability characteristic.
-------
(whether or not they are listed) are defined as solid wastes
when they are used to produce a fuel. Therefore, this material
is subject to BPA's authority under the hazardous waste rules ,3/
However, based on your letter and my re-evaluation of
the facts, this material is currently exempt from regulation.
In particular, secondary materials that are used to produce a
fuel are only subject to regulation if the material is either
listed or a sludge. See $266.36. Since this material is a spent
material that is hazardous only because it exhibits a characteristic
the material Is currently exempt from regulation.£/ Thus, the
material can go from your maintenance facility to~the refinery
without a manifest and the refinery need not get a storage
permit, at this time.5/ You should be aware, however, that
this exemption is only temporary} the Agency expects to make
final its rulemakinq regarding burning and blending (proposed
on January 11, 1985) which is likely to remove this exemption.
At that time, the transport of this material and the storage
of it at the refinery nay subject it to regulation.
I hop* this answers your questions; pleas* feel free to
give me a call 1C I can b* any further assistance.
Sincerely yours*
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Wast* Identification Branch
ccs Dennis Murphy, Kansas Department pf Health and the Environment
M. Sanderson, EPA Region VII
3/ As you ar« awar*, this interpretation is under ths Federal
~* hazardous wast* rul*st ths Statas* regulations may not
r*£l*ct this interpretation until thsy adopt th* January 4
rulavaklng-.
4/ Sines tbiav material contains approximately 80 percent jp-5
typ*> airplan* fusl and only 20 percent lubricating oil,
this material is not, a used oil. Tnumv this material vouLfl
not COBS under th* uasd oil *v*mptioa is §2«1.6(a) (3) (iiU
S/ In discussions wittr both Stato. and ft*glonal personnel, I
haw* learned thst this material Is no longer being sent
to petroleum r*fln*ry. It this.ma%e*iajr ie not being
us** a* a fu*l or us*d to prodvesv» fu*iV th* interpretation
giw** is no longer correct. You would n**d to. consult the
January 4 rules to d*t*rmin* th* regulatory status of th*
JP-Vlubricating oll^mixtur*.
-------
9494.1985(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT
JULY 1985
ON-SITE REUSE OF API SEPARATOR SLUDGE TO PRODUCE NEW PETROLEUM
K051 and HSWA
1. Section 3004(q)(2)(A) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) states that the provisions
regulating hazardous waste used as fuel "shall not apply to
petroleum wastes containing oil which are converted into
petroleum coke at the same facility at which such wastes
were generated...unless the coke product exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste." Does this mean that
K051 (API Separator Sludge) could be reused on-site to
produce new petroleum coke?
Yes; petroleum coke produced from the on-site
reuse of K051 (or any other listed petroleum
refinery waste) is exempt from the labeling
provisions of §3004(r) and any standards
applicable to hazardous waste fuel, unless
the coke product exhibits a characteristic of
hazardous waste.
Source: Bob Holloway (202) 382-7936
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
9494.1985(03)
ocr
Or. John p. chadbourne
Director of Environmental services
General Portland, Inc.
P.O. box 324
Dallas, Texas 75221
Dear Dr. Chadbourne:
It was a pleasure meeting with you and Art Uelmstetter
last week. As we discussed, you requested an interpretation
of the hazardous waste rules regarding the regulatory status
of waste-derived fuels (that are produced by waste fuel
blenders and processors) that are burned in a cement kiln for
energy recovery. As I understand, the following are the
facts you described to net
Haste-derived fuels will be used to replace coal
which is currently burned in s cement kiln (cement
kilns are defined as industrial furnaces);
These waste-derived fuels will be received only fron
intermediate waste fuel blenders and processorsi
The waste-derived fuels have a neat content greater than
10*000 BTU's/lb.; in addition, each waste stream used
to prepare these waste-derived fuels have a heat
content greatsr than 6,000 BTO's/lb.jl/ and
varying amounts of 'Appendix VIII hasardous constituents'
are expected to be present in the waste-derived fuels.
in addition, General Portland plans to build a 150,000
gallon tank to store the vasts-derived fuel prior to its use
as a fuel*
I/ under the) Statement of Enforcement policy issued OB January IS.
1993 (printed at 4* F* 1115?r Hard* If, 1993 and guidance
provided to SPA Jtegioa XT os February 2t and July S* !»*
(attached), if it can be shows theft each hasardous waste
that is blended into the fuel hss>-* substantial heat value-.
as generated, the waste is a legitimate fuel regardless of
-------
Under these circumstances, the waste-derived ruels to be
received Dy General Portland are currently exempt froa
regulation.2/ In particular, under the January 4, 1985
recycle/reuse regulations, we aecided, as an interim measure,
to retain the distinction that existed in the May 19, 1980,
hazardous waste regulations between listed wastes and sludges
and unlisted hazardous waste fuels with only the former being
regulated. The January 4 rules also exempts from regulation
all waste-derived fuels that are produced by a person other
than the wastes generator or burner. Thus, hazardous waste
fuels leaving intermediate waste fuel blenders and processors
are exempt from regulation at this time, bee 40 CPK $266.30
and 266.36; see also 50 PR 632, January 4, 1985. Consequently,
the waste-derived fuels to be sent to your proposed site in
Demopolis, Alabama would not need to be manifested; in addition,
the 150,000 gallon storage tan* that will be used to store
the waste-derived fuel does not need to be permitted under
RCRA.3/
A* you are aware, however, these exemptions are temporary.
On January 11, 1985, EPA proposed to modify its regulations
with regard to waste and waste-derived fuel* that are used as
a fuel or used to produce a fuel. See 50 PA 1684 This
proposal is expected to bo finalised this Tall* ones it is,
these vasts-derived fuels nay b* subject to SOB* regulation.
footnote 1 cont.
the concentration of low energy constituents (i.e.,
halogenatsd compounds liks chlorinated solvents) in each
waste or in the blsndsd fuel. To determine which hazardous
wastes have a substantial heat value, EPA will uss as a
benchmark thoss wastes with a heating value greater than
low snsrgy commercial fusls such as wood (5,000 to 8,000
BTU/lb) or low grade subbituminous coal (8,300 BTU/lb).
2/ Although thsssi waste-derived fuels ar« currently exempt
from regulation, these waste-derived fuels ars solid and
haaardoua wastes (if they themselves are hazardous) and
potentially subject to EPA's control.
3/ Although thess wastes are currently exempt undsr the
Federal hasardous wast* rules, th* state) of Alabama is
frs« to establish policies and writ* regulations which
ars mor* stringent than th* f*d*ral r*quir*m*nta.
-------
Plwaae feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance? ay telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
cc: Beverly Sp&gg (EPA Region IV)
Joseph Broadvater (ADtM)
Bernard Cox, jr. (ADEM)
David Sussman
Attachment
-------
9494.1986(01)
86
.-:r. L. Larson, Esq.
At torney
LTV Stool Cor.:pany
LTV Steel Dui.1-.iirvj
25 West Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Dear Mr. Lawson:
This is in response to your January 9, 1986, letter
requesting answers to several questions pertaining to provisons
of our November 29, 1985, final rule concerning the burning of
hazardous waste fuela.
As I indicated in our January 15 phone conversation, our
response to your questions is as follows:
Questions 1 and 2 (paraphrased)* Can LTV Steel notify EPA
of its burning activities without requesting, or being deemed to
have requested, interim status for subsequent use or storage of
Cadence Product 312? If yes, would storage of Product 312 after
January 29 subject LTV Steel to any substantive obligation* under
the RCRA hazardous waste storage facility standards, including
recordkeeping, reporting, or closure- requirements?
Response. The notification regarding waste-as-fuel activities
required of persons who are marketing or burning hazardous waste
fuel (like Product 312) on January 29, 1986, in no way implies
that a person is requesting, or intends to request, interim status
for subsequent storage of the fuel. The hazardous wast* fuel
storage standards become effective on Hay 29, 1986, for aewly
regulated facilities such as those storing waste-derived fuels
like Product 312. Existing burners who store such hazardous waste-
derived fuels after May 29 must comply with the interim status
storage standards. (Mew facilities must obtain a storage facility
permit prior to initiating storage after May 29.) If LTV Steel
terminates Product 312 storage activities prior to May 29, LTV
Steel would not.be subject to any RCRA standards for such storage.
Question 3 '(paraphrased). Can LTV Steel store Product 312
after March 31,1986, without requesting, or being deemed to have
requested, interim status, and without incurring any obligations
under the RCRA storage facility standards. This question is
-------
asked in light of the fact that the RCRA transportation require-
ments become effective for newly regulated hazardous waste-derived
fuels like Product 312 on March 31. and the RCRA manifest, system
requirements specify that shipments must be sent to designated
facilities that are permitted to handle the Vaste (i.e.. in
interim status or have a RCRA permit).
Response. You are correct in noting that for the two month
period between March 31 and May 29, some hazardous waste fuels,
like Product 312 in your situation, will be transported under the
manifest system to facilities that are not permitted to store the
hazardous waste fuel. In our efforts to implement the manifest
system as soon as EPA identification numbers could be assigned
subsequent to notification, w« inadvertently omitted regulatory
language in the November 29 rule that would, during the two month
period, explicitly! (1) allow hazardous waste fuels to be shipped
to facilities that have notified EPA regarding their waste-as-fuel
activities but that are not yet.-subject to the interim status or
permit standards; and (2) require such receiving facilities to
sign and keep copies of the manifest.
EPA has set a precedent for allowing hazardous waste subject
to the manifest requirements to be sent to designated facilities
that are not subject to interim status or permit standards. See.
SO FR 652 (January 4, 1985) and §260.10 (aasnded definition of .
designated facility") regarding transport of recycled materials
to recycling facilities that introduce the waste directly into
the recycling process without prior storage, and that are other-
wise not subject to RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal facility
interim status or permit standards. Similarily, EPA intends that,
during the two month period in question, owners and operators of
facilities not yet subject to the hazardous waste fuel storage
standards, like LTV's Product 312 storage facilities, notify EPA
regarding their waste-as-fuel activities and sign and retain
copies of manifests. If LTV Steel continues storing Product 312
after March 31 but ceases prior to May 29, LTV Steel is not
subject to RCRA storage standards with respect to such storage.
I hope that this addresses your concerns.
Sincerely,
Robe rt Hoi Ioway
Lnvironriontal Lnqineer
i'«s-> i.eeso
J. ..: asr.c:. i-ort«r
.urciu ..;xllia;:i£
:..ic...-. i..: .'toil, La.;.
or.fc-v«n -ilver: .an, .--3.;
-------
*
9494.1986(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON O.C 20460
."A? I 9
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Implementation of the Waste-As-Fuel Rules at DoD
Facilities
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Wa'ste (WH-562)
Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I-X
The Department of Defense (DoD) has developed what we
think is an effective and efficient approach to implement the
November 29, 1985, waste-as-fuel final rules applicable to used
oils and hazardous wastes generated at military bases. DoD asked
that we pass on to you an explanation of their approach (copy
attached). If you have questions or comments, please contact
Bob Holloway of my office at 382-7917, or Joe Kaminski, Office of
the Secretary of Defense, at (202) 653-1273.
The waste-as-fuel rules regulate marketers and burners of
hazardous waste and off-specification used oil fuels. Military
bases typically generate used oils, and sometimes generate hazardous
wastes, either of which may be sent off site for ultimate use as
fuel, or burned on site. When used oil or hazardous waste is
shipped off site for use as fuel, the marketing transactions are
typically handled by a DoD unit called the Defense Reutilization
and Marketing Service (DRNS) or one of its four regional offices
referred to as DRMR's. The DRMS or DRMR's take responsibility
for the
case of
waste fuel,
a spill.
including, for example, responsibility in
The essence of the attached explanation of DoD's implemen-
tation approach is that the DRMS or DRMR's will comply with the
marketer requirements. The military bases are ordinary generators
not subject to the marketer requirements. The DRMS or DRMR's
will use th-sir business address as "location" on the notification
Eor.Ti. Invoices for off-specification used oil and manifests for
-------
hazardous waste fuels will, however, indicate the address of
the shipping facility the military base generating the
waste according to our rules.
DoD notes that when a military base burns waste fuels,
the base will notify as a burner and comply with the burner
requirements.
DoD's approach is acceptable because the DRMS or DRMR's
act as independent brokers that take responsibility for the
waste fuel, and, thus, are subject to regulation as marketers.
The military base is an ordinary generator, not a marketer.
This situation is analogous to situations in the private sector
where a person is subject to regulation as a marketer if he
takes title to the waste fuel. (Except, however, generators
and initial transporters who do not market directly to burners
are exempt from the marketer requirements.) Thus, brokers,
transporters, and others who take title to used oil or hazardous
waste fuels are regulated marketers. Transporters who take
physical possession but not title to the waste fuel, however,
are agents to a regulated marketer (e.g., a generator, processor,
or burner) and are not themselves marketers.
Attachment
cc: Carl Schafer, Jr., DoD
Gene Lucero, OWPE
-------
-E ASSISTANT 5EC = "- = -- cr
. A -:-.: "ON o : : : J ' .
C ^ AND
T CS
Ms. Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Williams:
On January 30, 1986, a meeting was held between Mr. Robert
Holloway of the Waste Management and Economics Division of the
Office of Solid Waste and Mr. Joseph Kaminski of the Defense
Environmental Leadership Project, Environmental Policy
Directorate, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense to
determine the application of the terms "generator," "burner," and
"marketer" of used oil and hazardous waste fuel to the Department
of Defense (DoD). The enclosed explanation confirms the outcome
of the meeting and describes actions to be taken by DoD to comply
with the reporting requirements of 40 CPR 266.
The procedure is consistent with protection of human health and
the environment, identifies specific responsible persons and
mimimizes administrative overhead. Your assistance in advising
the EPA Regions of the DoD procedure would be helpful in
effecting timely and accurate notification. EPA cooperation in
this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
1 J. Schafer-tff
Director, Environmental Policy
Enclosure
cc: EPA Office of Federal Activities (A-104)
Excellent Installations - The Foundation Of Defense
-------
Explanation of Notification Procedure that
the Department oc Defense (DoD) Will Use
to Comply With 40 CFR 266
The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS),
headquartered at Battle Creek, MI is a primary level field
activity of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). DRMS is
responsible under the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (FPASA), as amended, for disposal of excess
DoD "personal property" including used oil. DRMS therefore
assumes primary responsibility within DoD for marketing used oil
fuel and hazardous waste fuel as required by 40 CPR 266. DRMS
conducts business through four regional offices within the
purview of 40 CPR 266. These Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Regions (DRMR) are located at Memphis, TN, Columbus, OH, Ogden
UT, and Camp H. M. Smith, HI.
Used oil generators at Military Bases turn administrative
control and sometimes physical custody of their used oil over to
DRMS on a standard form, DD 1348-1. Acting similar to civilian
"brokers," the DRMR's or DRMS headquarters execute contracts for
transfer of used oil to users of used oil or hazardous waste fuel.
Authority to enter into and documentation of transfers currently
exists at DRMS or its DRMR's. Therefore, DRMS and its DRMR's
will notify as "other marketers" on EPA form 8700-12, using their
business address as "location." DRMS headquarters or DRMR's
will add to their recordkeeping applicable user notifications,
proofs of used oil fuel quality, copies of manifests or invoices
and will comply with all other marketer requiremens of 40 CFR
266.
On occasion, DRMR's delegate authority to market used oil to
field level agents at Defense Reutilization and Marketing Offices
(DRMO) located on Military Bases. In addition, used oil is often
transferred, under the PPASA, from a DRMO to other federal
agencies and state governments through the General Services
Administration (GSA) acting as a subsequent marketer. If used
oil fuel or hazardous waste fuel marketing is done from an
individual DRMO which maintains the documentation required by 40
CFR 266, then the DRMO will separately identify as "other
marketer." The DRMO will use the address of the Military Base
as location and the Base's EPA "Identification of Hazardous Waste
Activity" number if previously assigned. The appropriate
official of the DRMS will sign the form.
-------
DoD Military Bases are generators of used oil or
hazardous waste fuel and will not notify as marketers
unless they transfer used oil fuel or hazardous waste fuel
outside of DoD without going through DRMS. DoD Military Bases
that claim the exemption for using used oil fuel that meets 40
CPR 266 specification or burn off-specification used oil fuel or
hazardous waste fuel will notify as "burners" on EPA form
8700-12 and assure that they meet all other applicable criteria
of 40 CFR 266. The Base's "Identification of Hazardous Waste
Activity" number will be used if previously assigned and an
appropriate official of the Base or its Command will sign the
form.
The procedure described herein applies only to the
provisions in 40 CPR 266 on marketing and burning of used oil
and hazardous waste fuel. Any management activity such as
generation, storage, transportation and disposal of used oil that
is hazardous waste regulated under 40 CFR 261-265 and 270 or 271
shall be adhered to by the DoD Component to which the regulation
applies.
This procedure must be reviewed by EPA and DoD and
re-established or revised, or it is automatically cancelled on
the effective date of 40 CFR 266 revisions promulgating "Recycled
Used Oil Standards" or 40 CFR 261 revisions "Listing" used oil as
hazardous waste, which were proposed on November 29, 1985.
This is an administrative procedure only and in no way
relieves or alters the requirement for the Department of Defense
to comply with all applicable regulations implemented in
accordance with the Federal Solid Haste Disposal Act as amended,
42 USC 6901 et seq.
-------
3. Hazardous Waste Fuel 9494.1986(03)
An iron blast furnace is used to smelt iron ores to product
(pig iron) suitable for use in makinq steel. The blast fur
with both virgin fuel oil and a fuel produced frcm listed hazardous snent
solvents. The hazardous waste derived fuel is produced by a processor who
neither generates nor burns the fuel. How would the hazardous waste
derived fuel be regulated under the final rule on burning and blending of
hazardous waste which was promulgated in the Federal Register on November
29, 1985 (50 FR 49164)? '
The final burning and blending rule of November 29, 1985 (50 FR 49164)
removed an exemption in §266.30(a) that was applicable to this"
situation which was promulgated on January 4, 1985 (50 FR 614).
Formerly, §266.30(a) exempted from regulation "fuels produced frcm
hazardous waste by blending or other treatment by a person who
neither generated the waste nor burns the fuel" provided that the
fuel was "burned for energy recovery in any boiler or industrial
furnace that is not regulated" as a hazardous waste incinerator,
with sane specific exceptions. The November 29, 1985 final rule (50
FR 49164) removed the §266.30(a) exemption and specifies in amended
§266.30(a) that Subpart D of Part 266 applies to "hazardous
waste fuel" burned for energy recovery in any boiler or industrial
furnace that is not regulated as a hazardous waste incinerator.
"Hazardous1 waste fuel" is defined in amended §266.30(a) to include
both hazardous waste and "fuel produced from hazardous waste by
, processing, blending, or other treatment" which is burned for
energy recovery in the above specified units.
In this example, the unit used for burning hazardous waste fuel for
energy recovery is a blast furnace. Section 260.10 (50 FR 614) defines
the term industrial furnace to include blast furnaces. Thus, the
hazardous waste produced fuel has been excluded from regulation in
the past due to the former §266.30(a) exemption for fuels produced
from hazardous waste by a third party processor which are burned for
vo energy recovery in any boiler or industrial furnace.
co
ac Since the November 29, 1985 final rule (50 FR 49164) removed the
« former §266.30(a) exemption for fuels produced frcm hazardous waste
J and amended $266.30(a) to include "hazardous waste fuels" in the
group of wastes regulated by RCRA, all previously exempted hazardous
waste fuels are now subject to regulation.
The hazardous waste fuel in this case becomes subject to the
regulations of Subpart D of Part 266 as of the appropriate effective
date of the November 29, 1985 final rule (50 FR 49164). The owner
of the blast furnace is a burner of hazardous waste fuel and will be
subject to the $266.35 standards applicable to burners of hazardous
waste fuel. This section includes prohibitions on burning hazardous
waste fuel in other than specified units, notification requirements,
required notices, recordkeeping requirements, and storage controls.
The storage controls, found in §266.35(c), require that a facility
have interim status or a final permit for the storage of hazardous
waste fuels, and subject the facility to the applicable provisions
of Parts 265 or 264, 270, and 124. The applicable effective dates
include notification by January 29, 1986; use of manifests, certif-
ications, and recordkeeping by March 31, 1986; and submission of
Part A permit applications or amended Part A permit applications
by May 29, 1986.
Source: Bob Holloway (202) 382-7936
Research: Qiarlotte Mooney
-------
UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIf \CEMCY 9494.1986(04)
If 1986
Guinn Doyle
Chief, Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Division of Land Pollution Control
Indiana State Board of Health
P. 0. Box 1964
Indianapolis, IN 46206-1964
Dear Guinn:
This is in response to your March 27, 1986, letter regarding
the regulatory status of the hazardous waste fuel, Cadence Product
312, prior to the effective dates of the November 29, 1985,
marketer and burner rules, and the January 4, 1985, redefinition
of solid waste.
Your understanding of the applicability of these rules to
Cadence Product 312 is correct. Prior to the January 4, 1985,
redefinition of solid wastes, listed wastes and sludges used
directly as fuel were subject to RCRA storage and transportation
standards. Hazardous waste-derived fuels produced by processing,
blending, or other treatment of listed wastes or sludges, were,
however, exempt from regulation. This exemption was considered
temporary and was provided because we had not evaluated the hazards
posed by such recycling and appropriate regulatory alternatives.
Thus, waste-derived fuels were cosidered to be recycled (and
exempt) once they were processed or blended.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had intended for
this (temporary) exemption to apply to waste-derived fuels pro-
duced by third-party marketers off-site facities where wastes
collected from Ttultiple generators were processed before shipment
to a burner. It became clear, however, that many qenerat-.ors who
burned their waste on site or who shipped their wastes directly
to a burner were ciainir.n the exemption even if the only blendino
t.noy did occurerj as a result of nip inn multiple wastes to a sinole
storage tank prior to shipment or use as a fuel on site. To
close t^.i.s looohole/ the January 4, 1^35, redefinition linited
the exemption of waste-der i v«-d fuels nror'uco-J rror;i lister? wastes
a nu sluij-jes to tnc.se v;-is to-deri ved fuels produced ov a person wh^
peit.'i'rr ler.erates nor burns the wasr.^. Thus, lenerators an*
L'jr:i-:rs coulv. no ion-iar ':rv?*at.- in incidental tr«?atTn«nt anj clai>".
they pr'j'iuced a wasteJerivcd fue! e*e/v»pc tro»i regulation.
-------
We understand that Cadence Product 312 is produced by blending
listed solvent recovery still bottoms generated at the Product 312
production facility with wastes received from other generators.
Thus, persons who stored and transported Product 312 prior to July 5
1985 (the effective date of the solid waste redefinition), could
have claimed the exemption for waste-derived fuels. After July 5,
1985, however, Product 312 has been subject to RCRA storage and
transportation standards under federal regulations, although not in
authorized states (except by virtue of state law, if applicable).
The November 29, 1985, marketer and burner administrative
controls eliminated the remaining exemptions for the storage and
transportation of hazardous waste fuels. That rule subjects (for
the first time) nonsludge characteristic waste fuels and waste-
derived fuels produced by third-party marketers to storage and
transportation controls. Thus,.once the November 29, 1985, rule is
effective, the storage and trarisporation of any hazardous waste
used as .a fuel or used to produce a fuel, and any fuel produced
from any hazardous waste, i-s regulated. The transportation controls
for the newly regulated fuels became effective March 31, 1986, and
the storage controls become effective May 29, 1986.
I am sure you are aware that producers of Product 312 may not
have considered the material to be a hazardous waste fuel prior to
November 29, 1985. Cadence has argued with EPA since late 1984
that Product 312 is a material used as an effective substitute for
coke without providing significant energy to a blast furnace.
Cadence therefore argued that Product 312 is not a solid waste and
thus, is not subject to RCRA rules. (See §261.2(e).) As you know
EPA explained in the preamble to the November 29, 1985, rule why we
disagree with that interpretation and conclude that Product 312 is-
subject to regulation as hazardous waste fuel. Nonetheless, persons
who store and transport Cadence Product 312 had no absolute way of
knowing whether EPA would agree with their position. Once they
learned of our interpretation, however, they should have taken
action to comply with the storage and transportation standards as
quickly as possible.
I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have further
guestions, please give me a call at 202-382-7917.
Sincerely,
Robert Holloway
Actinq Manaoer
Waste Conbustion Prooram
cc: Mr. Willian E. rluno, Region V
Steven Silveman, Esq.
r>cc: KicSarcJ ccoll, tsa.
doo Jolli noer
Jack Lennan
-------
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTlC \CEHCY 9494 .1986 (05)
II 086
Arthur J. Helmstetter, P.E.
General Manager
Systech Corporation
245 North Valley Road
Xenia, Ohio 45385
Dear Art:
This is to confirm that your understanding (reference your
March 21, 1985 letter) is correct regarding the applicability of
the November 29, 19d5, administrative controls for marketers and-
burners of- hazardous waste and used oil fuels to Systech's
situation.
You are correct that:
- Systech is a marketer of hazardous waste fuel because you
take title to hazardous waste that you collect fron generators
and deliver to cement kilns.
- As a marketer, Systech must:
Notify regarding your hazardous waste fuel marketing
activities. You should use your corporate office name
and location on the notification form.
9 Ensure that the manifest system, pre-transport, and
recordkeepinq and reporting requirements are complied
with. The generator's and cement company's EPA Identifi-
cation Numbers should be used on the manifest because
they are the shipping and receiving facility, respectively
Systech's Identirication Number should not be used on
tne raanifest. Systecn should keep copies of manifests.
- It uystech Joeo not own or operate hazardous waste tuel
storage taciiities, you are not subject to KCKA hazardous waste
racilicy storage s ta.'VMr.'.s. It" Systech operates buc Joes not
o*n such raciiicies (ror exar.-'ie , ir L-ivstech operates a storaqo
facility unJer contract to t'~'j oc-"ort company), Svetech/ a loan
-------
with the owner, is subject to RCRA storage facility standards.
This is because the standards apply to owners and operators of
such facilities. Either the owner or operator may choose to
comply with the standards. In the event of noncompliance,
however/ both the owner and the operator are liable.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
questions, give me a call.
If you have further
Sincerely,
Robert Holloway
Acting Manager
Waste Combustion
Program
cc: (w/incoming)
Steve Silverman
Y. J. Kim, Region
-------
9494.1986(05aJ
3 0 '986
.'lr. Andy C. Ricci
President _
Ricky's Oil Service, Inc.
5330 West 16th Avenue
Hialeah, Florida 33012
Dear Mr. Ricci:
This is in response to your May 27, 1986, letter regarding
regulations applicable to used oil fuels. You indicate that your
fuel burning customers will stop accepting used oil fuel after
May 29 when the lead specification becomes effective.
There appears to be serious misunderstandings of the
requirements of the November 29, 1985, rules. You, and many
others as well, apparently believe the rule precludes the burning
of of f -specif icat ion used oil fuel. As explained in the enclosed
information bulletin we recently developed, of f -specif ication used
oil fuel may be burned in industrial burners; only the burning of
of f-soecif ication used oil in non industrial boilers is prohibited.
In order to burn of f -specif icat ion used oil fuel, industrial
burners need only notify the Environmental Protection Agency (EPAO
and comnly with two other minor paperwork requirements. Off-?
specification used oil fuel is not a hazardous waste and is not
subject to storage standards. Although EPA proposed to list used
oil as a hazardous waste and to apply storage standards to off-
specif ication used oil fuel on November 29, 1985, we are still
evaluating public comments on the proposals. We expect to make
final decisions this fall and the final rules will be effective
six months after publication.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you may have
had. If you have other comments or questions, please contact
Mike Petruska of my staff (202-382-7936).
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Enclosure
bcc: Karen Walker
Eric Males
Mike Petruska
-------
i ,:*. r rt w : cv_ i iW* CJ"«v. I
9494.1986(06)
Mr. Dennis Stefani
Chemical Processor Inc.
5501 Airport Way South
Seattle, Washington 98108
Dear Mr. Stefani:
This is in response to your request of October 10, 1986,
for a clarification of the March 16, 1983, Enforcement Policy
(48 FR 11157) and the rules applying to waste burned for energy
recovery.
Your problem concerns the interpretation of when in the
process is the criteria of 5000 Btu/hr applied so as to allow
waste to be burned for energy recovery in a cement kiln.
EPA's interpretation is that the waste, as generated,
should have an average Btu value of 5000 Btu/lb or greater to
be considered a bona fide fuel. Waste with an as generated
heating value lower than 5,000 Btu/lb is considered to be in-
cinerated when burned in a boiler or industrial furnace and
is, thus, subject to the incinerator standards of Subpart 0
of 40 CFR Parts 264 or 265. Such low heating value waste is
considered to be incinerated even if it is mixed with other
waste or fuel such that the mixture has a heating value higher
than 5,000 Btu/lb.
The intent of the policy is not to apply the Btu criterion
to each individual chemical or hazardous constituent of the
waste, but to apply it to the aggregate waste, as generated
(i.e., before mixing). Therefore the presence of low Btu value
constituents would not preclude the waste from being considered
a bona fide fuel that is burned for energy recovery.
-------
Please feel free to have any concerned party at the Washington
Department of Ecology call me at (202) 382-7934 for any further
clarification.
Sincerely,
Marc Turgeon
Environmental Scientist
Waste Combustion Section
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9494.1987(02)
JR 15 W
Mr. Richard C. Fortuna
Executive Director
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, H.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.c. 20006
Dear Mr. Fortunat
In your letters of January 6, and March 27, 1987, you
raised a number of issues regarding the Marine Shale facility.
Region VI has already responded to some of your concerns. We
will respond to some of the other questions raised in your
letters. However, other questions relate to current enforce-
ment deliberations and, therefore, cannot be addressed
without jepardizing potential actions.
First, with regard to past enforcement actions, the Loui-
siana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has issued
a number of enforcement actions against Marine Shale, the
most recent of which was issued July 29, 1986. I believe
Region VI has already furnished you a copy of the order
entered in that proceeding.
* Question 3 - Has Louisiana been delegated authority to
administer the definition of solid waste regulations
or the Phase I burning regulations?
As you know, under Section 3006 of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) nay authorise qualified States to administer
and enforce their State hazardous waste management program
in lieu of the Agency operating the Federal program in those
States. Final authorisation was granted to the State of
Louisiana on February 7, 1985 [50 Fed. Reg. 3348 (January
24, 1985)3. However, the rules relating to the definition
of solid waste that were promulgated under 50 Fed. Reg. 614
(January 4, 1985), were not part of the authorized program.
Therefore, these rules do not apply until the State revises
its program to include controls for hazardous wastes that
are equivalent to, or more stringent than, EPA's regulations
(i.e., regulations concerning the new definition of solid
waste do not become effect&vauRftexan authorised State, until
that Stite amends its regulations and EPA authorizes the
attended State program).
-------
In contrast, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA), which attended RCRA, provide new require-
ments and prohibitions in authorised States, such as Louisiana,
until the State is delegated authority to do so. The hazardous
waste fuel regulations [50 Fed. Reg. 49164 (November 29, 1985)3
were promulgated pursuant to HSWA. Therefore, these rules
are effective and Federally-enforceable in Louisiana, although
they have not yet been adopted by Louisiana and authorized
by EPA.
It should be noted that if the Marine Shale facility is
engaged in sham recycling and Is in reality operating to
destroy hazardous wastes by controlled thermal combustion,
it is incinerating the wastes and is subject to the Subpart 0
standards for incinerators. The issue of sham recycling is
a question of fact, turning on the contribution of the materials
burned to the output of the device. The facility's operating
practices (for instance, degree to which wastes are scrutinized
for beneficial properties, revenues derived from burning
wastes versus processing raw materials) are also relevant.
The Agency is investigating these questions. We also are
intending to propose in the near future regulations of air
emissions from boilers and industrial furnaces that legitimately
recycle hazardous waste.
* Question 4 - How is the State (or Region VI) implementing
the overaccumulation restrictions of 40 CFR Part 261.2
(c)(4) throughout the State, not merely at MSP?
As already indicated, the new definition of solid waste
regulations are not a part of Louisiana's authorized hazardous
waste program. Therefore, the overaccumulation provision
which is part of the new definition of solid waste is not
being implemented in Louisiana, nevertheless, the speculative
accumulation provision would be irrelevant at MSP. In partic-
ular, the facility already is deemed to be accepting hazardous
wastes, and requires a storage facility.
* Question 5 - The use constituting disposal regulations
under Part 261.2(c)(1)(A) and (13) specifically contain
a requirement that wastes placed on the ground must
b« bound or chemically fixed in a manner that prevents
migration. What is the policy regarding the level of
chemical reaction that must occur to satisfy this
requirement? Are residues of aggregate kiln furnaces
generally considered to satisfy those requirements?
EPA regulations, including 40 CFR 261.2(c)(l), which you
cited, do not require that wastes be bound or chemically fixed
in a manner that prevents migration before they can be placed
on the ground. Rather, Sections 266.20(a)(2)(b) of the
regulations state that recyclable materials that have undergone
a chemical reaction, so as to become inseparable by physical
-------
neans, are exempted from the regulations under Subtitle C of
RCRA. Therefore, those wastes that are not chemically reacted
can still be applied to the land for beneficial use if the
hazardous waste disposer complies with the appropriate manage-
ment standards.
As to the level of chemical reaction that must occur
before a waste that is applied to the land is exempt from
regulation, the Agency has not developed specific guidance.
We believe, however, that the preamble discussion provides
general guidance to the regulated community in this area (50
CFR 6463, January 4, 1985). Specifically, we believe materials
would fall under this exemption if the hazardous waste was
chemically transformed. In addition, the hazardous waste
would have to be an effective substitute for some commercial
material. In the preamble, we also included several examples
of materials that would or would not fit the chemical reaction
standard.
It is important not to confuse this standard with the
"no migration" standard under the Land Disposal Restrictions
requirements. According to $266.20(a)(2)(b) standard, if a
chemical reaction occurs and the hazardous waste is an effec-
tive substitute for a commercial material, the material
would be exempt from regulation whether or not any migration
has occurred.
Regarding the residues of aggregate kiln furnace, as a
general matter, if the hazardous waste has undergone a chemical
reaction in the aggregate kiln and if the hazardous waste is
an effective substitute in producing aggregate, then residues
would be exempt from regulation. The particular facts at
MSP would have to be evaluated to determine its regulatory
status.
* Question 11 - Is it Agency policy to extend the scope
of the RCRA mining exclusion to industrial furnaces
and their residues and thereby exempt them from the
"der ived-from-rule."
The mining waste exclusion applies to the residuals, not
to the industrial furnace itself. The mining waste exclusion
applies to devices that process ores or minerals. The rele-
vant inquiry thus is first to the nature of the device,
namely is it being used to process ores or minerals, and
second, to the types of materials burned in the device,
i.e., are they largely ores and minerals or some other type
of materials?
Thus, if an industrial furnace is operating to destroy
wastes, it is not processing ores or minerals, and its residues
would not be excluded. The sham burning policy you mention
is a possible example (assuming the device is not also processing
ores and minerals).
-------
If an industrial furnace burns hazardous waste for the
purpose of destruction, the furnace is subject to the inciner-
ator standards, as already indicated. The sham burning policy
you reference indicates that waste with an as-generated
heating value of less than 5,000 BTU/lb may sometimes not be
considered a bona fide fuel. When such wastes, whether
mixed with higher heating value wastes or fuels, are burned
in an industrial furnace (or boiler), such burning is considered
incineration.
Even if the furnace is being used to recycle wastes, it
might not be considered to be processing ores or minerals if
the majority of the feed to the device was a non-ore or
mineral. The Agency has always maintained, for example, that
secondary smelting furnaces are not covered by the mining
waste exclusion even though some of these furnaces burn
small percentages of ores and minerals.
We should note that the Agency plans to solicit comment
on these issues in its upcoming rules on burning in boilers
and furnaces. Also, we repeat that the mining waste exclusion
does not affect the regulatory status of control of emissions
from burning in industrial furnaces, nor the storage which
precedes burning.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
1987(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
M fits: '
Mr. Neil Gingold
General Counsel
Envirosure
333 Ganson Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
Dear Mr. Gingold:
This is in response to your letter of June 12, 1987, in which
you requested clarification regarding waste tracking and classifi-
cation. First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in
responding to your letter; I hope my delay hasn't caused you any
problems. The answers to your questions are as follows:
1. EPA's current policy on mixing low and high Btu wastes
is summarized in an enforcement guidance memo published
in the Federal Register of March 16, 1983. (Enclosure
1.) As the guidance memo explains, a determination of
what constitutes "sham burning" depends on a number of
factors presented by the circumstances of a particular
case; the energy value of the wastes being blended or
burned is likely to be of primary significance in most
cases. Blending a low Btu waste (i.e. , less than 5000
Btu/lb. ) with a higher Btu waste would not normally
change the "sham" character of the subsequent burning.
You should note that, as the guidance memo points out,
other factors are considered in distinguishing sham from
legitimate burning, and that EPA will set a priority on
sham burning in non-industrial settings. Also, as you
correctly point out, EPA has proposed a new fuels policy
in the focn of revisions to the hazardous waste burning
regulations. On Nay 6, 1987, EPA proposed standards for
boilers and furnaces burning hazardous waste. (See En-
closure 2.) The proposed standards would apply to boil-
ers and furnaces burning hazardous waste regardless of
whether the purpose was energy recovery or destruction,
so the "sham recycling" distinction would no longer be
relevant. (Id. at 16989.) EPA has accepted public com-
ments on the May 6 proposal and we will be making deci-
sions regarding the final rule within the next year.
Until this regulation is made final, the enforcement
policy will remain in effect.
-------
-2-
As a final pont on burning of wastes, you should note
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Col-
umbia reached a decision on July 31, 1987, that calls
into question EPA's authority to regulate certain waste
recycling activities. EPA is studying the opinion to
determine its scope. Because the Court has not yet
issued its mandate, the regulations currently in the
Code of Federal Regulations defining what is "solid
waste," and establishing regulations for recycled
hazardous waste, remain in effect.
2. Listed wastes never "lose their identify." Wastes are
tracked on the manifest by waste code under U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation (DOT) regulations at 49 CFR Parts
171 and 172.I/ For mixtures, you must enter each waste
code in the mixture on the manifest. Further, you should
note that facilities in interim status must specify on
their "Part A" permit application the hazardous waste
they will be receiving {see 40 CFR S270.13(j)) and must
amend the Part A to receive new wastes (S270.72.(a)).
Also, a RCRA permit granted to a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility may specify the specific hazardous
wastes the facility is authorized to accept. Finally, a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility must keep an
operating record with very specific information on each
hazardous waste at the facility. (See SS264.73 and
265.73.)
3. All of the requirements referenced in answer number 2,
above, require tracking of individual wastes by shipment
(and if necessary, by container).
4. The proper classification of waste treatment residuals
(the filter cake in your case) depends on the wastes enter-
ring your treatment system. Under 40 CFR S261.3(c)(2) (i),
any waste derived-from treating a hazardous waste is
itself a hazardous waste. Such "derived-front11 wastes
I/ Please note a couple of points regarding waste shipment tracking.
First, the DOT rules referred to above do not require the EPA
waste code for "U" and "P" listed wastes. This is because U
and P chemicals must already be described by their specific
chemical names under 49 CFR Part 171. You should also note that
although EPA does not require the EPA waste codes to be placed
on the hazardous waste manifest, some States do require EPA's
(or their own) codes to be entered on the manifest in addition
to the DOT requirements.
-------
-3-
are assigned the waste code(s) of the incoming (i.e.,
treated) wastes. Thus, if more than one listed waste
was treated, the treated residue would be identified by
all the listed wastes treated.
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475-6676.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Acting Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
9494.1991(01)
USB
i
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20450
4 1991
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Robert W. Kasten, Jr.
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Bob:
Thank you for your letter of December 4, 1990, expressing
your concern about the burning of hazardous waste in boilers and
industrial furnaces (BIFs).
I share your concerns about the need to ensure safe
management of hazardous waste in the United States. In your
letter you posed a number of questions regarding the BIF
regulations we issued on December 31, 1990. I am pleased to
provide the following answers to those questions.
Q: Are the new standards as stringent as those required of
other waste incinerators?
A: Yes. The performance standards for boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous wastes are
essentially equivalent to the proposed incineration
amendments, and are more stringent than the current
incineration standards. As in the incinerator
regulations, the BIF regulations include performance
standards for Destruction and Removal Efficiency (ORE)
of organic constituents, hydrogen chloride emissions,
and particulate emissions. The BIF regulations also
include limits on emissions of products of incomplete
combustion (through limits on carbon monoxide and/or
hydrocarbons), hazardous metals, and free chlorine.
The BIF regulations impose substantive requirements on
existing facilities pending permit issuance or denial.
According to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), any BIF facilities in existence before these
regulations became effective are granted interim
status. BIF facilities wishing to continue burning
hazardous waste under interim status will have to
submit data, under specific time frames, verifying
compliance with limits on emissions of carbon monoxide
and/or hydrocarbons, hazardous metals, chlorine/
hydrogen chloride, and particulates.
-------
Q: Is there a strict certification process for new
facilities that is similar to the review other
facilities must complete?
A: Yes. The regulations for boilers and industrial
furnaces subject these devices to the full RCRA
permitting process. Implementation of these
regulations through the permitting process will require
the involvement throughout the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), or the authorized state, prior to any
permit decision. This involvement includes a detailed
review of the permit applications and the solicitation
of and response to public comments. In addition, as
discussed above, BIFs will be required to submit
"certification" data demonstrating compliance with the
interim-status standards in order to continue burning
hazardous waste before that permit decision.
Q: Do the regulations provide for the safe management of
the residue?
A: Yes, in general, residues are subject to the full
panoply of RCRA Subtitle C requirements (i.e., our most
stringent hazardous waste management standards). One
exception would be residues subject to the "Bevill
Amendment." In Section 3001(b)(3)(A) of RCRA, Congress
excluded from Subtitle C restrictions any residues from
boilers burning primarily coal or other fossil fuels,
industrial furnaces processing primarily ores or
minerals, or cement kilns processing primarily raw
materials. These wastes were deemed by Congress to be
"high volume/low hazard" in character. This exclusion
will be effective until special studies are conducted
to determine how these devices should be regulated.
EPA's position reflected in the BIF regulations is that
so long as, on a case-by-case basis, the processing of
hazardous waste does not significantly affect the
character of the waste residues as high volume/low
hazard, then those wastes may remain excluded under the
Bevill amendment. Any residues that do not meet these
criteria would be subject to Subtitle C requirements.
Q: Do the new regulations establish a definitive timetable
for closing this loophole in our hazardous materials
law that ensures the protection of the public's health
and safety?
A: The rule will require facilities wishing to continue
burning hazardous wastes to demonstrate compliance with
the interim-status standards within specified time
frames. Thus, facilities subject to these rules will
be under a substantial level of control from the
interim-status compliance deadlines until permit
issuance or denial.
-------
Permit applications will be "called in" and reviewed
by the EPA regions or authorized states, based on a
system of environmental priorities. This reflects
one of the conclusions of our RCRA Implementation
Study, which was that EPA (along with the states)
should develop a system that ensures that the most
environmentally significant facilities in a particular
state or region are addressed first.
I hope that these responses give you a clearer understanding
of how we plan to regulate boilers and industrial furnaces
burning hazardous wastes. I also want to reiterate my own
concern about the significance of this rulemaking and its role in
ensuring that hazardous waste is managed safely and effectively.
If you have any further questions or comments, please have your
staff contact Russ Wyer, Director of EPA's Waste Management
Division in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
at (703) 308-8414.
Sincerely yours,
William K. Reilly
-------
UNh wO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECi.wN AGENCY 9494 1991(02)
MAR 2 9 1991
Mr. Robert M. Scalliet, President
Scalliet Technologies Inc.
87 Oates Rd., Bldg. 1
Houston, TX 77013
Dear Mr. Scalliet,
I am writing in response to your February 21, 1991, letter in
which you brought up several issues related to sham incineration
and treatment of K048-K052 wastes in cement kilns and industrial
furnaces. I have fully discussed these issues with Bob Holloway,
Chief of the Combustion Section of the Waste Treatment Branch in
the Office of Solid Waste, and, based on this discussion, am
providing you the following response to the issues raised.
For industrial furnaces, including cement kilns, if a K048-
K052 waste is treated to separate oil and water, and the cake
obtained has a heat content below the sham incineration threshold,
then oil cannot be added to the cake to satisfy the threshold
requirement unless the oil was originally part of the K048-K052
waste and was removed during the treatment process. This
requirement applies regardless of whether or not the combustion ash
is recycled in the industrial furnace.
Additionally, all residues generated from the treatment of a
listed hazardous waste, namely K048-K052 wastes in this instance,
are subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) except for
certain residues (e.g., cement kiln dust and primary smelter
slag) that may be excluded from regulation under the Bevill
Amendment. The February 21, 1991, Federal Register contains the
Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rule which outlines a test for when
the Bevill exclusion applies. If a residue is exempt under the
Bevill exclusion, then the LDRs do not apply to the residue. You
should note, however, that the Agency is considering a rulemaking
to require that Bevill-excluded residues nonetheless comply with
the LDRs. Because of this, we understand that some cement
facilities are voluntarily complying with the LDRs. We encourage
you to do the same for any Bevill excluded residuals that you
generate.
-------
If you have any questions regarding this response, please call
me at (703)308-8469 to further discuss these issues.
Jerry F. Vorbach, P.E.
Wa\pte Treatment Branch
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
APR 23 i39i OFF.CEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Chris L. Gansel
Test Engineer
Robert Sun Company
240 Great Circle Road, #344
Nashville, TN 37228
Dear Mr. Gansel:
This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1990 to Denise Wright concerning
the burning of compressor oil with ammonia in space heaters. You asked whether there
are any regulations prohibiting the burning of such oil
There are no federal hazardous waste regulations specifically restricting the
burning of ammonia contaminated used oils in space heaters. Our regulations under 40
CFR 266.41 governing used oil burning allow off-specification used oil to be burned in
space heaters provided three conditions are met:
(1) The heater burns only used oil that is generated by the owner/operator of
the space heater or used oil from do-it-yourself oil changers who generate
the used oil as a household waste;
(2) The beater has a maximum design capacity of no more than 0.5 million
BTU per hour; and
(3) The heater's combustion gases are vented to the ambient air.
Thus, if your space heater model Sun 2 meets these design and use criteria, it
may be used for the burning of off-specification used oils, including those that may be
contaminated with ammonia, according to the federal regulations. Some States,
however, have different regulations governing used oil and we recommend your checking
with the respective States.
Sincerely yours, -
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
9494.1991(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 2 3 1991
Mr. Gary Anderson
Safety/Environmental Officer souo WASTE AM, EMERGENCY RESPONSE
ARA Leisure Services
P.O. Box 1926
Page, Arizona 86040
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This is in response to your letter of March 25, 1991 concerning the management
and burning of used oil generated by private boat owners. You asked whether there are
any applicable standards for acceptance, storage, testing, or burning, of such oil in on-
site waste oil furnaces.
Under our regulations in 40 CFR 266.41 for used oil burned for energy recovery,
you may burn off-specification used oil in oil-fired space heaters provided three
conditions are met:
(1) The heater burns only used oil generated by the owner/operator or
received from do-it-yourself oil changes;
(2) The heater has a maximum design capacity of no more than 0.5 million
BTU per hour; and
(3) The combustion gases are vented to the ambient air.
In the case you described, the oil generated by the owners of private boats would
be considered oil from do-it-yourself oil changers. If your furnaces meet the design and
operating requirements listed above, no federal hazardous waste regulations apply.
/.Thus, there are no additional standards for the acceptance, storage, or burning, or
testing of used oil generated by either your business or do-it-yourself boat owner oil
changes. Please note that your State may have additional restrictions. Thus, you should
check with your State to see if their are any applicable restrictions.
Should you have any further requirements, please contact Denise Wright at (202)
245-3519.
Sincerely yours,
SyMa K. Lowrande, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Printed on
-------
9494.1992(01)
UNITED-STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV27892
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Jim Tichich
RCRA Engineering Section
Division of Hazardous Waste Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
1800 WaterMark Drive
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149
Re: Hazardous Waste Fuel Blending
Dear Mr. Tichich:
This letter responds to hazardous waste fuel-blending issues
discussed in your phone conversation of August 11 with Chester
Oszman, and detailed in your subsequent letter of August 12,
1992. The letter raised the issue of whether or not treatment
associated with hazardous waste fuel blending is regulated. In
addition, you raised concerns about inconsistent correspondence
addressing fuel-blending activities.
After review of the hazardous waste requirements, the Agency
remains firm in its determination that treatment associated with
hazardous waste fuel blending is subject to regulation.
40 CFR 26l.6(a)(2) clearly states that hazardous wastes which are
recycled materials and are burned for energy recovery "... are
regulated under Subparts C through H of Part 266 of this chapter
and all applicable provisions in Parts 270 and 124 of this
chapter." This reference to Part 270 provides the basis to
regulate all hazardous waste fuel-blending activities.
40 CFR 266.34 was written with the understanding that
hazardous waate fuel-blending activities were traditionally
performed in containers or tank systems where the storage
standards of Part. 264 could be applied. The Agency believes that
protection of human health and the environment is accomplished
when the permit addresses the containment of the waste being
treated. Therefore, no direct reference to "treatment" was
included in Section 266.34; treatment was understood to be
implicit in the regulation, as shown by the reference in section
261.6 to the ". . . applicable provisions of Part 270." (Please
note, effective August 21, 1991, Part 266, Subpart D has been
superseded by Part 266, Subpart H.) EPA has in fact explicitly
interpreted Section 266.34 to require tank storage standards to
-------
apply to tanks in which hazardous waste fuels are blended. See
52 FR 11820 (April 13, 1987).
More recently, it has come to the Agency's attention that
fuel blenders may be using devices such as microwave units and
distillation columns in their hazardous waste handling operations
that differ from the traditional fuel-blending practices where
storage requirements can be applied. These other-than-storage
practices are, in fact, hazardous .waste treatment activities
requiring a RCRA permit, without which the unit cannot operate.
According to section 270.l(c), "RCRA requires a permit for the
treatment, storage, and disposal of any hazardous waste as
identified or listed in 40 CFR Part 261." Additionally, preamble
language from 50 FR 49196 (November 29, 1985) regarding storage
requirements for hazardous waste fuel states "... today's rule
expands existing requirements for storage so that all storage of
all hazardous waste fuels is subject to regulation."
Furthermore, "All hazardous wastes used to produce fuel and all
hazardous waste fuel so produced are subject to today's storage
requirements ..." The regulations clearly indicate that
hazardous waste fuel-blending activities are regulated, even if
that activity includes some process other than storage. See
52 £B 11820.
Our understanding from discussion with Region V is that the
examples of previous Region V correspondence you provided contain
information supporting the Region's interpretation held early on
in the regulatory process. The Region then adapted its position
to more accurately reflect the Agency's ruling. If you have any
questions concerning fuel-blending issues, please contact Jeffrey
Gaines of my staff at (703) 308-8655.
Sincerely,
es F. Michael, Acting Chief
Assistance Branch (5303W)
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Ken Gigliello, OWPE
Sonya Sasseville, OSW
Steve Silver-man, OGC
Chester Oszman, OSW
Jeffrey Gaines, OSW
Subpart X Permit Writers' Workgroup
Waste Combustion Permit Writers' Workgroup
-------
\
J
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9494.1993(01)
SEP ! 4 1993
SOLID WASTE AND EMERG?.NCV RESPONSE
Mr. Kenneth M. Kastner
Bryan Cave
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Dear Mr. Kastner:
Thank you for your letter of April 13, 1993, requesting an
interpretation of the regulation relating to automatic waste feed
cutoffs (AWFCOs) in boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs). We
have also received your letter of August 16 that provides details
on the locations of the fuel pump and the AWFCO valves with respect
to your boiler. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with
your interpretation that hazardous waste or residue will not remain
after a AWFCO in combustion chambers of systems designed as you
described, and, thus, it is not necessary to maintain a minimum
combustion chamber temperature after the AWFCO.
40 C.F.R.§ 266.103(g)(1) requires that BIFs be equipped with
an AWFCO system that must be triggered if specified control
parameters are exceeded. The purpose of this requirement is to
ensure that hazardous waste combustion occurs only within a
specified operating envelope, and that the combustion of hazardous
waste ceases as soon as the facility starts functioning outside
that envelope. The regulations also require that after the AWFCO
system is triggered, the minimum combustion chamber temperature
established during a compliance test shall be maintained (by an
auxiliary heat source, if necessary) until hazardous waste or
residues no longer remain in the combustion chamber.
In your letter, you explain that your boiler burns liquid
hazardous waste fuel, and because of the configuration of the
piping system, no hazardous waste will be fed to the boiler when
the AWFCO system is triggered. The waste fuel pump is located
downstream and at a lower elevation than the AWFCO valves, which,
in turn, are at a lower elevation than the firing nozzle. Thus,
hazardous waste fuel cannot flow by gravity into the boiler after a
AWFCO. Given that the liquid waste will burn immediately upon
firing, and that after a AWFCO is triggered no additional waste
will enter the boiler, we conclude that hazardous waste will not
remain in the combustion chamber after a AWFCO. Thus, it is not
necessary to maintain a minimum combustion chamber temperature
after the AWFCO.
-------
Please note that the above determination is site-specific,
and depends upon the boiler and pipeline design in relation to
the AWFCO system (pump, control valves and burner locations) as
well as the physical form of the waste (i.e., liquid versus
solid). In some situations, liquid waste may be able to dribble
into the combustion chamber by gravity even after an AWFCO if the
cutoff valve is located at a comparable or higher elevation than
the firing nozzle. In these situations, the minimum combustion
chamber requirement applies until the waste stops 'dribbling'
into the kiln. In cases where solid or semi-solid (e.g.,
sludges) waste fuel is fed, the combustion chamber temperature
requirement applies until the waste fuel no longer enters the
combustion chamber and until the waste residue no longer remains
in the combustion chamber. This time would vary from facility to
facility. To address each case, the appropriate EPA Region or
State authority should be consulted.
If you have further questions on this issue, please feel
free to call Shiva Garg at (703) 308-8459).
Sincerely,
JtffWy D. Denit
rcti/g Director
Lee of Solid Waste
cc: Sonya Sasseville, PSPD
Kate Anderson, OWPE
Bob Holloway, WMD
Permit Writers (Regions I-X)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9494.1994(01)
JAN 2 8 1994
Mr. Dennis R. Downs, Director
Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
Dear Mr. Downs:
Thank you for you letter of December 3, 1993 in which you
request clarification of the Agency's intent regarding the
permitting of hazardous waste fuel-blending activities. We have
evaluated the fuel blending-related processes described in your
letter, and have provided comments below.
Your letter describes five fuel-blending activities and
requests whether such practices meet the definition of hazardous
waste treatment which, according to 40 CFR 260.10, reads as
follows:
Treatment means any method, technique, or process, including
neutralization, designed to change the physical, chemical.
or biological character or composition of any hazardous
waste so as to neutralize such waste, or so as to recover
energy or material resources from the waste, or so as to
render such waste non-hazardous, or less hazardous; safer to
transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable for recovery,
amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. (Emphasis
added.)
[This definition of treatment was upheld as reasonable by the
D.C. Circuit in Shell Oil v. "EPA. 950 F.2d 741, 753-56 (D.C. Cir.
1989).]
1. The addition of other materials (e.g., sodium hydroxide) to
facilitate homogeneous mixtures/blends of fuel streams.
Adding materials such as sodium hydroxide to the waste
stream changes the physical and/or chemical character of the
waste stream, and therefore meets the definition of
treatment.
E PA Form 1320-1A (1 /90) Printed on Recycled Paper °
'U.S. Government Printing Otlica: 1992 620-856M0672
-------
2. Sizing/suspension units designed to grind up or break down
large solids into a smaller, more manageable form for inclusion
in the fuels stream.
Physical manipulation of the waste would be treatment,
provided that it changes the physical character or
composition of the waste stream.
3. Commingling or consolidation of similar or chemically
compatible hazardous wastes so as to increase their volume,
enhance their BTU content, to meet various boiler or industrial
furnace characteristics such as metal or chlorine limitations, or
to alter viscosity and enhance miscibility.
Commingling or consolidation of hazardous wastes resulting
in physical and/or chemical changes in the waste streams to
make energy recovery more amenable, meets the definition of
treatment.
4. The use of distillation to remove, contamination from various
solvents.
Distillation to remove contaminants is a process that
changes the physical and chemical composition of the waste
stream to render it less hazardous and is, therefore,
considered treatment.
5. Processes designed to accomplish phase separation (e.g.,
removal of water or other undesirables) to facilitate capture of
the desired waste for further processing.
Processes to remove components from the waste stream may
constitute treatment if the physical, chemical, or
biological composition of the waste stream is changed.
As you can see, we were unable to make a definitive
determination on items #2 and 5 above due to a lack of specific
information. We hope that the principles provided in the
discussion will allow the State to make the determination based
on site-specific circumstances.
Finally, you asked about certain waste treatment codes
listed in 40 CFR 264 Appendix I; specifically T50 (blending), T54
(distillation), and T63 (solvent recovery), and what activities
related to these codes did the Agency intend to regulate as
treatment. Appendix I simply identifies handling codes that most
closely represent the technique(s) used at the facility to treat,
store, or dispose of hazardous waste for recordkeeping
requirements only. The codes are not intended to identify all
those activities that require a RCRA permit or, in your specific
case, what constitutes treatment.
-------
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you in your efforts
to regulate fuel-blending activities. If you have any questions,
please call Jeff Gaines at (703) 308-8655 or Chet Oszman at (703)
308-8659.
Sincerely,
Frank McAlister, Chief
Assistance Branch (5303W)
cc: James Michael, OSW
Steve Silverman, OGC
Jeffrey Gaines, OSW
Chester Oszman, OSW
Terry Brown, Region VIII
-------
J
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9494.1994(02)
«B 88133* OFC,CEOP
SOLID '.VASTS AND EMERGE\C v =>;s = :-.SE
Dr. P.B. Joshipura
5901 College Drive
Suffolk, VA 23435
Dear Dr. P.B. Joshipura,
Thank you for your letter of August 24, 1993, requesting
clarification of the Environmental Agency's (EPA) used oil
regulations. Specifically, you asked 1) if a hazardous waste
characteristic determination must be made for used oil being
recycled and 2) if a specification analysis is required for used
oil being burned in an industrial boiler.
As stated in Section §261.6 (a)(4) of the September 10,
1992, Federal Register (57 FR 41566), used oil that is recycled
and is also a hazardous waste solely because it exhibits a
hazardous characteristic is not subject to the requirements of 40
CFR Parts 260 through 268, but is regulated under 40 CFR Part
279. Used oil that cannot be recycled and is identified as a
hazardous waste must be managed in accordance with the hazardous
waste management requirements of 40 CFR Parts 260 through 266,
268, 270, and 124 when'sent off-site for disposal or disposed of
on-site (Section 279.81fal) .
In response to your second question, EPA does not require
used oil to be analyzed to determine whether the used oil is on-
specification used oil if the used oil is burned for energy
recovery in devices listed at Section §279.61. However, except
for Section 279.23, used oil that is burned in devices other than
those mentioned in Section 279.61 is required to meet the
specifications in Section 279.11.
It is unclear in your letter whether or not you are selling
used oil to a customer who burns used oil for energy recovery.
If this is the case, please note that you must comply with all
applicable standards for a "Used Oil Fuel Marketer" (Section
279.70). If you have any further questions please contact Bryan
Groce of my staff at (202) 260-9550.
PrMtd on
-------
Sincerely,
i
Mike Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
-------
9495 - USED OIL
BURNED FOR
ENERGY RECOVERY
Part 266 Subpart E
ATKl/l 104/6 kp
-------
9495.1985(03)
DEC | 2 1985
Honorable Harry Meshel
Ohio Senate
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0601
Dear Mr. Meshelx
Thank you for your letter of October 16, 1985, concerning
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed standards
for the burning and blending of hazardous waste and used oil
fuels, and the potential status of Cadence Product 312 under
these rules.
Cadence has represented to us that the rule will be
detrimental to their ability to market Product 312 to current
users. While we do not dispute this claim, I should neverthe-
less emphasize that our ruleraaking will not prohibit the sale of
Product 312 to steel makers, industrial boiler operators, cement
kiln operators, or other industrial users of waste-derived fuels,
The rule reguires only that these waste-derived fuels be stored
and transported under controls already applicable to other
hazardous wastes, including hazardous wastes used directly as
fuel without the blending that Cadence uses to produce their
Product 312. The transportation controls reguire that hazardous
waste fuels be identified as such in a manifest presented to the
transporter, and ultimately to the burner, as a means of imple-
menting the prohibition on burning these fuels in relatively
inefficient noninduatrial boilers like those in apartment and
office buildings. Burning in these devices can expose large
numbers of persons in urban areas to toxic emissions.
I should also not* that we plan a future rulemaking that
would provide permit standards to control emissions from
industrial boilers and industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste fuels. EPA-sponsored testing of a number of boilers and
industrial furnaces, including a blast furnace burning Product
312, indicates that many of these devices can be operated to
burn many hazardous waste fuels safely. Thus, those planned
standards will not preclude burning of hazardous waste fuels
in industrial boilers and industrial furnaces in most cases.
-------
As you Know, we believe waste reduction and waste recycling
are the preferred options to manage our growing waste disposal
problem. This, however/ does not necessarily mean that a recycled
waste material should be exempt from regulation if improper handling
treatment, or disposal could result in damage to human health or
the environment. Our rulemaking attempts to balance the objectives
of fostering recycling and providing adequate protection of human
health and the" environment. If a waste material is hazardous,
the relevant policy concern is whether burning the waste needs to
be regulated to protect human health or the environment.
We have completed the process of finalizing these regulations.
I signed the final rule on Friday, November 8 and it was promulgated
in the Federal Register on November 29, 1985. During the public
comment period, we received several letters asking us to exempt
Cadence Product 312 in the final rules. We reviewed those comments
as well as all of the other comments we received pertaining to
the proposed rules.
In making a final decision, we have balanced all of the
issues raised by the public, including those comments you had
made; the Congressional mandate in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments; and our desire to both protect human health
and promote waste recycling. This is not an easy task. The
Office of Solid Waste has worked diligently to write equitable
and protective final regulations concerning burning and blending
of hazardous waste and used oil fuels. I can assure you that your
concerns regarding Cadence Product 312 were considered in this
decision-making process.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns on this matter.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
. Thooas
Lee M. Thomas
Enclosure
-------
UNITED *TtS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1NCY <=,OO,
198 6(02)
II
Mr. Gillian F. O'Keefe
Vice President
American Petroleur. Institute
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washin<7«-on, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. O'Keefe:
J
This is in response to youf January 24, 1986, letter regarding
applicability of our November 29, 1985, "burning and blending"
regulations to petroleum refinery fuel products derived from
recycled used oil.
As Bob Holloway explained to you on January 29, the exemption
we provided for hazardous waste-derived refinery fuel products --
based on data you provided us -- also exempts refinery products
when both hazardous waste and used oil are introduced into the
process. Had we been aware that crude oil petroleum refineries
typically recycle used oil as well as their hazardous wasted, we
would have explicitly addressed the issue in the preamble.
When both oil-bearing hazardous wastes and used oil are
introduced into the crude oil refining process, the fuel products
are exempt from the Nove.tber 29 rule. This is because mixtures
of used oil and hazardous waste axe subject to regulation as
hazardous waste, and hazardous waste-derived refinery fuel pro-
ducts are exempt from the rule.
Although we understand that virtually all refineries reintro-
duce their process-generated, oil-bearing hazardous waste into
the refining process, if a refinery were to recycle used oil but
not its hazardous waste, the November 29 rule would not explicitly
exempt the refinery fuel products from regulation as used oil
fuel. \s you note, however, F.PA 'lid not intend for used oil-
derived refinery nrociucts to be suMec* to recrulat
-------
whatever action is necessary to ensure that their products are
not subject to regulation.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
Sincerely,
c-;.7 -' --rj b*
Marc.a £. ...ii-ama
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED HES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION !NCY '"5.1986(03)
.ir . i>on I.genf r i *-Z
3-iies Aanin;. s -.ra lor and
Paul's Hea*. ing/ Construct ion Company
P.O. Box 1455
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Dear Mr. Ilgenfritz:
Karen Brown, the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA ' s )
Small Business Ombudsman, asked me to respond to your January 15,
1986 letter on used oil regulations. The answers to your
questions are based on the rules issued on November 29, 1985 (40
CFR Part 266, Subpart E) :
First, Service stations, repair shops, etc., are allowed to
burn used oil they generate on-site (or which they accept from
household, "do-it-yourselfer" oil changers) in used oil space
heaters without analysis of the oil. To answer your second
question, however, when used oil from other businesses is accepted
(i.e., not from household "do-it-yourselfers") from off-site, it
cannot be burned in a space heater unless it meets the EPA Fuel
Specification, and analysis would be required.
Finally, the North Star Borough can burn the used oil produced
at their site (or accepted from "do-it-yourselfers") in either a
used oil space heater or an industrial boiler without analysis.
If the Borough plans to simply burn the used oil in its normal
heating boilers, however, the used oil must meet the EPA Fuel
Specification and analysis would be,. -required. For your information,
I have enclosed a copy of the EPA Used Oil Fuel Specification.
Please be advised that used oil mixed with hazardous waste, such
as spent cleaning solvent, is subject to the hazardous waste
rules and those rules do not allow burning in space heaters at all.
-------
For fur* her inforrnat ion, call me at (202) 382-7917.
Sincerely,
Michael PeTusXa
Environmental Protection Specialist
Waste Combustion Program
Enclosure
cc: Karen brown (A-149C)
Steve Silverman (LE-132S)
beet Karen Walker
-------
EPA Used Gil Fuel Specification
Constituent/ property
Allowable
level
5 ppm maximum.
2 ppn naximun.
10 ppm maximum.
100 ppn maximum.
100 *F minimum.
4,000 ppn maximum.
-------
UNITED! FES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A .KY 9495.1986(04)
28 FEE 86
- .' ' 1 . O
r. ;-j.c L- : ..-.r.Ajrrt i'--
.T"*->A : J 1 .:
". r 11 r ':;_:> i ^ ' . >
Hol Inwav ^rsfcwJ -'.e ro rop^or-! to your Jonu^r/ J .i ,
1-J86 lettor, requesting cone irnat ion or your uirvrierstan !i-v, np
some of the provisions of the Novenber 29, 1985, final rule tor
the burning and blending of hazardous waste and used oil fuels.
Your interpretation that the presumption of mixing of haz-
ardous waste with used oil is applicable only to used oil that
will be burned for energy recovery is correct. As you also stated
correctly, the presumption does not establish a new hazardous
wasta characterstic under Part 261, Subpart C, nor does it -nean
that halogen levels in used oil destined for uses other than
energy recovery must be monitored. You should note, however,
that we have proposed standards for recycled oil that would
apply the presunption of mixing to all recycled oils, not just
those destined for use as a fuel (see SO PR at 49217 (November
29,
Your interpretation that the "significant concentration"
of hazardous halogenated constituents that would indicate mix-
ing of hazardous waste with used oil is more than ICO ppre is
not valid in all cases. The "significant concentration" which
would indicate that mixing has taken place depends on the type of
halogenated compound found, and the circumstances surrounding
the generation and collection of the used oil. For example, as
we stated in the .preamble to the rules (50 PR at 49176), we
believe that the owner of used oil containing less than
100 ppm of any individual hazardous halogenated spent solvents
(i.e., F001 and F002) could successfully rebut the presumption
of mixing for the following reasons i (1) both used oil and hazar-
dous halogenated solvents are frequently generated at the same
facility, making incidental contamination a real possibility, and
(2) deliberate mixing of used oil and such solvents would very
probably yield concentrations of total halogens of greater than
100 ppm. However, mixing of used oil with other hazardous halo-
genated waste could be indicated by concentrations of Appendix
-------
\/III haloqenated compounds an levels lower than 100 pom, especi-
ally if the hazardous halogenated waste is not generated at the
same site as the used oil or woul'l not be expected to be formed
during use of the oil. The example we used in t^e preamble
(also at 5U FK at 4^176) was nixing ot chlorinaoed pesticides
witn useil oil.
In analyzing used oil fuel to prepare a rebuttal, the
analyst should chec* for those Appenui* VIII conpounds used at
the tacility and tnose which could reafconabl be expected to
enter the used oil waste stream.
I hope this addresses your concerns and clarifies your under-
standing of these regulations. If you have any further questions,
I can rje contacted at (202)382-7937.
Sincerely,
Karen A.
Environmental Scientist
Waste Combustion Program
-------
UNITF- STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO'' AGENCY 9495.1986(05)
MAR 5 1
v.r. Anthony L. Trini
.-v r-;i ti:s , Incoroora te^
6 j Lerr.on Street
St. Augustine, Florida 32084
Dear Mr. Tripi:
Boo Holloway asked me to respond to your letter of
February 14, 1986, in which you asked how the regulations for
burning of hazardous waste and used oil fuels (50 FR at 49164
(November 29, 1985)) apply to the burningyof f-specif icat ion
used oil fuel in greenhouses. $$r
When we defined an "industrial boiler" as one which produces
electric power, steam or heated or cooled air, or other gases or
fluids for use in a manufacturing process, we were not trying to
exclude agricultural operations. We were trying to distinguish
between those boilers used for space heating of residences and
commercial buildings versus those used in production processes.
Our primary concern in the case of used oil is the emission
of toxic metals. The distinction between industrial and non-
induatrial boilers in the rule immediately restricted the burning
of used oil contaminated with metals in densely populated urban
areas. Although we did not specifically consider agricultural
processes, we believe that, because of their typical location,
exposures to metal emissions from boilers used for agricultural
operations are more similar to the exposures resulting from manu-
facturing or utility boilers rather than the exposures resulting
from typical residential or commercial boilers.
Since you supply off-specification used oil to a nursery
for use in an industrial boiler^ you are a used oil marketer,
suoject to 40 CPR 266.43. The nursery is subject to the controls
for burners of off-specification used oil fuel under 40 CPR 266.44,
-------
As a final note, the distinction between industrial and
n on industrial boilers is not intended to be a final technical
determination concerning the suitability of boilers for burning
contaminated oil. We recognize that many industrial and utility
boilers burning contaminated used oil do not have air pollution
control equipment and are located in populated areas, thereby
most likely posing hazards to nearby residents. Later this year
we will be oroposinq emissions control standards for these boilers
and for industrial furnaces burning contaminated used oils.
If you have any further questions, please call we at
(202) 382-7937.
Sincerely,
Karen Walker, Environmental Scientist
waste Combustion Program
Waste Treatment Branch (WH-565A)
bcc: Region IV
-------
9495.1986(08)
April 8, 1986
A. R. Tarrer, P.E.
Professor and Director, AWORL
Auburn University
College of Engineering
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-3501
Dear Mr. Tarrer:
Thank you for your March 18, 1986, letter concerning the
possibility of separating chlorides from used oil. As explained
in more detail below, you may strip used oil to reduce its
halogen content, but any fuel produced by treating a listed
hazardous waste is still considered a hazardous waste.
Used oil used as fuel (or to produce fuel) that contains
over 1000 ppm total halogens is presumed to be mixed with
halogenated hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart
D. (See 40 CFR 266.40(c).) Such used oil is thus also a listed
hazardous waste. Persons may rebut this presumption by
demonstrating that the used oil does not contain hazardous waste
(for example, by showing that the used oil does not contain
significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous constituents
listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII). Absent such a
showing, the used oil is regulated as hazardous waste fuel under
40 CFR Part 266, Subpart D, not the used oil fuel rules of Part
266, Subpart E. You could treat such used oil with steam or air
stripping to reduce the halogen content. You would need a RCRA
hazardous waste permit to do so. Under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i),
any fuel produced by treating hazardous waste is still considered
hazardous waste. (In contrast, if a lubricant is produced, the
lubricant is not a hazardous waste because under 40 CFR 261.2 it
is not a solid waste.) To market the fuel as an exempt material,
you would have to obtain a "delisting" decision under the
petition process under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 by showing that
the resultant fuel is not hazardous.
Commenters on EPA's November 29, 1985, proposal to extend
the 1000 ppm halogen limit beyond used oil fuels to include all
used oils being recycled (see 50 FR 40217-49218) have indicated
that, for a variety of reasons, the 1000 ppm limit is too
restrictive. They have suggested that it be raised to 2500,
3000, or 4000 ppm. We are considering these comments, and, in
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
-2-
fact, are presently conducting studies to determine if some
unmixed used crankcase oils may contain over 1000 ppm halogens.
Although EPA may raise the limit as a result of those studies,
the rule described above applies in the interim.
I suggest you contact the generators who have been sending
you used oil with over 1000 ppm halogens either to obtain
documentation that they are not mixing hazardous waste with the
used oil or to make sure they properly manifest their shipment.
It is possible that some of these generators may previously have
been exempt from hazardous waste regulations as "small quantity
generators" under 40 CFR 261.5. EPA recently lowered the
exemption limit from 1000 to 100 kilograms per month, however,
and these generators will be required to comply with the
hazardous waste rules by September 22, 1986 (51 FR 10146). We
would be very interested in learning what you find out about the
waste management practices of each of the generators from whom
you receive used oil.
If you have further questions on our used oil rules, please
contact Mike Petruska of my office at (202) 382-7917.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
bcc: Mark Greenwood
Steve Silverman
Tom Devine, Region IV
Hazardous Waste Division Director
This has been retyped from the original document.
-------
UNT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI AGENCY 9495.1986(09)
*t
Mr. Gordon D. Hall
Lake Carriers Association
614 Superior Avenue/ N.W.
915 Rockefeller Building
Cleveland/ Ohio 44113-1306
Dear Mr. Hall:
Bob Holloway asked me to respond to your letter of March 17,
1986, in which you requested clarification of the application of
the November 29, 1985, final rules for the burning of hazardous
waste and used oil fuels to the marine industry.
As we stated in the preamble to the rules (50 PR at 49193),
burning used oil in marine engines is not covered by these regula-
tions because we have not fully considered whether marine engines
meet the definition of a boiler. Burning used oil in a .shipboard
steam boiler for heating purposes, however, is regulated. Although
we did not consider in the development of the rule whether ship-
board boilers should be classified as industrial or nonindustrial
boilers, we believe that, because of their location relative to
population centers, exposures resulting from emissions of ship-
board boilers would be more similar to the exposures resulting
from manufacturing and utility boilers rather than the exposures
resulting from typical residential and commercial boilers. Thus,
shipboard boilers should be considered industrial rather than
nonindustrial boilers for regulatory purposes in this situation.
As such, burning of off-specification oil is allowed. Although
the owner or operator would not need to perform analyses of the
used oil, he roust notify EPA of his burning activities (see
$266.44). Note that notification is not required for burners of
used oil that meets the specification, but such burners must
analyze the used oil or otherwise obtain data to document that
the used oil fuel meets the specification.
You are correct in your assumption that used oil generators
ar-> not required to notify unless they market directly to a
burner. Ships generatino used oil that is then hurned on board
in a boiler are considered to be burners, and are reauired to
notify as turners if they burn otf-specific?!ion usec? nil tuel.
-------
No notification of generator status is necessary. In the case
where used oil generated on board a ship is generated and
transferred to a transporter, the transporter, not the ship,
may be subject to regulation as a marketer.
1 hope this answers your questions. If you need further
clarification or assistance, please call me at (202) 475-6128.
Sincerely,
Karen A. Walker
Environmental Scientist
Waste Combustion Program (WH-565A)
-------
9495.1986(13)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN 27 1986
Of-FICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANC EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulation of Hazardous Waste and Used
Oil Fuels (November 29, 1985)
FROM: Karen Walker, Environmental Scientist
Waste Management and Economics Division
TOt Michael Sanderson, Chief
RCRA Branch, Region VII
This is in response to your memo of May 2, 1986, requesting
clarification of whether the November 29, 1985, rules for burning
of hazardous waste and used oil fuels apply to used oil that is
burned in incinerators. I also discuss two other issues your
staff has raised: whether the November 29 rules apply to the
open burning of vised oil and whether the hazardous waste fuel
storage standards apply to burner facilities that pump hazardous
waste fuel directly from tank trucks into a boiler.
Incineration of Used Oil
As I indicated in telephone conversations with Jack Coakley
and Chet McLaughlin of your staff, the regulations specifically
apply to the burning for energy recovery of hazardous waste and
used oil fuel in boilers and industrial furnaces. Therefore,
burning of used oil in incinerators is currently unregulated
and the used oil fuel specification does not^ apply to such oil.
If used oil exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste and
is burned in an incinerator, it is presently regulated under
Subpart O. This position is not an extrapolation of the marine
and diesel engine discussion in the preamble (which was included
primarily due to public comment and inquiries prior to promulgation
of the rules), nor does it stem from an "interpretation" of the
rule. The rule simply and clearly applies to only that used oil
-------
that is burned in boilers or industrial furnaces (see §266.40(a))
We agree that it is somewhat inconsistent to regulate the
burning of used oil in boilers and industrial furnaces but not
the burning of used oil as auxilliary fuel in incinerators. We
did not extend coverage of the November 29 rule to incinerators
because burning of any waste in an incinerator has been considered
for regulatory purposes to be burning for the purpose of destruc-
tion and not for energy recovery. We have taken this position
irrespective of the heating value of the waste and whether the
waste is actually used as auxilliary fuel because, to do otherwise
would potentially open up the energy recovery exemption to any
waste with significant heating value when burned in an incinerator
Thus, without the policy that any waste burned in an incinerator
is burned for destruction, owners and operators of hazardous waste
incinerators could argue that their high heating value wastes were
burned for energy recovery and therefore exempt from Subpart 0.
If high heating value hazardous wastes were coincinerated with
non-hazardous waste, the owner or operator could argue that the
incinerator is exempt from Subpart O because the hazardous waste
is burned for its energy value. This is an outcome we wanted to
avoid.
You should note that, if used oil is listed as hazardous waste,
incineration of used oil would be subject to Subpart 0 uhless the
rule said otherwise. This outcome will be considered as we deter-
mine whether to list used oil as hazardous waste. (Whether or
not used oil is listed, standards for "incinerating" used oil are
more likely to resemble the controls being developed for boilers
and industrial furnaces burning off-specification used oil fuel
than the Subpart O standards.)
The May 2, 1986 letter from Chet McLaughlin to Dr. Paul Hipps
of the Washington University School of Medicine incorrectly
indicates that the November 29 rule applies to used oil burned in
a pathological incinerator. As I stated above, if used oil is
burned in an incinerator, the November 29 rule does not apply
and a permit is not required at the present time.
Open Burning of Used Oil
Your staff also forwarded to us an April 17, 1986 letter
from Chet McLaughlin to fire marshals in Missouri. This letter
indicated that fire departments would not be allowed to burn off-
specification used oil in training exercises. I discussed this
with Jack Coakley, who stated that the used oil is burned in open
pits. For the same reasons outlined above, such burning of used
oil is not covered by the November 29, 1985, rules. We have
received similar inquiries from fire departments and have advised
them that burning used oil in pits, drums, or containers constitutes
disposal and is currently unregulated unless the used oil exhibits
a characteristic of hazardous waste, in which case such burning
would be other thermal treatment of hazardous waste. If the used
-------
fci .ENTAL PROTECTION Ar CY 9495.1986(20)
Mr. Jod Mandel
Jenner & Block
One IBM Plaza
Chicaqo, IL 60611 AUG 2 2 !986
Dear Mr. Mandel:
I am writing in response to your letter requesting an inter-
pretation of EPA's proposed listing of used oil as a hazardous
waste that was published in the Federal Register on November 29,
1985. In particular, you ask whether the hydraulic devices that
your client manufactures would be considered as hazardous waste
by the mixture rule when these devices become contaminated with
oil during quality control testing conducted prior to their sale
and distribution.
As described in 40 CFR $261.3, the mixture rule applies only
to mixtures of solid waste and hazardous waste. These hydraulic
devices do not meet the definition of a solid waste (see 40 CFR
$261.2) because they are products that are manufactured for sale
and are not discarded or intended to be discarded. Thus, if used
oil were to be listed as a hazardous waste and subsequently "mixed"
with these hydraulic devices, the resulting mixture would not bo
a hazardous waste according to the mixture rule.
It must be noted that used oil drained from these hydraulic
devices would be a hazardous waste if the oil exhibits a hazardous
characteristic as described in 40 CPR SS261.21 - 261.24, or if
used oil is listed as a hazardous waste as proposed in the November
29 notice, unless this used oil is reused for its original purpose
(i.e., in testing hydraulic devices).
If you have any additional questions regarding the proposed
rules, you nay contact me at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus
Chief
-------
UNIT- STaiES ENViKONMENTAL PROTECTS AGENCY
9495.1986(21)
15 SEP 86
Mr. Fred Hurban
Cottman Transmissions
240 New York Drive
For*-. Washington, Pennsylvania 19034
Dear Mr. Hurban:
Per your telephone request of August 15, 1986, I am providing
written confirmation of the status of used oil-fired space headers
under the November 29, 1985, regulations for the burning of haz-
ardous waste and used oil fuel.
We sent a letter to Tom Kagi on February 4, 1986, (copy
enclosed) explaining the application of these rules to space
heaters. This application is the same regardless of the geographic
location of the facility or space heater. In that letter we
indicate that used oil could be burned in a space heater without
testing for toxic materials under the following conditions:
1. The used oil is oil that you generate by servicing
vehicles, or that you accept from "do-it-yourself"
oil changers (you may not burn oil that you receive
from another shop or from a used oil collector);
2. You have not mixed wastes such as solvents, with the
used oil;
3. The heater is designed to have a maximum capacity of
less than 0.5 million Btu per hour (rating is on heater
nameplate); and
4. The flue gases are vented to the outdoors (e.g., through
a chimney).
I hope this addresses your concerns. Please call me at (202)
475-6128 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Karen Walker
Environmental Scientist
Waste Combustion Section
-------
9495.1986(22)
15 SEP 86
Mr. Paul McFmddew
1045 Archer L*ne
Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446
tear Mr. McFadden:
I received your August 7 letter only late last week. Let me
summarize your largely correct interpretations of the current
Federal requirements for Industrial burners of used oil.
Hazardous waste (solvent) Mixing - Mixing any amount of a
listed hazardous waste (such as the spent solvents you name) into
a used oil creates a aixture that wet be managed as a hazardous
waste. The 1000 ppm halogen standard is simply the level at which
EPA will presume (until rebutted) that used oils «it» gresteo^
Lhen Iflftfl ppm 'nil mjmohaire been mixed with halogenated hazardous
waste. The presumption could be rebutted by demonstrating, for
example, that all halogens are inorganic. (If you are burning
oils on-site, it should be easy for you to prevent solvent contami-
nation. )
Burning hazardous waste Mixtures - Hazardous taste combustion
is more stringently regulated than used oil combustion (under the
November 29 final rules). Facilities burning hazardous waste for
energy recovery, however, are not regulated aa incinerators.
Hazardous wastes (including mixtures) can be burned only in
industrial boilers and furnaces. An on-site burner is subject
to Part 262 requirements for hazardous waste generators. The on-
site burner is also subject to notification ($266.35(a)), and
storage (§266.35(b)/$26X. 34) requirements. There may *ell be
additional requireaents in the future; however, these rules have
not yet even been proposed.
Burning used oils (on-specification) - For used oils not
nixed with hazardous waste, the regulations (f266.40(e)) define
two types of used oil fuelsi on-specification and off-specificatioa.
The combustiom of on-spec used oil is unregulated, however, there
are a few requirements for on-site burners to meet the exemption.
(I admit those may be a bit unclear from a reading of the actual
regulatory language.) First, the on-site burner must notify as
an on-site burners who first claims the oil meets specification.
Second, the burner must be able to demonstrate that the oil (as
burned) meets the specification. Lab analyses are certainly a
good way of making such a demonstration. Note that the combustion
itself is entirely unregulated by the used oil rules, that is,
the oil may be burned in any type of device). There are no plans
to regulate on-spec burning with future used oil rules.
-------
Burning used oils (off-specification) - 3urniri-j off-apaciftcation
used oil is regulated sore stringently (»266.44) than on-spec. :tost
importantly/ off-spec used oil :nay be burned only in industrial
devices, and only by facilities that have notified as "an ofr-spec
used oil burner." In the future, there r;iay be additional requirements
to TOet, such as, the use of air pollution control, or perhaps storage
requirements. These additional regulations, however, nave :iot yet
been proposed.
I hope you have by now received r.iy August 4 letter on tastinj
procedures and laos. If you have any other questions, please
contact ne.
Sincerely,
Hxr
Office of Solid
-------
ATTACHMENT I
Question 1; Why, when the "Banking of Lead Rights" was
promulgated on April 2, 1985, (21 days after the public comment
period closed for 40 CFR Parts 260, etc.) was there no mention,
reference, or acknowledgement of its existence 8 months later in
the November 29, 1985 Federal Register?
Response: Staff working on the final regulations published
on November 29, 1985, were totally unaware of the lead credits
program included in the April 2, 1985, "Banking of Lead Rights"
final regulation. During development of the November 29, 1985
regulations, our staff was working to resolve all of the issues
raised in public comments on the January 11, 1985, proposed
regulations on the burning of hazardous waste fuel and used oil
in boilers and industrial furnaces. Unfortunately they were
not knowledgeable in the matter of the lead credits program
first proposed in January 4, 1985 (50 PR 718). No commenters on
our proposed rules raised the issue of the effect of the lead
credits program on lead levels in used oil fuels.* Thus, certain
projections made by staff and published in the preamble to the
November 29, 1985 final rules have proven to be inaccurate.
Question 2; Why was Table 4 and the entire dissertation
surrounding it published in the November 29, 1985 Federal Register
when the EPA Staff knew that it was inaccurate and misleading?
Response; Table 4, which projects how much used oil will
meet various lead limits by May 1986, was derived without takinq
into account the lead credits. As explained above, the inaccurate
projections were due to a lack of knowledge by the staff writing
that document of the lead credit provisions, and was certainly
not a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. As shown in
Table 5, on the same Federal Register page as Table 4, EPA also
made projections of how much used oil would meet the entire'used
oil fuel specification, not just the lead specification, we
projected that by May 1986, only 46% of all used oil would meet
the used oil fuel specification without blending with virgin
fuel oil* This is because we expected other elements of the
specification, i.e., the limits for Arsenic, Cadmium, and Chromium
of 5, 2, and 10 ppm, respectively, to cause significant amounts
of used oil to be off-specification. The purpose of the specifi-
cation is to identify used oil fuel with high levels of toxic
contaminants compared to virgin fuel oil and to restrict the use
of such contaminated fuel to industrial burners. We never intimated
that any set percentage of used oil fuel must meet the specifica-
tion; in fact, as discussed above, we expected that most used
oil fuel would not meet the specification unless blended with
virgin fuel oil.
-------
Question 3; Why, when EPA readily admits in 49 CFR Part 80
that " the Agency estimates that about 9.1 billion grams would
be banked" and that " the Agency does not expect that these
regulations will have a significant adverse impact, if any, on
the public health or the environment", does the small percentage
of that lead (2.65%) flowing through the oil recycling industry
pose a health risk?
Response; The amounts of lead allowed in gasoline cannot be
directly compared to the amounts contained in used oil. First,
the Agency's regulations of 49 CFR Part 80 are designed to reduce
and perhaps eliminate the use of lead as a motor fuel additive
(50 FR 9386; March 7, 1985). EPA indicated that a national
health problem exists with regard to lead and that "... all
reasonable efforts should be taken to reduce lead exposure to
the population as rapidly as possible." (Id.) The Agency at
first concluded that the refining industry as a whole could
achieve a 0.1 grams per gallon limit by January 1, 1986 without
the allowance of lead credits. CPA became convinced, however,
that a more flexible but equally protective approach would be to
impose a limit less stringent than 0.1 grams per*gallon prior to
January 1, 1986 (i.e., 0.5 grams per gallon on July 1, 1985), to
impose the 0.1 limit on January 1, 1986, and. then allow lead
credits through 1987. The Agency reasoned that this accelerated
schedule could be combined with a lead credits program and achieve
the same lead reduction in 1985-1987 as imposing the 0.1 gram per
gallon limit on January 1, 1986, with no lead credits (50 FR
718-719; January 4, 1985). Therefore, EPA did not simply con-
clude, as your letter suggests, that 9.1 billion grams of lead
entering the environment would pose no problem. Rather, the
Agency concluded that we could achieve the most rapid reduction
through an accelerated phasedown schedule combined with a lead
credits program.
The used oil fuel regulations serve a dual purpose. First,
EPA concluded that under certain conditions the burning of used
oil in boilers could cause violations of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead; the 100 ppm lead limit prevents
these occurrences (50 PR 49184-49185; November 29, 1985). Further,
EPA considered whether the used oil fuel regulations should be
used as a supplement to the gasoline lead phasedown described
above to reduce overall lead exposures, i.e., to go beyond what
is necessary to prevent violations of the NAAQS and set an even
lower lead limit* (Id.) As the Agency indicated, due to new
health effects data on lead that may lead to a lowering of the
NAAQS and the latter consideration, we are considering whether
the 100 ppm limit should be lowered. (Id.) An important factor
in this determination will be the likely impacts of a lower limit
on the used oil recycling industry. Impacts on recycling will
not, however, take precedence over health-based considerations.
-------
Question 4; Why, when the National Ambient Quality Standard
for lead at a 75% emission rate is currently 300+ ppm, has a 100
ppm specification been imposed upon the oil recycling industry?
Response; The enclosures to your letter (Exhibits IV, V,
and VI) cite air modeling work performed for EPA in about 1980.
The results indicate that under some conditions an individual
burner can burn a fuel with over 100 ppm lead without exceeding
at groundlevel the lead NAAQS of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter.
As EPA explained when it proposed and promulgated the 100 ppm
limit, however, a number of factors must be considered besides
single burner air modeling. (This is discussed in detail at 50
PR 1698; January 11, 1985, and 50 FR 49184, November 29, 1985.)
0 Used oil sources can be clustered, i.e., multiple
sources can be located near one another, leading
to increased ambient pollutant levels;
0 In urban areas, it is not unusual to have exposed
individuals at elevated locations (e.g., in apart-
ment houses) where pollutant levels ma/ be higher;
0 Many areas already have lead in the air so used
oil burners, while emitting only a fraction of the
NAAQS, could add to the ambient levels and cause an
exceedence of the NAAQS; and
0 The current NAAQS is under review by EPA. New health
effects data indicate that lead is even more toxic
than earlier studies indicated; and the NAAQS may
therefore be lowered from the current 1.5 micrograms
per cubic meter.
In summary, the 100 ppm lead limit for used oil is necessary
to prevent violations of the NAAQS. In fact, the original study
performed for EPA in 1980 recommended a lead specification for
used oil of 50 ppm. Used Oil Burned as a Fuel, Volume I, Recon
Systems, Inc. and ETA Engineering, Inc., 1980 (p. 1-8).
Question 5: Why has EPA so clearly discriminated against
the oil recycling industry (as opposed to the major producers
and importers of leaded gasoline) to the obvious detriment of
the environment?
Response: EPA has not discriminated against used oil
recyclers while favoring producers and importers of leaded gaso-
line. EPA has moved swiftly to reduce lead in gasoline and we
may in the future prohibit lead as a gasoline additive. Used oil
recyclers may market used oil containing any amount of lead to
any industrial burner. We have imposed only minimal requirements
-------
on the marketing and burning of used oil high in lead content to
track the movement of a fuel which is substantially different
from virgin fuel oil (e.g., virgin fuel oil rarely contains more
than 1 ppm of lead), and which may pose a hazard when not burned
in the proper device. This is entirely consistent with RCRA
Section 3014, which requires EPA to regulate used oil recycling
practices that potentially could harm human health or the environ-
ment .
-------
UNITED STATES EHVIkUHMtN i ML. , »v e*. , ION AGENCY
9495.1986(28)
NQV 12 !386
Honorable Charles W. Stenholm
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Stenholmi
Thank you for your October 14, 1986, letter regarding
the 100 ppm lead specification. This specification was
developed to protect human health and the environment. The
fact that we did not consider lead banking had no effect on
our decision. The only effect of lead banking is to modestly
increase our estimates of the amount of used oil that would
be off-specification.
With regard to your three suggestions, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is drafting
a proposed response to the petitions and expects to publish
it in the Federal Register before the end of the year. (EPA
procedural rules require the Agency to propose action on a
petiton for rulenaking beore taking final action. 40 C.F.R.
5260.20(c).)
Second, you suggest that EPA defer implementation of the
100 ppm lead specification but at the sane tine retain the
prohibition on burning off-specification used oil in non-
industrial boilers. This is virtually what the present regu-
lations provide. All burners but non-industrial sources may
burn off-specification oil provided they notify EPA and
their supplier that they are an industrail source. You may
be asking that EPA repeal these administrative requirements.
Our present thinking is that these administrative provisions
are needed if EPA is to be able to enforce the prohibition
against burning contaminated used oil in non-industrial
boilers, since some means are needed to verify independently
that processors are not selling contaminated oil to prohibited
sources. Further, these requirements have no other legal
significance. We have taken, and are continuing to take
active steps to inform the public of the minimal legal signi-
ficance of this one-time notification.
-------
Finally, with regard to your last point as stated above, the
pecification is, and must be, based on human health and the
environment.
I appreciate your continued interest in this area and will
continue to inform you of our activities.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
PROTECTION AGENCY 9495.1986(30)
NOV24
Ms. Kathryn O'Connor Gunkel
Director of Environmental
and Safety Operations
P.O. Box 517
Riverdale, Maryland 20737-9981
Dear Ms. Gunkelt
Thank you for your October 10, 1986, letter regarding the
relationship between "permit-by-rule" and the proposed used
oil special management standards for burners.
The major point you raised in your letter is the impli-
cation of filing the burner notification form 8700-12. Our
final standards will apply only to facilities burning off-spe-
cification used oil as of the effective date of the final rule
(which is usually six months after the final rule is published
in the Federal Register). Filing the notification form now
would not subject your members to that final standard.
Piling also will not subject your members to the corrective
action requirements in Section 3004(u). Form 8700-12 is not
a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit appli-
cation or the equivalent, and again it does not trigger
compliance with Section 3004(u). You specifically asked if
used oil recyclers will need permits, and if so how would
they apply for such permits. We have not yet resolved this
issue.
You also asked why, when we generally avoid perrait-by-
rule in the RCRA program, did we propose a permit-by-mle
for used oil recyclers? The used oil permit was established
by Congress for recycled oil identified as a listed or hazar-
dous waste in RCRA Section 3014(d). The permitting is a
statutory requirement.
We are also considering what types of regulations should
apply to recycled oil burners. For example, we are currently
debating whether used oil burners should be regulated like
other recyclers or if we should apply special, less stringent,
requirements. Our current thinking is that it may be appro-
priate to have different standards for processors and re-refiners,
-------
Let me assure you that EPA believes that off-specification
used oil can be burned safely. When emissions are properly
controlled, burning is an environmentally desirable method of
recycling used oil. We will consider the issues you raised when
developing our final rule. I would be pleased to meet with you
on these and any other concerns you may have.
I have addressed the seven specific questions you asked in
the enclosure. If I can be of any further assistance, please
let me know.
Sincerely,
V Jack If. Ue6raw
r.
Winston Porter
issistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
Answers to Questions 1-7
1. Under the November 29, L985 proposal, facilities
burning off-specification used oil fuel on the effective
date of the final rule would be eligible for a permit-by-rule.
Submission of the notification form 8700-12 would not trigger
issuance of a permit. Under the proposed used oil management
standards, facilities in compliance with all of the applicable
requirements would be deemed, without any action on their
part, to have a RCRA permit. [See 50 FR 49240] Submitting
notification information is only one requirement; compliance
with proposed 40 CFR 266.43, 266.44, and 270.60(d)(2) would
be necessary to obtain the permit-by-rule. This approach to
permitting used-oil recyclers is actually specified in
RCRA Section 3014(d); Congress instituted such a system to
encourage facility permitting. (See H.R. Rep. No. 98-198,
98th Cong., 1st Session, at 69 (1983).] Under this system,
there is no written permit per se. In fact, EPA would not
be granting a permit at all. Congress specified in RCRA
Section 3014(d) that a used-oil recycler who complies with
all applicable requirements receives a permit.
*
With respect to the relationship in the proposed rule
between the permit-by-rule and corrective action, you should
note that in the November 29, 1985, Federal Register, we
proposed that used oil recyclers who qualifed for the permit-
by-rule were not subject to the corrective action requirements
in Section 3004(u) unless EPA revoked the permit-by-rule based
on specified criteria. [See 50 FR 49241]
We have not determined what management standards will
apply for used oil burners. We have concluded that the full
set of requirements proposed on November 29, 1985, is probably
too stringent. We will consider whether a reduced set of
standards might be adequate for burners. We also have decided
not to list recycled oil aa a hazardous waste. This may
render the perrait-byrule provisions of the November 29,
1985, proposal moot because facilities managing nonhazardous
waste have not in the past been subject to EPA permitting.
It should be noted, however, that EPA can require permitting
for used-oil recyclers even without a hazardous waste
listing. [See H.R. Rep. No. 98-198, 98th Cong., 1st Sess.,
at 69 (1983).] Whether we do require some form of permitting
will depend upon the extent of Agency oversight needed to
implement the management standards issued for burners.
These decisions are still several months away.
2. You are correct in stating that under the proposal,
a facility is deemed to have a RCRA permit if it complies
with all applicable requirements. It is the responsibility
of the owner or operator of the facility to comply with the
requirements. EPA can, of course, conduct facility inspections
to ensure compliance.
-------
-2-
Submittal of form number 8700-12 has little to do with
the facility permitting. Submittal of notification informa-
tion is one requirement that a facility would have to meet
whether or not a permit is required by the final rule. EPA
form 8700-12 is not a permit application. This issue was
discussed in the November 29, 1985, proposal [See 50 FR 49243].
Under the proposal, those owners or operators who were not
in compliance with applicable requirements, or who were not
sure whether they were in compliance, would have been required
to submit a special notice, separate from the notification,
to EPA indicating their desire to obtain interim status.
Those owners and operators who were sure of their compliance
would not have to submit an application.
Let me clarify one point which may be confusing. In the
proposed rule we stated that a notifying facility is afforded
the option of indicating that the information submitted on
form 8700-12 could be used to fulfill the permit application
requirements of RCRA Section 3005(e)(i)(c). A facility might
have wished to take this course because eligibility for the
proposed permit-by-rule turned on a facility being in
compliance on the rule's effective date with applicable
regulations. A facility not in compliance or unsure whether
it was in compliance was thus afforded the opportunity to_
have legal authorization to operate [See 50 F_R 49240].
Facilities electing to take this action were not thereby
subject to Section 3004{u) corrective action [See 50 F_R
40241].
The "two year" inspection schedule applies to facilities
permitted by EPA under RCRA Section 3005. Since, under the
proposed rule, most used oil recyclers would be permitted under
RCRA Section 3014(d), the schedule would not apply.
3. As discussed in response #1, under the proposal,
facilities who were eligible for the permit-by-rule would
not have been subject to RCRA Section 3004(u). [See 50 FR
49240.] The only case where such a facility would have been
required to take corrective action measures is when EPA
revoked the permit-by-rule, [see 50 FR 49241.] See proposed
§270.60(d)(3) for the criteria under which a permit-by-rule
could be revoked. EPA has not determined whether these, or
similar* requirements will ultimately be applied to used
oil burners.
4. As explained above, the used oil recycling permit
would not actually be issued by EPA. Rather, the permit is
a special authorization granted by Congress in RCRA Section
3014(d) for used oil recyclers to be exempt from normal RCRA
permitting procedures, provided they comply with all applicable
requirements.
-------
-3-
5. As explained above, submittal of EPA form number
8700-12 has nothing to do with corrective action requirements.
Further, the timing of the notification was set by Congress
in RCRA Section 3010(a); notification was required by February
1986.
6. As explained above, the burner notification require-
ment is just that, nothing more. It simply does not expose
burners to the types of consequences suggested in your
questions.
7. At present, burners of off-specification used oil,
except for the notification and recordkeeping provisions of
40 CFR §266.44, are subject to the same requirements as
burners of virgin fuel oil. The time that management standards
are issued in final form for used oil burners is appropriate
time for each facility owner or operator to make his own
decision on whether or not to continue burning used oil
fuel. As a general matter, RCRA regulations become effective
six months following promulgation, so burners will have time
to assess any new requirements.
-------
9495.1987(01)
20 JAN 87
Mr. Joseph P. Chu, Assistant Director
Plant Environment
Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
30400 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 48090-9015
Dear Mr. Chut
This is in response to your letter of December 19, 1986,
concerning the used oil notification requirements of
40 CFR Part 266, Subpart E. You are correct in pointing out
that the regulations themselves do not require burners of
specification used oil fuel to notify EPA. This is, however,
the result of a drafting oversight. Question VI.7. on the
notification form (EPA Form 8700-12) is meant to apply to all
persons who first claim that their used oil fuel meets the
specification, including generators who bura their own used
oil on-site. See the preamble of the November 29, 1985,
Federal Register (50 FR 49195), which states:
The following persons must notify either EPA
or an authorized state to identify their
waste-as-fuel activities ... (3) marketers
(or burners) who first claim used oil fueT
meets the specification and so is exempt
from subsequent regulation.[Emphasis added.]
We recognize that the rules themselves should be clarified
on this point. In the future, we will be issuing a correction
notice in the Federal Register to clarify this and certain other
ambiguities in the rules issued on November 29, 1985.
Finally, the last point you raised was that EPA Form 8700-12
is not appropriate for used oil because it is not necessarily a
hazardous waste. EPA never limited the notification requirement
to used oil that is hazardous waste, so the requirement does
apply. If you wish, however, you may notify EPA on the enclosed
form that we have recentlv developed for used oil handlers. (It
nakes no Million of "hazardous waste.") Either th« nclosvd
fora, EPA For* 8700-12, or a letter with all required informa-
tion would b« equally acceptable ways for you to notify.
Sincerely,
Hard a E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9495.1987(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAR 61987 OFF.CEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMEBGENCr BESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Statues of Automotive Fluids
/^~\ \ '
FROM: Marcia E. Williams"/
Director, OSW /
/
TO: Michael J. Sanderson
Chief, RCRA Branch
EPA Region VII
This is to provide guidance on the questions raised in your
February 19, 1987 memo. First, no automotive fluids have been
listed as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA; therefore, the
question of whether these fluids are subject to the hazardous waste
regulations depends on whether the fluid in question exhibits one
or more of the RCRA hazardous waste characteristics. Although
we do not have studies in this area, we have been informed that
some brake fluids and automatic transmission fluids are ignitable
under 40 CFR §261.21. Used crankcase oils may also be ignitable
(because small amounts of gasoline are added during or after use),
and may exhibit E.P. toxicity for lead.
However, for those automotive fluids that are used oils and
are recycled, the hazardous waste regulations would not currently
apply, even if the fluid exhibits a characteristic; rather all
used oils that are recycled are subject to 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart E
(See 40 CFR §261.6 (a) (2) (iii) . ) Currently, Part 266, Subpart E
only regulates the recycling of used oil as fuel. All other recyc-
ling methods are exempt from regulation. Those automotive fluids
that are either not a used oil, or are used oil that is disposed
of, are subject to the hazardous waste regulations if they exhibit
one or more of the characteristics. Currently, we define "used oil
in §266. 40 (b) very broadly. Brake fluid, power steering fluid,
and automatic transmission fluid would all be considered used oils.
On the other hand, antifreeze and windshield washer fluid, because
they are not "oils" as the term is commonly used, would not be
used oils.
"
-------
-2-
As a practical matter, our understanding is that brake,
steering, and transmission fluids are typically mixed with crank-
case oils and recycled. Therefore, the hazardous waste characteris-
tics are not relevant and Part 266, Subpart E applies if the oils
are recycled as fuel. Used anti-freeze is not a used oil and is
not likely to exhibit any of the hazardous waste charateristics;
consequently, it may be disposed of as a solid waste in Subtitle D
facilities. Similarly, windshield washer fluid is not used oil,
and is not likely to exhibit a characteristic; thus, it may also
be disposed of as solid waste.
Please feel free to call Mr. Mike Petruska at 8-382-7737 if
you have and further questions.
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs (EPA Regions I-IV and VII-X)
-------
UNITED TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION y NCY 9495.1987(05)
MAR 2 6 1987
Mr. Joseph P. Chu
Assistant Director
Plant Environment
Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
30400 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 48090-9015
Dear Mr. Chu:
Thank you for your response to our January 20, 1987, letter
with regard to the notification requirement for specification
used oil burners (40 CFR Part 266, Subpart E). Your most recent
letter of February 12, 1987, has prompted us to reconsider our
position and the regulatory notification requirement.
You had previously written us on December 19, 1986, in
reference to the above subject. Our response at that time
emphasized the November 29, 1985, Federal Register preamble
(50 PR 49195). The preamble stated that burners who first
claimed that used oil fuel meets the specification which allows
it to be exempt from regulation must provide EPA a one-time
notification of their UM of such oil. However, burners who
receive used oil from a marketer who claims the oil meets the
specification (and who has notified EPA as marketers), are not
subject to the notification requirement.
In your particular situation, your facilities generate and
burn on-site their own used oil that they claim meets the speci-
fication. Sine* no marketer is involved, and your facilities
burn used oil directly, the preamble identified a requirement
for you to provide notification. In our previous letter to
you, we advised that you should provide notification, and that
a technical corrections notice to this regulation was being
prepared to clarify this and other issues raised since the
November 29, 1985, Federal Register publication.
-------
You correctly noted, in your most recent letter, that our
January 26, 1987, Federal Register notice (52 FR 2695, 2698)
provided comments referencing the 11/29/85 Federal Register,
which exempted burners of specification used oil from the notifi-
cation requirements. This exemption was provided in the context
that the marketer who distributed the used oil (to the burner)
had already first claimed (via the required notification for
marketers) that their used oil met the burning specification.
We recognize that you have raised a valid concern with
respect to on-site specification used oil generators who are also
burners. This circumstance was not specifically addressed in the
original regulations. Upon further evaluation* we now want to
clarify that the notification requirement is not appropriate for
generators who burn their own specification ueed oil on-site.
The only intent of the (burner) notification requirement is
to allow blenders who receive off-specification ueed oil from
marketers to provide notice that they only burn on-specification
used oil.
The previously mentioned technical correction notice, to
be published soon in the Federal Register (hopefully, mid-April);
will clarify this natter. We thank you for bringing this circum-
stance to our attention. Tho Agency supports the use of specifica-
tion used oil for burning as if it were virgin oil. Thus, we will
not require notification from generators who burn specification
used oil on-site.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES tHV\fiOH**Off L PROfflTlON AGENf* 9495.1987(06)
APR 17 1967
Mr. R. F. Gebhardt, Manager
Environmental and Manufacture
Services
Lehiqh Portland Cement Company
71d Hamilton Mall
Allentown, PA 18105-1882
Dear Mr. Gebhardt:
Thank you for your March 30, 1987, letter regarding used oil
recycling. In your letter, you implied that, on November 18, 1986,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would
not issue regulations for used oil destined for recycling and stated
tnat such a decision was a poor one. Let me assure you that this
is not the case.
EPA's November 18, 1986, decision (51 FR 41900) was that
recycled oil would not be listed as a hazardous waste. It did not
constitute a decision that used oil would not be regulated. Rather,
as explained in that notice, CPA under authority of Section 3014 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) will issue recycled
used oil management standards and combustion controls. The schedule
for these activities was included in the Federal Register notice
(enclosed).
In our strategy to control used oil (Section V, 51 FR 41900),
EPA recognizes as you have expressed in your letter that "improper
recycling of used oil can pose substantial environmental hazard."
However, we believe it is necessary to conduct additional studies
before issuing the recycled oil management and burning standards.
We must ensure that the standards do not have the unintended effect
of causing Improper disposal of used oil to increase, tnus negating
the positive benefits of the standards.
Please note that the Agency is currently regulating used oil
recycling and disposal under certain conditions. For instance, used
oil recycling becomes subject to regulation when used oil is mixed
with hazardous wast* or PCBs. Such mixtures must be managed
according to regulations tor hazardous waste and/or PCB-containing
substances. Additionally, EPA regulations (50 FR 49064, November 29
1985) require restricted burning environments (Industrial boilers
and burners 1 fnr nf f-«n«r \ f < f»f i on n«art r>i 1
-------
Thank you very much for your interest in the used oil
regulations. If you have any questions regarding our progress,
please contact Robert Dellinger of my staff at (202) 382-
7917, who will be happy to discuss this matter more fully.
We are working very hard at developing regulations that
protect human health and the environment while encouraging
the recycling of used oil. As explained above, both recycled
used oil and used oil bound for disposal will be addressed in
future rulemaking activities.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9495.1988(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 2 2 1988
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Kathleen M. Blair, Director
Consumer Information Center
2402 Daniels Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53704
Dear Ms. Blair:
Thank you for your August 23, 1988, letter inviting the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review "Specification
No. PFS-983 Test, Inspection and Certification Criteria for
Atomizer Multi-Oil Fueled Heaters."
In 1985, EPA issued a final rule that established a
specification for used oil fuel. Used oil that meets this fuel
specification can be burned for energy recovery without EPA
restrictions, in any device. This rule restricted the burning of
"off-spec" used oil fuel to certain devices (see 40 CFR
$266.4Kb)). One of these devices is a space heater (1) that
burns only used oil that the owner or operator generates or used
oil received from do-it-yourself oil changers who generate used
oil as household waste; (2) that is designed to have a maximum
capacity of 0.5 million BTUs per hour; and (3) that vents
combustion gases to the outdoor air.
Although EPA has not developed more specific standards for
space heaters, we are concerned about the risks posed by
improperly maintained or operated space heaters (and other
devices burning off-spec used oil fuel). We also recognize that
certain types of space heaters may pose greater risks than
others. This final rule was intended to address the greatest
risks posed by uncontrolled burning of used oil fuel.
We plan to develop technical standards for burners of
off-spec used oil fuel sometime in the future. At that time, we
will further evaluate regulatory options to address risks posed
by space heaters. When we do propose a rulemaking on this
subject, it will appear in the Federal Register and will allow
for public comment.
-------
-2-
with regard to your suggested technical specifications for
used oil-fired,"automation type, space heaters, we prefer not to
comment on the document for two reasons: (1) we do not have the
resources to comment on documents prepared by independent firms,
and (2) we do not wish to imply any endorsement of one type of
space heater (i.e., atomization type) over another.
If you have any questions, or would like to discuss the used
oil regulations in more detail, please contact David Tomten of my
staff at (202) 382-2550.
Sincerely,
Jj Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9495.1989(01)
MAT 15 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interpretation of Subpart E Used Oil
Burned for Energy Recovery (S266.40(c))
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS-300)
TO: Lloyd Guerci, Acting Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region 8
This is in response to Robert Duprey's April 12, 1989,
memorandum requesting an interpretation of rules pertaining to
used oil that is to be burned for energy recovery and the
application of the Agency's enforcement mechanism the
rebuttable presumption to determine when mixing with hazardous
waste has occurred. Your memorandum discusses the practice by
coal companies in Region 8 of spraying coal with used oil to
suppress coal dust and to increase BTU value. The coal is then
marketed to a burner by the coal company or through another
marketer.
You asked whether- any person other than the generator of the
used oil is eligible to rebut the presumption that the oil was
mixed with hazardous waste when the used oil contains in excess
of 1000 ppm total halogens. The rebuttal test is not limited to
the generator;of tile used oil. Any person in possession of used
oil contatiBpIr ore- than 1000 ppm total halogens must be able to
provide doqBMBtation to support a rebuttal if the oil is not
managed as^HBardous waste.
You also asked if the rebuttable presumption was applicable
in the situation you described since the used oil was being
applied to the coal and was not itself being marketed directly as
a fuel. The used oil fuel and hazardous waste fuel regulations
apply to used oil and hazardous waste that is burned in boilers
or industrial furnaces. The regulations apply irrespective of
-------
- 2 -
whether the used oil or hazardous waste is mixed with other fuels
or waste before use as a fuel. If used oil containing more than
1000 ppm total halogens is mixed with coal and the presumption of
mixing with hazardous waste cannot be rebutted, then the
coal/used oil mixture is hazardous waste fuel and is subject to
the hazardous waste fuel regulations under 40 CFR Part 266,
Subpart D.
Finally, you mentioned in your memorandum that RCRA Hotline
personnel told you that if the used oil is sufficiently diluted
after it is sprayed on the coal, such that a representative
sample would test under the 1000 ppm halogens level, the
"oil-treated coal" could then be burned in any industrial boiler
or furnace. This answer is partly correct the oil-treated
coal may be burned in an industrial (or utility) boiler or an
industrial furnace. However, the oil-treated coal would be
subject to regulation as hazardous waste fuel even if the mixture
contains less than 1000 ppm total halogens. This is because the
1000 ppm halogen test for used oil identifies used oil that is
presumed to be mixed with spent halogenated solvents listed as
hazardous waste numbers F001 and F002. Thus, used oil containing
more than 1000 ppm halogens is subject to regulation under the
mixture rule as those listed spent solvents. When this used oil
is mixed with coal, the mixture also is subject to regulation as
those listed solvents.
The mixtures, like any hazardous waste, may be burned in
industrial or utility boilers and industrial furnaces under the
regulations in Subpart 0 of 40 CFR Part 266 (e.g., transportation
and storage is fully regulated, and standards for burners are
under development). Part of the logic for this position is that
the 1000 ppm halogen limit is not a health-based concentration
"characteristic." Rather, it is based on data that indicated
that used oil was mixed with significant levels of halogenated
solvents when halogen levels exceeded 1000 ppm. Thus, used oil
with more than 1000 ppm halogens cannot be diluted by mixing with
other materials to make the mixture nonhazardous. Used oil with
more than 1000 ppm halogens is subject to regulation like any
other listed hazardous waste.
If you have any further questions on this issue, you may call
Angela Wilkes (382-7934) of my staff.
-------
9495.1989(02)
UNfTEETSTATES'EHVnnWfEfraL' PROfTCCTTONAGEKer
OCT | 7 B99
Mr. James A. Stevens
1016 Brook Street
Kingsport, Tennessee 37660
Dear Mr. Stevens:
Thank you for your letter from August 1989 concerning used
or waste oil.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not require a
burner of used oil to oJDtain a permit for this activity. There
are, however, some restrictions regarding the burning of used
oil.
The federal regulations, specifically 40 CFR Part 266,
Subpart E, state that off-specification used oil may be burned in
industrial furnaces and boilers, including used oil-fired space
heaters. If off-specification used oil is burned in space
heaters, however, it must be from household do-it-yourself oil
changers or be generated by the burner of used oil itself. Also,
the space heater must be designated to have a maximum capacity of
0.5 million BTU per hour or less and the gases/emissions
generated must be vented to the outside air. If an individual
has a supply of on-specification used oil, there are no
restrictions on the type of unit in which it is burned. However,
the burner of on-specification used oil must analyze or use other
information to show that the oil meets the specifications, and
must comply with recordJceeping requirements.
The definitions of on-specification used oil and off-
specification used oil are found in 40 CFR Section 266.40(e).
Both "en-specification" and "off-specification" used oils can be
burned in space heaters; however, you must follow the
requirements for the design of the space heater when burning
"off-specification" used oil.
For more information on federal regulations concerning used
oil (under RCRA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) you
may contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800-424-9346.
COMCOMtMCM
kJ - .,!.__--
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
May 1 994
9495.1994(01)
RCRA
1. Energy Recovery On-Site Constitutes
Reuse for the Generator Processing
Exemption
A facility generates off-specification used
oil that the used oil generator wants to burn
on-site for energy recovery. The used oil
generator filters the off-specification used oil
in order to remove impurities. After filtering
the used oil, the generator burns it in an on-
site industrial furnace. Does the filtering
activity meet the definition of processing in
§279.1 and, therefore, subject the generator to
ihe used oil processor standards in 40 CFR
Pari279,SubpanF?
While filtering can meet the definition of
processing, used oil generators may filter,
clean, or otherwise recondition their own used
oil on-site for reuse on-site without meeting
the processor requirements (59 FR 10560;
Starch 4, 1994; §279.20(b)(2)(ii)(A)). The
Agency believes that on-site energy recovery
constitutes reuse for purposes of this provision.
If, on the other hand, the generator filters the
used oil for subsequent burning off-site, the
generator would be subject to the processor
requirements in Pan 279, Subpan F.
Under the generator processing exemptions
in §279.20(b), EPA allows on-site but not off-
site burning of used oil generated from on-site
activities. This approach best enables the
Agency to encourage beneficial on-site reuse
and recycling activities that pose limited risks.
At the same nme, the Agency ensures that
activities undertaken primarily to make used
oil amenable for shipment to an off-site
burner are regulated under the more stringent
processor standards (59 FR 10556; March 4,
1994).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
DIVIDER PAGE
-------
9496 RECYCLABLE
MATERIALS USED FOR
PRECIOUS METAL
RECOVERY
Part 266 Subpart F
A.T. Kearney 1/3590/5 cr
-------
9497 - SPENT
LEAD-ACID
BATTERIES BEING
RECLAIMED
Part 266 Subpart G
ATKl/l 104/51 kp
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 204*0
FE3 6 1986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WATT! AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Michael L. Sappington
Lake Engineering and Development, Inc.
6000 Lake Forrest Drive
Suite 350
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Dear Mr. Sappington:
The Administrator has asked that I respond to your letter
dated January 3, 1986, regarding your concern with the Agency's
recycle/reuse regulations and its impact on the recycling of
spent lead-acid batteries. You state in your letter that
the Agency's January 4, 1985, recycling rules will make it
very difficult to legally reclaim these batteries. Part of
your concern is the unavailability of environmental impairment
liability insurance. The end result, you believe, will be
the disposal of 50 million gallons of highly corrosive, acid
and 1.3 billion pounds of lead. Thus, you are requesting
that EPA reconsider its position (i.e., whether to regulate
the battery components generated from breaking and separation
operations) and will be submitting a petition to address
this matter.
We are very sympathetic to your problem. We agree with
you that secondary lead smelters do provide a valuable
environmental service. However, the Agency's recycle/reuse
rules were promulgated to ensure that any storage (or
transportation) of the battery components is conducted in an
environmentally sound manner. As you state in you letter,
the management of these materials has created problems in
the past. Thus, all we wish is to ensure that the management
of these materials (in the future) will be conducted in a
proper manner. Therefore, it will be important that your
petition address all the criteria in S260.31(c) as completely
as possible? in particular, it will be necessary for you to
address the manner that these battery components are handled
(in order to minimise loss of the toxic contaminants) since
this has been a particular concern of several of our Regional
offices. To this end, I plan to circulate your petition to
our Regions for their comment. We look forward to receiving
your petition.
-------
EPA recognizes that, during the past year, the insurance
industry has substantially curtailed the writing of new
environmental liability policies. The Agency worked with
the House of Representatives, at their request, on H.R.
3917. This Bill provided some relief for land disposal
facilities subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) from the requirement to certify compliance with
liability requirements by November 8, 1985, if the facility
was in compliance with ground water monitoring requirements
and had submitted a Part B permit application by that date.
The Agency worked with the Senate staff on their review of
the H.R. 3917 but the Senate has not yet taken any action on
that or any other similar legislation.
with regard to your concern of the unavailability of
liability insurance, I have enclosed a list of insurance
companies who may be willing to write environmental impairment
liability insurance. The Agency contacted all insurance
companies known to have been involved in this market. The
list includes those who were willing to be on a list of
potential suppliers of environmental impairment liability
coverage.
Please feel free to write me if you have any further
questions.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
9497.1986(01a)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 86
5. Hazardous Waste Export Rule
A generator of spent lead-acid batteries will send the batteries to
Taiwan for reclamation. The batteries exhibit the characteristic oE
EP toxi.city, as defined in §261.24 for lead contamination. What
RCRA regulations pertaining to export notification and/or record-
keeping is the generator subject to currently? Wiat regulations
would the generator be subject to under the hazardous waste export
regulations as proposed in the March 13, 1986 Federal Register
(51 FR 8744)?
Section 266.80 of the current RCRA regulations (applicable to
reclaimed spent lead-acid batteries) states that "[plersons who
generate, transport, or collect spent batteries...but do not
reclaim them are not subject to regulation under Parts 262
through 266..." "Report notification reguirements are presently
found in §262.50 and generator recordkeeping requirements are
in S262.40. Since this generator is exempt form Part 262, he
is then not subject to the export notification or recordkeeping
requirements.
The hazardous waste export regulations, as proposed, would
not alter the current exemption in S266.80. However, EPA
anticipates making a final regulatory determination on this
issue and all other hazardous waste export regulations in late
July 1986.
Source: Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217
Wsndy Grieder (202) 382-4888
Research: Margaret Kneller
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
3497.
JUL
1986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable David O'B. Martin
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for your June 16, 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent, Mr. Roland A. Clement. Mr. Clement expressed
concern about the disposal of lead-acid batteries.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shares
Mr. Clement's concerns regarding the improper disposal of
spent lead-acid batteries. These batteries are a hazardous
waste, therefore, their disposal is controlled under Federal
law. The only exception to this is the direct disposal of
batteries by an individual consumer. Federal law specifically
exempts such household waste from hazardous waste regulations.
The Agency does regulate the storage of batteries prior
to being reclaimed, i.e., battery crackers, smelting and/or
refining operators. However, the Agency does not regulate
the storage, generation or transportation of recycled batteries
by any other persons. We have adopted this regulatory
approach in order to provide a balance between protecting
human health and the environment and encouraging the recycling
of these batteries.
The EPA has not imposed a reguirement that recycled or
used batteries be collected at established points and a fee
paid for their management* If this reauirement has been
imposed, it is either a State or local rule and you, therefore,
should contact the State Department of Environmental Conser-
vation (DEC) for details on this particular requirement.
We have developed a regulatory program to encourage the
recycling of lead-acid batteries by generators. Please feel
free to write me if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
// Jack W. Mo6r«>i
Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
9497.1987(01)
12 1967
Honorable Jesse Helms
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Helms:
Thank you for your January 13, 1987, letter regarding
Mr. W. R. Helms' concern about the regulations the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has issued regarding the reprocessing
of batteries and the transportation and the export of these
batteries.
I want to assure you that EPA carefully considered its
approach before regulating industries such as spent batteries
recycling. We are convinced that regulation of these recycled
materials is necessary to adequately protect human health
and the environment. Waste destined for recycling can present
the same potential for harm as wastes destined for treatment
"and disposal; that is, the risks associated with transporting
and storing wastes is unlikely to vary depending on whether
they are ultimately recycled, treated, or disposed. In the
past, facilities' recycled hazardous wastes have caused
serious health and environmental problems. In fact, recycling
operations, including a number of battery reclaimers, account
for some of the most serious environmental damage incidents.
The Agency has developed special standards for spent
lead acid batteries that are reclaimed to minimize the regu-
lations' ispact. In particular, only the person who reclaims
the battery is subject to regulation and only the storage
activity prior to recycling is regulated. Therefore, even
though we regulate these materials, we have designed our regu-
lations to have the least adverse impact on the regulated
community while still meeting our statutory mandate of pro-
tecting human health and the environment.
EPA also has recently promulgated regulations for the
export of hazardous waste. (See enclosed August 8, 1986,
PR.) These regulations were required by Section 3017 of
-------
That provision mandated that EPA finalize regulations prohi-
biting hazardous waste exports, unlessi (1) the person exporting
the waste has provided notification to the Administrator of
EPA; (2) the government of the receiving country has consented
to accept the waste; (3) a copy of the receiving country's
written consent is attached to the manifest which accompanies
the waste shipment; and (4) the shipment conforms to the
terms of the foreign country's consent.
In developing the export rules, EPA determined that a
hazardous waste which poses risks domestically would pose
equivalent threats in international shipments (this includes
spent lead acid batteries).
Although EPA recommends that exporters notify the Agency
at least 60 days in advance of an intended shipment, we
anticipate that the processing of notifications and written
consents can be accomplished in less time. Iftua, we expect
that exporters will not typically be subject to the require-
ments under 40 CFR Part 262 which require generators who
store for more than 90 days on-site to obtain a storage
permit.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
/J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO I tCTION AGENCY
9497.1987(02)
'91987
Honorable Ron Marlenee
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Marlenee:
Thank you for your January 23, 1987, letter regarding
the regulations the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has issued regarding the reprocessing of batteries.
I want to assure you that EPA carefully considered its
approach before regulating industries such as spent batteries
recycling. We are convinced that regulation of these recycled
materials is necessary to adequately protect human health
and the environment. Waste destined for recycling can present
the sane potential for harm as wastes destined for treatment
and disposal; that is, the risks associated with transporting
and storing wastes is unlikely to vary depending on whether
they are ultimately recycled, treated, or disposed. In the
past, facilities' recycled hazardous wastes have caused
serious health and environmental problems. In fact, recycling
operations, including a number of battery reclaimers, account
for some of the most serious environmental damage incidents.
The Agency has developed special standards for spent
lead acid batteries that are reclaimed to minimi re the regu-
lations' impact. In particular, only the person who reclaims
the battery is subject to regulation and only the storage
activity prior to recycling is regulated. Therefore, even
though we- regulate these materials, we have designed our regu-
lations to have the least adverse impact on the regulated
community while still meeting our statutory mandate of pro-
tecting human health and the environment.
As is also correctly noted in your consitituent's letter,
EPA also has recently promulgated regulations for the export
of hazardous waste. (See enclosed August 8, 1986, PR.)
These regulations were required by Section 3017 of the
-------
provision mandated that EPA finalize regulations prohibiting
hazardous waste exports, unlessi (1) the person exporting
the waste has provided notification to the Administrator of
EPA; (2) the government of the receiving country has consented
to accept the waste; (3) a copy of the receiving country's
written consent is attached to the manifest which accompanies
the waste shipment; and (4) the shipment conforms to the
terras of the foreign country's consent.
In developing the export rules, EPA determined that a
hazardous waste which poses risks domestically would pose
equivalent threats in international shipments (this includes
spent lead acid batteries).
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9497.1987(03)
APR I 7 ;o
Honorable Joseph M. Gaydo*
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Gaydosi
Thank you for your March 17, 1987, letter regarding
your constituent's, Mr. George W. Burrows, concerns about
the reprocessing of batteries.
First, I want you to know that the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) agrees with you that the iaproper management
of spent lead-acid batteries can present a hazard. Thus, as
part of its hazardous waste regulation, the Agency regulates
the Materials when disposed of and when sent for recycling.
In particular, we agree that regulation of these recycled
materials is necessary to adequately protect human health
and the environaent. Waste destined for recycling can present
the sane potential for harm as wastes destined for treatment
and disposal; that is, the risks associated with transporting
and storing wastes is unlikely to vary depending on whether
they are ultimately recycled, treated, or disposed. In the
past, facilities recycling hazardous wastes have caused
serious health and environmental problems. In fact, recycling
operations, including a number of battery reclaimers, account
for some of the most serious environmental damage incidents.
Because of this potential hazard, the Agency has developed-
special standards for spent lead acid batteries that are
reclaimed In particular* the person who reclaims the battery
is subject to regulation and the storage activity prior to
recycling is regulated* In addition, any spent lead-acid
batteries that are disposed of are subject to the general
hazardous waste rules* Thus, we believe we have rules in place
that meet our statutory mandate of protecting human health
and the environment.
-------
With respect to your constituent's suggestion regarding
imposing a tax on new batteries, EPA does not have the authority
to iapose such a tax. Therefore, we are not able to consider
this approach. I can be of any further assistance, please
let ae know.
Sincerely,
1*1
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
9497.1989(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 8?
1. Spent Lead Acid Batteries
The owner/operator of a facility that collects spent lead acid
batteries drains the acid and then manifests the acid off-site for
reclamation. The battery shell, which still contains the lead
plates, is sent to a facility that extracts the lead for smelting.
Should these battery shells when sent off-site, be managed as EP
Toxic hazardous waste or as spent Lead acid batteries subject to
Subpart G of 40 CFR §266?
First, the material is classified as a solid waste after the
acid is drained. Second, either a "spent lead acid battery" or
a battery shell must exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste to be a hazardous waste in the Subtitle C system. Assuming
the battery case exhibits a characteristic, then the owner/operator
of the facility would be regulated as a hazardous waste generator
because he generates spent acid which exhibits the characteristics
of corrosivity. The act of draining the batteries, however, is
not considered part of the reclamation process. Therefore, the
owner/operator would not be subject to the requirements of
§266.80(b), for example, notification, contingency planning,
closure, and all other applicable provisions 40 CFR Part 264.
However, the facility that cracks the battery to remove the lead
plates will be subject to these provisions of 40 CFR 266.80(b).
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Robyn Neaville (202) 382-3112
-------
9497.1989(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
0
E L Williams JT* o^f ICE of
. SOLID WASTE AMD EVE«GE\Cv P6SPONSE
Director of Environmental Protection
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service
Federal Center
74 N. Washington
Battle Creek, Michigan 49107-3092
Dear Colonel Williams:
This letter responds to your September 19, 1989 request for
information regarding the regulatory status of spent lead-acid
batteries stored by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing
service (DRMS) before reclamation and the applicability of the
speculative accumulation provision found at 40 CFR 261.2(c)(4).
The speculative accumulation provision (the requirement to
recycle 75% of a material within one calendar year to demonstrate
that the material is not a solid waste) is entirely separate and
distinct from the regulations applicable to spent lead-acid
batteries. The speculative accumulation provision is used to
define a material as a solid waste. Because the only use for this
provision is to Irring under regulation as a solid waste those
materials which ire intended to be recycled in one year, but are
not, the speculative accumulation provision is not applicable to
those materials already defined as solid wastes (e.g. , spent
lead-acid batteries) . This is evident in the definition of
"accumulated speculatively" at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) which states
that *. . . (Materials that are already defined as solid wastes
also are not tc be included in making the calculation.)"
Under Federal regulations, the lead-acid batteries that DRMS
collects and stores are spent materials that are reclaimed. As
provided in Table 1 at 40 CFR 261. 2 (c) , spent materials that are
reclaimed are solid wastes. Assuming lead-acid batteries likely
exhibit one or more characteristics of a hazardous waste, they are
defined as hazardous wastes pursuant to 40 CFR 261.3 (a) (2) (i) .
However, certain recyclable materials are regulated under special
provisions. In the case of recycled spent lead-acid batteries,
the appropriate regulatory section is 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart G.
Part 266 Subpart G states that "Persons who generate,
transport, or collect spent batteries, or who store spent
batteries but do not reclaim them are not subject to regulation
under Parts 262 through 266 or Part 270 or 124 of this chapter,
and also are not subject to the requirements of section 3010 of
RCRA." Therefore, DRMS is not subject to regulation under RCRA
for the storage of spent lead-acid batteries. (The spent
batteries remain a solid waste and, if they exhibit a
Pruutd an Rtcycltd Paper
-------
- 2 -
characteristic, a hazardous waste; however, if they are reclaimed,
they are exempted from substantive regulation under RCRA).
You should note that state regulations may differ from, and,
in fact, be more stringent than, Federal regulations. Therefore,
you should also contact the appropriate State regulatory agencies
to determine what State regulations may be applicable.
Thank you for your interest concerning the recycling of
lead-acid batteries. If you have further questions regarding the
applicability of Federal regulations, you, or your staff, should
call the RCRA/CERCLA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or contact Mitch
Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
ice
Edwin F. Abrams
Chief
Review Section
-------
~ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, 0 <~ 20460
9497.1989(03)
::3V.4-T-1S£;
Jean M. Beaudoin, Chairperson
BCI Environmental Committee
Fox, Weinberg and Bennett
750 17th Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Ms. Beaudoin:
Thank you for your October 24, 1989, letter concerning the
impact of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) on the recycling of
lead-acid batteries. The Agency encourages the recycling of solid
waste and believes it is important for preserving resources and can
prevent environmental degradation. Thus, we strongly support the
reclamation of lead-acid batteries.
Restricted wastes may be stored on the land in tanks or
containers (i.e., land disposed) without meeting treatment
standards, provided it is done solely with the intent of
accumulating such quantities of hazardous waste as necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or disposal. In addition,
this storage must comply with all other applicable storage
standards such as those relating to secure storage, secondary
containment in some instances, and other requirements. (See
40 CFR 268.50.)
The Agency has indicated in a previous rulemaking that the
shell surrounding a lead-acid battery is considered to be a
container (see 47 FR 12318, March 22, 1982; see also 40 CFR
264.314 (d)(3)). Thus, to the extent that lead-acid battery
storage meets all the conditions set forth in the LDR storage
prohibitions at 40 CFR 268.50, such storage is permissible.
We are including your letter in the Third Third Rule Docket anc
will specifically address any issues it raises in our Response to
Comments Background Document.
Sincerely
Sylvia Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9495.1990(01)
USR
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN I 3 I99C
E OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Kristina Richards
Senior Engineer
Applied Environmental Technologies Corporation
7 Belver Avenue, Suite 210
North Kingstown, Rhode Island 02852
Dear Ms. Richards:
This is in response to your letter of March 22, 1990, in
which you asked several questions concerning the management of
used oil and the identification of listed hazardous wastes.
1) Question on 40 CFR 266 Subpart E: Does this subpart apply
to all used oils, or does it apply only to used oils which
exhibit characteristics of a hazardous waste? The definition in
40 CFR 266.40(b) implies that the regulation applies to all used
oils. However, one arrives at 40 CFR 266.40 because it is
referenced by 40 CFR 261.6(a)(2)(iii). 40 CFR 261.6 covers the
requirements for "recyclable materials," which are defined by EPA
as hazardous wastes that are recycled. Therefore, 40 CFR 261.6
would not apply to nonhazardous used oils. This implies that
40 CFR 266 Subpart E does not apply to nonhazardous used oils.
ANSWER: 40 CFR 266 Subpart E applies to all used oil, both
hazardous and non-hazardous. However, the level of
regulation imposed under Subpart E can differ substantially.
The used oil regulations may be clarified in the following
way:
o Used oil that meets the definition of 40 CFR 266.40(b)
and is burned for energy recovery is regulated under
40 CFR 266, Subpart E.
o Used oil that exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste and is burned for energy recovery is regulated
under 40 CFR 266, Subpart E (40 CFR 261.6(a)(2)(iii))
rather than Subpart D, provided it is not mixed with
listed hazardous waste. Subpart E specifies two
classes of used oil:
-------
"On-specification" used oil is subject to minimal
requirements.
"Off-specification" used oil is fully regulated
under Subpart E.
o Used oil that exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste but is recycled in a manner other than being
burned for energy recovery is not regulated under any
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 262 - 266, 270, or 124
(40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iii)).
Please note that the definition of used oil in §266.40(b) is
a statutory definition Section 1004(36) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under the authority of
that section and Section 3014 of RCRA, Congress gave EPA special
authority to regulate used oil that is destined for recycling.
The requirement that EPA develop management standards for
recycled used oil is independent of a determination concerning
the identification or listing of used oil as a hazardous waste.
The used oil fuel standards under Subpart E were developed under
this authority. Thus, any used oil that meets the definition of
§266.40(b) and is burned for energy recovery is regulated under
Subpart E.
2) Question on 40 CFR 261.31: With regard to the 10% rule for
F-listed solvents, what does "before use" mean? Does "before
use" mean as purchased from a manufacturer, or as used by a
generator? For example, if a generator purchased a product that
contained 15% toluene and 85% water, then the generator blended
the material with more water to prepare the material for use at
the generator's facility, so that the resulting material
contained 8% toluene and 92% water, how would the waste generated
from using this material (as a cleaning solvent) be identified?
ANSWER; With regard to listed F wastes, "before use" means
before use at the facility, not when purchased. Thus, in
your example, the waste solvent generated would not meet the
listing description.
3) Question on 40 CFR 261.31; As I understand the F003 listing,
the product, before use, must contain 100% (or technical grade)
F003-listed solvent(s) in order for the waste generated from
using the solvent to be identified as F003.
In addition, mixtures containing F003-listed solvents and
10% or more of the solvents listed in F001, F002, F004, and F005
are identified with the waste number F003 and the waste number(s)
representing the other solvent(s) present. In this case,
however, how much of the F003-listed solvent(s) must be present
in the mixture for F003 to apply?
-------
ANSWER: You are correct in your first point that, in order
to meet the F003 listing description, the product (before
use) must contain only fi.e.. 100%) the solvents listed
under F003 (according to the regulation). with regard to
your second question, the regulation states that the listing
applies to "all spent solvent mixtures/blends containing,
before use, one or more of the above non-halogenated
solvents, and, a total of ten percent or more (by volume) of
one or more of those solvents listed in F001, F002, F004,
and F005." Should the solvent meet the ten percent criteria
of F001, F002, F004, and/or F005 solvent and contain F003,
the regulation (or the preamble language of December 31,
1985) contains no guidelines for the minimum amount of F003
solvents needed to meet the listing description; therefore,
any amount will do so.
4) Question on 40 CFR 261.33; There are references in the
comment at the end of 40 CFR 261.33(d) to "commercially pure
grade and "technical grade." How does EPA define these terms?
ANSWER: The Office of Solid Waste does not have a
regulatory definition for the two terms in your question.
However, please refer to the Federal Register preamble
concerning the comment to §261.33(d) (45 FR 78529,
November 25, 1980) for more details. Potentially,
"technical grade" or "commercially pure grade" can refer to
any and all grades of purity of a chemical that are
marketed, or that are recognized in general usage by the
chemical industry.
5) Question on 40 CFR 261.32; Do K-listed waste numbers apply
only to wastes generated from facilities whose primary industries
are the industrial categories listed, or do they apply to wastes
generated from the manufacturing operations listed, regardless of
what the primary industrial category of the generator is? I
understand that K062 only applies to industries within specified
SIC codes, but does this concept apply to all the other K-listed
wastes as well?
ANSWER; The EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers listed under
40 CFR 261.32 are wastes from "specific sources," and the
sources are specified in the listing description. These may
be the "manufacturing operations listed" to which your
letter refers. The primary SIC code for the facility does
not limit the applicability of the hazardous waste listing
description(s) to that (or any other) facility. For
example, production of various organic chemicals with
different SIC codes may occur at large, complex facilities.
-------
Thank you for your inquiry. If you need further assistance
please contact Ed Abrams, Chief, Listing Section at
(202)382-4770.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
Susan Bromm, OWPE (OS-520)
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY 9495.1990(02)
AUGUST 1990
3. Definition of a Used CXI Marketer
A used oil generator sends used oil to a corporation which blends it at one
site and then ships it off-site to another of its divisions, where it is burned
for energy recovery pursuant to 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart E. Who is the
used oil marketer in this instance: the generator or the corporate division
which blended the oil and sent it off-site to be burned?
40 CFR Section 266.43(a) defines the term "marketer" to include both
"generators who market used oil fuel directly to a burner" and
"persons who receive used oil from generators and produce, process,
or blend used oil fuel from these used oils (including persons sending
blended or processed used oil to brokers or other intermediaries)." In
this instance, the generator is not marketing the used oil directly to
the burner, even though the burning and blending are performed by
the same company. As noted in the February 1985 Hotline Monthly
Report Question, one doesn't have to sell the oil to a distinct
corporate entity in order to qualify as a "marketer": "(a)lthough the
term marketer implies commercial activity, the regulations
governing used oil fuel marketers were meant, in part, to regulate
transportation of used oil fuel off-site." By sending the used oil off-
site, the blender in this instance qualifies as a marketer, despite the
fact that the burner and blender are different parts of the same
corporation. All the requirements of a marketer specified in Section
266.43, therefore, must be fulfilled in this instance by the blender
rather than the used oil generator.
Source: Angela Wilkes, OSW (202) 382-7934
Research: Ken Sandier
-------
9495.1991(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determination on the Regulatory Status of Two Waste Oil
Management Practices Utilized by .Wyoming Coal Companies
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Hazardous Waste Management/Division
Region VIII
FROM: Sylvia K. Lo
Office of Solid W
This memorandum responds to your March 4, 1991 request for
regulatory determinations ^regarding two different scenarios in
which waste oil is utilized by Wyoming coal companies. These
determinations concern: 1) whether the waste oil is a solid
waste when used in certain ways, 2) whether the waste oil is
being legitimately recycled (rather than disposed of) when used
in these ways, and 3) whether the management of the waste oil is
subject to Part 266 Subpart E. Although your memorandum does not
specify what type of waste the "waste oil" is, our response
assumes it is "used oil." The responses to your questions may
change based on what the "waste oil" is. For example, a listed
oily waste or an unused off-specification product oil could have
a different regulatory status than used oil under the different
recycling scenarios you describe.
1. Coal Treating.
In the first scenario, the coal companies mix/ spray
approximately three gallons of used oil per ton/cubic yard of
pea-coal (coal crushed to pea size) during railroad car loading.
The used oil is used to suppress coal dust while in transit to
power plants and, to a lesser extent, to increase the BTU value
of the coal. It is my understanding that this is a standard
practice in the coal industry and that the pea-coal is burned as
fuel .
Because the used oil is being burned for energy recovery
(assuming the oil is a spent material rather than an unused
commercial fuel oil product) , the used oil is a solid waste (see
40 CFR 261. 2(c) (2) ) . Because the coal/oil is ultimately used as
a fuel, the material is subject to regulation as a "used oil"
being burned for energy recovery (see 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart E) .
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
The toxicity characteristic and TCLP are not applicable as
long as the used oil is legitimately recycled. (See the
exemption at Section 261.6(a) (2) (iii))..
Insofar as such use of the used oil is a standard practice
within the coal industry, our concerns regarding whether this is
a legitimate recycling practice focus on the amounts of used oil
being used and on the hazardous constituents contained in the
waste oil itself. (If such use was not a standard practice, the
Agency would be concerned about the actual use of the waste oil
for this purpose.) More specifically, if used oil is used in
excess of the amounts necessary (e.g., if the oil leaks out of
the railroad cars while in transit), such use could be considered
sham recycling, subject to regulation as a hazardous waste
management activity if the used oil exhibits a hazardous
characteristic.
2. Use in making explosives.
In the second scenario, the used oil is used as an
ingredient to produce ANFO (an acronym for an explosive normally
made by combining ammonium nitrate and a fuel oil, such as a
product #l/#2 diesel oil blend or product 12 diesel oil) that is
used to remove overburden/coal from the earth. The key
determination is whether such use of the used oil is legitimate
recycling (i.e., is the waste oil a legitimate ingredient in the
production of ANFO). If the used oil is not a legitimate
ingredient, the used oil is a solid waste (and hazardous if it
exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste), and the use of
the used oil to produce the ANFO, as well as the use of the used
oil-derived ANFO, would be subject to permitting requirements.
A key factor in evaluating whether the used oil is a
legitimate ingredient is a comparison of the constituents found
in the used oil to the constituents found in the analogous raw
material, i.e. fuel oil. To the extent that there are hazardous
constituents in the oil that are not found in the fuel oil (or
that are present in the fuel oil, but in significantly lower
concentrations), the oil is not a legitimate ingredient in the
production of ANFO (unless it can be demonstrated that such
hazardous constituents are actually useful in the production of
the product or to the product itself). [Note: Other factors to
consider include an assessment of: 1) how the oil is managed
(i.e., whether the oil is handled in a manner similar to the fuel
oil before use and whether it is handled in a manner to prevent
release to the environment), 2) whether the oil is as effective
as the fuel oil when used as an ingredient in ANFO production
(i.e., whether more used oil must be used to replace the fuel oil
and whether the waste oil-derived ANFO performs as well as the
fuel oil-derived ANFO), and 3) whether excessive amounts of oil
are used (i.e., excessive amounts of oil being used could
indicate an intent to discard)].
-------
If the used oil is not a legitimate ingredient in the
production of ANFO, then it is a solid waste being treated by
mixing with ammonium nitrate and the toxicity characteristic is
applicable. And, if hazardous, the used oil may be subject to
the "open burning and detonation" requirements of 40 CFR 265.382.
[Note: Whether the used oil-derived ANFO itself performs as well
as the fuel oil-derived ANFO is not the determining factor in
considering the regulatory status of the waste oil. In other
words, just because a secondary material can be used as an
ingredient and still result in a usable product does not, by
itself, mean that the secondary material is not a solid waste and
nor does it mean, necessarily, that the processing is legitimate
recycling. Rather, the determining factors must include the
consideration of the constituents in the secondary material and
the role these constituents play in the production of the
product.]
You mentioned in your letter that the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) is currently allowing/monitoring this
practice at Bridger Coal Company from a health and safety
standpoint. It should be noted that although there is agency
overlap between EPA and MSHA regarding health, safety and
environmental considerations, neither agency's jurisdiction
supersedes the other's. For example, if EPA determined that the
used oil is a legitimate ingredient in the production of ANFO,
this would not absolve the coal company from its regulatory
obligations under the MSHA. Likewise, if MSHA grants approval of
the use of used oil as an ingredient in ANFO, this does not
absolve the company from its regulatory obligations under RCRA.
Nonetheless, you may find it useful to share this response with
your colleague from MSHA, Mr. Dick Fischer, whom you mention in
your letter.
I hope this has helped to resolve the issues you have
presented regarding the current regulatory status of used oil
..used as a dust suppressant in the transportation of pea-coal and
as an ingredient in the production of ANFO. As you know, we are
currently developing regulations applicable to the management of
used oil. If you have any further questions regarding the
regulation of used oil or the determination of legitimate vs.
sham recycling, your staff should contact Denise Wright (for used
oil) or Mitch Kidwell (for recycling) at FTS 475-8551.
-------
9496.1990(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
JUL 16 1990 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EME RGENCV RESPONSE
Ralph Eschborn
DuPont Recovery Management Systems
Suite 207, Webster Building
3411 Silverside Road
Wilmington, DE 19810
Dear Mr. Eschborn:
This letter is in response to your April 5, 1990 letter to Matt
Straus regarding DuPont Recovery Management Systems' proposal to
collect, fortify and recycle previously used fixer. In your letter
you asked EPA to make a determination on the applicability of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C requirements
to the recycling process.
As I understand your proposed recycling process, photographic
fixer that is used in the photographic film development process would
be drawn off from the working baths once its concentration of
ammonium thiosulfate reaches a certain level (targeted at 175 g/1 per
attachments to your letter, and not to fall below 150 g/1 per your
letter). The used fixer solution would then be transported to your
Regional Service Centers, "refortified," and then sold back to the
customers for use in developing film.
The issue which is raised is whether or not the used
photographic fixer solution meets the definition of a "spent
material," as the RCRA regulations define the term in 40 CFR
261.1(c)(l). According to Section 261.2(c)(3), spent materials that
are reclaimed are solid wastes (and, if they are also hazardous
wastes, must be managed according to the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations). The definition of a spent material is "any material
that has been used and as a result of contamination can no longer
serve the purpose for which it was produced without processing."
(The electrolytic treatment, filtration, and "fortifying" that you
propose would appear to be a processing/reclamation activity.)
It appears that the used photographic fixer solution meets the
definition of a spent material, even though it may still have enough
ammonium thiosulfate to function effectively as a fixer. Because the
FriaudatRteycUdPapir
-------
used fixer, as a result of contamination, is being removed for
processing it is "spent" as far as the customer is concerned (even
though, should the customer decide to do so, s/he could continue to
use the fixer for its original purpose) . You mention the
similarities between this and the situation faced by persons
reclaiming spent solvent. A similar situation exists with respect to
solvent reclaimers who arrange regular pick-ups of used solvents (for
example, in vapor degreasers). Although the solvent may still be
useful in that its contamination level does not mandate its
reclamation, when the reclaimer removes the customer's solvent, it is
spent" insofar as its potential use by the customer.
In contrast, we stated in the January 4, 1985 preamble to the
regulation defining materials as solid wastes (50 Federal Register
624) that when solvents used to clean printed circuit boards are no
longer pure enough for that purpose, but are still pure enough for
use as metal degreasers, they are not yet wastes because the solvent
can continue to be used for its solvent properties. Similarly, if
you were to remove used fixer from one customer's site and sell it to
another customer for use as photographic fixer, that continued use as
a fixer would mean the fixer was not a waste. However, the recycling
scheme you have proposed does not fit the "continued use" situation;
the used fixer is being "fortified," or reclaimed. Thus the used
fixer is a solid waste, and, if a hazardous waste, must be managed
according to the hazardous waste regulations.
In the recycling situation you have outlined, there are reduced
requirements in the federal hazardous waste program for reclaiming
precious metals. (Silver is one of the precious metals that can be
reclaimed under the reduced recycling regulations.) Handlers of
recyclable materials from which precious metals are reclaimed are
directed by 40 CFR 261.6(a)(2)(iv) to the reduced recycling
regulations in 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart F. Those regulations require
only that the generator, transporters, and storers notify EPA of
their hazardous waste management activities, comply with the use of
the manifest, and keep records to show that they are not accumulating
the materials speculatively.
In addition, some of your customers may qualify for the
exemption from use of the manifest found at 40 CFR 262.20(e);
however, you have not provided us with information for us to make a
determination whether they may qualify.
It is encouraging to learn that you are proposing a recycling
strategy for hazardous wastes; EPA is investigating ways to encourage
environmentally protective recycling.
Finally, the regulations described in this letter are the
federal hazardous waste regulations. States and localities may have
-------
more stringent requirements, or requirements that are broader in
scope. You will need to contact them to determine what their
requirements are.
If you have further questions, please contact Becky Cuthbertson
at (202)475-9715, or John Lank at (404)347-4552.
Sincerely,
;
/te>c* £x
Sylvia Lowrance, Director (/
Office of Solid Waste
cc: John Lank
-------
9496.1991(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGT.ON, D.C. 20460
AUG-5I99I OFFICEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Residues From Secondary Lead
Smelters That Recycle KC69 Wastes
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Direct
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
It has come to my attention that there is an issue about the
status of wastes such as slags and drosses that result from
secondary lead smelting when the smelter returns its emission
control dust/sludge (Hazardous Waste K069) to the smelting
furnace as feedstock. This memorandum reiterates that such
residues are hazardous wastes subject to Subtitle C regulation if
they exhibit a hazardous characteristic (e.g.. toxicity for
lead), and it discusses the Agency's intent regarding whether
such residues are considered listed hazardous wastes pursuant to
the "derived from" rule.
EPA stated in the February 21, 1991 "Boiler/Industrial
Furnace" Final Rule ("BIF Rule") (56 Fed. Reg. 7134, 7144) that
residues from metal recovery of listed hazardous wastes normally
are considered to be "derived from" treatment of hazardous waste
and thus listed hazardous waste themselves. Although this
general principle remains valid, we note that EPA did not intend
-for the "derived from" rule to apply to K069 slags and drosses
that result from returning the K069 to the smelting furnace as
feedstock. The Agency initially attempted to achieve this result
through application of the so-called "indigenous" principle to
K069 slags. See August 17, 1988 ."First Third" Land Disposal
Restrictions Final Rule, 53 Fed. Reg. 31138, 31198-99. The June
1, 1990 "Third Third" Land Disposal Restrictions Final Rule (55
Fed. Reg. 22520, 22565-68) also presumed this result in its
discussion of slags from secondary lead production, which were
discussed exclusively in the context of D008 wastes. However, a
subsequent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, in American
Petroleum Institute v. EPA. 906 F.2dr 726, 740-42 (D.C. Cir.
1990), called into question the validity of the "indigenous
principle" as EPA had applied it. (See BIF Rule, 56 led. Reg. at
7142, 7144, for a brief discussion of the court's decision.)
Although EPA maintained in the BIF Rule that residues from
treating listed hazardous wastes in metals recovery processes
! Printed on Recycled Paoer
-------
generally are subject to the "derived from" rule, the Agency
overlooked the recycling practices in the secondary lead industry
in promulgating that rule. It was not our intent that the
"derived from" rule apply to secondary lead smelting residues
that result when K069 dusts are recycled to the smelting process
as feedstock.
We expect to address these issues more formally in the
context of upcoming rulemakings. In the interim, please contact
Mike Petruska at 475-8551 if you have any questions.
cc: Regional Counsel RCRA Branch Chiefs
Gary Jonesi, OE-RCRA
Steve Silverman, OGC
Susan Bromm, OWPE-RED
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9496.1993(01)
DEC 2 7 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Precious Metal Recovery Furnaces
FROM: Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Conrad S. Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division
Region n
Headquarters has received correspondence1 from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) requesting a regulatory
determination on the status of precious metal recovery furnaces. The State would like
EPA to clarify the relationship between the applicability of Parts 264 and 265, Subpart O
(incinerator requirements) and Part 266, Subpart F (standards for recyclable materials
utilized for precious metal recovery). Specifically, NYDEC wants to know if the Subpart
F exemption for recyclable materials utilized for precious metal recovery extends to tlie
thermal reduction furnaces used by precious metal reclaimers to burn precious metal-
bearing wastes such as papers, filters and circuit boards. In addition, the State wants to
know whether these units are subject to Subpart O requirements as incinerators if
Subpart F does not apply.
EPA's position has been that when these units are legitimately recovering
precious metals from recyclable materials that they are within the Subpart F exemption
and not subject to Subpart O incinerator requirements. EPA has previously interpreted
these units to be generally exempt from the BIF rule (56 FR 42504, 42508, August 27,
1991).2
This correspondence consisted of two letters of January 19, 1993 and October 1, 1992 from William
A. Yeman of NYDEC to Sonya Sasseville of EPA.
In the August 1991 FR notice, EPA also clarified that the -conditions of the BIF rule where burning
solely for metal recovery (§266.100(c)(2) do not apply to the legitimate recovery of precious metals,
which are generally exempt from the BIF rule.
R*cycl«d/R*cyclabl«
Printed wltn Soy/Cinoli Ink on piptr that
com*ra « taut M% rvcyctad flb«r
-------
However, these units are subject to a one time notification requirement (40 CFR
§266.100(f)) that requires owner/operators of precious metal recovery furnaces to notify
the State Director and certify that hazardous waste is burned for legitimate recovery of
precious metal Also to qualify for the BIF exemption, owner/operators claiming the
exemption must sample and analyze precious metal as needed to document that the
recovery is legitimate.
If precious metal recovery furnaces are not legitimately recovering precious metals
from recyclable materials, then they may be subject to several Subtitle C regulatory
requirements, including Subpart O incinerator requirements. EPA has previously
identified several indicators of legitimacy:
"...The Agency indicated in the January 4, 1985 solid waste definition
regulations some of the indicia of legitimate precious metal recovery operations.
...These include presence of economically significant amounts of precious metals,
efficient recovery operations, no land disposal of wastes destined for recovery, and
payment by the reclaimer to the waste's generator. Industry members indicate
further that materials destined for precious metal reclamation are normally batch
segregated into distinct and identified batches of like material, that generators and
recovery facilities normally enter into written contracts before materials are
transferred specifying compensation to the generator and when transfer is to
occur, and that true precious metal recovery is characterized by net financial
return to the generator (i.e, a price sufficient to cover all charges for transport,
storage and processing).... Presence of air pollution control equipment to recover
any precious metals contained in emissions would be a further indication of a
legitimate operation. Conversely, the absence of one or more of these features
could serve as potential indications of a sham recycling operation, which would, of
course, be subject not only to the BIF rules but to all other subtitle C provisions
as well.... Furthermore, under § 261.2(f), persons ostensibly engaged in precious
metal reclamation of hazardous wastes have the burden of proving (normally
through recordkeeping plus presence of appropriate recovery equipment) that they
are engaged in legitimate recovery activities...." (56 FR, 42504, 42509 August 27,
1991).
Although EPA currently considers these furnaces to be generally exempt from
Subtitle C regulation (except for the notification requirement mentioned above), you
should be aware that questions have been raised as to whether these units should remain
generally exempt from Subtitle C regulation. Please also note that the Agency will be
examining this issue as part of the Draft Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy.
I hope that this helps to clarify the current status of precious metal recovery furnaces. If
you have any further questions, please contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 260-
8551.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9496.1994(01)
28 ic
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Scott Donovan, Chemisi
Disposal Control Service, Inc.
1200 Marietta Way
Sparks, Nevada 89431
Dear Mr. Donovan:
In your letter of November 18, 1993, you requested an interpretation on the
applicability of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C
regulations to silver reclamation operations of spent photographic fixer solutions. I
apologize for the delay in our response.
In your letter, you state that a company operating in Northern Nevada called
Itronics is receiving silver-bearing spent photographic fixer solutions from a variety of
generators. You also state that the State of Nevada acknowledges these solutions to be
RCRA hazardous waste when silver is present in concentrations of 5 mg/L or greater.
Your letter does not indicate whether in fact the solutions Iconics receives are solutions
with silver at or above 5 mg/L. Youi letter states that Itronics stores the solutions in
tanks prior to chemically precipitating silver salts in the form of a sludge which is then
thermally refined on-site.
You also indicate that the supernatant liquid resulting from the chemical
precipitation is applied to the land as a ferrili/er at a turf farm. In your telephone
conversation with Paul Borst of the Office of Soiid Waste, you indicated that your
understanding was that the supernatant liquid was nonhazardous and that sodium
thiosulfate in the liquid was the constituent of value iu the fertilizer.
Please understand that EPA cannot comment on the regulatory status of the
Itronics facility in Northern Nevada. The regulatory status of this facility is properly
determined by the State of Nevada through its Department of Environmental Protection.
The State of Nevada is authorized to administer and enforce its own RCRA program.
This letter will answer in general terms how federal RCRA regulations apply to the type
cf operation you describe in your letter.
-------
In order to determine the applicabu'ity of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste
regulations to these activities, it is first necessary to determine if the materials being
handled meet the definition of solid waste (and also hazardous waste). There are three
secondary materials that require consideration: the spent photographic fixer solution, the
precipitated silver sludge and the supernatant liquid resulting from precipitating the
sludge. As discussed below, only the spent photographic fixer solution meets the
definition of solid waste and is subject to certain Subtitle C regulations.
Regarding the spent photographic fixer solution, RCRA Subtitle C regulation
states that materials are solid wastes (that are also hazardous waste) when reclaimed
(reclamation is a type of recycling) and when the material being reclaimed most clearly
meets the definition of one of four types of materials: spent materials, listed sludges,
listed by-products and scrap metal. 40 CFR §261.2(c)(3). Since EPA has previously
interpreted spent photographic fixer solution as meeting the definition of spent material
(see attached July 16, 1990 letter from Sylvia Lowrance to Ralph Eschborn), it appears
that these solutions, assuming they are also hazardous, meet the definition of a solid
waste and are subject to certain Subtitle C regulations (specified below).
On the basis of information you have provided in your incoming letter, EPA
would consider a silver-bearing sludge precipitated from the spent photographic fLxer
solution in the manner you describe to be a newly generated sludge exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste. Under RCRA Subtitle C regulation, characteristic
sludges being reclaimed are not within the definition of solid waste. 40 CFR
§261.2(c)(3). Therefore, the silver-bearing sludges would riot be subject to Subtitle C
regulation. Finally, as mentioned above, you have indicate^ that the supernatant liquid
is uonhazardous and therefore would not be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C.
I
i
The remaining issue is what RCRA Subtitle C regulations are applicable to the
management of the spent fixer solution. Provided that economically significant quantities
of silver are reclaimed from the solution, the generation, transport and storage prior to
reclamation of the solutions is not subject to the general RCRA Subtitle C requirements
for recyclable materials at 40 CFR §261.6, but rather a different set of regulatory
requirements specified at 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart F. 40 CFR 261.6(a)(2)(iv). Subpart
F requirements apply to persons who generate, transport, or store precious metal-bearing
hazardous waste being reclaimed. The requirements specify notification requirements
under Section 3010 of RCRA, and manifesting requirements. Subpart F also requires
persons who store precious metal-bearing hazardous waste being reclaimed to
demonstrate through records that these wastes are not being accumulated speculatively.
-------
With regard to the regulatory status of the recycling process, the general RCRA
Subtitle C regulatory requirements for recyclable materials (40 CFR §261.6) and the
Subpart F requirements for precious metal-bearing wastes being reclaimed specify
regulatory requirements for recycling operations. The general recycling provisions do
state that, in general, the recycling process is exempt from regulation. Because recycling
operations are generally not regulated, the process of precipitating the sludge from the
solution is not presently subject to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C.
I hope this letter has answered your questions on the Federal program. If you
bave any additional questions, please contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 260-
8551.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9497.1991(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
MAR 4
Richard A. Svanda
Director
Hazardous Waste Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
Saint Paul,-Minnesota 55155-3898
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMEPGENCV RESPONSE
Dear Mr/ySvanda:
This letter responds to your January 16, 1991 request for an
interpretation concerning the regulatory exemption found at 40
CFR 261.6(a)(3)(ii) for "used batteries (or used battery cells),
returned to a battery manufacturer for regeneration." In your
letter you explain that the Minnesota State Legislature has
passed a bill making it illegal to dispose of four types of waste
battery cells in municipal solid waste landfills. The bill went
further by requiring manufacturers to establish a system for ..
proper handling and disposal of such batteries.
You are requesting that EPA interpret the exemption for used
battery regeneration to include material recovery. In this way,
the management of the batteries would .be exempt from the
otherwise applicable hazardous waste regulations (e.g.,
manifesting and storage), thus facilitating the recycling of
these materials. As alternatives to this interpretation, you
request that EPA either: 1) revise 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart G,
"Spent Lead-Acid Batteries Being Reclaimed," to include all waste
batteries being reclaimed; or 2) recommend to the State
regulatory agencies that they use enforcement discretion in
implementing the applicable regulations.
>
In promulgating the exemption for used batteries that are
"regenerated," the Agency discussed its reasons for doing so (see
the April 4, 1983 proposal preamble, 48 FR 14496). The main
reasons were that there was minimal risk of environmental damages
and that the activity of regenerating the batteries was very
similar to the recycling of a commercial product. Such
activities are generally not considered waste management
activities, but are more akin to a manufacturing operation. In
the January 4, 1985 final rule preamble (see 50 FR 633), EPA
defined reclamation to include the "regeneration" of waste
materials and the processing of waste materials to recover usable
products, but not all reclamation is exempt. In the preamble
discussion, the Agency drew a distinction between regeneration
(i.e., processing to remove contaminants in a way that restores a
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
product to its usable original condition, as in the reclamation
of spent solvents through distillation) and material recovery
(i.e., processing to recover usable material values as the end-
products of the process, as in the reclamation of metal values by
the smelting of a secondary material). EPA's long-standing
policy is that smelting is not regeneration, and batteries sent
for smelting are therefore not exempt under this provision, i.e.,
the definition of "regeneration" is well established and does not
include metals recovery. A change in the meaning of
"regeneration" is not interpretive, but would require a
regulatory change (i.e., amending 40 CFR 261.l(c)(4)), and would
have far-reaching implications, e.g., the standards at Part 266
Subpart G for spent lead-acid batteries that are reclaimed would
not apply to anything if the spent lead-acid batteries were
exempt.
Regarding your request that the Agency extend the current
reduced regulatory requirements applicable to spent lead-acid
batteries that are reclaimed to all waste batteries, EPA may
consider such an amendment to encourage the recycling of waste
batteries provided that protection of human health and the
environment can be ensured. The reasons for the special
requirements for spent lead-acid batteries destined to be
reclaimed were discussed in the April 4, 1983 proposal (see
discussion 48 FR 14498-99) to the January 4, 1985 final rule.
While EPA required hazardous waste permits for storage at
reclamation sites (e.g., secondary smelters and battery
crackers), EPA did not believe that regulatory controls on
generators and transporters were necessary because there were
other incentives outside of RCRA that would ensure that the
materials would both arrive at their intended destination and
would not be improperly managed before their reclamation. For
example, spent lead-acid batteries were an established valuable
commodity and were customarily reclaimed (indeed, the secondary
lead smelting industry is based on the reclamation of lead-acid
batteries) and mishandling during transportation was considered
unlikely due to Department of Transportation requirements under
40 CFR 122. Also, the Agency believed that the storage of the
spent batteries by retailers, wholesalers, or local service
stations would be properly managed because these establishments
rely heavily on good public relations with the consumer. To the
extent that the same considerations are evidenced in the
management of other types of waste batteries, the Agency may
consider providing a similar regulatory framework in a future
rulemaking.
Finally, with regard to your third alternative, it is
certainly within the purview of an authorised State to use
discretion in how it implements its own hazardous waste program,
including how it sets its enforcement priorities. However, EPA
has a policy against giving definitive assurances, written or
oral, outside the context of a formal enforcement proceeding,
-------
that EPA will not proceed with an enforcement response for a
violation of an environmental protection statute or regulation.
We share your interest in finding alternatives to control
the disposal of potentially hazardous waste streams that are
typically managed in municipal landfills. The situation you
described will be considered in efforts underway to address
multiple concerns regarding the regulation of hazardous waste
recycling. If you have further questions regarding the
regulations applicable to these waste types, you may contact Mr
Mike Petrusfca, Chief of the Regulatory Development Branch at
(202) 475-8551. '
Since
Sylvia
Director
Office/of
-------
9497.1991(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 3
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Paul E. Pentz
Executive Vice President, C.0.0.
SERVISTAR Corporation
P.O. Box 1510
Butler, PA 16003-1510
Dear Mr. Pentz:
This letter responds to your letter of May 13, 1991
concerning the regulation of nickel-cadmium (NiCd) batteries
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and state
legislation requiring manufacturers to take back spent batteries
(take-back programs). We appreciate your interest in developing
recycling programs for NiCd batteries and in the RCRA regulation
of these prpgrams. We commend your recycling efforts and hope
that you will be developing recycling systems not only in states
passing take-back legislation, but nation-wide.
We are considering the points that you raise in your letter
concerning the difficulties involved in implementing recycling
programs for NiCd batteries if they exhibit the TC. We are
currently examining the available options to determine how to
facilitate the kind of take-back system you describe. We expect
it will take us several more weeks to assess options and reach a
tentative decision on how to best address your concerns. At that
time, we will notify you of the results of our analysis and of
our plans to implement the decision.
To ensure that you are informed about our approach to this
-issue, there are several options that we are exploring. First,
we are investigating what could be accomplished in the short term
to alleviate the problems you have identified. One possibility
is to extend the current regulations governing lead-acid battery
reclamation to spent NiCd battery reclamation. As part of this
effort, we will be evaluating issues such as the size of the
problem, the hazards posed by NiCd battery waste management and
recycling practices, and the feasibility of possible solutions.
Second, over the longer term, we are currently analyzing the
RCRA regulations to determine how they could best be modified to
encourage environmentally sound recycling of hazardous wastes.
In particular, we are evaluating how to address reverse
distribution systems that involve the returr of hazardous wastes
Pruiitd on Rtcycltd Paptr
-------
to product manufacturers. In any case, we will continue with
this longer term effort to examine fully how best to address this
difficult issue, including the possibility of changes to the
regulations to accommodate take-back systems.
Finally, we would like to be sure that you are aware that
under the current federal regulations, hazardous wastes generated
by certain persons are not subject to the full hazardous waste
regulations even when subsequently collected and managed by
others. Particularly, these excluded wastes include household
wastes generated by individuals at home (40 CFR 261.4(b)(l)) and
hazardous wastes generated by conditionally exempt small quantity
generators (generators who generate a total of less than 100
kilograms of hazardous waste per month; 40 CFR 261.5).
Thank you for your interest in the hazardous waste
regulations concerning recycling of NiCd batteries. Should you
have any further questions regarding this issue, please contact
Mike Petruska, Chief of the Regulatory Development Branch, at
(202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
David Bussard
Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9497.1993(01)
. OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Thomas J.P. McHenry
McCLINTOCK, WESTON, BENSHOOF,
ROCHEFORT, RUBALCAVA & MacCUISH
444 South Flower Street
Forty Third Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Dear Mr. McHenry:
Thank you for your letter of October 4, 1993, concerning the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste
regulations governing the management of lead-acid batteries that
are recycled. You requested clarification of how these
regulations would apply to a battery storage area owned by the
owner of one or more lead-acid battery recycling facilities
(e.g., battery crackers or secondary smelters), but not co-
located with any battery recycling facility.
In general, you are correct that we interpret
40 CFR 266. 80 (a) to apply to facilities at which spent lead-acid
batteries are stored, but not reclaimed, regardless of what
battery management activities the owner of the storage area may
conduct at other locations. Similarly, we interpret
40 CFR 266. 80 (b) to apply to facilities at which spent lead-acid
batteries are both stored and reclaimed. In addition to the
preamble language you quoted from the proposal for this
regulation (48 FR 14499) , the preamble discussion for the final
rule also clearly indicates that our intent was to regulate
storage facilities based on the activities conducted at the
facility rather than on activities conducted by the owner at
other locations (50 FR 649) .
Beyond this general discussion of the federal RCRA
regulations, we are not able to address the specifics of your
client's situation. The lead-acid battery recycling regulations
are implemented by authorized state agencies (or the appropriate
EPA regional offices) , and they are the appropriate agencies to
contact to determine how these regulations may be applicable to
any specific location. Please note also that state hazardous
waste regulations may be more stringent than the federal
regulations.
Recyclod/Racyclabto
pnimd vltn Soy/Canei* Ink on piptr that
oontdna tt Intt 50% recycled nbw
-------
I hope this information is useful to you. If you have any
further questions concerning this issue, please contact Charlotte
Mooney, of my staff, at (202) 260-6926.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Shapiro
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Laura Yoshi, Deputy Director for Waste Programs,
EPA Region IX
Claudia Moore, California Department of Toxic Substances
Control
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
November 1994
9497.1994(01)
RCRA
1. Regeneration Versus Reclamation
for Spent Lead-Acid Batteries
In order to encourage environmentally
sound recycling, EPA has promulgated special
standards for some recyclable materials and
exempted others from hazardous waste
regulation. For example, reclaimed spent
lead-acid batteries are subject to the special
requirements of Pan 266, Subpart G
(§261.6(aX2)(iv)). On the other hand,
batteries returned to a battery manufacturer
for regeneration are exempt from hazardous
waste regulation (§261.6(a)(3)(ii)). Are spent
lead-acid batteries returned to a battery
manufacturer for regeneration regulated
under Subpart G of Pan 266, or are they
exempt from all hazardous waste regulation?
Spent lead-acid batteries returned to a
battery manufacturer for regeneration are not
Subject to Subpart G of Pan 266, nor to any
other Subtitle C regulations. While the term
"reclamation," when used in a regulatory
context, typically includes both materials
recovery and regeneration (§261.1(c)(4)), the
standards governing the reclamation of spent
lead-acid batteries in Subpart G of Pan 266 do
not apply to the regeneration of these batteries.
Subpan G regulates materials recovery, which
involves the extraction from spent lead-acid
batteries of distinct end-products, such as scrap
metal, lead values, ammonium sulfide, and
plastic. Regeneration, on the other hand,
involves processing to remove contaminants
in a way that restores a product to its original,
usable condition. Because EPA determined
that battery regeneration is similar to the
recycling of a commercial chemical product
and presents minimal risk to the environment
(48 ER 14496; April 4,1983), battery
regeneration, including the regeneration of
spent lead-acid batteries, is exempt from
Subtitle C regulation (§26l.6(a)(3)(ii)).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
9497.1995(01)
June 1995
RCRA
3. Spent Lead-Acid Batteries and .
Counting Requirements
EPA promulgated specific requirements for
counting hazardous wastes to facilitate
accurate determination of monthly generator
status. While most hazardous wastes produced
at generator sites are counted in the monthly
quantity determination, some special
hazardous wastes are exempt from this
requirement (§2615(c)). If a generator is
accumulating spent lead-acid batteries that
will be sent for reclamation, should the.
batteries be counted towards the determination
of monthly generator status?
Spent lead-acid batteries that will be sent
for reclamation are not subject to the monthly
generator counting requirements. Hazardous
waste is counted only if it is subject to
substantive regulation (40 CFR $261.5(c)).
Substantive regulations are those regulations
which directly relate to the storage,
transportation, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous waste (51 ER10152; March 24,
1986). Persons who generate, transport, or
store spent lead-acid batteries destined for
reclamation, but who do not reclaim them
themselves, are not subject to substantive
regulation, specifically Parts 262-266,270 or
124 (40 CFR §266.80). Therefore, spent lead-
acid batteries destined for reclamation are not
counted when determining monthly generator
status. Such wastes should not be counted
because they are not subject to regulation in
the hands of the generator (50 £R 14218;
April 11,1985).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
FILE COH
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9497.1996(01)
JUN I 9 1996
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Christopher Bryant
The Technical Group, Inc.
1300 I Street, NW
Suite 1000 West
Washington, DC 20005
Dear Mr. Bryant:
Thank you for your letter of March 14,1996 regarding the applicability of 40 CFR
Section 266.80 to the management of spent lead-acid batteries that are destined for reclamation.
Specifically, you request the regulatory status of spent lead-acid batteries in the following
situation:
A truckload of spent lead-acid batteries is shipped to a secondary lead smelter for reclamation.
The truck arrives at the secondary lead smelter, where it is weighed. The truck remains on site
at the smelter for less than 24 hows and the batteries remain on the truck Nothing is done to
the batteries while they remain on site in the truck. The truck then is driven to an off-site
warehouse where the batteries are stored for 30 days before they are shipped back to the smelter
for reclamation.
Based on the information provided in this scenario, it appears that the spent lead-acid
batteries remain exempt under 40 CFR Section 266.80. This section applies to "persons who
reclaim (including regeneration) spent lead-acid batteries that are recyclable materials ("spent
materials"). Persons who generate, transport, or collect spent batteries, who regenerate spent
batteries, or who store spent batteries but do not reclaim them (other than spent batteries that are
to be regenerated) are not subject to regulation under parts 262 through 266 or part 270 or 124
...." This exclusion does not apply to leaks and discharges from lead-acid batteries. Materials
generated from a leak or discharge become newly generated wastes and, as such, are subject to a
hazardous waste determination.
Please be aware that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6926) individual
States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of
the Federal program. When States are not authorized to administer their own program, the
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
appropriate EPA Regional office administers the program and is the appropriate contact for any
case-specific determinations. Please also note that under Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than Federal regulatory requirements.
"I hope that this letter sufficiently responds to your questions and concerns. If you have
any further questions or comments, please contact Kristina Meson of my staff at (703) 308-8488.
Sincerely yours,
/->
W \s
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9498 BOILERS AND
INDUSTRIAL
FURNACES
Part 266 Subpart H
AT. Kearney 1/3590/6 cr
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9498.1992(01)
AUG | | 1992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Combined Operation of the Resource Recovery Kilns and
Cement Kilns at Giant Cement Company, Harleyville, SC
FROM: Jeffery D. Denit, Deputy Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Donald J. Guinyard, Director
Waste Management Division
Region IV
This is in response to your January 8, 1992, memorandum
requesting review of the tentative Regional decisions on the
issues presented in Giant Cement Company's October 1, 1991,
position paper. Following are the OSW interpretations on each of
the four issues raised.
Issue 1: Regulatory status of the Cement Kilns
We agree with your interpretation that the "resource
recovery kiln"/cement kiln systems should be regulated under the
BIF (boiler and industrial furnace) standards, if operated in the
manner described in your memorandum and Giant's position paper.
(That is, each resource recovery kiln burns contaminated soils,
and possibly other solid wastes, and both the treated solids and
the off-gas are fed into a cement kiln.) For systems of two or
more hazardous waste treatment units in series, our general
guideline is that a case-by-case determination of how the overall
system is classified and what standards and permit conditions are
applied should be based on the dominant design, operating, feed,
and emissions characteristics of the system, and the most
specific standards applicable to that type of system.
In the Giant situation, it appears that the .resource
recovery kiln and the cement kiln operate as part Nof one overall
system. The BIF standards would be applicable ~feeCauM they are
the most specific standards applicable to this syctam. Portions
-------
points other than the hot end of the kiln and includes
hydrocarbon standards which take into account organics being
volatilized from raw materials. These provisions may relate to
the Giant system, but are not addressed in the incinerator
regulations. Of course, additional operating conditions would
likely need to be added to address feed rates, temperatures,
etc., in the desorber.
You also state that Giant argues that off-gases from the
resource recovery kilns fed to the cement kiln cannot be
classified as a hazardous waste. We agree with the Regions's
interpretation that this distinction is irrelevant when
determining our regulatory authority over the gases. Off-gases
from the resource recovery kilns are regulated under RCRA since
they originate from treatment of hazardous waste..
Issue 2: Carbon Monoxide Testing
As previously stated, we agree with your position that the
cement kilns and resource recovery kilns operating in series
should be regulated under the BIF regulations. Therefore, any
approach provided under the BIF regulations to establish a carbon
monoxide limit may be considered, including the alternate
hydrocarbon approach.
Issue 3: Land Disposal Testing
You raised the issue of how treatment in the cement kiln of
the solids and the gases discharged from the resource recovery
kilns affect whether the product from the cement kiln is
considered to be a waste-derived product.
Solids
We agree with most of your interpretation regarding the
effect of treating solids on the classification of the product,
with one clarification noted below. Environmental media (e.g.,
soils, groundwater) contaminated with listed hazardous waste must
be managed as if they were hazardous wastes until they no longer
contain the listed waste, or are delisted. The Regions or
authorized States may determine, on a case-specific basis, at
what levels contaminated environmental media no longer contain
the hazardous waste. As discussed in the attached June 19, 1989,
letter from Jonathan Cannon to Thomas Jorling, these levels may
be health-based levels derived by assuming direct human exposure.
We would like to clarify, however, that this determination must
consider all Appendix VIII constituents present in the listed
waste, rather than just those constituents for which the waste
was listed, as stated in your memo.
Although Giant's situation is complicated by the fact that
there are two units combined into one system, we believe it may
-------
be possible to determine whether the soils leaving the resource
recovery kiln contain hazardous waste prior to entering the
cement kiln. In order for this determination to be meaningful
and enforceable, it will be necessary to develop a sampling and
analysis regime that must be adhered to by the facility in order
to ensure that the media no longer contain hazardous waste after
treatment in the resource recovery kiln. This determination will
be more difficult and complicated if the facility accepts media
with a wide variety of waste codes, in varying proportions and
concentrations. It is not clear whether Giant plans to treat
only contaminated media originating from a limited set of waste
codes, or whether they plan to burn.a wide variety of waste codes
including actual wastes1, in the resource recovery kiln. We are
concerned that under the Part A already submitted, there is no
limitation on the variety of wastes and waste codes which Giant
could accept and treat.
The Region or State can use existing policy memoranda
regarding the "contained-in" policy as guidance in setting the
appropriate health-based levels to indicate when the soils no
longer contain hazardous waste. However, there must be an
enforceable mechanism which specifies the conditions necessary
for the facility to demonstrate that the soil meets these levels
on a regular basis, similar to the delisting program. In the
future, we expect that the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR) may provide quantitative criteria and specific sampling
and analysis requirements that could be applied to this
situation. In setting quantitative criteria, you may in the
interim use generally available Agency numbers, such as the soil
levels in the proposed Subpart S corrective action rule (55 FR
30798, July 27, 1990) or numbers derived from IRIS through the
use of standard exposure assumptions.
If it is determined that treated environmental media from
the resource recovery kilns no longer contain hazardous wastes,
then the "decontaminated" solids need not be managed as a
hazardous waste, and feeding these materials to the cement kiln
would not cause the cement product to be a "waste-derived
product" subject to the provisions of §266.20(b).
Gases
Although, as stated earlier, the off-gas from the resource
recovery kiln is regulated, our interpretation is that feeding
the off-gas into the Giant cement kiln would not cause the cement
1 It should be noted that if listed hazardous wastes (rather
than media contaminated with listed wastes) are treated in the
resource recovery kilns, the recovery kiln residues would be
hazardous waste pursuant to the derived-from rule.
-------
produced in the kiln to be subject to the §266.20(b) product
criteria.
Generally, when listed hazardous waste is burned in a cement
kiln for any purpose other than solely for energy recovery (i.e.
as an ingredient or for destruction) and the product is then
placed on the land, under §261.2(c)(1)(i)(B) and the derived-from
rule (§261.3(c)(2)(i)), the cement.product is a solid and
hazardous waste and is subject to §266.20.2 However, as
indicated in the preamble to the first third land disposal
restrictions rule, when listed hazardous waste is burned in an
industrial furnace for energy recovery, the product produced is
not subject to §266.20 because the Agency concluded that due to
the process chemistry involved the constituents in the fuel do
not partition to the product and therefore the product does not
"contain" the hazardous waste (see 53 FR 31197, August 17, 1988)
In the Giant case, because the material fed to the cement
kiln is a gas, and because it is fed similarly to fuels (i.e., to
the hot end of the kiln), we believe that what is occurring in
the Giant system is more analogous to burning of waste fuels than
it is to what normally occurs when materials are burned for
destruction in a cement kiln. Specifically, it is expected that
the feed rate of hazardous constituents contributed by the gas
stream would be lower than that contributed by the hazardous
waste fuel, and that the hazardous constituents in the gas stream
are no more likely to be contained in the cement product than
those in the hazardous waste fuel. Thus, unless the facts
indicate otherwise, as with hazardous waste fuels we believe that
burning of the off-gas stream in the cement kiln should not cause
the cement product to be a waste-derived product subject to the
§266.20(b) criteria because the product is not expected to
contain the hazardous waste.
Issue 4: Regulatory Status of Clinker
If, based on the factors discussed under "Solids" in Issue
3, it is determined that the cement kiln product is a waste-
derived product, §266.20(b) would apply. Under §266.20(b),
hazardous waste-derived products used in a manner that
constitutes disposal are not presently subject to regulation if
these wastes have undergone a chemical reaction so as to become
inseparable by physical means, and if such products meet
applicable land disposal restrictions treatment standards in
Subpart D of Part 268 (or applicable prohibition levels in
§268.32 or RCRA Section 3004(d) where no treatment standards
exist). You proposed that any analysis required under §266.20(b)
Such hazardous waste-derived products used in a manner that
constitutes disposal are not presently subject to regulation if
they meet the criteria under §266.20(b).
-------
be conducted on the commercially sold cement, rather than the
clinker. Section 266.20 states that the product must meet the
above criteria. In most cases the cement is the final product
which is sold to the consumer and placed on the land, and this
material should meet the applicable land disposal restriction
requirements.
However, in some situations-it may be preferable and
acceptable to test the clinker to determine whether the cement
would meet the §266.20(b) criteria. We understand there may be
cases where a cement kiln facility sells its clinker to another
facility which grinds and mixes it with gypsum to'produce cement.
In such a case, it may be preferable to test the clinker before
it goes off-site. Further, waste-derived products which do not
meet the criteria in §266.20(b) must be managed as hazardous
waste. Thus, if the clinker is not determined to meet these
criteria prior to grinding, clinker storage could be subject to
RCRA permitting. Finally, in cases where demonstration of
compliance with the 266.20(b) criteria (applicable land disposal
restrictions) would include testing using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure, we believe that the particle
size reduction step of the procedure would ensure that results
for the clinker would be representative of the cement's
conformance with these criteria, provided the cement contains no
hazardous waste-derived materials other than the ground clinker.
For these reasons, we believe it would be reasonable to consider
the clinker to be the facility's product, and to allow the
§266.20(b) criteria to be demonstrated on the clinker.
In addition, as you stated, 40 CFR 268.7(b)(7) Acquires that
for each shipment of waste-derived product to a rece'iving
facility, the waste-derived product producer must submit to the
Regional Administrator a certification as described in
§268.7(b)(5) and a notice which includes the information listed
in §268.7(b)(4) (except the manifest number). The producer must
also keep records of the name and location of each entity
receiving the hazardous waste-derived product. It is not
necessary for the producer to send the certification notice to
the receiving facility.
Finally, please note that the derived-from and mixture rules
were reinstated on an interim basis (effective until April 28,
1993) pending notice and comment on those provisions (57 FR 7628-
7633, March 3, 1992). In addition, as illustrated by the Giant
case, the management of hazardous waste in cement kilns involves
many complex and difficult issues. We are currently beginning a
study of these issues as part of our RCRA Reform Initiative for
which we will be gathering a wide range of data including
information on industry practices. I anticipate that discussion
of these issues will continue as we progress with the study and I
welcome your thoughts and ideas.
-------
We commend Region IV for its thorough analysis of these
complex issues. If you have further questions, feel free to
contact Sonya Sasseville at (202) 260-3132.
Attachment
cc: Incinerator Permit Writers' .Workgroup
Dev Barnes
Matt Hale
Matt Straus
Elizabeth Cotsworth
Dave Bussard
James Michael
Charlotte Mooney
Steve Silverman
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9498.1992(02)
DEC 3 0 1992
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Application of the BIF
Environmental Servipe>, /jlitd.
/ I/I
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Diprepct^
Office of Solid
Heritage
Lemont, Illinois
\s
Karl E. Bremer, Chief/
RCRA Permitting Branch
Office of RCRA, Region 5 (HRP-8J)
This is in response to your memorandum of November 20, 1992
regarding Heritage Environmental Services, Inc. in Lemont,
Illinois and the burning of a propellant mixture (mostly butane
and propane) in the company's boiler. You specifically asked
whether the burning of this mixture constitutes burning of a
hazardous waste which would require them to comply with the
boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) regulations.
Subpart H of 40 CFR Part 266 regulates the burning or
processing of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces.
However, before a substance can be classified as a hazardous
waste, it must first meet the definition of a solid waste. In
determining whether the butane and propane propellants are solid
wastes, it must also be decided whether the burning of these
materials constitutes the burning for energy recovery of a
propellant (is a solid waste), or use as a fuel (is not a solid
waste) for the reasons stated below.
As stated in your memo, Heritage plans to recover the
materials from the aerosol cans and separate them into three
streams: (1) scrap.metal (crushed cans), (2) a liquid phase
(household chemicals), and (3) a gaseous phase (propellants,
mostly butane and propane). Heritage then plans to burn the
recovered propellants from the aerosol cans in their on-site
boiler for energy value.
According to 40 CFR Section 261.2(c)(2)ii of the
regulations, commercial chemical products that are listed in 40
CFR Section 261.33 as well as non-listed commercial chemical
products that exhibit hazardous waste characteristics (see
attached April 11, 1985 Federal Register notice explaining the
Printed o^ -;-v-^ ecf Papei
-------
regulatory status of non-listed commercial chemical products),
are not classified as solid wastes when burned for energy
recovery if they are themselves fuels. Since propane and butane
are materials that are normally both used as fuels, when unused,
they can be burned as fuels without being considered solid
wastes.
Therefore, if the aerosol cans are full (not used), or
partially full (in which case they would be considered off-
specification with.the remaining propellants in the cans also
being unused), then the butane and propane propellants would be
classified as commercial chemical products. Since these products
are fuels and being burned for energy recovery, they would not
fall within the definition of a solid waste and would
consequently not be considered a hazardous waste.
For the reasons stated above, Heritage would not be
required to comply with the BIF regulations to burn the butane
and propane propellants in their on-site boiler. However, this
determination assumes that other hazardous constituents have been
separated from the butane and propane propellants, and that the
butane and propane are indeed being burned for energy recovery
rather than to destroy other hazardous constituents contained in
the aerosol cans.
If you have any additional questions or would like to
discuss this further, please contact Karen Randolph of my staff
on (703) 308-8651.
Attachment
cc: Christine Dibble, OSW
Mike Petruska, CAD
Steve Silverman, OGC
Bob Holloway, WMD
Sonya Sasseville, PSPD
-------
Feckral Register / Vol. 50. No. 70 / Thursday. April 11. 1985 / Rules and Regv.ia'.:cr.5 ' I21LJ
and s'.orage requirements apply to those
hazardous waste fuels containing listed
wanes and sludges that are shipped
from the generator to a burner or
blender. See 50 FR 632. If a generator of
a listed hazardous waste or sludge
blends or processes these wastes and
sends them to a burner or a waste fuel
processor, the blended waste fuels are
subject to regulation until burned or
reprocessed by the fuel processor
(except as described earlier). Thus, there
is a conflict in the regulation, because
transporters taking hazardous waste
fuels from generators to burners or
waste fuel processors are regulated. See
5 266.33(a). To correct this conflict we
are revising paragraph (b) of { 206.33 to
read as follows: 'Transporters of
hazardous waste fuel are not presently
subject to regulation when they
transport hazardous waste fuel from
marketers, who are not also the
generators, to burners or other .
marketers."
|. Regulatory Status of Non-Usted
Commercial Chemical Products
f Under the final rules, commercial
chemical products and intermediates.
off-specification variants, spill residues.
and container residues listed in 40 CFR
201.33 are M.'. c.::-idered solid wastes
when recycled except when they are
recycled in ways that differ from their
normal usenamely, when .they are
burned for energy recovery or used to
produce a fuel. A number of questions
have been raised as to the regulatory
status of commercial chemical products
that are not listed in I 261.33 but exhibit
one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics (/.e..ignitability.
corrosivity. reactivity, and extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity).
Although we do not directly address
non-listed commercial chemical
products in the rules, their status would
be the same as those that are listed In
J 261.33That is. they are not
considered solid wastes when recycled
except when they are recycled In ways
that differ from their normal manner of
use This is the same relationship that
exists between discarded commercial
chemical products that are listed in
{ 26: 33. end those that exhibit a
:h3racieristic of hazardous waste. We
:.. c-x; this point is implicit In the rules.
as H i! implicit in existing {{ 261.3 and
261.3.1.
K. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirements of a Regulatory Inpact
Analysis. Sine'.- iiiis notice simply makes
typographical and technical corrections
and does not change the previously
approved final rule, this rule is not a
major rule and. therefore, no Regulatory
Impact Analysis was conducted.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and
procedure. Hazardous materials. Waste
treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 261
.Hazardous materials. Waste _
treatment and disposal. Recycling.
40 CFR Part 266
Hazardous materials.
Dated: April 2,1965.
lack W. McGnw.
Assistant Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations Is amended as follows:
PART 260HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for Part 260
reads as follows:
Authority: Sec*. 1006. 2002(a). 3001 through
3007. and 3010 of the Solid Waste Dliposal
Act. as amended by the Reiource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6005.69U(t). 6921
through 6927. and 6930).
2. In { 260.30. paragraph (a] is revised
to read as follows:
( MOM Variance* from ctaMrftcation at a
txtfkJ wutr
(a) Materials that are accumulated
speculatively without sufficient amounts
being recycled (as defined in
8 261.1(c)(6) of this chapterl:
PART 261-IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The authority citation for Part 261
reads as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002(a). 3001. and
3002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
mended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. as amended (42 U.S.C.
0905.6912(a). 6921. and 6922).
4. Section 2612 Is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:
| M1J Definition of hazardous waste.
(c)' ' '
(2)(i) Except as otherwise provided in.
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, any
solid waste generated from the
treatment, storage, or disposal of a
hazardous waste, including any s!-.,J;e.
spill residue, ash. emission control d-jst.
or leachate (but not including
precipitation run-off) is a hazardous
waste. (However, materials that arc
reclaimed from solid wastes and that
ere used beneficially are not solid
wastes and hence are not hazardous
wastes under this provision unless the
reclaimed material is burned for energy
recovery or used in a manner
constituting disposal.)
(ii) The following solid wastes are not
hazardous even though they are
generated from the treatment, storage, or
disposal of a hazardous waste, unless
they exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste: (A)
Waste pickle liquor sludge generated by
lime stabilization of spent pickle liquor
from the iron and steel industry- (SIC
Codes 331 and 332].
5. Section 261.4 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(6) to read as
follows:
52<1.4 ExclusJon*.
(a)' ' «
(6) Pulping liquors (i.e.. black liquor)
that are reclaimed In a pulping liquor
recovery furnace and then reused in the
pulping process, unless it is accumulated
speculatively as defined in { 26l.l(c) of
this chapter.
6. Section 261.S is amended by
revising the second sentence in
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
} 241.5 Special r*qulrtm«nts for
hazardous wutt g«ntr»t»d by null
quantity generators.
(c) * * Hazardous waste that is
subject to the requirements of } 261.6 (b)
and (c) and Subparts C. D. and F of Part
266 is Included in the quantity
determination of this section and is
subject to the requirements of th:s
section.
-PART 266STANDARDS FOa THE
MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
7. The authority citation for Pdri 166
reads as follows:
Authority. S«c*. 1006. 20021 a). «nd XX* cl
the Solid Waste Disposal Act ts tmrnord t>
the Resource Conservition and R*to»try v.i
of 1976. a i amended l« 2 U.SC MOY«gi:i«i
and 6924).
-------
USE
9498.1993(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- > WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
-------
If you have any additional questions or would like to
discuss this in any further detail, please contact Karen Randolph
of my staff on (703) 308-8651.
Sincerely,
a K. Lowrance, Director
Ice of Solid Waste
cc: Dev Barnes, PSPD
Matt Hale, PSPD
Jim Michael, PSPD
Sonya Sasseville, PSPD
Nancy Alvarez, NDEP
Waste Combustion Permit Writers' Workgroup
-------
9498.1993(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
'UN ~2 IQQ3 SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Marshall D. Owens, Jr., P.E.
Engineering Manager
Borden Chemicals and Plastics
Operating Limited Partnership
P.O. Box 427
Geismar, Louisiana 70734
Dear Mr. Owens,
Thank you for your letter dated October 27, 1992, concerning the regulatory status
of a thermal processing unit located at the Borden Chemicals and Plastics ("Borden")
facility in Geismar, Louisiana. As you know, in addition to your letter we received three
written requests from Mr. Harvey Rosenzweig (legal counsel representing Borden) dated
May 5, June 18, and July 7, 1992, prior to our meeting with you on September 23, 1992.
Those letters requested that U.S. EPA Headquarters review a regulatory determination
made by the U.S. EPA Region VI office regarding Borden's Valorization of Chlorinated
Residuals (VCR) unit. Region VI had determined that the VCR unit meets the
definition of an industrial furnace (specifically, a halogen acid furnace, or HAF) under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and would require a RCRA
industrial furnace permit. Because the issues raised in all four letters sent to us address
the same question, this response provides an answer to all four incoming letters. A copy
of this response will be sent to Mr. Rosenzweig as well.
EPA shares your interest in the safe and efficient management of residual
materials. I can assure you that my staff carefully considered the information you and
your counsel presented. I appreciate your including for our understanding the economic
and business considerations that were part of your decisions to construct the VCR unit
and your goal of being a "generator only". After reviewing the information obtained
from irooming letters, U.S. EPA Region VI personnel, apd from our meeting on
September 23, our determination is that Region VI was correct in classifying the unit in
question at the Geismar facility as a halogen acid furnace. Therefore, this unit would be
subject to the regulatory requirements applicable to industrial furnaces burning
hazardous waste, including RCRA interim status and permitting requirements. The
rationale for this determination is presented in the remainder of this letter, and our
response to your specific questions are attached to this letter.
FILE
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Regulatory Status of HAFs
EPA's position is that the thermal decomposition of hazardous chlorinated
residuals in devices like Borden's VCR unit necessarily involves the destruction of toxic
organic compounds in addition to any energy recovery and/or reuse of secondary
materials as feedstocks. Prior to the final rule promulgated for boilers and industrial
furnaces (BIFs) in the February 21, 1991. Federal Register (56 FR 7134), HAFs burning
hazardous waste were either regulated as incinerators or as industrial boilers (56 FR
7139). This is because HAFs were not specifically defined as an industrial furnace.
Therefore, if a HAF burned hazardous waste and was not a boiler (no steam produced),
and since HAFs were not listed as industrial furnaces in §260.10, by definition the unit
was an incinerator. Since the promulgation of the BIF rule, however, the industrial
furnace definition now includes HAFs .
Based on all the information we reviewed, Borden's VCR unit meets the
definition of a HAF. The preamble and regulatory language in both the proposed and
final BIF rulemakings were very explicit concerning EPA's intent to regulate HAFs as
industrial furnaces. EPA's rationale for regulating HAFs as industrial furnaces, and for
designating any material fed to a HAF as "inherently waste-like," are reflected in the
preamble from the April 27, 1990, supplemental notice, which states:
Materials fed to the HAFs are usually the residual still bottoms no longer
suitable for use as feedstock to make new chemical products. Many are
listed wastes, for example the generically listed F024. These materials
contain dozens of Appendix VIII constituents not ordinarily found in the
raw materials that are normally used to produce chlorine...Other than for
their chlorine content, these organic toxicants do not contribute to
hydrochloric acid production; they are destroyed...Thus, these toxicants
(which by volume comprise the greater part of these wastes) are discarded
by thermal combustion. Second, inefficient combustion of the halogenated
organic compounds in wastes fed to a HAF can pose the same risks to
human health and the environment as combustion of those wastes in an
incinerator, boiler, or other industrial furnace. We thus believe that
hazardous materials burned in these devices are inherently waste-like. 55
FR 17892.
The development of the regulations pertaining to HAFs clearly indicates EPA's
^"he § 260.10 definition of industrial furnace now includes "Halogen acid furnaces
(HAFs) for the production of acid from halogenated hazardous waste generated by
chemical production facilities where the furnace is located on the site of a chemical
production facility, the acid product has a halogen acid content of a least 3%, the acid
product is used in a manufacturing process, and, except for hazardous waste burned as
fuel, hazardous waste fed to the furnace has a minimum halogen content of 20% as-
generated."
-------
intent to regulate these units as BIFs within the Subtitle C management system in order
to ensure adequate destruction of the toxic constituents. Despite opportunity to
comment on our specific approach to HAFs in both the May 6, 1987, proposal and the
April 27, 1990, supplemental notice, no party (including Borden) raised information to
cause EPA to modify this approach.
In summary, EPA recognizes the benefits of burning hazardous waste in boilers
and industrial furnaces, which include energy and material recovery, and the reduction of
waste volumes requiring commercial treatment and disposal. We also must be able to
ensure that burning hazardous wastes in boilers and industrial furnaces is performed in a
manner that minimizes risks and is protective of human health and the environment. If
you have any further questions please contact Ross Elliott of my staff at (202) 260-8551.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sine
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Bob Holloway, USEPA
Matt Hale, USEPA
Brian Heineman, USEPA Region VI
Harvey Rosenzweig, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore
Enclosure
-------
EPA Response to Specific Questions
Raised by Borden Concerning VCR Process Unit
Located at Borden's Geismar. LA Facility
The following arguments were raised at various points in the four incoming letters
EPA received from Borden (and Borden's counsel) concerning the VCR unit in Geismar,
Louisiana. They are addressed here in order to help clarify some of these issues.
Spent Sulfuric Acid Exemption - Borden made the argument that the chlorinated
stillbottoms used in the production of "anhydrous hydrogen chloride" in the VCR thermal
unit (and therefore the overall process itself) should be excluded from RCRA regulation
because they are analogous to the materials covered by the exclusion in §261.4(a)(7) for
spent sulfuric acid used as a feedstock to produce virgin sulfuric acid.
EPA promulgated the sulfuric acid exclusion to make clear that spent sulfuric acid
recycled in industrial furnaces was not solid waste under the use/reuse provisions in
261.2(e)(l)(i) and (ii) (see January 4, 1985 Federal Register: 50 FR 634). In contrast,
we felt that the industrial furnaces in which halogenated residuals are burned warranted
regulation due to the highly toxic nature of the materials entering the unit, and the fact
that many of these chlorinated organics were being thermally destroyed in the process
(see 56 FR 7141).
Coke By-Product Rule - Borden believes that EPA's rationale supporting the exclusions
found in the final rule on coke by-products is applicable to the chlorinated stillbottoms
entering Borden's VCR thermal unit. Specifically, the coke by-product rule excluded
from the definition of solid waste certain coke by-product residues that are TC (toxicity
characteristic) hazardous, and are recycled in certain ways, including return to the coke
oven as feedstock. The rationale for these exclusions is based on the presence of
adequate air emission controls under the Clean Air Act, and applicability of the
American Mining Congress court decisions ("AMC I" and "AMC II") in favor of
excluding in-process recycling that does not contribute to the waste disposal problem.
These exclusions are also conditioned on there being no land disposal of the recycled
material. Borden feels that they can satisfy these conditions in their VCR process.
However, EPA based its coke by-product determination on data submitted by the
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) in the form of a rulemaking petition. Using
this cL;a, EPA was able to determine that the addition of K087 (or other TC-hazardous
coke residues) to coal prior to coking, to the tar recovery process as a feedstock, and to
coal tar prior to sale, had no significant effect on the levels of hazardous constituents in
the materials to which they were added, and equally important, no significant effect on
air emissions. In this case, EPA was able to conclude that this type of recycling is not
part of the waste disposal problem. With respect to Borden's case, the air emissions
from the unit in question are clearly related to the hazardous waste input, even though
the specific unit may well be well designed and operated such that the emissions are
-------
safe. We also believe that Appendix VIII constituents not ordinarily found in the raw
materials normally used to produce chlorine do not contribute to hydrochloric acid
production; they are destroyed (discarded) in the HAF.
RCRA Jurisdiction - In several of the incoming letters, the stillbottom materials being
fed to the VCR unit were characterized as "previously unused and unconsumed organic
intermediates" that arev then "processed into usable anhydrous hydrogen chloride
feedstock," for use in a continuing production process. The implication was that there is
no Subtitle C jurisdiction over either the materials or the VCR process unit. The AMC
court decisions were cited in support of these arguments.
EPA disagrees with this assessment. First, the stillbottom materials are
considered to be chemical manufacturing residuals (i.e., by-products2), as they were
described when EPA listed these wastes as hazardous (K019 and K020) in 1980?.
Although land disposal and incineration were the common management practices
industry-wide for these stillbottoms at that time, EPA also recognized that some of these
by-products were being recycled as feedstocks in other processes. In fact, EPA still
recognizes the reuse of these materials as feedstocks when fed to HAFs (see 56 FR
7141; 52 FR 17019). However, EPA retains jurisdiction over this type of reuse (i.e., the
burning of highly-chlorinated residuals as ingredients to make halogen acid), in part
through the inherently waste-like designation (§261.2(d)).
The AMC I decision regarding in-process recycling does not preclude the Agency
from making inherently waste-like determinations. The inherently waste-like criteria
originally discussed in the January 4, 1985 Final Rule (50 FR 637), were reiterated in a
rulemaking proposed in response to the AMC I decision, in which EPA stated:
The factors the Agency is required to consider in designating secondary
materials as solid wastes under this section address the element of discard
necessarily involved in recycling these materials (e.g., whether the material
is typically discarded, or whether it contains unusual hazardous constituents
not found in corresponding virgin materials for which the secondary
material substitutes which do not contribute to the recycling process, and
whether the recycling process may pose a hazard to human health and the
environment). The court's opinion does not affect this provision. (54 FR
523).
2 EPA defines a by-product as "...a material that is not one of the primary products of
a production process and is not solely or separately produced by the production process.
Examples are process residues such as slags or distillation column bottoms." (40 CFR
3 See Listing Background Document for Ethylene Dichloride and Vinyl Chloride
Monomer Production, November 14, 1980.
-------
AAF Definition - Borden believes that the VCR unit does not meet the definition of
HAF in §260.10, because it is not used for "the production of acid;" instead, Borden
claims that the VCR unit is producing anhydrous HC1.
We understand that the production of aqueous HC1 is the initial result of the
thermal reactor and subsequent water quenching within the VCR process unit. When
EPA was proposing a regulatory definition for HAFs, we were clearly targeting units
that, in the example of chlorinated residues being burned, "...produce hydrogen chloride
(HC1) from chlorine-bearing secondary streams by scrubbing HC1 from combustion
gases" (emphasis added) (52 FR 17018). The fact that the HC1 is further processed, in
subsequent concentration and distillation stages within the VCR process, to produce the
desired anhydrous hydrogen chloride does not preclude the thermal portion of the unit
from meeting the definition of a HAF.
However, should a particular unit (that is processing hazardous secondary
materials using controlled-flame combustion), both 1) not meet the definition of a HAF,
or other industrial furnace specified in §260.10, and 2) not meet the definition of a
boiler, then EPA would consider such a unit an incinerator (§260.10). (Based on the
information provided concerning the production of steam from the thermal portion of
the VCR process, it is possible that the unit may also meet the definition of a boiler.)
This determination would be moot if the unit was otherwise classified as a HAF, which
we believe it is.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498.1993(03)
NJnw p 9 IQQ^
iM-vV c » tyyj OFFICE of
SO!.ID WASTE ANC EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. William F. Sutton
President
Mercury Recovery Services
700 Fifth Ave.
New Brighton, PA 15066
Dear Mr. Sutton:
In your letter of August 27, 1993 to Sylvia Lowrance, you requested an EPA
interpretation of the classification of your mobile mercury retorting process for mercury
contaminated soils from natural gas pipeline meters as a recycling process. You also
indicate in your letter an interest on the part of natural gas pipeline companies to
understand permitting requirements for field operation of your process.
In response to your request, EPA has reviewed the written materials that you
have submitted with your letter and during your meeting with EPA Headquarters on
August 25, 1993. EPA recognizes that mercury roasting and retorting are two methods
of reclamation, a type of recycling (40 CFR §261.1(c)(7)).
Under Federal RCRA Subtitle C regulations, recycling processes are generally not
subject to regulation including permitting requirements (40 CFR §261.6(c)(l)).
However, recycling in industrial furnaces or boilers represents an exception to this
general rule (see 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart H generally). In particular, roasting and
retorting operations meet the definition of an industrial furnace (40 CFR §260.10) since
they are types of smelting, melting or refining furnaces.1 However, if the retorting
operation is burning solely for metal recovery, it is conditionally exempt from most of the
boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) requirements including the requirement to obtain a
permit (40 CFR §266.100(c)).
1 Roasting involves the heating of a material such as an ore or metal compound in order to
remove impurities such as sulfides from metal compounds such as mercury sulfides. Roasters are a type of
smelting, melting and refining furnace listed in 40 CFR 260.10. A retorter is a furnace where metal
compounds are refined from a metal oxide to metal form through distillation and condensation. EPA
believes that retorters are also a type of pyrometallurgical device that meets the definition of smelting,
melting or refmning furnace even through they are not specifically listed in 40 CFR 260.10 as an example of
such devices.
-------
To meet the conditions of the exemption, the owner/operator of a smelting,
melting or refining device must submit a one-time written notice to the Director stating
that: 1) the owner/operator claims the exemption, 2) the hazardous waste is being
burned solely for metal recovery and contains recoverable levels of metals, and 3) the
owner/operator will comply with sampling, analysis and recordkeeping requirements of
40 CFR § 266.100 (c)(l). (The owner/operator must also meet the management
standards prior to burning (40 CFR 266.101) and the regulation of residues (40 CFR
266.112).)
In order to be considered burning solely for metal recovery, an owner/operator of
an industrial furnace (e.g., smelting, melting or refining furnace) must meet two
conditions. First, hazardous waste burned in the furnace, as fired, must have no more
than a total of 500 ppm of organic compounds listed in 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix VIII.
Second, the hazardous waste must have heating value of less than 5000 BTU/lb. 40 CFR
§266.100(c)(2).
Note that if the hazardous waste as fired in the furnace exceeds a total of 500
ppm Appendix VIII organic constituents by weight, it is considered burning for
destruction and therefore cannot qualify for the metal recovery exemption under the BIF
rule. Alternatively, if the waste is greater than 5000 BTU/lb heating value, it is
considered to be burned as a fuel. In either event, the industrial furnace would be
subject to 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart H BIF requirements, including permit requirements.
The hazardous waste to be burned in the furnace may be treated either below 500 ppm
Appendix VIII organic constituents or less than 5000 BTU/lb by bona fide treatment that
removes or destroys organic constituents. If this type of partial treatment were to occur
prior to entry of the waste into an industrial furnace, then the industrial furnace could
still be eligible for the metal recovery exemption under the BIF rule. However, blending
to dilute below either of these levels is prohibited. 40 CFR §266.100(c)(2).
Based on information provided in your incoming, it appears that your operation is
a roasting/retorting operation that may be exempt from RCRA permitting requirements.
However, this regulatory determination will depend on situation specific factors such as
the type of material fed into the retorting unit. Therefore, you should consult with the
appropriate EPA Region or State for particular regulatory determinations regarding
specific sites.
Please be aware that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6926)
individual States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste
programs in lieu of the Federal program. When States are not authorized to administer
their own program, the appropriate EPA Regional office administers the program and is
the appropriate contact for any case-specific determinations. Please also note that under
Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than Federal regulatory requirements.
-------
If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Mike
Petruska of my staff at (202) 260-8551.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Waste Combustion Permit Writers Workgroup
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498.1993(04)
DEC I 7 1993
OFFCE OF
SOLD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
Subject* Classification of Olin Mercury Recover
From:
Tot
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Joseph Franzmathes, Director
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
Unit
This memo is in response to Region IVs request for our
advice on classifying Olin's mercury recovery unit located in
Charleston, TN, as either an industrial furnace or a Subpart X
miscellaneous treatment unit.
After review of the design and use of the mercury recovery
unit, we have determined that it is a type of smelting, melting,
or refining furnace and is therefore an industrial furnace (under
the definition in 40 CFR 260.10) subject to the BIF rule. As a
smelting, melting, or refining furnace, however, the unit is
eligible for an exemption from the permitting, emissions
standards, and certain other requirements of the BIF rule if it
engages solely in metal recovery, as provided by 40 CFR
266.100(c). As you may know, the exemption is conditioned on the
facility notifying EPA that it is claiming the exemption,
sampling and analysis of the hazardous waste and recordkeeping to
document eligibility for the exemption.
The determination that the mercury recovery unit is an
industrial furnace is based on the following:
The unit is an integral component of a manufacturing
process that uses thermal treatment to recover mercury.
We understand that the unit will recover over 90
percent of the waste mercury for recycling into the
chlorine production process;
We understand that the unit will be used to convert
mercuric sulfide to mercury in exactly the same manner
as commercial roasters, and roasters are a type of
Print** wftti Soy/Ctnota Ink on pip»r tlwt
M.M.. « IMM "»t ~~^«- «>-'
-------
smelting, melting, or refining furnace listed in 40 CFR
260.10; and
The unit is also a retorter because it is used to
volatilize mercury for subsequent recovery by
condensation. In the metallurgical industry, a
retorter is a furnace consisting of a fire chamber in
which metals are recovered by distillation and
subsequent recovery. These furnaces are used when the
material must be vaporized and then condensed.
Mercury, due to its low boiling point, is commonly
recovered from secondary sources using retort furnaces.
We believe that retorters are a type of
pyrometallurgical device that meets the definition of
smelting, melting, or refining furnace even though they
are not specifically listed in 40 CFR 260.10 as an
example of such devices.
If you have any further questions on the matter, please feel
free to contact me at (703) 308-8414, or your staff may contact
Nick Vizzone at (703) 308-8460.
CC John Dickinson, EPA Region IV
Bill Gallagher, EPA Region VI
Denis Zielinski, EPA Region III
Mitch Kidwell, CAD
Sonya Sasseville, PSPD
Bob Holloway, WMD
-------
f n \
5 ^*^ * UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498. 1994(01)
APR - 4 1994
OFf :CE OP
SOLID WAS: E AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Richard C. Fortuna
Executive Director
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
915 15th Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Fortuna:
This letter responds to the Petition for Administrative
Action to Cease Hazardous Waste Burning and Notice of Citizen
Suits, which the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC) and
several citizens groups submitted to the Administrator of the
U.S. EPA on January 31, 1994. In this letter, I will refer to
your January 31 document as "the Notice."
The Notice you submitted asks the Administrator to halt the
burning of hazardous wastes (or where hazardous wastes are not
being burned, to disallow any burning of hazardous waste until a
permit is issued) at the following hazardous waste combustion
facilities: LaFarge Cement Plant in Alpena, Michigan; National
Cement Company in Lebec, California; River Cement in Festus,
Missouri; BoxCrow Cement Plant in Midlothian, Texas; Gage
Products Company in Ferndale, Michigan; Holnam Cement Plant in
Ada, Oklahoma; ESSROC Cement Plant in Speed, Indiana; and Marine
Shale in Morgan City, Louisiana. These facilities all assert
that they obtained interim status under section 3005(e) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") upon EPA's
promulgation of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace ("BIF") rule,
which became effective on August 21, 1991. The basis for your
request was your belief that these facilities either did not
qualify for interim status, or should be required to cease waste
combustion due to non-compliance with the BIF standards.
I appreciate your concerns regarding the operation of all
BIF facilities and their compliance with the applicable
regulations. EPA has vigorously enforced the B.IF requirements
and will continue to do so. We welcome public input into the
implementation of the BIF regulations, including notification by
the public of possible violations by interim status BIF
facilities and any other facilities.
With respect to the facility-specific interim status issues
raised in the Notice, it is important to note that EPA does not
"approve" or "deny" interim status. Interim status is a
statutory right that is conveyed by RCRA to facilities that
-------
satisfy the interim status criteria. The promulgation of a
regulation that expands the universe of facilities subject to
RCRA regulation, such as the BIF rule, provides an opportunity
for existing facilities to gain interim status. Unlike an Agency
decision to deny a permit, EPA's interpretations on whether
potentially affected facilities have qualified for interim status
simply express the Agency's view, based on a review of the
information before it, as to whether the facilities have met the
interim status criteria. These interpretations are potentially
subject to revision based on new information or analysis. This
letter presents EPA's interpretation regarding whether the
specific facilities qualified for interim status, based on the
information before EPA when it rendered initial interpretations
for these facilities, the information provided in the Notice,
information submitted by some of the facilities since EPA
received the Notice, and additional information gathered by EPA.
The criteria a facility must meet in order to qualify for
interim status under the BIF rule, or any other rule that first
subjects a facility to the hazardous waste rules, are set out in
40 CFR 270.70(a), 260,10, and 266.103(a). One of the criteria is
that the facility must be an existing hazardous waste management
facility on the effective date of the rule that subjects it to
hazardous waste regulation. The regulations specify that if the
facility has not managed hazardous waste by this effective date,
it musr have "commenced construction" in order to qualify as
"existing" (40 CFR § 270.70(a)). In order to demonstrate that it
has "commenced construction" a facility must have obtained the
Federal, state, and local approvals and permits necessary to
begin physical construction. These approvals and permits are
those required under Federal, State, and local hazardous waste
control statutes, regulations or ordinances (see 40 CFR 260.10).
This "approvals and permits" requirement was discussed in an
EPA preamble (46 FR 2344, January 9, 1981) and an August 19,
1991, guidance memorandum from Don Clay, Assistant Administrator,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, to James Scherer,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII. Both discussions explained
that, for example, permits required to begin physical
construction of a facility under a state's air statutes or
regulations, are not a requirement for obtaining interim status,
unless the statutes or regulations specifically regulate the
management of hazardous waste.
For six of the eight subject facilities, EPA used the
guidance contained in the August 19, 1991 memorandum and other
regulatory and policy directives to evaluate the interim status
issues. (The two remaining facilities, River Cement and National
Cement, are addressed separately below.) In cases where the
interim status determination turned on whether a state permit was
required under a state hazardous waste statute or regulation, EPA
consulted with the relevant state agency. Where the state law
-------
was open to interpretation, EPA gave substantial weight to
reasonable interpretations by the state.
Based on our analysis, EPA believes that the following
facilities never qualified for interim status: Gage Products
Company in Ferndale, Michigan; ESSROC Cement Plant in Speed,
Indiana; and Marine Shale in Morgan City, Louisiana. Marine
Shale is the only facility in this group that is currently
burning hazardous waste. In addition, for the LaFarge Cement
plant in Alpena, Michigan, we believe the three kiln units you
identified in your notice did not q lalify for interim status,
although the facility does have interim status for two other
kilns that have been burning hazardous wastes for a number of
years.
EPA believes that the Holnam Cement Plant in Ada, Oklahoma
does have interim status. For the BoxCrow Cement Plant in
Midlothian, Texas, the Notice raises difficult questions as to
the interpretation of a complex state regulatory scheme. EPA is
consulting with the state of Texas to clarify the interpretation
of the State permit regulations. EPA will respond to this
portion of the Notice shortly. Neither of these facilities is
currently burning hazardous waste.
In the case of River Cement facility in Festus, Missouri,
EPA evaluated whether the owner/operator complied with the BIF
rule compliance schedule cited in 40 CFR § 260.103(e). The
Agency found substantial compliance with these provisions;
therefore the facility may continue to burn hazardous waste under
interim status.
With respect to National Cement in Lebec, California, EPA's
Region IX office issued a final decision to deny the RCRA permit
for this facility on March 31, 1994. The denial was based on the
fact that the landowner did not sign the certification required
by the RCRA regulations. This decision, scheduled to take
effect on April 30, 1994, will automatically terminate interim
status, to the extent the facility obtained it. 40 CFR Section
270.73(a). Note that the facility may elect to appeal the
decision under the Agency's administrative appeal process in 40
CFR Part 124. Because EPA has issued a decision to deny National
Cement's permit application and terminate its operations on
virtually the same grounds identified in the Notice for
terminating interim status operations, EPA does not believe that
any additional action is necessary at this point with respect to
the National Cement facility.
1As you are aware, on February 24, 1994, National Cement
supplied EPA with a certification signed by the landowner, Tejon
Ranch. However, the certification signed by Tejon Ranch is
different from what is required by the regulations.
-------
The Agency has notified each of these companies of the
determinations contained in this letter. Please see the
attachment for additional discussion on each facility. If you
wish to discuss this matter further, please contact the
appropriate EPA Regional Office.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Attachments
-------
ATTACHMENT
EPA Response to "Petition for Administrative Action to Cease
Hazardous Waste Burning and Notice of Citizen Suits"
A. FACILITIES IN EPA REGION 5
LaFarge Cement Plant, Alpena. Michigan
'The Notice asserts that three units at the LaFarge Cement
Plant do not have interim status because the facility did not
obtain all permits and approvals necessary for physical
construction. Further, it claims that the construction
undertaken by the facility in order to qualify for interim status
was done in violation of Michigan air permit requirements, and
was dismantled pursuant to a consent judgement. Two units at the
facility have burned hazardous waste for a number of years, and
the Notice does not question their qualification for interim
status. . ,v
The key issue regarding this facility is whether two permits
required for BIFs under Michigan's hazardous waste control
regulations fall within the "permits and approvals" requirement
for obtaining interim status. The LaFarge facility did not
obtain either of these permits for any of the three units in
question prior to the effective date of the BIF rule. To be
considered "in existence" and thus qualify for interim status, a
facility that requires "construction" to manage hazardous waste
must obtain any hazardous waste permits that would be necessary
for construction.
EPA believes that these permits are construction permits
required under a hazardous waste regulation. Because LaFarge did
not obtain either permit, EPA believes the facility did not
obtain interim status for the three units in question. In
reaching this conclusion, EPA consulted extensively with the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources ("MDNR") to clarify
certain aspects of its interpretation of State permit
requirements. EPA has concluded that MDNR's interpretation of
its own regulatory scheme is reasonable and EPA has given it
considerable weight. The Agency has no knowledge of hazardous
waste being-burned in these units.
Essentially, MDNR Rule 299.9802(3)(a) ("Rule 802"),
promulgated pursuant to the state's hazardous waste control
statute (Act 64), requires BIF facilities to obtain either an Act
64 permit or a permit under the state's..air statute (Act 348) ir.
order to burn hazardous waste. Virtually all facilities comply
with this provision by obtaining Act 348 permits, and LaFarge has
obtained Act 348 permits for its kilns with interim status thac
are currently burning hazardous waste. The requirement in Rule
-------
802 to obtain the air permit encompasses the requirement to
obtain a permit to install as well-as a permit to operate, since
facilities typically operate for extended periods of time under
permits to install. For facilities that choose to comply with
Rule 802 by obtaining permits under the hazardous waste statute,
the hazardous waste permit provisions similarly require
facilities to obtain permits prior to construction.
Consequently, under MDNR's hazardous waste control Rule 802, a
.facility must obtain a permit prior to commencing construction.
This analysis is documented in correspondence between EPA and
MDNR.
EPA notes that the August 19, 1991, Don Clay memorandum
indicated that "air pollution control permits" are not
prerequisites for obtaining interim status "if the purpose of the
legislative provision is to regulate air emissions in general,
and not specifically to regulate hazardous waste...." EPA
clarifies that this sentence was not intended to limit the
inquiry to legislative, as opposed to regulatory, intent. The
intent of this portion of the memorandum was to reiterate that
permits required under other regulatory schemes are not generally
prerequisites for obtaining interim status, unless the scheme
specifically regulates hazardous waste management. The inquiry
required for an interim status determination is whether the
permits in question are an official part of the state's scheme
for regulating hazardous waste management.
Gage Products Company, Ferndale, Michigan
The Notice asserts that the Gage Products facility did not
have interim status because the facility did not obtain all
permits and approvals necessary for physical construction. This
facility is subject to the same Michigan permit requirements as
the LaFarge Cement Plant, and-, raises virtually the same issues.
For the same reasons discussed 'for the LaFarge facility above,
EPA believes that Gage Products Company does not have interim
status.
ES5ROC Cement Plant. Speed. Indiana
ESSROC withdrew its Part A permit application form on
January 27, 1993 (see attached letter). To EPA's knowledge the
facility has not burned hazardous waste. Under EPA's long-
standing "protective filer" policy, it is the Agency's view that
the facility never obtained interim status. EPA has informed the
company that a RCRA permit must be obtained before waste may be
burned at the facility.
-------
B. FACILITIES IN EPA REGION 6
Marine Shale Processors, Morgan City. Louisiana
The Notice asserts that the MSP facility lacks interim
status. EPA agrees with this conclusion. On June 14, 1990, the
United States filed a multimedia civil judicial enforcement
action against Marine Shale of St. Mary Parish, Louisiana
pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
the Clean Water Act. Marine. Shale is the largest burner of
hazardous waste in the country. The United States has alleged
that Marine Shale is a "sham" recycler that has been improperly
operating without a RCRA permit or interim status and is
violating RCRA by placing hazardous waste on the ground that
exceeds EPA's treatment standards. The U.S.'s Complaint also
alleges that Marine Shale violated the company's Clean Water Act
National Point Source Discharge Elimination System permit.
On August 2, 1993, District Court Judge DuPlantier granted
the state of Louisiana's motion to intervene as a co-plaintiff in
this case. The Court also permitted the U.S. to add new claims
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act and the Clean Air Act against Marine Shale as well
as add additional RCRA claims against the intervenors, Recycling
Park, Inc. and Southern Wood Piedmont. A trial of^the RCRA,
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act claims is scheduled to begin on
April 18, 1994 in New Orleans, Louisiana.
On January 31, 1994, Region 6 proposed to deny Marine Shale
Processors, Inc.'s application for a boiler or industrial furnace
("BIF") permit. EPA will accept public comments on the proposed
denial until July 1, 1994. After receipt of public comments EPA
will issue a decision in this matter addressing any comments
received from the public. This decision will become final within
30 days, subject to the Agency's,appeal process.
Holnam Cement Plant, Ada, Oklahoma
The Notice asserts that the Holnam Cement Plant facility
does not have interim status because it did not have the
necessary construction permits. Further, the Notice suggests
that interim status should be terminated because the facility
failed ho submit a complete Part B portion of the RCRA permit
application.
The Notice claims'that Holnam needed a state construction
permit and a state recycling permit in order to gain interim
status. This assertion is based on an Au,gust 28, 1991, letter
from the Oklahoma State Department of Health to Holnam. However,
this letter states that an exclusion from the construction permit
requirements (found in § 1-2014.2 of t'r.e Oklahoma Controlled
Industrial Waste Disposal Act) applies to units used exclusively
-------
in the recycling process. Under state law, any facility which
receives off-site shipments of hazardous waste to be recycled or
processed for recycling, through any process conducted at the
facility including fuel blending or burning, is an off-site
recycling facility. These facilities require only an operations
permit for the recycling units (see Rules 310:270-11-1 (a) (1) and
310:270-19-1, and attached October 22, 1992, letter from the
Oklahoma Department of Health to D. Shandy). Therefore, since
neither of these two permits are required for construction at the
Holnam facility, they are not necessary to obtain interim status.
Based on this analysis of applicable state regulations and
interpretive letters, EPA believes that the permits identified in
the Notice are not construction permits required under state
hazardous waste management regulations and are not necessary in
order to qualify for interim status. However, the Agency is
concerned about the facility's commitment to complete
construction within a reasonable time, which is a requirement for
Holnam to obtain interim status. We will continue to monitor the
facility's progress and demonstration of intent to complete
construction within a reasonable time. If the company does not
in the near future objectively demonstrate this intent, this will
raise questions as to whether the facility satisfied the interim
status requirement to have contractual obligations for physical
construction to be completed in a reasonable time.,*
Regarding Part B of Holnam's permit application, the Notice
points to deficiencies in the application cited by Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality in a Notice of Deficiency.
issued to the Holnam facility on August 23, 1993. The state
required the facility to revise the application to address the
cited deficiencies. Such notices of deficiency are a standard
step in the early permitting process and do not in themselves
affect a facility's interim status. Of course, if deficiencies
continue to exist in subsequent permit applications, the permit
may be denied and/or the facility's interim status may be
terminated.
BoxCrow Cement Plant. Midlothian, Texas
The Notice asserts that the BoxCrow Cement Plant does not
have interim status because the facility did not obtain all
permits and- approvals necessary for physical construction by the
effective date of the BIF rule. The Notice raises difficult
questions as to the interpretation of a complex state regulatory
scheme. EPA is consulting with the state of Texas to clarify t.u.e
interpretation of the state permit regulations. EPA will respond
to this portion of the petition shortly. " The Agency has no
knowledge of hazardous waste being burned at this facility.
-------
C. FACILITY IN EPA REGION 7
River Cement Co.. Festus. Missouri
The Notice asserts that River Cement failed to comply with
the interim status compliance schedule and should therefore cease
burning hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR § 266. 103 (e) . The
Notice also states that EPA's River Cement files contain only an
unsigned, draft COP that Region 7 never reviewed or approved, and
alleges QA/QC deficiencies with respect to certain emissions test
data.
EPA has determined that because River Cement substantially
complied with all mandatory COC-related compliance schedules, an
order to cease burning and close pursuant to 40 CFR § 260.103(e)
is not appropriate. While EPA Region 7 filed an administrative
complaint against River Cement on September 27, 1993 (In re:
River Cement. Docket No. 07-93-H-0029) alleging, among other
things, two potential COC deficiencies, as described below, EPA
does not consider the deficiencies sufficient to shut the
facility down under 40 CFR § 266.103 (e)..
In Count III of the complaint, Region 7 alleged that River
Cement failed to include certain dioxin and furan emissions test
results in its COC. The missing results, however,*related to a
proposed operating mode that River Cement never used, and River
Cement had provided Region 7 with the underlying dioxin test data
in a separate mailing prior to submitting the COC. No penalty
was proposed for this deficiency, which has been corrected.
Count IV alleged that River Cement failed to establish
operating limits for its electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).
This failure was based on a misunderstanding resulting from good
faith discussions with EPA personnel concerning the use of
opacity testing as an alternative monitoring method. Region 7
determined that, under site conditions, the opacity monitoring
provides results which approximate the required ESP testing and
is generally protective of health and the environment. The
Region will, therefore, allow the facility to continue operating
using the opacity monitoring until the required ESP monitoring
equipment is installed. The compliance order in EPA's
administrative complaint requires this equipment to be installed.
Again, no penalty was proposed.
The statement in-the. Notice that EPA's files lack a valid
COP is inaccurate. The regional files in fact contain a valid,
final River Cement COP. Finally, the QA/QC deficiencies cited in
the Notice relate primarily to data submitted to support a state
air permit application and not the 3IF COC. The Region
ultimately determined that the BIF portion of River Cement's data
contained no significant deficiencies.
-------
D. FACILITY IN EPA REGION 9
National Cement Company, Lebec. California
The Notice contends that, because the Part A permit
application form was not signed by the landowner, Tejon
Ranchcorp, the facility did not qualify for interim status.
Under EPA regulations, the owner of land that is leased to
another party operating a hazardous waste management facility on
the land is an "owner" of the facility. ("Owner" means person
who owns a facility or part of a facility; "facility" includes
"all contiguous land, and structures... used for treating,
storing, or disposing of hazardous waste" see 40 CFR Section
260.10). Consequently, the landowner is required to sign and
certify the facility's permit application (40 CFR Section
270.10(b), 270.ll(d)).
With respect to National Cement in ..Lebec, California, EPA's
Region 9 office issued a final decision to deny the RCRA permit
for this facility on March 31, 1994. The denial was based on the
fact that the landowner did not sign the certification required
by the RCRA regulations. This decision, scheduled to take effect
on April 30, 1994, will automatically terminate interim status,
to the extent the facility obtained it. 40 CFR Section
270.73(a). Because EPA is in the last stages of finalizing its
denial of National Cement's permit application, and terminating
its operations, on virtually the same grounds identified in the
Notice for terminating interim status operations, EPA does not
believe that any additional action is necessary at this point
with respect to the National Cement facility.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498.1994(02)
MAY 20 1994
OFFICE OF
SOUO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORANDUM RESPONSE
Subject: Minimum Heat Content Requirements for Hazardous Wastes
Burned in BIFs
To: Allyn M. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
From: Michael H. Shapiro, Directo
Office of Solid Waste
This is in response to ycur May 11, 1994, memorandum
requesting clarification on the minimum heat content requirements
for hazardous wastes burned in boilers and industrial furnaces
(BIFs) as a result of a Laidlaw Environmental Services (Recovery)
inquiry. In their October 19, 1993, letter, Laidlaw proposes to
lower the minimum heat content requirement for wastes they accept
for blending into fuel from 5,000 Btu/lb to 1,000 Btu/lb
providing that the BIF unit has certified compliance. Laidlaw
contends that wastes with a heating value between 1,000 and 5,000
Btu/lb are suitable for their fuel blending program.
Blending of hazardous waste to increase its heating value
for use as a fuel is not prohibited. However, the following
situation illustrates that there can be undesirable consequences
for specific BIF units that burn such blended hazardous wastes.
For example, if an industrial furnace that has certified
compliance burns a listed hazardous waste with a heating value
less than 5,000 Btu/lb as-generated and the facility does not
document that the hazardous waste is burned for legitimate energy
recovery, then any product (e.g., cement) applied to or placed on
the land in a manner that constitutes disposal would be a waste-
derived product subject to regulation as a hazardous waste. This
waste-derived product, however, could be eligible for an
exemption from regulation as a hazardous waste by compliance with
the land disposal regulations (LDRs) and associated notification
requirements.
It is important to note that the "legitimate fuel"
determination is on an as-generated, not as-fired, basis.
Blending to augment the as-generated heating value cannot be used
-------
to meet the "legitimate fuel" teat (i.e., either the waste must
have a minimum heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb, or the facility
must document that lower heating value waste contributes
significant, useable energy). However, the as-generated heating
value of a hazardous waste may be increased to meet the
"legitimate fuel" test by bona fide treatment (e.g., decanting).
I hope that this information will be helpful. If you have
further questions or comments, please feel free to contact Frank
Behan of my staff at 703-308-8476.
cc: Frank McAlister, OSW/PSPD
Bob Holloway, OSW/WMD
Prank Behan, OSW/WMD
-------
Resource Recovery
w * mim m^
SSRVICES
October 19, 1993
CERTIFIED MAIL P 860 SS3 883
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI
Hazardous Waste Division, 6H
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Ret BTU Limitation for Fuel Blending Facilities
Laidlaw Environmental Services (Recovery). Inc.
Crowlev. LA - LAD 079 464 095
To Whom It May Concern:
of this letter is to request an interpretation
^
concerning the minimum heat content reguireigftntfa nf ^*gf g.-deriveji
fuel burned for energy recovery. Laidlaw Environmental Services'
"(Recovery),Inc.,is ahazardous waste fuel blending facility
located in Crowley, Louisiana.
As of August'21, 1991, Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) units
were regulated under the Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rule (40 CFR
266). Prior to this date, BIF's were not regulated under RCRA if
they were burning hazardous waste for energy recovery. The only
restriction was the hazardous waste burned for energy recovery had
to have a minimum heat content of 5,000 BTU/pound to avoid "sham
recycling". The "Sham Recycling Rule" (Federal Register, March 16,
1983, Pg. 11,157) was intended to prevent BIF units from burning
hazardous waste solely for the purpose of destruction. Under the
BIF Rule, the "Sham Recycling Rule" no longer applies to BIF units
once they have certified compliance with the Rule.
At the current time, Laidlaw Environmental Services (Recovery),
Inc., does not accept hazardous waste with a heat content less than
5,000 BTU/pound. The facility proposes to lower the minimum heat
content requirement for the facility to 1,000 BTU/pound, providing
the BIF unit has certified compliance with the BIF Rule. These
materials would not be blended and shipped to BIF units, which have
no certified compliance with the BIF Rule.
Laidlaw contends that these low-BTU materials, with a heat content
between 1,000 and 5,000 BTU/pound, are suitable for the fuels
blending program. These waste streams will not be widely accepted
due to the BTU/pound restrictions, which are required by the BIF
units. Typically, the BIF units require minimum heat contents of
10,000 BTU/pound for liquid waste.
Laidlaw Environmental Services (Recovery). Inc.
= O. Box 2B3 Crowley. Louisiana 70527.0283
2029 Bayou Plaquemine Road Rayne. Louisiana 70578
OK^. -MB 7(n 2624 Fax 318.783.2651
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection 2 October 19, 1993
Agency
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. If you
have questions or require further information, please call me at
(318) 783-2624.
Sincerely,
James W. Hathcock
Environmental Manager
cc Mr. Glenn Miller (LA-DEQ)
Mr. Lin Longshore
Mr. Joseph Webb, Jr.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
9498.1994(03)
MAY 2 6 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ^Claseifica
FROM:
TO:
in Mercury Recovery Unit
o., Director
e of/Solid Waste
Joseph Franzmathes, Director
Waste Management Division
U.S. EPA Region IV
This is in response to your April 4, 1994, memorandum
requesting additional guidance on classifying Olin Chemical's
mercury recovery, unit located in Charlestown, TN, as an
industrial furnace.
«
After review of the design and use of the mercury recovery
unit in December, 1993, we determined that the unit is a type of
smelting, melting, or refining furnace and is therefore an
industrial furnace (under the definition in 40 CFR 260.10)
subject to the boiler and industrial furnace (3IF) rule
promulgated on August 21, 1991. As we stated in our December 17,
1993, memorandum to you, however, a smelting, melting, or
refining furnace unit would be eligible for an exemption from the
permitting, emissions standards, and certain other requirements
of the BIF rule if it engages solely in metals recovery, as
provided by 40 CFR 266.100(c). One of the conditions qualifying
the unit for such an exemption.is that the heating value of the
waste cannot exceed 5,000 Btu/lb; otherwise the waste would be
considered to be burned partially for energy recovery.
Subsequently, Olin notified you that at least two of their
waste streams introduced into the mercury recovery unit do not
qualify for the exemption because the wastes have a heating value
exceeding 5,000 Btu/lb. These wastes are already subject to the
land disposal restrictions (LDR) treatment standard that requires
thermal recovery of mercury as the method of treatment. See the
Table of Treatment Standards in 40 CFR 268.40. Thus, under these
circumstances, EPA believes that it would be anomalous to
consider these wastes to be burned for a purpose other than metal
recovery based on the Btu content alone.
-------
The Agency is aware of this inconsistency and is considering
whether a regulatory amendment is appropriate. If one is
developed and promulgated, it will likely be implemented in a
fashion similar to lead-bearing materials processed in exempt
lead smeltero at Appendix XI to Part 266 and will likely include
activated carbon and decomposer graphite mercury wastes whose
fuel value may exceed 5,000 Btu/lb and whose LDR treatment
standard requires thermal recovery of mercury as the method of
treatment. The Agency is also evaluating how best to address
debris that contains high levels of mercury and is generated from
the electrolytic mercury cell process used for the production of
chlorine.
If you have any further questions on the matter, please feel
free to contact Nick Vizzone of my staff at 703-308-8460.
CC: Judy Marshall, EPA Region IV
Sonya Sasseville, PSPD
Bob Holloway, WMD
Nick Vizzone, WMD
-------
] UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ja ^i" REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3O365
4WD-RCRA APfl 0 ± ;994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Request for Additional Guidance on the
Mercury Recovery Unit at
Olin Chemicals, Charleston, Tennessee
FROM: Joseph R. Franzmathes, Director (\^^ti. $
Waste Management Division j]
TO: Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
OS-320W
In a memorandum from you dated December 17, 1993, your
office advised Region IV, at our request, as to the regulatory
status of a mercury recovery unit operating at the Olin Chemicals
facility in Charleston, Tennessee. A copy of this memorandum is
attached for your convenience. In the memorandum, it was
determined that Olin's mercury recovery unit is properly
regulated as an industrial furnace eligible for an exemption from
certain requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 266.
As a result of this determination, Olin Chemicals submitted
the attached letter, dated March 16, 1994, claiming the exemption
at 40 C.F.R. § 266.100(c)(1)(i) but contesting the regulatory
status of the unit. It is because of Olin's letter that we are
seeking additional guidance from your office.
It appears that at least two of the waste streams introduced
into the mercury recovery unit do not qualify for the exemption
because the waste streams have a heating value of 5,000 BTU/hr or
more (see 40 C.F.R. § 266.100(c)(2)(ii)). Region IV wants to be
certain that your office is aware of these waste streams, and we
are requesting guidance from you as to whether this fact changes
your determination of the unit's status. If not, then Region IV
requests guidance from your office on whether a variance to the
exemption allowing the processing of these waste streams is
available to Olin and if so, what the procedures are for Olin to
obtain such a variance.
You will also note from Olin's letter that Olin intends to
pursue further interpretation of the unit's status and/or a
request for regulatory rulemaking which will exempt mercury
recovery units from 40 C.F.R. Part 266. Olin claims that the
requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 266 conflict with the description
of its unit at 40 C.F.R. § 268.42, Table 1, which only requires
compliance with applicable air regulations. Thus, Region IV is
also requesting guidance from your office regarding this issue.
-------
Because Region IV intends to meet with Olin in early May to
discuss these issues, we would be very appreciative of your
expeditious review of the above. Your guidance in these matters
will be extremely helpful to us in determining the appropriate
regulatory requirements of Olin's mercury recovery unit. If you
have any questions regarding the circumstances described above/
you may contact Judy Marshall, of my staff, at (404) 347-7603.
Attachments (2)
-------
^%1S.
Glin
"CHEMICALS
P.O. BOX 248. 1186 LOWER RIVER ROAD. CHARLESTON, TN 37310
Phone: (615) 336-4000
March 16, 1994
CERTIFIED
Joseph R. Franzmathes, Director
US Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Waste Management Division
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
RE: Notice of violation
Olin Chemicals, TND 003 337 292
Dear Mr. Franzmathes:
In response to your letter received March 7, 1994, Olin's Charleston facility is claiming a
metals recovery exemption for it's Thermal Mercury Recovery Unit as provided by 40
CFR 266.100(c)(1)(i). This claim is based on the following:
All hazardous waste to be introduced into the unit will be processed solely for metal
recovery consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 266.100(c)(2);
All hazardous waste introduced into the unit contains recoverable levels of mercury;
Olin will comply with the sampling, analysis, and recordkeeping requirements of 40
CFR 266.100(c)(1)(ii) and (iii).
It should also be noted that Olin has worked in good faith with both USEPA and the
State of Tennessee over the past four years during the technology development,
construction, and startup of this unit to ensure that all applicable regulations were
identified and adhered to. Previous guidance from both EPA and the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation indicated that the unit was classified the
same as previous retort units, utilized for years to recover mercury from chlor-alkali
waste streams - that is as an exempt recycling process unit as identified in 40CFR
261.6(c)(1). Olin still believes this to be the proper regulatory status of the unit but is
filing the above notification because you have required it in your March 7,1994 NOV. It
should also be noted that Olin intends to pursue further interpretation of this ruling
and/or a request for regulatory rulemaking which exempts mercury recovery units from
the administrative requirements of 40CFR 266 Subpart H, if necessary.
Olin is also requesting a meeting with EPA Region IV to discuss issues arising from the
above notification. In particular, the RCRA Land Disposal Requirements stipulate that
all high level (>260 ppm) mercury wastes be processed for mercury recovery. One of
-------
Joseph R. Franzmathes, Director
EPA - Region IV, Waste Management Division
March 16, 1994 Page 2
the highest level mercury wastes generated on a routine basis in mercury cell chlor-
alkali facilities is graphite decomposer packing. This material has historically been
processed for mercury recovery in onsite retort units. Due to the chemical makeup of
the packing, this material can exhibit a BTU content in excess of the criteria required in
40CFR 266.100(c)(2)(ii) which is intended to prohibit the sham recycling of organic
BTU-rich streams for energy recovery. In addition to decomposer packing, historically
large quantities of activated carbon used for mercury removal in water has also been
simitlarly processed. Neither of these streams are consumed by burning and are not of
significant fuel value as fired. The LDR BOAT requirements under 40CFR 268 Table
1 stipulates that these materials be processed for mercury recovery (RMERC) in a unit
subject only to the applicable air permitting requirements. In our opinion, this conflicts
with the application of the requirements identified in 40CFR 266 Subpart H. Olin would
like to discuss this and other pertinent environmental issues arising from Region IVs
reclassification of the Thermal Recovery Unit as a BIF. Please contact me at the
number below at you earliest convenience to schedule a meeting with you and
appropriate members of your staff as well as State personnel, if necessary.
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact either me at (615)
336-4234 or Steve Barnes at (615) 336-4185. Your assistance in this matter is greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely,
OLIN CORPORATION
J. P. Newman. Manager
Quality Assurance & Environmental Control
BIFNOT.JPN/cb
cc: Tom Tiesler. TDEC
Janet Dutto, TDEC
Matt Strauss, USEPA, OSWER
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9498.1994(04)
JUL - 5 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Trial Burn Failures
FROM: Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify EPA's policy on
trial burns for incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces
(BIFs) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
and to address issues that have recently been raised regarding
.trial burn failures. These issues include: 1) what constitutes a
successful trial burn; 2) how to handle invalid data; 3) what
constitutes an unsuccessful trial burn; 4) how to handle a
request for a trial burn retest; and 5) how to restrict
operations after an unsuccessful trial burn.
The policies set out in this memorandum are not final agency
action, but are intended solely as guidance. They are not
intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights
enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States.
EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this
memorandum, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an
analysis of specific site circumstances. The Agency also
reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without
public notice'.'
Purpose of a Trial Burn
A trial burn serves several purposes. It is used to
determine whether a facility can meet the required performance
standards for either hazardous waste incinerators (40 CFR
264.343) or BIFs (40 CFR Part 266 Subpart H), and to determine
the operating conditions that should be set in the permit. A
trial burn is also used by the permit writer to determine the
need for and establish other limits or requirements on a site-
specific basis under the "omnibus" authority of RCRA Section
3005(c)(3). This guidance will consider the term "performance
Recycled/Recyclable
, Primed wltn Soy/Canola Ink on paper mat
\ iC~/ contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
standards" to include both regulatory performance standards and
such site-specific standards imposed through the omnibus
authority. Until continuous emission monitors (CEMs) are
available, setting permit operating conditions based on the
results of trial burns is the best method of assuring compliance
with the regulations.
A trial burn typically consists of a series of "tests". A
trial burn test (or combination of tests) should be done for each
set of operating conditions for which the facility desires to be
permitted. Three "runs" should be performed for each test. Each
run of a test should be conducted at the same nominal operating
conditions. In general, each run of ..a test should be passed for
the test to be considered successful and for the facility to be
permitted to operate at that set of conditions.
Facilities will often perform multiple tests during the
trial burn in order to develop all applicable permit operating
conditions. For example, facilities will usually perform a
minimum and a maximum temperature test, since decreasing
temperatures tend to decrease organics destruction, and
increasing temperatures tend to increase metals emissions due to
an increase in volatility. These tests, if successful, will
determine the temperature boundaries between which the facility
can operate in compliance with the destruction and removal
efficiency (ORE) and metal emissions standards.
During a trial burn, a facility's general strategy is
typically to operate at conditions that will give it a broad
range of permit operating conditions. The permit writer should
take great care in reviewing the trial burn plan to assure that
the test conditions meet the regulatory requirements. According
to 40 CFR 270.62(b)(5) for incinerators and 40 CFR 270.66(d)(2)
for BIFs, the trial burn plan can only be approved if 1) it is
likely to determine if the performance standards can be met, 2)
it does not present an imminent hazard to human health or the
environment, and 3) it will help to determine the necessary
operating requirements. In determining if the performance
standards can be met in the trial burn, permit writers should use
their experience and best engineering judgement to make sure, that
the trial burn represents "good operating practices". EPA
believes that a trial burn plan that allows or incorporates sub-
standard operating practices is less likely to demonstrate
compliance with required performance standards than a plan based
on a well-operated unit. The Combustion Emissions Technical
Resource.Document (CETRED), which helps to define best operating
practices for various categories of hazardous waste combustors,
can assist in determining good operating practices. Engineering
judgement and generally accepted industry practices for achieving
good mixing, adequate temperatures and residence times, adequate
oxygen, steady-state operation, and minimization of fugitive
emissions can also be used in this evaluation. Additionally, in
-------
reviewing and approving a trial burn plan, .the permit writer may
find it useful to examine the facility's compliance history and
past operating history when applicable.
What Constitutes a Successful Trial Burn
A trial burn is successful only if enough tests are passed
so that the permit writer can establish a complete set of
operating conditions in the permit to assure compliance with
applicable performance standards. A successful trial burn test
generally consists of passing three separate runs at the same
nominal operating conditions. If a test is successful, the
facility would be allowed to operate under the tested conditions.
In general, failing any performance standard in any one of the
three runs constitutes a failure of that test. If a test fails,
the facility should not be permitted to operate under the failed
conditions.
A facility may fail an individual test (or several tests) at
particular operating conditions during the trial burn; however,
if sufficient tests are passed such that applicable permit
operating conditions can be established from the successful
tests, then the trial burn is still considered successful. For
example, for a facility where maximum and minimum temperature
limits are necessary, the facility would typically have to pass
both a minimum temperature test and a maximum temperature test,
along with any other necessary tests, for the trial burn to be
successful.
Facilities can receive final permit conditions for only
those conditions that they passed in the trial burn or that are
set independent of the trial burn (e.g., Tier I metal limits,
which are discussed later in this document). Thus, in a case
where a facility passed some tests and failed others, it is
important to be able to distinguish the difference between the
successful and unsuccessful conditions. Final permit conditions
should be written to allow the facility to operate at the
successful conditions while excluding the unsuccessful ones.
Additionally, the permit writer should be sure to set monitoring
and recording requirements in the permit to assure that operating
conditions are being met.
Final permit conditions will directly reflect the successful
operating conditions from the trial burn. Due to unforeseen
circumstances that may arise during trial burns, the trial burn
conditions may deviate somewhat from the conditions specified in
the trial burn plan. If this situation occurs, and the trial
burn was successful, the operating conditions in the permit
should be the conditions demonstrated during-the trial burn, not
the conditions from the trial burn plan. In other words, for
conditions that are set based on the trial burn, a facility will
-------
be permitted to operate only at those conditions that have been
demonstrated successfully during the trial burn.
Facilities may perform several tests during a trial burn in
an attempt to have different sets of operating conditions for
different sets of wastes (i.e., "campaign burning"). If a
facility fails a particular test, it may still be permitted to
operate on those.waste streams and at those conditions that were
successfully demonstrated, provided that sufficient data are
available from the passed tests to set all necessary permit
operating'conditions. If trial burn.results do not provide
sufficient data to enable the Agency to set permit conditions
which assure compliance with the performance standards, then the
trial burn would not be considered successful.
How to Handle Invalid Data
In limited situations, the Agency believes it may be
appropriate to use data from two successful runs as the basis to
determine that a trial burn test was successful when
circumstances beyond the owner/operator's control caused the
invalidation of a third run. An invalid run is different from a
failed run. A failed run occurs when the data show
nonconformance with the performance standards under a particular
set of operating conditions. An invalid (or inconclusive) run
occurs when data problems (for example, resulting from breakage
of a sample tube in a laboratory) make comparison with the
performance standards impossible; neither conformance nor
nonconformance with the standards has been shown in these cases.
Such situations would include sampling and analysis problems, but
not operational problems, which are presumed to be within the
control of the owner/operator.
The criteria permit writers should use in accepting two runs
as a successful trial burn test are listed below.
a) Only one run contains invalid data. If two or more
runs contain invalid data, then the test should be
considered inconclusive and should not be used to set
operating conditions (i.e., the test should not be
considered successful).
b) No data from any run shows failure. For example, if
during a trial burn test, one run passes for ORE, one
run fails for DRE, and one run has invalid data for
DRE, then that test should be considered a failure.
c) The data from the two successful runs should show a
reasonable degree of precision and margin of
compliance.
-------
d) There should be no reason to believe (based on
operating data, observation of stack emissions, etc.)
that the invalid run was less likely to be in
compliance than the other two runs. Immediate
reporting by the facility of an incident which might
invalidate a run (e.g., QA/QC outside of control
limits) lends more credence to the claim of invalidity
than if the facility waits.until all analytical results
are in and emission calculations have been made.
e) A detailed written description of the circumstances
resulting in the invalidation of data related to any
test should be submitted to, and reviewed by, the
Agency.
Generally, two valid runs should not be accepted as a
successful trial burn test when the owner/operator had direct
control over the situation that caused the third run to be
invalidated. The trial burn test should be considered
unsuccessful if neglect and/or carelessness of either the
owner/operator or those conducting the testing/analysis caused
the invalidation of a run.
What Constitutes an Unsuccessful Trial Burn
A trial burn is unsuccessful either because it showed a
failure to meet the performance standards, or it was
inconclusive. A trial burn is-considered a failure when enough
tests have failed (i.e., show a failure to meet performance
standards) such that a full set of operating conditions
representing compliance cannot be set in the permit..
A trial burn failure is different from failure of a trial
burn test. A test failure shows nonconformance with the
standards at one set of operating conditions; however, a facility
may still be permitted to operate if it passes one or more trial
burn tests at other operating conditions. A trial burn failure
occurs when enough tests have failed such that a full set of
operating conditions representing compliance cannot be set in the
permit. The results of a failed trial burn should not be used to
establish final permit operating conditions. Following a failed
trial burn, the permitting authority should take one or more of
the following actions, as appropriate: 1) take steps to restrict
operations (as discussed later in this document); 2) begin
processing a denial of the facility's permit application (for an
interim status facility); 3) initiate proceedings to terminate
the facility's permit (for a new facility); 4) authorize a trial
burn retest (also discussed later in this document).
An entire trial burn (like a trial burn test) may be
considered inconclusive. An inconclusive trial burn occurs when
-------
data problems have arisen such that neither conformance nor
nonconformance with the performance standards can be shown. The
results of an inconclusive trial burn may not be used to
establish final permit operating conditions. Following an
inconclusive trial burn, the permitting authority should take one
or more of the following actions, as appropriate: 1) take steps
to restrict operations (as discussed later in this document); 2)
begin processing a denial of the facility's permit application
(for an interim status facility); 3) initiate proceedings to
terminate the facility's permit (for a new facility); 4)
authorize a trial burn retest (also discussed', later in this
document).
Facilities may choose not to test for certain parameters and
be permitted at the Tier I or Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening
limits established in the BIF rule (56 FR 7134, February 21,
1991), if appropriate. These parameters include metal emissions
(40 CFR 266.106), and hydrogen chloride (HC1) and-chlorine gas
(C12) emissions (40 CFR 266.107). The Tier I and Adjusted Tier I
feed rate screening limits are based on the assumption tha,t all
metals, HC1, or C12 (depending on the parameter) fed into the
system are emitted (i.e., no partitioning into the bottom ash,
and no removal by any air pollution control device). This case
is the most conservative scenario possible and produces the most
stringent feed limits in the permit. The Adjusted Tier I feed
rate screening limits also allow for site-specific dispersion
modeling. Although directly applicable only to BIFs, these
provisions are generally applied to incinerators as well through
the Agency's omnibus permitting authority, where necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
Facilities that test for these parameters and fail, or show
inconclusive results, should not be permitted to operate under
the tested conditions. Instead, a permit for the facility (if
one is issued) should limit the facility to the Tier I or
Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening limits. For example, a
permit for a facility that does not meet the HC1 or C12 standard
when tested under higher chlorine feed rates should limit the
chlorine and chloride input to the equivalent of 4 Ibs HCl/hr,
the Tier I limit, or the Adjusted Tier I limit, as applicable.
Similarly, a permit for a facility that does not meet the
metals emissions standards during high temperature testing should
limit the metals input into the system to the Tier I or Adjusted
Tier I feed rate screening limits (see 56 FR 7171, February 21,
1991). -
It should also be noted that, where the trial burn did not
demonstrate compliance with the HC1, C12, or metal emissions
standards, the permit may specify allowable chlorine or metals
feed rates that are more restrictive than the Tier I or Adjusted
Tier I limits, based on a site-specific risk assessment which
-------
considers both direct and indirect exposure pathways to a wide
range of pollutants. In this case, the same assumption
concerning stack emissions should be applied (that is, the
assumption of no partitioning or removal).
How to Handle a Request For a Trial Burn Retes^
Facilities that fail or conduct an inconclusive trial burn
test or tests may request a retest and submit a revised trial
burn plan. The permitting authority would review and approve or
deny such a request. For a permitted incinerator or BIF (new or
renewal), this request would be processed through the permit
modification procedures in accordance with 40 CFR 270.42. The
revised trial burn plan can only be approved if l) it is likely
to determine if the performance standards can be met, 2) it does
not present an imminent hazard to human health or the
environment, and 3) it will help to determine the necessary
operating requirements (see 40 CFR 270.62(b)(5) for incinerators
and 40 CFR. 270.66(d) (2) for BIFs). In the case of a request for
a trial burn retest following a trial burn test failure, the
applicant should conduct an investigation into the reason for the
failure, and make substantive changes in its proposed trial burn
plan which would be expected to prevent failure from reoccurring..
A facility should not be allowed to retest unless it has made
changes to its process (i.e., design and/or operating
conditions), that are likely to correct the problems encountered
in che failed trial burn test. A facility should not be allowed
just to'"take its chances" on passing a retest under the same
conditions. The first failed test indicates that, at best, the
unit would not be in compliance some of the time when operated at
those conditions, and that those conditions should therefore not
be incorporated into a permit.
As opposed to a trial burn test failure, an inconclusive
test would not necessarily require changes to be made to the
process prior to allowing a retest. The test could be repeated
under the same conditions as the previous test, but with special
attention paid to the situation that caused the original test to
be inconclusive. During the retest, all attempts should be made
to prevent that situation from reoccurring.
There is no set limit on the number of retests allowed under
EPA regulations, so long as after each unsuccessful test the
above criteria are met and the trial burn plan is revised and
approved (through a permit modification for a new incinerator or
BIF) prior to any retesting. The same criteria recommended for
the design and conduct of initial trial burns are also
recommended for all retests (i.e., three runs for each trial burn
test, etc.).
-------
Facilities that wish to conduct a trial burn retest after an
unsuccessful test should expeditiously submit a comprehensive
request consistent with the guidance discussed above. If a
complete request is not promptly submitted, it is appropriate for
the Agency to start permit denial proceedings. The Agency's
decision to discontinue or delay permit denial proceedings will.
be highly dependent on the adequacy of any retest request and the
Agency's ability assure compliance with applicable regulations
during the interim period.
For facilities that fail a trial burn test for only the HC1,
C12, particulate, or metal emissions standards, EPA believes it
may be appropriate in some cases to authorize a retest for these
failed performance standards without simultaneous ORE testing.
This decision would depend on the nature of the design or
operating modifications made for the retest. If the
modifications would not adversely impact ORE (e.g., addition of
pollution control equipment), then HC1, particulate, and/or metal
tests are sufficient. In this case, operating conditions .should
be identical to those of the original trial burn test for all
parameters other than those related to the modifications which
were made. In contrast,, if the design or operating modifications
made by the facility in order to retest for the HC1, C12,
particulate, or metals emissions standards have the potential to
affect ORE, then ORE should be retested along with the standards
that were not demonstrated.
The permit writer should ensure that operating conditions
during a trial burn retest are consistent with the overall scheme
of the trial burn plan so that all successful tests can be used
in conjunction to establish final operating conditions.
How to Restrict Operations After an Unsuccessful Trial Burn
Permitting authorities should move expeditiously, in
appropriate cases, to restrict operations (to the extent that
regulatory and statutory authorities allow) after receiving
information that a facility conducted an unsuccessful trial burn
(i.e., a trial burn failure or an inconclusive trial burn).
Permits for new incinerators and BIFs should be written with
a provision that would restrict post-trial burn operations if a
facility conducts an unsuccessful trial burn. The Agency
recommends that such permits contain the following conditions: 1)
the permittee must notify the Regional Administrator within 24
hours of making a determination that the incinerator or BIF
failed to achieve any of the performance standards in any run of
any test, and 2) upon the request of the Regional Administrator,
the permittee shall feed waste and operate the incinerator or BIF
only under restricted conditions as specified by the Regional
Administrator. (A similar condition is recommended in the
8
-------
incinerator module of the model permit, except the second portion
of the condition provides that, upon the request of the Regional
Administrator, the permittee shall cease feeding hazardous waste
to the incinerator. The new recommended language covers the case
where a complete shutdown is required, while providing clearer
authority in cases where some, but not all, tests were
successful.) The permittee then has the option of applying for a
permit modification pursuant to 40 CFR 270.42 to'conduct a new
trial burn pursuant to 40 CFR 270.62(b) for incinerators or 40
CFR 270.66 for BIFs. If an already-issued permit does 'not have
such a provision in it, and the trial burn is unsuccessful, then
EPA may still be able to modify the permit to restrict operations
based on 40 CFR 270.41(a)(2) or 40 CFR 270.41(b)(1), or terminate
the permit based on 40 CFR 270.43(a)(3). The appropriate
authorities should be invoked to assure'that operations during
the post-trial burn period will achieve compliance with the
performance standards.
With respect to interim status BIFs, EPA regulations
establish certain performance standards that must be met at all
times when there is hazardous waste in the unit (40 CFR
266.103(c)(1)). Standards for carbon monoxide, total
hydrocarbons, particulate matter, metals emissions, and hydrogen
chloride and chlorine gas emissions are included in the
regulations. If trial burn data from an interim status BIF
indicate failure to comply with any of these standards, then
under appropriate circumstances the permitting agency may be able
to restrict operations under RCRA Section 3008 or Section 7003.
With respect to interim status incinerators that fail their
trial burns, regulatory agencies should either move as quickly as
possible to cause the incinerators to cease operations by denying
their permits (or, if appropriate, through RCRA Section 7003
actions), or, if appropriate, authorize trial burn retests. This
guidance also applies to interim status BIFs that fail their DRE
standard during the trial burn, since the DRE standard generally
does not apply to BIFs during interim status.
EPA has recently proposed a rule which would provide
explicit authority to restrict operations at interim status
facilities after a failed or inconclusive trial burn (59 FR
28680, June 2, 1994). During the post-trial burn period, interim
status facilities would only be able to operate under conditions
that passed and were demonstrated to meet the applicable
performance standards, and only if the successful trial burn data
are sufficient to set all applicable operating conditions. If
finalized as proposed, this regulation would provide additional
authority to restrict operations at interim status facilities
following a failed or inconclusive trial burn.
-------
For more background on issues such as permit conditions,
trial burn measurements, and validity of data, permit writers may
consult the following guidance documents.
Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting Trial
Burn Results; January 1989.
Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance Manual;
June 1989.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Procedures for
Hazardous Waste Incineration,. January 1990.
If your staff have any questions on this trial burn failure
guidance or how to obtain other guidance materials, they may call
Andy O'Palko at (703) 308-8646, or Sonya Sasseville at (703) 308-
8648.
cc: Waste Combustion Permit Writers Workgroup
Dev Barnes
Matt Hale
Matt Straus
Fred Chanania
Susan Bromm
Susan O'Keefe
Office of Regional Council RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Brian Grant, OGC
10
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
July 14, 1994
9498.1994(05)
Mr. Douglas A. Donnell
Mika, Meyers, Beckett & Jones
Suite 700
200 Ottawa Avenue, N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
Dear Mr. Donnell:
Thank you for your letter of May 9, 1994, expressing your view that the Gage
Products Company facility in Alpena, Michigan ("Gage") qualified for interim status for two
of its boilers under the boiler and industrial furnace ("BIF") rule. After carefully reviewing
the arguments set forth in your letter, we continue to take the view that the Gage facility
does not have interim status, for the following reasons.
First, your arguments rest on the premise that EPA "grants" or "denies" interim
status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). You state that it
would be "inequitable and unjust to deny Gage interim status" in view of all the facts.
However, as we explained in our April 4, 1994, letter to Mr. Richard C. Fortuna, interim
status is automatically conferred by statute on qualifying facilities (see RCRA § 3005(e)
(qualifying facilities "shall be treated as having been issued a permit . . . .")). EPA
expressed its view in that letter as to whether certain facilities, including Gage, had qualified
for interim status. EPA did not, and cannot, "deny" interim status to Gage or any other
facility, nor can EPA "grant" interim status based on equity or any other consideration.
Second, the information contained in your letter does not change our view that Gage
did not qualify for interim status. You point out that Gage submitted its application to the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources ("MDNR") for an Act 348 permit to burn
alternative fuels in January 1991, well before the August 21, 1991, BIF rule effective date,
and that MDNR's regulations required it to make a final decision on the application within
60 days. Accordingly, you do not believe that Gage's failure to obtain a permit by the BIF
effective date should disqualify the facility from obtaining interim status.
In order to qualify for interim status, a facility that has not yet commenced hazardous
waste management operations must have "obtained" all required state permits by the effective
date of the regulation under which it seeks to obtain interim status (40 CFR § 260.10)
(definition of "Existing hazardous waste management facility")). Gage did not satisfy this
requirement and, therefore, did not qualify for interim status. While MDNR may have had a
responsibility to act more quickly than it did, its failure to do so cannot confer interim status
on a facility that has not satisfied a clear regulatory prerequisite.
Tliis document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
Moreover, EPA cannot accept Gage's assertion that it "had a legal right to obtain [the
Act 348] permit" by the BIF effective date. Even if MDNR had a responsibility to issue a
decision, EPA cannot assume that it would have granted Gage's application.
Gage also argues that it qualified for interim status based on apparent representations
by an MDNR employee and an EPA employee that the Act 348 permit was not required for
the facility to obtain interim status. However, the opinions of individual EPA employees on
a legal question cannot bind the Agency or dictate the conclusion of a subsequent Agency
examination of the question.' The conclusions contained in our April 4 letter were based on
a detailed analysis of MDNR's regulatory scheme for permitting boilers and industrial
furnaces burning hazardous waste. MDNR assisted in the analysis and agrees with the
interpretation of its regulatory scheme set forth in our letter. We believe the interpretation is
correct, regardless of whether an Agency employee earlier expressed a contrary opinion.
Again, EPA does not grant or deny interim status, and the equity considerations raised in
your letter cannot change EPA's view that, under the proper interpretation of MDNR's
regulatory scheme, Gage did not, in fact, qualify for interim status.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Because interim status under the BIF rule is implemented in the State of Michigan by
EPA, not MDNR, EPA clearly is not bound by the verbal opinions of an MDNR
employee.
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
. MIKA, MEYERS, BECKETT & JONES
ATTORNEYS AT
. VANOCH »LOCO
CTH *. AAMSOO**'C»1
SUITE 7OO
2OO OTTAWA AVENUE. N w.
GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN 19503
JO**N C. STUIVC
May 9, 1994
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Petition for Administrative Action to Cease
Hazardous Waste Burning
Dear Mr. Shapiro: .
I represent Gage Products Company ("Gage") and I am writing
this letter in response to your correspondence of April 4, 1994 to
Mr. Richard C. Fortuna regarding a Petition for Administrative
Action to Cease Hazardous Waste Burning and Notice of Citizen
Suits. In your April 4 letter and the enclosed attachment, you
indicated that Gage did not qualify for interim status under the
BIF rules for the same reasons stated with reference to The LaFarge
Cement Plant in Alpena, Michigan. Your discussion of the Gage
facility did not address a number of facts which are unique to the
Gage facility and distinguish it from the LaFarge Cement Plant in
Alpena, Michigan. For this reason, Gage respectfully requests that
you reconsider your determination of interim status with respect to
the Gage facility in Ferndale, Michigan.
Your discussions pertaining to the LaFarge Cement Plant in
Alpena, Michigan focus on the requirement in Rule 802 of the
Michigan Hazardous Waste Management Act (Act 64) requiring BIF
facilities to obtain either an Act 64 permit or a permit under the
state's Air Pollution Control Statute (Act 348) in order to burn
hazardous waste. Your letter frames the issue as follows:
"The key issue regarding this [LaFarge] facility is
whether two permits required for BIF's under Michigan's
hazardous waste control regulations fall within the
permits and approvals' requirement for obtaining interim
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
May 9, 1994
Page 2
status. The LaFarge facility did not obtain either of
these permits for any of the three units in question
prior to the effective date of the BIF rule."
The circumstances pertaining to the Gage facility with regard
to obtaining air permits appear to be very different than the
circumstances pertaining to the LaFarge facility in Alpena,
Michigan. Gage believes these factual distinctions are critical to
a correct interpretation of Gage's interim status.
In January, 1991, Gage applied to the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources ("MDNR") for an air use permit to burn alternate
fuels under Act 348 in connection with its two boilers. A copy of
that permit application is attached to this letter as Exhibit 1.
Under the Act 348 rules, "the Commission shall notify the applicant
in writing of approval, conditional approval or denial of an
application for a permit to install within 60 days after receipt of
the application and information required by Rule 203." (Emphasis
added). (Rule 206(1)). Notwithstanding the requirement that the
Air Pollution Control Commission act upon this application within
60 days, several months passed without Gage receiving any response
from the Commission regarding the permit application.
During the time period between January, 1991 and August 21,
1991, when the BIF rules took effect,.Gage was concerned that the
absence of an air permit might jeopardize its interim status under
the BIF rules. Thus, Gage, through its consultant, Energy and
Environmental Technology Company, contacted Steve Blayer in the
Waste Management Division of the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources to discuss this matter. On July 5, 1991, Energy and
Environmental Technology Company sent a letter to Mr. Blayer
summarizing a meeting between the parties on July 2, 1991 "to
clarify interim status criteria regarding waste fuel burning
boilers to be installed at Gage Products Company, Ferndale Plant."
This letter, attached as Exhibit 2 states:
"As we also discussed, 'Existing Facility' criteria for
interim status referred to in 49 CFR 260.10 Ex. F.
(1)(Ref. Attachment) does not apply to the Air Use Permit
to Install. Permits referred to in this definition are
only those implicit to the physical construction approval
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
May 9, 1994
Page 3
of a process or facility (e.g. physical construction of
a TSDF or cement kiln would likely require several levels
of State and Federal safety and construction permits)."
(Emphasis in original)
MDNR's position was again confirmed to Gage in an August 14,
1991 memo, attached as Exhibit 3, from Energy and Environmental
Technology Company to Sharon Stahl of Gage Products wherein Mr.
Andrew Fadanelli stated:
"I spoke with the EPA Region V representative regarding
the BIF regulations. Specifically, Ms. Lorna Sereza,
[sic] who handles the BIF regulations, stated that an air
permit is not necessary to qualify for interim status.
[Emphasis in original]. Therefore, this interpretation
agrees with Mr. Steve Slayer, permit engineer of Michigan
DNR." (Emphasis added).
Plagued with further delays in receiving a response to its air
permit application, and assured by MDNR and EPA that an Act 348
permit was not required to attain interim status, Gage finally
revised its air permit application in a letter dated August 29,
1991 (Exhibit 4) asking only for a permit to burn natural gas.
Gage felt this change was necessary because Gage had need for
additional steam capacity and it simply could not wait any longer
for the MDNR to act on its earlier application. (See, also, letter
dated February 11, 1992 to EPA, attached as Exhibit 5). MDNR
finally issued a permit for natural gas burning on November 25,
1991 (Exhibit 6), but discouraged Gage from immediately pursuing
the permit originally sought to burn alternate fuels. EPA
confirmed the fact that MDNR urged Gage to delay "pushing" this
issue in granting an extension to conduct compliance testing on the
boilers (See Exhibits 7 and 8) .
As can be seen from the above chronology, Gage applied for and
sought an air permit well in advance of the August 21, 1991
deadline for interim status. Thus, even if EPA interprets state
regulations as requiring an air permit for the establishment of
interim status, Gage satisfied that criteria by doing everything
possible to obtain such permit. The MDNR was obligated to act upon
Gage's application within 60 days, or by March, 1991, but for
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
May 9, 1994
Page 4
reasons beyond Gage's control, delayed processing that application
until after the August 21, 1991 deadline. Moreover, although MDNR
now takes the position that air permits were required to qualify
for interim status, Steve Blayer of MDNR took the opposite position
back in 1991 when Gage voiced its concern regarding the delay in
MDNR's processing of its air permit application. Region V EPA
shared that opinion and so advised Gage at that time (Exhibit 3).
Under these circumstances, it would be grossly inequitable and
unjust to deny Gage interim status for failure to obtain an air
permit when Gage did everything possible to obtain, and had a legal
right to obtain that permit,, prior to the August 21, 1991 deadline.
Gage should not be penalized because of MDNR's failure to follow
its own regulations requiring processing of the application within
60 days. Nor should Gage be penalized for following the advice of
MDNR and EPA regarding MDNR's and EPA's interpretation that the air
permit was not required to qualify for interim status.
Most of this information was previously provided to Mr. Lorna
Jereza at USEPA Region V on March 27, 1992, as is shown by my
letter of that date attached as Exhibit 9.
In your April 4, 1994 letter, the discussion regarding Gage
Products Company simply makes reference to the fact that the
analysis applicable to LaFarge in Alpena, Michigan is also
applicable to Gage. Because of the facts stated above, I believe
Gage is situated very differently from LaFarge, and should be
treated as having had the air permit which, by statute, it was
entitled to have received well before the August 21 deadline.
Please consider this additional information in reconsidering your
decision regarding Gage Products' interim status. If you need
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
your convenience.
Yours very truly,
Douglas^A. Donnell
DAD:jet
Encls.
cc: Mr. Donald Dixon
Ms. Sharon Stahl
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JH 20 |994 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Ms. Susan Ferguson 9498.1994(06)
Director, Industrial and
Hazardous Waste Division
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
P.O. .Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
Dear Ms. Ferguson:
Thank you for your letter dated April 7, 1994, requesting
clarification of the exclusion from the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) regulation for secondary materials that are
used or reused directly as ingredients in an industrial process
to make a product (40 CFR 261.2 (e) (1) (i)) . Specifically you
asked for an interpretation of this exclusion as it applies to a
process employed by Rhone-Poulenc in which a secondary material
that has a high heating value and is high in sulfur content is
being burned in a sulfuric acid regeneration furnace.
EPA addressed the question of how the burning of high
heating value secondary materials is regulated in its February
21, 1991 Final Rule on Burning of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces (BIF) (56 FR 7134). In that rule, the
Agency makes a distinction between the excluded activity of
burning hazardous waste solely as an ingredient
(§261.2 (e) (1) (i)), and the regulated activity of burning
hazardous waste for energy recovery. Specifically, as provided
under §266.103(5)(ii)(B) of the interim status standards for
BIFs, a hazardous waste is burned for a purpose other than solely
as an ingredient if the hazardous waste has a heating value of
5,000 Btu/lb or more, as generated or as-fired. Under this
provision, hazardous waste with a 5,000 Btu/lb or greater heating
value is considered to be burned as fuel (i.e., burning for
energy recovery).
EPA also relied on this distinction in crafting a
conditional exemption from RCRA regulation for smelting, melting,
and refining furnaces that burn waste to recover metals. Under
40 CFR 266.100(c), burning hazardous waste in a BIF for metals
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed wttn Soy/Canola Ink on paoer i
contains it lust 50% recycled fiber
-------
recovery is exempt only when the device burns hazardous waste
exclusively for metal recovery and not partially for destruction
or energy recovery as well. Again, to clarify what constitutes
energy recovery, the rule provides that a waste with a heating
value of 5,000 Btu/Lb or more (either as generated or as fired)
is burned (at least partially) as a fuel.
The regulatory distinction between burning as an ingredient
and for energy recovery provided in the BIF rule is applicable to
the situation you describe in which a high sulfur content, high
heating value secondary material is fed into a sulfuric acid
regeneration furnace where the sulfur in the stream is converted
to sulfuric acid. Consequently, under existing regulations, even
though sulfur is being used to produce sulfuric acid in this
situation, EPA would consider this practice to be a type of
burning for energy recovery rather than use of an ingredient to
produce a product because of the high Btu/lb value of the
secondary material (i.e., 12,000-16,000 Btu/lb.). As provided
under §261.2(e) (2) (ii), secondary materials that are burned for
energy recovery are solid wastes even if they are recycled by
being used or reused as an ingredient in an industrial process to
make a product. In other words, if the materials are being
burned for energy recovery, the §261.2(e) (1) (i) "use as an
ingredient" exclusion does not apply.
In its letter to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, Rhone-Poulenc argues that the secondary materials are
covered under §261.4(a)(7) which exempts spent sulfuric acid that
is used to produce virgin sulfuric acid. In this case, however,
the §261.4(a)(7) exclusion does not apply because the secondary
materials in question are not spent sulfuric acid.
Having provided you with a determination of how existing
RCRA regulations would apply in the situation you describe, you
should note that EPA is in the process of developing of a
comprehensive hazardous waste combustion strategy. A key
component of the combustion strategy is the review and evaluation
of the current regulations for incinerators and BIFs burning
hazardous waste in order to make them more readily implementable,
clarify ambiguities, and address concerns that have arisen since
the regulations became effective. The combustion strategy staff
would be happy to meet with you or representatives of Rhone-
Poulenc to discuss concerns they have raised about the Agency's
burning for energy recovery policy as well as any ideas they have
for revising the regulations to address those concerns. Please
contact Bob Holloway at (703) 308-8461 if you wish to revisit
this matter in the context of the combustion strategy effort.
-------
If you have additional questions regarding application of
the existing RCRA regulations as they pertain to this case or in
general, please contact Mitch Kidwell at (202) 260-8771 or Becky
Daiss at (202) 260-8718.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Jill 2 I (994 9498.1994(07)
OFFICE OF
GEN'ERALCOL'NSF.1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Issues Raised in January 27, 1994 Letter
from Senators Breaux and Johnston to Administrator
FROM: Jean C. Nelson
General Counsel
TO: Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
This memorandum clarifies some of the issues raised in a
January 27, 1994 letter from Senators Breaux and Johnston to the
Administrator. In that letter, the Senators inquired about the
government's position that a facility that has a primary purpose
of burning hazardous waste for destruction is subject to
regulation as a hazardous waste incinerator. More specifically,
they asked if a "primary purpose" test is part of existing law
and whether such a standard might stifle innovation in the
hazardous waste treatment industry.
The reference to "primary purpose" in EPA's initial response
to the Senators was a shorthand encapsulation of various complex
regulatory provisions. The following discussion shows in more
detail how existing regulations apply to incinerators of
hazardous waste.
The first step is to ascertain whether a facility manages a
hazardous waste. In order to do this, it is necessary to
determine whether a facility manages a solid waste (a necessary
precondition to being a "hazardous waste"). From 1980 to 1985,
federal regulations defined "solid waste" to include materials
that are--"burned or-incinerated." 40 C.F.R. 261.2(c)(2-) (198-1-)--,
as promulgated at 45 Fed. Reg. 33119 (May 19, 1980). This
provision was amended in 1985. The amended rules continue to
state that solid waste includes materials that are "abandoned by
being burned or incinerated." 40 C.F.R. 261.2(b)(2) (1991), as
promulgated at 50 Fed. Reg. 664 (Jan. 4, 1985).. .Solid wastes are
"ttl Ponied c--. Recycled P?.cer
-------
regulated as hazardous wastes if they exhibit a characteristic of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, or if they
are specifically .listed in the regulations. 40 C.F.R. Part 261-
Subparts C and-D.1
The next step is to ascertain whether a facility should be
subject to regulation as a hazardous waste incinerator. In 1980
and 1981, EPA issued incinerator regulations to reduce
environmental hazards associated with using poor operating
procedures to burn hazardous wastes. 45 Fed. Reg. at 33250 and
33216 (establishing standards for facilities with interim
status); 46 Fed. Reg. 7678-83 (January 23, 1981) (establishing
standards for permitting incinerators). An "incinerator" was
defined as "an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion,
the primary purpose of which is to thermally break down hazardous
waste."2 45 Fed. Reg. at 33074. Hazardous waste incinerator
rules applied to devices burning hazardous waste to incinerate
them, including 1) operators of incinerators and 2) boilers and
industrial furnaces (BIFs) burning hazardous wastes to destroy
the wastes. 40 C.F.R. 264.340(a) as promulgated at 50 Fed. Reg
at 665-66. Consequently, since 1980, persons burning hazardous
wastes in order to destroy them have been subject to the
incinerator regulations because they are engaged in incineration
of hazardous wastes, and the devices in which the wastes are .
destroyed are subject to regulation as hazardous waste
incinerators. These rules apply to each hazardous waste that is
burned, so that a device burning any hazardous waste for
destruction subjects the device to regulation as an incinerator
See e.g. 48 Fed. Reg. at 11158 n. 2 & 4, and 11159-60 (March 16
1983) .5
1 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b) excludes some solid wastes "from
regulation as hazardous wastes.
2 The term "incinerator" has been redefined since 1980 to
take into account the design of the unit. See 40 C.F.R. 260.10
(1992) .
3 EPA further amended the rules in 1991 to provide that the
rules controlling air emissions from BIFs that burn hazardous
waste apply even to BIFs burning hazardous wastes to destroy
them. 40 C.F.R. 266._100_(aj_f 1992) (promulgated February 21, 1991
at 56 Fed. Reg. 7208). Thus, for new BIFs coming on line the
primary purpose of the combustion unit no longer determines its
regulatory status. Id. BIFs burning primarily to destroy may
now be regulated as BIFs as long as they meet the criteria set
out in the definitions of boiler and industrial furnace. Id.
This provision does not give devices burning .hazardous waste for
destruction a new opportunity to obtain interim status where such
unit should have obtained but did not obtain interim status as an
incinerator. 56 Fed. Reg, at 7143.
-------
We also want to address the Senators' concern that EPA is
using a "primary purpose" standard as an economic test to
determine whether- a device is an incinerator or a BIF. The tests
that determine-whether a device is an industrial furnace are.set
out clearly in the definition of "industrial furnace." 40 G.F.R.
260.10 (1991). Specifically, to qualify as an industrial furnace
a unit must 1) be an integral component of a manufacturing
process (i.e.. engaged in making a product), 2) use thermal
treatment to accomplish recovery of materials or energy, and 3)
qualify as one of the 12 types of devices that are listed in the
definition.4 EPA has never stated, nor is it the Agency's
position, that the amount of revenue a facility makes from
receiving hazardous waste for treatment versus the amount of
revenue it makes from selling recycled products alone determines
the regulatory status of the device. However, we have stated,
repeatedly, that this is a relevant factor in determining whether
a device is being used for the purpose of destruction rather than
legitimate recycling. See e.g. 53 Fed. Reg. at 522 (Jan. 8,
1988). We continue to believe that it is appropriate to examine
revenue sources when judging whether a facility is engaged in
legitimate or sham recycling.
A If the unit is an integral component of a manufacturing
process and uses thermal treatment to accomplish recovery of
materials or energy but does not qualify as one of the 12 devices
listed in the definition, the facility may petition the EPA to be
considered as an industrial furnace. Id. EPA will consider the
following factors when reviewing the petition:
(i) The design and use of the device primarily to accomplish
recovery of material products;
(ii) The use of the device to burn or reduce raw materials
to make a material product;
(iii) The use of the device to burn or reduce secondary
materials as effective substitutes for raw materials, in
processes using raw material as principal feedstocks;
(iv) The use of the device to burn or reduce secondary
materials as ingredients in an industrial process to make a
material product;
(v) The use of the device in common industrial practice to
produce a material product; and
(vi) Other factors, as appropriate.
Id. as promulgated at 50 Fed. Reg. 661 and revised at 56 Fed.
Reg. 7206 (February 21, 1991).
-------
We also wish to address the Senators' concern that
regulation necessarily stifles development of new treatment
technologies. For example, when the Agency proposed and adopted .
stricter controls for treatment of hazardous steel electric arc
furnace control dust by a recycling treatment technology (zinc
recovery), a host of new facilities developed competing treatment
technologies in what had previously been a near monopoly market.
See 56 Fed. Reg. at 41166 & 41170 (discussing new zinc recovery
technologies) (August 19, 1991). These facilities have both
offered innovative treatment technologies and complied with
regulations designed to assure that their operations are
protective of the environment. Indeed, it is a fundamental
premise of the 1984 RCRA amendments that facilities should
conduct hazardous waste management properly in the first instance
in order to ensure adequate environmental protection, and that
"properly conducted recycling and reuse" will help achieve the
statute's ultimate goals of minimizing waste generation, reducing
land disposal, and protecting human health and the environment.
RCRA Section 1002(b)(6), 42 U.S.C. § 6901(b)(6); RCRA Sections
1003(a)(5) and (6), 42 U.S.C. § 6902(a)(5) and (6).
Finally, the Senators ask whether it is the government's
position that a product meeting the exemption in 40 C.F-.R. 266.20
(1992) must be delisted. If their question is whether delisting
is a prerequisite to eligibility for the 40 C.F.R. 266.20
exemption, it is not. See 40 C.F.R. 266.20(a) (1992) (indicating
that the provision applies to hazardous wastes; delisted wastes
are not hazardous wastes). We also note, however, that 40 C.F.R.
266.20 only applies to legitimate products derived from hazardous
wastes, not to hazardous waste residues that merely are claimed
to be products.
Please contact me or Lisa Friedman (at 260-7697) if you have
any further questions concerning these issues.
-------
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20310
January 21, 1994
Honorable. Carol M. Browner
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Browner:
We are in receipt^o £._ ja^iejtjter from Assistant Administrator
Steven A. Herman dpiej^AJacjrust_ 3 0^,^19.9^3 responding to our inquiry
concerning a constTtuent*^coinpahy'. "" Mr*V Herman's reply raises
issues on which we would ag£recj.a.t^^cl^r^f JLg^tign , Qflj^.as. .it
re 1 a t e s t Q^.^e^^ojlSJt-JUi'-^J. t- ^.Prcfig^Y < but rather*genericalily .
Mr. Herman discusses "primary purpose" in his letter,
apparently stating that an operation could not be considered as
an industrial furnace operating as a recycler if its primary .
purpose is to destroy hazardous wastes. Is this an additional
standard to current law, or is it contained in current statutes
or regulations?
We are concerned that 'such a standard could stifle all new
and innovative technologies for dealing with hazardous wastes.
We are not aware of any hazardous waste recycling process which
does not require a significant payment from the generator of the
waste to be economically feasible. Therefore, the primary
purpose of all of these technologies could be said to be the
destruction of hazardous wastes and recycling might never be
available on the .scale necessary to deal with our hazardous waste
problem. -
Mr. Herman also discusses delisting in this letter. Is it
your position that a product which meets the exemption of 40
C.F.R. 266.20 must be delisted?
We appreciate your response to pur previous communication
and look forward to your reply concerning the issues- raised in
this letter.
Siacerely,
BENNETT JOHNSTON -..----r .-
IITED STATE^SENATOR tlNITED STATES SENATOR
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498. 1994(08)
JUL 29 1994
OFFICE OF
SCUD WASTE AND EMERGE:
MEMORANDUM RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Clarification Regarding Single Emission Point, Multi-
Device Combustion Facilities
FROM: Michael H. Shapiro, Dir&cyfor
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Allyn M. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region VI
Walter L. Sutton, Jr. , Acting Regional Counsel
Office of Regional Counsel, Region VI
This memorandum is in response to your July 8, 1994,
memorandum requesting .clarification of a prior headquarters
opinion regarding the Giant Cement Company in Harleyville, South
Carolina. I understand that the recent court ruling on Marine
Shale Processors has raised some questions about EPA's
interpretation of the regulatory status of multi-device
combustion facilities. In particular, we think that our
August 11, 1992 memorandum regarding Giant Cement and Region IV's
subsequent letter of November 24, 1993 was misapplied. I thus
agree with Region VI that it is important to clarify this issue
so that consistent determinations can be made nationwide.
This memorandum will clarify how the RCRA regulations apply
to combustion devices (incinerators, industrial furnaces, and
boilers) at facilities in which more than one of these devices
are connected and in which the emissions from the connected
devices emanate from a single emissions point. I believe the
confusion arose because there are two basic issues that are
encountered when applying the regulations to units in series: l)
what emission controls and operating conditions are technically
appropriate and will be fully protective of human health and the
environment; and 2) what legal categories do the units fall into,
for the purpose of determining regulatory coverage, eligibility
for interim status, need for permit modifications, etc. The
Giant memo addressed only the first issue, but appears to have
been misinterpreted to apply to the second issue also. Following
is EPA's interpretation of the two issues.
' Recycled/Recyclable
f~\
-------
- 2 -
Emissions Controls
Giant Cement operated a hazardous waste-fired cement kiln
and a number of "resource recovery kilns" burning contaminated
soil. Both the off-gas and the treated solids from the resource
recovery kilns were fed into the cement kiln. The resource
recovery kilns were interim status incinerators.
The Giant memo referenced above addressed only the question
of what types of operational and emissions controls are
appropriate to impose on connected devices with a single
emissions point, by stating: "For systems of two or more
hazardous waste treatment units in series, our general guideline
is that a case-by-case determination of how the overall system is
classified and what standards and permit conditions are applied
should be based on the dominant design, operating, feed, and
emissions characteristics of the system, and the most specific
standards applicable to that type of system." We still believe
this type of flexible approach is important because of the
difficulty, from an engineering standpoint, of applying two sets
of potentially conflicting emission standards (e.g., the Part 264
Subpart O incinerator standards and the Part 266 Subpart H boiler
and industrial furnace (BIF) standards) to a single emissions
point on a series of devices which are connected.
In performing a technical evaluation of what standards
should be applied to a group of units in series, it will usually
be necessary to look at the reasoning behind the regulatory
requirements, as expressed in preambles and guidance documents,
and not simply at the regulatory requirements. Based on this
type of evaluation, if two sets of emissions standards fit
equally well from a technical standpoint, preference should be
given to the more stringent standards. If not, the standards
which are most appropriate technically, considering their
regulatory rationale, should be applied. In addition, the permit
writer should consider whether additional conditions beyond the
regulations are necessary to tailor the permit to the specific
system and site in order to protect human health and the
environment (through use of the RCRA 3005(c)(3) omnibus
authority).
It should also be noted that there may be cases, such as
where two or more combustion devices operate in parallel and
share only a common stack, in which the determination of what
standards to apply is straightforward (i.e., unit by unit). The
principal remaining issue in this situation is how to do the
testing to determine whether each unit is meeting the standards.
-------
- 3 -
Permitting/Interim Status Determination
The above determination of the most technically appropriate
and protective emissions controls to apply in the permit for
interconnected devices must be distinguished from the
classification of the devices for purposes of determining interim
status eligibility and other issues. Because Giant had already
attained interim status separately for its "resource recovery
kilns" as incinerators and for its cement kiln as an industrial
furnace, the August 1992 memorandum did not address nor need to
address the classification of these devices for such purposes.
For the same reason, Region IV"s November 24, 1993 letter to
Giant Cement indicating that the resource recovery kilns would
now be subject to hazardous waste incinerator emission standards
because the combusted contaminated soil from those units was
being disposed and not put into.the cement kiln, dealt only with
the issue of what emission standards would apply to these kilns.
These earlier documents addressed the only question asked, which
is what emission standards should apply.
In recognition of the practical difficulties of applying
more than one set of standards to a single emission point, these
documents discussed the criteria to be used in determining what
emission standards should apply to that point. Under the
principles discussed in these documents, EPA may determine, for
example, that the emissions from a process train involving an
incinerator and a cement kiln are most appropriately regulated
under the emissions standards applicable to cement kilns. This
does not mean that the incinerator "becomes" a cement kiln; it
simply means that the common emission point should be regulated
under the cement kiln standards.
These documents did not intend to suggest that the
individual units in r. process train lose their unit identities.
The separate identities of the individual units in a process
train is relevant in the context of facilities seeking to obtain
interim status, among other situations. Under EPA regulations, a
facility that is "in existence" on the effective date of a
statutory or regulatory change that subjects it to the
requirement to obtain a RCRA permit may obtain interim status by
submitting Part A of its permit application and complying with
statutory notification requirements. 40 CFR §270.70(a). A unit
that is already subject to the permit requirement cannot obtain
interim status upon the promulgation of regulations bringing a
different type of unit into the RCRA system. See 56 FR at 7142
(February 21, 1991) (aggregate kiln burning hazardous waste for
destruction and thereby subject to the rules for incinerators is
not newly eligible for interim status when BIF rules are
promulgated).
-------
In reviewing a Part A application form filed by a facility
seeking interim status following the regulation of a new type of
unit, EPA evaluates whether the unit (or units) identified on the
form were of the newly regulated type. In performing this
evaluation, EPA would compare the unit with the unit definitions
set forth in its regulations, irrespective of whether the unit
was self-contained or part of a process train. In particular, if
the unit and other units shared a common emission point, the
regulatory emission standards determined to be most technically
appropriate for that point would be irrelevant to the identity of
the unit in question.
The pertinent definitions for combustion devices are the
definitions of "boiler", "industrial furnace", and "incinerator"
in §260.10. The definition of boiler is based on unit design.
Industrial furnaces are an enumerated list of devices that are
parts of manufacturing processes and incinerators are devices
which are not boilers or industrial, furnaces. The list of
industrial furnaces is not written in terms of device systems; it
describes particular devices: "cement kilns", "aggregate kilns",
"halogen acid furnaces", etc. Consequently, a device would
normally need to fit one of these descriptions to be an
industrial furnace.
The Agency's interpretation is that the list of industrial
furnaces applies on a device-by-device basis whenever the devices
are combusting separate (i.e., not from another device in the
series) hazardous wastes. The only exception would be where the
Agency has indicated unequivocally (normally in the context of a
notice-and-comment rulemaking) that the definition of that
industrial furnace type applies to multiple devices. The only
device for which the Agency has done so are cement kiln
precalciners, which EPA agrees are invariably operated as part of
one cement-manufacturing operation, even if the precalciner.is
separately fired with hazardous waste. See, e.g., 54 FR at
43761 (Oct. 26, 1989). The Agency did not consider the effect of
emissions from other connected hazardous waste units when it
promulgated the BIF rule.
The interpretation that the industrial furnace definition is
to be read to apply to each combustion device burning separate
hazardous waste is consistent with the literal language of the
industrial furnace definition. It is also consistent with
statutory provisions requiring that hazardous waste combustion
can only be performed pursuant to stringent regulatory control,
1 While the Agency may have identified other devices which
do not separately fire hazardous waste as part of an industrial
furnace, precalciners are the only hazardous waste-fired devices
for which such an interpretation has been made.
-------
- 5 -
RCRA sections 3004(o)(1)(B) and 3004(q), and that hazardous waste
be properly managed in the first instance. RCRA section
1003(a)(5). These goals would be circumvented if hazardous
waste-fired units were simply considered to be part of the
industrial furnace. Before the BIF rules became effective, for
example, this would mean that the additional unit an
incinerator -- could burn hazardous waste without any regulatory
control.
This interpretation covers the case of two hazardous waste-
fired devices. If the additional device is not hazardous waste-
fired, then it could be considered to be part of the industrial
furnace. The Agency has in fact indicated in explanatory
preambles and other interpretive documents that industrial
furnaces can include certain integrated components that pretreat
materials or assist in air pollution control. See, e.g., 56 FR
at 42598 (August 27, 1991). So long as these devices are not
burning separate hazardous wastes, they do not raise the core
RCRA concerns discussed above, and can accordingly be regulated
as part of the industrial furnace.
Example
To illustrate the application of the above principles to
combustion units in series, consider the following example. The
owner/operator of an interim status cement kiln chooses to add an
afterburner to help achieve control of PIC emissions (see 57 FR
at 38561 (Aug. 27, 1991) where EPA suggested this course as a
means of reducing organic emissions) and further chooses to fire
the afterburner with hazardous waste. The hazardous-waste fired
afterburner is not a cement kiln, but rather is a separate
device: an incinerator. It is not on the list of industrial
furnaces, and it is engaged in the type of activity hazardous
2 This is not intended to imply that the presence of an
afterburner not separately fired with hazardous waste on a non-
controlled flame device never affects the regulatory
classification of that device. In the case of plasma arc and
infrared units, the Agency has classified those devices as
incinerators when they have afterburners (considering the plasma
arc or infrared device plus the afterburner to be one unit) and
as Subpart X devices when they do not. (See 56 FR 7204, 57 FR
38562, and incinerator definition at 40 CFR 260.10.) It is
expected that there will be other situations in the future where
the Agency will be developing separate definitions for units in
series. This will be done through rulemaking, as appropriate.
3 EPA officials have in fact given this advice to cement
kilns contemplating adding afterburners to assist in meeting
emission controls for products of incomplete combustion.
-------
waste combustion -- for which regulatory controls are mandated.
Thus, the afterburner is ineligible for interim status as part of
the cement kiln. The facility would have to apply for a change
during interim status under §270.72(a) (3) for addition of a
process and receive Director approval based on meeting the
criteria in that section.
However, in the same example, if the cement kiln were to add
an afterburner which is not hazardous waste-fired, the Agency
would not view this action as adding an incinerator. By not
separately combusting hazardous waste, the hypothetical
afterburner is not separately engaged in hazardous waste
treatment. Rather, it is simply treating emissions from a
hazardous waste treatment device, and so is considered part of
that device. In such a case no regulatory approval under the
change during interim status provisions is needed to add the
device, and the afterburner becomes part of the interim status
cement kiln.
I hope this has clarified the issue of how to address
interconnected combustion devices. If you have further
questions, feel free to call me, or have your staff contact Sonya
Sasseville at (703) 308-8648.
cc: Matt Straus
Fred Chanania
Dev Barnes
Matt Hale
Frank McAlister
Larry Starfield
Steve Silver-man
Terry Sykes
Laurie King
Waste Combustion Permit Writers' Workgroup
Subpart X Permit Writers' Workgroup
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498.1994(09)
AUG I T 1994 OFFICE of
.,-«, »mTT,, SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORANDUM RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Alternative Metals Analysis for Hazardous Waste
Combustors
FROM: Devereaux Barnes,
Permits and State Programs Division
TO: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I thru X
There has been some question about the methods for analyzing
metals emissions from hazardous waste combustors. In the case of
incinerators the rules do not contain metals requirements or
methods. Therefore, the Regions have plenty of discretion
regarding which methods they approve.
In the case of BIFs, the situation is quite different.
Section 266. 106 (g) of the 40 CFR specifies that the Multiple
Metals Train must be used. Since no alternatives are identified
in the rules, a petition under §260.21 is the only way to obtain
approval of an alternative method.
The attached memorandum from Larry Johnson and Tom Ward of
ORD discusses the substitution of inductively coupled plasma/mass
spectroscopy (ICP/MS) as an alternative to inductively coupled
plasma/optical emission spectroscopy (ICP/OES) analytical method
in the Multiple Metals Train. Based on this memorandum, the
ICP/MS analytical method is an acceptable substitute on a
technical basis. From a regulatory standpoint, however, ICP/MS
can be prescribed for incinerators, but BIFs must go through the
§260.21 petition process before this method is acceptable.
tf
OSW plans to propose revisions of the technical (emission)
standards for hazardous .waste combustors in September of 1995.
At that time we also plan to make technical corrections to the
existing standards which would include simplification of the
petition process for BIF testing procedures. If you believe the
above procedure will cause problems between now that time, please
contact Scott Rauenzahn of OSW/WMD at (703) 308-4477. If there
is sufficient interest, we will look into the possibility of
issuing a technical amendment to the existing rules prior to the
new rule proposal. '
R»cycltd/R»cyclabi*
Prtnwd wttn SoyiCanoi*
contains «t MMt SO* r^cyowj
-------
Attachment
,i
cc: Bob Holloway, WMD
Gail Hansen, CAD
Steve Silvennan, OGC
Larry Johnson, AREAL
Waste Combustion Permit Writers
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
October 1994
9498.1994(10)
RCRA
1. Regulatory Status of Metals
Recovery Under RCRA
If an industrial furnace is burning or
processing hazardous waste to recover metal
values, how is the furnace regulated?
Industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste arc generally subject to the boiler and
industrial furnace (BIF) regulations in Pan
266, Subpart H. Owners and operators of
smelting, melting, and refining furnaces that
process hazardous waste solely for metals
recovery are conditionally exempt from the
BIF regulations except for the requirements
regarding management of wastes prior to
burning (§266.101), management of residues
(§266.112) and the alternative requirements
outlined in §266.100(c). Specifically, the
facility must: submit a one-time written
notification; sample and analyze the waste;
maintain appropriate records; and be engaged
legitimate metals recovery. For purposes of
this exemption, EPA established three criteria
to determine if hazardous waste is processed
solely for metal recovery: (1) the heating value
of the waste cannot exceed 5,000 Bru/lb (if so,
the waste is considered to be burned for
energy); (2) the concentration of Pan 261,
Appendix VHI organic constituents cannot
exceed 500 ppm (if so, the waste is considered
to be burned partially for destruction); and (3)
the waste must have recoverable levels of
metals 56 £R 42504, 42507; August 27, 1991).
Certain industries process wastes for
metals recovery, yet normally do not meet the
criteria for legitimate metals recovery outlined
above. For example, secondary lead smelters
process spent lead acid battery parts that
contain pieces of rubber or plastic, which
generally have heating values over 5,000 Btu/
Ib. In response, EPA promulgated special
regulations for lead, nickel-chromium
furnaces, or metal recovery furnaces that burn
certain baghouse bags. EPA expanded the
conditional exclusion to include specific
mercury-bearing wastes processed in exempt
mercury recovery furnaces (59 ER 47980;
September 19, 1994). Provided the units
comply with the alternative requirements of
§266.100(c)(3), the metal recovery furnaces
would only be subject to §§266.101 and
266.112. Specific requirements found in
§266.103(c)(3) include: one-time written
notification; restrictions on the type of
material burned; sampling and analysis; and
maintenance of records. In addition, EPA
may subject the furnaces to full BIF
regulation, if the emissions from the unit pose
a hazard to human health and the
environment.
Metal recovery units engaged in precious
metals recovery are also conditionally exempt
from Pan 266, Subpan H.. Precious metal
recovery is defined as the reclamation of
economically significant amounts of gold,
silver, platinum, palladium, indium, osmium,
rhodium, ruthenium, or any combination of
these metals (§266.70(a)). Provided the
owner or operator of the unit complies with
the alternative requirements of §266.100(0.
the unit would be exempt from all BIF
-------
Hotline Questions and Answers October 1994
requirements except for the regulations
regarding residue management (§266.112).
Specific requirements include: one-time
written notice, sampling and analysis, and
maintenance of records (§266.100(f)).
Management of precious metal wastes prior to
recovery would be covered by Part 266.
Subpart F.
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
%
9498.1994(11)
NOV 4 J994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENC V
RESPONSE
Mr. James W. Hathcock
Environmental Manager
Laidlaw Environmental Services (Recovery), Inc.
2029 Bayou Plaquemine Road
Rayne, Louisiana 70578
Dear Mr. Hathcock:
Thank you for your letter of August 23, 1994, regarding the
minimum heat content requirements of waste-derived fuel blended
for energy recovery in boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs).
Specifically, Laidlaw proposes to lower the minimum heat content
requirement for hazardous waste accepted at its Crowley,
Louisiana facility from 5,000 Btu/lb to 4,000 Btu/lb for wastes
with "significant organic content." Your letter also serves as a
follow-up to a previous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
memorandum to EPA Region VI dated May 20, 1994, on a related
subject.
In a letter to EPA Region VI dated October 19, 1993, Laidlaw
proposed to lower the minimum heat content requirement for wastes
it accepts for blending into fuel for energy recovery from 5,000
Btu/lb to 1,000 Btu/lb provided the BIF unit has certified
compliance with the BIF rules. EPA responded in a May 20, 1994,
letter stating that blending of hazardous waste to increase its
heating value for use as a fuel in BIFs is not prohibited;
however, if an industrial furnace burns a listed hazardous waste
with an as-generated heating value less than 5,000 Btu/lb and the
facility does not document that the waste is burned for
legitimate energy recovery, then any product applied to or placed
on the land in a manner that constitutes disposal (e.g., cement)
would be a waste-derived product subject to regulation as
hazardous waste.
You now indicate that Laidlaw has developed a comprehensive
list of 386 EPA hazardous waste codes that are considered to have
"significant organic content." You also note that many of these
waste streams have a land disposal restrictions (LDR) treatment
standard of incineration or fuels substitution. You contend that
these waste streams (with an as-generated heating value between
_ Rtcycle^Racyclable
ac^ Prinied «wtn Soy/Canofi mk on oaoer triai
-^ **_y
-------
4,000 Btu/lb and 5,000 Btu/lb) are suitable for their fuel
blending program due to the wastes' "significant organic
content." Though not specifically mentioned, EPA must infer that
Laidlav intends to send these blended wastes to industrial
furnaces that produce a product applied to or placed on the land
in a manner constituting disposal (i.e., cement or light-weight
aggregate) and are concerned about the waste-derived product
implications.
The Agency presumes that a hazardous waste with an as-
generated heating value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb is burned in an
industrial furnace for energy recovery. Documentation that a
waste has a heating value greater than 4,000 Btu/lb and
"significant organic content" is not, by itself, adequate to
rebut the presumption that it is being burned for destruction
rather than for energy recovery. As indicated in the May 20
memorandum, an industrial furnace may burn a waste with an as-
generated heating value less than 5,000 Btu/lb and avoid waste-
derived product implications only if the facility documents that
the lower heating value waste contributes substantial, useable
energy to the furnace. Documentation could be provided by, for
example, empirical data showing that substitution of a lower
heating value waste results in a substantial reduction in fuel
(e.g., coal) usage that would otherwise be consumed. Other
approaches may also be used to demonstrate that low heating value
waste contributes significant energy input to the furnace.
However, facilities should discuss their approach(es) to document
that lower heating value wastes are being burned for legitimate
energy recovery with the appropriate permitting agency to be sure
that it is acceptable.
I hope this information will be helpful. If you have any
further questions or comments, please contact Frank Behan of ray
staff at 703-308-8476.
- Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: William Honker, Region VI (6H-P)
-------
James W. Hathcock
Environmental Manager
SEftVtCES
August 23, 1994
CERTIFIED MAIL #Z 696 383 766
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: BTU Limitation for Waste-Derived Fuels
Laidlaw Environmental Services (Recovery), Inc.
Crowlev. LA - LAD 079 464 095
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
The purpose of this letter is to request clarification concerning the minimum heat
content requirements of waste-derived fuel burned for energy recovery in boilers and
industrial furnaces (BIF's) and as a follow-up to your memorandum, dated May 20,
1994. As of August 21, 1991, Boiler and Industrial Furnace units were regulated
under the Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rule (40 CFR 266). Prior to this date, BIF's
were not regulated under RCRA if they were burning hazardous waste for energy
recovery. The only restriction was the hazardous waste burned for energy recovery
had to have a minimum heat content of 5,000 BTU/pound to avoid "sham recycling".
The "Sham Recycling Rule" (Federal Register, March 16, 1983, Pg. 11,157) was
intended to prevent BIF units from burning hazardous waste solely for the purpose of
destruction. Under the BIF Rule, the "Sham Recycling Rule" no longer applies to BIF
units once they have certified compliance with the Rule.
Laidlaw environmental Services (Recovery), Inc., operates a hazardous waste fuel
blending facility in Crowley, Louisiana. At the current time, Laidlaw Environmental
Services (Recovery), Inc., does not accept hazardous waste with a heat content less
than 5,000 BTU/pound. The facility proposes to lower the minimum heat content
requirement for hazardous waste fuels accepted at the facility to 4,000 BTU/pound
for materials with "significant organic content". These materials would not be
blended and shipped to BIF units, which have not certified compliance with the BIF
Rule. A list of the EPA Hazardous Waste Codes, which Laidlaw considers to have
"significant organic content", are listed in Table 1. A description of the additional
acceptance criteria, which will be utilized by the facility, for the acceptance of
hazardous waste with heating values between 4,000 BTU/pound and 5,000
BTU/pound is provided in Attachment A.
Ljjdlaw Liiivirorunrni.il Savictrs (Recoveiy). Inc.
2(129 H.i)ou Pkiqurmuir RojJ R.i>nc. Louisi:uia 70578
Posi 01'llv.T Uox 2K3 (..Vowley. Louisiana 7US27.(I2X3
Phone 3ISt.7S3 2624 K:,x 318.78.V265I
-------
Mr. Mike H. Shapiro, Director 2 August 23, 1994
Laidlaw contends the materials with a heat content between 4,000 and 5,000
BTU/pound are suitable for the fuels blending program due to their "significant organic
content". However, these waste streams will not be widely accepted at the facility
due to the BTU/pound restrictions at the BIF units. Typically, the BIF units require
minimum heat contents of 10,000 BTU/pound for liquid waste.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. If you have questions or
require further information, please call me at (318) 783-2624.
Sincerely,
James W. Hathcock
Environmental Manager
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Stan Burger (USEPA, Region VI)
Mr. Frank Behan (USEPA)
Mr. Lin Longshore
Mr. Joseph Webb, Jr.
Mr. Glenn Miller (LA-DEQ)
-------
TABLE 1
LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (RECOVERY), INC.
CROWLEY. LOUISIANA
EPA I.D. #LAD 079 464 095
Description of Fuel Type Materials
TCLP Waste
D001 . D003 D018
D024 D025 D026
D032 D033 D034
D040 D041 D042
Listed Hazardous Waste
F001
F025
K001
K016
K023
K030
K063
K095
K109
K116
K143
K151
P002
P014
P027
P042
P055
P072
P100
P112
U001
U008
U015
U023
U030
U039
F002
F032
K009
K017
K024
K048
K083
K096
K110
K117
K144
P003
P016
P028
P045
P060
P075
P101
P116
U002
U009
U016
U024
U031
U040
F003
F034
K010
K018
K025
K049
K085
K103
K111
K118
K145
P004
P017
P031
P046
P062
P077
P102
P117
U003
U010
U017
U025
U034
U041
F004
F037
K011
K019
K026
K050
K086
K104
K112
K130
K147
P005
P018
P034
P047
P064
P085
P103
P118
U004
U011
U018
U026
U035
U042
F005
F038
K013
K020
K027
K051
K087
K105
K113
K136
K148
P006
P023
P036
P048
P066
P088
P109
P123
U005
U012
U019
U027
U036
U043
F023
F039
K014
K021
K028
K052
K093
K107
K114
K141
K149
P007
P024
P037
P051
P068
P093
P110
U006
U013
U021
U028
U037
U044
F024
K015
K022
K029
K060
K094
K108
K115
K142
K150
POOS
P026
P038
P054
P069
P096
P111
U007
U014
U022
U029
U038
U045
-------
Listed Hazardous Waste (Continued)
U046
U053
U062
U069
U076
U083
U090
U098
U106
U1 13
U120
U127
1 1 -1 O r~
U135
U142
mr~ *~\
52
U-/ i
U210
U221
V./ A. £_ 1
U228
U235
U243
V^ A. ^T \J
-------
ATTACHMENT A
ADDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR LOW-BTU WASTE
-------
ADDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR LOW-BTU WASTE
The hazardous waste primary constituent(s) must be a hazardous waste code listed
on Table 1. These hazardous waste have significant organic content to be utilized as
fuel. In addition, the land disposal treatment standard for most of the hazardous
waste codes is incineration or fuel blending/,
The characteristic waste codes listed on Table 2 may be found in the waste, but only
as a secondary constituent «5%). These characteristic codes are often associated
with paint, resin and oily waste.
The waste must have a heating value > 4,000 BTU/pound, as generated. The
establishment of a heating value of 4,000 BTU/pound as the minimum insures the
waste has significant usable energy prior to acceptance for fuel blending.
Metal bearing waste will not be accepted for fuel blending. Therefore, the metal
bearing waste codes listed on Table 3 will not be accepted for fuel blending, unless
they are included as trace constituents (< 1 %). Tank bottoms from incinerators and
storage facilities often have metal bearing waste codes associated with the waste
stream. In most cases, the waste has significant organic content, as generated during
the tank cleaning process. Therefore, waste streams with hazardous waste codes
listed in Table 3, which are generated from cleaning of tanks, can be accepted for fuel
blending. Other waste streams containing metal bearing waste will not be accepted
for fuel blending.
-------
TABLE 1
Description of Primary Constituents
TCLP Waste
D001 D003 D018 D019 D021 D022 D023 D024 D025 D026 D027 D028 D029 D030 D032 D033 D034 D035 D036 D037
D039 D040 D041 D042 D043
Listed Hazardous Waste
F001 F002 F003 F004 F005 F023 F024 F025 F032 F034 F037 F038 F039
K001 K009 K010 K011 K013 K014 K015 K016 K017 K018 K019 K020 K021 K022 K023 K024 K025 K026 K027 K028
K029 K030 K048 K049 K050 K051 K052 K060 K063 K083 K085 K086 K087 K093 K094 K095 K096 K103 K104 K105
K107 K108 K109 K110 K111 K112 K113 K114 K115 K116 K117 K118 K130 K136 K141 K142 K143 K144 K145 K147
K148 K149 K150 K151
P002 P003 P004 P005 P006 P007 POOS P014 P016 P017 P018 P023 P024 P026 P027 P028 P031 P034 P036 P037
P038 P042 P045 P046 P047 P048 P051 P054 P055 P060 P062 P064 P066 P068 P069 P072 P075 P077 P085 P088
P093 P096 P100 P101 P102 P103 P109 P110 P111 P112 P116 P117 P118 P123
U001 U002 U003 U004 U005 U006 U007 U008 U009 U010 11011 U012 U013 U014 U015 U016 U017 U018 U019 U021
U022 U023 U024 U025 U026 U027 U028 U029 U030 U031 U034 U035 U036 U037 U038 U039 U040 U041 U042 U043
U044 U045 U046 U047 U048 U049 U050 U051 U052 U053 U054 U055 U056 U057 U058 U059 U062 U063 U064 U065
U066 U067 U068 U069 U070 U071 U072 U073 U074 U075 U076 U077 U078 U079 U080 U081 U082 U083 U084 U085
U086 U087 U088 U089 U090 U091 U092 U093 U094 U095 U097 U098 U099 U100 U101 U102 U104 U105 U106 U107
U108 U109 U110 U111 U112 U113 U114 U115 U116 U117 U118 U119 U120 U121 U122 U123 U124 U125 U126 U127
U128 U129 U130 U131 U132 U134 U135 U136 U137 U138 U139 U140 U141 U142 U143 U146 U147 U148 U149 U150
U152 U153 U154 U155 U156 U157 U158 U159 U160 U161 U162 U163 U164 U165 U166 U167 U168 U169 U170 U171
U172 U173 U174 U175 U176 U177 U178 U179 U180 U181 U182 U183 U184 U185 U186 U187 U188 U190 U191 U192
U193 U194 U195 U196 U197 U198 U199 U200 U201 U202 U203 U206 U207 U208 U209 U210 U211 U212 U213 U218
U219 U220 U221 U222 U223 U224 U225 U226 U227 U228 U229 U230 U231 U232 U233 U234 U235 U236 U237 U238
U239 U240 U242 U243 U244 U247 U248 U328 U353 U359
-------
TABLE 2
Description of Secondary Constituents
D002
D010
D017
F006
F019
K002
K061
P010
P087
P120
D004
D011
D020
F007
K003
K069
P011
P099
P121
D005
D012
D031
Description of
F008
K004
K071
P012
P104
P122
D006
D013
D038
TABLE 3
Metal-Bearinq
F009
K005
K100
P013
P113
D007 D008
D014 D015
Waste Codes
F010 F011
K006 K007
K106
P015 P029
P114 P115
D009
D016
F012
K008
P074
P119
U032
U145
U151
U204
U205
U216
U217
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498. 1994(12)
NOV 8 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Mr. Joseph A. Kotlinski . RESPONSE
Corporate Compliance Manager
CleanHarbors Environmental Services, Inc.
1200 Crown Colony Drive, P.O. Box 9137
Quincy, MA 02269-9137
Dear Mr. Kotlinski:
This is in response to your letter of June 24, 1994
requesting regulatory interpretations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) concerning certain fuel
blending scenarios. Your letter presents four scenarios from
which you ask several questions regarding fuel blending-related
activities.
I want to emphasize at the outset that, unlike the situation
prior to adoption of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF)
rules in 1991, the 5,000 Btu/lb (as-generated) heating value
criterion no longer determines the regulatory status of the
boiler or industrial furnace (see 56 FR 7134, February 21, 1991) .
Currently, a fuel blender can blend wastes of any Btu value for
burning in a BIF; however, there are consequences in doing so for
industrial furnaces that use such blended wastes.
Specifically, the 5,000 Btu/lb value, as generated, is used
as a reasonable yardstick to distinguish between waste fuels
being burned for energy recovery versus those burned for
destruction or, potentially, as an ingredient, unless the
facility can demonstrate that the waste with less than 5000
Btu/lb is being burned for legitimate energy recovery. Thus, if
an industrial furnace produces a product that is used in a manner
constituting disposal (e.g., cement or light-weight aggregate
kiln) and uses a blended fuel with a portion that has an as-
generated heating value of less than 5,000 Btu/lb, the Agency
will generally assume that the waste is being burned for
destruction. In such cases, the resulting product will be
considered waste-derived (i.e., subject to regulation as
hazardous waste), unless the facility can document that the low
heating value waste is being burned for legitimate energy
recovery.
Scenario 1
In this scenario, a waste stream containing 4,000 Btu/lb as
generated is sent to a permitted TSDF for storage and treatment.
Ftocyctod/ffccydable
Pitnud »«h 8ov/C»no<» Ink on p*p*r tn»t
-------
While in storage at the TSDF, the waste stream separates (by
gravity) into two (2) distinct phases: an organic layer with .a
heat content of 6,000 Btu/lb; and an aqueous layer containing
3,000 Btu/lb.
a) You ask whether a RCRA treatment, permit is needed under
40 CFR Part 264 to decant the two (2) phases.
Based on the information provided, the unit(s) at the TSDF
need a permit since the storage of hazardous waste is occurring,
and the specific requirements of Part 264 would apply. Since the
storage activity establishes the need for a permit, it is not
necessary to determine whether treatment is occurring in the
unit(s), although in this example decanting would be considered
treatment under RCRA. Enclosed is a recent EPA memorandum dated
October 17, 1994 which provides guidance on the regulation of
fuel blending and related treatment and storage activities.
b) You ask that if the decanting does not constitute treatment,
can the decanted layer with a heat content of 6,000 Btu/lb
be blended with other wastes destined for energy recovery,
even though the decant originated from a waste with less
than 5,000 Btu/lb as generated. You also ask if the
separation/decanting results in a new point of generation
making the blending of the high Btu layer legitimate.
If the decanting of the phases results in a concentrated
stream containing 6,000 Btu/lb, the concentrated decant fraction
would be considered high BTU "as generated," and can be used as a
fuel accordingly.
Scenario 2
A waste stream containing greater than 5,000 Btu/lb as
generated is sent to a TSDF for storage and treatment. The waste
stream contains a high concentration of acetone. Low Btu waste
streams at the plant are mixed with the acetone stream to
concentrate and separate the acetone. The resulting more
concentrated acetone layer contains greater than 5,000 Btu/lb.
a) You ask if the mixing of the acetone waste stream that
contains greater than 5,000 Btu/lb with the low Btu waste
stream is considered "sham recycling" if the waste stream is
managed as a hazardous waste fuel.
b) You ask if the resulting concentrated acetone phase can be
used for hazardous waste fuels blending.
Since the 1991 BIF rules superseded the sham recycling
policy, the question for an industrial furnace customer that
produces a product that is used in a manner constituting disposal
is whether they can document that the less than 5,000 Btu/lb
-------
hazardous waste is being burned for energy recovery. Note also
that, based on the information provided, it is not clear to us
why adding a low Btu waste stream to the "greater than 5,000
Btu/lb" waste stream would be beneficial, when the end result is
separating off a waste stream that also has "greater than 5,000
Btu/lb". Is the reason for adding the low Btu waste stream to
acquire acetone for recycling purposes? Additional information
would be needed for us to fully understand and reply to your
question.
Scenario 3
A 6,000 Btu/lb waste stream as generated is sent to a TSDF
for storage and treatment. While in storage at the TSDF, the
waste stream separates into a 8,000 Btu/lb organic phase and a
3,000 Btu/lb aqueous phase.
a) You ask if the two phases can be re-mixed and fuels blended,
or if the re-mixing of the two phases and subsequent
blending would be considered "sham recycling".
Again, the sham recycling portion of your question is not
relevant, since the blender can blend wastes irrespective of
their heating value. The question is what the consequences are
for the products of an industrial furnace using the blended
hazardous waste fuel. However, the remixing of the two phases
would not be considered treatment under RCRA (40 CFR 260.10)
or a new point of generation because the original composition of
the waste stream, as generated, is not changed.
b) You also ask that, if the decanting is not treatment, can
the phases be decanted and the 3,000 Btu/lb phase be
blended, since the waste stream had not been treated, and
originally came from a greater than 5,000 Btu/lb source as
generated.
As discussed for scenario 1, the decanting of the separate
phases results in two separate phases of the waste stream. Just
as the 5,000 Btu/lb could be used as a fuel as explained in
Scenario 2, the 3,000 Btu waste stream carries the consequences
that when burned in an industrial furnace the facility must
document that the low heating value waste is burned for
legitimate energy recovery or the resulting product will be
considered waste-derived.
Scenario 4
A high Btu load of gasoline and water from a tank clean-out
arrives at a TSDF in fifty 55-gallon drums. The generator has
certified that the waste stream contains greater than 5,000
Btu/lb as generated. Samples are collected from each drum and
-------
analyzed individually. Ten (10) of the drums are found to have a
heat content less than 5,000 Btu/lb.
a) You ask if the contents of the ten (10) drums can be
blended for use as fuel because they originated from a
source that was greater than 5,000 Btu/lb.
In this example, you have documentation that questions the
generator's determination that the waste had an as-generated
heating value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb. Thus, unless you
document by analysis or mathematical calculation, that the total
volume had a heating value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb, you cannot
assume that the ten drums in question contain waste that have an
as-generated heating value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb.
b) You ask whether the point of generation is the point at
which the material was placed in each drum, and if so,
should the generator have provided analysis to the TSDF for
each drum in the load to verify its Btu content.
This question regarding the point of generation for clean-
out wastes streams raises complex issues that require detailed
site specific evaluations. EPA is currently examining whether
the Agency should develop additional national guidance or
regulatory changes to address the point of generation for clean-
out waste streams. We intend to raise this issue for public
comment in Phase III of our land disposal restrictions
rulemaking. Currently, decisions on these matters are being made
by the appropriate permitting authorities on a case-by-case
basis.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions
regarding hazardous waste fuel blending. If you have any
questions on the applicability of the regulations and permitting
requirements for fuel blending activities, please call Jeffrey
Gaines of my staff at (703) 308-8655.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
H. Shapiro, Director
of Solid Waste
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Enforcement Section Chiefs, Regions I-X
Waste Combustion Permit Writers' Workgroup
-------
leanHarbor
^^M^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^rf^^^^^
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1200 CROWN COLONY DRIVE. P.O. BOX 9137 QUINCY, MA 02269-9137
(617)849-1800
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED P 650 874 419
June 24, 1994
Mr. Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste (5301)
United State Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Fuels blending
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
This letter requests a regulatory interpretation concerning certain
fuels blending scenarios.
(1). A wastestream containing 4,000 BTU/lb as generated is sent to a
permitted TSDF for storage and treatment. While in storage at the
TSDF, the wastestream separates (by.gravity) into two (2) distinct
phases: an organic layer with a heat content of 6,000 BTU/lb; and
an aqueous layer containing 3,000 BTU/lb.
a. While State hazardous waste regulations may vary, is a RCRA
treatment permit needed under 40 CFR Part 264 to decant the
two (2) phases?
b. If decanting does not constitute treatment, can the decanted
high BTU layer be blended with other high BTU wastes destined
for energy recovery even though the decant came from a waste
with less than 5,000 BTU/lb as initially generated? Does the
the separation/decanting result in a new point of generation,
thereby making fuels blending of the high BTU layer
legitimate?
(2). A wastestream containing greater than 5,000 BTU/lb as generated is
sent to a TSDF for storage and treatment. The wastestream
contains a high concentration of acetone. Low BTU wastestreams at
the plant are mixed with the high BTU acetone stream to
concentrate and separate the acetone. The resulting more
concentrated acetone layer contains greater than 5,000 BTUs/lb.
a. Is the mixing of the high BTU wastestream with the low BTU
wastestream considered "sham recycling" if this wastestream
is managed as a hazardous waste fuel?
b. Can the resulting concentrated acetone phase be used for
hazardous waste fuels blending?
' 'People and Technology Creating a Better Environment
-------
'leanHarboi
Mr. Michael Shapiro/U.S. EPA
June 24, 1994
Page 2
(3) . A 6,000 BTU/lb wastestream as generated is sent to a TSDF for
storage and treatment. While in storage at the TSDF, the
wastestream separates into an 8,000 BTU/lb organic phase and a
3,000 BTU/lb aqueous phase.
a. Can the two (2) phases be re-mixed and fuels blended, or is
the re-mixing of the high and low BTU phases and subsequent
blending considered "sham recycling"?
b. If decanting is not treatment, can the phases be decanted,
and the 3,000 BTU/lb phase fuels blended since the
wastestream has not been "treated" and it originally came
from a greater than 5,000 BTU/lb source as generated?
(4) . A high BTU load of gasoline and water from a tank cleanout arrives
at a TSDF in fifty (50) 55-gallon drums. The generator has
certified that the wastestream contains greater than 5,000 BTU/lb
as generated. Samples are collected from each drum and analyzed
individually. Ten (10) of the drums are found to have a heat
content less than 5,000 BTU/lb.
a. Can the contents of the ten (10) drums be fuels blended
because they originated from a source that was greater than
5,000 BTU/lb?
b. Is the point of generation the point at which the material
was placed in each drum? If so, should the generator have
provided analysis to the TSDF for each drum in the load to
verify its BTU content?
I appreciate your attention to these questions. Should you or your
staff require clarification or additional information, please contact
me at 617-849-1800, extension 4049.
.Sincerely,
'
/Joseph A. Kotlim
'Corporate Compliance Manager
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9498.1994(13)
DEC *5 tOQ/ OFFCEOf
UCO J ly^W SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Michel R. Benoit
Executive Director
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
Suite 500
1212 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Benoit:
Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1994, requesting
clarification to my October 17, 1994, memorandum entitled
"Regulation of Fuel Blending and Related Treatment and Storage
Activities".
First, you point out that the memorandum appears to
condition the ability of a cement kiln burning listed hazardous
waste to be eligible to retain the Bevill exemption for its
cement kiln dust (CKD) on whether the kiln is burning hazardous
waste for energy recovery. EPA agrees that this would be an
inappropriate interpretation. As you note, the Agency made it
clear in the preamble to the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF)
rule that eligibility for the Bevill exemption focuses on the
composition of the residue generated (i.e., significantly
affected test) rather than on the purpose for which the hazardous
waste is burned (i.e., energy recovery versus destruction).
Thus, CKD generated from burning hazardous waste in cement kilns
for the purpose of destruction is eligible to retain the Bevill
exclusion provided it meets all the provisions of 40 CFR 266.112.
In addition to the significantly affected test mentioned above,
other requirements of this provision include: (1) the cement kiln
must process at least 50 percent by weight normal cement-
production raw materials; and (2) the cement kiln must retain
sufficient records to document compliance with these provisions
until closure of the unit is completed.
Second, regarding your reference to our statement "Transfer
operations are limited to bulking and consolidation of wastes, "
we agree with your concern that this statement.could be
\nterpreted too narrowly by transporters. Activities such as
-------
bulking, containerizing, consolidating, and de-consolidating
are within the scope of acceptable transfer operation activities,
assuming of course that no blending is taking place. Our intent
in this section of the memorandum was not to restrict legitimate
transfer operation activities, but to emphasize, as you noted,
that activities constituting either treatment or selective
blending of hazardous waste fuels to meet a fuel specification
are not allowable.
I hope this information is useful. We appreciate your
comments on the memorandum and welcome any further comments that
you would like to provide.
Sincerely yours,
Shapiro, Director
1l Office of Solid Waste
-------
CEMENT KILN RECYCLING COALITION
1212 \EW YORK AVENUE. \;.VV SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
TELEPHONE: (202) 7S9-1945 FACSIMILE; (202) -10S-93Q2
November 2, 1994
Mr. Michael H. Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Mail Code 5301
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am writing on behalf of the Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition (CKRC). We have been reviewing a recent guidance
memorandum you sent to the regions entitled "Regulation of Fuel
Blending and Related Treatment and Storage Activities," dated
October 17, 1994.
We have not yet analyzed all implications of the memorandum
or obtained feedback from our members as to any significant
concerns they may have. Nevertheless, we have already identified
two passages in the memorandum that raise concerns. It appears
that both of these concerns may simply result from imprecision in
drafting, but as the consequences could be significant if we are
incorrect, we would appreciate a clarification from you on both
points.
First, on the bottom of page 4, your memorandum appears to
condition the ability of a cement kiln to retain Bevill
eligibility for its cement kiln dust (ckd) on whether the kiln is
burning for energy recovery. See the last sentence on page 4:
"If the wastes are burned for energy recovery . . . etc."
We believe this is incorrect. EPA's two-part test in 40 CFR
§266.112 is not conditioned on the purpose of burning. Moreover,
EPA explicitly dealt with this issue in the final BIF preamble,
and made clear that even if a kiln were burning for purposes of
destruction it would still be eligible to use §266.112 and the
-------
ckd could still retain Bevill status. 56 Fed. Reg. 7199, col. 3
February 21, 1991. *
Second, near the bottom of page 3 of the memorandum, there
is a discussion of "transfer facilities" as defined under 40 CFR
260.10 and regulated under 40 CFR 263.12. In one sentence you
say: "Transfer operations are limited to bulking and
consolidation of wastes."
While we agree with the conclusion this sentence leads to
that blending to meet a fuel specification is not within the
range of activities allowed at an unpermitted transfer facility
- we believe the limitation stated in the quoted sentence is too
narrow. For instance, EPA has long held that not only
consolidation, but also de-consolidation of wastes is allowed at
transfer facilities. See attached letter from Diane Regas, EPA's
Office of General Counsel, July 20, 1989. Moreover, it is also
clear under the regulations that containers may be moved from one
transport unit to another, or even simply stored in the same unit
without movement; "bulking and consolidation" are certainly not
the only activities allowed, as the memo seems to assert.
In light of the confusion that may be caused by these two
sections of your memo among our members, I would appreciate your
confirming for me in writing that our understandings as set forth
above are correct. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, ,
Michel R. Benoit
I should make clear that CKRC supports the burning of
hazardous waste for energy recovery purposes and not for purposes
of destruction. Thus far, however, there is no well-established
and accepted test for determining whether burning is for energy
recovery or destruction. (We filed a petition for rulemaking on
February 8, 1994 that urged EPA to adopt such a test; EPA has not
yet responded to our petition, however.) Our concern is that
various regional or state personnel could assert an unreasonable
position regarding energy recovery, and then seek to disqualify a
kiln from 40 CFR §266.112 based on that position.
-------
-i as
UNfTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498.1995 (01)
NOV 9 1995
. OFFICEOP
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Mr. David Gossman RESPONSE
President
Gossman Consulting, Inc.
45W962 Plank Road
Hampshire, Illinois 60140
Dear Mr. Gossman:
This is in response to your October 9, 1995, letter
reminding us that we have not responded to your April 3 letter
concerning the use of metal surrogates in complying with the
Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule. We appreciate your
continued interest in developing a system that eliminates
unnecessary testing and that minimizes the risk from metal
spiking as part of the emissions tests under 40 CFR 266. 106 (c)
and (d) .
Although we have been tardy in providing a written response,
I understand that Bob Holloway, Dwight Hlustick and others along
with our technical support contractor discussed with you in
September the concerns that we have about using metal surrogates
under the BIF rule. Although the BIF rule requires that a
feedrate be established for each metal based on testing, the rule
does not specifically prohibit the use of testing with surrogate
metals. The issue, however, is how to address the problem that
system removal efficiency (SRS) , and therefore emissions, are a
function of metal feedrate.
Generally, SRB decreases at lower feedrates. Thus, even
though we should be able to agree on which of the regulated
metals have similar volatilities (e.g., based on the volatility
groupings that will be proposed for the MACT rule) and could be
used as surrogates for each other, the use ^surrogates
currently has limited practicability under the BIF rule. This is
because the surrogate metal must be fed at the may! mum individual
feedrate for any of the metals for which it is acting as a
surrogate. (Otherwise, SRB would be overestimated.)
I understand that you are particularly concerned about
spiking beryllium because of its cost and toxicity.
Unfortunately, it is not practicable to use another low
volatility regulated metal (e.g., arsenic, chromium) as a
surrogate for beryllium because these other regulated metals
normally require much higher feedrates than beryllium. If you
were to utilize those higher feedrates for the surrogate, the
source may axceed the BIF emission limits for beryllium. I
-------
understand you discussed with ay staff the possibility of
industry testing to identify a surrogate, nonregulated metal that
is not normally present in cement kiln feedstreazns at levels
higher than the feedrate desired for beryllium. We would be
happy to work with the industry to provide advice on such a
testing program and to take the necessary steps to allow the use
of such a surrogate.
Thank you for your continued interest in this matter.
Please feel free to contact Bob Holloway to discuss these issues
further.
Sincerely,
cc: Waste Combustion Permit Writers
Shapiro, Director
fflce.of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 x
VJc'j. ?o , '"H-^
9498.1995(02)
OFFICEOF
SOLD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Paul C. Chrostowski, Ph.D.
Principal
The Weinberg Group Inc.
1220 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036-2400
Dear Mr. Chrostowski:
Thank you for your letter of November 6; 1995 to
Administrator Browner regarding your concerns about the Agency* s
policy with respect to site-specific risk assessments at
combustion facilities that are regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). I appreciate your detailed
coEments that outline the advantageous aspects of site-specific
risk assessments and that support the continuation of site-
specific risk assessments to help ensure that RCRA permits are
protective and are credible with the public and the regulated
community.
As part of the Agency's Hazardous Waste Minimization and
Combustion Strategy, EPA currently has a national RCRA policy
of strongly recommending to all federal and state RCRA permit
writers that, under the omnibus permit provisions of RCRA
§3005(c)(3), site-specific risk assessments be performed as part
of the RCRA permitting process if necessary to protect human
health and the environment. Very soon, the Agency intends to
propose new emission standards for hazardous waste combustors
under joint authority of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and
RCRA. We believe these new standards will provide a significant
improvement over current controls for hazardous waste combustion.
However, at least until these rules take effect, the Agency
intends to continue its policy of recommending that site-specific
risk assessments be conducted as part of RCRA permitting for
hazardous waste combustors (incinerators, boilers, and industrial
furnaces alike) as necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
RecyOed/Racyctabl*
Prlnt»d«imsoy/Cvieuink
contain* « taut 50% rwyctod flMr
-------
Of course, we cannot predict what the final regulations and
the final national emission standards will be because we expect
/substantial comment on the proposal. In that proposal, we are .
dnviting comments specifically on the issue of the role that
site-specific risk assessments ought to play in permitting of
hazardous waste combustion facilities. Your letter will be
entered into the rulemaking docket, and if you have further
views, we urge you to submit them during the public comment
period so that they get full consideration. Our ultimate goal is
to be able to implement a set of protective national standards
that do not require intensive site-specific assessments at a
large majority of sites. However, we also recognize that there
may be situations in which a need for risk assessments at some
combustion facilities will continue to exist. These and related
issues will be assessed as the Agency develops its final*
rulemaking for hazardous waste combustors.
Thank you for your interest in this important matter;
Sincerely yours, .
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
THE WEINBERG GROUP INC.
WASHINGTON. DC BRUSSELS
November 6,1995
The Honorable Ms. Carol Browner . .
Administrator ' . -
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW . '- .
Mail Code 1101 - . ,
Washington, D.C. 20460 . ;
Dear Ms. Browner
The purpose of this letter is to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) '
proposal to eliminate requirements for site-specific risk assessments at combustion facilities that
are retaliated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Although the
performance of direct and indirect risk assessments at these facilities by EPA, state agencies or
project proponents has gotten off to somewhat of a rocky start, there is little logic to abandoning
a program that is now reaching an acceptable degree of maturity. Indeed, as both regulators and
the regulated community become more adept at producing and reviewing risk assessments, their
utility as a regulatory tool proportionately increases. Some of the more important reasons for
continuing the program include: . .
Emissions associated with the implementation of Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) may not be controlled adequately to meet risk management goals.
This is due to a number of reasons including the uniqueness of site-specific exposure
pathways and the inability of MACT standards to control {acUity-specific chemical
standards. The possibility that MACT might not be protective was, in fact, the reason
behind the residual risk requirements of § 112(f) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. We have already seen several instances where proposed MACT standards will not
meet typical EPA risk management, goals and are concerned that elimination of risk
assessments will reduce the Agency's credibility to both the public and regulated
community. . .
The elimination of risk assessments will be an impediment to implementation of some
key Clinton Administration environmental initiatives including environmental justice and
the assessment of risks to children. Implementation of MACT standards without risk
assessment will not enable the identification of disparate impacts to various sectors of the
community, nor will it assist in the evaluation of cumulative .impacts.
1220 Nineteenth Street. NW Suite 3OO Washington DC 2O036-24OO (202)833-8077 Fax'(202) 833-7057
-------
The Honorable Ms. Carol Browner
November 6,1995
Page 2 /
The elimination of site-specific risk ftgsgssrnchts may allow a competitive disadvantage to
particular sectors of the waste management community. .Currently, there is a major
competitive struggle between commercial hazardous waste incinerators, commercial
boilers.and industrial furnaces, and noncommercial captive facilities. In order to ensure
that public health is protected plus avoid charges that EPA is favoring one segment of the
industry over the other, site-specific risk assessments should be retained.
-The elimination of risk assessment will fuel public concerns mat regulatory agencies are
not adequately protecting public health. There Is a common perception among
individuals residing close to combustion facilities mat regulations are not health
. protective. Risk assessments are a means by which the Agency and industry, alike can
. demonstrate the safety of a regulated facilhy.or modify a technology or permit to make a
-.' . facility safe. ; '. .- .. : /:.'.'" :':J " '-.-'.'' ':'.' .'-' . ' :
- .Risk assessments can- be performed on a Very cost effective basis. - For an experienced
.risk assessment services purveyor, the costs of a multiple pathway, multiple chemical risk .
assessment to the private sector are typically within the range of $50,000 to $75,000 per
. facility. These costs are small considering the benefits to be gained and put in the context
of the costs to satisfy other regulatory requirements. For example; trial bums, RCRA Part
B applications, Clean Air Act PSD permit applications, and other requirements are
' typically substantially more costly *h»" risk assessments.
- . - . *' ' * ' * ' '. * *
I hope you will take these factors into consideration in reaching your decision to continue to
require risk assessments at combustion facilities and to .extend^them to other source categories as
appropriate. : . . . . .
Please feel free to call if you have any questions. ... ;
Very Truly Yours, . .. .
THE WEINBERG GROUP INC.
Paul C. Chrostowski, PLD.
Principal -
PCOskw
*
cc Robert Sussman
David Bussard
-------
f
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
fy
SO
9498.1996(01)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
The Honorable Bill Emerson
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Emerson:
Thank you for your letter of January 30, 1996 to
Administrator Browner in which you expressed your concerns about
application of the omnibus permit authority and site-specific
risk assessments as part of the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Hazardous Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy.
You expressed concern that the Agency has imposed permit
conditions without the benefit of defined regulatory standards
that have been subject to a formal review under the
Administrative Procedure Act, and that the Combustion Strategy
itself was not authorized by Congress. As you know, the omnibus
provision was authorized by Congress under Section 3005 (c) (3) of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The codification of
this provision at 270. 32 (b) (2) followed the Administrative
Procedure Act. The use of the omnibus authority in implementing
the Combustion Strategy is consistent with the original -intent of
the statute and regulations.
The Hazardous Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy
consists of a compilation of EPA's goals, policies, and
activities in areas such as permitting, combustion standards, and
waste minimization. Each activity conducted under this Strategy
rests on its own proper legal authority under RCRA and, in one
case, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
The Strategy itself does not impose regulatory requirements,
but is a policy statement .expressing how the Agency plans to
exercise its discretionary functions under RCRA 'in the future.
Specifically, the Strategy sets out EPA's permitting priorities
and recommends procedures for ensuring that individual permits
meet RCRA's mandate to protect human health and the environment.
As such, the Strategy does not require its own separate legal
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canota Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
authorization from Congress. As noted above, each independent
activity undertaken as part of the overall Strategy (e.g.,-
updated technical standards/ individual permitting decisions/
waste minimization plan) has been and will continue to be
carefully scrutinized to make sure that.the legal basis for any
action is clear, and that all appropriate procedures are followed
(including public notice-and-comment for all rulemakings and for
each individual permit action).
A number of people have expressed concerns about the time
and resources to perform risk assessments/ based on the cost of
the assessment that is being done for the WTI incinerator in East
Liverpool, Ohio. It is important to recognize that the risk
assessment .guidance developed pursuant to the Combustion Strategy
does not involve the extensive evaluation being done for the WTI
facility. The level of detail of that assessment is not the
norm, but rather was due to site-specific factors, as well as to
the fact that this assessment was an early effort which was
expected to help refine future risk assessments. On the other
hand, with appropriate emissions data the screening analysis
outlined in EPA's risk assessment guidance can generally be
completed in a fairly short time at a cost of less than $50,000,
although more detailed analysis for a specific site may be
considered by the permitting authority depending on site-specific
conditions. The regulations already require hazardous waste
combustors to perform trial burns to demonstrate compliance with
the emissions standards; collection of the additional emissions
data needed for a risk assessment generally amounts to a small
percentage cost increase. EPA would like to minimize the burden
associated with these risk assessments to the extent possible,
and we are currently discussing ways' to further standardize and
focus the assessments.
>
We understand there may be some frustration with changes to
the models used for risk assessments. However, the Agency
believes it is important to continuously improve its air quality
models and to make improved modeling tools available to the
public. It is not the Agency's policy, however, to require that
a particular model be used. Instead, that decision is generally
made on a case-by-case basis by the permit applicant in
consultation with the permitting authority. This approach allows
flexibility to decide, for example, that once the risk assessment
protocol for a site is approved by the permitting authority, no
further changes will be made unless agreed to by the applicant
and the permitting authority.
You expressed concern that these risk assessments are
unjustified. The Agency policy that the permitting process for
hazardous waste combustion facilities should include a site-
specific risk assessment is based on new information which became
-------
available since the time that the current regulations for
incinerators and BIFs (boilers and industrial furnaces) were
issued. This information indicates there can be significant
risks from indirect exposure pathways (i.e., pathways other than
direct inhalation, such as through the food chain). This key
portion, and in many cases the largest component, of the risk
from hazardous waste combustor emissions was not fully taken into
account when the hazardous waste combustion emissions standards
were developed.
For this reason, the "omnibus" requirement to protect human
health and the environment comes into play. Permit writers must
determine on a site-specific basis what, if any, additional
permit conditions are necessary to assure that these additional
risks are not above acceptable levels. . Multipathway site-
specific risk assessments provide the information and logical
decision-making process needed in making such determinations.
We agree that combustion, when well-designed and well-
operated, is one of the safest and most effective methods for
treating hazardous waste; however, we do not believe that
performing risk assessments "threatens" this technology. Rather,
by performing risk assessments, EPA and the authorized states are
able to set appropriate emission limitations in permits to keep
risks below maximum acceptable levels. We believe that assuring
the public that hazardous waste combustors are operating in a
protective fashion is good for the industry as well as for public
health.
Thank you for your interest in this important area.
Sincerely yours,
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498.1996(02)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
The Honorable Harold L. Volkmer
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Volkmer:
Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1996 to
Administrator Browner in which you raise concerns about the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) hazardous waste
combustion program.
You expressed concerns about: (1) why the Agency is
pursuing development of maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) standards for cement kilns given the results of the Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) study showing
that kilns in Texas pose minimal health risk and given that the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has not yet completed a study
of the health effects of hazardous waste combustion; (2) why the
Agency has grouped cement kilns and incinerators together in
developing MACT standards; (3) why the Agency did not distinguish
between wet and dry kilns in developing MACT standards; (4) why
the Agency established feedrate limits for cement kilns under the
MACT standards; and (5) why the Agency is requiring cement kilns
to conduct expensive site-specific risk assessments using
scientifically unproven methods. I want to address each question
you raise.
Risk Posed by Cement Kilns
Notwithstanding the results of the TNRCC study, our analyses
show that emissions of dioxins and furans (D/F) from cement kilns
(and other hazardous waste combustors) can pose significant
health risk. The range of carcinogenic risk for subsistence
farmers and subsistence fishers can exceed 1 in 100,000. The
health risk posed by a particular kiln is a function of the
emissions from that kiln and site-specific exposure factors.
Although the health risk from emissions from cement kilns in the
Midlothian, Texas, area may not be significant, this may .not be
the case nationwide.
Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Posiconsumer]
-------
In addition, we believe that hazardous waste combustors
(HWCs) may represent about 9% of total anthropogenic D/F
emissions in the U.S, and about 4% of total Mercury (Hg)
emissions. Both are highly toxic and bioacculmulative
pollutants, and Congress singled out both fbr^ priority MACT
control under Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act. The
Agency's MACT rule that is under development would reduce dioxin
and furan emissions from hazardous waste combustors by 98% and
mercury emissions by 80%.
We believe that there is ample evidence of the potential
health risk from HWCs and that it would be inappropriate to delay
the rulemaking. Stakeholders should have the opportunity to
review and comment on the proposed MACT rules. We also note that
the Agency has entered into a settlement agreement to propose the
MACT rule for HWCs by February 20, 1996. Although we have missed
that deadline, we are committed'to moving forward with the rule
as quickly as possible.
Finally/ the settlement agreement deadline does not allow
the Agency to wait for the results of the NAS study on the health
effects of hazardous waste combustion. The Agency will, of
course, factor the results of the study into our final rulemaking
to the extent legally and technically appropriate. In doing so,
we will be mindful as well of the legal deadlines for
promulgation of the final rule.
Grouping of Cement Kilns with Incinerators
The Agency is not proposing to group cement kilns with
incinerators for purposes of developing MACT standards. This
misconception may stem from a May 1994 report the Agency released
(Combustion Emissions Technical Resource Document) in which the
Agency pooled emissions data from all hazardous waste combustors.
We are no longer pursuing that approach.
Subdividing Wet and Dry. Cement Kilns
The Agency agrees that it is appropriate to consider
subdividing cement kilns by process type: wet versus dry process
kilns. We have investigated MACT standards for wet versus dry
kilns and plan to invite comment on subdivided standards. Based
on public comment and further analysis, we could promulgate
subdivided standards.
Feedrate Limits for Cement Kilns
The Agency is not proposing limits on the feedrate of metals
and chlorine for cement kilns. In developing the MACT standards,
the Agency has, however, considered control of the feedrate of
-------
metals and chlorine in hazardous waste along with emission
control equipment as valid emission control techniques in
identifying MACT standards. This is because both feedrate of
metals and chlorine as well as collection efficiency of the
control device affect emissions. A source would be able to
comply with the emission standard using any ^approach it chose,
however, including any combination of feedrate control and
emission control equipment considered most cost-effective.
Finally, we note that we have considered as MACT control the
feedrate of metals and chlorine only in the hazardous waste, and
not in fossil fuel and raw materials.
Site~Specific Risk Assessments
As you note, the Agency is using the omnibus permit
authority to ensure that site-specific risk assessments are
conducted because it is concerned that its existing emission
standards for HWCs are not adequately protective given that they
consider exposure via direct inhalation only. For highly, toxic
and bioaccumulative pollutants such as dioxins and mercury,
exposure via indirect pathways (e.g., the food chain) can pose
much greater health risk.
You recommend that the Agency abandon the use of omnibus
permit authority and adopt an approach to address these
additional health risk concerns based on administrative notice
and rule-making. As you know, however, the omnibus provision was
authorized by Congress under Section 3005(c)(3) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. The codification of this
provision at 40 CFR §270.32(b)(2) followed the Administrative
Procedure Act. The use of the omnibus authority to address
potential health risk concerns not contemplated by the current
regulations is consistent with the original intent of the statute
and regulations. In addition, whenever the Agency invokes the
omnibus permit authority, the permit official provides
opportunity for comment by affected stakeholders and responds to
those comments. Further, the permit official must justify in the
administrative record supporting the permit any decisions based
on use of omnibus permit authority. Finally, we anticipate that
the need for site-specific risk assessments will be reduced once
the MACT rules are promulgated. We believe this is another
reason to proceed with the MACT rulemaking as quickly as
possible.
You indicate that site-specific risk assessments are costly.
Although risk assessments can be costly, we believe it is
important to minimize the burden associated with these
assessments to the extent possible. To that end, we have issued
draft guidance which includes a screening methodology that can
generally allow a risk assessment to be completed in a fairly
short time at a cost of less than $50,000 once appropriate
-------
emissions data are collected. Although more detailed analysis of
a specific site may be considered by the permitting authority.
depending on site-specific conditions, extensive analysis is
expected to be the exception rather than the rule. , In addition,
we are currently discussing ways to further standardize and focus
the assessments.
Finally, you expressed concern that the risk assessments use
scientifically unproven methods. Although the Agency's draft
methodology for assessing risk associated with indirect exposure
to combustor emissions is currently undergoing review by our
Science Advisory Board (SAB), we believe it is appropriate to
continue using the methodology in the interim. We have the
responsibility to make the best decisions possible using the best
tools available at the time. Moreover, as discussed above,
permit officials will respond to all comments on a case-specific
basis when using the risk assessment methodology under the
omnibus permit authority. After comments from the SAB and others
have been received and evaluated, the Agency will prepare the
document in final form.
Thank you for your interest in minimizing the burden
associated with managing the, risks from HWCs. I assure you that
EPA's goal is to achieve health and environmental protection at
the least burden possible to the regulated community and to
implementing agencies.
The Agency has been working on this complicated rulemaking
for three years. The issues are complicated, and as noted above,
there are a number of misconceptions about the Agency's approach
to developing .the standards. Stakeholders such as the American
Lung Association are urging the Agency to propose the standards
as quickly as possible. I believe that it will benefit everyone
concerned (and help us meet our legal obligation) to get the
proposed rule on the street as soon as possible and to engage in
informed communication on what is appropriate and what needs to
be revised.
Sincerely yours,
"" g
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
HAROLD I. VOLKME8 >STBCTomx&.
9TM CONGRESSIONAL'MSTRICT . ROOM J70
MISSOURI fEDESAL BUILDING
-ANNI8AL. MO U401
«» RAYBURN HOUSE OfflCE BUHDiNG '31" "'-1*00
«OUSE COMMfTT« ON
AGRICULTURE
Congress of the Bnited 3
ftouse of HUpresentatioes
HJashington,
COLUMBU. MO «M1
(J14l
-------
Given these flaws and the availability of important new information, I urge EPA not
to go forth with its current proposal. Even a proposed rule with flaws can have
serious negative regulatory impacts and will be difficult to correct. I would
appreciate a response as to why the proposal cannot be delayed and how the flaws
identified in the draft proposal are to be remedied.
On a final note, I want to voice my great concern regarding the Agency's continued
use of omnibus permit authority to require interim status facilities to conduct costly
and scientifically unproven indirect risk assessments.
While current regulations cover direct exposures, it is the Agency's view that permit
writers have unlimited and open-ended discretion to determine when and by whom
these scientifically unproven risk assessments must be performed, all without the
benefits of peer-reviewed regulatory guidance. As a result, companies in my
district may be required to spend millions of dollars conducting indirect risk
assessments based on arbitrary and unknown standards, which may result in plant
closures and job loss.
I strongly urge the Agency to abandon the systematic use of omnibus permit
authority in mis manner and adopt a reasoned approach, based on administrative
notice and rule-making, with regard to the criteria for and proper use of indirect
risk assessments.
Thank you in advance for help on this matter.
Sincerely,
Harold L. Volkmer
Member of Congress
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9498.1996(03)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. David Gossman / 1956
President
Gossman Consulting, Inc.
45W962 Plank Road
Hampshire, Illinois 60140
Dear Mr. Gossman:
Thank you for your letters of February 7,1996 and February 21, 1996 to Administrator
Browner in which you raise a number of issues regarding the ability of a boiler or industrial
furnace (BIF) burning hazardous waste to spike metals and also to use test data in lieu of
performing a trial burn. We address each of your issues below.
In regard to testing and trial bums involving the spiking of toxic metals, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the time of promulgation of the BIF regulations, did
not envision that facilities would seek permits to burn higher levels of toxic metals than they
routinely accept in hazardous waste. We do not believe a facility should bum high levels of toxic
metals during a trial bum, other compliance tests, or normal operations if this creates potential
worker safety and health risks. Furthermore, our regulations do not require feeding metals at
unsafe levels during trial burns or compliance tests. We would be concerned if they were
interpreted in such a way, since feeding extremely high levels of metals is an environmentally un-
sound practice because metals are not destroyed by combustion but merely partitioned to the ash
or the product or emitted to the air. EPA has previously addressed the issue of burning waste
fuels with high metals content in boilers and industrial furnaces in the enclosed letter to Mr.
Joseph A. Kotlinski of Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. However, if you still feel that
high levels of spiking are necessary in certain specific cases, we would be willing to discuss with
you alternative approaches in order to avoid or minimize this type of spiking.
The Agency's concerns with respect to potential health risks from metals being fed in
hazardous waste, as well as from organic emissions, were the major reasons EPA developed its
Strategy for Hazardous Waste Minimization and Combustion (Combustion Strategy). This
concern was brought on by the realization that the BIF rule primarily addressed the risk from
inhalation and did not directly address risks by indirect exposure pathways. As a result, the
Combustion. Strategy recommends that toxic metals burned in a hazardous waste combustor
should be addressed in a multi-pathway risk assessment, using the omnibus requirements of
Section 3005(cX3) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR
§270.32(bX2)).
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
You also express concern about the infrequent use of "data in lieu of a trial burn and/or
compliance test" (40 CFR, §§270.22(a)(6), 266.103(c)(3), and 270.66(d)(2)). The purpose of
these provisions is to allow the use of test data from one unit as a substitute for conducting a trial
bum or compliance test for a similar unit. The Office of Solid Waste has no specific guidance
materials on the use of these provisions other than the regulations themselves. Decisions to allow
data in lieu of a trial burn are made on a site-specific basis by the appropriate permitting authority
after considering a number of complex factors, e.g., the size of the device, the configuration of the
device, the type of waste burned, etc. However, especially where multi-pathway risk assessments
are conducted, one might anticipate that permit writers would be less likely to accept data in lieu
of a trial burn except in cases where the wastes and the combustion device with its associated
control systems are almost the same. (This issue was previously addressed in the transcript of the
Chemical Manufacturing Association/Environmental Protection Agency (CMA/EPA) Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces (BIF) Workshop of March 29-30, 1994. This transcript was supplied to you
as part of the response to your February 21, 1995 FOIA request.). We do not keep national data
on requests and approvals, but do know that some Regional offices and states have approved the
use of "data in lieu of trial burns and/or compliance tests" in the past. Additionally, in some cases
where approvals were granted, the permittee elected to conduct the tests anyway.
Finally, your letters, at least in our reading of them, seem to indicate some confusion as to
the purpose of the provisions allowing data in lieu of trial burns and compliance tests. The "data-
in-lieu of provisions were not generally intended to allow elimination of requirements for
retesting at a facility, since the purpose of retesting is to ensure the facility remains in compliance
over time as the unit ages. Therefore, it is difficult to envision a scenario where using earlier test
data gathered prior to the most recent permitting term or most recent period of compliance would
be appropriate as a substitute for a retest.
I hope I have addressed all your concerns with respect to these issues. If you have any
additional questions, please contact Dwight Hlustick or Bob Holloway at (703) 308-8647 and
(703) 308-8461 respectively.
Sincerely,
/
; / -.-' . ' /
/ Michael Shapiro, Director
r "-'' Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures 1'
-------
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498.1996(04)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Neil J. Carman, Ph.D.
Director, Clean Air Programs
Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club
P.O. Box 1931
Austin, Texas 78767
Dear Dr. Carman:
Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1996 to
Administrator Browner regarding our proposed maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) rulemaking for hazardous waste
combustors (HWCs).
We agree that improperly designed hazardous waste
incinerators and cement and lightweight aggregate kilns burning
hazardous waste can pose a hazard to human health and the
environment. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) current regulations may not be protective in all
cases. Accordingly, you may have already heard that
Administrator Browner signed the proposed MACT rule for these
devices on March 20, 1996. We believe that the proposed rule
would establish tough emission standards for dioxin, mercury,
and lead, in particular.
Regarding EPA's cement kiln dust (CKD) regulatory
activities, the Agency remains committed to developing tailored
regulations in conjunction with existing authorities. The Agency
identified risks resulting from CKD and industry management
practices. These risks were noted in EPA's Regulatory
Determination for CKD, Federal Register 7366 (1995) as well as in
correspondence previously sent to you dated July 25, 1995.
Accordingly, EPA's decision affects all CKD, regardless of the
type of fuel burned in the cement manufacturing process. In
making its decision, the Agency conducted an objective analysis
of the data at its disposal, as set forth in RCRA §8002(o). EPA
has no information to suggest that the CKD metals concentration
data considered in the Report to Congress' reflect anything but
routine industry practice.
The Agency considered Certificate of Compliance (CoC) data
from cement kilns burning hazardous waste. During the CoC test
burns, kilns document compliance with emissions standards while
adding (i.e., spiking) metals in the feed in excess of normal
levels to ensure that limits on operating conditions
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
provide adequate operational flexibility. CKD metal
concentration data, as described in the Report to Congress, shows
metals concentrations in managed CKD at levels significantly
below those levels reported in the CoC reports. The samples of
managed CKD were composites of recently managed dust (0-6 months
old) collected from on-site piles. Hence, we believe the
available data shows that cement facilities are not routinely
burning wastes with metals concentrations at or near their BIF
permit limits (i.e., CoC levels). However, even if metals
concentration levels in CKD are significantly affected by
hazardous waste burning, BIF regulations under 40 CFR §266.112
prohibit CKD from exceeding our health-based limits.
EPA's CKD regulatory program will be risk-based, flexible
and tailored to site-specific conditions. It will provide
environmental protection at a reasonable cost and avoid over-
regulation. Please be assured that in developing the program,
the Agency will work with all interested parties, including
states and local citizen groups, to achieve a protective,
efficient, common sense standard.
Finally, you expressed concern about the impacts of area-
wide emissions from HWCs clusters. In addition to upgrading the
current HWC emission standards under the MACT rulemaking, the
Agency will continue to use the omnibus permit authority (under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) as warranted to
ensure protection of human health and the environment on a site-
specific basis. Evaluating the risk from multiple HWCs in a
particular area is an example of how we would continue-to use
omnibus authority to determine if the national MACT standards
need to be adjusted on the local level.
t
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us. We hope you
will be able to take advantage of the opportunity to comment on
the proposed MACT rules.
Sincerely yours,
D
Michael/Shapiro, Director
Office bf Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9498.1996(05)
The Honorable John Ashcroft OFFICE OF
,, .. , _. ^_ _ . SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
United States Senate RESPONSE
Washington, D.C. 20510-2504
Dear Senator Ashcroft:
Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1996 to
Administrator Browner, in which you expressed your concerns
about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Hazardous
Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy and our application
of the omnibus.permit authority and site-specific risk
assessments as part of this Combustion Strategy.
You expressed concern with the Agency's policy that the
permitting process for hazardbus waste combustion facilities
should include a site-specific risk assessment. This policy is
based on new information which became available since the time
that the current regulations for incinerators and BIFs (boilers
and industrial furnaces) were issued. This information indicates
there can be significant risks from indirect exposure pathways
(i.e., pathways other than direct inhalation, such as through the
food chain). This key portion, and in many cases the largest
component, of the risk from hazardous waste combustor emissions
was not fully taken into account when the hazardous waste
combustion emissions standards were developed.
For this reason, the "omnibus" requirement to protect human
health and the environment comes into play. Under Section 3005
of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Regional or
State permit writers must determine on a site-specific' basis
what, if any, additional permit conditions are necessary to
assure that these additional risks are not above-acceptable
levels. Multipathway site-specific risk assessments provide the
information and logical decision-making process needed in making
such determinations.
You also expressed concern that the Agency has imposed
permit conditions without the benefit of defined regulatory
standards that have been subject to a formal review under the
Administrative Procedure Act, and that the Combustion Strategy
itself was not authorized by Congress. As you know,.the omnibus
provision was authorized by Congress under Section 3005(c)(3) of
the RCRA. The codification of this provision at 40 CFR
270.32(b)(2) followed normal procedures under the Administrative
Procedure Act. The use of the omnibus authority in implementing
the Combustion Strategy is consistent with the original intent of
the statute and regulations.
Recycled/Recyclable . Printed wim Vegetable Oil Based InKs on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
The Hazardous Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy
consists of a compilation of EPA's goals, policies, and
activities in areas such as permitting, combustion standards, and
waste minimization. Each activity conducted under this Strategy
rests on its own proper legal authority under RCRA and, in one
case, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
The Strategy itself does not impose regulatory requirements,
but is a policy statement expressing how the Agency plans to
exercise its discretionary functions under RCRA in the future.
Specifically, the Strategy sets out EPA's permitting priorities
and recommends procedures for ensuring that individual permits
meet RCRA's mandate to protect human health and the environment.
As such, the Strategy does not require its own separate legal
authorization from Congress. As noted above, each independent
activity undertaken as part of the overall Strategy (e.g.,
updated technical standards, individual permitting decisions,
waste minimization plan) has been and will continue to be
carefully scrutinized to make sure that the legal basis for any
action is clear, and that all appropriate procedures .are followed
(including public notice and comment for all rulemakings and for
each individual permit action).
Your letter also conveyed your concern about the time and
resources needed to perform the risk assessment that is being
done for the WTI incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio. However,
it is important to recognize that the risk assessment guidance
developed pursuant to the Combustion Strategy does not involve
the extensive evaluation being done for the WTI facility. The
level of detail of that assessment is not the norm, but rather
was due to site-specific factors, as well as to the fact that
this assessment was an early effort which was expected to help
refine future risk assessments. On the other hand, with
appropriate emissions data the screening analysis outlined in
EPA's risk assessment guidance can generally be completed in a
fairly short time at a cost of less than $50,000, althou'gh more
detailed analysis for a specific site may be considered .by the
permitting authority depending on site-specific conditions. The
regulations already require hazardous waste combustors to perform
trial burns to demonstrate compliance with the emissions
standards; collection of the additional emissions data needed for
a risk assessment generally amounts to a small percentage cost
increase. EPA would like to minimize the burden associated with
these risk assessments to the extent possible, and we are
currently discussing ways to further standardize and focus the
assessments.
We continue to believe that risk assessments are valuable in
assuring that combustors are operating in a protective fashion.
For example, WTI brought their risk down into its current range
by significantly reducing their dioxin emissions in response to
EPA's Combustion Strategy and preliminary risk assessment efforts
as well as citizen concerns. EPA hopes to achieve similar
environmental gains at other facilities as we continue to
-------
implement the Combustion Strategy. Further, it is important to
point out that the encouraging draft risk assessment results for
WTI do not mean that similar assessments are unnecessary at all
other facilities. While WTI's total organic emissions (about 0.2
parts per million) are relatively low, in the past some
combustors have emitted up to 400 parts per million and thus may
pose a higher risk.
The following responses are provided for your detailed
questions:
1) The Agency's May, 1994, Draft Trial Burn Guidance has
not been reviewed by the Science Advisory Board. However, the
EPA has. received formal comments from two sources with respect to
the trial burn guidance. The first set were from the
Environmental Technology Council (ETC) and second were from the
Industrial Working Group (IWG). The IWG consists of
representatives of a number of industry trade groups who took
part in the Industry Technical Workshop on EPA Trial Burn
Guidance on November 14 and 15, 1994. The IWG consists of the
following organizations: ETC, Chemical Manufacturers Association,
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, Waste Minimization & Combustion
Coalition, and the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration.
The Agency has been working to incorporate these comments into
the guidance document as well as to address concerns identified
by the Agency itself, and we hope to publish an update to the
guidance in the next 3-4 months.
2) EPA has been working to improve the models it uses to
evaluate dispersion and deposition from combustion sources. The
Agency recognized in 1993 that the available models were in need
of improvement and thus in 1994 released to the user community
for comment a draft version of a revised model. Allowing the
user community to test important software components as part of
the development process has become standard practice in the
field, and therefore, is also practiced by EPA. The revised
model was finalized in 1995. We understand there may be some
frustration with changes to the models used for risk assessments.
However, the Agency believes it is important to continuously
improve its air quality models and to make improved modeling
tools available to the public. It is not the Agency's policy,
however, to require that a particular model be used. Instead,
that decision is generally made on a case-by-case basis by the
permit applicant in consultation with the permitting authority.
This approach allows flexibility to decide, for example, that
once the risk assessment protocol for a site is approved by the
permitting authority, no further changes will be made unless
agreed to by the applicant.and the permitting authority.
-------
3) In performing a site-specific risk assessment using the
Office of Solid Waste methodology, the permitting authority or
the facility generally first performs a screening analysis' which,
as mentioned earlier, costs $50,000 or less. Only facilities
which do not pass the conservative screen need to go on to
perform a more detailed assessment. Due to the variety of
circumstances under which detailed assessments were performed
over the past few years by facilities, EPA Regions, and
authorized states, it is very difficult to accurately estimate an
average cost in workdays. In general, the regulated facilities
do not share their cost information associated with performing
risk assessments. Therefore, we do not have sufficient data to
provide you With an average cost for a regulated facility. With
respect to EPA Regions and authorized states, we estimate that
the effort required for the permitting authority to review a
direct and indirect risk assessment performed by a regulated
facility ranges from 3 to 25 workdays. The effort required by an
EPA Region or authorized state to perform a direct and indirect
risk assessment ranges from 100-700 workdays. We expect that
cost to a facility performing a risk assessment would likely be
similar to that for a Region or state. The wide range in
workdays in these estimates is due to factors such as whether the
work was performed by agency staff or by contractors (contractor
workday levels tend to be higher than in-house workday levels) ;
the level of detail of the assessment; and the complexity of the
facility.
4) The enclosed chart is provided in response to your
request for a list of facilities where site-specific risk
assessments are being conducted and the types of findings that
have been made in those cases where omnibus authority has been
invoked.
Thank you for your interest in this important area.
t
Sincerely yours,
Michae]J Shapiro, Director
:fice/of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
JOHN ASHCROFT
MISSOURI
Bniad States
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2504
April 18,1996
Carol Browner, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Browner:
I am writing to ask the Agency to conduct a thorough review of the Combustion Strategy
Program. The Agency has defended the Combustion Strategy by suggesting that it is merely a
policy statement which does not impose regulatory requirements. Notwithstanding this claim,
therAgency continues to implement the Combustion Strategy by relying almost exclusively on
the omnibus permit authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to
require mteriHMfeh&rombiistion-facilities to 1) conduct expensive, and scientifically-unproven,
open-ended direct and-indirect risk assessments and 2) impose permit conditions without the
benefit of defined regulatory standards that have been subject to a formal review process under
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
Given the need to get more out of existing Agency resources, it appears that the Agency
would be well served to thoroughly review the Combustion Strategy in tight of recent reports
that the Agency's own risk assessment at the controversial WTI incinerator site in Liverpool,
Ohio, after years of work and the expenditure of millions of private and public sector dollars,
found that the average total cancer risk for the entire facility was one-million-to-one. Please
review the following questions and respond in writing at your earliest convenience*:
1) Since its release in May 1994, has the Agency's Draft Trial Bum Guidance been
subject to review by the Science Advisory Board?
2) Is it true that the Agency has issued three different risk assessment/disposition
models for the Combustion Strategy in the last 24 months?
3) How much does the average direct and indirect risk assessment cost a) the regulated
facility, and b) the Agency, in terms of man/hours?
-4) Please supply me with a list of facilities that the Agency is requiring to comply with
the draft protocols, and describe the types of ske-specific findings the Agency has
made in those cases where omnibus authority has been invoked.
Sincerely,
JDA:pxk
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
J? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 231996 9498.1996(06)
OFFICE OF .
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
The Honorable David M. Mclntosh
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of April 19, 1996 to
Administrator Browner regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) implementation of the Hazardous Waste
Minimization and Combustion Strategy and related combustion
matters. We appreciate your continued interest in this most
important area. Following are our responses to your questions:
1) What is the legal and scientific justification for requiring
interim combustion facilities to perform indirect exposure risk
assessments in view of the fact that the protocols recommended by
EPA for conducting these assessments have not been peer reviewed?
The Agency's policy that the permitting process for
hazardous waste combustion facilities should include, in many
cases, a site-specific risk assessment is based primarily on
information which became available since the time that the
current regulations for incinerators and BIFs (boilers and
industrial furnaces) were issued (1981 and 1991, respectively)
Specifically, the Agency concluded that the regulatory t
requirements do not fully address potentially significant risks
via indirect pathways of exposure. Many recent studies,
including the Agency's draft Dioxin Reassessment, indicate there
can be significant risks from indirect exposure pathways (i.e.,
pathways other than direct inhalation). The food chain pathway
appears to be particularly important for pollutants from
hazardous waste combustion sources. In many cases, risk from
indirect exposure constitutes the majority of the risk from a
hazardous waste combustor. This key portion of the risk from
hazardous waste combustor emissions was not fully taken into
account when the hazardous waste combustion emissions standards
were developed.
It is important to evaluate whether indirect pathway risks
may pose risks to human health and the environment not fully
addressed by the promulgated regulations. Therefore, it is EPA's
general policy - as stated in the preamble to the proposed
Recycled/Recyclable
Pintea witn Soy Canoia ink or. paper trj;
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
revision to the hazardous waste combustion standards (April
19,1996) to evaluate site-specific factors to determine
whether to require a risk assessment at a particular site.
Where risks are.identified, permit writers will consider the
imposition of additional conditions pursuant to RCRA Section
3005(c)(3) (the "omnibus" provision). The omnibus provision is
implemented in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 270.32(b)(2). Under the
omnibus authority, permit writers determine on a site-specific
basis what, if any, additional permit conditions are necessary to
assure protection of human health and the environment. For
combustion facilities, in many-cases, multipathway site-specific
risk assessments provide information needed to make such
determinations.
Although the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) risk assessment
guidance has not been subjected to an external peer review, it
was internally peer reviewed by risk assessment experts in EPA
headquarters and regional offices. It was also discussed in an
informal consultation with some members of the EPA's Science
Advisory Board (SAB). Furthermore, its parent document, the
Agency's "Addendum to Methodology for Assessing Health Risks from
Indirect Exposures to Combustor Emissions," was reviewed by the
SAB. The Agency is considering the SAB comments as part of its
effort to revise the indirect exposure methodology and we will
make any appropriate revisions to the OSW guidance once that
process has been completed. There are some difficult issues
regarding indirect exposure assessment. Nevertheless, EPA is
using the best science available considering the need in the near
term for the Agency to issue permits that protect human health
and the environment.
2) Has the EPA issued three different risk
assessment/deposition models since June 1992 and/or within the
last 24 months? Please explain the rationale for the changes in
each model, what defects the changes sought to address and
whether the Agency plans to make further changes. Have any of
these models been reviewed by independent scientific panels? If
not, why not?
The Agency has been working to improve the models it uses to
evaluate dispersion and deposition from combustion sources. The
Agency convened an interoffice working group in 1992 to make
recommendations with regard to the Agency's indirect exposure
methodology. The working group recommended that COMPDEP, the
model that had been developed for use with the indirect exposure
methodology, be replaced. The working group also recommended
that as an interim measure the COMPDEP model be further tested
and corrections made as necessary. Subsequently, COMPDEP was
-------
revised for public release for use on an interim basis. At the
same time the Agency began work on revisions to the widely-used
ISC (Industrial Source Complex) model that would serve as the
replacement for COMPDEP. Thus, in 1994, EPA released to the user
community for comment a draft version of the ISC model which
included an improved dry deposition algorithm, a wet deposition
algorithm, a complex terrain screening algorithm* and an enhanced
area source algorithm. Allowing the user community to test
important software components as part of the development process
has become standard practice in the field, and therefore, is also
practiced by EPA. The revised ISC model was officially adopted
as a Guideline model in August 1995.
EPA's Guideline models are supported by many years of
research, including demonstration and evaluation studies. The
models are subject to review at Congressionally mandated
triennial conferences on Air Quality Modeling, the last of which
was held in August 1995. Organizations such as the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the
American Meteorological Society, the Air and Waste Management
Association, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and the
Natural Resources Defense Council participate in these
conferences. The revisions to the ISC model were formally
proposed in the Federal Register on November 28, 1994 (59 FR
60740). All significant public comments received were summarized
and evaluated (Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses on
the Proposal for Supplement C to the Guideline on Air Quality
Models). In the final rule promulgated in August 1995 (60 FR
40465), all significant public comments were addressed and the
revised model was adopted.
We understand there may be some frustration with changes to
the models used for risk assessments. However, the Agejicy
believes it is important to continuously seek ways to improve its
air quality models and to make improved modeling tools available
to the public. EPA recognizes that frequent changes to methods
recommended for routine use makes the regulatory process more
complex. Hence, with respect to air quality Guideline models, as
stated in the Guideline's introduction, EPA always provides ample
opportunity for public review and comment before formally
updating the models recommended for routine use. For risk
assessments, it is not the Agency's policy to require that a
particular model be used. Instead, that decision is generally
made on a case-by-case basis by the permit applicant in
consultation with the permitting authority. This approach allows
flexibility to decide, for example, that once the risk assessment
protocol for a site is approved by the permitting authority, no
further changes will be made unless agreed to by the applicant
and the permitting authority.
-------
3) Please provide the number and location of interim status
facilities that have been required to conduct indirect risk
assessments, the number of risk assessments that were completed,
the length of time to complete each risk assessment, and the
total cost of each risk assessment.
The information you requested is not available at EPA
Headquarters. We are collecting the information fcpm our
Regional offices and will respond as soon as complete data are
received.
4) Does the omnibus permitting authority allow the Agency to
implement proposed regulations in certain permit actions, or to
incorporate new requirements in permits where EPA intends to add
such requirements to the regulations but has not yet issued a
final or proposed rule? Please explain.
As a general rule, the Agency's position is that EPA's
regulations are protective of human health and the environment
and that permits implementing these regulatory standards will
also be protective. There may, however, be site-specific
circumstances in which it may be necessary to supplement
regulatory permitting requirements in order to protect human
health and the environment (e.g., where there is a sensitive
subpopulation). In such cases, use of the omnibus provision may
be appropriate. The decision to invoke omnibus authority must be
made on a case-by-case basis and only when the Agency, after
examining all relevant data supplied during the permitting
process, determines that additional conditions are necessary to
ensure protection.
One use of the omnibus authority would be to impose
additional permit conditions reflecting standards that EPA has
proposed but has not yet finalized. (Conditions that have been
proposed for national application by EPA have gone through
extensive Agency review and generally represent the Agency's best
thinking on an issue.) In the legislative history for RCRA,
Congress recognized that it may be appropriate to add certain
provisions to permits under the omnibus provision even where
those provisions are not yet contained in final regulations:
"[The omnibus authority] can also be used to incorporate new
or better technologies or other new requirements in permits,
where EPA intends to add such technologies or requirements
to the regulations but has not yet issued a final regulatory
amendment."
S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 31 (1983). Another use of
the omnibus authority might be to impose permit provisions that
are not contained in either proposed or final regulations but
which EPA has detailed in guidance documents.
-------
EPA does not apply these provisions, however, to permits as
if they were final regulatory requirements. Rather, EPA's view
is that the proposed regulations or guidances have specifically
identified particular areas where the current generic regulations
might need to be supplemented. Procedurally, EPA would still
propose to add these supplemental conditions to permits on a
case-by-case basis based on a finding in each case that the
specific conditions at issue are necessary to proteot human
health and the environment. Permit applicants would be free to
comment on those findings and to challenge these supplemental
conditions both administratively within EPA and in the courts, as
explained below.
5) With regard to EPA's permitting authority, can the Agency
simply claim an intention to issue a regulation and go no
further? If not, what prevents the Agency from doing so? Are
there any administrative checks and balances on the Agency's use
of omnibus authority? ' Please explain.
There are a number of administrative checks and balances on
EPA's use of rulemaking authority and its use of the omnibus
authority. With regard to the omnibus provision, the Agency's
authority is broad but is not unlimited. To invoke the omnibus
authority to add conditions to an RCRA permit, EPA must show that
the additional conditions are necessary to ensure protection of
human health and the environment. Specifically, the permit
writer must explain and document why the Agency believes that
human health or the environment is not fully protected under the
regulations and must provide a sound technical basis for the need
to include additional permit conditions to ensure protection.
Under RCRA and EPA's regulations, the Agency must provide an
opportunity for public comment and if requested, hold a public
hearing on the permit. EPA must respond to the public comments
and include the responses in the administrative record of the
permit. If the permit is issued by EPA, applicants and other
interested parties have the option of appealing the final permit
decision to EPA's Environmental Appeals Board. Finally, once the
Agency's administrative appeal process is completed, parties may
challenge the final decision through the courts. Authorized
States may or may not have similar administrative and judicial
appeal processes.
There may be cases in which permit writers may find a need
under the omnibus authority to add certain permit conditions to
conform to requirements that EPA has proposed to issue, but has
not issued (and ultimately may not issue), in final regulations.
It is important to understand that the Agency's stated intention
to issue regulations or proposal of regulations establishing
further permit conditions does not have legally binding status.
As in any other case involving the omnibus authority, the permit
writer would need to justify its decision to impose those
additional conditions each time the permit writer sought to
-------
impose them in a permit. Therefore, the right to bring
administrative and judicial challenges, and the other procedural
checks and balances described above, would apply.
Finally, there are also checks and balances on the Agency's
ability to propose a regulation and to go no further. Were the
Agency to follow such a course, a party could seek redress from
the courts for "agency action unlawfully withheld",Osee section
706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. S 706).
A party could also petition EPA to issue a regulation (see
section 553(e) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e)) and could bring a
judicial challenge if EPA declines to do so (see § 7006 of RCRA).
6) Is the EPA's implementation of its Combustion Strategy policy
initiative and its use of indirect exposure risk assessments
consistent with the rulemaking process required under the
Administrative Procedures Act? Please explain.
Yes. The Strategy itself does not impose regulatory
requirements, but is a policy statement expressing how the Agency
plans to exercise its discretionary authorities under RCRA in the
future. Specifically, the Strategy recommends procedures for
ensuring that individual permits meet RCRA's mandate to protect
human health and the environment. As such, the Strategy is not
subject to the notice and comment rulemaking provisions of the
APA (see APA Sec. 553(b)(3)(A)). However, each independent
activity undertaken as part of the overall Strategy (e.g.., the
promulgation of updated technical standards, individual
permitting decisions) has followed and will continue to follow
all legal requirements in RCRA and all appropriate procedural
requirements under the APA (including public notice and comment
for all rulemakings and for each individual permit action).
7) If the Agency requires a regulated facility, as part of a
"site specific determination," to conduct extensive trial burns
and indirect exposure.risk assessments based solely on the
Agency's assertion that it is "necessary to preserve health and
human safety," does the regulated facility have any recourse to
challenge the decision?
Yes, a facility can challenge a request for more data.
Under 40 CFR section 270.10(k), EPA may require the applicant to
submit additional information (e.g., trial burn data or a risk
assessment) that the Agency needs to make required determinations
under the omnibus provision. During the application process, the
applicant may informally provide technical information to the
permitting authority to justify its position that the additional
information being requested is not needed to assure permit
conditions that will protect human health and the environment at
the applicant's facility. If the applicant disagrees with the
Agency's determination under 270.10(k) (or the authorized State's
-------
analogous determination), it may refuse to provide the requested
information. The permitting authority would then evaluate the
reasons offered, if any, for the failure to obtain and provide
the requested information and may either decide to proceed
without the information or propose to deny the permit.
In the case of a permit denial, the facility has a number of
opportunities for recourse, as described above in £he response to
item 5, starting with commenting during the public comment period
on the draft permit (or here, the draft permit denial) and
followed by the opportunity for administrative review within EPA
and then judicial review.
In certain cases, the Agency also may seek additional
testing or data under the authority of RCRA section 3013 (i.e.,
where the Agency believes that hazardous waste activity "may
present a substantial hazard to human health or the environment")
and may issue an order for testing. The facility owner or
operator may refuse to perform the work; however, EPA either may
then seek to enforce its order in court or may perform the work
itself and seek to recover its costs. In both cases, of course,
the owner or operator can raise any appropriate defenses or
explanations.
Ultimately, it is important to ensure that EPA's permit
decisions are supported by an adequate level of data in the
record. The lack of adequate supporting data can leave permits
vulnerable to legal challenges by other interested parties.
8) How much does EPA spend on implementing the Combustion
Strategy annually, including outreach activities, commitment of
regional resources, the OSW newsletter, and other management
resources? Please provide a breakdown of such costs.
It is difficult to isolate the specific costs of
implementing the Combustion Strategy since it is.an integral part
of overall implementation of the RCRA program for combustion
facilities. Therefore, the following budget information
identifies the Agency expenditures that are targeted for
implementing the combustion program in general, not just the
Combustion Strategy. Many of these activities would be necessary
even in absence of the Combustion Strategy. The three major
portions of the combustion budget are rulemaking and analysis,
technical assistance and outreach, and permitting activities. In
fiscal year 1995, the agency budgeted a total of $3,419,000 and
12.8 FTE for rulemaking and analysis. Note that the Agency is
obligated to pursue this rulemaking due to a settlement agreement
and Clean Air Act rulemaking requirements. Outreach and
technical assistance were funded at $1,394,000 and 5.8 FTE.
Regional offices were provided with $1,539,000 and 8.7 FTE for
combustion-related permit activities above the base permitting
allocation for permitting of these units. The fiscal year 1996
-------
8
operating plan is not yet finalized but the budget is estimated
at $3,414,000 and 11.7 FTE for rulemaking and analysis, $952,000
and 5.0 FTE for outreach and technical assistance, and $1,562,000
and 8.7 FTE to cover the additional regional expenses of
combustion permitting. The President's Budget for fiscal 1997
includes $4,009,000 and 12.8 FTE for rulemaking and analysis
activities, and $1,540,400 and 5.6 FTE is allocated for outreach
and technical assistance costs. Regional budgets for fiscal year
1997 include $1,586,000 and 8.7 FTE for supplementary combustion
permitting costs. The dollars cited here include both salary and
contract costs, in line with the Agency's new appropriation
structure. The figures for fiscal year 1995 show the sum of what
were separate appropriations at the time, in order to facilitate
comparison.
9) Can the Agency cite specific scientific studies, or peer-
reviewed agency-sponsored research, which show that hazardous
waste combustors are the major source of direct and indirect
human exposures to dioxins/furans, mercury and other contaminants
and the major contributor (as claimed by the Agency) to
"relatively high" background levels?
As indicated in the preamble to the proposed rule "Revised
Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors," 61 FR 13758, April 19,
1996, the Agency estimates that hazardous waste combustion
accounts for approximately 9 - 10% of known current dioxin
emissions. As concerns the dioxin estimates, as well as those
for other hazardous air pollutants, the estimates for emissions
from hazardous waste combustion are presented in the engineering
background documents for the rule. These documents are currently
undergoing both independent technical peer review and public
review and comment. To the extent your question asks a£out
dioxin estimates from other sources, the estimates for emissions
from other known sources are from the 1994 draft dioxin
reassessment document "Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like
Compounds," which has undergone extensive scientific peer review
and is now being revised.
With respect to mercury, the Agency estimates that hazardous
waste combustion accounts for approximately 4% of known current
anthropogenic mercury emissions. The mercury emissions estimates
for hazardous waste combustors are also contained in the
engineering background documents for the April 1996 proposed
combustion rule, and those for other sources are from EPA air
program emissions data.
10) If hazardous waste combustors are a potentially minor source
of direct and indirect exposures, and the Agency has focused on
them through the Combustion Strategy, has the Agency directed
resources to the other major sources?
-------
By placing hazardous waste combustors under the RCRA
program, Congress has required EPA to place special emphasis on
hazardous waste combustors. We do not believe the Agency is
focusing unduly on hazardous waste combustors, and in fact the
Agency is also putting a great deal of resources into regulation
of other air emissions sources. The Agency has directed
resources to study emissions of mercury and dioxins/furans, and
to develop Clean Air Act standards pursuant to Secjbdjon 112-
Hazardous Air Pollutants and Section 129-Solid Waste Combustion
to reduce air emissions of mercury and/or dioxins/furans, from
numerous sources in addition to hazardous waste combustors.
These activities include the development of standards for the
following source categories that are either included on the list
(published by the Administrator pursuant to Section 112(c) of the
Clean Air Act) of all source categories of listed hazardous air
pollutants; or that are specified in Section 129: municipal waste
combustors (rule promulgated in December 1995), medical waste
incinerators (rule proposed in February 1995), non-hazardous
waste burning cement kilns, secondary aluminum smelters, chlor-
alkali production, primary copper smelters, industrial/commercial
waste incinerators, and lime production. The Agency has also
directed resources to developing the list of categories and
subcategories of dioxin/furan emissions and of mercury emissions
as required in Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act. This
section directs the Administrator to list sources that account
for at least 90 percent of the national emissions of each of
these pollutants and to promulgate standards for these sources by
November 2000. The source categories of municipal waste
combustors and medical waste incinerators, for which standards
have been promulgated or proposed as stated above, are among the
largest sources of mercury and dioxins/furans emissions.
11) Please indicate the total cost of the Agency's overall
efforts related to all major sources of dioxins/furans, mercury
and other contaminants, and indicate the amount spent on each
major source. If there are sources of dioxin and contaminants
other than hazardous waste combustors, what is the Agency doing
to manage and prevent emissions at those sources? What are major
natural sources of dioxins?
We are pulling together the information you have requested
from various EPA offices and will provide it to you as soon as it
is compiled.
-------
10
Thank, you for your interest in this important area. If you
have any questions regarding this response, please have your
staff call Sonya Sasseville or Val de la Fuente at (703) 308-8648
and (703) 308-7245 respectively.
Sincerely,
_lliottVP. Laws
Assistant Administrator
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. ? "WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 2 1996 . 9498.1996(07)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS) Risk Reh
'." M
FROM: Timothy Fields, Jr., Deputy Assistant Administrator
, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5101^
TO: Julie Anderson, Director '-....,-
Waste Management Division (H-l)
Thank you for your memorandum of July 25, 1996 requesting clarification of EPA's policy on
risk related issues concerning the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS).
As you indicated in your memorandum, many of these issues are national in scope and have
generated interest by members of the public at a number of combustion facilities. Specifically, we
have noted that similar risk assessment issues have been raised by the public at other proposed
chemical demilitarization facilities.
As you are aware, EPA's draft site-specific combustion risk assessment guidance was issued in
April 1994. EPA Region VI, in concert with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
(OSWER), is in the process of evaluating the 1994 guidance for the purpose of developing an
update. Below please find provisional responses to the five issues raised in your memorandum.
For your convenience, each request for clarification has been restated followed by the applicable
response. . . . :
- \ '
Issue 1: .
The Agency's current method for assessing the non-carcinogenic risks associated with dioxin
exposure(s) in the context of site specific risk evaluations, especially in terms of terrestrial
background dioxin levels - which have been viewed as currently posing an unacceptable
carcinogenic risk (Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin
(TCDD) and Related Compounds, EPA June 1994, EPA/600/BP-92/001).
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
eontalni at least 50% recycled liber
-------
Response:
The Agency's policy regarding risks presented from exposure to dioxin, as set forth in a
September 11,1991 memorandum from the Administrator, was to continue to evaluate risks from
dioxin in accordance with the 1985 dioxin assessment until such time as the Agency's
reassessment of exposures to and risks from dioxins had been completed. The 1985 assessment
called for the evaluation of toxic effects of dioxin based upon their carcinogenic potential only, a
reference dose for evaluating non-cancer health effects of dioxin was not established.
EPA issued the draft dioxin reassessment in 1994. The reassessment concluded that adequate
evidence exists to support the inference that humans are likely to respond with a broad spectrum
of effects from exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dibenzodioxin (hereafter referred to as dioxin)
and related dioxin-like compounds, if exposures are sufficiently high. This conclusion was based
upon results from studies in human populations, experiments with laboratory animals, and
ancillary experimental studies. The effects induced may range from adaptive changes at or near
background levels of exposure to adverse effects with increasing severity as exposure levels
increase above background. Enzyme induction, alterations in hormone levels and indicators of
altered cellular function are examples of effects of unknown clinical significance; they may or may
not be early indicators of toxic response. Clearly adverse effects including, perhaps, the induction
of cancer may not be detectable in experimental studies until exposures exceed background levels
by one or two orders of magnitude (10 to 100 times). .
. * " .. .. ' -'" «
The deduction that humans are likely to respond with adverse non-cancer effects to dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds is based on the fact that these compounds impact cellular regulation at a
fundamental molecular level in the diverse range of animal species which have been shown to ;
.respond with adverse effects. Further, similar impacts on cellular regulation have been
demonstrated in human cells in culture. Available evidence indicates that humans most likely fall
in the middle of the range of sensitivity for individual effects among animals. Thus, humans do
not appear to be either extremely sensitive to or extremely insensitive to the individual effects of
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. -;..-,
For the most part, the biochemical, cellular and organ-level effects have been observed in
experiments in which only dioxin was studied. Specific data on the effects of dioxin-like
compounds, such as the pentachlorinated and hexachlorinated dioxin and furans, generally are not
available. Despite this lack of data, evidence exists that all dioxin-like compounds may exhibit
similar effects to a greater or lesser degree: This derives from the concept of toxicity equivalence,
specifically the fact that these compounds, like dioxin, bind to the intracellular aryl hydrocarbon
(Ah) receptor and have effects on intracellular regulation. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) have
been developed for all 17 chlorinated dioxin and furans containing chlorine substitutes in at least
the 2,3,7 and 8 ring positions. The TEF for dioxin is 1.0; the TEFs for the 16 other congeners are
derived from this value. Greater uncertainty exists with respect to the extent of non-cancer effects
of the 16 other congeners as compared to those of dioxin due to the very limited amount of
-------
toxicology testing of these congeners. Hence, greater uncertainty is associated with the TEFs of
these congeners as compared to the TEF of dioxin.
Given the above, EPA's conclusion in the 1994 draft dioxin reassessment regarding non-cancer
effects was that it is inappropriate to develop a reference dose for dioxin because these
compounds are persistent in the environment and because background exposures to dioxin are not
low compared to incremental environmental exposures. Most compounds to which reference
doses are applied are not persistent and background exposures generally are low. and not taken
into account. Since existing background levels of dioxin are higher than a reference dose that
could be developed, the draft dioxin reassessment concluded that it is not appropriate to use the
reference dose approach in evaluating incremental exposures to dioxin. This conclusion does not
mean that any incremental exposure to dioxin would cause an increase in potential non-cancer
health effects. .
Based upon the findings of the 1994 draft dioxin reassessment and due to the recent increased
concern regarding non-cancer effects of dioxin, the OfiSce of Research and Development has
recommended using, and OSWER agrees, on a provisional and site-specific basis, the "margin of
exposure" approach for estimating potential non-cancer health effects arising from incremental
exposures to dioxin. Under this approach, one determines the ratio of the estimated daily adult :
dose of dioxin from a particular source (e.g., the JACADS trial burn) to the average daily intake
of dioxin in the general population. If the ratio of such exposures is very small (the facility- -
specific exposures comprise a small fraction of background exposures), the non-cancer effects ;
from the incremental exposure are judged to be negligible.
Issue 2: . ' . ;'' . -.-.'. '......;'...
The most appropriate data subset for the determination of dioxin carcinogenic potency factors.
Conflicting carcinogenic potency factors derived from human epidemiologic studies versus
laboratory animal findings should be reconciled. .,.' .
Response:
The cancer potency factor for dioxin was verified in 1985 for use in EPA risk assessments. It
was derived using results from carcinogenicity studies in experimental animals which demonstrate
that dioxin is a carcinogen in multiple species of animals. -
v, . '
Since 1985, results from additional human mortality studies have become available which
support an association between exposure to dioxin and related compounds and increased cancer
mortality in humans. However, uncertainties exist in interpreting these studies because not all
confounding exposures (e.g., smoking) have been ruled out and coincident exposures to other
carcinogens were likely. It is the conclusion of the 1994 draft dioxin reassessment that dioxin and
related compounds are probable human carcinogens. The EPA Science Advisory Board, an
independent group of experts, peer reviewed the draft dioxin reassessment in 1995 and also
-------
concluded that dioxin is a probable human carcinogen based upon sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals and limited evidence in humans.
".-' "
In the draft dioxin reassessment EPA presented a potential cancer potency factor based upon
the results of one human study, but concluded that the existing data from human studies alone do
not pro vide the best estimate of the cancer potency of dioxin. The Agency concluded that a
weight-of-the-evidence approach should be used that considers all relevant data from studies in -
- humans and experimental animals, as well as data on mechanisms of action. In that document the
Agency proposed a new cancer potency factor for dioxin which is slightly lower than the slope
factor adopted in 1985. The Science Advisory Board also concluded that a cancer potency factor
based upon the one human study utilized in the dioxin reassessment was not appropriate for use.
Until such time as the dioxin reassessment is finalized and a new cancer slope factor is adopted
by EPA, the Agency will continue to use the cancer slope factor (156,000 per mg/kg/day)
developed in 1985. This represents a plausible upper bound on risk based on the evaluation of
animal and human data. "True" risks are not likely to exceed this value, may be less, and may
even be zero for some members of the population. .....' .
Issue 3: ' .
The Agency's method for assessing the risks associated with exposure to either the sulfur or
brominated analogs of dioxin - given precursor presence in waste feed stocks!
Response: / :
At this point in time, the Agency does not evaluate risks associated with exposure to sulfur ,
analogs of dioxin. Although there have been some reports of the formation of chlorinated
dibenzothiophenes (sulfur analog of dibenzofuran), EPA is not aware of similar reports on the
formation of chlorinated dioxin thioethers (sulfur analogs of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins). The
furan compound, which is part of the dibenzofuran structure, is more stable than thiophene, part
of the dibenzothiophene structure. Chlorinated dioxin thioethers may not have been observed to
date because of the potential instability of these compounds! The carbon-oxygen bond is stronger
than the carbon-sulfur bond; chlorinated dioxin thioethers contain two carbon-sulfur bonds in the
central ring of the structure whereas chlorinated dibenzodioxins contain two carbon-oxygen
bonds.
With respect to brominated and chlorobrominated analogs of dioxin, studies (Zacharewski et
aL, 1988; Mason et al, 1987) have shown selected brominated and chlorobrominated dioxins to be
comparable in toxicity to chlorinated dioxins in certain short-term toxicity assays. Polybrominated
dibenz-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans have been measured in municipal waste combustors and have
been shown to form in the gas phase of laboratory scale incinerators.
-------
An assessment of the fraction of brominated versus chlorinated compounds that are present in
the waste feed should be performed for each facility which bums hazardous waste.
An uncertainty factor can be added to the estimated or measured chlorinated dioxin emissions to
account for the potential impact of brominated and chlorobrominated compounds. Such an
approach was utilized in the in-depth risk assessment of an incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.
The waste feed for the first year of operation was. reviewed and the amount of brominated waste
was compared to the amount of chlorinated waste. An uncertainty analysis was then performed.
. A similar measurement of brominated dioxins and furans in the stack emissions would be .
difficult at this time since analytical methods are not yet well-defined. The National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) of the Office of Research and Development at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina has conducted a preliminary study of chlorinated,
brominated and mixed bromochloro dioxins and furans in incinerator stack emissions. However,
further research is still necessary to better quanitify these compounds and to further develop the
appropriate sampling and analytical methodologies. . . . ;
Issue 4: . " .". .
The Agency's treatment of putative compound synergistic interactions when applied to the
assessment of facility specific risk. .
Response: .-... -
Because the current scientific database on synergistic effects (or on antagonistic effects) of
multiple contaminants in complex mixtures is not complete enough to determine if such effects are
occurring, it is EPA's policy to not evaluate such effects at this time. -With respect to
carcinogens, EPA guidance for assessing risks of complex mixtures is to assume additivity of risks
at low doses (Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures, 1986). This
assumes independence of action by the various carcinogens and is equivalent to the assumption of
dose addition as well as response addition. The combined effects of antagonism and additivity are
assumed to balance the possible effects of synergism. This assumption is believed to be protective
of human health. Should sufficient verified data become available on the interactions of the
chemicals in a given complex mixture, then such results could be used to evaluate the cancer risks
of that mixture. ;
For systemic toxicants, the assumption of dose addition is most properly applied to compounds
that induce the same effect by similar modes of action such that a separate hazard index is
generated for each endpoint of concern. Dose addition for dissimilar effects does not have strong
scientific support and, if done, needs to be justified on a case-by-case basis in terms of biological
plausibility. The assumption of dose addition is most clearly justified when the target organs or
tissues and the mechanisms of action of the compounds under consideration are known to be the
same (Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures, 1986). Since the;
mechanisms of action for most compounds are not well understood, the justification of the
-------
assumption of dose addition will often be limited to similarities in pharmacokinetic and toxicologic
characteristics. Where it is made, the assumption of dose additivity is generally believed to be
protective of human health.
Issue 5:
The Agency's position on "endocrine disrupting" compound(s) in the context of site specific
risk evaluations. . . .
Response: . ...-. ''''
The term endocrine disrupter applies to any number of a broad class of compounds with the
ability to perturb or interfere with the finely-tuned endocrine system that is fundamental to normal
function and homeostasis in cells, tissues, and organisms. Examples of chemicals suspected of
being environmental endocrine disrupters are DDT, chlordane, polychlorinated biphenyls, and
polychlorinated dioxinjand furans. The evidence of adverse health effects resulting from exposure
to endocrine disrupters stems from a body of diverse historical information, augmented by new
findings. This evidence, however, lacks sufficient detail and precision to be used in a site specific
risk assessment. Indeed, empirical data to support the designation of specific chemicals as
endocrine disrupters is limited and in some cases conflicting. Given the current limited state-of-
the-science, it is premature to attempt to evaluate the potential risks from human exposures to
chemicals from the standpoint of endocrine disruption. Therefore, EPA has not yet developed a
methodology for the quantitative assessment of risks due to exposures to potential endocrine
disrupters. .. . ; . ; : .
I hope that the above responses provide sufficient clarification of the Agency's position on the
issues raised. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact
James Michael or Rosemary Workman, at (703) 308-8610 and (703) 308-8725 respectively,
concerning chemical demilitarization issues or Dorothy Canter, at (202) 260-3100, concerning
risk assessment issues.
-------
Permitting Policies
NO
in
-------
9501 - PERMITTING
PRIORITIES
ATKl/l 104/52 kp
-------