United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-R-97-004M
Environmental Protection Emergency Response December 1996
Agency (OS-343)
RCRA Permit Policy
Compendium
Volume 13
9551.1992-9593.1996
Land Disposal Restrictions (Part 268)
Waste Minimization
Subtitle D
• Mining Wastes
• State Programs
• Municipal Waste Combustion
• Household Hazardous Waste
RCRA Grant Funds
Miscellaneous
• Medical Waste
• Used Oil Management Standards
• Universal Wastes
ATKl/3590/17cj
-------
9551
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
JULY 1992
2. One-Time Notification Requirement
Under §268.7(a)(6)
A manufacturer generates a listed,
restricted waste which is piped directly to a
wastewater treatment unit exempt from RCRA
regulation under §§264.1(g)(6), 265.1(c)(W),
and 270.1 (c)(2)(v). After treatment, the listed
waste is discharged directly to a POTW
pursuant to §261. 4(a)(l)(ii). Because the
waste is never managed in accumulation tanks
or containers regulated under §26234, it is
not subject to "substantive regulation" as
defined in the March 24, 1986,
Register (51 ER. 10152-3), and so is not
counted in determining generator status (i.e.,
conditionally exempt, small quantity, or large
quantity generator). Which Part 268 land
disposal restrictions notification
requirements, if any, apply to this waste?
The generator must comply with the one-
time notification requirement under
§268.7(a)(6). This section stales, "[i]f a
generator determines that he is managing a
restricted waste that is excluded from the
definito o ^-ardous or solid waste or
exempt from Subtitle C regulation, under 40
CFR 251.2-261.6 subsequent to the point of
generation, he must place a one-time notice
stating such generation, subsequent exclusion
from the definition of solid or hazardous waste
or exemption from Subtitle C regulation, and
the disposition of the '5/aste, in the facility's
file" (emphasis added). In she scenario :
presented above, the waste is generated durisg
the manufacturing process and becomes
excluded from the definition of soJld wa-Jte &i
the point of discharge to the POTW .
(§261.4(a)(l)(ii)); in other words, Sfc&«equen*
to the point of generation (see 56 HI, 3866;
January 31,1991). Therefore, the ou&'tkne
notification requirement of §268.V(a}(6)
would apply even if, prior to discharge, »J»c
generator does not manage the waste in a
manner that subjects it to substantive
regulation (i.e., the generator docs aot
accumulate the waste in tanks or containers
regulated under §262.34).
-------
9551.1992(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
SEPTEMBER 1992
3. Fluorescent Light Bulbs as Debris
The May 15,1992, Federal Register (57 £&
20766) promulgated a generic one-year, case-
by-case extension of the land disposal restric-
tions (LDR) effective date for wost hazardous
debris. Debris qualifying for this extension may
be land disposed without meeting the applicable
Pan 268, Subpart D treatment standards,
provided the landfill or surface impoundment in
which the hazardous debris is placed meets
minimum technological requirements
(§268S(h'X2)). Do used fluorescent light bulbs
that exhibit a prohibited characteristic (e.g.,
exhibit the toxicity characteristic (TC) and the
extraction procedure toxicity characteristic
(EP)for mercury) meet the definition of debris
and therefore qualify for the case-by-case
extension?
Used fluorescent light bulbs are considered
debris and are eligible for the generic one-year
case-by-case extension. The May 15,1992,
Federal Register (57 ER 20767) established this
extension for materials that meet the definition
of debris found in the Third Third final rule (55
ER 22650; June 1,1990) and that are
contaminated with hazardous waste (with the
exception of debris contaminated with solvent,
dioxin, and nonliquid California List wastes).
This definition of debris includes materials that
are primarily nongeologic in origin, such as
grass, trees, stumps, shrubs, and man-made
material j. In August 1992, EPA established
alternative treatment standards for hazardous
debris in 40 CFR §268.45 and promulgated
regulatory definitions of debris and hazardous
debris in §§268.2(g) and (h), respectively. The
definition of debris in §268.2(g) classifies as
debris solid materials exceeding a 60 mm
particle size that are intended for disposal and
that are manufactured objects, plant or animal
matter, or natural geologic material (with
several exceptions specified in §268.2(g)) (57
ER 37222; August 18,1992). This definition
also includes mixtures of debris with other
materials provided that the debris comprises the
primary material present based on a visual
inspection (57 £R 37224). Although the May
1992 Federal Register uses the definition of
debris found in the Third Third final rule, EPA
has stated that the case-by-case extension
applies to materials meeting either definition of
debris (57 ER 37242). Fluorescent light bulbs,
which are man-made (manufactured) materials
exceeding a 60 mm particle size, meet both
definitions when intended for discard, and thus
qualify for the one-year case-by-case extension,
provided the generator or facility owner/
operator complies with the recordkeeping
requirements oudined in the May 15, 1992,
Federal Register (57 £R 20769).
Even if the fluorescent light bulbs are
broken into pieces that have a panicle size of
less than or equal to 60 mm, the pieces are still
eligible for the one-year case-by-case extension.
Broken light bulbs meet the June 1, 1990,
Federal Register definition of debris, which
does not contain a minimum particle size
criterion for materials other than indigenous
rocks (55 ER 22650); therefore, regardless of
the diameter of the pieces, broken light bulbs
are considered debris for purposes of the generic
one-year casc-by-case extension.
-------
9551.1993(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
JANUARY 1993
1. Soil Case-by-Case Extension
EPA established a generic case-by-case
extension of the land disposal restrictions
effective date for soils contaminated with
Third Third wastes that have treatment
standards based on incineration, vitrification,
or mercury retorting in the October 20,1992,
Federal Re fister (57ER47772). This
extension allows soils contaminated with these
wastes to be land disposed without meeting
Pan 268, Subpart D treatment standards
provided that the generator or owner/operator
complies with certain recordkeeping
requirements (57 fg 47775-47776).
Treatment standards for both arsenic (0004)
and lead (D008) were promulgated in the
Third Third final rule. Since the treatment
standard for D004 is based on vitrification (55
ER 22556; June 1,1992), soil that exhibits the
toxicity characteristic (and the characteristic
ofEP toxicity) for arsenic qualifies for the
case-by-case extension. The treatment
standard for D008 (lead) is based on
stabilization (55 £& 22565); soil that
exhibits the toxicity characteristic (and EP)
for D008 only does not qualify for the
extension. Does soil that exhibits the TC (and
EP)for both lead and arsenic qualify for the
generic case-by-case extension?
Soil thai exhibits the TC (and EP) for both
lead and arsenic qualifies for the generic soil
case-by
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
MAY 51993 9551.1993(02)
office or
SOUO WASTE AND CMCROGNCV ACCFON8I
Mr. Frederick Scheffler
Director
Absorption Corporation
1808 Eagle Harbor Lane
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Dear Mr. Scheffler:
Thank you for your letter of Harch 7, 1993, asking for
clarification of EPA'a recent rule governing disposal of eorbed
liquids in hazardous waste landfills. This rule, which becomes
effective on Kay 18, 1993, was published in the Federal BtqUgtor of
November 18, 1992. I trust the clarification below addresses your
concerns.
In the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Congress required
SPA, by February 8, 1986, to develop rule* that (1) "minimize the
disposal of containerized liquid hazardous waste in landfills," (2)
"minimize the presence of free liquids in containerized hazardous
waste to be disposed of in landfills," and (3) "prohibit the
disposal in landfills of liquids that have been absorbed in
materials that biodegrade or that release liquids when compressed
as might occur during routine landfill operations" (sec.
3004 (c) (2)). EPA satisfied the first two of these requirements in
a rule published on April 30, 1985 (50 PR 18370), which requires
that hazardous waste disposed of in landfills not contain free
liquids, as determined by the Paint Filter Test. EPA's November
18, 1992 rule addresses the third requirement.
Your letter particularly focuses on the 1992. rule's affect on
the use of "biodegradable" sorbents in wastes destined for
hazardous waste landfills. In the rule, EPA identified two
categories of sorbents as "nonbiodegradable" (i.e., those made up
of primarily inorganic or elemental carbon materials and those
consisting of high-molecular weight organic polymers), and
-------
-2-
promulgated two tests of biodegradability (ASTM Methods G21-70 and
G22-76). In the preamble to the regulation, we also identified
certain specific materials aa "biodegradable," including natural
organic materials like sawdust, municipal waste, and shredded
paper. We took this approach because of explicit language in the
RCRA legislative history identifying these materials as
biodegradable and therefore "unacceptable" for use as sorbents if
•they are to be disposed of in hazardous waste landfills (July 25,
1984, Congressional Record — Senate S9177), and in response to
comments received on earlier proposals (51 FR 46824, December 24,
1986, and 52 FR 23695, June 24, 1987).
To respond specifically to your letter, BPA's rule on
"biodegradable" sorbents does not establish a ban on the use of
"organic" sorbents, nor should it be interpreted as a statement by
EPA on the efficacy of one or another type of sorbent material in
addressing spills. Instead, the rule prohibits only the direct
landfilling in hazardous waste landfills of liquids that have been
sorbed with "biodegradable1* .sorbents. Thus, the rule does not in
any way prohibit or restrict the use of sorbents (organic or
otherwise) to address wastes or products going to a non-hazardous
waste landfill (e.g. municipal or nonhazardous waste industrial
landfill). Furthermore, it does not affect the use of sorbents
with hazardous waste that is not landfilled — for example, that is
burned for energy recovery< incinerated, recycled, or treated
through bioreaediation or land treatment. In addition, most
hazardous waste today must be treated prior to placement in a
landfill, and such treatment will generally remove the
biodegradable components or render them unavailable to the
environment or will remove the liquid. Thus, in the case of such
treated wastes, the rule can be expected to have no effect.
Therefore, only a small proportion of wastes would be affected by
this rule (and that proportion will decrease as EPA issues nore
treatment standards in the future).
You are also correct in pointing out in your letter that EPA,
in its rulemaking, did not conduct tests on the degradation of
organic sorbents in an anaerobic landfill environment. Also, EPA
did not test, and made no judgment in the rulemaking (which
addresses a narrow situation) on the efficacy of different
sorbents, including organic sorbents, in spill situations. Factors
like absorption and retention—important considerations in the
performance of sorbents in responding to spills—lay outside the
scope of the rulemaking. Instead the rule only addressed the
direct landfilling of sorbed materials in hazardous waste
landfills.
-------
- 3 -
I hope this response adequately clarifies the intent and scope
of EPA'S regulations on placement of liquids in landfills. If you
have any further comments, you should contact Matt Hale of ny staff
(703-308-8404).
Si
Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS
Acting Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9551.1993(03)
AUG 1 8 1993 OFF,CHOP
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGENCE RESPONSE
Mr. Leonardo D. Robinson
Environmental Counsel
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
2000 S. Batavia Avenue (Route 31)
Geneva, Illinois 60134
Dear Mr. Robinson:
In your letter of April 27, 1993, you raised concern
regarding the waste code carry through principle and the impact
of Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) standards. Precisely,
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWMI) has inventoried wastes
which contain waste codes for which metal recovery is required.
Because these wastes did not contain recoverable levels of
metals, EPA granted a determination of equivalency variance from
the metal recovery requirements on December 4, 1992 to your Port
Arthur facility. The use of recycled scrubber waters and other
practices, however, results in all residuals perpetually carrying
waste codes which require recovery. The Agency is sympathetic to
the confusion that will occur by applying the waste code carry
through principle to this extreme situation. The interpretation
contained in this memorandum should effectively resolve this
problem.
It is reasonable under very limited conditions to stop the
waste code carry through for certain waste codes. After all
waste subject to the December 4, 1992 variance has been treated,
and the residuals have complied with the requirements of the
variance, CWMI should drop the waste code, if the following
conditions are met:
The waste code to be dropped has an LDR
standard specifying recovery in section
268.42.
The waste code to be dropped is applicable
solely based on those wastes subject to the
variance granted to CWMI on December 4, 1992.
-------
• All affected residuals remain listed
hazardous wastes for another waste code.
Recoverable levels of metals (greater than
1%) are not present in the residuals.
These conditions, which are consistent with those we imposed
earlier, provide a very reasonable and targeted relief to prevent
inappropriate application of LDR standards.
If you have any further questions on the relief provided for
in this memorandum, please contact Richard Kinch at (703) 308-
8434. Finally, thank you for raising this important issue.
S/^via
Lrector
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Richard Kinch
Director, Waste Management Division, Region 6
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9551.1993(04)
of FICE or
NC'V ! ' 1993 SOLO WASTE ASDEMEaCE
SESPONSG
Mr. Jim Adamoli
President
Tascon, Inc.
7607 Fairview Drive
Houston, Texas 77041
Dear Mr. Adamoli,
Thank you for your leuer dated July 18. 1993, concerning the regulation and safe
management of certain types of liquids, and absorbent materials containing these liquids.
I apologize for the delay in our response.
You indicated that your company manufactures paper-based sorbents used for
stabilizing liquids prior to incineration, and that you were interested in marketing your
products to other users. You requested guidance on instructing the users of your
products on how to properly dispose of these materials after use. Because of the
numerous types of liquids that could potentially end up in a sorbent material, it would be
difficult for us to describe in a generic way how a used sorbent would be regulated.
Also, the differing ways in which states may be regulating some of these liquids
contained in the sorbents is aiso extremely important (e.g., some states may regulate
used oil more stringently than others). Before explaining this issue in more detail,
however, I would like to clarify some points you made in your letter concerning the
hazardous waste regulations.
Under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations,
certain wastes are defined as hazardous waste, while others remain subject to non-
hazardous solid-waste regulations. In general, a solid1 waste is defined as hazardous
waste if it either 1) is listed as hazardous waste in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 261 Subpart D, or 2) exhibits one or more of the hazardous
characteristics in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpan C. You stated that liquids such as used
motor oil, ami-freeze, and grease are classified as hazardous. This is not always ,,ue;
' As you may know, the term "solid" here does not refer to the physical form of the
waste, but rather to the universe of garbage, refuse, industrial waste, wastewater, and other
wastes regulated by the U.S. EPA.
-------
under the federal RCRA regulations, these liquids you mentioned are not specifically
listed as hazardous wastes, although these materials might exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste. It is the responsibility of the generators of these wastes to make this
determination in accordance with 40 CFR 262.11.
It appears that the wastes that your potential customers will be generating, for
which you are seeking guidance on disposal, are actually the used sorbents that have
been used to clean up spills or leaks of various liquids. Unless the sorbents are being
used to clean up spills of listed hazardous wastes (or chemicals that when spilled become
listed hazardous wastes), the used sorbents would only be defined as hazardous waste if
they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste. I have enclosed some
materials that describe both listed and characteristic hazardous wastes. Your potential
customers should be aware that the EPA has specifically prohibited the placement of
bulk and containerized liquid wastes, or wastes containing free liquids2, into a hazardous
waste' landfill. An EPA rulemaking published on November 18, 1992 (57 Federal
Register 54452), prohibits the direct placement into hazardous waste landfills of liquids
that have been sorbed with "biodegradable" sorbents (see 40 CFR 264.314(e)). However,
this rule does not in any way prohibit or restrict the use of sorbems, organic or
otherwise, to address wastes or products being sent to a non-hazardous waste landfill
(see discussion below on municipal solid waste landfills); nor does this rule affect the use
of sorbents that are not landfilled (e.g., they are burned or incinerated). I have enclosed
a copy of this rulemaking, as well as three letters written by EPA that further clarify
certain issues regarding this rule. Should you have any questions specific to this
rulemaking, you may contact Ken Shuster at (703) 308-8759.
In addition, there are other restrictions on the land disposal of hazardous waste
(including hazardous waste/sorbent mixtures), known as the "Land Disposal
Restrictions", or LDRs. These restrictions mandate that hazardous wastes be treated
prior to land disposal to meet certain criteria, specific to each type of hazardous waste.
Such treatment of hazardous waste prior to land disposal is often performed by
commercial waste management companies, and may include incineration or stabilization.
Potential users of your products should already be familiar with the land disposal
restrictions if they are already generating and disposing of hazardous wastes.
I would also point out that used sorbents that do not meet the definition of
hazardous waste still need to be managed in accordance with any applicable federal,
State, and local solid waste regulations (e.g., some states may have a category of "special"
waste for certain petroleum-contaminated, non-hazardoas waste). EPA regulations
pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR 258.28) prohibit the disposal of
bulk or containerized liquid wastes and wastes containing free liquids (see October 9,
1991 Federal Register. 56 FR 51021). I have enclosed a copy of this rule. You should
note that these federal regulations regarding sorbed liquids placed into municipal solid
waste landfills do not have a biodegradability criteria like that described above for
!As defined by the Paint Filter Liquids Test, EPA Method 9095.
-------
sorbed liquids placed in hazardous waste landfills.
With regard to the disposal of sorbents containing liquids defined as used oil,
EPA addressed this issue in the final rule on used oil management standards (September
10, 1992 Federal Register. 57 FR 41566), an.d in a subsequent technical correction (May
3, 1993 Federa! Register. 58 FR 26420). I have enclosed copies of these two final rules.
Assuming that sorbents containing used oil will not be burned for energy recovery, these
sorbents would be subject to the EPA's used oil management standards only if free-
flowing used oil is visible1. (Sorbents containing used oil that will be burned for energy
recovery are subject to the used oil regulations regardless of whether or not free-flowing
oil is visible per 279.10(c)(2)). Assuming that the sorbents ^rg defined as used oil and
will not be burned for energy recovery, EPA presumes that used oil is going to be
recycled (even if the generator is planning to dispose of the used oil), until the used oil
is actually disposed of on site, or sent off site for disposal. Prior to being sent off site
for disposal, sorbents meeting the definition of used oil, even sorbents exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste, would only be subject to the used oil standards. Once
disposed of on site or sent off site for disposal, these sorbents would then be regulated
under either hazardous or non-hazardous solid waste regulations.
I would like to reiterate that generators of sorbents containing various liquids
should be advised to contact their state solid and hazardous waste agencies, with a
description of the material for which they are seeking disposal. State regulators are
typically most familiar with the location and acceptance criteria of disposal facilities
within their states, as well as with any particular state regulations that may impact the
disposal requirements for these types of materials. I have enclosed a listing of state
agencies, as well as some other information on solid and hazardous waste that I hope
you will find useful. If you have any questions on this information, please contact Ross
Elliott of my staff at (202) 260-8551. Thank you for your interest in the safe
management of solid and hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
Bru/dR. Weddle
Acting Director
(J Office of Solid Waste
enclosures (13)
3See amended 40 CFR 279.10(c) at 58 FR 26425; see also preamble discussion at 57 FR
41581 and 41585.
6 See 40 CFR 279.10(a); see also preamble discussion of used-oil recycling presumption
at 57 FR 41578.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9551.1994(01)
OCT 6 !99J5
crr;cc cr
SCL.; .'.ASTE AfjC-cf.'.cRCi
Mr. Kenneth L. Humphrey SL:S.-VA-S=
Environmental Affairs Director
Envirosafe Services of Ohio, Inc.
4350 Navarre Avenue
P.O. Box 167571
Oregon, Ohio 43616-7571
Dear Mr. Humphrey:
This letter is in response to your request of
August 11, 1994, requesting clarification of certain aspects of
the 40 CFR 268 debris regulations, specifically that portion of
the 40 CFR 268. 2 (g) definition of debris which states: "A mixture
of debris that has not been treated to the standards provided by
section 268.45 and other material is subject to regulation as
debris if the mixture is comprised primarily of debris by volume,
based on visual inspection."
In your letter you ask for clarification as to: 1) whether
waste shipments containing mixtures of debris and non-debris
materials are to be regulated as debris if the debris portion is
present at 50 percent or greater, by volume based on visual
inspection;1 and 2) whether EPA has defined the term "primarily"
as included in the definition of mixtures of debris and non-
debris materials other than the percentage given at the 57 FR
37235, footnote 42.
The EPA has not defined the term "primarily" as it is used
in the definition of debris, nor has it been specifically defined
elsewhere in the final rule, preamble or EPA background document.
You are correct in noting that the only reference to a specific
percentage, with respect to the term "primarily" is found on 57
FR 37235, footnote 42. As discussed on 57 FR 37224, the Agency
has classified debris as any mixture of materials (debris, soil
and/or sludge) , where the debris portion comprises the largest
amount of material present by volume, based on visual inspection.
As such, if a mixture is comprised of three components (debris,
soil, and sludge); the mixture would be classified as debris if
the volume of debris is greater than soil and greater than the
volume of sludge. If however, the mixture is comprised of two
components, debris and soil or debris and sludge as described in
your question, the debris component would have to comprise at
least 50 percent, by volume, based on visual inspecton to be
subject to the debris rule.
Recycled/Recyclable
,'~i O, Printed wnn Soy/Canoia ink on paoer mat
contains at least 50% recycled liber
-------
EPA would like to stress, however, that the determination of
a mixture as primarily debris can not be achieved by deliberately
mixing the debris with other wastes in order to change the
treatment classification. Such mixing is impermissible dilution
under section 268.3. In addition, in such situations where
debris is used merely to dilute another prohibited waste, the
mixture would remain subject to the most stringent treatment
standard of any waste that is part of the mixture as is specified
in section 268.41(b). -
Finally, in response to your third question, a State's
authorized program generally operates in lieu of the Federal RCRA
requirements. However, for requirements based on HSWA authority
(which includes the various Land Disposal Requirements), EPA is
required to implement these authorities until the State has
adopted them and received authorization from EPA.
When a State is not yet authorized for a HSWA-based
authority, facilities are required to comply with the Federal
HSWA requirement, as well as any applicable provisions of State
law that address the same matter. States may adopt and implement
authorities that are equivalent to or more stringent than the
corresponding Federal laws. However, if State law is less
stringent than Federal laws, the State authority would not apply.
If you should have any further questions regarding this
matter, please contact Richard Kinch of my staff at 703-308-8434.
Sincerely,
y ^ Michael Shapiro, Director
^ - Offlpe of Solid Waste
cc: Richard Kinch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9551.1994(02)
HPT 5 IOOJI OFFICE OF
ucu o lyy/j sotio WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPOMSE
Mr. T. L. Nebrich, Jr., CHMM
Technical Director
Waste Technology Services, Inc.
640 Park Place
Niagara Falls, NY 14301
Dear Mr. Nebrich:
This letter responds to your letter dated October 12, 1994,
in which you requested clarification of the land disposal
restrictions (LDR) waste identification requirements for organic
hazardous wastes displaying the toxicity characteristic (TC) that
also are listed hazardous wastes. Specifically, you ask for
clarification of what waste codes should be identified for an
organic TC waste (D039 or D040) that is also a listed spent
solvent waste (F001 or F002).
As you stated in your letter, the LDR regulations of 40 CFR
268.9(a) require that a generator of a solid waste must determine
each EPA Hazardous Waste Number (waste code) applicable to the
waste. The requirements of § 268.9(b), however, state that if a
listed waste is also a characteristic waste, the waste code for
the listed waste would govern if the listed waste includes a
treatment standard for the constituent that causes the waste to
exhibit the characteristic. In the case of a listed F001
hazardous waste that also displays the TC for trichloroethylene
(D040), only the F001 waste code would need to be identified for
purposes of the LDR requirements, because there is a treatment
standard for trichloroethylene in F001 spent solvent wastes.
Furthermore, only the treatment standard for FOOl would need to
be met; there would be no requirement to also meet the treatment
standard for D040 with its requirement of treating any underlying
hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be present at the
point of generation.
Racyclod/Recyclable
Prtntvd Mltfi Soy/Canol* ink on p«par mil
contain* it l«Mt 50% recycled floor
-------
I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have
additional questions, please contact Rhonda Craig of my staff on
703-308-8771.
Sincerely,
Mifchkel Shapiro
>i£ector
Q Office of Solid Waste
-------
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC.
October 12, 1994
Mr. Michael Shipiro
Director - OSW
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shipiro:
According to 40CFK268.9 (a), a generator of a solid
waste must determine each EPA Hazardous Waste Number (waste
code) applicable to the waste for LDR purposes. However,
stated in 40CFR268.9(b), a prohibited waste which is listed
under 40CFR261, Subpart D and exhibits a characteristic under
40CFR261, Subpart C would not have to be identified with a
standard under 40CFR261, Subpart C if the listed waste
includes a treatment standard for the constituent that causes
the waste to exhibit the characteristic.
What exactly is that saying, especially in regards to
the newly listed TC organics (D018-D043)? If you have
identified a waste as a F001 or F002 and it also fails TCLP
for Tetrachloroethylene (D039) or Trichloroethylene (D040),
do you identify it as the "F" waste and "D" waste codes for
40CFR261 purposes and 40CFR268 (LDR) purposes?
Since F001 and F002 were listed because of toxicity (T),
does that mean that since D039 and D040 are toxic
characteristics they don't have to be identified based on
40CFR268.9(b)? If that is true, what about the additional
requirements of meeting the standards for the underlying
constituents for D018-D043 based on the TC organics final
i'l'lc (53FR-473S2; , since they do not appear in the listing for
F001 or F002.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Very truly yours,
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
T. L. Nebrich, Jr./CHMM
Technical Director
TLN/kjl
640 Park Place, Niagara Falls, New York, 14301 Telephone 716-282-4100
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
\ 'UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9551.1995(01)
T>° '- 0 'P^5 OFFICE OF
SOLD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
'RESPONSE
Mr. Basil G. Constantelos
Vice President
Environmental Affairs ' . . .
Safety-Kleen
1000 North Randall Road
Elgin, Illinois 60123-7857 '
fcjjU
Dear M^Constantelos: • .
Thank you for your letter dated November 17, 1994 regarding
the land disposal restrictions (LDR) Phase II regulation that
appeared in the Federal Register on September 19, 1994. You
provided some interesting ideas for the Phase II technical
correction notice and proposed ah implementation approach for
your company to comply with the new Phase II notification
requirements. These issues are discussed below.
. 1. Removal of treatment standards from the LDR notifications
Safety-Kleen favors the action taken in the Phase II final
rule that deleted treatment standards or references, to treatment
standards from being required on LDR notifications. It was
pointed out that parts of the regulatory language in 40 CFR 268.7
still reflected the old requirements. We appreciate you pointing
this out. Furthermore, we have corrected the error in the Phase.
II correction notice (see 60 FR 242, column three, January 3,
1995). . .
The Agency agrees that the elimination of the treatment
standards from the LDR notification does not lessen the
substantive LDR requirements, but rather makes an administrative
adjustment to lessen the paperwork burden on the regulated
community. Furthermore, you suggest that EPA clarify for the
states and the regulated community that the changes to the LDR
notification requirements should be immediately applicable. When
the Phase II requirements became effective 12/19/94, all
notification requirements (including corrections made in the
technical amendment) were in place and were immediately
effective.
R*cycl*d/R*cycUbl* • PnmeO win Vegeatte Oil Based Inks on 100% Recyded Paper (*0% Postconsumer)
-------
2. Clarification of application of analytical test methods
Safety-Kleen states that for some waste matrices, the SW-846 test methods will not
achieve detection levels near the universal treatment standard (UTS) levels. It is suggested
that EPA issue guidance on what PQL is needed to demonstrate that the UTS are met. It is
also suggested that EPA clarify that the application of EPA SW-846 methods may not be
appropriate for analysis of all UTS in all waste matrices.
Compliance with LDR regulations is usually measured by achieving a constituent
concentration level at or below the UTS for that constituent. However, when combustion
technologies are used to comply with UTS for organic constituents, EPA considers nondetect
values within an order of magnitude of the UTS to be in compliance (see § 268.40 (d)).
It is unclear from the information in your letter what type of materials create your
company's detection level difficulties. Without further clarification, we are unable to issue
further guidance. It should be noted that except in cases where test methods are specified in
Pan 268, there is no requirement that SW-846 methods be used to demonstrate compliance
with the UTS.
3. Approach to implementing Phase II LDR requirements
Safety-Kleen has developed an implementation strategy to comply with new
paperwork requirements while also assuring that UTS are met. Under 40 CFR 268.7(a) (1)
(ii) in the Phase II rule, the generator must include on the LDR notification all the waste
constituents that the treater will monitor, if monitoring will not include all regulated
constituents, for wastes F001-F005, F039, D001, D002, and D012-D043. The majority of
Safety-Kleen's managed waste will be monitored after solvent reclamation, and monitoring
will include all underlying hazardous constituents. For wastes ultimately managed outside
the Safety-Kleen system by other facilities, Safety Kleen is obtaining written confirmation
that these other facilities will be monitoring for all underlying hazardous constituents.
Therefore, no specific constituents will be listed on the LDR notification coming from
Safety-Kleen's customers (generators).
If monitoring for all "underlying hazardous constituents" means all UTS constituents,
such an approach complies with the new Phase II requirements. The generators of the
hazardous wiste will specify on their notification that they have a D001 (or other) waste and
will not include on the notification any underlying hazardous constituents. Therefore, the
treater, in this case Safety-Kleen, must treat and monitor for all the constituents on the UTS
list (all underlying hazardous constituents).
TJiis page has been retyped from the original
-------
I hope you find these responses helpful. Should you have
additional questions or comments, feel free to direct them to
Rhonda Craig of my staff, at (703) 308-8771.
Sincerely
-------
s
November 17, 1994 .
Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste (MS-5301)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Phase II LDR Regulation
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
This letter provides follow-up to a November 3, 1994 meeting
between Michael LeBel of Safety-Kleen Corp. and Richard Kinch,
Rhonda Craig, and Doug Heimlich of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). During this meeting Mr. LeBel raised several issues
and implementation questions regarding the September 19, 1994 Phase
II Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) regulations. EPA informed
Safety-Kleen of the Agency's intention to issue a technical
correction to the final regulation prior to the December 19, 1994
effective date. In light of EPA's intention to issue a technical
correction and Safety-Kleen's questions regarding approaches to
comply with the new regulations, EPA suggested that Safety-Kleen
prepare a letter outlining suggestions for technical corrections
and our proposed approach for complying with the Phase II LDR
regulations. In addition to looking forward to receiving EPA's
response, we also suggest that our implementation approach be
addressed in the correction notice.
ISSUES FOR TECHNICAL CORRECTION NOTICE
1. Removal of Treatment Standards From LDR Notices
As the largest user of manifests and LDR notices in the U.S.,
Safety-Kleen welcomes the opportunity to share our experience
regarding the use of LDR notices. Safety-Kleen agrees with
preamble language, which states that "...EPA is thus dropping the
treatment standard or reference to the treatment standard from the
LDR notification in this final rule" (59 FR 48004). However, the
regulatory language in 40 CFR 268.7(a)(1) (as revised) did not
incorporate new regulatory language to address this change.
Safety-Kleen suggests the following regulatory language in 40 CFR
268.7(a)(l) to address this discrepancy:
If a generator determines that he is managing a
restricted waste under this part and the waste does not
meet the applicable treatment standards set forth in
1000 NORTH RANDALL ROAD ELGIN. ILLINOIS 60123-7657 PHONE 708/697-6460 PAX 708/468-8500 - :
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro 2
November 15, 1994
Subpart D of this part or exceeds the applicable
prohibition levels set forth in 268.32 or RCRA Section
3004(d), with each shipment of waste the generator must
notify the treatment or storage facility in writing of
the restriction, from land disposal of this waste. The
notice must include the following information....
» .'' '
Safety-Kleen suggests that EPA clarify in the preamble that the
elimination of the treatment standards on the LDR notice is not a
less stringent approach to the current regulations,.but rather is
an administrative adjustment. The same treatment standards are in
effect under the new regulation as under .the old regulation. The
change to the LDR notice will make it more functional and easier to
use, without reduced protection of human health and the
environment. . . • •
Safety-Kleen also suggests that EPA clarify for states and the
regulated community and that the immediate application of the
change in the LDR notice is appropriate. As with previously
promulgated LDR regulations, the original LDR regulatory framework
has been adjusted and improved with each subsequent regulation.
Generators have the obligation to comply with existing regulations
that States may be authorized to implement, but must also comply
with newly promulgated Federal requirements. A clarification on
the immediate use of the new LDR notice format would assist the
regulated community in understanding and complying with the LDR
requirements and would not reduce effectiveness of the regulations.
2. Clarification of Application of Analytical Test Methods
Safety-Kleen has found, that for some waste, matrices, the SW-846
test methods will not achieve detection levels near the UTS levels.
This raises two issues. First, EPA should provide implementation
guidance on what PQL is needed to demonstrate that the UTS
standards are met. Second, EPA needs to clarify that the
application of EPA SW-846 Test Methods may not be appropriate for
analysis of all Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) constituents in
all waste matrices. EPA needs to encourage the development of
improved test methods and use of alternate protocols by waste
generators and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities in
order to better characterize UTS constituent levels for a broad
range.of waste forms. Safety-Kleen suggests that EPA clarify that
alternate test methods can be used without prior EPA approval with
proper documentation and that their use is appropriate for a
particular application and will achieve a lower detection .limit.
The preamble is currently silent with respect to this issue and
Safety-Kleen finds that this is problematic. Constituent analysis
is a fundamental component of the implementation of the LDR rules.
The regulated community needs EPA's assistance in making this
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro 3
November 15, 1994
system functional. Safety-Kleen has discussed these issues with
Barry Lesnik and Gail Hansen of the Office of Solid Waste and we
encourage you to solicit their opinion on the matter.
3. Approach to Implementing Phase II LDR Requirements
As described in the November 3, 1994 meeting, Safety-Kleen has
developed an implementation strategy for compliance with the Phase
II LDR regulations. This strategy is outlined below and we are
looking forward to any comments EPA may have regarding our
approach.
Safety-Kleen is the world's largest recycler of solvents and other
contaminated fluids, providing environmentally beneficial waste
management services to nearly 400,000 customers in the U.S. While
Safety-Kleen offers a range of waste recycling and energy recovery
services, we specialize in servicing smaller businesses and smaller
waste generators. Approximately,.95 percent of our customers are
small quantity generators (100 to 1,000 kg/mo) or conditionally
exempt small quantity generators (less than 100 kg/mo). Because of
the substantial paperwork burden on the- small businesses that
constitutes the vast majority of our customer base, Safety-Kleen
often provides implementation guidance on manifesting, LDR notices,
and waste analysis information as a part of our service.
The majority of the waste streams accepted by Safety-Kleen are
handled through our 182 accumulation/collection facilities
(branches). The majority of the waste streams remain in the
containers while being temporarily stored at one of our branches.
Only one waste stream, a petroleum naphtha (mineral spirits) based
solvent, is bulked at most of our branch locations. Some wastes
from larger generators bypass our branch system and are transported
directly to one of our recycle facilities for recovery operations.
The majority of the waste materials entering the Safety-Kleen
system are recycled into usable products (e.g., parts washer
solvent, paint thinners, motor oils, etc). Where appropriate,
residues from recycling, along with other non-recoverable materials
with BTU value, are recycled for energy recovery in our fuel
blending operations. The useful products produced from the
recycling processes and the cement made in the kilns supplied with
our hazardous waste fuels are products and are not subject to
regulation under the RCRA framework, and thus are not subject to
the LDR requirements. Cement kiln dust (CKD) is subject to
regulation under 40 CFR 266.112 and will be tested in accordance
with these requirements.
Some treatment residues and appropriate customer wastes are sent to
hazardous waste incineration, off-site chemical/physical treatment
facilities, or third-party treatment, storage, and disposal
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro 4
November 15, 1994
facilities. Safety-Kleen is in the process of obtaining written
acknowledgements from all outside facilities receiving these wastes
that all underlying UTS constituents will be analyzed for at their
facilities, unless otherwise specified on an LDR notice with a
given shipment of waste.
The Phase II LDR rule requires that the LOR notice include "the
waste constituents that the treater will monitor for, if monitoring
will not include all regulated constituents, for wastes F001-F005,
F039, D001, D002, and D012-D043" (40 CFR 268.7(a)(1)(ii)).
Safety-Kleen plans to comply with this regulation by monitoring for
all underlying UTS constituents. For the majority of Safety-Kleen
managed waste, this monitoring will be conducted on wastes', and
residuals after reclamation. For wastes ultimately managed outside
the Safety-Kleen system by other facilities, Safety-Kleen will have
written confirmation that these other facilities will be monitoring
for underlying UTS constituents.
The underlying UTS constituents will be monitored during the waste
management process. No specific constituents will be listed on the
LDR notice coming from our customers, the original generator.
These constituents will be identified, by Safety-Kleen or the
receiving facility, prior to ultimate waste or residue disposal.
For recycling, for re-use waste streams, the recycling process
results in regenerated clean product and treatment residues levels
that are more concentrated than the original waste. For the wastes
leaving the Safety-Kleen system, we are requiring that the
receiving facilities monitor for the presence of underlying
constituents, and treat as necessary, to ensure that all UTS are
met prior to land disposal. We believe that there will be no loss
of enforcement capabilities under this approach that a
clarification should be presented in the technical correction.
Safety-Kleen appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for
the Phase II LDR correction notice. We will also be anxious to
receive EPA's feedback regarding our implementation strategy.
Please contact me at (708) 468-2217 or Catherine McCord at (708)
468-2245 if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
Basil 6. Constantelos
Vice President
Environmental Affairs
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
November 15, 1994
cc: Richard J. Kinch
. Chief, Waste Treatment Branch
Office of Solid Haste (MS-5302W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2805 Crystal Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22202
-------
A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
« WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 2 T 1995 .
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
.T. L. Nebrich, Jr.
Technical Director 9551.1996(01)
Waste. Technology Services Inc.
640 Park Place
Niagara Falls, New York 14301
Dear Mr. Nebrich:
Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1995 regarding clarification
of the "mixture rule," the "contained- in" policy, LDR issues, and "point of
generation" for U096, (a,a,Dimethylbenzylhydroperoxide) . The U096 waste
itself is subject to the LDR requirements in 40 CFR Subpart 268.42 and must be
treated by the methods specified. When wastes exhibiting a RCRA
characteristic (such as U096) are mixed with a solid waste, if the resulting
mixture does not exhibit the characteristic (in this case of reactivity) , then
the waste is not required to be disposed in a Subtitle C landfill, but can be
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. However, the waste is still subject to
treatment by the methods specified in 40 CFR Subpart 268.42 (see 40 CFR
Subpart 261. 3 (a) (2) (iii)) .
If U096 waste was spilled on soil, the EPA or authorized State Agency
overseeing the cleanup could determine whether the soil did or did not contain
hazardous waste, based on the "contained- in" policy. EPA's "contained- in"
policy does not specify levels at which "contained- in" determinations must be
made. Those decisions are left to the discretion of the EPA or State program
that is making the "contained- in" determination. Therefore, the "contained- in"
policy does not require that the U096 be analytically non-detectable in order
to be considered non-hazardous, although the EPA or State program could
require that (or alternative levels) based on their discretion.
Issues similar to those you raised regarding contaminated soil were
discussed in a September 15, 1995 letter that I wrote to Peter C. Wright of
the Monsanto Company. That letter is attached. Also, these issues Vill be
discussed more fully in an upcoming EPA proposed rulemaking "Requirements for
Management of Hazardous Contaminated Media" commonly referred to as the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Contaminated Media or HWIR-media. We
plan to publish that proposal in March, and I will forward a copy to you as
soon as it is available. We suggest you look to the proposal's preamble
discussion for guidance regarding the situation you describe in your letter.
Of course, it should be noted that the requirements that apply to contaminated
media could change when EPA finalizes that rulemaking.
Thank you for your concern about protecting the environment . I
apologize for the delay in responding to your letter that was caused by the
Recycfed/RecycUbl* • Printed with Vegetable Ol Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
• • • * • • •" •'"':' ••--. * . .-.".' .--'V • :..,..•• ' - . , . "•' "" ''.-'*'
.""'."•'• " ' ' ' "
two government furloughs. Your 'staff may wish to contact Carolyn Hoskinson at
(703) 308-8626, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely Yours,.
Michael Shapiro, Director
of Solid Wasrte.
Enclosures
CC:
Matt Hale, OSW/PSPD
Barbara Pace, OGC
RCRA Regional Branch Chiefs, Regions 1-10
-------
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC.
£6 ^~
November 14, 1995
Mr. Michael Shipiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shipiro:
I am requesting a clarification of the "mixture rule"
and "contained-in" policy in regards to U096
(a,a,Dimethylbenzylhydroperoxide) and LDR issues. This
material is listed for reactive (R) and as such when mixed
with another solid waste would not be a hazardous waste if it
did not meet the reactivity requirement in 40CFR261.23. If
this material was spilled on soil, the "contained-in" policy
kicks in. I understand that with this scenario the
identification as a hazardous waste is different than the
'above scenario (mixture) . That is, the U096 would have to be
analytically non-detect to be considered as non-hazardous.
If my assumptions are correct, and correct me if I'm
wrong, what is the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
ramifications? Does this material have to be CMBST under
both scenarios? At what point is the "point of generation"
under both scenarios.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Very truly yours,
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
T. L. Nebrich, Jr'
Technical Director
TLN/kjl
K) Park Place. Niagara Falls, New York, 14301 ' Telephone 716-282-4100 • Fax 716-282-6986
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
#v^i^ , J-rAG>s;«yW*TP*<*
-------
Questions and Answers
Until Phase IV ofLDR is finalized,
characteristic metal wastes are subject to less
stringent treatment standards for metal
• constituents than are wastes whose treatment
standards require compliance with the UTS of
'• §268.48. Where a characteristic metal waste
'• also exhibits another characteristic that
renders it subject to compliance -with UTS
levels, would the waste need to meet the more,
stringent standard for the metal constituent? ..
-, Section 268.9(b) requires wastes to "meet
the.treatment standards for all applicable listed
and characteristic waste codes.". In the rare .
case where a waste is subject to multiple
treatment standards for a particular constituent,
the more stringent treatment standard will.
continue to apply.
March 1996
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
June 1996
9551.1996(03)
3. Hazardous Waste Liquid-containing
Pumps and the Liquids in Landfills
Prohibition
RCRA prohibits the disposal of hazardous
waste containing free liquids in hazardous
waste landfills, where free liquids are defined
as those that readily separate from the solid
portion of a waste under ambient temperature
and pressure (40 CFR260.10). To meet this
requirement, must owners and/or operators
disposing of pumps containing free liquids
dismantle the pump to remove the liquid?
Owners and/or operators would not be
required to dismantle the pump. When
disposing of containerized liquids, owners and/
or operators have three options: remove the
liquid by a method such as decanting; add
nonbiodegradable sorbent material or solidify
the waste so that free liquids are no longer
observable; or eliminate the free liquids by
some other means (§§264.314(d)(l) and
265.314(c)(l)). The regulations provide
exclusions from this requirement for small
containers, such as ampules, and containers
designed to hold free liquids for use other than
storage, such as batteries or capacitors
(§§264.314(d)(2)-(3) and 265.314(c)(2)-(3)). .
Since the pump holds liquid for use other than -
storage, the owner and/or'operator of the pump
will be exempt from the requirement to remove
or sorb free liquids.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 ...
' ' '•'"•• • ' . '
...'.. •••..•-.
.- - •';'..'•• 9551.1996(04)
V . . . ; NOV;27,I996 . ;.: :- . .--•-.- ; • - •
''•••• .'. . • ' • . ' •' ' "• . . • OFFICEOF . • •
.. ' , .' ••••'.••••' SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY . V
' . • • • • . . ' . ." . • RESPONSE
Mr. William L. Warren .. v
Drinker Biddle & Reath ' . .... .
1009 Lenox Drive ; . . • .
Building 4' . . . • . ' , - ' . ;
Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 . .
Dear Mr. Warren, : . . . • • .
I am writing in response to your letter of October 23,1996,-in which you requested
clarification on when permitting and land disposal requirements are not required for management.
of contaminated soil which is hazardous or contains hazardous waste. I have outlined several
alternatives that are potentially available below. Applicability of these alternatives at any site
depends upon certain state requirements and site-specific circumstances, such as the form of
treatment that is most appropriate at a site. I encourage you to coordinate closely-with state •
officials as you pursue these matters.'.. .< ' ' ... ..•".'
Question 1: "If a company is undertaking .remediation of a site under state auspices, and the
• . site is not being addressed under.either the CERCLA or RCRA programs; does
the company require a RCRA permit if as part of the remediation program it
intends to treat at the site location contaminated soil which has been excavated
from the site and which is or contains hazardous waste, or can it be governed by
.the requirements and guidance of the state environmental agency."
As a general matter, treatment of hazardous waste, or media containing hazardous waste,. .
requires a RCRA permit. However, at the federal level, there are a number of exceptions .
al lowing for limited treatment on site without triggering the requirement for a RCRA permit.
For example, 40 CFR §262.34 allows generators to accumulate hazardous waste on site in certain .
tanks, containers, drip pads and containment buildings for up to 90 days without a permit or
interim status, as long as certain conditions, including compliance with certain tank, container or
drip pad standards of 40 CFR part 265, are met. EPA interprets this authority to allow generators
to treat hazardous waste in units covered by this provision during the accumulation period. See
51 FR 10146,10168 (March 24,1986). Other activities that are generally exempt from RCRA
permitting requirements include treatment of hazardous wastewater in exempt wastewater
treatment units, and treatment-of certain wastes in exempt elementary neutralization units (see 40
CFR§264.1(g)(6)).- - . . . : .'
Recycled/Recycfable
Printed with Soy/Ctnott Ink on paper that
contain* «least 50% recycled flb«r. •
-------
Non-exempted activities involving treatment of hazardous waste or media that contain
hazardous waste are subject to the hazardous waste permitting requirements. However, some
states have permit waiver authorities analogous to §7003 of RCRA or §12I(e) of CERCLA.
States with these .waiver authorities may have the authority to waive RCRA permit requirements
for cleanups so long as the state waiver authority is used in a manner no less stringent than that
allowed, under Federal permit waiver authority. The attached November 16, 1987 memorandum
from J. Winston Porter to EPA Regional Administrators explains the use of state waiver . •
authorities in^more detail. ; ' .
.Without site-specific details, it is difficult.to anticipate whether these approaches would
apply to your site. Decisions on the applicability of permit exemptions, waivers or use of other
authorities are generally made at the state level. I recommend that you consult with the state in
question to determine the best approach for your site-specific needs. . '•
Question 2: "Also, if this company treats the contaminated soil so as to reduce the
. contamination in the soil to a level below the soil remediation standards utilized
by the state, may it return the treated soil to the site even though the remediation
standards utilized by the state are less stringent than the RCRA treatment .
standards which would apply to the contaminant found in the soils were it being
sent off site;" , '
No, unless a variance from RCRA Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment . .
requirements is obtained. Where excavated soil contains a hazardous waste (as we understand it
does in your case), LDR treatment requirements must be met prior to land disposal.' See RCRA
section 3004(d), (g), (k), (m). The RCRA land disposal treatment standards apply equally to on-
site and off-site disposal of contaminated soil which is hazardous waste or contains a hazardous..
waste; if state remediation standards are less stringent than the RCRA treatment standards, the
RCRA treatment standards must be met prior to placement. However, in certain cases, site- .
specific treatability variances under 40 CFR §268.44(h) may be used to approve alternative land
disposal treatment standards. If alternative levels approved under the variance process are more
stringent than state remediation levels, 'the alternative levels must be attained prior to placement.
The Administrator has delegated the variance approval authority to the EPA Regional
Administrators; in addition, some states have been authorized for 268.44(h) variance .
determinations. ,. ' ' .
In addition, there are several ways under the federal program to manage cleanup wastes in
a manner that does not trigger the LDRs in the first instance. If a corrective action management
unit (CAMU) is designated at your site, remediation waste placed into the CAMU on site would
not be not subject to LDRs, and the state or EPA Region may establish site-specific treatment
standards for remediation waste managed in a CAMU that vary from the otherwise applicable
land disposal standards. See 40 §CFR 264.$52. Also, depending on specific site circumstances,
management of remediation waste within an "area of contamination" (AOC) may not trigger ;
LDRs. The attached March 13, 1996 memorandum provides more details on AOCs and on the
use of CAMUs for management of remediation wastes.
-------
. Please note that states may have theirown policies and regulations which may be more
stringent than federal regulations and policies. As'discussed above, decisions on the issues that
you raise are dependent upon site-specific circumstances and are generally made at the.state
level. We suggest that you contact the state in question to address any site-specific issues. For
the state of New Jersey, please call Frank Faranca at (609) 984-4071. We hope that this is of .
assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Davis, of my staff, at
(703)308-8633. ^ '-;.';. . : . >
• .- . Sincerelv, '••:' •
Shapiro .
.Office of Solid Waste
attachments
cc: : Frank Faranca, NJDEP. /
Barry Tomick, EPA Region 2
-------
PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
1349 CHESTNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA. PA 10107-3400
ISIS) B88-27OO
SUITE 4OO
. 47 HULFISH STREET
. . • . P.O. BOX 027
PRINCETON. NJ O8S42-O027
IBOBI 021-6330 '
WILLIAM L. WARREN
(6091 695-6203 .
LAW OFFICES
DRINKER BIDDLE.& RE ATM
IOO9 LENOX DRIVE
BUILDING <* •
LAWRENCEVILLE. NEW JERSEY O864S
. TELEPHONE: I6O9I 895-I6OO •
.. • FAX- 16091 895-1329
October 23, 1996
THE MCPHERSON BUILDING
SUITE OOO
BO! FIFTEENTH STREET. N.\
WASHINGTON. DC 20O05-2SC.
. I2O2I 842-8800
. ' • SUITE 30O
IOOO WESTLAKES DRIVE
• BERWYN. PA IO3I2-24O0
(6IO1 B93-22OO .
PARTNER SCSfOHSBtl. FOR ICW JO1SCY PRACTICT
. ' SAMUEL W. LAMBERT III '
Michael Shapiro, Director •"'•', . ...
Office of Solid Waste . . . .
United States Environmental Protection Agency .. ". .
401 M. Street, S:W.:\ : . •; : -
Washiiigron, D.C. 20406 - - •• .: . ,.
. : RE: . Applicability Of RCRA Requirements to Non-RCRA Remedial Activities :
Dear Mr. Shapiro: . . . •. '
If a company is undertaking remediation of a .site under state auspices, and the site is
not bejng addressed under either the CERCLA or RCRA programs, does the company
require a RCRA permit if as part of the remediation program it intends to treat at the site
location contaminated soil :which has' been excavated from the site and which is or contains
hazardous waste, or can it be governed by the requirements and,guidance of the state :
environmental agency. Also, if this company treats the contaminated soil so as to reduce the
contamination in the soil to a level below the soil remediation standards utilized by the state,
may it return the treated soil to tHe site even though the remediation standards utilized by the
state are less stringent than the RCRA treatment standards which would apply to the
contaminant found in the soil were it being sent off site. ; . .
Yours
truly,
; William L. Warren
WLW:ndp
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
..'-•• WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
. ' • ' '. .. . 9592.1996(04)
AUG 14 1996 , ,; . ..;.
.' ; ; ... • . OFFICEOF.
•"'.•' '. SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
'•. ' .•''• . • ' RESPONSE
Douglas Green
Piper and Marbury .
1200 Nineteenth St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20035-2430 .
Dear Mr. Green: . . " .
This letter is in response to Edison Electric Institute's request for clarification of the,
applicability of the Used Oil Management Standards (Part 279) to materials that are
. contaminated with used oil and provide little or no energy whe'n burned.
Unless burned for energy recovery, materials contaminated with used oil are not covered
under Part 279 if "the used oil has been properly drained or removed to the extent possible such
that no visible, signs of "free-flowing oil remain in or on the material" (see, 40 CFR 279.10(c)).
The recycling of any oil drained from the material is regulated under Part 279.
Contaminated materials (after draining) are regulated under ?Part 279 if the material is
burned for energy recovery (see, 40 CFR Part 279.10(c)(2)).. For example, some sorbents have a
high British thermal unit (BTU) value and once contaminated with used oil are managed by
burning for energy recovery and, therefore, are regulated under Part 279. Contaminated
materials (after draining) which provide little or no energy, when burned, such as soil or clay-
based sorbents, are not subject .to Part 279,. Whether a material is "burned for energy recovery"
depends on the type of materials being burned and the combustion equipment being used. For
purposes of the EPA regulations governing .boilers and industrial furnaces, burning for energy
recovery is limited to materials that have a heating value of at least 5,000 BTUs/po.und (see, 40
CFR 266.iOO(c)(2)(ii); 56 £R 7134,7143, February 21,1.991). EPA believes it is reasonable and
consistent with the regulations to apply the same interpretation under Part. 279. Of course, an
authorized state may interpret what constitutes "burning for energy recovery" more stringently
than EPA and that interpretation could be controlling to the extent that the state's used oil
•management standards are in effect (as distinguished from the federal used oil management
standards set out at 40 CFR Part 279). •. . ' .
Recyctad/Rocyclabl* .Printed wlffi Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsymer)
-------
• Any material from which free-flowing used oil has been drained and that is subject to a
hazardous waste determination as described in 40 CFR Part 262.11 may therefpre be subject to
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C regulation as.hazardous waste. Materials
that do not meet the definition of hazardous waste may still be subject to other applicable
Federal, State, and local solid waste regulations.
Thank you for your interest in the safe and proper management of used oil.
' •...•' . . ' ..
.-.'.'. . Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro, Director
)ffice of Solid Waste
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
November 1996
9592.1996(05)
1. .Coolant Recycling and Used Oil
Processing . . ... . •
'A used oil generator uses an on-site
filtration system to filter contaminants from
metal working oils, commonly known as
coolants, in order to extend the life of these
oils. Is such on-site coolant recycling by the
used oil generator considered used oil
processing under 40 CFR Part 279?.
On-site coolant recycling by.a generator is
. not considered used oil processing if done in
accordance with.§279.20(b)(2)(ii). Processing
.is defined in §279.1 as, "chemical or physical
operations designed to.produce from used oil,
:.,or to make used oil more amenable-for,
production of fuel oils, lubricants,Brother-
. used oil-derived product:". Processing
•.,••• .•••U-v" . .••'".*
includes, but is not limited to: blending used
oil with virgin petroleum products, blending
used oils to meet th'e fuel specification,
filtration, simple distillation, chemical or
physical separation, and re-refining. Whether
used oil is being processed depends on the
purpose for which the used oil is being
.filtered, separated, or otherwise reconditioned.
These activities constitute processing if they -
are intended to produce used oil derived
. products or facilitate the burning of used oil
for energy recovery. ;
Coolant recycling, which includes the on-
site maintenance, filtering,.separation,
reconditioning, or draining of coolants used in
machining operations, is intended to extend
the life of the oil and is incidental to the
production process. This type of recycling is
incidental or ancillary to a primary processing
activity and is not intended to produce used oil.
derived products or facilitate burning for
energy recovery. Therefore, EPA did not
intend to regulate these practices as used oil
processing (59 FR 10555-6; Marctr4, 1994).'
Such coolant recycling is not considered
processing as long as the coolant is generated
on site and is not being sent directly off site to
a burner of used oil. The generator (or
collection center or aggregation point) must
comply with the requirements set forth in
§279.20(b)(2)(ii).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
November 1996
- 9592.1996(06)
2. Recycling Presumption Under Part
.- According t^^^FK.§279.l6(a), used oil
handlers are subject lo the Part 2 79 used oil
management standards 'until the used oil is
disposed of or sent for disposal. How is a
used oil generator regulated if he/she sends
used oil to a processor to be recycled, but the
processor disposes of it instead? In this
situation, is the generator required to
determine if the used oil is hazardous, since it
was not recycled? ...
No, the generator is not required to
conduct a hazardous waste determination for
the used oil originally sent to the processor to
be recycled. The Part 279 used oil
management standards are based on a
presumption that all used oil is recyclable and
should be managed under one se't'of standards.
Even if the used oil exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic or will ultimately be disposed of
by a different used oil handler, it is still
subject to Part 279 (57 ER 4 1578; .
September 10,. 1992). The recycling ..
presumption allows a used oil handler or any
other person who handles the oil prior to the
person who decides to. dispose of the oil, to
presume that his/her used oil will be recycled
regardless of its final disposition.
Once a used oil handler determines the
used oil will be sent for-disposal, he/she must
conduct a hazardous waste determination
pursuant to §262.11. Since used oil is not a
listed hazardous waste under RCRA, it would
be subject to all applicable Subtitle C
regulations if it exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic. Additionally, the recycling
presumption and the Part 279 standards do not
apply if the used oil is mixed with a listed
hazardous waste (except for a conditionally
exempt small quantity generator (40 CFR
§279.10(b)(3)), or mixed with a characteristic
hazardous waste whidh does not meet the
provisions of §279.10(b)(2)! In'either p'f these
situations, the used oil/hazardous waste.
"mixture would be subject.to ;Subtjtle G ..;:.;..'.'
.regulation...'. •; ->X -'j^V^y .-•••••
• '• • • • • ! ' ''• '•_' '•"''.•''?"<'•' \
Finally/not all of .the federal Part 279
standards are effective in every state. Used oil
handlers should contact their state agencies for
specific regulatory requirements which could,
potentially, be more stringent than the federal
Standards.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
November 1996 °
9592.1996(07)
3. State Authorization and Used Oil
Recycled Through Some Other
Means Than Burning For Energy
Recovery
In a state where the 40 CFR Pan 279 used
oil management standards are not in effect,
how does Federal EPA .regulate generators
who recycle their used oil by sending it to be
re-refined?
In states where Part 279 is not in effect,
EPA does not regulate used oil that is recycled
in some manner other than by being burned for
energy recovery, including re-refining. On
November 29, 1985 (50 FR 49164), EPA :
established regulations for recycled used oil
that is burned for energy recovery (Part 266,
Subpart E). At the same time, the Agency
exempted characteristic used oil from
regulation if if was recycled through some
other means than burning for energy recovery
On September 10, 1992 (57 FR 41566), the
Agency established a new program in Part 279
expanding the regulation of used oil recycling
activities to include other methods than
burning for energy recovery. The Agency also
repealed §261.6(a)(3)(iii), and replaced it with"
a new provision that exempts recycled used oil
. from the requirements of Parts 260 through
268 and subjects it to Part 279. (§261. 6(a)(4)).
Since Part 279 has >een tfeated similar to
regulations promulgated : under the authority of
a non-HSWA statutory requirement, the Part .
* ' : t- *.i*'~ ••..••.••.'.*•••* ' "-•' •
. 279 regulations are only in effect in . .
> °..- . •••• ':. -,-.. v • -J •-. -.':f •-.:•' ' .
unauthorized states and states with EPA-.
approved programs.
Unlike the newer Part 279 regulations, the
Part 266, Subpart.E and §261.J5(a)(3)(iii)'
regulatory program was effective in all states,
regardless of the'state's authorization status.
Although the Agency repealed Part 266',
Subpart E, when it promulgated Part 279, in
states that have not modified their state
program to adopt Part 279, the pre-1992
exemption for used oil recycled through some
other means than burning for energy recovery
may still apply. In these states, generators
who recycle used oil through methods that do
not involve burning for energy recovery,
including re-refining, are not regulated.
Finally, states may have additional used oil
regulations. Regardless of the effective status
of the federal regulations in Part 279 and Part
266, Subpart E, used oil handlers should refer
to their appropriate state agency for any further
used oil regulatory requirements. :
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' ."I , WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 ,
'''
•' V ' • • "•-. ...'•.. '•-.-'' OFFICEOf
. . . • . • . ' ' SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
". •' . . .- •' • .;-"•• ' . . RESPONSE • .
Bryan W. Dixon, P;E., Director ...
.Municipal Solid Waste Division ": ' • . ' • •-
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission . • ' .
P.O. 'Box 13087 • '• . . - '.. • •.-••-.'
Austin, Texas 78711-3087 ... •.
Dear Mr. Dixon: . '".. ^'.-..,. .,'.-'..
This letter is in response to your letter dated June 12,
1996 -concerning on-specificatio'n used oil. Specifically, you
requested clarification of the applicability of 40 Code of
Federal Regulations•Part 279 to used oil'that meets .
specifications. '.."• •" ....
The requirements for oh-specification.used oil are described
in §279.1.1 of the Used^ Oil Management Standards. Used oil that'
is to be burned for. energy recovery' and that'meets the fuel
specifications of §279.11 is not subject to.the requirements of
Part 279 once the conditions at §2.79.72,. §279.73, and §279.74(b) ' '
are met, and so long as the used oil is. not mixed or contaminated
with hazardous waste.•• On-specification used, oil that is re-.
refined or disposed, rather than burned for energy recovery, is
subject to all applicable requirements of .Part 279.
The requirements at §279.72, §279.73 and §279.74(b) for
handling on-specification used oil apply to the first, person to
claim that the 'used .oil is to be burned for energy recovery and -
that it meets the fuel specifications. For example, a service
station'dealer.that generates used oil and claims that it is to
be burned for energy recovery and that it meets the -fuel
specifications must test the oil to show that it is on-
specification as well as notify EPA.and obtain an identification
number. -These requirements must be met -prior to the used oil
being shipped as on-specification used oil - the used oil cannot
be shipped' under the assumption that it is or .will be blended
into on-specification used oil.- See §279.72(a) and
.§279.61(b)(2). Any used oil handler that blends used oil in
order to meet the specification is a used oil processor and
subject to Subpart F. of Part- 279. • -.-.;•
In addition, the regulatory status of used oil must be
reevaluated prior to re-refining or disposing"of on-specification
used oil. A used oil handler must reevaluate the regulatory
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper mat
contain* at leaat 50% recycled fiber
-------
status of the on-specification used oil if•some action -is taken
that may. affect the chemical or physical properties -of the'used
oil, for example mixing the. used oil< with something other than. ..
on-specification used oil or fuel, or storage .under conditions
that may contaminate the used oil. If the used oil, a resultant
mixture of the used .oil and a fuel,,or any.processed derivative
of the used oil .does not meet the fuel specification, the used ..
oil must be handled as an off-specification used;oil. .*
Specific management of on-specification used oil
conditionally excluded from Part 279 .(upon satisfying the
requirements of (279.72, (279.73 and (279.74(b)) may. still be
subject to regulation under other Federal statutes as well as •••...
state regulations. Used oil may be covered by regulations" .
concerning storage under the Spill Prevention .Control an;d
Countermeasures. regulations .at 40 CFR Part 112 as well as the.
Underground and .Aboveground Storage Tank, requirements at. 40 .CFR
Part. 280 and transportation requirements promulgated by the
Department of Transportation. ": . • , . . '
I hope this..information is helpful to you as you work
through "used ;oil issues with your regulated community and. other
state environmental agencies.1 ..
Sj.ncer§ly 'y°urs<
1 Shapiro,.Director
of Solid Waste
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
December 1996 . :....'"
9592.1996(09)
1. Rebuttable Presumption for CFC
Contaminated Used Oil
EPA presumes used oil containing more
than l.OOOppm total halogens is a hazardous
waste because it has been mixed with a listed
halogenated hazardous waste. Used oil
generators may rebut this presumption by
demonstrating that the used oil does not
contain hazardous waste (§279.10(b)(l)(ii)).
The rebuttable presumption, however, does
not apply to used oils contaminated with
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) removed from
refrigeration units when the' CFCs in the used
oilare "destinedforreclamation" ' '.'
(279.10(b)(I)(u)(B))fAt "what point does'this
• exemption from the rebuttable presumption .
apply—atthe point ofdmining from the unit
or only once the CFCs in the used oil Have'.
actually.been redau&dT-Additionally, would
a generator or handler reclaiming the CFCs '
from the used oil be considered a processor,
subject to the standards for used oil
processors arid re-refiners in Pan 279,
Subpart F?
A generator handling CFC contaminated
used oil is exempt from the rebuttable
presumption at the point of draining, as long
as the CFCs are eventually reclaimed from the
used oil to the fullest extent possible, and the
used oil has not been mixed with other wastes
or with used oil from other sources (57 FR
41580; September 10, 1992). Although the
rebuttable presumption does not apply, these
used oils remain subject to appropriate Part
279 standards.
In the event the CFCs are not reclaimed,
the rebuttable presumption would have
applied at the point-of draining from the unit.
If the presence of CFCs in compressor oils
removed from refrigeration units cause the
used oils to exceed the 1,000 ppm halogen
limit, the oil must be managed as a hazardous
waste unless the presumption of hazardous
waste mixing is successfully rebutted.
On-site CFC reclamation by a used oil
generator does not necessarily subject the
generator to the standards for used oil
processors. .Used oil processing, as defined in
§279.1, involves producing (or making used
oil more amenable for the production of) fuel
oils, lubricants or other used oil-derived
• products. ;_H[oWeyjw^§279.20(b)(2)(ii)( A)
provides mat generators who filter, clean, or
omerwiseTeconoition'used oil before
• •' • •'•' •'•'"^i5eS:fi5'*S5x5V''p*-v">~"°:- •' '
returning it forireuseibyithe generator are not
• >Vi--J^'fMVWBi;M-- ; , -
.processors if therused oil is.generated on-site
: J • ' '• ••<^!*^#!*>t'£^-? ' -
and is noLbemg_:sentpffrsite.tp a burner of
used oil. Furthermore, the used oil/CFC -
separation process is generally not designed to
make the used oil more amenable for the
production of used oil derived product
Likewise, off-site used oil/CFC separation by
a used oil handler does not necessarily subject
the handler to the standards for used oil
processors. Rather, a handler storing used oil
on site for greater than 24 hours but less than
35 days is regulated as a transfer facility.
Only a handler storing the used oil on site for
greater than 35 days would become subject to
the processor requirements (§279.45(a)). This
is true for any transfer facility storing used oil
for more than 35 days, regardless of whether
the facility is engaged in CFC reclamation.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9553 - PROHIBITION
ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC
PROHIBITIONS GROUP
Part 268 Subpart C
AT. Kearney 1/3590/9 cr
-------
9553.1986(02}
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 86
6. Land Disposal Ban
A petrochemical company generates a solid waste that contains traces
of naturally occurring benzene and toluene [The waste is Quenching
oil). Would the presence of these hazardous constituents prohibit
the generator fron land-disposing this waste?
Section 3004(e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended xy
Section 201 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, prohibits land disposal of certain RCRA hazardous wastes.
On January 14, 1986, (51 FR 1602), EPA proposed that the spent
solvents, F001 through F005, be among those wastes banned from
land disposal (§268.30(b), 51 FR 1763). Both spent toluene
and spent benzene (added to F005 on February 25, 1986, 51 FT*
6537) are listed in the F005 group, but only when they meet
the listing as spent solvents.
The ouenching oil does contain the hazardous constituents of
concern, namely benzene and toluene, but does not meet the
listing of F005. The oil does not contain spent benzene or
toluene used for solvent purposes. Accordinaly, the oil would
not be banned from land disposal by the proposed §280.30. The
spent ouenching oil, however, would be subject to other bans on
the disposal of bulk and noncontainerized hazardous (if it
exhibited a characteristic) and non-hazardous liouid wastes in
landfills (S264.314(a), 50 FR 28748, and $264.314(e), 50 FR
28749; §265.314(b), and (f), 50 FR 28750). In the future, the
quenching oil may also be listed as RCRA hazardous waste F030,
depending on the outcome of the rule proposed on November 29,
1985 (50 F* 49170). Within six months of that listing, EPA
would have to make a decision on whether used oil should be
banned frcm land disposal per §3004(g)(4).
Source: Alan Corson (202) 382-4770
Research: Jim Ginley
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC i ION AGENCY
9553.1986(03)
nrr
Honorable Thomas S. Foley
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Foleyi
Thank you for October 27, 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent, Mrs. Eleanore Cole. Mrs. Cole is concerned
about the regulations governing disposal of dry cleaning
cartridge filters containing fluorocarbons.
The fluorocarbon solvent used by Mrs. Cole is probably
Valclene*, a product commonly used in drycleaning operations.
Valclene, which is a trade name, is also known as fluorocarbon
113 or trichlorotrifluoroethane. Trichlorotrifluoroethane
is lioted as a hazardous waste in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart
D. It has been assigned the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Hazardous Waste Number F002.
As you know, in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA), Congress required EPA to restrict the land
disposal of dioxin-containing and spent solvent wastes by
November 8, 1986. These waste streams were singled out for
immediate action because of the special hazards they pose
when land disposed. Solvents, in particular, easily destroy
landfill liners and help to mobilize other hazardous constit-
uents in landfills. Valclene is an P002 solvent. The F002
solvents are among those which the Agency was required to
restrict from land disposal by November 8, 1986.
In implementing the land disposal restrictions program,
however, EPA is authorized to grant extensions to the effec-
tive date of the restrictions if insufficient national alter-
native treetMnt capacity exists. EPA is granting a nationwide
two-year variance to the effective date for certain solvent
wastes due to capacity shortfalls. The solvent wastes which
have been granted the variance includes
o solvent waste generated by a small quantity generator
of 100 to 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste per
month, and
-------
o solvent waste which is a solvent-water mixture con-
taining less than one percent total F001 - F005
solvent constituents or containing less than one
percent total organic carbon.
Consequently, any of Mrs. Cole's plants that generate between
100 and 1000 kilograms (220 to 2200 pounds) per month will
not be prohibited from land disposal until November 8, 1988.
In addition, some plants may fall within the conditional
exclusion for generators that generate less than 100 kg (or
220 pounds) of hazardous waste in a calendar month. Under
this exclusion, these generators need only ensure that their
wastes are managed at legitimate recycling facilities or at
facilities permitted, licensed, or registered by the State
to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
EPA is aware of the impact that our regulations, including
these land disposal restrictions, will have on small businesses,
and we have taken a number of steps to help these businesses
cope. Please find enclosed a copy of a new handbook for small
business explaining the small quantity generator hazardous
waste regulations, and a brief question-and-answer brochure
on the land disposal restrictions. Also included is a dry
cleaning and laundries "fact sheet" we had developed to
assist various industries in identifying their wastes.
The Agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition
submitted on behalf of the Alliance of Textile Care Associa-
tions which seeks to have EPA establish a level of spent
solvent below which a drycleaning cartridge filter could be
considered nonhazardous. At this time, however, any amount
of a listed solvent is considered to be of regulatory concern
and a hazardous waste. The Agency hopes to complete an
initial review of the petition within the next few weeks.
At that time we will either recommend a decision on the peti-
tion or request additional information and clarification as
necessary.
I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding
to your constituent. If I can be of any further assistance,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
-------
Um T STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT AGENCY
9553.1986(04)
DEC 3 0 (986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Technical Support Document for BOAT
FROMs Eileen D. Clauasen, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
TOi Regional Waste Management Division Directors
As you know, the treatment standards for land disposal of
F001-F005 spent solvents were promulgated on November 7, 1986.
The technical support for the development of these standards is
contained in the three volume document titled Best Demonstrated
Avail aisle Technology (SPAT) Background Document for F001-FOOS
Spent Solvents*Two copies of the three volume set have been
attached*
In addition to detailing the development of treatment
standards, there is a significant amount of data and information
which you may find helpful in implementing the land disposal
restrictions program. These data and information includes
. summary of characterization data on spent solvents
affected by this rule.
- Identification of industries which generate these
solvents and locations of these industries by region
and state.
- Complete data sets used in developing BOAT. These
data sets show all constituents contained in the
wast* as well as various pollutant parameters.
- Discussion of applicable technologies as well as
design and operating parameters that need to be
taken into account in determining how well these
technologies can tr«*t particular
-------
With regard to the last item above, we would like to emphasize
that the treatment standards promulgated do not require the use
of a particular technology; as a consequence, you should be aware
that, in "certain instances, some of the other technologies dis-
cussed may provide less expensive alternatives to comply with the
land disposal restrictions. Batch distillation, for example, may
be an alternative to incineration for some spent solvents with
high solid concentrations, if the temperature and duration of the
batch result in a residue that complies with the TCLP leachate
concentration for the particular solvent.
You should be aware that the BOAT background document will
provide the basis for Agency decisions regarding treatment
variances. We are currently developing a guidance document for
treatment variances which will more fully discuss this process.
Other areas where the BOAT document may be of help is in various
permitting activities especially as related to treatment design
and operation, corrective action treatment, and helping states
determine resources required for implementing the land disposal
restriction program.
If you have any questions on how the standards were
developed or the application of the technologies, please call
Stephen R. Weil at 202-382-4770 or James R. Berlow at 202-382-7917.
cct Robert Dellinger
Stephen Weil
Bruce Weddle
Joseph Carra
David Pepson
-------
9553.1987(01)
January 12, 1987
Ray D. Mclntosh, Manager
Environmental Engineering
IBM General Products Division
Department O4C
Tucson, Arizona 85744
Dear Mr. Mclntosh:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed a
detailed review of your July 10, 1986, application for an
extension of the effective date of the land disposal restrictions
for the solvent-bearing wastewater, sludge, and brine treated and
stored in surface impoundments at your IBM facility in Tucson,
Arizona. The EPA did not take final action on your petition
until promulgation of the land disposal restrictions final rule
(51 FR 40572, November 7, 1986) which provides, among other
things, a 2-year national variance extending the effective date
of the land disposal restrictions for wastewaters and sludges
containing less than 1 percent total F001-F005 solvents to
November 8, 1988. Because the wastes treated and stored in the
surface impoundments at the Tucson facility meet this criterion,
these wastes are subject to the variance. Thus, your petition is
mooted by the November 7, 1988, final rule.
While the variance is in effect, you may continue to treat
and store restricted wastes in the surface impoundments, provided
that each new, expanded, or replacement surface impoundment meets
the minimum technological requirements specified in section
3004(o) of RCRA. Any wastes containing F001-F005 solvents which
meet or exceed the i percent cutoff are restricted from placement
in these impoundments and must be treated to the applicable
levels in Table CCWE of 40 CFR 268.41, or be the subject of a
successful case-by-case extension of the effective date.
According to the information provided in your application,
on-site construction of treatment and storage tanks is expected
to be underway by February 1987, and completed by the November 8,
1988, effective date. If you anticipate that the tanks will not
be completed by the effective date, you may pursue one of two
options. You can submit an application for an extension of the
effective date pursuant to the provisions in 40 CFR 268.5, or you
may continue to treat and store in the impoundments after the
effective date in accordance with the exemption for treatment
surface impoundments (40 CFR 268.4).
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
If you choose to submit an application for an extension of
the effective date, please submit the application at least six
months in advance of the effective date to allow the Agency lead
time to review the application. If the Agency approves the
application and grants an extension of the effective date, you
may continue treating and storing restricted wastes in the
impoundments for an additional 1-year period (renewable once).
If you pursue the exemption for treatment in surface
impoundments, you may continue to treat and store the solvent
wastes in the impoundments provided that the following
requirements are met (see 40 CFR 268.4 for details):
1) treatment occurs in the impoundments,
2) treatment residuals that do not meet the treatment
standards in Subpart D of Part 263, or are not delisted
must be removed at least annually,
3) the impoundments must meet the requirements of section
3004(o), unless exempted pursuant to the provisions in
§268.4(a) (3) (i) , (ii) or (iii), and
4) a written certification is submitted to the Regional
Administrator stating that the requirements of
§268.4(a)(3) have been met along with a copy of the
waste analysis plan required under §268.4(a)(2).
If you have any questions, you may contact Stephen R. Weil
or Jacqueline Sales of my staff at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely,
Alan Corson, Acting Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: Mark Kamiya, Region IX
Alan Roesler, Arizona Department of Health
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRuNMEM' M. PROTECTION AGENCY
1987(02)
JAN ! 3 f9S7
John P. Fasto
?tone Industrial Division
J. T,. Clark Manufacturing
51st Avenue 6 Cree Lane
College Park, Maryland 20740
Dear Mr. Fasto:
In your letter of October 10, 19P.6, you requested an
to the "Schedule for Land Disposal Restrictions" published in the
Federal Register on May 28, 1906, (51 FR_ 19300). Since you have
that notice, you are aware of the prohibitions on the land disposal
cf untreated hazardous wastes, and the requirement that PPA set
treatment standards by certain dates.
On November 7, 1986, the final Land Disposal Restrictions
Rule for Solvents and Dioxins was published in the Federal Peoister
(51 FR 40572). In this rule, EPA has established treatnent stanr"-
ardsTor land disposal of certain solvent- and dioxin-cortainin^
hazardous wastes, including the F005 waste stream generated bv
your company. I have enclosed a copy of this regulation for vonr
information. The treatment standards do not reouire incineration.
The standards are set as a concentration of a solvent constituent
in an extract from a waste or a waste treatment residual. . It is
possible that your waste stream, the nolid polyester tvne adhesive.
may meet these treatment, standards, whJch are measured bv use or
the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) (Appendix T
in the regulation, page 40643). You should have a laboratorv
qualified to do this procedure (there are ouite a few) test vour
waste material to see if it meets the treatment atandard.fi without
treatment such ae incineration.
There are some exceptions to the requirement that the wastes
meet the treatment standards. The first of the exceptions requires
that a petition be submitted to FPA and approved based on a ehowina
that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents for as
long as the waste remains hazardous. The standard for approval
of this tyr>e of petition was specified bv Congress in the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendment* of 1984 (f?£WA). In reality this is a
very limited exception and may not be of much use to you.
-------
\ second exception is more accurately described as an
exte. ion of -che effective date. If the waste contains less than
one percent F001-F005 solvents, the waste can be land disnosed,
subject to certain limitations, without meeting the treatment.
standards until November «, 19P8. FPA has used its authority
under HSWA. to extend the effective date for these wastes
on a lack of adequate alternative treatment capacity. The
has also extended the effective date for aenerators of b*»tween
IOC and 1000 kilograms per month of hazardous waste. *Jbile I
not know the density of your waste, a oeneration rate of 17
every three months might put you in this small Quantity Generator
category, which would at least temporarily solve your nroblem.
EPA is aware that these requirements may significentlv raise
the waste disposal costs for industry. However, we are limit*»*
by the law in our ability to consider such factors in settino
treatment standards.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to write
or call Stephen R. Weil at (202) 362-4770.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Pi rector
Office of Solid waste
Enclosure
-------
9553.1987(03)
January 20, 1987
Mr. B.B. Meyer
Aerojet-General
Sacramento Environmental Operations
Post Office Box 15699C
Department 1520, Building 46010
Sacramento, California 95813
Dear Mr. Meyer:
This is in response to your December 15, 1986 letter to
Eileen Claussen requesting that the Agency clarify its regulatory
interpretation of voluntary treatment prior to land disposal.
Your example is that of having a waste which contains less than 1
percent F001-F005 spent solvents and is eligible for the two-year
variance, but the generator voluntarily treats the waste prior to
land disposal, either to reduce the solvent content or to reduce
other hazardous properties of the waste. Your question is then,
would the treatment residual then be required to meet the
treatment standards of 40 CFR 268 Subpart D prior to land
disposal?
In general, the answer to the question above is yes; by the
ban effective dates all hazardous wastes not treated to the
specified treatment levels are prohibited from land disposal.
Specifically, if the generator voluntarily treats the F001-F005
spent solvents using the best demonstrated available technology
(BOAT), and the treatment residual contains less than 1 percent
F001-F005 spent solvents, the treatment residual can be land
disposed until November 8, 1988. After November 8, 1988,
however, if the treatment residual does not meet the treatment
standard as specified in 40 CFR 268 Subpart D, Aerojet-General
can either apply for a treatability variance, submit a no-
migration petition or continue to treat your wastes to the
specified treatment levels prior to land disposal.
Similarly, if the "other hazardous properties", i.e.
ignitability, are treated and the treatment residual somehow is
concentrated and thus contains more than one percent F001-F005
spent solvents, the treatment residual must be either treated to
the specified treatment levels prior to land disposal, or
Aerojet-General can apply for a treatability variance, or submit
a no-migration petition. If the treatment residual contains less
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
-2-
than one percent F001-F005 spent solvents, land disposal can
occur until November 8, 1988. On the other hand, if through the
use of BDAT the treatment residual is rendered noncharacteristic,
i.e. nonignitable, and thus is nonhazardous, the waste will no
longer be subject to the land disposal restrictions.
If you have any further questions please call either
Jacqueline Sales or myself at (202) 382-4770.
Sincerely,
Stephen Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APR 2 7 1987 »»•»»•«.
Vr. Pobert Filter
Assistant Environmental Manaaer
S & W Waste Inc.
115 Jacobus Avenue
SoL'th Kearny, New Jersey 07032
Dear Mr. Fixter:
This is in response to your letter of FeV-ruary 2?,
concernino the applicability of ?2K8.30(a)(3) to any solid or
sludcie that contains less than 1? of the listed F001-F005
constituents. Specifically, you referred to solvent contaminate**
raqs which h«ve been analyze* and determined to contain less than
1% listed solvents.
The land disposal restrictions final rule (51 PP 40*72,
T.Tovewber 7, 1906) does not «pcly iwroediatelv to those FCTDl-rPPS
spent solvent wastes that contain less than 1ft solvents. Those
wastes are subject to a two-year extension of. the effective d?te
based on insufficient national capacity. The solvent wastes
covered by the extension include solvent-water mixtures, solvent:-
containinq sludges, solvent contaminated soils (non- CTPCLA
or P.CPA corrective action) and solids. However, In the November
7, 19?6 final rule, the Agency inadvertently oMtte* the reference
to "solids" fron the reoulatory lunouaoe in 526«.30(a>f3).
As you correctly noted in your letter, the Aoency intended *or
solvent-containing solids (e.g., raqs, pipes, paper) to he in-
cluded with those materials covered under ?2*8.30(«)(3). "PoJvent-
containinq sludges and solids" are correctly identified in the
preamble to the November 7, 1996 final rule as among the wastes
granted a two-year national variance (51 FP 40615). As such,
solvent contaminated raae are subject to the two-year nationwide
variance provided they contain lees than It total F001-F00r>
solvent constituents.
We are currently working on a technical correction notice
that will correct errors contained in the preamble and remilatnrv
language of the final rule, including the revision to *2*P.30(*)(?)
tc include "solids". We expect to publish thie notice in
FEDEPAL REGISTER within the next couple r»onth».
-------
I "hope this Information adeouately addresses vour concern?.
Pleaee feel free to contact me at (202) 475-6715, if you
further questions.
Sincerely,
William P. Fortune
Fnvironnental Protection S
Land Dieoo8*l Restrict Ions Pranch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9553.1987(09)
JUN 18
x
Mr. Kenneth W. Kubofcik
President
The Branford Companies
Post Office Box 1056
Branford, Connecticut 06405
Dear Mr. Kubofcik:
This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1907, con-
cerning the applicability of the California list land disposal
restrictions to lead-plastic bags manufactured by your company.
As you stated, these bags are used to line drums and containers
for the storage, containment, and disposal of low level radioactive
waste.
The California list prohibitions restrict the land disposal
of hazardous wastes containing California list constituents above
specified concentration levels. With the exception of hazardous
wastes containing halogenatcd organic compounds (in total con-
centration greater than or equal to 10CO mg/kg), the restricted
wastes are in liquid form. Although the California list covers
lead-containing waetes, it is confined to liquid hazardous wastes,
that contain lead or lead compounds. Based on the information
provided in your letter, the lead-plastic radiation shielding
baas are not liquid hazardous wastes, nor do the bags appear
to meet any other California list waste criteria. As such,
the lead-plastic bags would not be subject to the California
list prohibitions when discarded.
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please feel free to contact Bill Fortune, of my staff at (202)
475-6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
UNITED .TAteS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9553.1987(11)
JUL I6f987
Mr. John B. Slemmer
Environmental Manager
Sol id Tex Systems, Inc.
5371 Cook P.oad
Post Office Box 888
Morrow, Georgia 30260-0888
Dear Mr. Slemmert
This letter responds to your letter to Matt Straus, dated
April 21, 1987, in which you request clarification of the regulatory
status of drums generated from the solvent recovery process at
your facility. In particular, your letter requests clarification
of the less than 1% total F001-F005 solvents determination for
purposes of the 2-year national capacity variance from the effective
date of the solvents land disposal restrictions (51 PR 40572
November 7, 1986). Z apologize for the delay in responrtino to
your inquir]fr however, we have been using all available resources
to meet the July 8, 1987 land disposal restrictions statutory
deadline.
As described in your letter, SolidTek's process recovers as
much solvent from a drum as possible, leaving one-half to eioht
inches of nonrecoverable sludoe containing restricted solvent
wastes. At this point, liquids in the sludoe are solidified and
the drum is crushed, alonq with the solidified sludge, to reduce
the overall volume. The crushed drums are then shipped to a
RCRA hazardous waste landfill. In order to determine whether
the crushed drums can be land disposed without further treatment,
you ask if the weight of the drum should be included when Deter-
mining whether the waste is eligible for the 2-year national
capacity variance for solvent wastes containing less than 1%
total solvent*.
You My be unaware of a fundamental issue raised by your
letter whicth supersedes the questions you asked. The determination
as to the applicability of the 2-year nationwide variance for wastes
which contain less than 1% total P001-F005 solvent constituents is
to be made by the initial generator of the waste before the waste
has been treated; therefore, the variance is not applicable to
the residual from the recovery of restricted waste. For purpose
of the variance, treatment residuals are not considered newly
Generated wastes.
-------
Furthermore, the preamble to the solvents final rule
(51 FF. 40575, 40615) states the general principle that once a
hazardous waste is prohibited, it nrust be treated until it meets
the applicable treatment standards in Table CCWE. Therefore,
the Bolidified residual from the recovery of F001-F005 solvents
must meet the applicable treatcent standard before disposal at
a Subtitle C landfill. These issues are clarified in a notice
published on June 4, 1987 (52 FP 21012) which corrects and
clarifies various parts of the solvents land disposal restrictions
final rule.
I hope this letter clearly answers your questions regardino
the land disposal restrictions. You may contact me at (202) 382-
4770, if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
9553.1967(12)
AUG 1 0 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Michael Steinberg, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Steinberg:
On June 9, 1987, your client, the Safety-Kleen Corporation,
requested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stay
a portion of its June 4 correction notice to the initial land
disposal prohibition rule for solvents. After careful consid-
eration, I have decided to deny your request. My reasons are
as follows:
1. Safety-Kleen had adequate notice that the distil-
lation bottoms it produces while treating solvents would be
subject to the treatment requirements established by the
prohibition rule. The rule at issue states that if an initial
generator's waste contains greater than 1% prohibited solvent,
then any residues from treating .that waste must be treated to
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section
3004(m) treatment level unless the initial waste is exempt
from some independent reason, such as being generated by a
small quantity generator. We think that a careful reading of
the November 7 final rule shows-that it includes this require-
ment. For example, only generators can certify to a disposal
facility that the waste is subject to a variance. Treatment
facilities, by contrast, must certify that the residues they
generate meet the treatment standards (see §§268.7(a)(1) and
268.7(b)(2)). Section 268.40 likewise states that treatment
residues must be treated to meet the applicable treatment
standard.
The preamble to the final rule confirms that this was
the Agency's intent. The Agency stated explicitly that the
determination of whether a waste is prohibited must be made
by the initial generator, (see 51 Federal Register at 44620).
The Agency also provided a aeries of flow charts illustrating
the rule's operation which again indicate without ambiguity
that only the initial generator, and not a treatment facility,
determines if a waste is prohibited (see 51 Federal Register
40622, 40624). As EPA explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule, Safety-Kleen cannot consider itself to be a
generator. In that preamble, EPA clearly stated that it does
not consider persons who produce distillation bottoms while
treating solvents to be generators of hazardous waste.
-------
Finally, EPA explicitly addressed distillation bottoms
from spent solvent reclamation in the Background Document to
the final rule on capacity .determinations. EPA noted that
solvent reclamation would produce distillation bottoms, and
stated that these distillation bottoms would require treatment
to the levels set under Section 3004(m). EPA included the
expected volume of distillation bottoms in its estimate of the
total volume of solvent wastes requiring treatment.
2. The principle at stake here is an important one.
It is that the 1% capacity variance level not become the d_e
facto treatment level (see 51 PR 44,620). EPA would stay a
rule illustrating this principle only under the roost compelling
circumstances .
I feel it necessary to mention that Safety-Kleen could
have participated much more actively in the rulemaking and
alerted the Office of Solid Waste about its situation. Your
only comment to the Agency's proposed rule was filed long
after close of the comment period, and indicated that Safety-
Kleen realized it would have to treat its treatment residues
before they could be land disposed. Safety-Kleen 's participa-
tion seems particularly incumbent because the issue of capacity
to treat solvent reclamation treatment residues was raised
specifically by EPA for public comment (see 51 Federal Register
1724, 1727 (Jan. 14, 1.986)).
I regret that Safety-Kleen apparently received incorrect
advice from an EPA official regarding the scope of the November 7
rule, but the most reliable indication of what a rule means
is the regulatory language itself, and the explanatory preamble.
As mentioned earlier,, both the preamble and the regulatory
language indicate that Safety-Kleen 's residues must be treated
to the applicable treatment standards.
I have decided to deny your request for these reasons.
If the facts are as you state, Safety-Kleen could be eligible
for a case-by-case variance under §268.5. The Agency will
process any such applications expeditiously. Please contact
Rhonda Craig at 382-4800 if you have any questions regarding
the case-by-case variances.
Sincerely,
Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9553.1987(13)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 87
5. Land Disposal Restrictions - Haloqenated Organic Carbons
An F001/F002 waste subject to the November 7, 1986
Federal Register land disposal restrictions meets the
criteria for the 1% national variance specified in
Section 268.30. In the July 8, 1987 Federal Register,
treatment standards were set for most HOCs. F001 and
F002 wastes are also HOCs. Would the F001/F002
wastestream be subject to the newly-promulgated HOC
treatment standards even though it has been granted a
two-year variance F005 solvent wastes?
The solvent would only be subject to the treatment
standards and effective date in the November 7,
1986 rule. In 52 FR 25762, it says that "where
treatment standards and prohibition effective dates
are promulgated for California list waste
constituents that are also covered under the
November 7, 1986 rule, the treatment standards and
effective dates from the prior rule apply."
The general rule is that where a constituent is
subject to more than one treatment standard, the
treatment standard (and effective date) for the
more specific constituent applies. Example: the
F001-F005 treatment standard/effective date
presides because, as a subset of the HOCs, it is
more specific.
Also, for a waste where two or more treatment
standards apply because of different constituents
(e.g., F001 and Lead), both would apply with
respective effective dates. In the case above
mixed with lead, the F001/F002 treatment standards
and effective date would apply for the solvent
constituents (rather than the HOC standard) and
would get a variance until 11/8/88. However, the
lead would be subject to the requirements effective
7/8/87.
Source: Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4770
Research: Mark Janaskie
-4-
-------
9553.1987(13a)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
SEPTEMBER 1987
7. Land Disposal Restrictions - California List
A manufacturer produces an aqueous waste stream
containing 250 rog/1 nickel, 1600 mg/1 free cyanides, and
650 mg/1 chromium (VI) at a rate of approximately 5000
gallons/month. The waste stream is characteristically
hazardous due to the presence of free cyanides and
chromium (VI) (D003 and D007, per 40 CFR Section 261.23-
24). The manufacturer has the waste shipped via tank
truck to a commercial wastewater treatment facility that
treats the wastewater in tanks. The wastewater
treatment facility has a contract with a metals recovery
firm to accept the sludges after treatment for
reclamation.
a) In addition to normal manifesting requirements, what
must the manufacturer do in order to comply with the
land disposal restrictions for his off-site waste
shipments?
b) If the manufacturer has a wastewater treatment facility
constructed and, as a result, will be discharging the
liquid portion of his waste under a NPDES permit and
shipping his non-liquid sludges to a metals recovery
facility, how will the off-site shipment of the sludge
be regulated?
a) The manufacturer's aqueous waste stream is
restricted from land disposal according to Sections
3004(d)(2)(A), (b)(iii), and (BHvi) of RCRA, which
prohibit the land disposal of liquid hazardous
wastes containing greater than 1000 mg/1 free
cyanides, 500 mg/1 chromium (VI), and 134 mg/1
nickel. Consequently, the off-site shipment of his
aqueous waste stream must be accompanied by a
notification to the treatment facility of the
applicable prohibitions in Section 3004(d) of RCRA,
per 40 CFR 268.7(a)(l). The notice must incl-ude
the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The corresponding treatment standards and
all applicable prohibitions set forth in
Section 268.32 or RCRA Section 3004
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
SEPTEMBER 1987 (Continued)
7. Land Disposal Restrictions - California List (Continued)
b) If the manufacturer's wastewater treatment
sludge is hazardous only because of
characteristics, as identified in 40 CFR 261
Subpart C, and the sludge is sent to a facility
which reclaims metals from the sludge, the sludge
is no longer subject to the land disposal
restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268. 40 CFR 260.10
defines a sludge as "any solid, semi-solid, or
liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial
or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water
supply treatment plan, or air pollution control
facility exclusive of the treated effluent from a
wastewater-treatment plant." According to 40 CFR
261.2, a sludge which exhibits a characteristic of
a hazardous waste is not a solid waste (and
therefore not a hazardous waste, per 40 CFR 261.3)
if it is to be sent for reclamation. Pursuant to
40 CFR 268.l(a), the land disposal restrictions of
40 CFR Part 268 apply specifically to hazardous
wastes. Consequently, if the waste is not a
hazardous waste under RCRA, the regulations of 40
CFR 268 do not apply.
58
-------
9553.1987(14)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 15
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Alan Cranston
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Cranston:
Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1987, forwarding
the concerns of your constituent, Ms. Beverly Full. The primary
focus of Ms. Full's letter relates to the December 11, 1986, (51
FR 44714) proposal to prohibit land disposal of hazardous wastes
containing California list constituents at or above statutory
concentration levels.
Several events have occurred regarding the land disposal
restrictions program since Ms. Full's February 1987
correspondence. Ms. Full requested that a hearing be held to
address the concerns identified in her letter. Such a hearing
(Oversight Hearing on RCRA Land Disposal Ban) was conducted
before the Subcommittee on Hazardous Waste and Toxic Substances
of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public WorJcs on
June 5, 1987. At this hearing, I had the opportunity to discuss
the Agency's progress in implementing the land disposal
restrictions program. Shortly after this Senate hearing, on
July 8, 1987, (52 FR 25760), the Agency promulgated treatment
standards and corresponding effective dates for the California
list waste containing PCB's and Halogenated Organic Compounds,
and codified the statutory prohibition levels for certain
corrosive wastes. Furthermore, this final rulemaJcing
established testing requirements for determining compliance with
the prohibition, an aspect of the regulatory framework which
effects the character of those wastes that are considered
restricted.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section
3004(d) directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
substitute more stringent concentration levels for those in the
statute when necessary to protect human health and the
environment. In considering the protectiveness of the
concentration levels for California list wastes, the Agency
examined both the toxicity of the California list constituents
and the potential for exposure to these waste in the context of
their management. As a result of such considerations, the
Agency published a Notice (August 12, 1987, 52 EB 29992)
requesting information and comment on issues related to
-------
lowering the prohibition levels for California list metal-
bearing cyanide-containing wastes. The suggested prohibition
levels are similar to those requested by Ms. Full — levels 100
times current EPA drinking water standards. As indicated in the
Notice, the Agency is considering promulgating" prohibitions on
the California list metal and cyanide wastes at levels 100 times
the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards, or in the
case of nickel, thallium, and cyanide (for which no drinking
water standards exist), 100 times alternative health-based
levels.
Ms. Full expressed concern about the design features
required of units receiving wastes that are subject to a
variance. Under the current regulatory framework, wastes that
are covered by a national variance or case-by-case extension of
the effective date must be placed in a facility that is in
compliance with the minimum technological requirements of RCRA
Section 3004(o). These requirements, including double liner,
leachate collection system, and ground water monitoring system,
apply to new units, replacement units, or lateral expansions of
existing landfills or surface impoundments at existing
facilities, with respect to "no migration" petitions, it must
be demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that land
disposal of restricted wastes will not allow migration of
hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone
for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.
EPA shares Ms. Full's concern about the timing involved in
identifying appropriate treatment technologies for metal
wastes. The Agency did not establish prohibition levels or
treatment standards for California list metal and cyanide wastes
in the July 8, 1987, final rule. Instead, in the August 12,
1987 Notice, the Agency has requested further comment on
lowering the statutory levels for these wastes to levels 100
times drinking water standards or alternative health-based
levels. The Agency believes that further evaluation of the
statutory prohibition levels is warranted based on a number of
concerns including these wastes' mobility and toxicity, and the
land disposal practices employed for these wastes. The Agency
evaluated technologies used to treat these wastes and provides
treatment performance data corroborating that the California
list metals and cyanides can be treated to achieve the suggested
prohibition levels. Because of the potential variability of
these California list waste categories, the Agency does not
-------
believe it possible at this time to establish more specific
treatment standards. Therefore, the Agency is evaluating
treatment standards that would be achievable by a wide group of
wastes. Based upon this evaluation, the Agency will make more
specific treatment standard determinations in accordance with
the final schedule for implementing the land disposal
restrictions (51 FR 19300).
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9553.1987(15)
December 3, 1987
Honorable Max Baucus
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Baucus:
r 3 1987, letter concerning the
of California list metal-bearing
PIUIIAUA U4 w*»«a v»«» — — •
and cyanide-containing wastes.
more closely reflect «
the Agency
le'cn tes£ili=aly the TCLP. to develop a
waste extract for further testing.
a^ressiveiy to-ar.
promulgation of a final rule,
If i can be of further assistance, please let-me know.
Sincerely,
••iiiea._winston_ Porter
[Assistant
TROL
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9553.1987(16)
1 8 1987
Mr. Douglas W. Jackson
Project Manager
Rollins Environmental Services (FS) Inc.
9000 Gulf Freeway, Suite 240
Houston, Texas 77017
Dear Mr. Jackson:
This is in response to your letter of October 15, 1987,
concerning your questions on appropriate treatment methods for
elemental mercury that were addressed in a telephone conver-
sation with William Fortune of my staff. Specifically, you
asked whether broken mercury thermometers might be treated with
sulfur to form mercuric sulfate, followed by encapsulation of
the mercuric sulfate/glass mixture in concrete prior to being
land disposed.
As you are aware, the Agency did not establish treatment
standards in the July 8, 1987 final rule for liquid hazardous
wastes containing metals (including mercury and/or compounds).
As a result, California list wastes containing mercury are
currently subject to the statutory prohibition»V^B and thus
are prohibited from land disposal unless treated to concen-
trations below the prohibition level or rendered nonliquid.
The Agency has indicated (see 52 FR 2577f) that certain
solidification technologies may be considered appropriate
treatment for California list metals, at least until treatment
standards are adopted for these wastes. Solidification
techniques, where reagents (i.e.^substances that take part
in reactions or processes) are added that produce physical or
chemical changes, or otherwise immobilize the hazardous
constituents, would be considered legitimate treatment (rather
than dilution).
With respect to hazardous waste management practices in
general, it has been the Agency's preference that waste
minimization methods (e.g., reclamation, use or reuse of a
waste) be utilized over treatment and land disposal options.
Since the broken thermometers contain mercury in its elemental
form, this waste would appear to have considerable potential
for recovery and reuse. Prior to treating and disposing of
-------
these broken thermometers, we suggest that you investigate the
availability of facilities (such as secondary mercury firms)
willing to accept these wastes. If a recovery and reuse option
is not feasible, your proposed solidification technique - treat
the li_quid elemental mercury with sulfur to produce mercur-ic
sulfate (note: any reaction would likely form mercuric
sulfide), encapsulate in concrete, and dispose in a landfill -
would be in compliance with the prohibitions on California list
metals provided it immobilizes or chemically fixes the mercury,
and thereby legitimately renders the waste nonliquid, or if it
reduces the concentrations below the specified prohibition
levels.
I hope this information addresses your concerns. Please
feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at
(202) 475-6715, if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Weil, Chief
Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
9553.1988(01)
FEBRUARY 88 955J.1
Land Disposal Restrictions
The November 7, 1986 Federal Register (51 FR 40572) codified
the land disposal restrictions for solvent and dioxin wastes
identified in 40 CFR 261.31. At that time all of these
solvent and dioxin wastes were restricted from surface land
disposal unless they met the appropriate treatment standards
set forth in Section 268.41. There was a national variance
from the effective date (November 8, 1986) for these
requirements which was given to generators of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per month (small quantity
generators). This variance was granted because EPA believed
there was not enough capacity to handle this waste (see 51 FR
40615). Small quantity generators (SQGs) would be subject to
the treatment standards on November 8, 1988 (see 40 CFR
Section 268.30(a) & (b)). The August 27, 1987, Federal
Register (52 FR 32446) proposed to codify the solvent and
dioxin land disposal restrictions for Underground Injection
Control (DIG) Class I wells which are regulated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and by a RCRA permit by rule
(see 40 CFR 268.30(a) i(b)). The August 27, 1987, proposal
does not contain a SQG national variance. Does the variance
granted to SQG solvent and dioxin waste also apply to the
same wastes injected into Class I wells after August 8, 1988?
No. The November 7, 1986, SQG national variance
granting an extension to the effective date to the
solvent and dioxin restrictions applies only to wastes
which will be placed in land units other than UIC Class
I wells. The August 27, 1987, proposal did not address
a national variance for SQG waste specifically. It does
however propose to grant an extension of the effective
date for solvent wastes which are solvent-water mixtures
or solvent-containing sludges containing less than 1
percent (1%) total F001-F005 solvent constituents (see
40 CFR 148.10(a)). Therefore, small quantity generator
solvent wastes must meet the applicable treatment
standards prior to injection into a Class I well unless
they contain less than one percent (1%) total solvents
after generation. This will result in a three (3) month
"lag time" when SQGs may place their untreated (greater
than one percent) solvent wastes in all land units
except QIC Class I wells.
EPA did not propose a special SQG variance granting an
extension to the effective date of the UIC restrictions
because it is believed there are currently few SQGs
disposing of their wastes by injection who will not also
be eligible for the one percent (1%) total solvent
variance. It is believed there is adequate treatment
capacity for all SQGs and other generators who generate
solvent wastes above one percent (1%).
Source: John Atcheson (202) 382-5508
Research: Deborah McKie
-------
9553.1988(02)
MAR 8 1988
Ms. Mary Elizabeth Slevin
Lombard!, Reinhard, Walsh,
and Harrison, P.C.
5 Computer Drive West
Albany, NY 12205 ' -: i;'; "-'^ --' '- •..-'.:- .-••-.
•v
Dear Ms. Slevin:
This is a response to your January 21, 1988 letter to the
Office of Solid Waste in which you request an interpretation
concerning the regulatory status of a process wastewater. The
waste of concern is a rinsewater containing some carried-over
l,1,l-trichloroethane from a metal degreasing operation.
As you have described the operation, the solvent-contaminated
water in the rinse tank constitutes a process waste and not a
spent solvent. (See Hazardous Waste Listing Background Document,
p. 81, May 1980; letter from Steve Silverman to Michael Rodbury,
December 16, 1982.) This process waste would be considered
hazardous only if it were determined to exhibit one or more of
the hazardous waste characteristics; namely, ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity.
(See 40 CFR 261.20-261.24.)
In your letter, you also mention an exemption that exists
regarding solvent-water mixtures containing less than one percent
organic solvents. You appear to be confusing two different
regulations. This particular provision applies tr:> wastes that
are hazardous and therefore, subject to the land tU-sposal
restrictions rule. Under the land disposal restrictions
(specifically, 40 CFR 268.30(c)(3)), spent solvent hazardous
wastes that contain less than one percent total F001-F005 solvent
constituents are subject to a two-year extension of the effective
date based on insufficient capacity. The solvent wastes covered
by the extension include solvent-water mixtures. Also, at 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iv)(B) there is an exemption for solvent-contaminat-
ed wastewaters that are managed in units subject to regulation
under Sections 307(b) or 402 of the Clean Water Act. To qualify
-------
for this exemption, the maximum total weekly usage of the
1,1,l-trichloroethane discharged to the wastewater must be less
than 25 parts per million of the average weekly fl w of waste-
water into the headworks of the facility's wastewater treatment
or pretreatment system. However, since your waste is not a spent
solvent, neither of these exemptions would apply.
If you have any further questions, please contact
Ron Josephson on my staff at (202)475-6679.
Sincerely,
Jeffery D. Denit
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
Ul .w STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEv ,..AGENCY 9553.1989(01)
28 1999
Mr. B.W. Morse
Petroleum Advisor
Department of Commerce
and Consumer Affairs
Private Bag 00252
Gaborone
Botswana
Dear Mr. Morse:
Thank you for your letter of June 21, 1989, requesting
information about environmental protection regulations,
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Our response primarily focuses on the disposal of TEL gasoline
sludge, a particular concern raised in the letter.
EPA lists tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining
industry as a hazardous waste. As such, this waste must be
managed in accordance with the U.S Environmental Protection
Agency standards published in the Code of Federal Regulations
(Title 40), under Parts 260-272 (enclosed). Several of the
relevant sections, i.e., .standards for storage/treatment tanks
and standards for landfills will be found in this document (see
pages 556-567 and pages 581-586, respectively).
On August 17, 1988, EPA promulgated standards restricting
the land disposal of certain hazardous wastes, including leaded
tank bottoms from petroleum refining. The intent of this
rulemaking is to minimize the quantity of hazardous waste being •
land disposed in the United States along with minimizing the
toxicity of the waste when land disposal is necessary. Enclosed
for your review, is a copy of this rulemaking, as well as the
background document that contains information justifying the land
disposal restrictions. These rules require that wastes be
treated to levels achieved by the "Best Demonstrated Treatment
Technology," (BOAT) prior to being land disposed. You will find
that EPA considers solvent extraction and incineration to be the
BOAT for gasoline sludge waste. A temporary variance to the
treatment technology can be granted for certain wastes because
inadequate treatment capacity is available. These wastes are
then land disposed.in a landfill that has double liners and
leachate collection above and between the liners.
-------
isa
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
*N I 3
OFPICE OF
WATER
9553.1989(02)
Applicability of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
tc CERCLA Response Actions
*°*^ • ' C^/S^v—S~
Francoise Brasier, Chief IA&JUWVV* •.*. • » ^
Underground Injection Control Branch, Office of
Drinking Water (WH-550E)
David M. Fagan,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OS-341)
We have reviewed the Federal Register notice (54 FR 41566)
dated October 10, 1989, concerning che applicability of RCRA Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) to response actions pursuant to
CERCLA. The final Agency interpretation of this issue will
inpact the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program due to the
fact that many CERCLA sites use "pump and treat" injection wells.
An October 31, 1989 memorandum from OSWER (attached) resolved the
issue to the satisfaction of all involved programs.
The Safe Drinking Water Act provides the authority for the
regulation of injection wells to assure the protection of
underground sources of drinking water (USDW). An injection well
that disposes of hazardous waste into or above a USDW is defined
as a Class IV injection well (40 CFR 144.6). These types of
injection wells were banned on July 18, 1980. The only exception
to this ban are injection wells used at CERCLA and RCRA sites as
stated in RCRA 3020.
We support the interpretation that excavation and
redeposition of hazardous waste into the same unit at a CERCLA
cleanup site would not constitute land disposal. This
interpretation is consistent with the Agency decision on the
Class IV ban except in the cases of injection that are pursuant
to provisions for cleanup of releases under CERCLA and RCRA
actions. Additional discussion to the CERCLA and RCRA exception
to the Class IV ban can be found 49 FR 20141 dated May 11, 1934.
-------
In cases where the hazardous waste is removed from a CERC'A
site and is disposed of through injection, we believe the LoVdo
apply. The^exception to the Class IV ban in RCRA Section 3G2G~
applies to "injection of contaminated ground water into the
aquifer fr_om which it was withdrawn. If the contaminated crour.d
water is removed to be injected off site, we believe the Class IV
ban is in effect and the LDR applies. The injection facility
would need to meet all of the UIC requirements including the"LDR
as found in 40 CFR 148 to assure the protection of USDWs. If you
have further Questions, please contact Bruce Kobelski at
(FTS) 382-7275.
Attachment
-------
9553.1990(01
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY
I99C
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
C. Michael Swindell
Conoco Inc.
P.O. Box 1267
Ponca City, OK 74603
Dear Mr. Swindell:
This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1990 in which you
presented your interpretations of the RCRA Part B permits at Conoco's three
land treatment facilities located at Conoco refineries in Ponca City,
Oklahoma; Billings, Montana; and Lake Charles, Louisiana. Specifically, you
have interpreted these permits to mean that (1) continued operation of the
landfarms for the application of non-hazardous waste can occur after August 8,
1990 and (2) permit modifications for delay of closure and closure are not
required until the no-migration petition is denied. In response to your
specific issues we have described below proce-.lures pursuant to Federal rules
and regulations. Since Conoco's facilities are located in authorized States
and those States may have their own additional requirements, the Federal
procedures may or may not apply. Therefore, we recommend that you work
closely with these States to ensure applicable requirements are met.
On August 8, 1990 the current two year national capacity variance for the
continued land disposal of petroleum refinery hazardous wastes (K048-K052) is
scheduled to expire. However, on May 8, 1990 the Administrator signed the
Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions Rule. The rule provides for an
extension, until November 8, 1990, of the national capacity variance for the
K048-K052 wastes.
At the expiration of the revised national capacity variance, in order for
a facility to continue the land disposal of these restricted hazardous wastes
final approval must be obtained for either a no-migration petition, a case-by-
case extension or a treatability variance. Pending a decision on a no-
migration petition for a land disposal unit, Federal regulations allow owners
and operators to continue to dispose of non-hazardous waste in that unit after
the expiration of the variance under the provisions of 40 CFR 264.113(b) and
265.113(b). These regulations state that the owner or operator must complete
partial and final closure activities in accordance with the approved closure
plan within 180 days after receiving the final volume of hazardous waste at
the unit or facility. However, they further state that the Regional
Administrator may approve an extension of the closure period if the owner or
operator complies with all applicable requirements for requesting a
PriHUde* KtcycUd Papsr
-------
-2-
modification to the pennit and that he makes certain demonstrations. For
example, if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the hazardous waste
management unit or facility has the capacity to receive additional hazardous
waste; and that there is a reasonable likelihood that he or another person
will recommence operation of the hazardous waste management unit or facility
within one year; and the closure of the unit or facility would be incompatible
with continued operation of the site; and he continues to comply with all
applicable permit requirements, just cause exists for extension of tiie closure
period. See 40 CFR 264.113(b)(1)(ii) and 265.113(b)(1)(ii). Procedures for
making these demonstrations are addressed in 40 CFR 264.113(c) and 265.113(c).
Procedures for modifying the closure plan nre addressed in 40 CFR 264.112 and
265.112. Therefore, if the State in which the unit is located has procedures
equivalent to the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 264.113 (b) and 265.113(b)
then closure can be extended as discussed above. Please note, however, that
States can be twre stringent or impose additional requirements.
If the no-migration petition is approved, the owner or operator can resume
the receipt of the restricted hazardous waste (K048-K052). If the petition is
denied, demonstrations made under 40 CFR 264.113(b)(1)(ii) and
265.113(b) (1) (ii) would no longer apply (e.g., there no. longer exists a
reasonable likelihood that the owner or operator will recommence operation of
the hazardous waste management unit or facility) and the owner or operator
must proceed with closure unless they are eligible to continue to receive non-
hazardous waste under the "delay of closure" regulations.
These Federal "delay of closure" provisions as set forth in 40 CFR
264.113(d) and 265.113(d) allow the owner or operator to receive only non-
hazardous waste in a landfill, land treatment unit or surface impoundment
after the final receipt of hazardous waste if certain conditions are met. See
enclosed copy of 54 £fi 33376, August 14, 1989.
Since the "delay of closure" final rule was promulgated pursuant to RCRA,
it is effective only in those States that do not have interim or final
authorization (i.e., Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands, Wyoming, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas
Islands) and in those authorized States that have modified their programs to
reflect this regulation. In addition States may choose to adopt "delay of
closure" provisions more stringent then the Federal. In order to determine
the applicability of the "delay of closure" provisions, you should contact the
States in which your refineries are located.
If the "delay of closure" is available you should carefully note any
deadlines for submission of permit modification requests and required
demonstrations. For example, under the Federal "delay of closure" provisions
the request to modify the permit and the demonstrations referred to in 40 CFR
264.113(d)(1) and (2) and 265.113(d)(1) and (2) are required to be submitted
to the Regional Administrator no later than 120 days prior to the date on
which the owner or operator of the facility receives the known final volume of
hazardous waste or no later than 90 days after the effective date of the
"delay of closure" rule in the State in which the unit is located, whichever
is later. Under the Federal program, denial of the petition would constitute
a date certain after which hazardous waste would not be applied to the
facility.
-------
-3-
If you have any further questions regarding the above information please
call Jim Michael of my staff at (202) 382-2231.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: William K. Honker, Region VI
Karen Dihrberg, Oklahoma State Department of Health
Elizabeth Cotsworth, OSW
Jim Michael, OSW
Barbara Foster, OSW
-------
9553.1993(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN 6 1993
OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Doug MacMillan, Director
Hazardous Waste Program
National Solid Wastes Management Assoc.
Suite 1000
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. MacMillan:
Thank you for your May 13, 1993, letter regarding the need
for clarification of certain points in the hazardous debris case-
by-case capacity variance renewal. In particular, your members
are seeking written clarification on four specific issues
regarding EPA1s May 7, 1993 Debris Variance notice. This letter
provides responses to the first three issues raised in your
letter; EPA hopes to have a response to the fourth issue (what is
the potential liability of a TSDF that receives debris wastes
acting under a "good-faith belief?") within the next several
weeks.
I.
Issue; Does the Notice require waste generators to complete
their good-faith efforts to locate suitable treatment capacity
before any debris is shipped to TSDFs under the capacity
variance?
No. The hazardous debris capacity variance was renewed for
one year, to May 8, 1994, with the requirement that generators
make a good-faith effort to locate treatment capacity during the
extension. The duty to make this effort began on May 8, 1993,
and continues to May 8, 1994. The 90 day report simply documents
the good-faith effort. As long as the goqd-faith effort is
ongoing, debris may be shipped to TSDFs for disposal unless
treatment capacity is located in which case it must be used.
Please note that delaying the effort to find capacity until waste
can first be disposed of, or disposing at a faster-than-usual
rate to "beat" the discovery of capacity, would not constitute a
good-faith effort.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
II.
Issue; Must communications on capacity between generators and
TSDF be conducted in writing? What about documentation of phone
contacts?
All communication between generators and TSDF's does not
need to be done in writing. However, the most important aspect
of this process is the ability to demonstrate a good-faith effort
to locate treatment capacity. Written correspondence from both
parties would certainly fulfill this requirement and should not
be difficult to obtain. Documentation of telephone
conversations, however, will also be accepted, especially for
clarification of questions between a generator and TSDF.
III.
Issue; Under what conditions must a capacity-search be repeated?
The notice requires that generators continue to make a good-
faith effort to locate treatment capacity throughout the entire
one-year period of the variance. The 90 day report is a one-time
demonstration of this continuing effort. The report is due
either 90 days from publication of the notice for debris
previously generated, or 90 days after generation of any debris
generated during the one-year variance. In practical terms,
however, once the generator has completed their good-faith effort
for a specific waste or class of waste, they generally will not
be required to make any further inquiries unless information
becomes available to them on the availability of such treatment
capacity. At the same time, when an initial search was focused
on capacity for a waste type, and another waste type is .generated
for which the initial search would not shed light on the
availability of capacity, a further search would generally be
appropriate to demonstrate good-faith.
We appreciate your offer to disseminate this information to
your members to avoid any further confusion. If you have any
further questions, please contact Lea Otte of my staff at (703)
308-8480.
Sincerely,
ice
Office of Solid Waste
-------
CC: Matthew Straus, WMD
Elizabeth Cotsworth, WMD
Les Otte, ALDRS
Nicholas Vizzone, ALDRS
George Wyeth, OGC
Jim Thompson, OWPE
-------
'\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9553.1994(01)
JMM 23 ICG/I OFFICE OF
OUI\ £. O .^^^ SOLID WASTE AND EMERGEXL'Y
RESPONSE
Mr. Roy Deitchman
Managing Director Environmental Policy
Technology and Network Planning
Telesector Resources Group
1111 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, New York 10604
Dear Mr. Deitchman:
Thank you for your letter dated March 9, 1994, concerning
on-site treatment of manhole sediment which may exceed the
toxicity characteristic for lead.
Although you refer to the waste as debris, it does not
appear to meet EPA's definition. It seems the pertinent part of
the definition of debris at 40 CFR 268.2 (57 FR 37270, August 18,
1992) is that the material must exceed a 60 mm particle size. If
your waste does not meet the S 268.2 definition of debris, it
would likely be subject to the treatment standard promulgated in
the June 1, 1990 Third Third rule for lead waste displaying the
characteristic of toxicity as analyzed by both the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) and the Extraction Procedure (EP) (see 55 FR
at 22660). That treatment standard requires treatment to achieve
a level of 5.0 mg/1, as measured by the TCLP (see 40 CFR 268.41,
Table CCWE). Because this is also the characteristic level for
lead, the treated waste would no longer be considered a hazardous
waste and could be disposed in a nonhazardous waste landfill.
If your waste meets the debris definition, the stabilization
process you described (i.e., stabilization using lime, fly ash,
or portland cement) fits under the category of
microencapsulation, an immobilization treatment technology
described at § 268.45, Table 1, (57 FR 37278). To dispose the
immobilized debris in a nonhazardous waste landfill, you would
have to ascertain that it does not display a hazardous
characteristic. If it displays no hazardous characteristic, it
may be disposed in a nonhazardous waste landfill; otherwise, it
must be disposed in a hazardous waste landfill.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper trial
contains at least 50% recycled liber
-------
As to the paperwork requirements, a uniform hazardous waste
manifest would not be needed if the debris is disposed in a
nonhazardous waste landfill. You would still need to determine
whether the material would be regulated by the Department of
Transportation (DOT), and if so, comply with any applicable DOT
requirements. You should also contact the appropriate state
agency regarding more stringent state requirements for
transporting solid waste. Furthermore, the waste would be
subject to the recordkeeping requirements of the LDR program
found at § 268.9. For your convenience, I have attached a copy
of those notification and certification requirements.
If you have any further questions or need additional
clarification, please call Richard Kinch of my staff at
(703) 308-8434.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro
V Director
'^ Office of Solid Waste
Attachment
cc: Mike Petrusca
Richard Kinch
-------
-?oy Oe.'tcr.man
'•'a-z^ rs 3 •-•:;• £•••..-j^irj-va -: c>
"
Telesector Resources Group
A subsidiary of New England Telephone
and New YorK Telephone
March 9, 1994
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW 5301
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro,
Thank you for meeting with our NYNEX group on March 3, 1994 to discuss manhole
sediment removal issues. We appreciate the guidance provided by you and your staff
members. As discussed, we are writing you, as a follow-up to the meeting, to review
our proposed method for proper manhole sediment disposition.
NYNEX conducts telecommunications operations in approximately 100,000 manholes
providing local exchange telephone services in the New England area and New York
State. The debris (sediment) at the bottom of manholes may need to be removed when
a telephone cable failure requires access to a specific cable. NYNEX environmental
policy requires analytical testing of the debris for toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) lead to characterize the material prior to disposition. Since the
laboratory turnaround time for TCLP results has been a minimum of 36 to 48 hours, the
practical result of this NYNEX policy has been to treat the material as a hazardous
waste in emergency situations so that telephone service can be quickly restored. In
1994, we estimate approximately 400 manholes may need to be properly cleaned using
this method - at an average cost of $5000 per manhole.
NYNEX has not fully identified the source of the manhole sediment lead contamination
though we suspect it is a number of potential sources including lead sheathed cable,
surface run-off of lead contaminated roadside soil and contaminated groundwater
movement. Since the early 1970's, NYNEX has not placed any new lead sheathed
telephone cable and is in the process of removing existing lead sheathed cable in ducts
as the telephone network is upgraded with fiber optic cable. We also have used over
200 controlled environmental vaults (cev's) as underground equipment vaults that are
water-tight. One of the pollution prevention techniques may be to prevent
environmental contaminants from entering telephone plant equipment such as
manholes.
-------
Page 2
To continue our efforts to protect the environment and in a more cost effective manner,
we would like to develop a procedure for on-site treatment (at each manhole work area)
for lead contaminated manhole sediment. Your comments on the following questions
would be most helpful in moving in this direction:
1. Is stabilization of lead-contaminated debris, using lime, fly ash or portland
cement to create a "matrix", an appropriate on-site treatment method for this
material? If successful, can the material be disposed of as a solid waste?
2. If treatment is successful, in lieu of a uniform hazardous waste manifest,
would the attached NYNEX 5099 form provide sufficient information for
recordkeeping? If not, what additional information would be required?
Thank you for your help with this matter.
Sincerely,
cc: D. Feldman
J. Quatrale
J. Rosier
-------
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
May 1996 :
9593.1996(02)
1. Frequently Asked Questions on the
Universal Waste Regulations
Which hazardous wastes are covered
under the universal waste regulations in 40
CFR Part 273?
Currently, the three specific wastes covered
under Part 273 are hazardous waste batteries
(e.g., nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries),
hazardous waste pesticides, and hazardous
waste mercury-containing thermostats
(§273.1). Part 273, Subpart G, contains
provisions to allow for other wastes to be
added to the universal waste regulations
through a petitioning process. As such, new
•wastes, such as mercury lamps, may be added
in the future.
Are universal waste handlers required to
manage spent lead-acid batteries under 40
CFR Part 266, Subpart G, or under Part 273?
Handlers may actually choose the
management standards with which they will
comply. That is, they may either manage their
batteries under the standards provided in
Subpart G of Part 266 for spent lead-acid
batteries that are being reclaimed, or they may
comply with the universal waste regulations in
Part 273 (60 FR 25505; May 11,1995).
What are the notification requirements for
Large Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste
(LQHUW) and Small Quantity Handlers of
Universal Waste (SQHUW) ?
The universal waste regulations specify two
distinct forms of notification for handlers of
universal waste: a one-time written
notification of universal waste management
activity, and the acquisition of an EPA
identification number. SQHUWs are not
required to notify EPA of their universal waste
activity, nor are they required to obtain an
EPA identification number (§273.12).
LQHUWs, however, must submit the one-time
written notificatipn.and must, also obtain an
EPA identification number (§273.32).
Renotification is not required for a LQHUW
who has previously notified EPA of universal
waste management activities.and who has
already received an EPA identification ;
number (60 FR 25521; May 11,1995).
Do the universal waste regulations contain
a provision similar to the generator satellite
accumulation provisions in §262.34(c)?
There is no specific provision under Part 273
for satellite accumulation. However, the
universal waste regulations do not limit the
location, or number of locations, at which a
handler may accumulate universal wastes.
Thus, a handler may accumulate universal
wastes at or near the point of generation and
may do so, in general, for up to one year (60
FR 25527; May 11, 1995).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
9554- TREATMENT
STANDARDS
Part 268 Subpart D
AT. Kearney 1/3590/10 cr
-------
9554.1986(01)
MAR 2T 1995
MBHORAMPUH
SUBJECTi Responses to additional questions raised hy Senator
Mitchell from the Land^Disposal Restriction hearing
on February 24, 1«8€
FROMi Eileen M. Claussen, Director
Characterisation and Assessment Division (WH-562B)
TOi Lynn Pirotsoll
Office of the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Resoonse
Attached are the additional questions and responses for
Senator Mitchell concerning the hearing before the Subcommittee
on Environmental Pollution of the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
We are also submitting the necessary documentation In suonort
of these answers. Since this documentation Is so voluminous,
please advise Senator Mitchell that we will delegate a ataf?
person to assist him and Committee staff In reviewing and
Interpreting the data, if he so desires.
Attachments
-------
Oi What !• th« basis (or EPA1* estimate that 95 percent of
the solvents and dtoxins will need to be treated prior
to land disposal using the EPA proposed methodology?
Ai Solvents .
EPA's Hating program (managed by OSW) has collected
qualitative and quantitative characteristic data for
wastes generated by various Industries to determine
which new wastes should be considered hasardous under
RCRA. While this program does not collect data on existing
waste codes, the data collected for this program is the best
information available to EPA on the concentration of
constituents in wastes and therefore was the basis for
estimating the characteristics of wastes subject to.the ban.
Based on extrapolations of these data, EPA believes that
virtually all of the solvent wastes currently land disposed
exceed the screening levels and would require treatment.
These data are described in detail in Volume III of the
•Background Document for Solvents to Support 40 CPR Part
268, Land Disposal Restrictions." As Table C-l on page 24
Indicates, the *ean of the total solvent concentrations
exceed* 3,000 parts per Mllion (0.30% by weight) for all
solvent-tontaIning wastes, managed by all management techniques
Because this number Is so much higher than the proposed
regulatory levels, we believe now all solvent-containing wastes
will be treated. Because of the limitations of these
data, the Agency is taking a conservative approach In
-------
aaaeaalng capacity demands for setting effective datea
and thus la aaauminq that 5 percent of all solvent wastes
will not require treatment.
Dioxina
In conaiderinq the quantity of rttoxin-containIng waste subject
to treataent before land dispoaal, the Agency excluded dioxln-
contaminated aoila. There ara approximately 500,000 WT of these
aoilai however, these waatea do not become aubject to reatriction
until 1988 aince they are contaminated soils resulting from
CKRCLA reaponaa actiona (see Section 3004(e)(3))« Mr. Porter*o
atatautent addreaaea only dioxin-containing waataa that will ba
subject to reatriction on November 8, 1986.
Agency data in support of tha dioxin listinga indicate that"
6,650 metric tona on dioxln-containinq waste (excluding
aoila) have b»«n generated as of mid 1985. These waatea
include the following non-aqueous, relatively non-solid
vastest
- still bottoms froai herbicide manufacture
- non-aqueous liquid leachate
- ajpajnt carbon from aqueous phase treatment
• wastewatera and
- still bottom* from PCP oroduct purification.
-------
The existing data show total dioxin concentrations of
O.C - 110,000 npm in these watte*. These data are summarlxed
in Exhibit «-l of the draft "Hegulatory Analysis of
Proposed Restrictions on Land Disposal of Certain
DioxIn-Contain ing Wastes.9
Since dloxin-contalnlng wastes, for the most part, are
liquid*, the dioxin concentration in the leachate will eaual
the total dioxin concentration in the waste. Dloxin-
contatiinated still bottoms which often are sludges typically
contain organic solvents such as toluene and methanol.
Since solvents, when co-disposed with other hasardous waste*,
are known to mobilise organic constituents which otherwise ^
may be immobile or relatively non-mobile, a si»ilar effect
can be expected for dioxin-contaminated still bottom*
containing solvents. Thus, the leachate from these
wastes can reasonably be exnected to contain dioxlns in
concentrations well above the 1 nob screening level.
Agency data supoort a conclusion that all dioxin-containing
wastes (excluding soils) will require treatment before
land disposal. However, the Agency again 1« takino a
conservative approach in determining capacity demand by
stating that 95 percent of these wastes will remiire treatment.
EPA does betlieve that most dloxin-eontaninated soils (subject
to the November 198S deadline) will not remiire treatment
under the proposed treatment standards. Extraction procedure
testing conducted on six samples of dioxin contaminated soils
-------
(ranging fro* 3 to 1,200 poh of 2,3,7,* - TCDD) indicated
that non« of the samples leached detectable (I.e., 1 POh)
level* of dioxins. (See Evaluation of Dloxin Extraction
in the Toxicity Characteristic Leachtnq Procedure, attached.)
-------
Os What oercentaqe of the solvents would need to be nretreated
under HFA's proposed -lethodolony if there was no adlustment
in the screen!no levels for liner protection?
At To respond to this question, it would be necessary to have
detailed waste characterisation data indicating the distribution
of constituent concentrations^ waste streams by volume
of waste* The data relied on in response to the nrevious
question is, unfortunately, not detailed enouah to enable
us to respond to this question.
-------
9554.1986(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
11. Treated Wastes
Must restricted wastes which have been treated to meet treatment
standards promulgated under §268.41 still be managed as hazardous
•wastes under RCRA?
The treatment standards set forth in Table OCWE of §268.41
[51 FR 40642] specify the maximum concentrations at which
restricted wastes nay be land disposed. If listed hazardous wastes
are treated, they will remain hazardous wastes until or unless
they have been delisted according to §260.22. Characteristic
wastes that no longer exhibit the characteristic after treatment
do not need to be managed as hazardous wastes.
-------
9554.1986(04}
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
10. Treatment
How wera the treatment standards established for the land ban rule?
The treatment standards set forth in the Constituent in
Concentration in Waste Extract (CCWE) Table of §268.41
[51 re 40642] are technology-based standards. These standards
are based on the efficiencies that can be achieved using the
Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BEAT). As is explained
on pages 40588-40589, a technology nay be "demonstrated"* if it
is currently used to treat wastes within the group of wastes
judged to be similar. The following criteria must be met for a
technology to be "available": (1) the technology does not
present a greater total risk than land disposal; (2) if the
technology is a proprietary or patented process, it can be
purchaseiJ from the proprietor; (3) the technology provides
substantial treatment; and (4) treatment technologies prohibited
under §3004(n) because of air emissions will be excluded as
"available" technologies for the purposes of establishing
treatment standards. The Agency performed a statistical
analysis on the available treatment data to identify the
BOAT and determine the treatment standard.
-------
9554.1986(05)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
15. Dilution to Meet Treatment Standards
Can a generator dilute his restricted wastes to meet die treatment
standards of Table CCWE of §263.41?
So, as explained in §268.3 [51 FR 40639], "No generator,
transporter, handler, or owner or operator of a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility shall in any way dilute a restricted
waste or the residual from treatment of a restricted waste as .a
substitute for adequate treatment to achieve ccnpliance with
Subpart D of this part".
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
, •
9554.1987(02)
•CEB 3 I9C7
Honorable Esteban Torres
house of Representatives
wasnington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Torres:
Thank you for your letter of January 12, 1987, in which
you requested clarification of the hazardous waste management
regulations governing wastes generated by the metal finishing/
electroplating industry. Specifically, you enclosed a copy
of correspondence from Mr. Larry D. FOBS of FOBS Plating
Company Inc. in which he addressed concerns regarding the
effect of the land disposal restrictions upon the metal
finishing industry.
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid V.'aste Amendments (HSWA) to
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) prohibit
the continued land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes
unless the Agency determines that the prohibition is not
required in order to protect human health and the environment
(KCRA sections 3004(d)(l), (e)(l), and (g)(5)). However,
hazardous waatea that meet the treatment standards established
by LPA under section 3004 1 m) of RCRA are not subject to the
restrictions and may be land disposed.
As you are aware, the legislation established a series of
deadlines for Agency action. At certain deadlines, further
land disposal of a particular group of hazardous wastes ie
prohibited unless the wastes meet treatment standards
established by the Agency, or a facility has been granted a
petition under 40 CFR 268.6 ("no-migration petition"), or an
extension to the effective date has been granted under
40 CFK 268.5 (case-by-case extensions). As Mr. FOBS correctly
indicated, F006 wastes (wastewater treatment sludges frora
electroplating operations) are included among the wastes
scheduled to be evaluated by August 8, 1968 (40 CFR 268.10).
The Agency plans to propose treatment standards for the first
third of the scheduled listed wastes. incl,utUny
in the early fall of 19B7 .coKCu**egeB5iv. Epfl < • gnt-hnrJn
information on the per,fpr|manc$?oi£ I various tiechnoloules
-------
-2-
used for treating F006 wastes that reduce the toxicity or
mobility of these wastes. After considering the public
comments we receive on the proposed rule we will set the
final treatment standards for these wastes by the August 8,
1988 deadline. The land disposal of the F006 waste will be
prohibited (by statute) only if EPA does not meet the deadline
specified in the law. Wastes meeting the treatment standards
may continue to be land disposed.
Under RCRA section 3004 (h) (2), the Agency has the
authority to grant a nationwide variance of up to 2 years
from the statutory effective date if adequate alternative
treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity does not exist.
Calculations of alternative capacity are utilized in determining
whether to grant variances and the length of any variance from
the effective dates of the restrictions. The Agency will be
proposing capacity determinations at the same time as we
propose treatment standards for the first third of the
scheduled listed wastes.
We are sympathetic to the problems potentially faced by
Mr. Foss and Foss Plating Company Inc. However, failure
of the Agency to promulgate final regulations setting treatment
standards for these wastes would mean that such wastes could
be disposed of in a landfill or surface impoundment only if
(i) the facility is in compliance with the minimum technological
requirements of RCRA §3004(o) (double liners, groundwater
monitoring) and (ii) the generator has certified that he has
investigated the available treatment capacity and has determined
that the use of such a landfill or surface impoundment is the
only practical alternative. After May 9, 1990, RCRA would
completely ban the land disposal of any hazardous waste for
which EPA has not specified treatment standards. Allowing
these provisions to take affect would likely result in an
even greater regulatory impact on the metal finishing/
electroplating industry than promulgating final regulations
restricting land disposal.
We appreciate 'the opportunity to provide you with
information regarding prohibitions on the land disposal of
hazardous waste. Please feel free to contact Stephen Weil,
Chief of our Land Disposal Restrictions Branch, at (202)
382-2770 if you have further questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9554.1987(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 87
1. California List
The land disposal lestrictions in RCRA Section 3004(d) reguires
that the California List wastes be banned from land disposal by July 8,
1987. Concentrations of nickel greater than 134 mg/1 ate subject to the
ban. Is hazardous wastewater containing nickel dispersed by agitation,
but not chemically in solution, included in the restriction?
Yes. .It does not matter whether the nickel is chemically or physically
contained in the wastewate*. The ban applies to the total concentration
of nickel in the filtrate as determined by subjecting a representative
sample of wastewater to the Paint Filter Liquids Test. If the facility
were to settle out the pieces of nickel and lower the concentration of
nickel below 134 mg/1, the wastewater would no longer be subject to tne
ban. Until treatment standards are finalized, this method of lowering
the concentration is allowable.
Source: Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4805
Research: Laurie Huber
-------
9554.1988(03)
Dr. Paul Palmer, Pn.D.
Onscreen Directories Inc.
7345 Healdsburg Avenue
Suite 524
Sebastopol, California 95472
Dear Dr. Palmer:
This letter is in response to your March 1, 1988 and
April 19, 1988, letters requesting an interpretation of
40 CFR 268.7 requirements. Your letter of April 19, 1988
expresses a general frustration with EPA's seemingly meaningless
recordkeeping and certificating requirements. EPA believes that
these requirements are necessary, and I will try to explain the
rationale behind the rules.
EPA is responsible for enforcing the prohibitions on
disposal of untreated hazardous wastes imposed by Congress. A
determination that a waste is a listed hazardous waste
(40 CFR 261.31, and 261.32) is, in general, based on how the
material is used or the process by which it was generated, not
on the constituents in the wastes. Thus, only the original
generator can determine what the applicable waste codes are.
This information is frequently, but not always, on the
manifest. Waste codes have also been subdivided for the purpose
of setting treatment standards. The treatment, storage, or
disposal facility must be informed of the applicable standard.
In cases where no land disposal is anticipated, the notice is
still required to insure that the waste is not disposed of by a
facility not realizing that such disposal for that particular
waste is prohibited.
All restricted wastes, whether treated and disposed on
site, or sent off-site to a RCRA treatment or disposal facility
or to a non RCRA recycling facility, are subject to testing and
recordxeeping requirements. Please note that although recycling
facilities may be exempt from RCRA regulation, the wastes they
receive and the resulting residues are regulated by RCRA and are
-------
subject to the land disposal restrictions. We believe that the
notifications are necessary to assure that the information for
insuring compliance with the statute is available to both the
handlers of the hazardous waste and to EPA.
Certification is a necessary tool for tracking restricted
wastes from generation to final disposal. This law clearly puts
the burden on the generator to see that the waste is properly
managed and disposed of. Thus, the certification operates to
protect the generator in addition to providing EPA information
needed to efficiently enforce these regulations.
In response to the specific questions in your March l
letter, I hope the following discussion will be helpful.
After a generator makes a determination that he is managing
a restricted waste which does not meet the appropriate
treatment standards, or where the waste does not comply with
the applicable prohibitions in section 268.32 or RCRA Section
3004(d), the generator must notify the treatment or storage
facility in writing of the appropriate treatment standards and
applicable prohibitions in section 268.32 or RCRA section
3004(d). This notification must accompany each shipment of the
waste.
As a treatment and storage facility that ships restricted
wastes off-site for further management, you must comply with the
notice requirements applicable to generators in section
268.7(a)(l). You must also comply with the manifest
requirements of section 264.71(c) or section 265.71(c).
In the case of the operator of a cement kiln receiving
restricted wastes for further management (for use as a fuel
supplement), the treatment residues from these restricted wastes
are subject to all requirements under section 268.7(b)(2), (i)
and (ii) prior to land disposal.
Your interpretation of 40 CFR 268.7 certification
requirement is correct. A certification is required that the
waste meets the applicable treatment standards before the
restricted waste may be land disposed. When the restricted
waste is not destined for land disposal a certification is not
required. However, a written notification must accompany each
shipment of restricted waste where further management is
appropriate before land disposal.
-------
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns,
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Jim
Thompson, at (202) 382-7438.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Region IX
-------
9554.1968(04)
JUN I 3 ""-:
Mr. Kerry Bennert
Coordinator Special Projects
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Inc.)
Medical Products Department
331 Treble Cove Road
No. Billerica, MA. 01862
Dear Mr. Bennert:
I received your letter of April 18, 1988 in which you commented
that regulatory events limiting mixed waste disposal have impacted
your radioactive materials manufacturing operations. Specifically,
you cited as examples, the absence of disposal capacity for
"small-volume mixed waste laboratory generated (organic solvents)
materials" and lead.
As you know, EPA promulgated regulations which appeared in the
Federal Register of November 7, 1986 prohibiting land disposal of
certain spent solvent wastes unless they meet specific concentration
based treatment standards. Some solvent containing mixed wastes may
not lend themselves to incineration, the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) for solvent wastes. Such wastes could conceivably
be delisted and disposed in a low-level waste disposal facility
following treatment.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Mr. Terry Husseman, Chair,
Northwest Interstate Compact Committee which details the Agency's
position on disposal of lead. As the Husseman letter points out,
EPA has not evaluated specific containerization or encapsulation
methodologies using the EP toxicity test. Such approaches to
managing lead mixed waste may be viable in certain circumstances.
Of course, States may adopt a more stringent position with regard
to regulation of lead.or any other hazardous waste. We recommend
disposal of lead in a mixed waste unit.
-------
- 2 -
Also, I share your concern that neither of the three existing
commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities have
applied for a RCRA permit although U.S. Ecology has expressed a
strong interest in filing such an application. EPA and NRC developed
a series of guidance documents last year aimed at facilitating the
State and compact effort in siting and designing a low-level waste
disposal unit that could also accept mixed waste. As a regulatory
agency, EPA believes this level of involvement is consistent with its
mandate. The Agency is available to review alternate waste
management proposals developed by industry. However, until such time
as disposal capacity becomes available or treatment technologies are
identified, storage, an activity which also requires a RCRA permit,
may be the only waste management option available to generators of
mixed waste.
Although mixed wastes are not subject to Federal hazardous waste
regulations until the State applies for and obtains authorization to
regulate the hazardous component of the mixed waste, State law is
applicable in the interim. The deadline for filing mixed waste
authorization applications is July of this year. You may want to
contact Paul Bedrosian, the mixed waste coordinator for EPA Region I
(617-833-1792) to discuss your concerns. Further, I will apprise you
of any future developments on management of solvent containing mixed
wastes.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Paul Bedrosian, Region I
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PtOTECTlOM AGENCY
9554.1938(05)
I I
Mr. Mark N. Griffiths
Director of Government Relations
National Association of Metal Finishers
Suite 700
1101 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest
Washington, B.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Griffiths:
I am writing in response to your recent letter requesting
information on waste treatment facilities which can and will
accept F006 electroplating wastes for stabilization. *
v
*
The enclosed list gives the names and EPA ID numbers of 41
facilities which reported to EPA that they offered the type of
stabilization used to establish the land disposal treatment
standards for F006 sludges. I have also enclosed a copy of the
Directory of commercial Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
which includes contact information for hazardous waste
facilities. You asked that we supply you with the names of
facilities that would be willing to take your members' F006
wastes on August 8, 1988. EPA has not attempted to obtain such
specific data on waste treatment facilities.
As I discussed with you on the phone several weeks ago, the
difficulty you members experienced in finding waste treaters
willing to commit to treatment before the standards for F006
wastes were final is typical of what has occurred with past land
disposal restrictions rules. Waste treatment and disposal
facilities are subject to more restrictive standards on storage
of waste* than are the generators of the wastes. As a result,
these facilities are reluctant to accept wastes that they cannot
treat and dispose of fairly quickly. When a new treatment
requirement is imminent, these facilities routinely inform their
customers not to ship wastes after a certain date. Then, after
the final treatment standards are known, the disposal facilities
have time to determine the correct process changes or mixes
required and make other operating adjustments which are
necessary. Typically, treatment and disposal facilities begin
accepting wastes again within two to four weeks of the
promulgation date of Lhn fILLJJL..tinju=
-------
While this lag time is unsettling for generators, :
particularly when they have limited on-site storage capacity, it
is a predictable side effect of the statutory requirement that
land disposal restrictions become effective immediately upon
promulgation.
1 hope this information has been helpful.
Sincerely,
Barbara J. McGuinness, Chief
Regulation Development Section
-------
MOID STA. ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGwrfCY 9554.1989(32)
MAY 5
Mr. Richard Pastor
Director, Government Relations
Envirosafe Management Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 833
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482-0833
Dear Mr. Pastor:
This letter is in response to your April 15, 1989,
correspondence requesting a clarifying rule or guidance that
would allow placement of stabilized wastes that do not meet
land restrictions requirements at the time of placement. Your
justification for this clarification is that EPA based its BOAT
treatment standards on a 28 day curing period without clearly
stating where the curing was to occur.
As Jim Berlow explained to you when you met with him on
March 9, 1989, it is EPA's policy that wastes must meet treat-
ment standards prior to placement in land disposal units. This
policy is founded on our reading of the statutory intent.
Because EPA must be concerned that wastes may be exposed to
rainfall or other sources of leachate at any point in the life
of the disposal unit, it is necessary that Envirosafe establish
the effectiveness of its technology immediately upon placement.
Your letter suggests that Envirosafe believes its process
for in-place curing can be demonstrated to be superior to the
existing basis for BOAT standards, but provides no data. If
you have data that shows your process is superior, then you
should submit those data if you pursue a BOAT variance or
petition for rulemalcing. These data should demonstrate the
effectiveness of the process in reducing mobility of hazardous
constituents both at placement and once fully cured. As
Mr. Berlow mentioned in your discussions, you should submit
this data in the form of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure data to describe the effectiveness of your process.
This will allow us to determine the degree to which your
process relies on simply encapsulation rather than chemical
fixation to bind the hazardous constituents. If your process
can be judged equivalent or better than the current technology
basis for our standards, then a variance would be appropriate.
-------
- 2 -
Many of our standards are based on the leachability
achieved by stabilizing waste and curing it for 28 days prior
to placement. Tt is our understanding, however, that several
companies have been able to comply with the standards using
processes that achieve the limits after an initial curing of
far less than 28 days, in some cases within about 24 hours.
EPA views this issue as a matter of cost optimization, storage
capacity for curing versus possibly more expensive chemical
costs for stabilization. We do not believe that achieving the
standards based on 28 day curing strength has been shown to
represent a significant technical problem. However, any such
problems that you can document should be addressed in a BOAT
variance submission.
Your letter also mentions the possibility of a "temporary"
no migration petition for the period of curing; we have not
completed our consideration of this idea. I hope to inform you
of our analysis within the next several weeks. However, I
believe that there are several interim points for you to
consider.
HSWA requires that a no migration variance be based on an
analysis of the period over which the waste remains hazardous.
I suspect that a petitioner would have to demonstrate that no
migration would occur for as long as the waste remains
hazardous within the disposal unit, and not necessarily only
for the period within which the stabilized waste will achieve a
particular curing endpoint.
More significant, however, may be Section 3004(c)(l) of
RCRA. This section prohibits "...the placement of bulk or
non-containerized liquid hazardous waste or free liquids
contained in hazardous waste (whether or not absorbents have
been added) in any landfill...1*. The Agency issued a Statutory
Interpretive Guidance on June 11, 1986 (enclosed) for this
provision. In effect, the Agency's policy is that bulk and
non-containerized wastes must pass the "Paint Filter Liquids
Test" prior to placement in a landfill. You may wish to
consider whether the treated wastes that you wish to landfill
prior to complete curing can pass such a free-liquids test. As
explained in the Statutory Interpretive Guidance, the statute
provides for no variance opportunity.
-------
- 3 -
I appreciate your interest in this matter. If you wish to
pursue a BOAT variance, you should continue to contact Jim
Berlov and his staff.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9554 ]
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY "
OCTOBER 1989
4. Land Disposal Restrictions: Point of Generation
Effective July 8, 1987, liquid hazardous wastes containing PCBs in
concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm are restricted from land
disposal (40 CFR 26832(a)(2)). The July 8,1987, Federal Register states that
for the purpose of characterizing a waste as "restricted" the "initial
generators are to determine if their hazardous wastes are prohibited at the
point of generation." (52 FR 25766) This policy is reiterated in the August
17,1988, Federal Register by stating "generators must determine whether
their wastes are 'restricted' at the point of initial generation, i.e. when the
waste is first considered a hazardous waste subject to RCRA regulation."
(53 FR 31200)
An electrical transformer released oil onto a concrete containment pad.
The oil contains PCBs at concentrations greater than 50 ppm. The spill
response team used mineral spirits to loosen the oil from the concrete pad.
Then an absorbent was added to the oil /mineral spirit mixture and the
entire mixture was removed from the concrete. Is this mixture subject to
the land disposal regulations?
In this case a waste was generated when the transformer oil was
released onto the concrete. In order for the oil to be a California list
waste it must be a hazardous waste. The oil will not be subject to the
land disposal restrictions regulations as a California list waste because
typically it is not a hazardous waste (i.e., listed or characteristic).
However, after the mineral spirits are used to loosen the oil from the
concrete, the oil/mineral spirit mixture might meet the definition of
a hazardous waste by exhibiting the characteristic of ignitability.
Therefore, the generator must use the following criteria to determine
if the oil/mineral spirit mixture is restricted from land disposal: (1)
does the waste exhibit a characteristic (e.g., ignitability); (2) is it a
liquid; and (3) does it contain PCBs in concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm? The waste must meet all three criteria to be deemed
a restricted waste, specifically a California list waste per Section 26832.
This particular California list waste has specific treatment standards
per 40 CFR 268.42. The preamble to the July 8,1987, Federal Register
states "where treatment standards are expressed as specified
technologies, the Agency has stated in the November 7, 1986 final
rule that such specified technologies must be employed. See e.g., 51
FJR 40628. For example, in today's final rule, the California list wastes
containing PCBs must be treated in accordance with the standards
specified in Section 268.42 (i.e., thermal destruction in incinerators or
high efficiency boilers) and may not be rendered non-liquid in order
to avoid the Section 268 requirements." (52 FR 25766) In this case if
the oil/mineral spirit mixture meets the three criteria the waste is
still subject to the land disposal restrictions even if the absorbent
renders the waste non-liquid.
Source: Andrea McLaughlin (202) 382-6946
Research: Kent Morey
-------
9554.1989(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Jon Greenberg
Manager of Environmental Policy :.'./ pg I
Browning-Ferris Industries ' '
Suite 500
1150 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Greenberg:
This letter is in response to your two letters dated
October 10, 1989, requesting clarification of the California list
HOC land ban regulations, and the applicability of Federal land
disposal restrictions (LDR) regulations regarding household
hazardous waste (HHW) and hazardous waste from generators of less
than 100 kg/month, what you are calling "very small quantity
generator waste" (VSQG). We are providing answers or
clarifications in response to all of your inquiries except for
two, which we would like additional time to consider. We do not
wish to delay providing answers to the other questions raised in
your letters, so we are responding to those at this time.
Your first question concerned California list HOCs,
specifically a non-liquid waste containing only one HOC (at
levels greater than or equal to 1000 mg/kg) listed in Appendix
III of Part 268. As stated in 40 CFR 268.42(a)(2), a waste is
prohibited from land disposal unless it has been incinerated in
accordance with Subpart 0 of either Part 264 or 265. (The
treatment standard of incineration does not apply when there is
an established treatment standard specified for the HOC in
Subpart D of Part 268). You stated, however, that 40 CFR
268.42(a)(2) is less clear when there is a mixture of more than
one listed HOC in a non-liquid waste. You gave as your
understanding that in this case, if there is an established
treatment standard in Part 268 for at least one of the listed
HOCs, then that treatment standard, and not the incineration
standard of 40 CFR 268.42(a)(2), applies. This is a correct
interpretation; as stated in previous rulemakings, California
list prohibitions are superseded by more specific prohibitions
and treatment standards (see 52 FR 29993, August 12, 1987; and 52
Efi 25773, July 8, 1987).
You also requested confirmation of your understanding of the
effects of the Court-ordered stay on multi-source leachate, when
it is derived from a waste as described above. You stated that
the effect of the stay is to remove the treatment requirements
-------
established under Part 268 as they apply to multi-source leachate
and, therefore, the incineration treatment standard applies. The
Agency would like additional time to further consider your
interpretation before providing a response.
Your final question in the first letter dealt with a non-
liquid waste containing less than 1000 mg/kg HOCs when initially
generated. This waste is de-watered for further treatment, which
results in the concentration of the HOCs being increased to above
1000 mg/kg. With further treatment, the concentration of the
HOCs in the waste again drops to below 1000 mg/kg. You stated
that your understanding is that, because the waste did not meet
the California list criteria when it was initially generated nor
when it eventually was disposed, it does not have to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 268.42. The Agency would also like
additional time to consider the issues involved in this question,
and so is deferring a response at this time.
Your second letter is concerned with the applicability of
the Federal land disposal restrictions to wastes that are not
hazardous by Federal hazardous waste definitions, i.e., household
hazardous waste and hazardous waste from generators of less than
100 kg/month, but are hazardous by a State's definition. You
wished to know if the Federal land disposal restrictions apply in
these cases.
States with approved hazardous waste programs that regulate
generators and handlers of less than 100 kg of hazardous waste
in a calendar month have a larger regulated universe than is
required under Federal law. The program components that include
these classes of hazardous waste handlers are "broader in scope"
than the Federal requirements. "Broader in scope" provisions are
not considered part of the State authorized program and are not
subject to EPA oversight and enforcement (40 CFR 271.1 ( i ) •' 2) ) .
Therefore, State regulated household hazardous waste and "very
small quantity generator" waste handlers are not subject to the
Federal land disposal restrictions unless the Federal regulations
are adopted and enforceable under State law.
If you have any further questions, please call
Robert Scarberry, Chief, Land Disposal Restrictions Branch, at
382-4770.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
„-•*-""' 9554.1989(05)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Concurrence on Policy Directive Regarding
Applicability of Land Disposal Restrictions to
Reinjection of Treated Contaminated Groundwater under
CERCLA and RCRA Corrective Actions
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Direc
Office of Solid Waste
K A-^
TO: Henry Longest, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
This memorandum is to transmit OSW concurrence, with
comment, on the draft policy'directive regarding the
applicability of treatment 'standards established under the RCRA
land disposal restrictions to'.reinjection of treated
contaminated groundwater associated with CERCLA and RCRA
cleanups. The Office of General' Counsel advises that the
interpretation of Section 3020 -of RCRA set forth in the
directive can be supported by the plain language of the statute
and the legislative history which accompanies it.
OSW supports the interpretation for several reasons:
o The end environmental result (cleanup to a protective level)
is consistent with existing CERCLA and RCRA program guidance for
cleanups, which rely on health-based rather than technology
based standards.
o In response to a court decision, we are currently revisiting
technology-iased standards for the land disposal restrictions
and are considering whether it is appropriate to cap the
standards it health-based levels.
o Several technical practicability issues have been raised
regarding pump and treat systems which call into question the
practicability of achieving BOAT standards used in
implementation of the land disposal restrictions.
-------
Nonetheless, I believe that i*. is
AGni.i;r.ant Administrator be avare that this iM.r.erprsta:-. :c:. :-..T.-
provoke some considerable criticism once it is released. "•:•.-.-
one thing, this interpretation will in effect allow c:rcui;cV.:auer
that may still be quite contaminated to be injected ir.no a:i
aquifer, while at the same time, under the land disposal
restrictions the same groundwater could not be placed into a
minimum technology surface impoundment. Some may argue that it
is "technically feasible" to treat contaminated croundvater f.o
health-based or BOAT levels before it is reinjected. I- so,
this interpetation may be perceived as having a rationale based
more en economics than environmental protection.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9554.1990(01)
JANUARY 1990
2. Land Disposal Restrictions - Lab Packs
Lab packs are containers holding a variety of wastes generated by
laboratories. If a lab pack contains a waste restricted under RCRA's Land
Disposal Restrictions, how is it regulated?
The disposal of lab packs containing restricted wastes is initially
addressed in the Land Disposal Restrictions final rule of November 7,
1986 (51 FR 40572). If a lab pack contains any restricted wastes, the
entire lab pack is prohibited from land disposal "unless the solvents
or other restricted wastes are removed before land disposal, the
solvents in the lab pack meet the treatment standard, or a successful
petition demonstration has been made under Section 268.6." (51 FR
40585)
The proposed rule for the Third Third wastes in the November 22,
1989 Federal Register (54 FR 48372) also includes a discussion of lab
packs. The Agency proposes alternate treatment standards expressed
as technologies for those lab packs meeting certain criteria. Lab packs
containing certain characteristics and listed organic hazardous waste
may be incinerated according to this proposed rule, and stabilization
is proposed to be the treatment technology for certain EP toxic metal
wastes. However, this proposed approach would not be mandatory
and generators of lab packs who choose instead to comply with
current land disposal restrictions, would be free to do so.
Source: Andrea McLaughlin, OSW (202) 382-6946
Research: Anne Kennerley
-------
9554.1990(02
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB 2 2 1990
F U COP1
Off ICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
William McDonald
Chemical Compliance Manager
Wellcraft Marine
Sarasota, Florida
Dear Mr. McDonald:
This letter is in response to your question concerning the
impact of the proposed Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions
rule on D001 characteristic wastes.
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act directed EPA to set levels
and methods of treatment for hazardous wastes which substantially
reduce the toxicity of the waste. Wastes or residuals from the
treatment that meet treatment standards established by EPA may be
land disposed.
Land disposal of these hazardous wastes are prohibited
unless 1) the wastes are treated to a level or by a method
specified by EPA, 2) it can be demonstrated there will be no
migration of hazadous constituents from the land disposal unit
for as long as the wastes remain hazardous, or 3) the wastes are
subject to an exemption or variance from meeting the treatment
standards.
D001 is an ignitable waste which is currently subject to
some restrictions on placement in surface impoundments, waste
piles, land treatment units, and landfills. These restrictions
can be found in 40 CFR 264.229, 264.256, 264.281, 264.312,
265.229, 265.256, 265.281, and 265.312.
There are four categories of D001 ignitable waste. The
first, ignitable liquids such as solvents and paint thinners,
must, according to the proposed rule, be treated through thermal
destruction technologies such as incineration and fuel
substitution before they can be land disposed. The second,
ignitable compressed gasses, are generally recovered by direct
use or are vented into an incinerator. The third, ignitable
reactives, are primarily inorganic solids or wastes containing
reactive materials such as alkali metals or metalloids. These
wastes must be deactivated, according to the proposed rule,
before being land disposed. The final category is oxidizers,
-------
which include such wastes as peroxides, perchlorides, and
permanganates. These wastes must also be deactivated, according
to the proposed rule, before being land disposed.
The treatment of D001 waste raises some policy issues which
EPA is still resolving, as to when dilution is a permissible form
of treatment, and if characteristic wastes, such as D001, must be
treated to levels below which they exhibit a characteristic.
See 54 FR 48490-48494. Unfortunately, EPA cannot discuss these
matters at this time, due to restrictions concerning the
rulemaking process. EPA's decision on these two issues will
appear in the Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions final rule
on May 8.
If you have questions concerning specific aspects of EPA's
proposals for D001 wastes, please give Robert Burchard a call
at 202-475-6775.
Sincerely,
Robert Scarberry
Chief, Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9554.1990(03
MAR 7 1990
Mr. Donald Stone
Regional Environmental Manager
GSX Chemical Services, Inc.
121 Executive Center Drive
Congaree Building, Suite 100
Columbia, South Carolina 29221
Dear Mr. Stone:
This letter is in response to your September 18, 1989 letter
to Mike Petruska of the EPA's Waste Characterization Branch,
requesting confirmation of a conversation you had with Mary
Stevens of the RCRA Hotline, concerning the application of waste
codes to treatment residues. Your letter asks which waste codes
would apply to scrubber water from the incineration of hazardous
wastes for the purpose of complying with the land disposal
restrictions.
If listed wastes are burned, all residues that are generated
carry the waste codes of the listed wastes from which they were
derived. For characteristic wastes that are burned, the
residuals are characteristic only if the residues themselves
exhibit a characteristic.
When deciding which Land Disposal Restriction standard
applies to residuals such as scrubber water (assuming that the
treated residues are destined for some form of land disposal),
your decision must be based on the hazardous waste designation
before incineration. That is, you must know whether the waste
incinerated exhibits any characteristic, meets the California
List criteria, and contains or is derived from any listed wastes.
Potentially, any or all of the treatment standards associated
with these different classifications of hazardous waste may
apply. In situations where multiple treatment standards apply,
the ensuing general rules should be followed:
1. If the standards are for similar treatability groups (e.g.,
all chlorinated organics), all the standards must be met,
and for common constituents, the most stringent standard
applies.
2. if they are not similar (e.g., one is for metals and the
other is for chlorinated organics), then both standards
-------
I have enclosed an excerpt from the LDR Third Third proposed
rule which explains these concepts further. This excerpt also
provides several examples with regard to the California List
prohibitions and clarifies when these treatment standards would
be superseded by more specific treatment standards.
If you have any questions about these issues, please call
Robert Burchard at 475-6775.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
cc Mike Petruska
Robert Scarberry
Enclosure
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9554.1990(04)
MARCH 1990
3. Treatment Standards for Methanol Which Does Not
Meet the F003 Listing
A generator uses xylene for cleaning purposes. At the point of generation
the generator determines that he has generated a F003 spent solvent waste,
subject to the land disposal restrictions. The F003 listed waste has traces of
methanol in it where the methanol was used as a fuel. Would the
notification sent by the generator in 268.7(a)(l) to the treatment, storage or
disposal facilities (TSDFs) have to include the corresponding treatment
standards for methanol as well as for xylene?
No. The generator would only have to include the treatment
standards for the xylene and not for the methanol to be in compliance
with Section 268.7(a)(l). The methanol in this case was not used for
its solvent properties and would not meet any of the spent solvent
listings, which are prohibited from land disposal without first
meeting the treatment standards in 40 CFR 268, Subpart D. The spent
solvent listings cover only those solvents that are used for their
solvent properties; which is to solubilize, dissolve or mobilize other
constituents (51 FR 40606). A solvent is considered spent when it is
no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed or
otherwise reprocessed. Where solvents were used as reactants or
ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical products,
they are not included in the listing (see December 31, 1985 Federal
Register; 50 FR 53315 and the original solvent listing background
document, November 14,1980).
Supporting data should be maintained on-site in the generator's files.
Sources: Rhonda Craig, OSW (202) 382-7926
Ron Josephson, OSW (202) 382-4792
Thomas Ovenden, OSW (202) 475-6715
Research: Renee T. LaValle
-------
9554.1990(05)
Ll,to &
-------
f
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO
WASHINGTON. D.C. 204uv
9554.1990(06)
JUN 25 1990
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Lynn L. Bergeson
Weinberg, Bergeson and Neuman
1300 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 600 East
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Ms. Bergeson:
Thank you for your letter of June 8, 1990 concerning the use
of the Extraction Procedure (EP) leach test for determining
compliance with the treatment standards for lead-bearing wastes
beyond September 25, 1990, when the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) replaces the EP.
Your reading of the preamble discussion in the
Third Third land disposal restrictions rule is correct; the
Agency is allowing the continued use of the EP beyond September
25, 1990 for the limited purpose of determining compliance with
the treatment standard for lead-bearing wastes. Lead-bearing
wastes that fail the TCLP, but pass the EP, will be deemed to
meet the treatment standard for D008.
On the effective date of the Toxicity Characteristic rule,
Federal regulations no longer allow the use of the EP to
determine if your waste exhibits the toxicity characteristic.
Please note, however, that if, as a matter of state law in a RCRA
authorized state, the EP is required, that requirement is not
superseded by the TC rule.
Please note that the second footnote on page 2 of your
letter, which states that the TC effective date for small
quantity generators is March 29, 1991, is incorrect. The TC
effective date is September 25, 1990. There are two compliance
dates: September 25, 1990 for large quantity generators
(generators producing over 1000 kg/month of hazardous waste) and
TSDFs, and March 29, 1991 for small quantity generators.
We will address the continued applicability of the EP in a
future land disposal restrictions rulemaking on wastes that
exhibit the new toxicity characteristic. We plan to propose this
rule within a year, and will provide opportunity for comment.
-------
If-you have further questions on this matter, please contact
Robert Burchard of my staff at 475-6775.
Sincerely,
irector
ste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.'
9554.1990(07
JUL 30 I99C
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Richard A. Guida
Associate Director
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Department of the Navy
Naval Sea Systems Command
Washington, D.C. 20362-5101
Dear Mr. Guida:
This letter is in response to your letter dated May 24,
1990, concerning the Land Disposal Restrictions for defueled
submarine reactor compartments. In this letter, your primary
question was whether the Navy's program for disposal of these
reactor compartments falls within the "Macroencapsulation"
standard for these wastes as promulgated on May 8, 1990 as part
of the Land Disposal Restrictions Rule for Third Third Wastes.
EPA points out that while EPA concurred on this disposal
practice as part of an extensive Environmental Impact Statement
issued in May of 1984, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of November, 1984, required EPA to establish treatment standards
for all hazardous wastes prior to land disposal. Thus, EPA
promulgated regulations covering such wastes on May 8, 1990.
While the June 1, 1990 Federal Register Notice which listed these
regulations did not provide a specific response to your comments,
your questions were answered in the administrative record for the
rule in a document entitled the "Response to BDAT Related
Comments Document, Volume I-J", (as comment number 15-A-l).
In summary, EPA determined that the practice of direct land
disposal of these compartments may meet the "Macroencapsulation"
BDAT treatment standard for D008 radioactive lead solids. The
key to assuring compliance with the standard is the stipulation
in the regulatory language that the "jacket of inert inorganic
materials" (i.e., the steel surrounding the lead) "substantially
reduce(s) surface exposure to potential leaching media". Since
the information in your letter and your comments appears to
indicate that this is true, the Agency believes that the practice
probably complies with the BDAT standard for DO08 radioactive
Priaud at Rtcycitd Paptr
-------
lead solids. The compartments probably are considered to meet
BOAT "as generated", because the lead shielding (as originally
constructed) is surrounded in a thick, sealed steel jacket. The
key to this decision is whether the steel is indeed sealed and
thereby minimizing potential exposure to any leaching material.
EPA chose to establish "Macroencapsulation" as BDAT for D008
radioactive lead solids in order to reduce the potential for
radiation exposure during both treatment and testing. It is
important to point out that because the standard is a technology-
based standard (i.e., specified technology), compliance does not
require that the waste undergo a TCLP analysis for lead. The
TCLP analysis would have required crushing or grinding of the
material in order to verify compliance and would have gone
against the whole purpose of establishing this standard.
EPA purposely modified the proposed standard for 0008 radio-
active lead solids to include "jackets of inorganic materials" in
order to specifically account for the submarine reactor compart-
ments. However, EPA felt that it was necessary to add the
language to the definition of macroencapsulation to prevent the
"jacket of inorganic material" from being interpreted as
including materials that are merely containers or drums. Thus,
we concur with your interpretation that the submarine compartment
does not meet the definition of either a drum or a container.
I hope that this information clarifies your concerns as well
as any potential concerns that may arise with the State of
Washington over the applicability of "Macroencapsulation" as BDAT
for your decommissioned reactor compartments. If you, or the
State of Washington, need further clarification or if you feel a
meeting is necessary, please call Richard Kinch, Chief of the
Waste Treatment Branch, at (202) 382-7917. Thank you for your
patience in receiving your response. The Third Third Land
Disposal Restrictions Rule has generated a significant amount of
questions. For your information, we will be reiterating the
above discussion concerning your situation in a Federal Register
Notice covering corrections to the rule. This notice should be
out by early fall.
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
.1*0 %',.r
_ f
UNITED STATES ENVlPONMENTAl ""~T<^T,OM
WASHINGTON. D.C 9554.1990(08)
JUL 31 1990
Mr. Douglas MacMillan, Director
Hazardous Waste Policy
National Solid Wastes Management Association
1730 Rhode Island Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. MacMillan:
*.*-
This letter responds to your inquiry dated June 13, 1990, to
Richard Kinch, of my staff, concerning several aspects of the
Third Third land disposal restrictions final rule. Your letter
included questions about the following topics: multisource
leachate, treatment verification, the dilution prohibition, the
applicability of specified technology standards, effective dates,
identification of applicable waste restrictions, inorganic solid
debris, waste tracking, lab packs, underground injection, surface
impoundments, and treatment in tanks and containers. Responses
to the specific questions are presented in the same order as
included in your letter.
Please note that responses are not provided for questions
21, 23, 30, 34, 35, and 36, and the first part of question 42.
Responses to these questions will be provided in the near future.
A. MULTISOURCE LEACHATE
1. In response to your question whether multisource
leachate must be manifested now as F039 — that is, before August
8, 1990 — the answer is no. Please see the Third Third final
rule preamble discussion at 55 FR 22650. However, it should also
be noted that the manifest under the federal hazardous waste
program only includes the Department of Transportation waste
description, not EPA's Hazardous Waste Number.
2. Tn* question points out a discrepancy between the
regulatory language of 40 CFR Part 268 where multisource leachate
nonwastewaters were granted a two-year national capacity variance
for surface disposed wastes, and the regulatory language of 40
CFR Part 148 which failed to grant such a capacity variance to
the waste when destined for underground injection. The Agency
found, upon reexamination of this- apparent typographical error,
that other waste types destined for underground injection were
also omitted from the regulatory language by mistake (although
PrvtUd at Kicycltd Paptr
-------
they were included in the preamble). Trie effective dates for
these classifications are as follows: for F039 nonwastewaters
that are sent offsite for underground injection, the effective
date is August 8, 1990; for F039 nonwastewaters that are being
injected onsite, the effective date is November 8, 1990; and for
all F039 wastewaters, whether being injected onsite or offsite,
the effective date is May 8, 1992. These omissions will be
addressed in a correction notice that is expected to be published
in the Federal Register in September 1990.
3. Confirmation is requested on the applicability of the
F039 nonwastewater capacity variance as it applies to
contaminated soil. The Agency agrees that soil that is
contaminated with F039 is a nonwastewater that is subject to the
two-year national capacity variance until May 8, 1992, even if
some of the sources of the multisource leachate are from waste-
codes for which any capacity variance has expired. Please"see 40
CFR 268.35(b) and (e).
4. In response to your question of what mechanism will be
allowed for adopting the F039 waste code into a permit, page
22621 of the Third Third final rule preamble explains that the
procedures that should be followed are those found in 40 CFR
270.42(g). The Agency has made the determination that if a
permit is simply being changed by substituting the F039 waste
code for the multiple waste codes that heretofore were carried
through with the leachate, then only a Class 1 permit
modification is necessary. The procedures require the submission
of a Class 1 modification by the date on which the waste becomes
subject to the new requirements, August 8, 1990.
5. The question asked is what is required for adoption of
the F039 waste code at a facility with a final Part B permit in
an authorized State which has not adopted the new F039 waste
code. The Agency points out that the new waste code is
considered a HSWA regulation immediately effective in authorized
States and implemented by EPA. Thus, the facility should submit
a Class 1 modification as described in question number four
above. This serves as a "HSWA rider" to the RCRA permit. (The
RCRA permit may have been issued by the State, EPA, or jointly by
both Agencies.) The Class 1 modification enables the facility to
manage multisource leachate under the Federal HSWA program;
therefor*, the State need not take any action to recognize the
effectiveness of the modification.
6. In response to the question of whether a final disposal
facility must test for all F039 constituents even though the
generator has certified, based on his knowledge of the waste,
that certain parameters are not present, the Agency addressed the
waste analysis requirements in the Third Third final rule
preamble on page 22669. Treatment and disposal facilities may
generally rely on information provided to them by generators.
-------
Treatment and disposal facilities, however, must conduct periodic
detailed physical and chemical analyses of their waste streams to
assure that the appropriate Part 268 treatment standards are
being met. Even though the Agency does not specify the frequency
of such corroborative testing, this implies that a treatment or
disposal facility must test for all F039 constituents at some
time, even though the generator has certified, based on his
knowledge, that certain parameters are not present. The Agency
recognizes that waste analysis parameters and the frequency of
testing are best established on a site-specific basis. Thus, a
streamlined permit modification procedure was established in the
Third Third final rule to allow appropriate testing requirements
and frequencies to be incorporated into permits. Permit
modifications and implementation procedures are discussed at page
22621 of the Third Third preamble.
7. The scenario presented in this question is analogous to
that in question number 6. The disposal facility may generally
rely on treater-supplied information, but is also required to
perform periodic corroborative testing.
8. The question presented is whether a TSDF may dispose of
its own solidified leachate in an onsite, non-MTR cell during the
two-year national capacity variance. The Agency set out the
requirements for wastes disposed of during a national capacity
variance in the First Third final rule on August 8, 1988. These
requirements include that wastes disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment during the period of a national capacity
variance may only be placed in a unit meeting the minimum
technological requirements (see 40 CFR 268.5(h)(2)).
9. In response to the question of whether the F039 waste
code is immediately effective on May 8, 1990, the answer is no.
The Agency delayed the effective date for the new F039
designation until August 8, 1990. This period of time, as
indicated previously, should have been used by facilities to
modify their permits to include the new waste code and their
waste analysis plans to specify the constituents and the
frequency of waste analyses. Please see the preamble discussion
at page 22650. In response to the question of notifying and
certifying requirements for F039 going for partial treatment, the
Agency requires that all constituents and applicable treatment
standards be included on the notification and certification,
regardless* of whether it is sent to a facility for partial or
total treatment.
B. TREATMENT VERIFICATION
10. Under 40 CFR 264.13(a)(1), certain testing must occur
prior to hazardous waste management; thus, owners or operators of
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities must obtain detailed
chemical and physical analyses of representative waste samples.
-------
In addition, corroborative testing is now required on occasion
even where testing data is supplied. Approved waste analysis
plans will eventually specify the frequency of all testing.
11. In response to your question regarding the
certification in 40 CFR 268.7(b)(5)(iii), if the analysis is
performed by an off-site independent lab, who makes the
certification that "I have been unable to detect the inorganic
hazardous constituents...", such a certification can be made by
the laboratory as an authorized representative. The laboratory
would include this certification with the laboratory results to
become part of the TSD's required paperwork under section 268.7.
12. This question concerns the use of the TCLP versus the
EP for measuring compliance with the characteristic lead
treatment standard and the characteristic and associated arsenic
treatment standards. The TCLP may be used to measure compliance
for these wastes. If the waste meets the treatment standard
through analysis of the TCLP leachate, there is no requirement
that the EP must also be used. If the waste does not meet the
treatment standard through analysis of the TCLP leachate, the EP
may be used. If the treatment standard is met according to the
analysis of the leachate from use of the EP, then the waste
complies with the treatment standards.
13. This question asks for an example of the new
"referencing provision" for notifications. The preamble
discussion on page 22668 and the regulatory language of amended
section 268.7 specifies the information that is required on the
notification when referencing treatment standards. In
particular, the hazardous waste number (e.g., D003), the
subcategory of the waste (e.g., reactive cyanide subcategory),
the treatability group of the waste (e.g., nonwastewater), and
the CFR Part, section, and paragraph where the treatment standard
appears (e.g., section 268.42(a)) should all be on the
notification when using the referencing provision. When the
treatment standard is expressed as a specified technology, the
applicable five-letter treatment code (e.g., INCIN) found in
Table 1 of section 268.42 must also be listed on the
notification.
C. DILUTION PROHIBITION
14. tt* scenario presented is that of a waste which has
both organic* and metals (for which treatment standards have been
established) which is blended in a tank with other wastes prior
to incineration. The resultant incinerator residues meet all
organic and metal treatment standards. In response to the
question of whether further treatment of the metals is required,
the answer is no.
-------
15. The scenario presented is that of an F006 waste
containing both metals and cyanides above the treatment standards
that is treated by stabilization. The treatment standards are
met for both the metallic constituents and the cyanide. The
question is whether this is considered to be impermissible
dilution of the cyanide. The objectives of the dilution
prohibition are to assure that prohibited wastes are actually
treated rather than diluted, and to assure that prohibited wastes
are treated by methods that are appropriate for that type of
waste. The Agency considers stabilization of cyanide to be
impermissible dilution — that is, stabilization is not an
appropriate method of treatment for cyanide. Stabilization
reduces the leachability of the cyanide but does not destroy it.
In the Second Third final rule, the Agency stated that
stabilization is not an applicable technology for the treatment
of the majority of cyanide wastes (54 FR 26609). This is
supported by the legislative history of RCRA section 3004 Cm)
which indicates that Congress intended that the "destruction of
total cyanides would be required as a precondition to land
disposal" (130 Congressional Record S9179, July 25, 1984,
statement of Senator Chafee). The BDAT for cyanide is based on
the performance of alkaline chlorination. This technology
destroys the cyanide constituents and converts cyanides to carb'on
dioxide and nitrogen.
16. The question is what are the administrative
requirements for characteristic wastes that are blended for fuel
substitution, and in the course of blending, the characteristic
is lost. Whenever a characteristic hazardous waste loses its
characteristic (and thus its classification as a hazardous
waste), for each shipment of blended fuel, a notification and
certification must be sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator or State authorized to implement the Part 268
requirements (see 55 FR 22688, section 268.9(d)).
17. The first question is whether cyanide is considered to
be an "other inorganic." The answer is no. The Agency does not
consider cyanide to be an other inorganic and thus suitable for
stabilization (see response to question 15). The next question
is whether a facility may stabilize cyanide wastes to meet
treatment standards if they show that there is more than just
dilution occurring. EPA maintains that merely reducing the
leachability of cyanide is inadequate treatment; the destruction
of cyanide in a precondition of land disposal. Stabilization,
therefore, vould not be allowed because there is no evidence of
destruction of cyanide. An example is presented of treatment of
a waste containing 5900 ppm total cyanide that is stabilized
using a waste to additive ratio of one part waste to four parts
additive. After stabilization, the waste meets the 590 ppm total
cyanide treatment standard. The assertion is made that a ten
fold reduction in cyanide concentration has occurred, and a
maximum of less than half of that reduction is attributable to
-------
dilution. The question is whether this is permissible. As has
been established in this answer, and in answer number 15 above,
this is not permissible because stabilization is not an
applicable technology for the treatment of cyanide wastes.
18. The question asked is what is the difference between
aggregation by the treater of a waste and aggregation by the
generator; the example provided in the question concerns
aggregation of EP toxic metals in industrial sewer systems. The
answer is that there is no difference. In particular, toxic
characteristic wastes ordinarily may not be impermissibly diluted
(either by a generator or a treater) to meet the treatment
standards if such wastes will be land disposed in a RCRA Subtitle
C or D facility. However, if toxic characteristic wastes are
treated or disposed of in certain systems regulated under the
Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act, the dilution
prohibition does not apply. Please see the preamble discussion
at pages 22651-22659.
D. APPLICABILITY OF SPECIFIED TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS
19. The Agency agrees with the interpretation that the
specified technology of "INCIN" does not include units such as l
boilers, furnaces, and cement kilns that burn hazardous waste for
their fuel value or material recovery (units not regulated by the
performance standards imposed on permitted incinerators). On the
other hand, Subpart 0 includes among those considered to
incinerate hazardous waste, owners or operators who burn
hazardous waste in boilers or in industrial furnaces in order to
destroy it or who burn hazardous waste in boilers or industrial
furnaces for any recycling purpose and elect to be regulated
under the subpart. Thus, the specified technology of "INCIN"
does apply in these circumstances.
20. The Agency intended that the requirements of section
268.42(c)(3) (the requirement that lab packs are incinerated in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O,
and Part 265, Subpart 0), not allow burning in boilers and
industrial furnaces. The Agency intends that such lab packs be
incinerated in units subject to the performance standards of 40
CFR 264.343 or 265.343.
22. Th« question seems to center around the fact that
incineration is required for certain P and U codes, but when
these specific wastes are constituents in listed wastes,
incineration may not be required. The question asked is whether
a performance standard (concentration-based standard)
automatically exempts a waste from incineration (treatment
standard expressed as a method). The fact that a concentration-
based standard is specified does not automatically "exempt" a
waste from incineration; in many cases, incineration may be the
only technology that will achieve the concentration levels. When
-------
a concentration level is specified, however, there is no
requirement that incineration must be used. As far as the
concern about air emissions, for the P and U wastes for which
incineration was specified, the Agency has reason to believe that
they will pose a significant air emission risk. Very few of
these P and U wastes are found as constituents in listed wastes;
when they are, it is much more difficult to determine the air
emission risk for the listed waste matrix than it is for the
listed P and U waste which is more likely to be an industrial
grade chemical.
E. EFFECTIVE DATES
24. The question is when is the TCLP allowed for
characterizing wastes for purposes of the land disposal
restrictions. The EP should be used to characterize wastes for
purposes of hazard determination in order to see if they are
restricted under the Third Third final rule. This is true even
after the TC final rule becomes effective on September 25, 1990.
EPA interprets the statute such that wastes that exhibit the
toxicity characteristic by the TCLP but not by the EP are not
presently prohibited because such wastes are newly identified
pursuant to RCRA section 3004(g)(4).
25. The question is whether RCRA corrective action wastes
and CERCLA cleanup wastes should be granted a national capacity
variance in the Third Third final rule, because such capacity
variances were granted in the First and Second Third rules.
The questioner is mistaken that national capacity variances were
granted for RCRA/CERCLA actions in the First and Second Third
final rules; no such variances were granted. Rather, national
capacity variances were granted for soil and debris contaminated
with First and Second Third wastes for which BDAT was
incineration. A similar national capacity variance was granted
in the Third Third final rule for soil and debris contaminated
with Third Third wastes for which BDAT is incineration,
vitrification, or mercury retorting.
26. The request is for an update on the status of K061 high
zinc waste, as to whether it received an additional one-year
variance in the Third Third final rule. Please see the
discussion in the preamble at page 22599. Stabilization remains
a permissible way of treating this waste for one additional year.
If stabilisation is used, the concentration-based standard must
be met.
F. IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE WASTE RESTRICTIONS
27. The questioner believes that there is an inconsistency
between amended 40 CFR 262.11 (that indicates, it is asserted, a
generator must determine if his waste is characteristic UNLESS it
is listed), and amended 40 CFR Part 261 (which requires that the
-------
determination of hazardous characteristic be made for all waste).
There is no actual inconsistency between these parts of the
regulation. Amended section 262.11 actually states two
circumstances that will indicate whether the determination of
hazardous characteristic must be made: (1) for purposes of
compliance with 40 CFR Part 268 (since no further conditions are
specified, the determination must be made for all solid wastes
regardless of whether or not they are listed hazardous wastes)
or, (2) if the waste is not a listed hazardous waste (this
includes wastes that are not subject to the land disposal
restrictions so the determination must be made only for solid
wastes, not listed wastes).
28. An issue is raised in regard to a perceived discrepancy
between the requirements of 40 CFR 268.35(j) and 268.9(b)
regarding the rule that when a waste is a listed waste and^a
characteristic waste, the more specific treatment standard"
applies. The Agency has determined that treatment standards that
are in effect for listed wastes are more specific than treatment
standards in effect for characteristic wastes. The perceived
discrepancy arises when the treatment standard for the listed
waste is less stringent than the treatment standard for the
characteristic waste, as is the case in the example of chromium
in F006 (for which the treatment standard is 5.2 ppm) and EP
toxic chromium (for which the treatment standard is the
characteristic level of 5.0 ppm). The question is which
treatment standard should be met for chromium in F006, the more
specific, or the more stringent. The rule that the more specific
treatment standard is applicable takes precedence, thus the
treatment standard for chromium in F006 is 5.2 ppm, because -it is
the treatment standard for the listed (more specific) waste.
Thus, the Agency sees no discrepancy between section 268.9(b) and
section 268.35(j).
29. A request is made for an explanation of how to classify
wastes as either characteristic wastes or listed wastes (when the
waste is considered both characteristic and listed) for purposes
of the notifications required under 40 CFR Part 268.7.
In the case of a listed waste that is classified as a
characteristic waste, the most specific treatment standard
applies (55 FR 22659) and should be included on the notification.
This means that if both the treatment standard for a listed waste
and the treatment standard for a characteristic waste are in
effect, then the treatment standard for the listed waste applies
because it i» more specific.
An example is presented of the listed waste K061, which
contains lead. Since the treatment standards for K061 are
currently in effect, the lead is subject to the K061 treatment
standard rather than the treatment standard for EP toxic lead.
The question is asked whether only the K061 waste code is
included on the generator's biennial report and manifests, or
8
-------
should both K061 and D008 (EP toxic lead) be included. Only the
K061 waste code should be included on the generator's biennial
report because the K061 treatment standard is more specific.
Also, since K061 includes a treatment standard for lead,
including the D008 waste code on the biennial report would cause
a double-counting of the volume of lead waste actually being
generated. Only the K061 waste code would be included on the
notification required under 40 CFR 268.7 (as well as all other
information required under section 268.7(a) (1)). Only the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) description is required en the
manifest; there is no Federal requirement to list the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number.
If the treatment standard for the listed waste is subject to
an extension of the effective date (through a national capacity
variance or case-by-case extension) and the treatment standard
for the characteristic waste is in effect, then the treatment
standard for the characteristic waste applies because it is the
only standard that it is currently in effect. An example is
presented of the listed wastes K048 - K052, which contain
chromium. K048 - K052 wastes are subject to a six-month national
capacity variance; consequently, the treatment standards would
not be in effect until November 8, 1990. The treatment standard
for EP toxic chromium is effective on August 8, 1990. During the
period from May 8, 1990 until August 8, 1990, the waste is not
subject to any treatment standards due to the three-month
national capacity variance that was granted for all Third Third
wastes. Therefore, the notification would include the applicable
K048.- K052 waste code and the date'upon which the waste is
subject to the prohibitions (November 8, 1990), and all other
information required under section 268.7(a)(3). The notification
would also include the D007 waste code and the date upon which
the waste is subject to the prohibitions (August 8, 1990), and
all other information required under section 268.7(a)(3).
During the period from August 8, 1990 until November 8,
1990, the waste is subject to the treatment standard for EP toxic
chromium since the effective date for this waste has passed (the
K048 - K052 treatment standard is still not in effect). The
notification would include the applicable K048 -K052 waste code
and the date upon which the waste is subject to the prohibitions
(November 8, 1990) as well as the D007 waste code and all other
information required under section 268.7(a)(l). The waste, of
course, mamt be treated to meet the D007 treatment standard prior
to land disposal. When the effective date for the K048 - K052
wastes has passed (November 8, 1990), the waste will be governed
by the waste code and treatment standards for the K048 - K052
wastes, since these treatment standards are now more specific,
and the D007 waste code may be omitted from the notification.
EPA points out, however, that when the listed waste displays
a characteristic that is not addressed as a constituent of
-------
concern in the listed waste, the treatment standard for both the
listed waste and the characteristic waste must be met (55 FR
22659). EPA applies this principle at the point of generation.
Therefore, both the characteristic and the listed waste codes
must be included on the notification.
31. Please see answer numcer 29.
32. The question is whether on September 25, 1990 (the
effective date of the TC final rule for large quantity
generators) a waste that becomes hazardous solely due to the
change from EP testing to TCLP testing is subject to the
treatment standards. Wastes that exhibit the TCLP characteristic
but not EP toxicity are considered to be newly identified wastes..
Newly identified hazardous wastes are not subject to the land
disposal restrictions until treatment standards and prohibitions
are promulgated by the Agency. This should not be considered an
'exemption' that one may or may not take advantage of; rather,
newly identified wastes are a category of wastes that are subject
to the schedule for promulgation of regulations found at RCRA
section 3004(g)(4).
33. The question concerns the status under the land
disposal restrictions of wastes that were previously exempted
from the definition of hazardous wastes under the Bevill
amendment. These wastes are considered to be newly identified
wastes no matter when they may be generated. See also answer
number 32. Both of these matters were discussed explicitly in
the preamble to the final Third Third rule at pages 22660 and
22667.
G. INORGANIC SOLID DEBRIS
37. This question asks whether a material that is mixed
with nonwastevater materials (such as soil) and defined as
inorganic solid debris is subject to the treatment standard for
the nonwastevater material. An example is given of a soil and
cement debris mixture that carries the D006 waste code. In the
example, the material is stabilized such that the solid fraction
meets the treatment standard. In response to the question of
whether the inorganic debris portion would be subject to the D006
treatment standard, it is difficult to determine from the example
provided how the waste is being treated, so it is difficult to
formulate an answer. It is unclear how this mixture of soil and
debris could be stabilized to meet the treatment standard for
D006 unless the cement debris was first crushed and mixed with
the soil and then the soil/debris mixture was stabilized. If
that is the case, then the debris is subject to the D006
treatment standard because it has become part of the soil matrix
and the soil is subject to the D006 treatment standard.
10
-------
The next question is whether the inorganic solid debris is
subject to enforcement grab sampling for the purpose of testing
the mix for meeting the treatment standards. Here again, the
debris portion would of course be subject to grab sampling for
purposes of enforcing the treatment standards (because the
stabilized soil would be subject to grab sampling for enforcement
purposes). It should be remembered, however, that if the debris
portion is separated from the soil, the debris is subject to a
two-year national capacity variance as "inorganic debris."
Inorganic debris is not required to meet the D006 treatment
standard until the effective date of May 8, 1992 (however, the
notification requirements of 268.7(a)(3) apply, and if the debris
is disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment, the unit must
meet the minimum technological requirements).
38. The question posed is whether any organics (hazardous
or nonhazardous) may be included in the classification of""
inorganic solid debris. Nonhazardous organic materials are not
precluded from inclusion in the waste matrix, provided the
material meets the definition of "inorganic solid debris" in
section 268.2.
H. WASTE TRACKING
39. A scenario is presented where a characteristic waste is
treated to below the characteristic level but the treated waste
is sent to a Subtitle C land disposal facility. The question
posed is whether the generator must notify the Agency as would be
required if the waste were disposed at a Subtitle 0 facility.
The answer is no; the notification should only be sent to the
Subtitle C facility. Please see the preamble discussion at page
22662.
40. The Agency is presuming that in the scenario presented,
a facility has a permit that includes a narrative description
that allows disposal of incinerator ash. If this is the case,
then the facility should be able to take any incinerator ash,
whether it is from the incineration of Third Third wastes or not.
In fact, EPA has encouraged the appropriate use of narrative
descriptions in permits to address situations just like the one
presented here. The question, however, is somewhat vague and
would actually depend upon the wording of the specific permit
language.
41. The question asked is how often must notifications for
treated characteristic wastes (presumably that are disposed of in
a Subtitle D facility) be sent to the Regional Administrator.
Such notifications must be sent with each shipment. Please see
section 268.9(d). As to whether the notification is waste stream
specific, it is unclear exactly what is being asked. The
information that must be provided in the notification is
specified in section 268.9(d), and includes a description of the
11
-------
waste as initially generated, including the applicable EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers and treatability group; in this sense,
the notification is waste stream specific.
I. LAB PACKS
42. Clarification is requested on whether the simplified
lab pack procedures set out in the Third Third final rule include
burning in cement kilns. Cement kilns are not included under the
new lab pack procedures. Rather, the simplified lab pack
procedures only apply if the lab pack is burned in an incinerator
in accordance with the performance standards set out in 40 CFR
264.343 (see section 268.42, Table 1, under "INCIN") .
J. UNDERGROUND INJECTION
43. Since this question pertains to the land disposal
restrictions program for underground injected waste, we will be
working with the Office of Water to prepare a response. Should
you need guidance in the meantime, please contact Bruce Kobelski
at 382-7275.
K. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
44. In response to the question of when a prohibited waste
may be placed into a surface impoundment meeting minimum
technology requirements (MTR) , such a waste may be placed in a
MTR unit if it: (1) meets all applicable treatment standards; (2)
is subject to a national capacity variance or case by case
extension; or, (3) is subject to the treatment surface
impoundment exemption of 40 CFR Part 268.4. The next question is
whether a restricted waste not meeting the treatment standards
may be stored in a such a surface impoundment for up to one year
provided that all residuals not meeting the treatment standards
are removed within that year. The answer is no. Storage of
hazardous wastes is only allowable in tanks or containers;
placement of untreated hazardous waste into a unit for purposes
of storage is actually land disposal and is therefore prohibited
(unless section 268.4 is complied with). Please see RCRA section
45. In response to the question of whether F039 that is
placed in 9 permitted tank and is then pumped to a carbon
adsorptiont .unit and then back to the tank is considered treatment
in a tank, the answer is yes. The treatment process described
may be subject to the requirements of section 262.34, including
the new waste analysis requirements of section 268.7, rather than
the requirements of 40 CFR Part 264. A determination of how to
classify this treatment process would best be made by Regional or
State permit writers who are familiar with the specifics of the
site.
12
-------
I trust these answers will be helpful in dealing with the
concerns of your membership. Since these answers were developed
in a short period of time, the answers provided in this document
represent the Agency's initial interpretation of the situation
described by each question, and do not necessarily reflect the
Agency's final position. Answers to many of your questions will
appear in the forthcoming corrections notice to the Third Third
final rule. If you have any further questions, please feel free
to call Matthew A. Straus of my staff at (202) 382-6972.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
13
-------
UNITED Sl^.ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Ac.<4CY
9554.1990(09)
AU6 13 B90
Mr. Phillip L. Cornelia
Senior Counsel
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
3001 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Dear Mr. Cornelia:
This letter is in response to your letter dated July 13,
1990, concerning the final Third Third Rule. In your letter, you
presented an example of a soil that is contaminated with U059,
P093, and K001 and that exhibits the characteristic of lead
(D008) . As you stated in your letter, U059 and P093 are Third
Third wastes and are subject to a technology-based standard of
incineration. K001 is a First Third Waste with a numerical
treatment standard based on incineration followed by
stabilization of the ash. 0008 is a Third Third waste with a
numerical treatment standard based on stabilization. You have
asked the following questions:
1. Because no capacity variance exists past August 8, 1990
for D008 wastes, must the soil be stabilized to meet
the 0008 treatment standard?
2. Because the K001 soil and debris variance expires
August 8, 1990, must the soil be incinerated and then
the resulting ash stabilized after that date?
3. If the soil did not contain K001, must the soil be
stabilized?
The response to your first question is that the soil would
not need to be stabilized in order to meet the treatment standard
for 0008 wastes. On page 22650 of the June 1, 1990 Federal
Register notice, the Agency specifically states that if soil and
debris are contaminated with Third Third prohibited wastes whose
treatment standard is based on incineration (for example U059 and
P093) and also with other prohibited waste whose treatment
standard is based on an available type of technology (for example
0008), the soil and debris would remain eligible for the
national capacity variance. Therefore, in vour example the soil
would remavn eligible for a capacity variance.
-------
^ ~ ^ ^ " WrTEDS^.ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTKDN Aw.NCY
In response to your second question, the soil would have to
be treated to meet the K001 treatment standard for the organics
and metals after August 8, 1990. In response to your third
question, if the soil was not contaminated with K001, then the
soil would not have to be treated and would remain eligible for
the national capacity variance. During a national capacity
variance, if these wastes are disposed of in a landfill that unit
would have to meet the minimum technological requirements as
described in 3004(o).
Also, in your letter, you requested a clarification of
whether the contaminated soil in question remains eligible for
only the U059 and P093 variance or whether it also has a variance
from the D008 treatment standard. You asked this question due to
the preamble language on page 22660 stating that, for wastes that
are subject to more than one treatment standard, during the
period of a national capacity variance for one of the wastes, the
treatment standards for any other waste codes that have not
received such a variance must be met. The answer is that the
Agency does distinguish between a contaminated soil and debris
and other prohibited wastes. The example the Agency presents on
page 22660 is only for listed wastes not for contaminated soil
and debris. The Agency does not believe that adequate capacity
exists to treat soil and debris. Therefore, a soil contaminated
with U059, P093, and D008 would be eligible for the capacity
variance but a sludge or listed waste that is contaminated with
U059, P093, and D008 would have to be treated in order to comply
with the treatment standard for D008.
If you should have any further questions, please do not
hesitate to call Monica Chatmon-McEaddy, of my staff, at
475-7243.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9554.1990(10)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY.RESPONSE
Mr. Douglas MacMillan, Director
Hazardous Waste Policy
National Solid Wastes Management Association
Suite 1000
1730 Rhode Island Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. MacMillan:
In light of a question that has arisen about the responses
to questions 21 and 42 in our letters to you of July 31 and
August 8, 1990, I an sending this clarification to ensure that no
misunderstanding exists about EPA's current position. Our
responses to questions 21 and 42 indicated that where EPA has
specified a particular technology as the treatment standard,
wastes governed by that standard must be treated using that
method. If the specified method is incineration, this requires
treatment in a device subject to the 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart O
regulations, or a device that makes the equivalency demonstration
under 40 CFR 268.42.
This response is consistent with prior EPA pronouncements,
such as the preamble to the Third Third rule (see, for example,
55 FR 22536, June 1, 1990). However, our responses to questions
21 and 42 may be misinterpreted because our statement on
treatment standards and equivalency demonstrations addresses only
prohibited waste; it does not address restricted waste sent to a
device that is exempt under the Bevill amendment. A restricted
waste sent to a Bevill device would not be prohibited so long as
the residues from the waste processing remain within the scope of
the Bevill amendment (55 FR 22660-61).
As EPA indicated in the proposal to regulate boilers and
industrial furnaces (54 FR 43718, Oct. 26, 1989), we will
examine the issue of how to determine if residues from co-
processing Bevill raw materials and hazardous waste remain within
the scope of any Bevill amendment exclusion. Also, please note
that wastes sent to a Bevill device are still subject to the
administrative tracking requirements for restricted wastes under
the land disposal restrictions, but would not have to meet a
specified BDAT standard before land disposal (55 FR 22662).
Prinud at Rieycttd Paptr
-------
I trust that this clarification removes any uncertainty that
may have arisen from our earlier responses. If you have further
questions, please feel free to call Matthew A. Straus of my staff
at (202)382-6972.
Sincerely,
K. Lovran&e /TJTrector
ffice of Solid Waste
-------
9554.1990(11)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AU624S90
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Keith D. Colanarino
Senior Project Engineer
REMCOR, Inc.
701 Alpha Drive
P. 0. Box 38310
Pittsburgh, PA 15238-83iO
Dear Mr. Colanarino:
In your letter of August 10, 1990, you expressed concern
with regard to the correction notice in the August 2, 1990
Federal Register (55 FR 31387). The statement which you quoted
from page 31388 of the August 2 notice is somewhat misleading.
The statement should have said that the Extraction Procedure (EP)
will no longer be used for hazardous waste identification
purposes.
As you are aware, the treatment standards for certain lead
and arsenic waste were based on the EP, and therefore, either the
EP or the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) can
currently be used to demonstrate compliance under Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) for D006 (arsenic) and D008 (lead) wastes.
Since the EP can still be used for this purpose, it is so noted
in the regulatory language of the LDR regulation.
Currently, the Waste Treatment Branch is amending the
regulatory language of the May 8, 1990 Third Third final rule
(55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990) to resolve this issue. This will be
done as part of a correction notice that will state that Appendix
I of Part 268 (TCLP) or SW-846 test method 1310 (EP) may be used
for measuring compliance. This correction notice is expected to
be published in the Federal Register before the end of the year.
Until the CFR is revised, the EP can be found in current CFR
(Part 261, App. II) and as Method 1310 in SW-846, "Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste (Physical/Chemical Methods)," Third
Edition; thereafter, the EP can readily be found only in SW-846.
frinud at Rteycttd Paptr
-------
I hope that this letter resolves any inconsistencies created
by the August 2 correction notice. If you would like to discuss
this further or have other concerns, please contact the
Characteristics Section of the Office of Solid Waste at
(202) 475-8551.
Sine
'Office of Solid Waste
-2-
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
9554.1990(12)
AUGUST 1990
2. Point of Generation
Two process units, one producing a strong acidic solution with a pH less
than 2.0 and another producing a strong basic solution with a pH greater
than 12.0, are individually joined by short lengths of pipe to a common
collecting pipe. These solutions, upon contact, neutralize one another.
This co-mingled wastestream no longer exhibits the characteristic of
corrosivity. Would this waste be considered hazardous and subject to land
disposal restrictions or, due to its neutral status only be subject to RCRA
Subtitle D regulation?
The facts as given show two hazardous wastes with the characteristic
of corrosivity. The points of generation are both upstream of the
combination in the common collecting pipes. These wastes are
subject to the land disposal restrictions. Removing the characteristic
of corrosivity by combining these wastes can satisfy the treatment
requirement of deactivation set out in 40 CFR 268.42, Table 2.
Dilution may not be appropriate if there are other treatment
requirements for the waste matrices. See 55 FR 22549, 22659 (June 1,
1990). The commingled wastestream, if not otherwise hazardous, is
not subject to any other Subtitle C regulations, including permitting.
Contact: Debbie Wood, OSW (202)382-7937
Research: Steve Baker
-------
UNITED aTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO,, AGENCY 9554.1990(13)
i-
-------
The DOT requirements at 49 CFR 173.12 presents criteria to
be used in selecting a proper outside package. Paragraph (b) of
49 CFR 173.12 states:
The outside packaging must be a DOT specification
metal or fiber drum. It may also be a
polyethylene drum capable of withstanding:
1. The vibration and compression tests specified
in 178.19-7(c)(1) and (2), and
2. A four foot drop test as specified in
178.224-2(b).
The Agency found the commenters1 argument about the danger
posed by opening metal drums and emptying inner containers prior
to incineration persuasive. The Agency agreed that if fiber
drums were used, the entire lab pack unit could be incinerated.
Furthermore, the Agency agreed that the DOT requirements for the
structural integrity of fiber drums would assure that lab packs
were transported in a safe container to incinerators. Therefore,
the provision was made in 40 CFR 264.316(f) and 265.316(f) that
fiber drums were acceptable, and the reference to 49 CFR 173.12
was incorporated into these sections.
As to a clarification of 49 CFR 173.12, it is the Agency.'s
understanding that when DOT regulations specify drums, that is
indeed what is meant. Thus, fiber or wooden boxes or other
containers not meeting the DOT specifications in 49 CFR Parts 178
— 199 for fiber drums may not be used as outer containers for
lab packs. The DOT specifications, however, include several
types of fiber drums, and any of these would be acceptable as
outer containers for lab packs.
Additionally, you request clarification of the effect the
performance packaging specifications proposed in HM181 will have
on lab packs when they are implemented in December of 1990.
Based on the Agency's understanding of the proposed
specifications, they should have very little impact on the lab
pack requirements. The performance-oriented packaging provisions
will specify criteria for fiber drums (as well as other DOT outer
containers) based on the DOT hazard classification of the
materials being transported (e.g., flammable liquids). The DOT
expects that such criteria will add flexibility to the
requirements for outer containers inasmuch as they may be built
in any design, or of various materials, so long as they meet the
criteria for that particular hazard classification. As to the
expected effect the performance-oriented packaging provisions
will have on lab packs, the Agency foresees that the generator
may be required to give additional attention to packing only
wastes that fit within one DOT hazard classification in the lab
pack; however, given that all the wastes included in the
Appendices to 40 CFR 268 are capable of being incinerated, the
-------
Agency expects that most of these wastes will fall within one or
two of the DOT hazardous classifications (i.e., flammable
liquids, flammable solids).
I hope this letter clarifies the meaning of "fiber drum" as
it pertains to lab packs regulated under the land disposal
restrictions. If additional information is needed about current
DOT specifications for fiber drums, the DOT hazard
classifications, or proposed HM181, please contact DOT directly.
If additional information is needed about the alternative
treatment standards for lab packs, please call Rhonda Craig of
EPA's Waste Treatment Branch at (703) 308-8434.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
^"""v
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9554.1990(14)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
DCC
->--j
Mr. Kevin S. Dunn
Project Manager
Environmental Policy Center
Law Companies Environmental Group
1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 711
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Dunn:
This letter is in response to your letter dated
November 16, 1990 requesting clarification on certain issues
regarding treatment standards for certain mixed radioactive
wastes.
With regards to Question 1 (as referred to in your letter) ,
"placement in a heavy stainless steel box and welding the box
closed" would not be considered to comply with the standard
identified as "MACRO" in 268.42 Table 1 (55 IB 22693 (June 1,
1990) . This standard is quite clearly described in regulatory
language in Table 1 as "Macroencapsulation with surface coating
materials such as polymeric organics (e.g., resins and plastics)
or with a jacket of inert inorganic materials to substantially
reduce surface exposure to potential leaching media. Macro-
encapsulation specifically does not include any material that
would be classified as a tank or container according to 40 CFR
260.10" (emphasis added). Paraphrasing the regulatory language,
compliance with the macroencapsulation standard explicitly
prohibits containerization of wastes or materials in a tank or
container meeting the regulatory criteria under the 40 CFR
260.10.
This, is not the same situation as where the U.S. Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program wanted to. land dispose defueled
submarine reactor compartments. The information provided by the
Navy indicated that the "jacket of inert inorganic materials"
(i.e., the steel surrounding the lead) could "substantially
reduce surface exposure to potential leaching media" and that
due to their size and structure these compartments would not be
classified as a tank or container according to the definitions
in 40 CFR 260.10. EPA purposely modified the proposed standard
for D008 radioactive lead solids to include "jackets of inor-
ganic materials" in order to specifically account for these
submarine reactor compartments. EPA felt that it was necessary
-------
- 2 -
to add the language to the definition of macroencapsulation to
prevent the "jacket of inorganic material" from being
interpreted as including materials that are merely containers or
drums.
With regards to the plastic coated, lead lined gloves in
Question 2 of your letter, they would be considered to comply
with the standard identified as "MACRO" provided that none of
the lead is exposed (i.e., the entire surface of the lead is
coated) and provided that the coating provides a substantial
reduction in surface exposure to potential leaching media (i.e.,
the. gloves should not be expected to be exposed to physical,
chemical, or thermal conditions where the integrity of the
surface coating could likely be breached). with regards to the
lead weights in Question 2. the wastes may be considered to meet
the specified method of "MACRO", as generated, provided the
stainless steel surrounding the lead weights does not meet the
definition of a tank or container and provided a substantial
reduction in surface exposure to potential leaching media can be
determined.
The standard identified as "MACRO" currently applies only
to D008 wastes fitting the description of "Radioactive Lead
Solids" as defined in Table 3 of 268.42 (55 IB 22700, (June 1,
1990)) (e.g., those wastes containing elemental lead forms of
lead or that act specifically as radioactive shielding). This
standard is currently not applicable to the 0006 wastes referred
to in Question 3. These D006 wastes would have to comply with
the concentration-based standard for D006 which is based on a
TCLP analysis. Verification of compliance with this standard
would require crushing or grinding of the material and
compliance cannot be achieved by dilution. Thus, macroencapsu-
lation processes would not comply with existing BOAT standards
for metals.
Other than a treatability variance your D006 waste may be
macroencapsulated if a no-migration petition is granted. As of
today, EPA had only granted a two-year capacity variance for
mixed wastes from the statutory deadline prohibiting the
disposal of mixed wastes scheduled in the First, Second, and
Third Third wastes. Previous capacity variances issued for
mixed wastes scheduled in the Solvent and Dioxin Rule and the
California List Wastes Rule had expired and thus, these mixed
wastes are banned from land disposal units unless they meet the
promulgated treatment standards.
-------
I trust this letter addresses all your concerns and
clarifies any outstanding issues you may have had on the
applicability of the treatment standard identified as "MACRO".
If you need further clarification, please contact Richard Kinch,
Chief of the Waste Treatment Branch, at (703) 308-8434.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 2 6 1990
Of f iCE Of
SOLiO WASTE AMOEMERGENCv BES»ONS£
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Consultation with Region V on ARAR Waiver for Moss
American Site
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia/YlGiSponse
TO: Norman Niedergang, Associate Director,
Waste Management Division, Region V
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to follow-up the
consultation held with Region V on August 28, 1990, on the Moss
American Site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The purpose of the
consultation was to discuss a waiver of the Subtitle C
impermeable cap required for on-site containment of RCRA K001
(wood preserving wastes) treatment residues. Based on our
discussion, Region V will waive the Subtitle C cap because a
permeable cap will enhance ground-water treatment.
Another issue raised by Region V during the consultation
concerns whether disposal of treated wastes from the Northeast
Landfill area of the site must occur in a unit meeting the
minimum technological requirements of RCRA. This memorandum
clarifies that these wastes may be disposed in the existing unit
(area of contamination) across the river from the Northeast
Landfill, which, after receipt of the treated wastes will be
closed, and RCRA standards that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) will be attained (unless a
statutory waiver is justified). Such consolidation does not
trigger the minimum technological requirements of RCRA.
Background
Region V is seeking a waiver from the requirement to install
a Subtitle C impermeable cap on a landfill that will contain KOOl
RCRA wastes treated to meet the treatment standards under the
land disposal restrictions (through a treatability variance). A
permeable cap will enhance ground-water treatment while
preventing direct contact with treatment residues. The permeable
cap will enable ground-water treatment to occur in a period of
d on
-------
seven to ten years rather than 200 years, the estimated timeframe
necessary if an impermeable cap is installed. Because of the
unique site characteristics and the remedy selected, installation
of a Subtitle C impermeable cap, therefore, would result in
greater risk to health and the environment by preventing natural
flushing and significantly delaying and reducing the
effectiveness of ground-water remediation. The Region should
include performance standards in the Record of Decision (ROD) to
verify the protectiveness of the remedy.
During the consultation, Region V also raised a question
related to disposal of K001 waste from the Northeast Landfill
area of contamination. The Region intends to move these wastes
(approximately 1000 cubic yards) across the Little Menomonee
River, treat them in compliance with the land disposal
restrictions (through a treatability variance), dispose of them
on-site in an existing unit (the area of contamination (AOC)
southwest of the rivejr), and clean close the Northeast Landfill
area. Based on its understanding of the RCRA closure
requirements, the Region had proposed disposing of these wastes
in a unit meeting the minimum technological requirements of RCRA
in the Proposed Plan for the site.
The Region questioned this requirement during the
consultation due to the resulting effect: a hazardous waste
landfill meeting the minimum technological requirements of RCRA
would be constructed in a previously uncontaminated area of the
site, next to an existing unit meeting RCRA ARARs, and both units
would contain K001 wastes treated to the same levels.
Specifically, the Region's question concerns whether disposal of
the Northeast Landfill waste must occur in a minimum
technological unit under the RCRA closure requirements, or
whether the waste may be disposed in the existing unit/AOC,
which, upon closure, will attain (or waive) RCRA ARARs.
Since the consultation, it has been determined that the
Northeast Landfill waste may be disposed in the existing unit/AOC
without triggering the minimum technological requirements of
RCRA. Such disposal may occur because the AOC is an existing
unit1 and does not meet the definition of any of the following
units which Bust meet the minimum technological requirements: a
new unit, a unit that has been laterally expanded, or a
replacement unit. It is clear that the original area of
contamination is not a new unit, nor is it being laterally
expanded. The question, then, is whether the unit would be
considered a replacement unit.
See preamble to 1990 NCP, 55 FR 8760 (March 8, 1990).
("EPA believes that it is appropriate generally to consider
CERCLA areas of contamination as a single RCRA land-based unit or
'landfill'.")
-------
A replacement unit is defined as a unit "that is taken out
of service and emptied by removing all or substantially all waste
from it." (50 FR 28706, July 15, 1985)2 The existing unit/AOC at
the Moss American site would only be considered a replacement
unit if all or significantly all of the waste had been removed
from the unit and new waste subsequently disposed there. The
intent of a replacement unit is that once a unit has been taken
out of service and the waste removed, before the unit may be put
back into service, the unit must be retrofit to meet the minimum
technological requirements.
The existing unit/AOC at the Moss American site, therefore,
does not fit the definition or intent of a replacement unit.
Rather, the waste in the existing unit/AOC will be treated in
batches using bioremediation (in compliance with the land
disposal restrictions) and returned to the unit which will later
be closed, and RCRA ARARs will be attained (or waived). Wastes
from the Northeast Landfill area will also be treated and
consolidated with the wastes in the existing unit/AOC. This
consolidation will occur in an existing unit (the original area
of contamination), without lateral expansion of the unit.
Furthermore, this AOC will not fit the definition of a new or
replacement unit, as discussed above. The status of the existing
unit/AOC will not change, and therefore will not be required to
meet the minimum technological requirements.
Implementation
Based on our discussion, the Region will waive the
requirement to install a Subtitle C impermeable cap based on
greater risk to health and the environment, and will emphasize in
the Record of Decision that the permeable cap actually acts as
part of the treatment system, enhancing its effectiveness.
CERCLA guidance defines as a replacement unit, an existing
unit where: "(1) the unit is taken out of service; (2) all or
substantially all of the waste is removed; and (3) the unit is
reused, which does not include removal and replacement of waste
into the same unit." OSWZR Directive No. 9234.2-04FS (October
1989), "RCRA ARARs," page 6.
-------
The Region will also state in the ROD that the Kortheast
Landfill wastes will be disposed in the original area of
contamination in compliance with the land disposal restrictions
cc: John Kelley (Region V, RERB)
Jon Dikinis (Region V, MI/WI Section)
Doug Ballotti (Region V, Unit 39)
Betty Lavis (Region V, RPM)
Paul Nadeau (HSCD)
Bill Hanson (ROGB)
Tin Mott (OWPE)
Robin Anderson (ROGB)
Steve Golian (ROGB)
Andrea MeLaugh1in (ROGB)
Ernest Watkins (OWPE)
-------
^ STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT,-.* AGENCY
9554.1991(01)
JAN 8 1991
Richard J. Pastor
Director, Government Relations
Envirosafe Mgt. Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 833
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482-0833
Dear Mr. Pastor:
This letter is in response to your letter dated October 25,
1990, concerning a possible inconsistency in the Agency's policy
on the regulation of cyanides under the Land Disposal Restrictions
Program of RCRA. In particular, you indicated specific instances
where you believe the Agency has been inconsistent in its position
on the use of stabilization for wastes containing cyanides. I
hope that this letter will help to clarify this matter. In that
vein, I would like to review the points you raised in some detail,
and to provide an explanation of our views, particularly as to the
full meaning of preamble language in the Land Disposal Restriction
rules.
First, you referred to the promulgation of the First Third
Land Disposal Restrictions (53 FR 31152) for F006 wastes, where
the Agency stated that the treatment standards for F006 were based
on stabilization using cement kiln dust and that the use of other
agents in the stabilization process is not precluded. Then you
noted the statement that EPA does not consider stabilization an
appropriate BOAT for cyanides. While you did not discuss these
references any further, you seemed to imply that when compared to
each other*, an inconsistent policy on cyanides could be seen.
However, a closer examination, of the First Third Land
Disposal Restrictions shows that the Agency did establish
treatment standards based on stabilization, but only for the
metals contained in FQ06. (Note: The First Third LDR rule
-------
promulgated treatment standards for cyanides in F006 wastes as
"reserved"). The preamble for F006 wastes (53 FR 31152, column
3) specifies the Agency's position on stabilization of cyanides
in F006 wastes versus stabilization of metals by stating; "EPA
does not consider stabilization—BOAT for the metals in this
waste—to be a demonstrated technology for the treatment of
cyanide." This statement is, to my reading, an accurate
reflection of EPA's current position.
Your letter also emphasized some of the Agency's language in
the Second Third LDR rule (54 FR 26609) as follows: "The Agency
does not agree with commenters that stabilization is an applicable
technology for the treatment of the majority of cyanide wastes.
While some data may indicate that stabilization processes appear
to reduce the leachability of some forms of cyanides, the Agency
contends that destruction of cyanide is clearly a preferred
treatment method." Your added emphasis appears to imply that the
Agency was trying to indicate a degree of uncertainty about its
position. Your letter then quotes a later section of the preamble
as follows: "... based on the review of the available treatment
data, the Agency believes that the conventional cyanide treatment
technologies provide substantial treatment of both the amenable
and total cyanide concentrations as measured by the cyanide
amenable to chlorination test in method 9010 (EPA Publication SW-
846."
Emphasis of these passages appears to give the impression
that the Agency was stressing the use of the test method to meet
the numerical treatment standard as being more important than
destroying the cyanide. However, the language that directly
precedes the emphasized phrase sheds light on how to read the
quoted passage, i.e., that the Agency believes that conventional
cyanide treatment technologies provide the necessary treatment to
achieve these standards. This is in agreement with the
legislative history (cited in our preamble and your letter) that
"destruction of total cyanides would be required as a precondition
to land disposal."
Certainly, the Agency is on record as saying that "other
technologies that can achieve these concentration based standards
are not precluded from use." However, this statement cannot be
taken alone, and all other applicable regulatory language must be
considered. In particular, section 268.3(a) states that "... no
generator, transporter, handler, or owner or operator of a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility shall dilute a restricted
waste as a substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance
-------
with subpart D of this part, ... ." Given the Agency's firm
position that cyanides must be destroyed and that stabilization,
as cyanide treatment, is considered impermissible dilution based
on the current lack of substantive evidence of cyanide destruction
in the stabilization process, use of general statements to
contradict specific determinations on BOAT standards is not the
appropriate reading of our intentions.
Your letter also refers to a letter dated June 13, 1990, from
Douglas Mac Millan of NSWMA to Richard Kinoh of EPA. The example
referred to in your letter as question number 15 is really NSWMA's
question number 17, a hypothetical situation for stabilization of
cyanides not supported by any submitted data. Our July 31, 1990,
response was that "destruction of cyanides is a precondition for
land disposal" and that the situation presented in question number
17 "is not permissible because stabilization is not an applicable
technology for the treatment of cyanide wastes." I have enclosed
a copy of EPA's response.
The Agency has established a treatment standard for the
majority of cyanide wastes at 590 mg/kg total cyanides based on
data from well-designed, well-operated cyanide destruction tech-
nologies. (Lower standards have been established for a few
cyanide wastes.) As noted in the administrative record for the
Second Third LDR Rule, data from certain land disposal facilities
indicate that the majority (85%) of F006 wastes were below the
original proposed treatment standard of 110 mg/kg total cyanides.
In fact very few wastes that were treated for cyanides indicated
total cyanides of 5,900 mg/kg (as in question 17) or as much as
1% (as in your intended waste acceptance policy). Perhaps these
cyanide wastes that you were considering for stabilization did not
receive efficient cyanide treatment in the first place.
Your reference to the "on-going" stabilization of F001, F002,
F003, F004, and F005 solvents does not really bear upon the
Agency's position on cyanides. Given what we consider to be a
clear indication of our position on the stabilization of cyanides
in regulatory discussions, the determinations of BOAT for these
solvents should not raise any indirect ambiquities on our separate
decisions for cyanide.
I trust that the fuller explanations above will assist you
in working with the treatment standards for cyanides as a pre-
cursor to land disposal. I encourage you to continue to discuss
this matter more fully with members of my staff if any questions
-------
still remain. In that event, I suggest that you contact Richard
Kinch, Acting Chief of the Waste Treatment Branch (703-308-8434).
I am certain that Envirosafe shares our concern about the safe and
effective treatment and disposal of cyanides. We look forward to
continued mutual efforts in this regard.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9554.1991(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 1991
1. Classification of Leachate Contaminated Ground Water
Hazardous waste migration from an active Subtitle C landfill has resulted in local
ground water contamination. As part of a corrective action at the facility, 400-
gallontof contaminated ground water are withdrawn from the uppermost aquifer
and will be sent off-site for underground injection. During the course of the clean-
up, thefacility determined that a leachate resulting from the disposal of a variety of
listed hazardous wastes is responsible for the contamination. In accordance with the
EPA "contained-in" policy, the ground water must be managed as a hazardous
waste, namely the leachate from the landfill For the purposes of compliance with
the Land Disposal Restrictions in 40 CFR Part 268, what hazardous waste
classification and treatment standard would apply to the ground water?
The leachate meets the definition of a multi-source leachate that is derived from
the treatment, storage or disposal of more than one listed waste, excluding F020-
F023 and F026-F028. In the Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions rule
promulgated on June 1,1990 (55 FR 22520), EPA announced its decision to
eliminate the practice of classifying multi-source leachate according to the
various listed wastes from which it was derived. In this rule, the Agency
established a separate treatability group for multi-source leachate, classified by
a single waste code, F039. (55 FR 22619) The effective date for this new
designation was August 8,1990, at which time the landfill facility was required
to classify its ground water, or more precisely, the multi-source leachate
contained in the ground water, as F039. (55 FR 22650)
Although the F039 waste classification became effective August 8,1990, EPA
granted a two-year national capacity variance until May 8,1992, for F039
wastewaters that are destined for underground injection (40 CFR Part 148.16).
The extension of the effective date was based upon EPA's assessment that
current treatment capacity for underground injected F039 wastewaters was
insufficient to require an immediate LDR prohibition effective date. (55 FR \
22646) During the period in which the variance is in effect, the F039 ground
water mixture, if disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment, must be
managed in a unit that satisfies the minimum technological standards in RCRA
Section 3004(o)(l)(A) [see 40 CFR 268.5(h)(2)]. After May 8,1992, the F039
ground water must meet the F039 treatment standards for all applicable
constituents as described in 40 CFR Part 268.43, Table CCW, prior to
underground injection. (55 FR 22623-22626)
»
Source: Rhonda Craig, OSW (703) 308-8462
Research: Karen Alex
-------
9554.1991(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 1991
l- Treatment of Reiniected Ground Water Resulting from RCRA Correctivg Artinn
For the purposes of RCRA corrective action, must all contaminated groundwater
that is withdrawn from an underlying drinking water aquifer be treated to BOAT
standards established in the land disposal restrictions (40 CFR Part 268) prior to
reinjection of the water into the same aquifer?
No. There are two provisions which potentially restrict or prohibit injection of
contaminated groundwater the Land Disposal Restrictions(LDRs) under
RCRA Section 3004 and the injection prohibited under RCRA Section 3020(a).
Groundwater which is not contaminated with "hazardous waste" is not
subject to either LDRs or Section 3020. Groundwater which contains
hazardous waste, but for which there is no LDR standards, is subject only to
Section 300.
RCRA Section 3020(a), prohibits the injection of a hazardous waste by
underground injection into or above an aquifer formation which contains an
underground source of drinking water. Section 3020(b) specifies that such
prohibition does not apply to contaminated groundwater which is reinjected
into the aquifer from which it was withdrawn if three criteria are met 1) it is
part of corrective action required under RCRA or CERCLA intended to clean-
up such contamination; 2) the contaminated groundwater is treated to
substantially reduce hazardous constituents prior to reinjection; and 3) the
proposed corrective action will be sufficient to protect human health and the
environment upon completion.
Groundwater which is contaminated by a hazardous waste for which there
are promulgated LDRs are also sub ject to the prohibition in Section 3020(a).
Moreover, EPA has interpreted the waiver provision under Section 3020(b) to-
also be available for these wastes. See OSWHR Directive #9234.1-06. Under
this interpretation, the Section 3004 LDRs otherwise applicable to disposal of
contaminated groundwater have been superceded, where the waste is
disposed by underground injection, by the restrictions on such disposal
under Section 3020. Thus, if the implementing agency at a particular site
finds that the treatment of groundwater as part of the response action has
"substantially reduced" the hazardous consituents and the response action is
"sufficient to protect human health and the environment," then the
groundwater may be reinjected even if it does not meet otherwise applicable
BDAT requirements.
Source: Dave Pagan, OSW (202)382-4497
Research: Karen R Alex
-------
9554.1991(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 1991
must be used to obtain an extract of the waste.
2. SW-846 Test Methods Following that, as with LDR, any appropriate
method may be used to analyze the extract for
Are the test methods published in "Test Methods hazardous constituents. In determining the
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical characteristic of ignitability, the regulations
Methods," known as SW-846. required to show reference two specific test methods, the Pensky-
compliance with 40 CFR Pan 268 land disposal Martens (method 1010) and the Setaflash
restrictions (LDR) in situations where the treament (method 1020), either of which must be
standard is expressed as a concentration? Are SW- employed when testing. The characteristic of
846 methods required to show compliance with Part corrosiviry also references a specific test
267, Subpan C hazardous waste characteristics? method. If the generator chooses to test the pH
of a given waste stream, method 9040 must be
Generally, the test methods found in SW-846 are used.
not required but are intended to serve as guidance.
EPA recommends these methods for evaluating Several other regulatory sections also require
solid waste and the Agency will use the the use of SW-846 test methods. For example.
recommended methods in enforcement situations. in completing a petition to delist a waste from a
There are a handful of exceptions to this rule where specific facility, SW-846 methods must be used
;pecific test methods are required. in accordance with §260.22.
Compliance with LDR for wastes that have a
treatment standard expressed as constituent
concentrations in wastes (CCW. §268.43) can be
shown using any appropriate method. This section
does not specifically require the use of
SW-846 methods. If the waste treatment standard is
expressed as constituent concentrations in waste
extracts (CCWE, §268.41), then the Toxiciry
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), which is
specifically referenced in §268.41 (a), must be
performed. Following that, however, any
appropriate method may be used to determine
concentrations of hazardous constituents in the
extract and to show compliance with LDR.
Similarly, in identifying Pan 261, Subpan C
characteristics. §262.11 provides that a generator
has the option of applying knowledge of the
hazardous characteristics of the waste in light of the
materials or the processes used, or testing the
material to determine whether or not it is a
hazardous waste. If the generator chooses to test, he
must use the method prescribed in Subpan C of 40
CFR Pan 261. The toxicity characteristic, for
examoie. references method 1311. the TCLP. which
-------
*
9554.1992(01)
^ r,
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
NOV -5 1992 OFF1CEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. W.C. Rankin, Supervisor
Environmental Affairs
Olin Chemicals
P.O. Box 248
Lower River Road
Charleston, TN 37310
Dear Mr. Rankin:
Thank you for your letter dated September 8, 1992 to Mr.
Larry Rosengrant of my staff in which you raised several
questions concerning the final rule on newly listed wastes and
hazardous debris (57 FR 37194, August 18, 1992) .
You first asked for clarification as to whether after D009
debris is treated with a specified technology, is it still
regulated for the treated characteristic or as a contained-in
waste. Once characteristic debris is treated to meet the
performance and/or design and operating standards and contaminant
restrictions for each regulated constituent, and no longer
exhibits the characteristic, it is no longer regulated as
hazardous waste. (However, if the waste does still exhibit the
characteristic, ii_ still contains a hazardous waste and must be
disposed of in a Subtitle C facility.)
Your second request was for some relief from the requirement
to thermally roast materials which are non-debris because they
are less than 60 mm in size. If a mixture of material is
comprised primarily of debris, by volume, based on visual
inspection, then the entire mixture is debris. In other words.
if a mixture of items less than 60 mm in size and items greater
than 60 mm in size is comprised mostly of the larger items, then
the whole mixture is considered debris and would be subject to
the applicable debris treatment standard if contaminated with
hazardous waste. Mixtures which are not primarily debris are
subject to the LDR treatment standards in 40 CFR 268.41, 268.42.
and 268.43. Relief from those standards may be obtained through
an equivalency demonstration (§268.42(b)), or a treatability
variance (§268.44).
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-2-
Your third request was for advice on how to demonstrate the
leachability reduction achieved by the microencapsulation
performance standard, as specified in § 268.45 Table 1 (57 FR
37280, August 18, 1992). The regulation does not require a
particular method for making this demonstration. One way to
analyze for this reduction would be to determine the potential
leachability of the toxicants before and after treatment by the
TCLP test. If the leachability of the toxicants has been
reduced, you have met the performance standard...
Finally, as you are probably aware, a case-by-case capacity
variance for certain hazardous soils was approved on October 13,
1992, and was published in the Federal Register on October 20,
1992 (57 FR 47772) . See enclosed FR notice for list of hazardous
soils for which a capacity extension has been granted.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
9554.1992(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC A 1992
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Charles W. Grant
Environmental Compliance Manager
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
P.O. Box 2563
Port Arthur, Texas 77643
Dear Mr. Grant:
EPA has reviewed your request for a "determination of
equivalent treatment" as authorized by 40 CFR 268.42(b) for 17
"third third" waste codes for which metal recovery was specified
as BDAT. Based on the information provided in your letters dated
August 31 2nd October 7 and the conversations between you and my
staff, we nave determined that the proposed treatment of incin-
eration followed by treatment of the ash to comply with the metal
treatment standards (as specified in the Enclosure), would
provide equivalent treatment to that of the promulgated standard
for thirteen waste codes present in your waste streams (K069 -
lead, K106 - mercury, P015 - beryllium, P065 - mercury, P087 -
osmium tetroxide, P092 - mercury, P113 - thallic oxide,. P115 -
thallium (I) sulfate, U151 - mercury, U214 - thallium (I) ace-
rate, U215 - thallium (I) carbonate, U216 thallium (I) chloride,
and U217 - thallium (I) nitrate). The other waste codes
specified in your request letter currently allow incineration,
stabilization, or ether applicable technologies to be used to
achieve the treatment standard. As such, a determination of
equivalent treatment is not needed for those wastes.
Enclosed you will find our determination on your request.
If you need further assistance, please contact Richard Kinch,
Chief, Waste Treatment Branch (703 308-8434).
Sincerely
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
Jim Thompson, OWPE
Nick Stone, Region 6
-------
9554.1993(01)
USB,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN - 3 1993
OFFICE CF
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Kelly Ewing
Supervisor .
Ensco, Field Sarvice Group
P. 0. Box 1957
El Dorado, Arkansas 71731
Dear Ms. Ewing:
This letter responds to your letter of May 1, 1993, asking
for a letter that approves the use of an on-site precipitation
process of specific mercury compounds as an acceptable pre-
treatment step aJ/_.iCt to mercury retorting.
The wastes you discuss in your letter are considered
toxicity characteristic for mercury, D009. The land disposal
regulations require that D009 high mercury subcategory wastes
(greater than 260 mg/kg total mercury) be retorted. Precipita-
tion of mercury into mercury salts is not an alternative
treatment process to the recovery of mercury. It is, however,
acceptable to use a precipitation process as a pretreatment step
to the retorting of mercury wastes. Any residue that exceed 260
mg/kg of mercury from the treatment of the aqueous phase must
also be retorted. This pretreatment step cannot be used to avoid
the D009 retorting treatment standard.
You also asked us to clarify if your pre-treatment process
for mercury wastes destined for retorting may require an EPA or
state permit. EPA does not issue RCRA permits for hazardous
wastes treatment on a national level. By law, RCRA permits must
be considered on a site-specific basis and in most cases these
permits are issued by authorized states.
A generator may be able to pre-treat their mercury wastes in
tank units pursuant to the generator accumulation exemption of 4C
CFR § 262.34. (See also March 24, 1986, 51»£E (10168)). This
provision allows for generators of hazardous wastes to treat or
store such wastes in tanks for short periods of time (i.e., 90
days) without obtaining a RCRA permit, provided that all the
conditions of 40 CFR § 262.34 are met, including compliance with
specific tank or container standards in 40 CFR 265 and compliance
with all the waste analysis plan provisions for treating land ban
wastes in 40 CFR § 268.7 (a) (4) (i)-(iii). In many cases,
precipitation operations may be considered tank units under RCRA
and might be eligible for this exemption. However, you should
consult with the appropriate state program regarding this
-------
exemption because individual state requirements may be different
from the Federal program.
I hope this letter adequately answers your questions. If
you have further questions, please contact Jose Labiosa.at (703)
308-8464.
Sincerely,
Syiyia K. Lowranc£
rector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9554.1993(02)
NOV I 8 1993
OFFICE CF
SOI 13 WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Mr. Keith D. Colamarino RESPONSE
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
REMCOR, Inc.
701 Alpha Drive
P.O. Box 38310
Pittsburgh, PA 15238-8310
Dear Mr. Colamarino:
Thank you for your letter dated October 22, 1993 concerning
treatment of an inherently hazardous debris that exhibits the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) for lead and cadmium.
As is stated in §268.45 (a) of the regulatory language of
the August 18, 1992 rule (57 FR 37277), hazardous debris may be
treated by using the alternative treatment standards found in
that section, or it may be treated to the waste-specific
treatment standards provided in Part 268, subpart D for the waste
contaminating the debris.
The preamble language you cite in your letter, which states
that debris treated to the existing waste-specific treatment
standards must continue to be managed under subtitle C, is
referring to debris contaminated with listed wastes. Debris
contaminated with characteristic waste can be treated by one of
the technologies described in Table 1 of §268.45, or it can be
treated to the existing standard. When debris is hazardous only
because it exhibits a characteristic (including inherently
hazardous debris), and is treated in compliance with the debris
or waste-specific standards so that it no longer displays the
characteristic, it can be disposed of in a subtitle D unit.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call
Richard Kinch of my staff at (703) 308-8434.
Sincerely,
R. weddle
Director
\j Office of Solid Waste
cc: Richard Kinch
Racycted/'Recyclibto
mmta with Soyffienda Ink on piper :ngi
-------
*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
' 9554.1994(01)
Off ICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
JAM -4 1994
Mr. James w. Wright, Chief
Environmental Management Office
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899
Dear Mr. Wright:
Thank you for you letter dated November 4, requesting
clarification on the applicability of the debris standards to
your P078 wastes. In your letter, you refer to a November 27,
1992, correspondence from EPA which indicates that the Agency did
not take action on your request for a treatability variance for
solid debris since it was indicated that the Kennedy Space Center
should be able to utilize the new debris standards. However, you
have concerns that the regulatory language may not allow this
result — that is, the contaminants subject to debris treatment
are those established for the wastes under §§ 268.41 and 268.43,
while P078 is regulated in § 268.42.
Section 268.42 lists those wastes for which EPA established
a treatment method as the standard. The Agency fully intends
that debris contaminated with those wastes be subject to the
alternate debris standards found in the August 18, 1992 rule (57
FR 37194). The source of confusion in the rule is that,
technically, only the wastes themselves, and not waste
constituents, are listed in § 268.42. Section 268.45(b)(2)
should have read "The contaminants subject to treatment for
debris that is contaminated with a prohibited listed hazardous
waste are those constituents or wastes for which BOAT standards
are established for the wastes under §§ 268.41, 268.42, and
268.43." The Agency will be correcting this unintended language
in a future amendment to the Debris Rule.
Therefore, the debris standards, including the Kennedy Space
Center's proposed use of Chemical Extraction - Water Washing and
Spraying are applicable to debris contaminated with P078.
-------
If you have any further questions, please call Richard Kinch
of my staff at (703) 308-8434.
Sincerely,
Shapiro
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Richard Kinch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9554.1994(02)
JAN -5 1993
OFPiCE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Land Disposal Restrictions Rulemaking on Characteristic
Wastes for Which Treatment Standards Were Remanded -
Phase III: Effect on Nonhazardous Class I Underground
Injection Control Wells and Elementary Neutralization
Units
PROM: Mike Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Joseph R. Franzmathes, Director
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
Wendell R. Cunningham, Director
Water Management Division
US EPA Region IV
This memorandum replies to the memorandum from John E.
Dickinson, P.E. and Thomas Hansen, dated October 15, 1993, which
requests clarification on the effect of an upcoming land disposal
restrictions (LDR) rule (Phase III) on nonhazardous Class I
underground injection control wells (UIC wells) and elementary
neutralization units.
Your questions arise from issues raised by a September 25,
1992, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA. Among other things, the court decision
vacated LDR treatment standards for wastes displaying the
characteristics of ignitability and corrosivity when they are
managed in systems other than those regulated under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) or that engage in treatment equivalent to systems
regulated under the CWA, and those regulated in other than Class
I nonhazardous UIC wells (such as certain Class V UIC wells).
These vacated treatment standards were the subject of an
emergency interim final rule that was published in the Federal
Register on May 24, 1993 (58 FR 29860). The September 25, 1993,
court decision also remanded LDR treatment standards for.the
characteristic wastes when managed in wastewater treatment
systems regulated under the CWA and in Class I nonhazardous UIC
wells. These treatment standards will be addressed in the Phase
III rule, scheduled to be proposed by mid-January, 1995, and
finalized a year later. Until that time, I am unable to give you
definitive answers to the questions posed in your letter.
-------
The following two questions were highlighted in your letter.
I have answered the questions based on the approach adopted in
the May 24, 1993 interim final rule. I caution you, however,
against using these answers as the basis of any decisions you may
wish to make, because we simply do not know how the final Phase
III rule will address these issues.
1. Will a nonhazardous Class I UIC well need a no-migration
petition if the influent waste stream, at the point of
generation, is ignitable or corrosive, and the
concentrations of underlying hazardous constituents exceed
proposed regulatory levels?
A nonhazardous Class I UIC well is defined by statute as
engaging in land disposal. A waste that displays the
characteristic of ignitability or corrosivity at the point of
generation will require treatment to meet the LDR treatment
standards prior to injection. If an approach is adopted in the
Phase III rule like that taken in the emergency rule, treatment
standards will apply to not only the hazardous characteristic,
but to any underlying hazardous constituents in that waste at
levels above minimize threat levels. Therefore, the UIC well
would need to have a no-migration petition approved in order to
accept ignitable and corrosive wastes that have not been treated
to meet treatment standards for underlying hazardous
constituents.
2. Will the Phase III rule eliminate the exemption for
elementary neutralization units and require that wastes
managed in these units be treated for underlying hazardous
constituents?
Currently, there are no plans to eliminate the exemption
from permitting requirements for elementary neutralization units
in the Phase III rule, nor does the Chemical Waste Management
opinion address this issue (much less require changing the
exemption). If an approach is adopted in the Phase III rule like
that taken in the emergency rule, however, wastes treated to
remove the characteristic in elementary neutralization units
would require further treatment to meet the treatment standards
for underlying hazardous constituents before the waste could be
land disposed.
Judy Sophianopoulos is an active member of our LDR Phase III
workgroup, and will be reviewing drafts of the proposed and final
Phase III rules and participating in workgroup meetings. She
will thus be kept informed of the most current thinking as the
regulation is developed.
I you would like to discuss these issues further, please
call Rich Kinch of my staff at (703) 308-8434.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9554.1994(03)
FE3 16 1994 of^0f
SOLID WA&TE ANT EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: NflacrftencapsuXafcion of Mixed Wastes at Rocky Flats
FROM: £/Kich&alfSHS§Lro; Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
I am pleased to respond to Region VIII's December 21, 1993
inquiry regarding the acceptability under the RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs) of two methods of macroencapsulation.
According to the letter from Martin Hestmark of your staff, these
methods are under review at Region VIII, for possible application
to low-level radioactive hazardous debris wastes at the
Department of Energy's (DOE's) Rocky Flats Plant. The two
methods described in Region VIII's letter involve: (1) applying a
heated polymer to the surface of the debris, and (2) using a
sealed preformed polymer container into which the waste has been
placed. As your letter notes, the major difference between the
two final waste forms is the lack of any physical/chemical
bonding under the second method between the container and the
polymer.
Your first question asks whether the preformed container
method discussed above meets the definition and performance?
criteria for macroencapsulation under the LDRs.
Macroencapsulation is defined as "Application of surface
coating materials such as polymeric organics or use of a jacket
of inert inorganic materials to substantially reduce surface
exposure to potential leaching media" in the following sections
of 40 CFR Part 268:
(1) Table 1.- Technology Codes and Description of
Technology-based Standards in §263.42; and
(2) Table 1 — Alternative Treatment Standards For
Hazardous Debris in §268.45
The. definition in Table 1 of §268.42 contains the additional
statement that "Macroencapsulation specifically does not include
any material classified as a container or tank according to 40
CFR 260.10."
-------
The second method of using a preformed container does not
meet the definition of macroencapsulation because it would
contain void spaces between the debris and container. In
addition, placement in tanks and containers is not considered
treatment. The preformed container also would not qualify as a
jacket under the definition. EPA purposely included "jackets of
inorganic materials" in the definition in order to specifically
account for submarine reactor compartments that are subject to
the treatment standard for D008 radioactive lead solids.
If the second method is the preferred option to treat this
waste then a treatability variance, equivalency demonstration
under §268.42(b), or a no-migration petition may be options that
might allow this treatment method to be legally applied to the
radioactive debris wastes. However, Rocky Flats will have to
demonstrate that: 1) the use of the preformed container is the
only alternative process available for a particular waste or
waste type; 2) the process substantially reduces surface exposure
to potential leaching media; and 3) the jacket of material would
not be classified as a tank or container under the definitions at
40 CFR 260.10." In addition, detailed information on the content
of the debris would need to be submitted. If DOE wishes to
develop a treatment process which would include adding other
encapsulating materials to debris, so that there would be no void
spaces in the preformed container, we could reevaluate this
proposal.
Your second question asks whether a method of
macroencapsulation that meets the performance criteria (i.e., the
performance described in Table 1 of §268.45) is acceptable
regardless of whether it strictly meets the regulatory definition
of macroencapsulation. A proposed technology should clearly fall
within the definition of nacroencapsulation and meet the
performance standard to qualify for the "macroencapsulation"
treatment standard for these debris. The purpose of including a
performance standard for an immobilization technology such as
macroencapsulation is to ensure that the technology
"substantially reduces the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from debris, as required by RCRA section
3004(m)(1)," while allowing some flexibility to design or operate
the unit to treat the contaminant of concern. See 57 FR 37235,
August 18, 1992.
four letter also suggests concerns you have that there could
be site-specific factors at individual disposal sites that might
adversely affect the performance of the required
macroencapsulation technology. In such instances, EPA policy
allows any limitations on technologies attributable to site-
specific factors to be addressed in the facility permit by the.
appropriate State or EPA permit writer. My staff in the Waste
Management Division, which developed these standards, is
available to provide you with additional clarification on this
-------
question.
Thar.k you for bringing these issues to my attention. If you
need more information in this area, please call Susan Jones of
the State and Regional Programs Branch at (703) 308-8762, or
Larry Rosengrant of the Waste Treatment Branch at (703) 308-84G3.
cc: Matt Straus
Richard Kinch
Dev Barnes
Richard LaShier
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL 141994 9554.1994(04,
Mr. William C. Rankin SOLID WAS°E AND EMERGENCY
Manager of Environmental Services RESPONSE
Olin Chemicals
P. 0. Box 248
1186 Lower River Road
Charleston, TN 37310 .
Dear Mr. Rankin:
Thank you for your letter dated June 27, 1994, requesting
clarification of the treatment standard for K106 (low mercury
subcategory) nonwastewater residues from retorting/roasting
(RMERC) units. This treatment standard is given in 40 CFR 268.41
as 0.020 mg/1, and in the Third Third final rule was given as
0.20 mg/1 (55 FR 22569-22573, 22691, June 1, 1990).
You are correct that the standard which appears in
40 CFR 268.41 - Table CCWE is inaccurate, and that 0.20 mg/1 is
the correct treatment standard. The correct standard can be
found in the Final Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT)
Background Document for Mercury-Containing Wastes D009, K106,
P065. P092. and U151. Therefore, RMERC residues that show
mercury concentrations above 0.20 mg/1, as measured by the TCLP,
must be treated to meet the applicable High or Low Mercury
treatment standard prior to land disposal.
The discrepancy in 40 CFR 268.41 appears to originate from a
typographical error in the January 31, 1991, Correction Notice to
the Third Third rule, 55 FR 3864, which set a maximum mercury
concentration of 0.020 mg/1. We will be correcting this error in
an upcoming LDR rule scheduled to be signed July 31, 1994.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please
contact Richard Kinch, Chief of the Waste Treatment Branch, at
(703) 308-8434.
Sincerely,
Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Richard Kinch
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
lin
CHEMICALS
P.O. BOX 248, 1186 LOWER RIVER ROAD. CHARLESTON. TN 37310
Phone: 1615) 336-4000
June 27, 1994
Mr. Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 5301
401 M Street S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
RE: Correction for Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Standards for
Nonwastewaters Residues of REMERC for K106 (Low Mercury
Subcategory)
\
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am hereby requesting written confirmation that the treatment standard listed as
the constituent concentration in waste extract (CCWE) for K106 nonwastewaters
(Low Mercury Subcategory-less than 260 mg/kg Mercury-residues from RMERC)
in Table CCWE of 40 CFR Part 268.41 is incorrect as 0.020 mg/L. The correct
value for this treatment standard for K106 and U151 nonwastewater residues
from RMERC should be 0.200 mg/L as listed in Table 7-5-B, Page 7-25 of the
Final Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background
Document For Mercury-Containing Wastes D009. K106. P065. P092. And
U151. May 1990.
Olin operates a thermal recovery unit (TRU) under the definition of RMERC for
mercury contaminated wastes and several questions have been raised by
Agency personnel concerning what should the TCLP mercury concentration be in
the residues (ash) from processing K106 nonwastewater materials. Since the
value, in Table CCWE in Part 268.41 has 0.020 mg/L instead of 0.200 mg/L as
listed in the BDAT Background Document, this becomes an issue of discussion
during every RCRA compliance inspection because there has not been a
"technical correction" issued for this error in any form by USEPA.
OLIN CORPORATION
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Page 2
June 27, 1994
Please confirm in writing that this is indeed a technical error as printed in Table
CCWE of Part 268.41 and that the correct value should be 0.200 mg/L instead of
0.020 mg/L for K106 nonwastewaters (Low Mercury Subcategory-less than 260
mg/kg Mercury-residues from REMERC). You cooperation in this matter is
deeply appreciated.
Please contact me at (615) 336-4512 if you have any questions concerning this
request.
Sincerely
OLIN CORPORATION
William C. Rankin
Manager, Environmental Services
cc: S. E. Barnes
Janet Dutto, TN SWMD
W. G. McGlasson
W. D. Mitchell
J. P. Newman
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9554.1994(05)
2£>
O |^O/l
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Michael G. Fusco
Environmental Affairs Specialist
Rollins Environmental Services
One Rollins Plaza
P.O. Box 2349
Wilmington, DE 19899
Dear Mr. Fusco:
Thank you for your letter dated May 31, 1994, requesting an
EPA determination on the legality and appropriateness of using
incineration for two P078 waste streams. In your letter, you
propose to incinerate two waste streams: P078-contaminated
debris and P078 rinsate contaminated with CFC-113. These waste
streams are generated by NASA Kennedy Space Center. NASA was
granted a determination of equivalent treatment on the CFC-
contaminated waste stream in November of 1992 to treat that waste
stream by the method that they proposed (neutralization).
The original treatment standard of ADGAS is defined as
"Venting of compressed gases into an absorbing or reacting media
(i.e., solid or liquid) - venting can be accomplished through
physical release utilizing valves/piping; physical penetration of
the container; and/or penetration through detonation". Because
the NASA's P078 is not a gas but rather a liquid dimer, and the
P078 has already been absorbed onto the debris or into the
rinsate liquid, the actual standard of ADGAS has been achieved.
When NASA requested a Determination of Equivalent Treatment for
this waste, we expressed to them that they actually comply with
the treatment standard "ADGAS". NASA, however, still wanted the
Determination of Equivalent Treatment, which they thought would
make it easier for them to treat their waste by neutralization
and landfill any residuals, without any question about them being
in compliance with the land disposal restriction regulations.
The Agency, then, granted a determination of equivalence.
With regard to your request, the debris and P078 waste have
met the "ADGAS" standard, and a determination of equivalent
treatment is unnecesary. If these wastes are incinerated, the
Agency recommends that the residuals meet the numerical treatment
standards for Chromium, Nickel and 1,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
trifluoroethane specified to NASA.
^ Recycled/Recyclable
/ / {\ Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
\^(^J contains at least 50% recycled liber
-------
If you have any further questions on this issue, please call
Mary Cunningham of my staff at (703) 308-8453.
cc:
iiricere^/
'Matthew Straus, Director
Waste Management Division
Richard Kirich, HQ
Mary Cunningham, HQ
Steve Silverman, HQ
Jim Thompson, HQ
Judy Sophianopoulos, Region IV
Gary Miller, Region VI
James Wright, NASA
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 2 A 1994
9554.1994(06)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Eugene Berman ^
Vice President of Regulatory and Community Affairs
Molten Metal Technology, Inc.
51 Sawyer Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
Dear Mr. Berman:
EPA has reviewed your request for a "determination of equivalent treatment" (DET)
as authorized by 40 CFR 268.42(b) for 8 of the waste codes from the toluene diisocyanate
(TDI) treatability group for which incineration (INCIN) or combustion (CMBST) was
specified as BDAT. Based on the information provided in your application dated
April 22, 1994, and conversations between your staff and mine, we have determined that the
proposed treatment of Catalytic Extraction Processing (CEP) and compliance with the
Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for metals (as specified in the Enclosure), would
provide equivalent treatment to that of the promulgated standards for eight of the waste codes
(Nonwastewater forms of K027, K112, K113, K114, K115, K116, U221, and U223). The
other waste code specified in your request letter, Kill, has a treatment standard expressed as
a maximum constituent concentration rather than a specified technology. As such, a
determination of equivalent treatment is not applicable for this waste.
The enclosed determination includes a list of specific facilities for which this
Determination of Equivalent Treatment applies. Additional sites may also be covered by a
DET if CEP is expected to be commercially deployed at other sites and MMT requests a
DET.
Enclosed you will find our determination on your request. If you need further
assistance, please contact Richard Kinch, Chief, Waste Treatment Branch (703-308-8434).
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro, Di
Office of Solid Waste
tor
Enclosure
cc: Jim Thompson, OWPE
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
REQUEST FOR OMB REVIEW
Title: Land Disposal Restrictions -- Phase IE: Decharacterized Wastewate:s, Carbamate
and Organobroraine Wastes, and Spent Potliners; Proposed Rule.
Background
Pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, EPA is required to
set treatment standards for wastes identified or listed as hazardous. Wastes must meet the
treatment standards before they can be disposed on land. By setting standards for the newly
listed hazardous wastes addressed in this rule - organobromine, carbamate, and spent
potliner from aluminum production -- ("Phase III"), we will fulfill some of the requirements
of a proposed consent decree (the "megadeadline" settlement agreement) with the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Under the consent decree, EPA is required to propose
this rule by January 17, 1995. Phase in also meets some of the obligations of a subsequent
settlement agreement by proposing treatment standards for characteristic hazardous wastes
that are diluted to remove the characteristic (decharacterized) and placed in ;i wastewater
treatment system surface impoundment regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) or
equivalent, or into Class I nonhazardous injection wells regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). The treatment standards that are being proposed would apply at the
point of discharge from the surface impoundment into waters of the U.S. (or in the case of a
zero discharger, at the point the wastewater is sprayed or otherwise placed en the land), and
at the point the waste is injected into the Class I nonhazardous waste (also referred to as
"end-of-pipe"). This approach is modelled after that taken in two previous LDR rules (the
emergency interim final rule and the Phase II final rule) to address the decision of the U.S.
Circuit in Chemical Waste Management v. EPA. 976 F. 2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1592), cert, denied
113 s.ct. 1961(1993)(CWM v. EPA)).
Description of the Rule
Phase III proposes treatment standards for 80 newly listed carbamate wastes and two
organobromine wastes named in the proposed consent decree with EDF. Treatment
standards are also being proposed ahead of the schedule set out in the consent decree for
spent aluminum potliners (scheduled for proposal in Phase IV in June, 1995X
EPA is also proposing that decharacterized wastes managed in CWA or CWA-
equivalent wastewater treatment surface impoundments must be treated to address any
underlying hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be present, before the effluent is
released into waters of the U.S. or land disposed (end-of-pipe). The treatment standards
being proposed are the "universal treatment standards" (UTS) that were promulgated in the
July 29, 1994 Phase n LDR rule. Because many of these waste management facilities are
regulated under the CWA, EPA is proposing to integrate implementation of the RCRA
treatment standards by deferring, whenever possible, to CWA limits. The regional or state
permit writer may regulate the RCRA constituents under the facility's CWA permit: If the
CWA permit regulates the RCRA constituents, then enforcement would be cirried out under
CWA exclusively, thereby using less regional or state resources. If, however, the CWA
permit writer does not regulate the applicable RCRA constituents, then enforcement would
have to be carried out by both CWA and RCRA personnel, at a greater resource cost.
Decharacterized wastes that were previously allowed to be injected into Class I
nonhazardous waste wells must now be treated to address any underlying hazardous
constituents reasonably expected to be present, prior to injection into the well. Or as an
-------
alternative, such units could apply for a variance based on a finding that hazardous
constituents will not migrate from the unit for as long as the waste remains liazardous. If the
so-called "no migration" variance is granted by EPA, then untreated hazardous wastes can
legally be placed in the unit.
Because the proposed requirements include treating underlying hazardous constituents
that have not been previously regulated in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA Class I
nonhazardous systems, such facilities will incur significant new waste management costs. In
order to minimize impacts to the extent possible within the confines of the court decision, the
Agency is proposing two mechanisms that should reduce costs and paperwork burden for de
minimis wastestreams, and mass reductions in hazardous constituents made though pollution
prevention for wastes going to deep well injection.
In addition, EPA is proposing several actions in Phase III to streamline the LDR
program. EPA is also proposing to clarify certain regulatory definitions to provide
consistency with the universal treatment standards. Furthermore, comments are solicited on
additional streamlining mechanisms for LDR paperwork.
Anticipated Reactions
OMB. OMB may again object to the Phase in proposed rule on the grounds that
costs of compliance are high, considering the low measurable environmental and health
benefits. The Agency, however, is compelled by statute to set standards for these newly
listed wastes, and is obligated under the 1992 court decision to establish treatment standards
for CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA Class I nonhazardous injection wells.
Others. The regulated community is expected to object to the end-of-pipe treatment
standards because of the dual statutory controls proposed to be imposed on these wastewater
treatment systems and injection wells, and because of new compliance costs. As to the levels
of those standards, the regulated community favors the universal treatment standards but may
prefer that they be based on risk rather than technology performance. They will generally
support the de minimis concept, but may prefer more wastes be included. They will likely
support the pollution prevention provisions and other initiatives to simplify the LDR rules.
Also, they will likely support integration of RCRA with CWA implementation.
Certain environmental groups should be pleased with the rule, especially the
regulation of underlying hazardous constituents in decharacterized wastes, and the
establishment of stringent treatment standards. In addition, environmental groups may be
concerned that generators can continue to use process knowledge to identify underlying
hazardous constituents and would prefer required testing.
The Regions and States may be concerned about the dual regulatory scheme that may
be imposed on CWA and SDWA facilities that they will be primarily responsible for
implementing and enforcing. They will, however, favor the mechanisms being proposed to
defer to CWA limits for applicable RCRA constituents.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
'mil' , j " ' '" 9554.1995(01;
JUN 1.4 1995, : .
1 . . OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Roy ,F. West on, Inc. ... '.-...
Ms. Janell B. Bergman, P.O.,. CPG. ^ . .
Senior Project Manager . . . ''
215 Union Boulevard, Suite 550
Lakewood, CO 80228-1842 . '
Dear Ms. Bergman:
It is a pleasure to respond to your letter dated April 27,
1995, regarding the Land Disposal.Restrictions Phase. II final
rule (59 FR 47982). Specifically, you requested an "'-• •••'••'
interpretation of the phrase' "which can reasonably be expected to
be present" as it applies to underlying hazardous .constituents-in
soil that exhibits the toxicity characteristic
The preamble.to the final'Phase II rule states: "regulated
entities do not.have to ascertain the presence of all hazardous
constituents for which EPA is promulgating a universal treatment
standard. Generators may base this-determination on their
knowledge of the raw materials they use, .the process they
operate, and .the potential reaction products of the process, or
upon the results of a.one-time analysis of.the entire list of ,
constituents at § 268.48." (See 59 FR 48.015.)- .
• ' ' ' \ t • . ' • • . .'...•
In the case of contaminated soil, however, the "generator"
may hot be the party that caused the contamination/ but rather
may be the one.performing the cleanup. As.you point out, it may
be difficult to determine exactly what constituents are
reasonably expected to be present in the soil because of the lack
of records about the site and the absence of anyone who has
institutional memory about the cause of the contamination. It is
appropriate, therefore, to use the constituents .that are at
levels above the Universal Treatment Standards, based on
monitoring at the site, provided analysis has been conducted for
the entire list of constituents at § 268.48. These would be the
constituents reasonably expected to be present at the point of
generation (in a remediation, the point of generation is the
point the contaminated soil is picked up)".
Printed en Recycled Paper
-------
I hope you find this information helpful. If you have
further questions, please call Rhonda Craig of my staff on
(703) 308-8771.
Sincerely,
Micha<
'Direc
j \ Of f i<
Solid Waste
-------
215 UNION BOULEVARD. SUITE 550
LAKEWOOO. CO 80228-1842
303-980-6800 FAX 303-980-1622
MANAGERS T±^r DESIGNERS/CONSULTANTS
; 27 April 1995
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
SUBJECT: Land Disposal Restrictions - Phase n
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Roy F. Weston, Inc. requests an interpretation of a phrase pertaining to the recently published
Land Disposal Restrictions - Phase n (59 FR 47982). Specifically, we request an interpretation
of the phrase "which can reasonably be expected to be present" as it applies to underlying
hazardous constituents that may be found in soil that exhibits the tdxicity characteristic (TCLP).
(Sections 268.2(i) and 268.40(e)) ,
Application of this concept is straightforward as it applies to industrial waste streams; however,
it becomes difficult when referring to contaminated soil where unknown wastes were deposited
years ago. Weston requests EPA's interpretation of this concept as it applies to contaminated soils.
Is it sufficient to use the list of constituents that have been detected at the site as the list of
constituents reasonably expected to be present?
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response to this question.
Sincerely,
\ ROY F. WESTON, INC.
janell B. Bergman, P.O., CPG
Senior Project Manager
cc: Mr. Jim Thompson
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
RCRA Enforcement Division
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9554.1995(02)
Signature date: September 19, 1995
Mr. Kevin J. Igli
Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
3001 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Dear Mr. Igli:
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1995, regarding macroencapsulation of
hazardous debris. You referred to an interpretive guidance memorandum sent by EPA's
Office of Solid Waste to EPA Region VTJI on February 16, 1994 regarding the
maciencapsulation of mixed hazardous/radioactive debris waste, and requested clarification
on the memorandum's applicability. Specifically, you requested EPA's determination on
whether CWM's macroencapsulation process addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 268.45,
Table 1.
As your letter pointed out, EPA has specified two definitions of macroencapsulation:
a specified technology for D008 radioactive lead solids, and one for hazardous debris. In 40
CFR 268.42, Table 3, EPA specified for D008 radioactive lead solids a required method of
treatment, macroencapsulation. Macroencapsulation is defined in § 268.42, Table 1 as:
Macroencapsulation with surface coating materials such as polymeric organics (e.g.,
resins and plastics) or with a jacket of inert inorganic materials to substantially reduce
surface exposure to potential leaching media. Macroencapsulation specifically does
not include any material that would be classified as a tank or container according to
40 CFR 260.10.
EPA defined macroencapsulation for hazardous debris at § 268.45 as:
Application of surface coating materials such as polymeric organics (e.g., resins and
plastics) or use of a jacket of inert inorganic materials to substantially reduce surface
exposure to potential leaching media.
Obviously, the only difference between the definitions is that the prohibition against using
Thii page has been reryped from the original
-------
;tanks and containers was not included in the definition of macroencapsulation for treating
hazardous debris. Thus, the Agency provided more flexibility in treatment for hazardous
debris by not specifically prohibiting the use of tanks and containers.
Your letter describes CWM's macroencapsulation process. A jacket of inert inorganic
material is placed around the hazardous debris as the encapsulating agent in a high density
polyethylene vault. The lid of the vault is secured and the unit is disposed in a subtitle C
(hazardous waste) landfill.
It is EPA's determination that your treatment process meets the definition of
macroencapsulation for hazardous debris, subject to an evaluation that the tank or container
is structurally sound and resistant to degradation, in order to substantially reduce exposure to
potential leaching media. As you allude to in your letter, merely placing hazardous debris in
a tank or container, except under special circumstances where the container is made of
noncorroding materials (e.g., stainless steel), would not fulfill the macroencapsulation
treatment standard. State or EPA Regional authorities can best evaluate if the design criteria
and operation procedures are sufficient.
EPA does not view this as a reversal of its previous position in its memorandum of
February 18, 1994. Rather, it is clarifying that for the treatment of hazardous debris, the
definition of macroencapsulation in § 268.45 should be used, and for the treatment of D008
radioactive lead solids, the definition in § 268.42 should be used.
Hopefully, this response addresses your concerns. If you have further questions, do
not hesitate to give me a call on (703) 308-8434.
Sincerely,
Richard Kinch
Chief
Waste Treatment Branch
cc Fredrick Moore, Oregon DEQ
Bruce Long, Region X, Oregon Operations Office
This page has been retyped from the original
-------
9555 - PROHIBITIONS
ON STORAGE
Part 268 Subpart E
AT. Kearney 1/3590/11 cr
-------
OSWER Directive #9555.00-01
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 28 1990
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
TO ALL NRC LICENSEES:
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE ON THE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS' EFFECTS ON
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL MIXED WASTE
The purpose of this letter is to announce the availability
of guidance on the land disposal restrictions (LDR) for NRC
licensees. The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act directed EPA to
develop regulations restricting the land disposal of RCRA
hazardous wastes. The intent of the LDR provisions is to
minimize the potential risk to human health and the environment
by requiring treatment of wastes before land disposal. Since the
hazardous component(s) of radioactive mixed waste is RCRA
regulated, mixed radioactive waste handlers may now or soon will
manage waste subject to the RCRA land disposal restrictions.
The attached guidance is intended to provide a general
overview of the land disposal restriction regulations as well as
to provide information on areas of the regulations that may
particularly affect mixed waste handlers.
As identified in the guidance, tb< land disposal
restrictions have created new responsibilities for mixed waste
handlers. Therefore, it is important that mixed waste handlers
take the time to develop a good understanding of the land
disposal regulations. This guidance should not be used as a
substitute for the land disposal restriction regulations found at
40 CFR 268 or the Federal Register rules that contain the
promulgated LDR regulations. (See list of major rules at the end
of guidance). Instead it should be used as a general guidance to
familiarize the mixed waste handler with the land disposal
restriction regulations.
Sincerely,
C/ Jr^J ^—* f ^~ *~ CT^CS^S—^^
sylvialK. Lovrance, Director
Office' of Solid Waste
*• U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
f n*«4
-------
OSWER Directive ^555.00-C
OVERVIEW OF
THE EFFECT OF THE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
ON
RADIOACTIVE MIXED WASTE
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) restrict the land disposal of hazardous wastes, including mixed
waste. This overview outlines the major aspects of the land disposal restrictions as they
apply to mixed wastes. A more detailed analysis is found in the attached guidance
document.
WHAT IS MIXED WASTE?
Mixed waste is defined as a waste mixture that contains both radioactive materials subject to
the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and a hazardous waste component regulated under RCRA.
The hazardous waste (i.e. the non-AEA material) can be either a listed hazardous waste in
Subpart D of 40 CFR 261 or a waste that exhibits any of the hazardous waste
characteristics identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261.
WHAT MIXED WASTES ARE CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO
THE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDRS)?
The LDR regulations currently apply to all hazardous waste, including mixed waste, listed
or identified as of November 8,1984 under RCRA 3001. They also apply to several
hazardous wastes newly listed after November 8,1984 for which treatment standards have
been developed Treatment standards for radioactive waste mixed with solvents (P001 -
F005), dioxins (F020 - F023 and F026 - F028) and California list wastes are currently
effective. EPA deferred issuing treatment standards for radioactive waste mixed with
scheduled hazardous waste until the promulgation of the last scheduled LDR rule on May
8,1990 (the so-called Third Third \ .lie). After May 8,1990, all mixed, wastes were
restricted from land disposal. However, for all mixed waste addressed in the Third Third
rule, EPA granted a two-year national capacity variance based on the lack of treatment
capacity. This variance delays the imposition of treatment requirements for land disposal
until May 8, 1992. (See 55 EK 22660, June 1,1990.)
AFTER MIXED WASTES BECOME SUBJECT TO THE LDRS
CAN THEY BE STORED?
After the effective date, the HSWA amendments prohibit any storage of a land disposal
restricted waste, including mixed waste, except for the sole purpose of accumulating
sufficient quantities in a tank or container to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or
disposal of that waste. (See 40 CFR 268.50, the storage prohibition.) There are,
however, a few instances where continued storage of LDR waste is allowed in tanks or
containers:
(1) Continued storage of wastes first placed in storage prior to the applicable LDR
date for that waste, until the waste is removed from storage.
-------
OSWER Directive 29555.00-C
(2) Storage of restricted wastes that are not prohibited from land disposal because
they are exempt from the LDRs by statute or EPA regulation or they have a two-
year national capacity variance. (See 54 FR 36968, September 6, 1989.)
(3) Specified treatment standards for the waste are met
(Note that EPA is aware that there is currently a shortage of treatment and disposal capacity
for mixed waste which may cause mixed waste handlers to be out of compliance with the
storage prohibition. Therefore, EPA plans to issue a policy statement addressing this
matter in the fall of 1990.)
ARE THERE LDR EXTENSIONS AND VARIANCES FOR
MIXED WASTE?
National Capacity Variances from the Effective Dates
EPA has the authority to grant an extension to the effective dates of treatment standards for
LDR wastes, for not more than two years, until alternative treatment, recovery or disposal
capacity is available. EPA may analyze data and comments submitted during a rulemaking
in determining whether to grant a nationwide variance. EPA granted an extension for
mixed waste covered in the Third Third rule on May 8,1990, which included mixed wastes
from the First and Second Third. A national capacity variance is also in effect until
November 8, 1990 for radioactive mixed soil and debris wastes containing solvents and
dioxins resulting from a Superfund response action or from RCRA corrective action.
Case-Bv-Case Extensions
EPA is allowed on a case-by-case basis to grant a one-year extension (renewable only
once) to the effective date of a treatment standard Such extensions are granted only on the
grounds that adequate alternative treatment, recovery or disposal capacity cannot reasonably
be made available by the LDR effective date and that such alternative capacity can be
provided upon expiration of the case-by-case extension. The petitioner should identify the
types and quantities of mixed waste he or she generates or stores to evaluate the present or
future treatment capacity for the waste(s). Applications for case-by-case extensions should
be submitted to the U.S. EPA Administrator and the Office of Solid Waste (see
40 CFR 268.5).
"No Migration" Exemption
EPA will consider petitions to allow land disposal of prohibited wastes that do not meet the
treatment standard, provided the petitioner demonstrates that there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the waste
remains hazardous (40 CFR 268.6). At this time, petitions should be submitted to the
U.S. EPA Administrator. Eventually the petitions will be handled by EPA Regional
Offices or by States authorized to grant "no migration" petitions. (Note that the EPA
Regions are guthofired to grant "no migration" petitions for underground injection wells
(Office of Drinking Water).)
Variances from the Treatment Standards
EPA recognizes that some mixed waste might not be treatable by the method or to the level
specified. In such situations, EPA will allow petitions to be submitted requesting a
variance from the treatment standard. If granted on a n^jwiai basis* these variances result
in the establishment of a new treatability group and new treatment standards for all wastes
in the treatability group. Variances may also be granted on a site-specific basis. Site-
specific variances may be granted aoWustrativcIy^ie,, without notjce-and-comment
rulemaking) and have no generic application to similar wastes generated at other sites.
-------
OSWEK
Variancc petitions should be sent to the U.S. EPA Administrator and the Office of Solid
Waste (see 40 CFR 268.44).
(For further discussion on the extensions and variances, see pages six through eight of the
attached document.)
HOW DOES STATE LAW APPLY TO MIXED WASTE?
Like other RCRA requirements related to mixed waste, the LDRs will apply only in States
where EPA administers the RCRA program (unauthorized States) or in States that have
adopted mixed waste requirements as part of their authorized State programs. In other
States, the LDRs will not apply to mixed waste until the State becomes authorized for
mixed waste. States may implement their own disposal restrictions as a matter of State law
if such actions are more stringent or broader in scope than the actions of Federal programs
(RCRA section 3009 and 40 CFR 271. l(i)). In States with more stringent or broader in
scope restrictions, State law would govern. Twenty-two States were RCRA authorized for
mixed waste as of September 1, 1990. For a list of States with mixed waste authorization
refer to pages twelve and thirteen of the attached document
FURTHER INFORMATION
1. See flow chart on the following page
2. Look at attached guidance document
3. Call your Regional EPA or State contact
-------
Defining Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous Waste for the
Purposes of Complying with the Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR Part 268)
Figure 1. Identification of Mixed Waste
If the waste
radioactive waste
that is regulated
under the Atomic
Energy Act?
It is not mixed wart*, but it
may be RCRA Hazardous
Waste subject to the Land
Disposal Restrictions
DoNon-AEA
Materials cause the
waste to exhibit any of the
RCRA Hazardous W
Characteristics?
Are Listed
Hazardous Wastes
contained in the
radioactive waste?
The waste it
Mixed
Waste.
It is not mixed waste,
nor is it a RCRA
Hazardous Waste.
Go to Figure 2.
NOTE
This flowchart is a simplified version of the Land
Disposal Restriction regulations of 40 CFR Part 268.
and should not be used in lieu of those regulatr
-------
Regulation of Mixed Wastes Under the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions Program
:•;,,-
XVVXNXWWSVWWW
K Mixed waste can continue to be land
$ disposed without treatment until effect!
s date of treatment standard. This will
$ apply to the hazardous portion of mixed
i waste identified or listed under RCRA
> 53001 after November 8U1984.^
Is there a
treatment standard
established for the RCRA
Hazardous Waste
portion of the
mixed waste
Is the waste
subject to the two
year national
capacity variance for
scheduled thirds
mixed waste?
Do current available
treatment methods
meet the applicable
standards?
Figure 2. Treatment
Methods and Standards
under LDR.
Go to Figure 3.
While national capacity variance is
in elTect LDR notification and certifica
tion requirements must still be met.
If wastes subject to the variance are
disposed of in either RCRA surface
impoundments or landfills, the units
must be in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements
(MTR) of RCRA 53004(o).
disposed after meeting
applicable treatment
standards.
Does the
treatment avail-
able render the mixed
waste and treatment
residue
non-hazardous?
Waste must be
disposed as RCRA
hazardous wast*
NOTES:
• If the hazardous component of the mixed waste is listed, but not listed solely
because it exhibits one or more of the characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261,
then it remains a hazardous waste regardless of treatment.
^ The mixed waste must be disposed of at a mixed waste facility permitted
taa under RCRA and licensed by NRC or Agreement State Authority.
When the treatment
standards* are met and if
the waste is not hazardous,
the waste may be disposed
of as radioactive waste.
•NoU: Third Third IrMbmnt
on f o Mow charactirlitic Uv.li
-------
Regulation of Mixed Wastes Under the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions Program (continued)
Figure 3. Options Under LDR:
Variances and Extensions
b
"no migration*
variance
granted?
in a particular
Site-specific variance
S permits disposal of
mixed waste with
X alternative treatment.
There are two type* of treat
ment standard variance*
that can be granted. They
Current treatment
methods are unable to
satisfy applicable
treatment standards.
Therefore, depending
upon the situation, a
mixed waste handler
may pursue the following
three options:
Request a
variance to
treatment
standards.*
b treatment
standard variance
granted?
1) a lite-specific variance; or
2) a national treatability
variance. For further
discussion on these
variances, see pages 7-8.
New treatment
standard permit*
$ disposal of mixed
^ waste after
to new level.
Request a
case-by-case
extension for one
year from the
national effective
date (Renewable
once for an
additional year).
The treatment
Is
caae-by-case
extension
granted?
Disposal of mixed
waste without
treatment until
NOTES:
While the case-by-case and national capacity variances are in
effect, LDR notification and certification requirements must still
be met. Also, if wastes subject to the exemptions are disposed of
in either surface impoundments or landfills, the units must be in
compliance with the minimum technological requirements
(MTR) of RCRA. Section 3004(o).
ESI The mixed waste must be disposed of at a mixed waste
facility permitted under RCRA and licensed by NRC or
Agreement State Authority.
* NOTE: If the treatment stajidard is technology-based then
apply Tor an equivalent treatment method pursuant to 40
CFR fi268.420>). If the treatment standard is concentration.
based then pursue a treatment standard variance (40 CFR
$268.44).
-------
OSWER Directive *9355.00~:
GUIDANCE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
EFFECTS
ON STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL MIXED WASTE
Executive Summary
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), through the land disposal restrictions (LDR), prohibit disposal of
hazardous wastes that have not been pretreated to standards required by EPA, unless the wastes are
subject to an exemption. The HSWA amendments also prohibit any storage of a land disposal
restricted waste, except for the sole purpose of accumulating sufficient quantities to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment, or disposal of that waste.
The LDRs may impact the day-to-day management of mixed waste by generators. Mixed waste is
defined as a waste that satisfies the definition of radioactive waste subject to the Atomic Energy Act
and contains hazardous waste that is either listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR
Part 261 or exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR
Pan 261. The hazardous component of mixed waste is regulated under RCRA.
LDR regulations currently apply to all mixed radioactive and RCRA hazardous wastes. The first
group of mixed wastes subject to the LDR regulations were mixed radioactive and RCRA
hazardous wastes that contain spent solvents, dioxins, or California list wastes. The remaining
RCRA hazardous wastes were placed in three groups known as the First, Second, and Third
Thirds. EPA deferred issuing treatment standards for radioactive waste mixed with First Third and
Second Third hazardous wastes until the statutory effective date for the Third Third, May 8,1990.
On May 8, 1990, all mixed wastes containing hazardous wastes listed or identified as of
November 8, 1984 were restricted from land disposal. However, mixed wastes that connin
scheduled third wastes were granted a two-year national capacity variance which is explained later
in the discussion. (Please note that mixed wastes granted a capacity variance are still considered
restricted since scheduled third mixed wastes disposed in RCRA surface impoundments or landfills
during the two-year period can only be placed in units that meet certainminimum technological
requirements. Also during the variance, these wastes ait subject to 40 CFR 268.7 waste analysis
and recordkeeping requirements, and California list prohibitions if applicable.)
When the variance expires on May 8, 1992, all mixed wastes will be prohibited from storage
except to accumulate sufficient quantities to facilitate proper recovery, treatment or disposal. (See
40 CFR 26830, the storage prohibition.) There are, however, a few exceptions to the storage
prohibition as indicated later in the discussion. Mixed wastes containing spent solvents, dioxins or
California list wastes are currently subject to the storage prohibition.
EPA is aware that there is currently a shortage of treatment and disposal capacity for mixed waste
which may cause mixed waste handlers to be out of compliance with the storage prohibition.
Therefore, EPA plans to issue a policy statement regarding this matter in the fall of 1990,
-------
OSWER Directive ^9555.00-"
Introduction
The land disposal restrictions for mixed waste, like most RCRA hazardous waste requirements,
currently apply only in States where EPA, rather than the State, runs the RCRA program (such as
in unauthorized States), or in States that have adopted mixed waste requirements as pan of their
authorized State£rograms. In other States, the LDRs will not apply to mixed wastes until the State
becomes authorized for mixed waste.
The land disposal restrictions imposed by HSWA have created new responsibilities for those
people who handle RCRA hazardous wastes, including those who manage radioactive mixed
hazardous waste. Presented below is a simplified outline of the LDR requirements. The outline is
intended to provide mixed waste handlers with a basic understanding of the RCRA land disposal
restrictions, and to demonstrate how the LDRs will affect storage and disposal of mixed waste.
Additional information on State authorization under RCRA for mixed waste is discussed briefly at
the end of the outline.
Background of the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
Legislative Framework
The 1984 HSWA amendments to RCRA prohibit the continued land disposal of untreated
hazardous waste beyond specified dates "unless the Administrator [EPA] determines that the
prohibition ... is not required in order to protect human health and the environment for as long as
the waste remains hazardous ... " (RCRA Section 3004(d)(l), (e)(l) and g(5)). This phrase is
defined as meaning that there will be "no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal
unit... for as long as the waste remains hazardous."
Waste treated in accordance with treatment standards set by EPA under Section 3004(m) of RCRA
are not subject to th6 prohibitions and may be land disposed The statute requires EPA to set
"levels or methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are minimized". (RCRA
Section 3004
-------
OSWER Directive ^35^5.00-C
greater than or equal to 50 ppm, and both liquid and nonliquid hazardous wastes containing
designated concentration levels of halogenated organic compounds (HOCs).
( Most of these wastes are subsumed by other waste codes in the scheduled thirds (i.e.,
if a treatment standard has been promulgated for a California list waste in the scheduled
thirds then the more waste-specific treatment standard takes precedence over the California
list prohibition), and so the California list prohibitions were largely superseded on May 8,
1990, although the California list prohibitions may continue to apply during the period of a
national capacity variance for scheduled waste. For example, if a Third Third mixed waste
also meets the definition of a California list waste, it must be treated to prohibition levels
specified for the California list waste prior to land disposal, although it is subject to a two-
year national capacity variance.)
(3) At least one-third of all listed hazardous wastes-August 8, 1988
(First Third).
(4) At least two-thirds of all listed hazardous waste-June 8,1989
(Second Third).
(5) Remaining wastes that were identified or listed as of
November 8, 1984-May 8,1990 (Third Third).
To find the complete list of all scheduled thirds wastes refer to 40 CFR 268, Subpart B-Schedule
for Land Disposal Prohibition and Establishment of Treatment Standards.
Newly Identified and Listed Waste
EPA is required to make land disposal determinations for any hazardous waste identified or listed
after November 8. 1984 within six months of the effective date of identification or listing. Unlike
currently listed and characteristic wastes, the statute does not impose an automatic land disposal
prohibition if EPA misses a deadline for issuing treatment standards for any newly listed or
identified waste.
In the Third Third rule, EPA promulgated treatment standards for five wastes newly listed after
November 8, 1984. Four of these wastes are within the F002 and F005 spent solvent listing and
the other is F025 light ends and spent filters/aids and desiccants subcategory. (EPA also
promulgated treatment standards for several newly listed wastes in the Second Third rule.)
Examples of newly listed wastes where treatment standards have not been established are the
wastes newly promulgated under the TC rule. Mixed radioactive TC wastes are therefore currently
not subject to the LDRs,
Soft Hammmr
HSWA established "soft hammer" provisions which are regulations for the management of wastes
scheduled in the First and Second Thirds for which EPA failed to promulgate treatment standards
by the scheduled deadlines (RCRA 3004(g)(6)). These did not include First and Second Third
wastes that EPA rescheduled to the Third Third such as mixed wastes. These provisions applied
only until May 8, 1990 when the "hard hammer" provisions described below superseded them.
Before May 8, 1990, soft hammer wastes could be land disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment, only if:
(1) The generator determined that placement in a landfill or surface impoundment
was the only practical alternative to currently available treatment, and
-------
OSWER Directive #9555.00-.
(2) The landfill or surface impoundment met minimum technological requirements
set forth in RCRA 3004(o) or had an equivalent waiver.
Soft hammer wastes managed by other land disposal methods such as land treatment or deep well
injection were.not subject to the soft hammer provisions specified in 40 CFR Section 268.8.
Hard Hammer
HSWA also established "hard hammer" provisions that prohibit the land disposal of hazardous
wastes if EPA failed to promulgate treatment standards by certain statutory deadlines. On May 8,
1990, the soft hammer provisions were superseded by a hard hammer for all RCRA hazardous
wastes (other than newly listed or identified) for which treatment standards had not been
promulgated. However, in the Third Third rule, EPA promulgated treatment standards and
effective dates for all First, Second and Third Third wastes including wastes exhibiting a
characteristic under 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. (Note that the California list statutory
prohibitions are still in effect for (1) liquid hazardous wastes containing greater than 50 ppm PCBs;
(2) HOC containing wastes that are identified as hazardous by a characteristic property that does
not involve HOCs and (3) liquid hazardous wastes that exhibit a characteristic and contain greater
than 134 mg/1 of nickel and/or 130 mg/1 of thallium, see 55 ER 22674, June 1,1990.)
S&ttlnQ "Bsst Demonstrated Available TBChnologlos"
RCRA Section 3004(m) requires EPA to "promulgate regulations specifying those levels or
methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste ...". On January 14,
1986, EPA proposed an approach for developing treatment standards under 3004
-------
OSWER Directive #9555.00-0
Once a treatment technology is determined to be demonstrated and available, EPA collects and
analyzes performance data from the specific treatment EPA then analyzes how each treatment
technology substantially diminishes the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduces the likelihood
of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste. Finally, EPA chooses the "best" treatment
technology based on performance data (e.g., the levels to which the technologies can treat specific
hazardous constituents in the waste), and sets a performance standard based on this specific
technology. Where constituent specific performance data cannot be obtained or is deemed
unnecessary, EPA considers specifying that a technology must be used for the waste.
It is important to note that, in some cases, the specific technologies identified as the basis for
BOAT are simply those technologies which EPA used to develop the waste-specific performance
standard. Any technology or combination of technologies not otherwise prohibited can be used to
achieve these standards. In other words, a specific treatment technology does not
have to be used unless the specific method of treatment is specified as the
treatment standard.
A treatment standard can be expressed as:
(1) Concentration Levels - any treatment technology may be used, as long as
hazardous constituents in the waste are treated to specific concentration levels
(2) Treatment Technologies - the standard specifies which technology must be used
to treat the waste before land disposal.
(3) Deactivation - the treatment standard for a number of subcategories of D001-D003
wastes which specifies the removal of the characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity or
reactivity. Recommended technologies that may be used to achieve deactivation are
referenced in Appendix VI of Pan 268.
To date, EPA has set special treatment standards for four categories of mixed waste. They include:
(1) radioactive lead solids with a BOAT treatment standard of macrocapsulation;
(2) radioactive elemental mercury with a BDAT treatment standard of amalgamation;
(3) radioactive hydraulic oil contaminated with mercury and a BDAT standard of
incineration and,
(4) radioactive high level wastes generated during the reprocessing of fuel rods with
a BDAT standard of vitrification.
The remaining mixed wastes are subject to those promulgated treatment standards that apply to the
hazardous portion of the waste unless EPA publishes specific standards for mixed waste
treatability groups in the future, (For further discussion on mixed waste treatment standards see 55
ER 22532 and 22626, June 1,1990.)
Effective Dates for Land Disposal Rastrtctlon*
As soon as EPA sets a treatment standard, wastes subject to that standard ire automatically
prohibited from land disposal, unless the wastes meet the treatment standard or are disposed in an
EPA approved no-migration unit (3004(hXl)). EPA may through rulemaking revise a treatment
standard after the statutory date. If no treatment capacity is available, EPA may defer the effective
date of the standard, as explained below. Also, if wastes are generated that cannot be treated to the
-------
OSWER Directive ^9555.00-01
specified treatment levels or using the specified treatment methods, the regulations allow a
generator or owner/operator to submit a petition to the Administrator requesting a variance from the
treatment standard. Most variances are granted through a rulemaking which requires publication in
the Federal Register and public comment
Variances that Delay a Prohibition Effective Date
National Capacity Extension of Effective Date
After establishing BOAT, EPA determines if sufficient "national capacity" exists to adequately
treat, recover, or dispose of each type of waste. If there is insufficient capacity, RCRA Section
3004(h)(2) allows EPA to grant an extension to the effective date for a specific land disposal
restriction until adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity will be available, but
for no more than two years. This "national capacity" variance cannot exceed two years beyond the
applicable statutory deadline. During the two year period, the waste is not subject to the storage
prohibition, the dilution prohibition or the treatment standards. However, during the extension
period certain recordkeeping requirements under 40 CFR 268.7 must be met. Also, if the waste is
disposed at a landfill or surface impoundment, then the disposal unit must be in compliance with
minimum technological requirements of RCRA Section 3004(o), (i.e., the disposal unit must
normally have two or more liners, a leachate collection system and ground water monitoring). On
the other hand, if a waste such as mixed waste is treated to meet the applicable treatment standard
during the extension period, it may be disposed in a Subtitle C landfill or surface impoundment
without the unit meeting minimum technological requirements. It should be noted, however, that
separate RCRA provisions may require such waste to be disposed in units that meet minimum
technological requirements.
Currently the surface disposed scheduled third mixed wastes are subject to a two-year national
capacity variance. In addition, EPA has granted a two-year extension to naturally occurring
radioactive materials that are mixed with RCRA hazardous wastes. EPA is not granting this
variance to underground injected mixed radioactive wastes because EPA has received no
information that these wastes are being injected. A national capacity variance is also is effect until
November 8, 1990 for radioactive mixed soil and debris wastes containing solvents or dioxins
resulting from a Superfund response action or a RCRA corrective action.
Case-Bv-Caso Extensions
According to RCRA Section 3004{h)(3), in cases where adequate alternative treatment, recovery,
or disposal capacity cannot reasonably be made available by the effective date of a land disposal
restriction, any person who generates or manages a restricted waste may submit an application to
EPA for an extension of the effective date if such alternative capacity can be provided at a later
date. Case-by-case extensions are granted for one year, and are renewable for one additional year.
EPA will allow an extension if the applicant can demonstrate that he has made a good-faith effort to
locate and contract with facilities nationwide to manage his waste, and that he has entered into a
binding contract to construct or otherwise provide such alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal
capacity at the end of the extension. The applicant must also demonstrate that, due to
circumstances beyond his control, such capacity reasonably cannot be made available by the LDR
effective date. Other provisions also apply, such as submitting a compliance schedule and
certifying that the capacity being constructed is sufficient to handle the total quantity of waste that is
the subject of the application. A draft 1988 guidance document on case-by-case extension* is
available by calling the EPA's RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-8OM24-9346.1
-------
OSWER Directive *9555.PO-01
Variances From the Prohibition
No Migration Petition
In carrying out the directives of RCRA Sections 3004(d)(l), (eXl), and (g)(5), EPA will consider
petitions to allow land disposal of untreated restricted waste, provided the petitioners demonstrate
"to a reasonable degree of certainty that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from
the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the wastes remain hazardous". For underground
injection wells, EPA has interpreted this to mean the concentration of hazardous constituents must
not exceed safe levels at the unit boundary. (EPA has not yet formally interpreted the statutory
standard with respect to surface disposal units, although regulations for non-migration petitions
currently exist at 40 CFR 268.6.) This demonstration can be made through site-verified modeling
and monitoring, and must include an evaluation of air, surface water, ground water and soil
exposure scenarios.
EPA expects that there will be relatively few cases in which this demonstration can be made,
however, EPA is proposing to grant a conditional variance for ten years to the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WTPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico. This is the first
such proposal to grant a no-migration petition to a unit other than an underground injection well. If
granted, the conditional variance wiU allow DOE to place transuranic or alpha-emitting mixed
radioactive waste in the WIPP (ah underground salt formation) without regard to LDR treatment
standards for testing and experimentation purposes only.
Petitions for surface land disposal units are to be submitted to EPA Headquarters and petitions for
underground injection wells to the Regional Administrator. EPA draft interim final guidance on no
migration petitions for surface units is available for petition applicants.2 A notice of availability for
this document will be published around October 1990 concurrently with a proposed rule on no-
migration variances for surface units. A final version of the guidance is scheduled for release
around October 1991x»ncurrently with the final rule on no migration variances.
Variance From the Treatment Standard
EPA recognizes that \v ;?tes may exist that cannot be treated to the levels specified as the treatment
standard (or, in some cases, by the method specified). In such cases, a petition may be submitted
requesting a variance from the treatment standard. EPA envisioned that wastes may be subject to a
treatability variance in cases where the treatment standard for a particular waste cannot be met
because the waste does not fit into one of the BOAT treatability groups. A particular waste, such
as a mixed waste stream, may be significantly different from the wastes considered in establishing
treatability groups because the waste contains a more complex matrix, making it more difficult to
treat Variance petitions must demonstrate that the treatment standard established for a given waste
cannot be met This demonstration can be made by showing that attempts to treat the waste by
available technologies were not successful, or through appropriate analyses of the waste, which
demonstrate that the waste cannot be treated to the specified levels. Variances are not granted
based on a showing that adequate BOAT treatment capacity is unavailable.
Treatability variances can be divided into two categories; a national treatability variance and a site-
specific variance. A national treatability variance must be based on a demonstration that the
waste is significantly different (physically or chemically) from the waste or treatability group used
to set the treatment standard, such that the existing treatment standard cannot be met. The national
treatability variance:
(1) Establishes a new treatability group and"treatment standards for a waste and all
similar wastes.
-------
OSWER Directive #3555.00-
(2) Is processed by a nodce-and-comment rulemaking.
A site-specific treatability variance is used when there are site-specific factors that exist
which cause or contribute to difficulty in meeting standards. Unlike a national treatability variance,
a site-specific variance:
(1) Does not establish a new treatability group.
(2) Is processed by non-rulemaking administrative procedures, which includes
public notice and opportunity for comment
EPA granted the first site-specific treatability variance to Allied-Signal Inc. for debris and certain
non-debris materials generated from the dismantlement of the Allied-Signal's Baltimore Works (see
55 £R 20190, May 15, 1990).
Waste Testing and Recordkeeplng Roqulromonts
Generators must test or use their knowledge of the prohibited hazardous waste to demonstrate
compliance with the LDR treatment standards or California prohibition levels prior to land disposal
(see 40 CFR 268.7). Generators who treat prohibited wastes in 90-day tanks or containers to meet
treatment standards, must test these wastes at a frequency specified in their waste analysis plan.
Similarly, treatment and disposal facilities are required to test their wastes according to the
frequency defined in the facility waste analysis plan.
Each time a restricted waste is shipped to an off-site treatment, storage or disposal facility,
notification must accompany the waste. If a waste meets a treatment standard, then certification by
the generator or treatment facility is required verifying that the treatment standard has been achieved
and the waste has not -been impermissibly diluted. (Certain recordkeeping requirements also apply
to restricted wastes that remain on-site, cease to be solid or hazardous wastes and are not land
disposed.)
Notification and certification are not required to accompany characteristic wast'.'? rendered non-
hazardous to Subtitle D facilities. However, appropriate notification and certification for these
wastes must be sent to the EPA Regional Administrator or authorized State. If the characteristic
wastes rendered non-hazardous are sent to a Subtitle C Facility, then the appropriate notification
and certification must be sent to the Subtitle C facility. Note that a one-time notification and
certification is allowed for small quantity generator shipments subject to tolling agreements outlined
in 40 CFR 262.20(e)(2).
TroBtrnont In Surface Impoundmont Exomptlon
Treatment of wastes that are normally prohibited from land disposal is allowed in a surface
impoundment or a series of surface impoundments that meet the technological requirements of 40
CFR 268.4
-------
OSWER Directive 19555.0<
Dilution as Treatment
Under the LDRs, dilution is prohibited as treatment for both listed and characteristic wastes (see
40 CFR 268.3). However, exceptions to the prohibition were made for
(1) Certain characteristic wastes generated and managed in waste treatment systems
regulated by the Clean Water Act (Sec 40 CFR 268.3(b)). (Note that prohibited wastes
treated by inappropriate methods are considered impermissibly diluted.)
(2) Lasted and characteristic wastes that are aggregated for legitimate treatment in
centralized treatment systems. (Note that centralized treatment of incompatible
wastestreams is not considered legitimate treatment and is viewed as impermissible
dilution.)
(3) Characteristic wastes that are disposed into hazardous or non-hazardous Qass I
injection wells regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and do not exhibit any
prohibited characteristic of hazardous waste at the point of injection.
(4) Prohibited non-toxic ignitable, reactive and corrosive wastes that are treated by dilution
to meet a treatment standard.
Storage Prohibition
In addition to prohibiting the land disposal of hazardous wastes. Congress also prohibited the
storage of any waste which is prohibited from land disposal unless "such storage is solely for the
purpose of the accumulation of such quantities of hazardous waste as are necessary to facilitate
proper recovery, treatment, or disposal" [RCRA Section 3004(j)]. The intent of Congress was to
ensure that long-term storage was not used as a means of avoiding a land disposal prohibition.
Currently a capacity/shortage exists for treatment and disposal of mixed wastes that may cause
mixed waste handlers to be in violation of the storage prohibition. As a result, EPA plans to issue
a policy statement regarding this matter in the fall of 1990. (For further discussion on storage
issue see 55 ER 22673, June 1, 1990.)
The implementing regulations that address the prohibitions on storage of LDR waste are found in
40 CFR 268.50. This regulation essentially restates the statutory language.
Allowed Storage Times
It is apparent from the language in HSWA that Congress wished to prohibit extended storage of a
LDR waste in lieu of treatment. There are, however, a few instances that allow for the storage of
LDR waste in tanks or containers:
(1) Continued storage of wastes first placed in storage prior to the applicable effective date
of a LDR, until the wastes are removed from storage.
(2) Placement of wastes in storage after the arjplkauble effective date, only if the untreated
wastes are stored solely for accumulation in the amounts necessary to facilitate proper
treatment, recovery or disposal
(3) Storage of restricted wastes that are not prohibited from land disposal because they are
exempt from the land disposal restrictions by statute or EPA regulation, (see 54 ER 36968,
September 6,1989.) •*•
-------
OSWER Directive ^9555.00-01
(4) Specified treatment standards for the waste are met.
EPA interprets the land disposal restrictions as applying prospectively to affected wastes.
Therefore, wastes disposed of or placed in storage prior to the LDR applicable effective date are
not subject to LDR. If however wastes are removed from storage or a land disposal unit after the
applicable effective date, and are subsequently placed in or on the land, then they are subject to
LDR.
The LDR implementing regulations, at 40 CFR 268.50(b), state that: "an owner/operator of a
treatment, storage or disposal facility may store [LDR waste] for up to one year unless the Agency
[EPA] can demonstrate that such storage was not solely for the purpose of accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as are necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment or disposal".
This provision puts the burden of proof on EPA to demonstrate that storage is improper, if it takes
place for less than one year, however, this should not be interpreted that an LDR waste can be
stored for up to one year for any reason. This allocation of burden of proof was upheld in
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA. 886 F. 2d (D.C Cir. 1989).
The regulations further state in 40 CFR 268.50(c) that: "an owner/operator of a treatment, storage
or disposal facility may store [prohibited waste] beyond one year, however, the owner/operator
bears the burden of proving that such storage was solely for the purpose of accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as are necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal."
The preamble to the November 7, 1986 final rule also discusses the point at which storage is
considered to begin. As stated in 51 ER 40583, "to implement the storage provisions the Agency
[EPA] is requiring owners/operators to comply with the seme requirements for dating containers as
set forth for generators under 40 CFR 262.34(a)(2)." The requirements in 40 CFR 262.34 allow a
generator to store a land disposal restricted waste (as any other type of waste) in a satellite
accumulation area until 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous waste are
accumulated. Satellite areas are defined as "places where wastes are generated in the industrial
process or laboratory and where those wastes must initially accumulate prior to removal to a central
area" (49 FR 49569, December 20, 1984). Therefore, the accumulation date for storage starts
when the waste is moved to the central accumulation area. (Also, under the 40 CFR 262.34
requirements, a generator can store hazardous waste for up to 90 days without a permit)
Disposal of certain restricted wastes such as those wastes listed in 40 CFR 268. l(c) is allowed by
statute or regulation. For example, small-quantity generators of less than 100 kilogram of non-
acute hazardous waste per month or less than 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste per month are
not subject to the LDR. In addition, exempt wastes such as those with an approved case-by-case
extension under 40 CFR 268.5, an approved no migration petition under Section 268.6 or a
national capacity variance under Pan 268 may continue to be land disposed under certain
conditions and are not subject to the storage prohibition during the period of the exemption. These
wastes are not subject to the storage prohibition because the storage prohibition only applies to
wastes that are prohibited from land disposal (For further discussion see 54 FR 36968,
September 6,1989 and 55 £R 22660, June 1.1990.)
Status of the Land Disposal Restrictions
As discussed above, HSWA required EPA to set treatment standards for solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes and California list wastes by certain dates. On November 7, 1986, EPA
promulgated a final rule (51 FR 40572) that established the general framework for the land
disposal restrictions program and established treatment standards for the solvent- and dioxia-
containing wastes. On July 8, 1987 EPA promulgated a final rule (52 FR 25760) establishiftf
treatment standards for California list wastes containing PCBs and certain halogenated orgaak
10
-------
OSWER Directive #9555.00-01
compounds, and codified the statutory prohibitions on liquid corrosive wastes. Also on this date,
statutory prohibitions went into effect for liquid hazardous wastes containing certain metals and
free cyanides. The California list standards were set up as interim treatment standards until more
waste-specific standards could be established.
These two rules prohibit the land disposal of mixed waste that contains RCRA solvents or dioxins
or California list wastes unless treatment standards developed for the hazardous waste portion are
met In other words, a spent solvent, dioxin or California list mixed waste must be treated to those
concentrations or using the treatment method specified for its hazardous component prior to land
disposal. For example, if a non-liquid mixed waste is identified as hazardous under 40 CFR Pan
261 and it contains greater than 1000 mg/kg halogenated organic compounds (i.e., it is a California
list waste), it must be incinerated as specified in Section 268.42.
HSWA also required EPA to prepare a schedule for restricting the land disposal of all hazardous
waste listed or identified as of the date of the enactment of HSWA, excluding solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes. On May 28. 1986, EPA published a schedule (51 FR 19300) for setting
treatment standards for the listed and identified hazardous waste. This schedule placed each of the
listed and identified wastes in one of the "Thirds".
EPA promulgated the final rule addressing the First Third wastes on August 17, 1988 (53 FR
31137). In the First Third rulemaking, EPA postponed establishing treatment standards for mixed
waste to the Third Third (Sec 53 ER 31137 and amended Section 268.12.) The final rule
establishing treatment standards for the Second Third wastes was published on June 23,1989 (S4
FR 26594). As was the case for mixed waste in the First Third, EPA postponed establishing
treatment standards for mixed waste covered under the Second Third until the Third Third.
The Third Third rule was published on June 1, 1990 (55 £& 22520). In the rule, EPA granted
mixed wastes containing scheduled third hazardous wastes a two-year national capacity variance.
EPA also established treatment standards for four categories of mixed waste outlined on page five.
After May 8,1992, die hazardous portion of all mixed waste must meet the appropriate treatment
standard for all applicable waste codes prior to disposal.
Effect:: of the LDR on the Storrge and Disposal of Mixed Waste
Consistent with the intent of these regulations, the major impact of the land disposal restrictions on
mixed waste disposal is that, on May 8, 1990, all waste must meet treatment standards prior to
land disposal unless a variance or extension to the effective date is granted It may be difficult or
impossible to treat land disposal restricted mixed waste because a shortage of mixed waste
treatment capacity exists; therefore, variances may be necessary.
Restricted wastes that are exempt from (e.g., wastes granted a national capacity variance) or not
subject to a land disposal prohibition (e.g., wastes that meet specified treatment standards) are also
exempt from or not subject to the storage prohibition. Wastes that do not meet a specific treatment
standard and are not exempt from LDR by statute or regulation are prohibited from storage unless
such storage is solely for the purpose of accumulation of such quantities of hazardous waste as are
necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal. The storage prohibition does not
affect those scheduled third mixed wastes that are disposed or stored prior to May 8, 1992.
Instead, the prohibition addresses storage of scheduled third mixed wastes first placed into storage
after May 8,1992 unless these wastes are granted an additional variance.
It is important to note that mixed waste is not the only category of waste where treatment capacity
is or may not be available on an LDR effective date. For example, no incinerators are currently
permitted to treat already-stored prohibited dioxin wastes.
1 1
-------
OSWER Directive ^555.
Since all mixed waste is restricted, EPA encourages mixed waste handlers to determine the types
and quantities of mixed waste presently stored or generated and to evaluate the current and future
capacity to treat their wastes. Mixed waste generators may obtain EPA guidance documents on the
definition and identification of mixed waste from the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800-424-
9346.3
State Authorization and Mixed Waste
EPA formally clarified its position that the hazardous component(s) of mixed waste is subject to
RCRA regulation (sec 51 Hi 24504, July 3,1986). In the notice, EPA called for authorized States
to revise their base programs and incorporate the authority to regulate the hazardous components of
mixed waste. States authorized for the base program were allowed a maximum of two years from
the promulgation of the notice to incorporate the mixed waste authority (i.e., until July 3, 1988).
The July 3,1988 deadline was extended one year to reflect new deadlines promulgated for all State
hazardous waste program modifications called "clusters" on September 22,1986 (51 ER 33712).
To date, there are still a number of States that have not received authorization for the mixed waste
authority. In those States that are authorized for RCRA's base program but which have not
received mixed waste authority, mixed waste is not subject to LDRs including the storage
prohibition until the State is authorized for mixed waste. However, in those States that are not
authorized for RCRA's base program and in States authorized for mixed waste, EPA's LDR
regulations take effect immediately. States and territories granted mixed waste authorization as of
September 1, 1990 are:
(1) Colorado
(2) Tennessee
(3) South Carolina
(4) Washington
(5) Georgia .-
(6) Nebraska
(7) Kentucky
(8) Utah
(9) Minnesota
(10) Ohio
(11) Guam
(12) North Carolina
(13) Michigan
(14) Texas
(15) New York
(16)Idaho
(17) Illinois
(18) Arkansas
(19) Oregon
(20)Kansas
(21) New Mexico
(22) North Dakota
Information on a State's RCRA authorization status may be obtained from the State's hazardous
waste agency or by calling EPA's RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800-424-9346.
12
-------
OSWER Directive #9555.00-0'
Summary
All mixed waste was subject to the RCRA land disposal restrictions on May 8, 1990 unless it was
disposed of in land based units prior to that date stored, without being removed from storage after
the effective date, is in a State that is authorized for RCRA's base program but has not yet received
authorization fbcmixed waste, or is a newly identified or listed waste after November 8, 1984 for
which treatment standards have not yet been promulgated. Currently, solvent- and dioxin-
containing mixed wastes and California list mixed wastes have to be treated to the treatment
standard for the hazardous portion of the waste. Treatment standards for radioactive mixed waste
that contains scheduled third wastes are not effective due to a two-year national capacity variance;
however, if these wastes are disposed of in RCRA surface impoundments or landfills the units
must meet minimum technological requirements. These wastes are also subject to 40 CFR 268.7
reporting and recordkeeping requirements and the California list prohibitions if applicable.
The first step in dealing with LDRs is to determine whether the waste is a RCRA hazardous waste.
Next, it must be established whether a treatment standard has been promulgated for the waste. If
so, it is a restricted waste and subject to certain recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR 268.7.
Third, it must be determined whether the waste is destined for a prohibited form of land disposal
and whether the treatment standard is in effect for the waste. If so, then the waste is a prohibited
waste subject to all LDR requirements unless the generator or treater has obtained a variance or
extension from the LDRs. However, each mixed waste handler needs to identify the types and
quantities of mixed waste he or she currently generates and stores to evaluate the present and future
treatment capacity for the waste(s).
13
-------
OSWER Directive ==9555.00-(
Major Land Disposal Restriction Rules
(1) November 7, 1986, (51 ER 40572). Final Rule on spent solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes.
(2) June 4, 1987, (52 ER 21010). Corrections to the November 7, 1986 final rule.
(3) July 8, 1987, (52 ER 25760). Final rule on California List hazardous wastes. :
(4) July 26, 1988, (53 ER 28118). Final rule on spent solvent-containing wastes for the
Underground Injection Control Program.
(5) August 16, 1988, (53 ER 30908). Final rule on California List hazardous wastes and
certain scheduled First Third wastes for the Underground Injection Control Program.
(6) August 17, 1988, (53 ER 31138). Final rule on First Third scheduled wastes.
(7) October 24, 1988, (53 ER 41601), Corrections to the August 16, 1989 final rule for
the Underground Injection Program,
(8) June 14,1989, (54 ER 25416). Final rule on additional First Third scheduled wastes
for Underground Injection Control Program.
(9) June 23, 1989, (54 ER 26594). Final rule on Second Third scheduled wastes.
(10) September 6, 1989, (54 ER 36967). Corrections to August 17, 1988 final rule.
(11) June 1, 1990, (55 ER 22520), Final rule on Third Third scheduled wastes.
14
-------
U.S. EPA,' "Case-By-Case Extensions: A Guidance Document to Support the
Land Disposal Restrictions"
U.S. EPA. "No Migration Variance to the Hazardous Waste Land Disposal
Prohibition: A Guidance Manual for Petitioners, Draft Interim Final",
March 1990, NTIS No. PB 90-204-736.
U.S. EPA, "Joint EPA/NRC Guidance on the Definition and Identification
of Commercial Mixed Low Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste",
January 7. 1987, OSWER Directive Number 9432.00-2.
U.S. EPA, "Guidance on the Definition and Identification of Commercial
Mixed Waste Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste and Answers to
to Anticipated Questions", October 4, 1989.
15
-------
UNITED STATED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9555.1987(01)
October 2, 1987
Mr. H. Kavne Hibbitt.s, Director
^nvircnnental Protection Division
Decartment of Eneroy
Cak Pidge Operations
Post Office Pox P.
Oek Pidge, Tennessee 37«?1
Tear «r. Hibbitts?
T am responding to your letter to Lee Thomas, dated "uoMRt IP,
1997, request Inn an extension of the effective date of the storaoe
prohibition imposed by the land disposal restrictions. Th*»
wastes for which the extension is requested are Generated at
sites in Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky. Th«»y poe* an unusual
problem because they ar* co-contarinated with radionuclldes an*
we are not aware of any disposal facilities that accent low-level
radioactive mixed wastes. An incinerator to di goose of .these
wastes is being built and a draft pern-it has been issued 'or
public comment. The renuested extension cover* the time ne«?H«-»
to bring the incinerator to operational readiness and conduct
trial burns. The incinerator is expected to be operational bv
January of 198P.
The Agency realizes that 3 ow- level radioactive mixer1 wastes
pose a special oroblem for Generators, since there are no facili-
ties at this time permitted to treat or dispose of these wastes.
Unfortunately, the Resource Conservation and Peeovery Act
contains no provision authorizino extension of the effective
of th« section 3004(j) storaoe prohibition, (4? O.P.r. «02'H)l,
so we are unable to grant your reouest.
As our staffs have discussed, however, 9CRA section
provideo for an extension of the land disposal restrictions
effective date for specific wastes on a case-hy-case basis. ">
are thus treating this petition as one for a case-bv-case extension
of the effective date. To reiterate the telephone conversation
held by our staffs on September 2Q, 19R7, we need the follow! no
information!
-------
OSWFR Directive a9555.00-C
9555.1990(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP 28 1990
OFFICE OF
SOUO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
TO ALL NRC LICENSEES:
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE ON THE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS' EFFECTS ON
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL MIXED WASTE
The purpose of this letter is to announce the availability
of guidance on the land disposal restrictions (LDR) for NRC
licensees. The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act directed EPA to
develop regulations restricting the land disposal of RCRA
hazardous wastes. The intent of the LDR provisions is to
minimize the potential risk to human health and the environment
by requiring treatment of wastes before land disposal. Since the
hazardous component(s) of radioactive mixed waste is RCRA
regulated, mixed radioactive waste handlers may now or soon will
manage waste subject to the RCRA land disposal restrictions.
The attached guidance is intended to provide a general
overview of the land disposal restriction regulations as well as
to provide information on areas of the regulations that may
particularly affect mixed waste handlers.
As identified in the guidance, the land disposal
restrictions have created new responsibilities for mixed waste
handlers. Therefore, it is important that mixed waste handlers
take the time to develop a good understanding of the land
disposal regulations. This guidance should not be used as a
substitute for the land disposal restriction regulations found at
40 CFR 268 or the Federal Register rules that contain the
promulgated LDR regulations. (See list of major rules at the end
of guidance). Instead it should be used as a general guidance to
familiarize the mixed waste handler with the land disposal
restriction regulations.
Sincerely,
K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Prinud on Kteyeltd Paptr
-------
Administrative Information
1. Specify the amount of time needed to comnlete alternative
capacity for the waste.
2. Provide information about the process oeneratino the
waste and about the physical/chemical properties of the
waste, including;
0 A descriotion of the process oeneratino the waste.
0 The FPA Hazardous Waste Number.
0 A descriotion of the composition and ohvsical form of
the waste stream.
• The Quantity of waste Generated o«r vear.
0 The certification that the information is true, accurate,
and complete, sioned by an authorized representative.
Demonstrations
1. Submit capacity figures for the incinerator.
2. Submit capacity fioures for the maximum, ouantity of wa«te
that would be subject to the extension. .
3. Submit descriptions and PC*A permit numbers of the storaoe
facilities where the waste will be stored prior to incinerat-ion,
Although we have initiated action on your reauest, we will
not be able to oropose our decision until we receive the requested
information. You should be aware that a case-by-case extension
of the effective date is a rulemaking procedure, reouirino publi-
cation of the Agency's tentative decision to allow the public an
opportunity to comment on your reauest. After considerino th«?ir
comments, the final decision must also be oublished in the Federal
Peglster.
We will make every effort to process your application in a
timely manner. In the interim, if you have further nuestions or
problems, feel free to contact Phonda Craig at (?02)
Sincerely*
Marcia William?
director
office of Solid waste
-------
Waste Minimization
so
01
Os
-------
9560 - WASTE
MINIMIZATION
AT. Kearney 1/3590/12 cr
-------
9560.1985(01)
11 885
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTi Waete Minimisation* Permit Certification
&nd Joint Permitting
FROMi Bruce R. Weddle. Director
Peraits and State Program* Division (WH-563)
TOi Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Regions I-X %
&
CD
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance to £
permit writers for incorporating the {30O5(h) waste minimisa- »
tion certification requirement of the Hazardous and Solid u»
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA or the Amendments) into RCRA £
permits. It is also intended to clarify joint permitting i
of this requirement. Waste minimisation has a unique effect to
on the joint permitting process which was described in RCRA £
Statutory Interpretation (RSI) t5 dated July 1, 1985, because -
it does not mandate any technical efforts or substantive ^
judgments. * ^ '.
CD :
Permit Certification IT I
- • O ;
RCRA {300500, as amended by HSWA {224, requires that all £ j
RCRA permits for on-site treatment, storage or disposal issued
after September 1, 1985, include a condition requiring the i£
permittee to certify in the facility operating record thatt M
o The generator of the hazardous waste has a program in M
place to reduce the volume or quantity and_torlcity of g.
such waste to the degree determined by the generator e
to be economically practicable} and *
o The proposed method of treatment, storage or disposal CD
is that practicable method currently available to the
generator which minimises the present and future
threat to human health and the environment*
The legislative history of these provisions clearly
indicates that HSWA waste minimisation requirements are
not meant to impose a significant new burden to gene- •
raters, nor are they meant to form the basis for specific
waste minimisation standards or regulations at this
time. Rather* Congress intended that the substantive
-------
- 2 -
judgments' as to what is "economically practicable' and what is
the most "practicable method currently available" are to be
mad* by the generator la light of his or her own particular
In addition, RCRA 18002 .requires that the Administrator
submit a Report to -Congress by October 1, '1986, on the feasi-
bility of establishing standards or taking other actions to
ensure that hazardous waste'generators are taking steps to
minimise the waste they produce. . _ . \
The new waste minimisation permit certification
requirements are Intended to be an Interim measure pending
delivery of the Report to Congress in October, 1986. The
conclusions .reached in the Report will in large part
determine whether specific, substantive waste minimisation
standards or regulations are necessary or feasible.
Permit Writers* Guidance
Tho Final Codification Rule published In the Federal
Register on July 15, 1985, added a new provision to I264.73(b)
requiring the permittee to record at least annually a waste
minimisation certification statement in the written operating
record kept .at the facility. Pursuant to this requirement*
permit writers should incorporate into any on-site treatment,
storage or disposal permit issued after September 1, 1985, a
condition requiring that a waste minimisation certification
statement be Included in the facility operating record.
We recoaaend incorporating this condition into the permit
by adding to Module ZI(L)(1) (General Facility Conditions*
Recordkeeping and Reporting, Operating Record) the language
•and <9 Con-site only])". The revised model permit condition
will read as follows s.
MODULE XI—GZHERAL FACILITY COHDXTIOHS
e 'e e e e ' e e
L. Recordkeepinq and Reporting
1. Operating Record. The Permittee shall maintain a written
operating record* at th* facility In accordance with
. 40 CPE 2*4.73(a),
-------
- 3 -
Joint Permitting
The joint permitting guidance (RSI t5) states that where
facilities are affected by BSWA, joint Federal-State permits
will be issued for those provisions for which the State has
not yet been authorised. This implies that there are some
facilities that will not be affected by BSWA at all. However,
the wasta minimisation certification is required for all on- •,
site facilities even where no other provisions of the Amendments.
»Pply° This leads to the question of how the waste minimisation \
requirement will be addressed in permits. -,
The guidance states that in those cases where permits
are not issued simultaneously (see RSI 15 for those exceptions),
EPA must issue a public notice when it determines the appli-
cability of BSWA. The State-issued permit will become a full
RCRA permit only after EPA issues a permit addressing the
waste minimisation requirement and any other applicable BSWA
requirements •
In all other permitting situations, EPA
will issue permits simultaneously. However,
clearly determined that $3005(h) is the only
requirement, and the State has the authority
conditions requiring this certification, EPA
to iesuo a separate Federal permit (or offer
notice).
and the State
when it is
applicable BSWA
to impose permit
does not intend
separate public
Th« procedure for implementing this approach is for EPA
to write a generic letter to the State on how to proceed
whenever this situation occurs. Specifically, the letter
must explain that the Stats has authority to address §3005(h)
and that the State will use its authority to include this
requirement. This letter will apply to waste minimisation only;
where other BSWA requirements are applicable to a particular
facility a joint Federal-State permit must still be issued.
Finally* the letter must explain that EPA always has the
authority to insert additional permit conditions as necessary
to protect human health and the environment. Where information •
becomes available to EPA which demonstrates the need for such . •
additional permit conditions, EPA will exercise that authority.*
The State should place a copy of EPA's generic letter in the.
public docket of each facility permit for which this approach is \
used. In this way* the public will have access to information ''•
about EPA*s decision. Following these procedures will allow for
States to issue RCRA permits by incorporating the waste
minimi ration requirements without the need for a separate Federal
permit.
-------
-if 700 **v» qu*»tion» or «*qulr« £ortb«r ^information .
regarding vart* minimisation, plea»« oontaot £a*a Pagan of
the Permit* branch at FT! Kl-44f7. .
ooi Ba&ardou* «*«t« Arandh Chlefa, ftagioa* I-X
. . Sasardou* Wa*t« Permit* tootioo Chief •, tegieoa I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
• WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
% P«cX
9561.1994(01)
O lOO/l OFFICE OF
JUL I O lyya SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Charles St. John
BKK Landfill
2210 South Azusa Avenue
West Covina, California 91792
Dear Mr. St. John:
Thank you for your February 7, 1994 letter inquiring about
EPA's position on federal waste minimization requirements for
hazardous waste disposal facilities, and for Clarence Gieck's
January 10, 1994 letter to Administrator Browner describing your
company's efforts to reduce the toxicity of landfill leachate.
This letter responds primarily to your February 7 letter
addressed to me.
You inquired about the waste minimization requirements of
Section 3002(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). This section requires generators of large quantities of
hazardous waste to certify on their hazardous waste manifests
that they have "a program in place to reduce the volume or
quantity and toxicity of such waste to the degree determined by
the generator to be economically practicable; and...the proposed
method of treatment, storage, or disposal is that practicable
method currently available to the generator which minimizes the
present and future threat to human health and the environment."
In addition, there is a similar certification requirement under
RCRA Section 3005 (h) for permitted hazardous waste facilities
which are treating, storing, or disposing (TSD) hazardous waste
on the premises where the waste was generated.
We understand from your description that the F039 is
"generated" at the Class I landfill and according to our Region 9
office, there is a RCRA permit for the F039 leachate treatment
plant at the site. Therefore, the requirement of Section 3005 (h)
that permitted TSD facilities certify that they have a waste
minimization plan in place applies. In addition, if the
hazardous waste quantities generated per month cause your site to
be classified as a large quantity generator, the RCRA Section
3002(b) certification requirements also apply (i.e., the manifest
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed wllh Soy/Canoia Ink on paper ma!
contains et least 50% recycled fiber
-------
certification), as long as you are sending the F039, or other
hazardous waste generated at your landfill site, off-site.
We agree that a landfill leachate generation scenario may
not easily lend itself to "reduc[ingj the volume or quantity and
toxicity of [leachate]," especially for a landfill which is no
longer accepting waste. However, we believe there are certain
measures which can reduce the quantity of leachate and we
encourage you to investigate these fully. For example, any
measures you have taken to reduce run-on and precipitation
infiltration (e.g., from a major storm) to the Class I hazardous
waste landfill are positive waste minimization efforts.
With respect to the statutory waste minimization
requirements appearing to be directed toward primary generators,
such as manufacturers, we agree that there is no statutory
exemption for a site generating hazardous waste as a result of a
remedial type of activity.
We believe that the statute affords hazardous waste
generators flexibility to determine which waste minimization
activities are economically practicable. This flexibility,
combined with opportunities for waste minimization even in a •
remediation situation, leads us to conclude that the statutory
waste minimization certification requirement is flexible enough
to accommodate a party conducting a remediation. However, we are
continuing to assess the issue, and we will consider the comments
you provided in your letter.
Again, thank you for your letter and your interest in waste
minimization requirements.
Sincerely,
Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
BKK Landfill
2210 Slum AJ:US.T Av«nue
CORPORATION wes. Cov.na.^Cal.io,™ 917
Fa. (818) 965-9569
Michael Shapiro February 7, 1994
Director of the Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code # 5301
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro,
Recently, I had a conversation with Ms. Becky Cuthbertson of your branch, regarding the recent
regulations concerning Waste Minimization. Ms. Cuthbertson, suggested I explain to you our
position and how this rule will affect our facility.
As you are aware, Ms. Carol Browner of the EPA sent out notifications last December (1993)
to Large Quantity Generators of hazardous waste of the new requirements regarding waste
minimization. The list of Large Quantity Generators was derived from the biennial reports
which are submitted to the EPA.
BKK Landfill is composed of an operating Class HI Municipal Solid Waste Facility and a closed
Class I hazardous waste facility. The Class I facility accepted hazardous waste from 1972 to
1984. As a result of on-site groundwater contamination, BKK and USEPA Region IX entered
into an Order on Consent, under RCRA § 3008 (h). In this agreement, BKK is performing site
investigation and remediation activities to control or eliminate the extent of on-site
contamination. Included in this remediation activity is a plan to treat on-site groundwater and
landfill liquids contained within the Class I and III landfills. This is performed in BKK's
Leachate Treatment Plant which utilizes a Bio/Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment system.
A treatment residual of this system is a filter cake material which carries the waste code of the
leachate from the Class I facility: F039 multi-source leachate. The filtercake is transported off-
site for incineration at an appropriate facility.
Our dilemma is that the requirements of the waste minimization rules are directed toward
primary generators, such as manufacturers, not secondary generators, such as we. In our
conversation, Ms. Cuthbertson recognized that there was no "exit" mechanism in this statute for
facilities which would not otherwise be considered a Large Quantity Generator. In the context
of site remediation, the requirements of waste minimization should not apply.
Waste minimization requirements regulated by the California EPA, Department of Toxic
Substance Control, are similar to the federal standard. In November of last year, Ijdiscussed
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro - USEPA
February 7, 1994
Page 2
this issue with members of CaJ-EPA in Sacramento and Region 3, who came to the same
conclusion as Ms. Cuthbertson and me.
In summary, even though the waste minimization regulations are directed at primary generators,
secondary generators who are performing remediation activities are included in the same
category. As regulations currently exist, there is no distinction between wastes which are
generated in a manufacturing process, or a waste which must be generated in an effort to protect
human health and the environment.
Therefore, to resolve this issue may we suggest the following:
1) Provide for facilities which generate waste in their efforts to remediate a
environmental medium a means to exit the rule.
2) Recognize site remediation as a form of waste minimization and therefore exempt
from the rule.
3) Some form of certification from the EPA which recognizes that waste minimization
does not refer to remediation activities.
I look forward to hearing from you and hope that we may work together in the future to resolve
this issue. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (818) 965-0911.
Sincerely,
BKK Landfill
Charles St. John
Compliance Specialist
CC: Stan Lau - Office of Pollution Prevention Technology and Development, CAL-EPA
JD&nha-PeHjf - Chief of Waste Minimization Branch, USEPA
Laura Yoshi - Deputy Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Division, USEPA,
Region IX
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
July 1994
9561.1994(02)
RCRA
1. Waste Minimization and Recycling
Activities That Resemble
Conventional Waste Management
Practices
Large quantity generators of hazardous
waste and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities who generate and manage hazardous
waste on-site are required to certify that they
have a waste minimization program in place.
Do recycling activities classified as burning
for energy recovery as defined in 40 CFR
§2612(c)(2) or use constituting disposal as
defined in 40 CFR §2612(c)(l) qualify as
waste minimization?
Burning for energy recovery and use
constituting disposal do not qualify as waste
minimization. The scope of the waste
minimization program encompasses source
reduction and environmentally sound recycling
practices (58 £R 31114; May 28, 1993).
Source reduction involves decreasing the
amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant,
or contaminant entering any wastestream prior
to recycling, treatment, or disposal, while
recycling includes the use, reuse, or
reclamation of hazardous waste. Recycling
activities closely resembling conventional
waste management activities do not qualify as
waste minimization (58 £R 31115; May 28,
1993). Burning for energy recovery is
considered a recycling process that closely
resembles incineration, a conventional waste
anagement practice. Much like incineration,
'uming for energy recovery disposes of
hazardous constituents by destruction as well
as by releasing toxic constituents into the air
(53 £R 522;
January 8, 1988). Similarly, any activity in
which hazardous waste is recycled by being
placed on the land, for example as a dust
suppressant or soil conditioner, is considered
use constituting disposal, and is analogous to
conventional waste disposal in land-based
units, such as landfills and surface
impoundments (50 £g 628; January 4, 1985).
Since burning for energy recovery and use
constituting disposal are similar to
conventional waste disposal practices, neither
activity would qualify as waste minimization.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
• ««rtr 9561.1995(01)
June 1995
RCRA
2. RCRA Waste Minimization
Requirements
RCRA subjects generators of hazardous
waste and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) that manage their own
hazardous waste on site to waste minimization
requirements. What are the specific
requirements?
Generators who generate 1,000 or more
kilograms per month of hazardous waste
("large quantity" generators) and owners and
operators of hazardous waste TSDFs who
manage their own hazardous waste on site
must comply with similar waste minimization
requirements. RCRA §3002(b) requires large
quantity generators who transport waste off
site to certify on the manifest that they have
established a "program in place" to reduce the
volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous
waste generated to the extent economically
practicable. For owner/operators, that manage
waste on site in a permitted TSDF, §300S(h)
requires that a certification that a waste
minimization program is in place be prepared
annually and maintained in the facility
operating record. In the May 28,1993,
Federal Register (58 FR 31114). EPA
published interim final guidance on the
elements of a waste minimization "program in
place" to assist generators and TSDFs in
fulfilling these requirements. The guidance
provides latitude for a facility to tailor
program elements to meet the individual
facility's needs. EPA has published a
Pollution Prevention Guide. EPA600-R-92-
088, to assist generators in tailoring the
guidance to the individual facility's needs.
RCRA §3002(aX6) also requires large
quantity generators to submit biennial reports
describing their waste minimization efforts.
Specifically, large quantity generators must
describe the efforts undertaken to achieve
waste minimization and the actual changes in
the volume and toxicity achieved relative to
other years (§262.4l(a){6)-(7)). The biennial
report requirements for TSDFs mat generate
waste parallel those specific to large quantity
generators (§§264/265.75(h) and (i)).
Small quantity generators who generate
greater than 100 kilograms but less than 1,000
kilograms of hazardous waste per month are
not subject to the same "program in place"
certification requirement as large quantity
generators. Instead, they must certify on their
hazardous waste manifests that they have
"marie a good faith effort to minimi^" their
waste generation (51ER 35190; October 1,
1986).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
in
Subtitle D
-------
9570 — SUBTITLE D
A.T.Kearney 1/3590/13 cr
-------
9571.1985(01)
CCT 3
I
; Mr. Donald A. Robbins
: Department of Environnental Sciences
1 ASARCO Incorporated
i 3422 South 700 '.Jest
j Salt Lake City, Utah 84119-4191
: Dear 'lr. Robbins:
i
I Thank you for your recent letter and sungestions on aooroaches
to the difficult problem of regulating the management of those
mining wastes which pose a hazard if improperly .managed. We share
your concerns both with respect to the suitability of using the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to identify
which mining wastes warrant RCRA regulatory control and the need
for tailored management standards for hazardous mining-wastes.
The TCLP was developed primarily to simulate the leachability
of an industrial waste co-disposed with sanitary refuse or other
putrescible materials. Mining wastes, because of the relatively
large volumes of material involved, are not likely to encounter
such disposal conditions even if not regulated. However, although
mining wastes are generally not acidic, many mining wastes contain
pyritic minerals which generate an acidic leachate upon exposure
to air. Thus, the acidic environment modeled by the EP/TCLP may
be appropriate for mining wastes even if the model environment
used to develop the TCLP is not. In fact, the leachate generated
by mining wastes can often be more acidic than the refuse derived
leachate. Thus, a different leach procedure (which, for some
mining wastes, could be more aggressive than the TCLP) might he
appropriate.
No decision has yet been made as to what type of test
procedure to use in identifying which mining wastes require
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. A decision tree process is
one approach that is being considered. Any such decision tree
will require a method for determining the waste's acid generation
potential. While we do not presently have anv work ongoing to
develop test methods for determining a waste's acid generating
potential, we welcome your thoughts on this problem. We would
also be willing to work with you and other interested parties in
a cooperative effort to develop such a test.
-------
Aa to. your request for tailored nanaqenent standards, we
aoree with the need to develop tailored ^anaoonent standards
for nininq wastes before Tuhjectinq the"i to Subtitle C control
and will indicate sane in the 19B6 Deport to Conqress.
I aopreciate aiSASCO's offer of assistance in develoninq
protocols to assess the leaching potential of nininq wastes.
I would suqqest that you contact Alan Corson or David Friedman
(202/382-4770) to follow up on developinq a cooperative
proqram in this area.
Sincerely yours,
•Marcia S. tr
Director
Office of Solid tJ
WH-562B/DFRIEDMAN/ma/rra SE 248/382-4770/10-1-85
Disk MA:7:20 OSWER-07135
-------
9571.1986(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 86
4. Mining Waste, K064, and §3004(x)
EPA published a prooosed rule in the October 2, 1985 Federal Register
(50 FR 40292). The proposed rule would reinterpret the minim waste
exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) as it applies to processing wastes.
Only large volume, relatively low toxicity processing wastes would
be excluded, specifically phosogypsum, bauxite refining muds,
primary metal smelting slags, and slag from elemental phosphorus
reduction. The reinterpretation also proposed to relist six smelting
wastes previously listed as hazardous. One of the six smelting
wastes proposed to be relisted is K064, acid plant blowdown slurry/
sludge resulting form the thickening of blowdown slurry form primary
copper production.
If EPA finalizes the listing of K064, can EPA modify existing Subtitle
C reguirements under Section 3004(x) of RCRA for units handling K064?
Section 3004(x) authorizes EPA to modify existing Subtitle C reguire-
ments to take into account the special characteristics of mining
wastes, the practical difficulties associated with implementation of
such reguirements, and site-specific characteristics.
Only large volume, relatively low toxicity processing wastes would
be excluded, specifically, phosphogypsum, bauxite refining muds,
primary metal smelting slags, and slag from elemental phosphorus
reduction. The reinterpretation also proposed to relist six smeltincj
wastes previously listed as hazardous. One of the six smelting
wastes proposed to be relisted is K064, acid plant blowdown slurry/
sludge resulting from the thickening of blowdown slurry from primary
copper production.
If EPA finalizes the listing of K064, can EPA modify existing Subtitle
C reguirements under §3004(x)' of RCRA for units handling K064? Section
3004(x) authorizes EPA to modify existing Subtitle C reguirements to
take into account the soecial characteristics of mining wastes, the
practical difficulties associated with implementation of such reguire-
ments, and site-specific characteristics.
Mo; §3004(x) authority would not apply to K064. Section 3004(x)
authority only applies to wastes temporarily excluded under S3001(b)
(3)(A)(ii) (the "Bevill Amendment"), i.e., solid waste from
the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and
minerals, that subsequently become subject to Subtitle C of
RCRA based on the results of a §8002 study. If finalized, the
proposed reinterpretation would narrow the scone of the "Bevill
Amendment." Wastes that are no longer encompassed by the
exclusion, including this primary copper smelting waste (if
listed in the final rule), would not be mining wastes (solid
wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of
ores and minerals). Therefore §3004(x) would not apply.
Source: Meg Silver (202) 382-7706
Research: Kevin Weiss
-------
9571.1987(01)
OCT b i
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Decision Deadlines for Retrofitting Waiver Requests
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director /£/
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Robert Greaves, Acting Chief
Waste Management Branch, Region III
In your memorandum of April 20, 1987, you raised tvo issues
concerning the applicability of RCRA section 3004(u) te coal
combustion fly ash units, and on decision deadlines *o* *trofit-.,
ting waiver requests. This memorandum provides guideROC OB retrsgit
waiver requests deadlines; we expect resolution of th* ; pplicabittty
of 3004(u) issue within the next few weeks, and will pieo«ride \
separate guidance on that issue*
The issue raised in your memorandum concerns the
for making a decision on interim ststus surface impoyad@:rnt
retrofitting waiver requests filed under section 3005(j) {13).
EPA no longer needs to address this issue for the SCH Corp.
facility you describe because it has been determined that the
wastes SCM manages in its impoundment are "mining wastes* excluded
from Subtitle C under the 'Bevlll" amendment, section 300I(b)(3).
We are responding, however, in case other facilities apply for
waivers under section 3005(j)(13). While procedural d«*dlines in
section 3005(j)(5) address waiver requests filed in accordcnce with
section 3005(j)(2), (3), and (4), no reference is made to requests
filed under section 3005(j)(13). However, as stated on page 1-5 of
the July 1986 Interim Status Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Vari-
ances Guidance Document, EPA believes it is appropriate to establish
deadlines am* procedures for (j)(13), including public notice and
comment procedures, equivalent to the other exemptions. The reason
for this poJEftrr is that the November 7, 1988 deadline for retrofit-
ting applies to those facilities seeking a section 3005(j)(13)
waiver as well as to those seeking the other waivers. Therefore,
as a matter of policy, you should make a final decision on any
request for a variance under section 3005(j)(13) by November 7,
1987, in order to provide the facility with adequate time to
retrofit, if the waiver request is denied. However, since the
November 7, 1987 date is not required as a statutory condition
-------
for wai \rer§ undtr section 3005(J)<13), you do have eoae x
ity not provided uader sections 3005
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 89
1. Ore and Mineral Extraction. Beneficiation and Processing Exclusion
Applicability
The owner /opera tor of a taconite ore mining and processing facility uses several
different processes to increase the taconite ore's concentration. These processes
include a grinding and magnetic separation process that constitutes benefication.
This beneficiation process incorporates the use of Whitmore grease for
mechanical lubrication. The Whitmore grease is removed once every ten years
and is sent for disposal. Is this grease, which exhibits the characteristic of EP
toxicity, exempt from being a hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261 4
In the November 19, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 76620), the EPA
promulgated regulations excluding solid waste from the extraction,
beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals from the definition of
hazardous waste. The preamble to this Federal Register stated this exclusion
applied to wastes produced in, and unique to the exploration, mining,
milling, smelting and refining of ores and minerals. The exclusion aid not
apply to solid wastes, such as spent solvents, pesticide wastes, and dioiaided
commercial chemical products, that were not unique to the mining and
processing operations (45 FR 76619).
Since 1960, common mining and processing operations have included the
long-term application of Whitmore grease to heavily used machinery, gears
and other difficult to access equipment. However, Whitmore grease is not
limited to the mining industry, but can be used on any industrial equipment
where short term grease applications are limited by difficult access and heavy
use. Therefore/ because the Whitmore grease is not unique to mining
operations, it is not excluded pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261.4 (b)(7). The
grease that can no longer be used for its intended purpose and that is going for
disposal would be a solid waste pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261.1 (c)(l) and 40
CFR Section 261.2, respectively [see January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR
663)]. This solid waste will be a hazardous waste if it meets a listing under 40
CFR Part 261 Subpart D or exhibits any characteristic under 40 CFR Part 261
Subpart C.
Source: Bob Hall (202)475-8814
Research: Jace Cuje (202) 382-3000
-------
9571.1989(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1989
5. Notification Requirements for New Wastes Not Covered by the
Bevill Exclusion
In the September 1,1989 Federal Register (54 £E 36592), EPA significantly
modified the Bevill Exclusion. (40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)) This final rule narrows
the scope of the exclusion by identifying, under Section 3001 of RCRA,
additional substances as hazardous wastes subject to Subtitle C. Since
these regulations are not being imposed pursuant to HSWA, they will not
be effective in authorized States until the States revise their programs to
adopt equivalent requirements. In an authorized State, when must a
generator or transporter of such substances or an owner/operator of a
facility which treats, stores, or disposes of such substances notify under
Section 3010 of RCRA?
Under Section 3010(a) of RCRA, "not later than ninety days after
promulgation of regulations under Section 3001 identifying any
substance as hazardous waste subject to this subtitle, any person
generating or transporting such substance or owning or operating a
facility for treatment, storage, or disposal of such substances shall
notify the implementing agency of their activity." However, also
under this section, EPA was given the option of waiving the
notification requirements following the revision of any regulation
promulgated . under Section 3001, at the discretion of the
Administrator.
Since the final rule published in the September 1, 1989, Federal
Register (54 FR 36592) revises regulations promulgated pursuant to
Section 3001, the Administrator may use the provided waiver option.
The Administrator did, in fact, use the option (see 54 FR 36592) as it
was intended; persons who have previously notified of their
hazardous waste activity and have received an EPA I.D. number need
not re-notify. All other persons, regardless of the authorization status
of their State, who generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of any
substance now subject to Subtitle C as a result of this final rule, must
notify under section 3010; that is, not later than November 30,1989
(ninety days after the promulgation of the final rule).
Source: DanDerkics (202)382-3608
Research: Kevin Dunn
-------
9571.1990(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAR I 5 1990
Mr. Richard Davis
Brush Wellman, Inc.
1200 Hanna Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Dear Mr. Davis:
On November 30, 1989, at Brush Wellman's request,
representatives of EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) net with
representatives of Brush Wellman at EPA Headquarters. At this
meeting, Brush Wellman requested clarification of the Bevill
status of each of the three wastes addressed in the September 1
final rule, and provided additional information on the nature of
the beryllium production operations conducted at the Delta, Utah
plant. (Meeting minutes and a copy of Brush Wellman's written
statement may be found in the docket for the September 1, 1989,
final rule.)
At the November, 1989 meeting Brush Wellman requested that
beryl plant discard and raffinate discard (processing raffinate)
be reclassified as beneficiation wastes, and provided several
statements supporting this position. First Brush Wellman
reasoned that, in an operational sense, the beryl ore and
bertrandite ore circuits produce identical intermediate products
and very similar waste streams; to subject them to different
regulatory requirements would therefore be arbitrary and
unreasonable. Second, the key production steps that distinguish
the beryl and bertrandite circuits (melting and fritting) involve
only physical changes to the ore; nothing is added to or removed
from the beneficiated ore during these operations, and they do
not generate any waste streams (except for APC dusts). Indeed,
it was stated that the purpose of the melting-fritting sequence
is merely to change the crystalline structure of the mineral to
make it more amenable to the leaching (beneficiation) that
follows, rather than to purify or refine the mineral value.
Finally, Brush Wellman contended that the two wastes that were
removed from the Bevill exclusion by the September 1 final rule
had been explicitly studied in the Report to Congress on
extraction and beneficiation wastes, and hence were de facto
beneficiation wastes; i.e., their regulatory status had already
been established.
-------
- 2 -
In the September 1, 1989, final rule, EPA established the
final definitions and criteria that would be used to determine
which mineral processing wastes are eligible for the Bevill
exclusion, and applied these criteria to all wastes for which
existing information was adequate to make Bevill exemption
status determinations. Based on public comments and additional
analyses found in the dockets, the final definitions of mineral
beneficiation and processing differed markedly from those
employed in the November, 1988 and April, 1989 proposed rules.
One of the key distinctions between the two types of mineral
industry operations, as discussed in the preamble to the
September 1, 1989, final rule, is that beneficiation operations,
including those using heat, may alter the physical/chemical
characteristics of or remove water and/or carbon dioxide from the
ore or mineral but do not change its basic physical structure,
while processing wastes are generally not earthen in character
and are physically dissimilar to the ore or mineral (or
beneficiated ore or mineral) that entered the processing
operation.
Among the industry sectors (and associated wastes) that were
addressed in the September 1 final rule was the primary beryllium
industry, which consists solely of the Brush Wellman facility
near Delta, Utah. In conducting its evaluation, EPA used
information submitted by Brush Wellman in the form of public
comments on notices of proposed rulemaking addressing the Bevill
exclusion and in your response to the 1989 National Survey of
Solid Wastes from Mineral Processing Facilities. The process
flow diagram (enclosed) provided by Brush Wellman with its survey
response indicates a dual beryllium production circuit, in one
circuit beryl ore is used and in the other circuit bertrandite
ore is used; each mineral undergoes a different series of steps
that yield a "pregnant leach solution" that is combined and
subjected to further purification steps.
In deciding whether the solid wastes generated by this plant
were eligible for the Bevill exclusion, EPA evaluated each of the
production steps in order to determine whether and where mineral
beneficiation operations end and mineral processing operations
begin at the Brush Wellman facility. In the case of the
bertrandite ore circuit, the facility's flow diagram indicates
that essentially all of the operations from initial crushing and
grinding through solvent extraction and stripping could be
considered beneficiation operations, according to the Agency's
final definition of beneficiation. In the beryl ore circuit,
however, EPA's interpretation of the production steps employed
was that the ore undergoes a mineral processing operation
(melting) relatively early in the production sequence; hence, all
steps following this initial processing step are, by definition,
processing steps. Moreover, because the beryl leach solution
arising from the beryl ore circuit is combined with that from the
bertrandite circuit, all subsequent steps in the operation would
-------
- 3 -
be defined as processing operations, and all wastes generated
from these steps would be defined as processing wastes, and hence
subject to the high volume criteria.
After review and analysis of the new information provided by
Brush Wellman in the November 30, 1989 meeting, EPA now concludes
that all operations associated with the beryl and bertrandite ore
circuits upstream of the iron hydrolysis step are beneficiation
operations. As a consequence, the waste streams that are
generated by these two production circuits, including beryl plant
discard and processing raffinate, are mineral beneficiation
wastes rather than processing wastes. Wastes generated
downstream of the iron hydrolysis step, such as sludge leaching
slurry are considered low volume mineral processing wastes, and
are removed from the Bevill exclusion as of the effective date of
the September 1, 1989, final rule.
EPA stresses that this decision reflects the application of
the same criteria that were enunciated in the September 1 final
rule. The Agency's change in position on the status of the
wastes generated at the Delta, Utah facility is due solely to
receipt of detailed information on the operations of that
specific facility and was not available previously. This
information suggests that EPA's previous determination was in
error, in that the Agency's assumption (based on the response to
the National Survey) was that the melting step resembled smelting
or similar pyrometallurgical (processing) techniques, rather than
serving as a means of recrystallizing the beryl ore
(beneficiation) prior to leaching.
If you have any further questions concerning the Bevill
status of these wastes, please contact Dan Derkics or Bob Hall of
my staff at 202-382-3608 or 202-475-8814, respectively.
Sincerely,
Robert Tonetti
Acting Deputy Director
Waste Management Division
Enclosure
-------
9571.1990(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 9 1990
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Erast Borissoff
Executive Director
American Coal Ash Association, Inc.
1000 16th Street, NW suite 507
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Borissoff:
This letter is written to follow up on the August 2, 1989,
meeting between you and other representatives of the American
Coal Ash Association (ACAA) and representatives of the Office of
Solid Waste concerning the status of coal ash as a "solid waste"
(and your June 23, 1989, letter to the EPA administrator). I
apologize for the delay in getting this letter to you and hope
the delay has not inconvenienced you. In the meeting, you
presented substantial evidence of the beneficial uses for coal
ash as alternatives to its disposal. We applaud your efforts
toward reducing the amount of wastes being land disposed.
As you know, EPA has been amenable to supporting coal ash's
beneficial use, as evidenced by publication of the 1983 Guideline
for Federal Procurement of Cement and Concrete Containing Fly
Ash, and the use of fly ash as a stabilizing medium in setting
treatment standards that certain hazardous wastes must meet prior
to land disposal.
While EPA is very interested in furthering such beneficial
recycling efforts, we do not believe that the designation of coal
ash as a "solid waste" is the most important issue; the issue, as
we see it, concerns ensuring that recycling activities are
conducted using environmentally sound practices. As was stated
in the meeting, coal ash is defined as a solid waste in the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); consequently, tNr>
change you request is statutory rather than regulatory. EPA's
authority is limited to regulatory changes.
You also request that il?A "preclude States and political
subdivisions from establishing or continuing in effect any
requirement applicable to beneficial use of coal ash which vould
be inconsistent with any rule prescribed by the Administrator
applicable to such beneficial use." This is beyond EPA's
authority. For example, Federal regulations promulgated under
Subtitle C of RC?A (i.e., hazardous waste regulations) are the
minimum hazardous waste management requirements to pv ->tect human
PriHUd at Rtcfdtd P.
-------
- 2 -
health and the environment. States that are authorized to
implement RCRA Subtitle C programs are able to, and sometimes do
exceed Federal requirements in terms of stringency. Even in
nonauthorized States, State regulations governing hazardous
wastes must be complied with in that State. The regulation of
Subtitle D wastes (e.g., coal ash) is primarily managed by State
and local governments. Although EPA can encourage States to
promulgate regulations that reflect the growing need to encourage
beneficial recycling of solid wastes it cannot require a State
regulatory Agency to be less stringent.
As RCRA reauthorization is being considered in Congress,
waste minimization and recycling are already a strong focus.
Should you have information you wish to share with the Congress
on the environmentally sound recycling of coal ash and its
beneficial uses, the appropriate time to do so is now. I thank
you for your interest in the beneficial use of coal ash and
encourage your continued marketing of such uses as an alternative
to disposal. If you have further questions or need additional
information, you should contact Mr. Pat Pesacreta, of my staff,
at (202) 382-7915.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
APR 61^ 9571.1990(03,
Mr. Richard McQuisten
Project Manager
Department of Energy
P.O. Box 1189
Laramie, Wyoming 82070
Dear Mr. McQuisten:
Thank you for your letter on March 12, 1990, concerning
environmental regulations applicable to the use of retorted oil
shale and coal fly ash. I have been asked to reply.
On March 8, 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) submitted to Congress a report entitled Wastes from the
Corn-bustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. This
report presented the results of studies carried out pursuant to
Section 8002(n) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA), as amended (42 U.S.C. § 6982(n)). This report
is available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia, 22161. Their phone number is (703)487-
4650. The report number is PB88-177977 and the Appendices
number is PB88-177985.
This report indicates that EPA has concluded that coal
combustion waste streams generally do not exhibit hazardous
charactistics under curent RCRA regulations, and that EPA does
not intend to regulate under RCRA Subtitle C fly ash, bottom ash,
boiler slag and flue gas desulfurization wastes. These wastes
are currently subject to RCRA Subtitle D, which pertains to solid
(non-hazardous) wastes, and which is administered by State Solid
Waste regulatory agencies. A list of State Solid Waste Directors
can be provided by the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials. The Association may be contacted by
phone at (202)624-5828.
In 1985, EPA issued a Report to Congress entitled Wastes
from the Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic Ore, Phosphate
Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining and Oil Shale.
-------
This report is also available from NTIS (report number PB88-
162631). On July 3, 1986, EPA issued a Regulatory Determination
that stated that solid wastes from the extraction and
beneficiation of ores and minerals were best regulated under RCRA
Subtitle D, not under Subtitle C. (See 51 FR 24496, copy
enclosed.) EPA staff is currently developing a draft Subtitle D
regulatory approach known as the "strawman" (copy enclosed) which
if finalized as a rule, would place minimum standards on oil
shale extraction and beneficiation wastes. At present, however,
EPA does not have any RCRA regulations specific to oil shale
retort wastes until EPA finalizes, in early 1993, its Subtitle D
rule on extraction and beneficiation wastes.
It should be noted that the U.S. Synthetic Fuels
Corporation, an office in the Treasury Department, currently
provides financial support to the Union Oil Shale Project in
Colorado. Synthetic Fuels maintains excellent files on the
environmental effects of the plant and may have data on retorted
shale. They can be contacted at (202)634-2506.
Thank you for your interest in fly ash and oil shale. If I
can be of further assistance, feel free to contact me, at
(202)382-6972.
Sincerely,
Robert Tonetti, Acting Chief
Special Waste Branch
Enclosures
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9571.1990(04}
AY
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. T. S. Ary
Director
Bureau of Mines
2401 E. St., N.W.
Washington, O.C. 20241
Dear Mr. Ary:
Thank you for your letter dated April 6, 1990, concerning
iron and steel slags, and their status in the upcoming Report to
Congress (RTC) on Mineral Processing Wastes. EPA appreciates the
contributions that the Bureau of Mines has made to the RTC to \
date, and we would be pleased to meet with you to discuss issues
related to these slags.
Although the RTC has not been completed yet, based on the
information the Agency has collected to date on iron and steel
slags it is likely that the Agency will recommend that these
wastes remain within the Bevill exclusion — that is, we believe
these wastes will become permanently exempt from regulation as
hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Iron and steel slags which are used in a manner constituting
disposal are currently considered "discarded materials" and thus
meet the definition of solid wastes under Section 1004(27) of
> RCRA. See 40 CFR § 261.2 or 53 Fed. Reg. 31,198 (Aug. 17,
1988) for details. EPA is further considering, however, whether
such slags are similar enough to virgin aggregate that they
should not be classified as solid waste. EPA will address this
issue in greater detail in the upcoming Report to Congress, as
already promised in the final "Bevill Rule" (54 Fed. Reg. 36,615
(Sept. 1, 1989)). In any event, if these slag materials were to
continue to be exempt from Subtitle C regulation, I would expect
the use of slag materials would continue. Please let us know,
however, if the Bureau of Mines has reason to believe that
continued classification of these slags as solid wastes would
cause market disruptions and harm to the slag recycling industry.
-------
- 2 -
EPA is committed to furthering beneficial reuse and
recycling of materials such as iron and steel slags, to the
extent that these activities are conducted using environ-
mentally sound practices. Our search for documented cases in
which mineral processing wastes may have endangered human health
and the environment has revealed at least one instance where
blast furnace and basic oxygen furnace slag is believed to have
caused ground water and surface water contamination from the use
of the slag as fill and a landfill liner (see enclosure). Infor-
mation such as this must be analyzed before the Agency can make
an informed decision concerning wastes.
Regulation of these slags as hazardous might have an effect
on their rate of utilization. The current process (RTC, followed
by public comment, regulatory determination and, if necessary/
the development of a regulatory program) is the appropriate
mechanism for addressing the environmental concerns and the
concerns about encouraging beneficial use in a safe manner.
Toward that end, Bob Hall of my staff will be in touch with
Larry Miller to arrange a mutually agreeable time for a meeting/
preferably in early June. Bob can be reached at (202) 475-8814.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: Bob Hall
-------
JUN 2 7 1990
9571.1990(05)
Karl T. Johnson
Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Programs
The Fertilizer Institute
501 Second St. N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Dear Mr. Johnson
This letter is in response to the two concerns you raised in
your April 16, 1990 letter to Dan Derkics, and which staff also
discussed at their April 18, 1990 meeting with you.
The first issue you raised concerns the status of corrosive,
low volume secondary materials such as precipitates and spilled
materials that are generally recycled in the phosphoric acid
plants' recirculating water systems. You are correct in your
interpretation of the impact on these wastes from the recent
rulemakings on the mining waste exclusion. The Agency
interpretation of the mixture rule as it applies to mineral
processing wastes could result in the entire water circulation
system losing its exempt status if there is continued circulation
of the corrosive secondary materials through the system.
In your letter, you suggest that .the upcoming Report to
Congress (RTC) may result in a determination that the co-
management of secondary materials with process wastewater is
appropriate and would not endanger the exempt status of the
entire water system. The Agency does not believe that the RTC is
an appropriate vehicle to recommend such changes, due in part to
the severe time constraints the court has imposed on the Agency
for completion of the report. Instead, any Agency action
addressing these issues would have to be in the form of a
proposed and final rulemaking amending the mixture rule.
Undertaking such a rulemaking by the Agency at this time,
however, is unlikely due to other court ordered, higher priority
deadlines. In addition, it is unclear what impacts such a
ruiemaking would have on other industries.
-------
- 2 -
Consequently, it would be prudent for the phosphoric acid
industry to take the steps necessary to comply with the
requirements of the recent Bevill rulemakings.
The second issue raised in your April letter concerns the
mixture rule and the use of phosphoric acid process wastewater in
the production of ammoniated phosphate fertilizer. You are
correct in your interpretation of the rule. The mixture of non-
hazardous ammoniated phosphate fertilizer waste with process
wastewater does not make a phosphoric acid plants water
recirculation system a hazardous waste management unit when the
mixture of process wastewater and non-hazardous ammoniated
phosphate wastes is returned to the system.
If you have any additional questions concerning these
matters, please contact Bob Hall or Dan Derkics at (202) 475-8814
or (202) 382-3608, respectively.
Sincerely,
Robert Tonetti
Acting Branch Chief
Special Waste Branch
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
July 1993
9571.1993(01)
RCRA
1. Natural Gas Condensate:
Regulatory Status
Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other
wastes associated with the exploration,
development, and production of crude oil,
natural gas, and geothermal energy are
exempt from the definition of hazardous waste
under 40 CFR §261.4(b)(5). Natural gas
condensate is a light hydrocarbon liquid that
sometimes forms through condensation of
natural gas (hydrocarbon) vapors when
natural gas is conveyed through a pipeline.
Does natural gas condensate fall within the
scope of this exemption when discarded?
Natural gas condensate meets the
exemption in §26l.4(b)(3) if it is produced
by activities related to the exploration,
development, and production of natural gas.
It does not meet the exemption if it is produced
by other activities, such as post-production
transportation. While not a drilling fluid or a
produced water, natural gas condensate can be
produced by activities associated with locating
natural gas, removing it from the ground, or
purifying it Natural gas is usually removed
from the ground using an array of wells in one
gas Meld. The natural gas from all wells is
then aggregated and often sent to a gas plant to
remove impurities such as water. This
removal of impurities is considered a
necessary pan of the production process,
and any wastes resulting from natural gas
operations up through this point are exempt
If condensate forms in a pipeline carrying
natural gas from the gas field to the gas plant,
this natural gas condensate is exempt as an
associated waste under §261.4
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9571.1993(02)
NOV - 5 1993
OFPICE OF
SOLIJi WAS TC AND CMS ROFNCV RESPONSE
Mr. H. Michael Dorsey
Assistant Chief
Compl iance Monitoring/Enforcement
Office of Waste Management
Division of Environmental Protection
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, West Virginia 25301-1401
Dear Mr. Dorsey:
I am responding to your August 30, 1993, request to clarify
certain issues regarding oil and gas wastes. I understand that
you have corresponded and have had extensive conversations with
Mike Fitzpatrick of my staff regarding the March 22, 1993,
Federal Register (FR) notice that clarifies the scope of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C
hazardous waste exemption for oil and gas exploration and
production wastes. I further understand that, at the invitation
of David Flannery (representing the Appalachian producers) , Mike
visited certain sites in West Virginia with you and industry
representatives to gather information relative to the issues you
have raised. I am responding to the issues that were raised in
your letters and conversations with him. I believe that you have
raised three principal issues, which I will address below.
The first issue concerns the application of the language in
the March 22, 1993, FR notice that addresses gas plants to
natural gas compressor stations in West Virginia. The scenario
used for defining the scope of the exemption in the regulatory
determination and subsequent FR clarification does not precisely
correspond to the typical natural gas production process used in
Appalachian States. It has been our position that, while natural
gas exploration and production (E&P) occurs at the wellhead, up
through the gas plant, and at natural gas storage fields, E&P
does not include transportation of gas once it has left the gas
plant, compressor stations located downstream from the gas plant,
or manufacturing activities. Since the Subtitle C exemption
applies only to E&P activities, solid wastes generated from these
transportation, compression or manufacturing activities would not
be exempt from subtitle C regulation.
The FR notice did not intend to imply, however, that wastes
from all compressor stations are outside the E&P exemption; only
those wastes from compressor stations that are part of
transportation are subject to Subtitle C. In EPA1 a opinion,
those compressor stations on main trunk pipelines handling any
-------
natural gas produced outside the state (or produced outside of
"local production", as described below) would be considered to be
part of transportation and would be regulated. In Appalachia,
those compressor stations handling only "local production" would
qualify for the exemption as the equivalent of gas plants.1
As used in this letter, the term "local production" refers
to gas produced from a single nearby gas field or several nearby
fields, as determined by the state oil and gas regulatory agency.
Once gas from outside the local production area (again, as
defined by the state regulatory agency) is commingled with gas
from within the local area, then the pipeline facilities and
compressor stations beyond that point would no longer be E&P
operations, and wastes generated are no longer considered exempt
wastes (with the footnoted exception for gas storage fields) even
if additional local production feeds into the system downstream
from the point of commingling. Similarly, once gas leaves the
gathering system for transportation or sale to a consumer, it
would no longer be part of E&P and any wastes generated would be
subject to Subtitle C if they exihibited one or more hazardous
characteristics.
The second issue concerns exempt wastes that are mismanaged
and that may pose an environmental threat. You have expressed
your desire that the environmentally unsound handling or disposal
of exempt wastes should result in the loss of the exemption for
these wastes since there are no other regulatory schemes designed
to address the hazardous nature of these wastes.
In light of Congressional intent, EPA does not classify a
waste as exempt or not exempt based on the way in which that
particular waste is managed (or mismanaged), nor does EPA base
its definition of what constitutes an exempt waste on whether or
not the waste is managed in compliance with state regulations.
As far as Federal regulations are concerned, once a particular
exempt waste was generated, that waste would remain exempt
regardless of the treatment or disposal method employed (unless
mixed with certain regulated hazardous wastes). The mishandling
of exempt wastes is a state regulatory and enforcement issue.
States are free to develop regulations which are more stringent
As discussed in the FR notice, operations to recover natural
gas stored in underground natural geological formations (not
underground tanks) are considered part of production, not
transportation. This is because these facilities are operated in
the same way as if the gas were being produced for the first
time. Therefore, uniquely associated wastes from compressor
stations dedicated solely to the retrieval of natural gas from
underground storage facilities are exempt regardless of the
origin of that gas.
-------
or broader in scope than Federal Subtitle C regulations. Also,
state requirements may be developed to address the mismanagement
of wastes which are exempt from Subtitle C — that is, the
state's solid waste or hazardous waste regulations can be used to
regulate the management of federally exempt wastes, if the
state's legislation provides such authority.
The third issue concerns the regulatory status of certain
oil and gas wastes, including unused commercial chemical
products. In the FR clarification notice, EPA stated a general
"rule of thumb" that, in order for a waste to be considered
exempt, it must either come from "down-hole," or come in contact
with the production stream for the purpose of removing produced
water or some other contaminant. (Generally, when a product is
used in E&P and becomes a uniquely associated waste, it has
either been sent down-hole or has come in contact with the
production stream.) The Agency stopped short of saying this rule
of thumb was more binding than a general guideline. However, we
believed that it was useful to provide the rule of thumb as a
general, easy-to-understand guideline that can be used by
operators as a first step in determining if a waste is exempt or
not.
The industry view is that the rule of thumb limiting exempt
wastes to those that have come from down-hole is too narrow in
that it does not include unused materials spilled or left as
residuals on site. The Agency disagrees, however, with the view
that discarded unused materials are, or should be, exempt wastes.
First, EPA does not believe that placing excess and unused
materials that exhibit one or more of the hazardous
characteristics in a reserve pit is an environmentally sound
practice. Moreover, it continues to be the Agency's position
that, in general, a waste must either have come from down-hole or
have otherwise come in contact with the production stream for the
purpose of removing contaminants in order to be considered
uniquely associated with efforts to locate or remove oil or gas
from the ground. Regardless of the intent in preparing the
material, only used, and therefore uniquely associated, wastes
are exempt.
Although this interpretation may cause a shift in some
previous industry practices that have routinely placed some
unused materials in reserve pits, it may also encourage operators
to practice waste minimization and pollution prevention by
planning more carefully for the volumes needed, looking for ways
to conserve resources and increase recycling of unused materials,
improving housekeeping procedures, and selecting less toxic
ingredients for formulations whenever possible. We recognize
that it will not, however, eliminate all excess materials since
not all contingencies can be planned for when mixing drilling and
workover fluids.
-------
Nonetheless, the Agency continues to assert that unused
chemical products, if disposed of, are not exempt from hazardous
waste regulation. This position is consistent with the language
of the Regulatory Determination (53 FR 25454, July 6, 1988) and
subsequent clarification notice (58 FR 15286, March 22, 1993).
Only a reopening of the Regulatory Determination, through a new
rulemaking process, could change the Agency's position on unused
material. Such an effort is not being contemplated by EPA.
To the extent that unused materials are hazardous only
because of their corrosivity (e.g., completion and workover
fluids), these unused acids can be treated (neutralized) by
"totally enclosed treatment" (in the same tanks used to hold the
workover fluids prior to use) without subjecting operators to
Subtitle c jurisdiction. In that case, the neutralized waste
likely would not exibit a hazardous characteristic. There are no
federal prohibitions on placing non-hazardous unused products in
the reserve pit.
If you have any additional questions concerning tnese
matters, please call Mike Fitzpatrick at (703) 308-8411.
Sincerely,
Bruoe/R. Weddle, Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Davia M. Flannery, Robinson & McElwee
Ramona Trovato, Director
Ground Water Protection Division, Headquarters
Randy Hill, Office of General Counsel
Water Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I -
Theodore M. Streit, Chief
Office of Oil and Gas, West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
-------
9572 - STATE
PROGRAMS
Subtitle D
ATKl/l 104/72 kp
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE
*9572.00-2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY HESPONSt
-E3 22 iv-
THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO ALL STATE AND TERRITORIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSIONERS
Dear:
As discussed in se.veral recent meetings with State and local
officials and vn.th the State/EPA Committee, the Administrator
and I believe it is important to renew our efforts to develop
strategies for management of municipal solid wastes. We
particularly believe that statewide solid waste planning is
an important step in assuring safe and adeguate solid waste
management capacity.
In this renard, I want to encourage you to review and, where
appropriate, update your State's solid waste plan. In these
plans, we believe States should identify a general strategy
for.protecting health and the environment from adverse
effects associated with solid waste disposal. I believe that
the following areas warrant particular attention in solid
waste management plans:
0 An indication of current and projected guantities
and locations of solid wastes generated in the
State
0 The expected future roles of source reduction,
recycling, incineration/energy recovery, landfilling
and/or other management approaches
• A suraaary of key regulatory and permitting
requirements which apply to solid waste management
in your State
0 An indication of the role of the public and various
political subdivisions in solid waste planning
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9572.00-2
The above and related information would be very helpful as
we jointly develop a national perspective on solid waste
management. To assist in this local-State-Federal effort, I
would be interested in receivina the latest version of your
plan, if available, in the next few months. I also would
request that copies of plans be sent to the appropriate EPA
Regional Offices.
I am aware that you have also been contacted in recent months
by your regional EPA office and requested to certify
compliance with Section 4005(c) (1) of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1986. This section requires States
to develop and implement permit programs or other systems of
prior approval for facilities which receive household
hazardous waste and hazardous waste from small quantity
generators. Many of «you have responded, or are in the
process of respondinq to this request, and we are qrateful
for your cooperation. This system, together with sound
long-range planning, should help lead us toward more efficient
and environmentally sound methods of handling solid waste in
the future.
An enclosure to this letter lists a number of documents which
may be of use when developing or revising your State solid
waste plan. For your additional information, I am also
enclosing a copy of a speech on solid waste management which I
delivered January 29 at a conference sponsored by the Council
of State Governments in New York City. The speech is similar
to testimony I presented last December 3 before the Subcommittee
on Toxic Substances of the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Thanks very much for your help. Please let me know if EPA can
provide any assistance in responding to this request.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9572.00-2
SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Guidelines for Development and Implementation of State Solid
Waste .Management Plans (40 CFR Part 256) - 44 FR 45066,
July 31, 1979, amended at 46 £R 47051, September 23, 1981.
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
and Practices (40 CFR Part 257) - 44 FR 53460, September 13,
197.9; amended at 46 FR 47052, September 23, 1981.
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Report to Congress,
June 1987 (Available from NTIS - Publication No. PB87-206074).
Testimony of Dr. J. Winston Porter before the Subcommittee
on Toxic Substances, Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, December 3, 1987.
-------
9572.1986(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 86
4. State Programs
40 CFR 271.1(1) allows a state's authorized RCRA program to be broader
in scope or more stringent than the Federal RCRA program. What is the
difference between state program elements that are broader in scope
and more stringent than Federal requirements? What are some examples?
The best available guidance distinguishing between "more stringent"
and "broader in scope" is program implementation guidance (PIG)
84-1. A state program that is broader in scope than the Federal
program either: 1) expands the size of the regulated community; or 2)
incorporates program elements that do not have a Federal counterpart.
Examples of requirements that are broader in scope are permits for
Federally-exempt wastewater treatment units, special licenses for
transporters, and listing of wastes which are not listed Federally.
A state program requirement that is more stringent has. a direct Federal
program counterpart. Examples of more stringent requirements are
requiring generators to submit an annual, rather than a biennial report;
snorter duration periods for permits; and stricter management standards
for permitted or interim status tanks and containers.
The distinction between broader and more stringent state requirements
is significant because EPA may enforce a more stringent state require-
ment but not a state requirement that is broader in scope. RCRA $3008
(a)(2) allows EPA to enforce any provision of an authorized state's
approved program. More stringent state requirements fall into this
category. State provisions that are broader in scope are not part of
the Federally approved RCRA program, according to 40 CFR 271.1(i), and
are therefore not enforceable by EPA (see also PIG 82-3).
Source: Marty Madison (202) 382-2229
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
**\ - ^ . ^(W,V^ -
*"*£ I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
/ WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
DEC 2 J if
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy Regarding Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
and RCRA Consistency Issues
TO: Regional Administrators
In recent months we have focused on two parallel, but
overlapping, issues in the hazardous waste management area. One
issue has been the development of guidance for the State hazardous
waste capacity assurance process called for by Section 104(c)(9)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). The other has been the issue of EPA's
approach to State actions which may be inconsistent with the
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program.
This past June a task force on these RCRA consistency and
CERCLA cap.ac-ity issues presented their findings to me. In
addition^ we have now completed our guidance to the States for
ttte~~CERCLA capacity assurance process. Based on an evaluation of
the findings and guidance, I now want to present to you EPA's
policy in the area of RCRA consistency and CERCLA capacity
assurance.
First, we will rely on the CERCLA process as our primary
vehicle for ensuring that States have adequate capacity to manage
their hazardous wastes. As our CERCLA capacity guidance indicates,
the States must provide EPA with a good knowledge of their current
and projected waste amounts and management practices, including
correlation of imports and exports between States; description of
waste minimization programs; and discussions of laws and regulations
which nay affect the state's ability to manage wastes. EPA must
approve these State assurances in order for EPA to provide Superfund
remedial actions in a State after October 17, 1989.
Secondly, the Regions should use the procedures for withdrawal o
authorized State RCRA programs in the case of failure to use the
RCRA uniform manifest system, or for unreasonable restrictions on
-------
-2-
int'erstate wmate movements. The CERCLA capacity assurance process
should be used as an initial response to State actions which
prohibit waste management within State boundaries without environ-
mental justification. States may be able to resolve issues
related to such actions themselves during the interstate discussions
that the CERCLA process will foster. The Regions should, therefore,
decide whether to initiate proceedings to withdraw State RCRA
programs for prohibitory actions after determining that the CERCLA
process has proven ineffective.
I believe the above dual approach to be a positive one
allowing us to work within the legal authority provided, and to
assist States in developing needed waste management capacity.
Lee M. Thomas
-------
9573 - MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTION
Subtitle D
ATKl/l 104/73 kp
-------
Policy Directive
ft 9573.00-01
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP I 8 1992
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Regional Administrators
SUBJECT: Exemption for Municipal Waste Combustion Ash Proa
Hazardous Waste Regulation Under RCRA Section 3001(i)
PURPOSE
This memorandum sets forth the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's ("EPA" or "Agency") decision under section
3001(i) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"),
42 U.S.C. § 6921(i),1 to treat ash generated from the combustion
of nonhazardous municipal solid waste at resource recovery
facilities (hereinafter "MWC ash") as exempt from hazardous waste
regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. EPA believes that MWC ash can
be regulated in a manner that will be protective of human health
and the environment under RCRA Subtitle D. The determination set
forth herein supersedes the Agency's earlier view of section
3001(i) as not exempting MWC ash from hazardous waste regulation.
See 50 Fed. Reg. 28702, 28725-26 (1S85).
1 As part of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, Congress amended RCRA by adding section 3001(i), which
provides, in pertinent part:
(i) Clarification of household waste exclusion
A resource recovery facility recovering energy
from the mass burning of municipal solid waste shall
not be deemed to be treating, storing, disposing of, or
otherwise managing hazardous waste for purposes of
regulation under (Subtitle C] if ... such facility .
. . receives and burns only . . . household waste . . .
and solid waste from commercial or industrial sources
that does not contain hazardous waste ....
RCRA section 3001(i)(l), 42 U.S.C. S 6921(i)(1). Section 3001(i)
is codified in EPA's regulations as part of the household waste
exclusion. 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(l).
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
- 2 -
ANALYSIS
Text of the Statute
EPA's determination that MWC ash is exempt from hazardous
waste regulation is consistent with the text of section 3001(i).
As proclaimed by the title of section 3001(i) — "Clarification
of household waste exclusion" — in enacting that provision,
Congress was building upon the regulatory framework it earlier
had established. In enacting RCRA..in 1976, Congress indicated
that solid waste from households, which frequently includes
materials that may contain hazardous constituents, should not be
regulated as hazardous waste under Subtitle C. S. Rep. No. 94-
988, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1976). EPA codified Congress'
intent in the so-called "household waste exclusion," promulgated
in 1980, which provides that "any material . . . derived from
households ... is not hazardous waste . . . ." 40 C.F.R.
261.4(b)(1).
In the preamble to the Federal Register notice announcing
the household waste exclusion, EPA'clearly stated that the
exclusion extends to ash remaining after household waste is
incinerated: "Since household waste is excluded in all phases of
its management, residues after treatment (e.g., incineration,
thermal treatment) are not subject to regulation as hazardous
waste." 45 Fed. Reg. 33066, 33098 (1980). The Agency justified
its determination that ash derived from the incineration of
household waste is subject to the exclusion on the ground that
Congress intended to "exclude waste streams generated by
consumers at the household level." Id. (emphasis added).
In enacting section 3001(i), Congress arguably extended the
regulatory exclusion for ash derived from the incineration of
household wast.e to similar residues generated by resource
recovery facilities from the incineration of household waste and
nonhazardous commercial and industrial solid waste. To the
extent that household waste alone is incinerated, section 3001(i)
coincides with EPA's earlier interpretation of the household
waste exclusion as exempting ash derived from such waste from
haz^.i-aous waste regulation. The inclusion in section 3001 (i) of
nonr.a'/ardous commercial and industrial waste, along with
hous^.-.oid waste, suggests that Congress may have intended that
MWC .•-.r-h resulting from the combustion of those combined wastes
als •„ should not be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste.
In addition, congressional intent to exempt MWC ash from
hazardous waste regulation is suggested by the portion of section
3001(i) which provides that a resource recovery facility shall
not be deemed to be "treating, storing, disposing of, or
otherwise managing" hazardous waste. (Emphasis added.) Nothing
-------
- 3 -
ordinarily is "disposed of" when a resource recovery facility
receives or stores a nonhazardous solid waste, and the burning of
such waste generally is regarded as a type of treatment under
RCRA. See RCRA sections 1004(3) and (34), 42 U.S.C. § 6903(3)
and (34) (definitions of "disposal" and "treatment"). As a
result, since MWC ash ordinarily-is the only waste "disposed of"
by such a facility, Congress arguably intended that MWC ash not
be regarded as a hazardous waste. . .
For the foregoing reasons, EPA believes that the text of
section 3001(i) is consistent with the Agency's determination
that MWC ash is exempt from hazardous waste regulation.
Legislative History
EPA's determination that MWC ash is exempt from hazardous
waste regulation also is consistent with the legislative history
of section 3001(i). First, a Report of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works addressing section 3001(i)
specifically states that "[a]11 waste management activities of
such a [resource recovery] facility, including the generation.
transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of waste shall be
covered by the exclusion."2 S. Rep. No. 98-284, 98th Cong., 1st
Sess. 61 (1983) (emphasis added).3 Since MWC ash ordinarily is
the only waste "generated" by a resource recovery facility,
Congress arguably demonstrated its intent that MWC ash not be
regarded as a hazardous waste.
2 Unlike the legislative history for section 300l(i),
the statute does not expressly state that the "generation" of
waste by a resource recovery facility is included within the
exemption. At most, the absence of that term reflects that
Congress did not expressly address the precise issue of whether
MWC ash should be exempt from hazardous waste regulation, and
does not indicate that Congress intended that MWC ash be
regulated as a hazardous waste. In such a circumstance, the
Ager.ry has discretion to adopt a reasonable interpretation that
be:;-, serves-the goals embodied in section 3001(i). EPA has
exovcised that discretion in adopting the interpretation set
fort.;-; herein, as discussed more fully below.
3 The Senate Report is entitled to special weight
because the Conference Committee adopted, without change, the
Senate version of section 3001(i). H.R. Rep. No. 98-1133, 98th
Cong., 2d Sess. 106 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. &
Adain. News 5677. In passing the Senate version of section
3001(i), Congress also impliedly adopted the Senate's
interpretation of that provision set forth in the Senate Report.
-------
- 4 -
Second, the Senate Report states that section 3001(i) was
enacted to "encourage commercially viable resource recovery
facilities and . . . remove impediments that may hinder their
development and operation." S. Rep. No. 98-284, 98th Cong., 1st
Sess. 61 (1983). As noted above, one of the significant features
of section 3001(i) is that it applies to resource recovery
facilities that burn both household waste and nonhazardous
commercial and industrial waste. If section 3001(i) were
interpreted as not exempting MWC ash derived from the
incineration of combined household-waste and nonhazardous
commercial and industrial waste from regulation as hazardous
waste, the policy goal stated in the Senate Report could be
substantially frustrated. As a practical matter, the cost
benefit to a resource recovery facility in being able to burn
both household and nonhazardous commercial and industrial waste
would be significantly reduced if MWC ash must be disposed of as
a hazardous waste, as discussed more fully below.
Third, the Senate Report refers to the wastes being
incinerated in resource recovery facilities as."waste streams,"
as follows:
Resource recovery facilities often take in ...
"household wastes" mixed with other non-hazardous waste
streams from a variety of sources other than
"households." . . . New section 3001[i] clarifies the
original intent to include within the household waste
exclusion activities of a resource recovery facility
which recovers energy from the mass burning of
household waste and non-hazardous waste from other
sources.
Id. (emphasis added). As noted above, the Agency justified its
determination ,that ash derived from the incineration of household
waste is excluded from hazardous waste regulation on the ground
that Congress intended to "exclude waste streams generated by
consumers at the household level." 45 Fed. Reg. 33066, 33098
(1SEO) (ecphasis added). In also using the term "waste stream"
in the Senate Report, Congress arguably demonstrated its intent
that section 3001(i) be construed as extending the household
"u-acto streajn" exclusion to the entire "waste stream" at a
resource recovery facility, including MWC ash derived from the
burr-ing of combined household and nonhazardous commercial and
industrial waste.
In sum, the legislative history of section 3001{i) is
consistent with the Agency's determination to exempt MWC ash from
hazardous waste regulation.
-------
- 5 -
Policy Considerations
As discussed above, EPA believes that the text and
legislative history of section 3001(i) are consistent with the
Agency's view that MWC ash is exempt from hazardous waste
regulation. Since Congress did not in the statute or legislative
history expressly address the precise issue of whether MWC ash
should be exempt from hazardous waste regulation, the Agency has
discretion to adopt a reasonable interpretation that best serves
the goals embodied in section 3001(i). EPA has exercised that
discretion in adopting the interpretation set forth herein. EPA
believes that the two statutory goals embodied in section 3001(i)
— protecting the environment and promoting resource recovery
from nonhazardous solid waste — are best served by exempting KWC
ash from hazardous waste regulation.
EPA has determined that MWC ash can be regulated in a manner
that will be protective of human health and the environment under
Subtitle D. In particular, EPA recently promulgated new criteria
for municipal solid waste landfills, at 40 C.F.R. Part 258, 56
Fed. Reg. 50978 (1991). Municipal landfills and monofills
receiving MWC ash must comply with those criteria.* The Part
258 criteria impose requirements on municipal landfills that far
exceed those previously imposed, including more stringent
location restrictions, facility design and operating criteria,
ground-water monitoring requirements, corrective action
requirements, financial assurance requirements, and closure and
post-closure care requirements. The Agency believes the disposal
of MWC ash in municipal landfills subject to the Part 258
criteria will be protective of human health and the
environment.5
4 In the preamble to the Federal Register notice
announcing the final Part 258 criteria, EPA stated that "[t]he
purpose of part 258 is to establish minimum national criteria for
municipal solid waste landfills, including (such landfills] used
for . . . disposal of nonhazardous municipal waste combustion
(MV-'C) ash (whether the ash is co-disposed or disposed of in an
ash n-onofill)." See also response to comment document nos. 155,
IGe. 171, 172, and 199 in the public record for the Part 258
rult.-r.aking (docket number F-91-CMLF-FFFFF) .
5 The promulgation of the Part 258 criteria is an
important step in ensuring that MWC ash can and will be regulated
in a manner that will be protective of human health and the
environment under Subtitle D. The promulgation of those criteria
also has served as an impetus for the Agency's reevaluation of
its earlier view of section 3001(i) as not exempting MWC ash froa
hazardous waste regulation. 50 Fed. Reg. 28702, 28725-26 (1985).
-------
- 6 -
If information comes to EPA's attention suggesting that MWC
ash is being managed or disposed of in a manner that is not
protective of human health and the environment under Subtitle D,
the Agency will consider additional actions, including providing
technical assistance, issuing guidance documents, and, if
appropriate, promulgating additional regulations to address those
situations. In addition, at individual sites, if the disposal of
MWC ash may preser.t an imminent and substantial endangerment to
human health or the environment, E-PA may require responsible
persons to undertake appropriate action under section 7003(a) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. S 6973(a).
Resource recovery from municipal solid waste is an important
component of EPA's integrated waste management approach, which
involves the complementary use of a variety of practices to
safely and effectively manage municipal solid waste.6 Such
activity advances the statutory objective of RCRA (the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act) to reduce the volume of waste that
requires disposal. See id. at section 1002(b)(8), 42 U.S.C. S
6901(b)(8). It also advances the -statutory objective of
recovering significant amounts of energy from solid waste. See
id. at sections 1002(d)(2)/ 42 U.S.C. S 6901(d)(2), and
1003(a) (11), 42 U.S.C. § 6902 (a) (11). For those reasons, EPA
agrees with Congress' view, set forth in the Senate Report
discussed above, that impediments hindering the development and
operation of commercially viable resource recovery facilities
should be eliminated where practicable.
For nonhazardous municipal solid waste that can be disposed
of either in a Subtitle D landfill or combusted in a resource
recovery facility, the comparative economic desirability of those
two alternatives significantly is impacted by the application of
6 That approach establishes a hierarchy that prefers
source reduction (i.e., the design, manufacture, purchase, or use
of r.aterials to reduce the amount or toxicity of solid waste
generated) and recycling (i.e., the process by which materials
arc collected and used as raw materials for new products) over
so:id waste combustion (including combustion for resource
recovery) and landfilling. Solid waste combustion, however, has
played and will continue to play an important role in the
Agency's integrated waste management approach because the entire
solid waste stream cannot be reduced through source reduction and
recycling. EPA encourages communities to choose the mix of solid
waste options that are most appropriate for them, considering
local ecor.onic, environmental, and other factors.
-------
- 7 -
section 3001(i) to MWC ash.7 If MWC ash is not exempt under
3001(i) from hazardous waste regulation, a strong economic
incentive may exist to dispose of raw municipal solid waste in
Subtitle D landfills, rather than combust that waste in resource
recovery facilities. The costs associated with the disposal of
MWC ash in Subtitle C facilities are dramatically higher than in
Subtitle D landfills. Although costs vary significantly from
region to region, when averaged on. a national basis there is over
a ten-:!old difference between the cost of disposal of MWC ash in
a Subtitle C facility compared to a Subtitle D landfill: the
cost o:: transporting and disposing of MWC ash in a Subtitle C
facility is approximately $453.00 per ton; the cost of doing so
in a Subtitle D landfill is approximately $42.00 per ton. For
states that combust substantial portions of their solid waste (in
resource recovery and other combustion facilities), such as
Connecticut (65%), Massachusetts (47*), and Maine (45%), this
cost differential could be enormous.
CONCLOUION
In sum, exempting MWC ash from hazardous waste regulation is
consistent with the text and legislative history of section
3001(1'), and best serves the statutory goals embodied in that
provision of protecting the environment and promoting resource
recovery from nonhazardous solid waste. For the foregoing
reasons, EPA has determined that MWC ash is exempt from
regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA sfibtitle c.
William
cc: Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS-100)
Herbert H. Tate, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement (LE-133)
Raymond B. Ludwiszewski, Acting General Counsel (LE-130)
7 In addition to cost, Subtitle D landfill capacity
linitations also may be a significant factor in determining
whether municipal solid waste is combusted in resource recovery
facilities.
-------
9573.1986(01)
JUN 27 1986
Mr. S.teve Stander
c/o Ctepartaent of Plant
and Soil Sciences
Stocfcbridge Hall, Room 10
University of Massachusetts
Anherst, Massachusetts 01003
Dear *r. Standeri
This is in response to your June 9, 1936, request for
information regarding municipal waste incinerator ash management,
resource recovery, and regulatory statutes applicable to such
incineration.
Disposal of solid residues from municipal waste combustion
(HWC) processes is generally accomplished by landfilling. Ply
ash &s well as other residues from MWC processes sometimes
exhibit the characteristics of hazardous waste and, therefore,
are regulated under the applicable disposal standards in 40 CPR
Parts 260 through 265. Other than those occasions when the MWC
residues meet the definition of hazardous waste, the Federal
regulations that apply are the same as thost- for any non-hazardous
waste. Theee regulations are the "Criteria for Classification
of Solid Waste Disoosal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR Part
257) which were promulgated on September 13, 1979, under, authority
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A copy of
these Criteria is enclosed for your information.
On the State level, regulatory strategies re?ardinq disoosal
of *WC residues are qreatly varied. Currently, your hoze State
of Massachusetts has no specific restrictions addressing
of .V,WC residues. However, it is rsy understanding that future
Masaachusetts regulations roay require that disposal of the
resJ.dues b« restricted to landfills which are lined -4rvJ have
leac:h*te collection systems. For additional information, you
may wish to contacti
Mr. williaju ?. Cass, Director
Division of Solid and Hazardous *'aste
Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering
One Writer Street, 5th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5589
-------
In response to the various Congressional mandates written
into the Hasardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently initiated
several projects in an effort to address subject areas pertinent
to your inquiry. The Agency is currently developing a technical
information document for use by State and local governments in
evaluating municipal waste combustion projects. Included in
this document will be the results of a study to determine the
characteristics of ash from MWC processes. We anticipate that
this document will be available in February 1987. EPA is also
evaluating the potential health and environmental impacts from
the disposal of these residues. The results of this assessment
shou.'.d be available within the year.
EPA'a Municipal and Environmental Research Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio, is currently investigating ash sampling and
analytical techniques. Should you require technical information
at this level, you nay contacti
U.S. EPA
Center for Environmental Research
Information/ORO
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati. OH 45268
I am also enclosing a list of references which address a
broad range of topics which should be pertinent to your study.
I hope this information is useful to you. If you have
further inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Gerri Dorian
Special Wastes Branch
Enclosures
cc: Bob Janney, SPA (w/o enclosures)
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9573.1987(01)
MARCH 87
9. Subtitle D Survey
inder the Subtitle D Survey, the EPA is evaluating solid waste
disposal facilities in response to the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments o£l984. The authority EPA is using to obtain the
survey information is sited in §3007(a) of RCRA. However, this
authority only allows access to facilities which handle or have
handled hazardous waste. Where does EPA get its authority to
access and obtain information at a facility that does not or has
not handled hazardous waste?
EPA gets its authority to access entry and. obtain information at
solid waste disposal facilities from §3007(a) of RCRA. This
section requires any person who handles or has handled hazardous
wastes to furnish to EPA information relating to such wastes
and to allow access to the facility and its records to EPA or
authorized State officials, for the purpose- of developing or
assisting in the development of any regulation or for enforce-
ment purposes. The scope of EPA's inspection authority is not
limited under the statute to hazardous wastes identified or
listed under Subtitle C but rather extends to any waste that
the Agency believes may meet the statutory definition of a
hazardous waste under §1004(5). As defined by Congress, the
term hazardous waste means any solid waste that EPA reasonably
believes • .
"because of its quantity, concentration or physical,
chemical, or infectious characteristics my-
(A) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed." (emphasis
added)
Solid wastes which may contain any of the hazardous constituents
listed in 40 CFR 261, Appendix VIII which may form the basis
for listing actions under 40 CFR 261.11 would fall within the
statutory definition of hazardous waste and would be subject to
EPA's information gathering and inspection authorities.
These authorities also apply to hazardous waste fron households
and small quantity generators which are often placed in municipal
landfills and other Subtitle D disposal facilities.
Consequently, when EPA needs information to facilitate regulatory
development or enforcement, EPA can use Section 3007 to obtain
information from Subtitle 0 facilities.
Source: Jim Craig (202) 382-3410
Research: Joe Nixon
-------
9573.1990(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
.':;" 29 1990
Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Me. Julie Sullivan
9 Bittersweet Court
Centerport, New York
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
11721
I am writing in response to your March 6 letter to Sylvia
Lovrance regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
interpretation of the regulatory status of municipal waste
combustion ash.
As you noted, EPA articulated its interpretation of
Section 3001(i) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments in
the July 15, 1985 Federal Register (pages 28725-26). The
Agency stated that there was no specific legislative language
or history indicating that ash generated by energy recovery
facilities accepting non-hazardous wastes from commercial or
industrial sources would be exempt from regulation under
Suotitle C if such ash exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous
waste. Because the Section 3001(i) exemption did not extend to
the ash from energy recovery facilities, ash generated by the
co:nbustion of non-household wastes is required to be handled
like any other waste - if it exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic, it must be managed accordingly.
Recently, Sylvia Lowrance reiterated the Agency's position
regarding the regulatory status of ash, in testimony before the
House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Ms. Lowrance indicated that although the statute is ambiguous,
EPA continues to believe that its interpretation of existing
lav is correct. The testimony also makes clear, however, that
EPA believes that ash could be managed safely as a special
waiste under RCRA Subtitle D, with the use of management
controls such as disposal in lined monofills, leachate
collection systems, and groundwater monitoring. Accordingly,
thia Agency supports Congressional legislation that would
provide EPA with clear authority to regulate ash from municipal
wante combustors under Subtitle 0.
Two recent court decisions (enclosed) have rejected EPA's
statutory interpretation and concluded that Section 3001(i) of
RC11A does exempt ash from regulation under Subtitle C.
frinttd en RtcycUd Paptr
-------
Environmental Defense Fund. Inc. v. Wheelabrator Technologies.
Inc. No. 88 Civ. 0560 (S.D.NY. Nov. 21, 1989). Environmental
Defense Fund. Inc. v. City of Chicago No. 88 C 769 (N.D.IL.
Nov. 29, 1989). The Agency is considering the appropriate
response to these decisions.
I hope that this information sufficiently addresses your
questions. Thank you for your interest.
•» j ^- -—^. •. . - • ••. V-X .
Doreen Sterling \
Chemist
Municipal Solid Haste Program
-------
9573.1991(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 1991
2. Regulation of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash
Two cities have recently constructed combustion facilities to manage municipal solid
waste. The first city has an energy recovery plant, while the second has a non-
energy recovery incinerator. Both units generate a'fly and bottom ash. Would these
typos of ash be subject:~ RCRA hazardous waste regulation if the ash exhibited a
toxititv characteristic?
*
No. The ash would not be subject to the 40 CFR 261.24 toxicity characteristic
(TO regulation. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted on
November 15,1990; Section 306, entitled "Ash Management and Disposal,"
established that for a period of two years after the date of enactment, MWC
ash from "solid waste incineration units" would not be regulated as a RCRA
Subtitle C waste should it exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic of
ignitability, corrosiviry, reactivity, or toxicity in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C.
(Note: MWC ash would not be regulated as a hazardous waste in 40 CFR
Part 261, Subpart D since it is not a listed source.) The term "ash from solid
waste incineration units burning municipal waste" includes fly and/or
bottom ash from both energy recovery and incineration facilities managing
municipal waste. During the two year moratorium, however, MWC ash
would be subject to: 1) current federal regulations in 40 CFR Part 257
governing the disposal of solid waste, 2) state regulations governing solid
waste disposal; and 3) state regulations governing municipal waste
combustion ash disposal or utilization/reuse, where they exist. See also
Environmental Defense Fund. Inc. v. Wheelabrator Technologies. Inc.. Docket
No. 90-7437 (2d Cir. April 24,1991).
Source: Andrew Teplitzky, OSW (202)382-4536
Research: Cynthia Hess •*••
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C.
9573.1990(01)
FEB I 6 1990
O"'CE O«=
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Guy Sutherland
Managing Director
Lorrtc.x Development Corporation
P.O. Box 41206
Housiton, TX 77241
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
This is in response to your letter of January 12, 1990, in
which you inquire about any regulations which may apply to you
should you choose to export municipal solid waste (i.e., non-
hazardous waste) from the United States to an unspecified country
in Central America. At the present time, the Environmental
Projection Agency (EPA) does not have the authority to control the
export of this type of waste; therefore, there are no EPA
regulations that apply. (For your information, EPA does regulate
the export of hazardous waste under section 3017 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)'). Thus, there is no
requirement that you provide written proof of acceptance by the
receiving country.
As you may be aware, the U.S. government is in the process of
deciding whether to sign the Basel Convention. The Basel
Convention governs the transboundary movement of wastes. Should
the U.S. sign and ratify the Convention, certain new requirements
will apply to persons exporting municipal wastes. Such
requirements would include a notification and consent procedure for
the export of municipal solid waste.
In addition, there is legislation currently pending before
Congress, which, if passed, would regulate exports of municipal
solid waste. The legislation would ban the export of solid waste
unless it was made pursuant to a bilateral or regional agreement
with the receiving country. The exporter would also have to obtain
a permit from EPA to export the waste under the proposed
legislation.
Although there are no EPA regulations that apply at the
present time to the export of wastes such as those referred to in
your letter, this situation could change should the U.S. become a
signatory to the Basel Convention or should pending legislation
pass. You may find it valuable to keep informed on legislative
developments in this area.
Print** » R»cycU4 Faptr
-------
Should you have questions regarding this letter you may
contact Emily Roth of my staff at (202) 382-4777.
Sincerel
Lowranee
Lrector
Office of Solid Waste
-------
T
8 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9573.1994(01)
JAM 1 0 'CQil OF net or
va" i—w so,_m WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMQRM1DUM
SUBJECT: Inquiry on Southwestern Portland Cement
TO: William E. Muno, Director
Region 5 Waste Majiageme,nt Division
-
FROM: :t -"Michael Shapiro, Director
of Solid Waste
Tli is memorandum is in response to your July 30, 1993
memorandum on the Ohio Regional Air Pollution Control Agency's
(RAPCA's) inquiry regarding the impact of the Draft Hazardous
Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy on its implementation
of air regulations.
i
Cur understanding is that Region V is preparing to call in
the Part B for the Southwestern Portland Cement (Southdown)
facility's RCRA permit, and that RAPCA has public noticed a draft
air peirmit to operate. RAPCA asked the general question of
whether U.S. EPA supports the inclusion of the particulate matter
(PM) and dioxin limits referenced as targets or goals in the
Draft Strategy in t|he air permit for the Southdown facility prior
to controlling PM ajnd dioxins in the RCRA permit, and also posed
a number of specific questions on these limits.
I
We thinfc it wcruld be appropriate for RAPCA to address the
concerns about dioxins and particulate matter through their air
permit to the extent possible under their legal authorities. It
should be recognized that the Draft Strategy provides no new
authority to implement such limits, so RAPCA would need to use
their authorities under state law. In addition, the State should
also be aware that :some RCRA permits may include varying limits
on dioxins and furajns and particulate matter, since the limits
will be implemented through RCRA permit authority that takes
site-specif ic factors into account. The 30 ng/dscm dioxin/furans
and 1:he 0.015 gr/ds^cf particulate matter limits are being
considered as goals or targets within the RCRA program.
Regarding the 'State's question on what the basis was for the
dioxln and particulate matter target levels in the Draft
Strategy, the target levels were derived from those applicable to
-------
new municipal waste conbustors (MWC) Larger than 250 tons/day
capacity as set forth in 40 CFR Sections 60.50 through f.0.59.
EPA has not specified specific control equipment or measures that
facilities should use to meet regulatory limits. Facilities are
free to propose a control strategy they believe will enable their
system to meet the appropriate levels and must demonstrate
through a trial burn that they raeet their permit limits. The MWC
standards are based on implementation of Best Demonstrated
Technology (BDT) as set forth in the aforementioned regulations.
BDT includes the implementation of Good Combustion Practices as
well as the installation of a spray dryer and a bag house to
remove particulates. Attached is a copy of the February li, 19SI
federal R> gister for the final rule for MWC standards.
Interestingly, the interim status compliance certifications that
have been received for cement kilns burning hazardous wastes
indicate that about 50% are below the 30 ng/dscm level
established for MWC's.
The Draft Hazardous Waste Minimization/Combustion Strategy
does not discuss the method and frequency of measuring dioxin or
particulate matter levels. However, under current RCRA
regulations for boilers and industrial furnaces, 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A, Method 5 is used for particulate matter testing; with
respect to dioxin/furan testing, 40 CFR Appendix A, Method 23
can be used. There is no national guidance at this point
regarding stack testing frequency other than during the trial
burn. BIFs operating under interim status are required to
re-certify compliance every three years. We are aware that some
permits for commercial incinerators require retesting every tvo
to three years. As you know, in order to assure continued
compliance, RCRA permits (or BIF interim status compliance
certifications) set operating conditions to assure that the
combustor continues to operate within the bounds of the trial
burn conditions at which it successfully demonstrated compliance.
Municipal waste combustors are regulated under a slightly
different framework, and are required to retest for dioxins
annually.
The Draft Hazardous Waste Minimization/Combustion Strategy
is the starting point for evaluating our national policies on
combustion and minimization of hazardous wastes. We intend to
have a broad dialogue on these issues. The Draft Strategy does
not change the current permitting process and leaves the final
individual permit decisions to the Region and State involved.
However, we expect all BIF permits to be fully protective of
human health and the environment, and we appreciate RAPCA'a
interest in imposing relevant conditions through their air
permit. Feel free to contact Sonya Sasseville or Dwight Hlustick
at 703/308-8647 if you have further questions.
Attachment
cc: Karl Bremer
Waste Combustion Permit Writers' Workgroup
-------
bcc: Dev Barnee
Matt Hale
Jim Michael
Katt Straus
Fred Chanania
-------
9574 - HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Subtitle D
ATKl/l 104/74 Up
-------
9574.00-02
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUL 2 2 1992
Of net Of
SOLiO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Subtitle C Requirements Applicable to Household Hazardous
Waste Collection Programs Collecting Conditionally Exempt Small
Quantity Generator Waste
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Directqtf\A_ 'V
Office of Solid Waste —^j '
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
Tie purpose of this memorandum is to clarify that state-approved Household
Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Programs (HHWCPs) that manage both
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) waste and HHW are not
subject ;:o the full RCRA Subtitle C requirements merely because they mix these two
types of wastes together. Based on the numerous questions we are receiving, it is
apparent that there is a great deal of uncertainty among members of the regulated
community and implementing agencies about this issue.
Background
This clarification is necessary for several reasons. First, many communities are
addressing the issue of CESQG waste management because they want to assure that
these hazardous wastes are appropriately managed. As with HHW, some
communities are interested in separating and collecting CESQG waste from the
municipal solid waste stream to minimize the input of hazardous constituents to their
land;'•'. s and combustors. In addition, many CESQ generators (the majority of which
are small businesses) are addressing the issue of how to best manage their waste to
reduce potential future liability for cleanup of facilities where wastes have been
m!:----anaged. CESQ generators are interested in participating in HHWCPs even
though they, unlike HHW generators, typically must pay a fee. Often CESQ
generators do not have alternative options other than disposal in the solid waste
stream for their wastes. Their quantities are too small to economically manage using
hazardous waste disposal firms and these generators usually lack the expertise and
resour:es to manage their wastes under Subtitle C.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
9574.00-02
The regulations governing the management of CESQG waste are found at
§ 261.5 o: Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This provision describes
a conditicnal exemption from the full hazardous waste regulations for CESQG waste
as long as certain requirements are met.1 The issue raised to the Agency concerns
state-app'oved programs that collect both HHW and CESQG waste. Household
waste, including HHW, is excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under
40CFR261.4(b)(1).
Problem
Uncertainty about RCRA regulatory requirements prevents communities and
businesses from making cost-effective decisions about management of HHW and
CESQG waste. The question raised to the Agency by communities and companies
considering developing or participating in collection programs that collect both HHW
and CESQG waste is:
If a collection program accepts and manages both HHW and CESQG
waste and mixes these two types of wastes together (e.g., pours spent
solvents from households and small businesses into the same drum),
how is the resultant mixture regulated?
This question is prompted specifically by 40 CFR § 261.5(h), which states that CESQG
waste may be mixed with non-hazardous waste (e.g., HHW) and remain subject to the
reduced requirements for CESQ generators, even though the mixture exceeds CESQG
quantity limitations, only so long as the mixture does not meet any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste in 40 CFR Part 261.
If § 261.5(h) were to apply to collection programs where CESQG waste and
HHW ar= mixed, these programs would be faced with the substantial burdens and
costs associated with full Subtitle C requirements. The only way to reduce these
burdens would be to manage CESQG waste and HHW separately (i.e., not mix them
in the same container). Even this approach would have significant downsides. For
example;, managing the wastes separately greatly increases paperwork requirements,
increases the space required to store the wastes, increases packaging costs, and
Under 40 CFR 261.5(f)(3) and (g)(3), CESQGs must send their wastes to either
a ft -c.:;=.!!y permitted or interim status hazardous waste management facility, a state
aur.' :.::ed hazardous waste management facility, a recycling facility, or a facility
per- -.::d, licensed, or registered by a state to manage municipal or industrial solid
ws;.-.i. (For further detail concerning state approval, see attached letter dated October
9, 1986 from Mark A. Greenwood, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. EPA. to Joan H.
Peck, Chief, Waste Evaluation Unit, State of Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.)
-------
PDS: 9574.00-02
increases; both shipping and disposal costs. This increased burden comes with no
increase in environmental protection. To avoid either of the above scenarios -- full
Subtitle 0 regulation or increased costs associated with separate management of
CESQG waste and HHW -- many collection .programs are refusing to accept CESQG
waste. This represents an unnecessary barrier to communities and companies who
are seek ng environmentally sound methods of managing CESGQ waste.
Clarificat on
The CESQ generator regulations were not intended to impose barriers to
collection of CESQG waste and, thus, to the removal of these wastes from the
municipcil solid waste stream. In fact, the discussion in the preamble when § 261. 5(h)
was promulgated (45 £R 33102 - 33104) indicates that collection of CESQG waste was
not envisioned at that time and, thus, was not addressed by the regulations. The
Agency':; intent behind the Subtitle C regulations concerning HHW and CESQG waste
was, as with municipal solid waste, to allow States to determine what controls are
necessary for management of CESQG waste and HHW within the state. See 45 FR
33104. Therefore, to apply § 261. 5(h) to collection programs that mix CESQG waste
and HHW would create an unintended barrier to programs whose intent is to dispose
of these wastes economically and in an environmentally sound manner.
Based on the above discussion, and the fact that § 261.5 generally provides
direction to the CESQ generator rather than to others managing CESQG waste, it is
our interpretation that § 261. 5(h) applies to the CESQ generator and not to the
subsequent managers of the .CESQG waste described in § 261.5(f)(3) and (g)(3).
Programs and facilities receiving and mixing CESQG waste and HHW are subject to
requirements imposed by States through the States' municipal or industrial waste
permit, license, or registration programs, but are not subject to the full hazardous
waste Subtitle C regulations, .even if the mixed CESQG and household hazardous
v/astes were to exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous waste. The collection facility
does not become the generator of the mixture merely by mixing CESQG waste with
nonhazardous waste, and. regardless of the quantity of the mixture of wastes, is not -
subject to the 40 CFR Part 262 generator regulations; By contrast, CESQ generators
that mix hazardous and nonhazardous waste and whose resultant mixtures exceed the
§ 261.5 quantity limitations and exhibit a characteristic, are no longer conditionally
exempt and are subject to the applicable Part 262 hazardous waste generator
Attscr.nent
cc: Bruce Weddle
David Bussard
Regional Implementation Team
-------
, PDS: 9574.00-0:
-^—'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 204«0
OCT 9085
0"'C I O
C C •><••<. COu
Ms. Joan H. Peck, Chief
Waste Evaluation Unic
Hazardous Wasce Division
State of Michigan Departsent of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason Building
Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
Dear Ms. Peck:
I an: responding to your September 15, 1986 request for
clarification on how 40 CFR 26,1 .5(g) (3) (iv) applies to
facilities that temporarily store hazardous wastes produced by
generators of less than 100 kg/mo.
The condition under which the hazardous waste produced by
these generators would be exempt from full regulation under
5261.5(g)(3)(iv) is that the generator must either treat or
dispose of his hazardous waste in an onsite facility or ensure
delivery to an offsite storage, treatment or disposal facility,
either of which is permitted, licensed or registered by a State
to manage municipal or industrial solid waste. The purpose
behind imposing this condition was to ensure that the facilities
managing the waste ar« approved by the State to handle the
particular wast*. This would allow the States raorc flexibility
in dealing with small quantity generators, since the State
cc-jld deal directly with situations such as where it dttenaines
thac certain typec of waste should not be managed in a particula:
ncr.-hazardous facility. See 45 Fed. Reg. 33104 (May 19, 1980).
The requirement that the facility be permitted, licensed
or registered by & State was not intended to impose upon the
States any particular procedure for approval of the facility.
All that is required is that the State have some mechanism for
approving facilities that propose to manage the exempt waste.
Since the underlying intent of the requirement is that the
State assess the risks associated with particular facilities
handling the exempt v.'aste, any mechanism that the State chooses
- over -
-------
PDS: 9574.00-C2
- 2 -
co accomplish this is, in our view, acceptable under the
regulations. Thus, we would not judge an exchange of letters
to be an inappropriate way to achieve "registration" of a
facility. V
If you have any further questions, feel free co concacc
rae or Maureen Sraich of ay scaff ac (202) 382-7703.
Sincerely,
Mar'< A. Greenwood
Assistant General Counsel
Solid Waste & Emergency Response
Division
*_/ The regulations do noc define che cers "regiscracion"
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE NO. 9574.00-1
i- • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
f
NOV I 1988
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCE
MEMOFANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Issues Pertaining to Household
Hazardous Wa^t£ Collection Programs
/^ ^ A /-*^"
FROM: J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
TO: Waste Management Division Directors, k
Regions I-X
As you know, the Agency enthusiastically supports
household hazardous waste (HHW) collection and management
programs. As part of this support, EPA has sponsored annual
HHW conferences since 1986. The first collection programs
began in 1981. As of October 1988, over 1300 collection
programs have been set up in 44 States and more programs are
beincf planned all the time. EPA believes these programs are
important because they: (1) promote citizen awareness
regarding proper handling of HHW; (2) reduce the amount of HHW
in the municipal solid waste stream which ultimately is
taken to municipal waste combustors or landfills; (3) limit
the
-------
This memorandum clarifies our position on these issues.
You should note, however, that State positions may vary; the
State agency should be contacted for details on the state's
policies or regulations regarding HHW.
1. Vfhat does EPA recommend regarding management of HHW
collected in HHW collection programs?
•
As you know, all household wastes are exempt by
definition from the Federal hazardous waste regulations
promulgated under Subtitle C of RCRA. Section 261.4(b)(l)
unconditionally exempts household wastes, including HHW, from
the Subtitle C regulations even when accumulated in large
quantities. This exemption also applies to HHW collected
during an HHW collection program. However, when household
wastes are mixed with hazardous wastes from small quantity
generators, this resulting mixture is subject to t£e small
quantity generator rules in Section 261.5. For this reason,
sponsors of HHW collection programs should be careful to limit
the participation in their programs to households to -avoid the
possibility of receiving regulated hazardous wastes from
commercial or industrial sources and triggering all or some of
the Subtitle C controls on this waste.
Household waste, including HHW, is subject to the
regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA. The current Subtitle D
regulations governing the disposal of any solid waste are the
"Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR Part 257). These
regulations are general environmental performance standards
that are implemented by the States. On August 30, 1988 (see
53 F_:* 33314) EPA proposed new rules for municipal solid waste
landfills at 40 CFR Part 258. HHW can legally be disposed in
any solid waste disposal facility, including a municipal solid
waste landfill, that is in compliance with the existing
"Criteria" and State and local requirements.
Although HHW is exempt from the Federal RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste regulations, EPA r?g?Q^ff?n*1g that sponsors of
HHW collection programs manage the collected HHW as a
hazardous waste. When a community has already gone to the
effort and expense of collecting these materials, Subtitle C
controls provide a greater level of environmental protection.
In selecting a management option, the Agency recommends that
program sponsors follow the waste management hierarchy of:
-------
(t) Reusing and recycling as much waste as possible;
(2) Treating waste in a hazardous waste treatment
facility; and, finally,
(3) Disposing of remaining waste in a hazardous waste
landfill.1
The Agency also recommends the use of licensed hazardous
wasto transporters who will properly identify, label,
manifest, and transport the collected wastes for recycling,
treatment, or disposal. Although sponsors are not required to
manage HHW as a hazardous waste, it is clear from seeing the
programs in action, that, in fact, sponsors usually contract
with hazardous waste management professionals to run the
programs. These contractors generally manage the HHW as a
hazardous waste and usually make efforts to reuse and recycle
the xraste.
i
2. What is the regulatory status of HHW that contains dioxin?
As stated above, HHW is unconditionally exempt from
Federal RCRA Subtitle C regulation. This exemption includes
HHW that contains dioxin, such as pesticides. Like any
household waste, HHW that contains dioxin must be disposed
of in accordance with EPA's rules under Subtitle D of
RCRA.
The RCRA land disposal restrictions rule issued
November 8, 1986, applies only to those dioxin-bearing
wastes that are specifically listed as hazardous wastes
under Subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, this rule does not
apply to any HHW and does not prohibit hazardous waste land
disposal facilities from receiving any HHW, even those
potentially containing dioxin. Although dioxin-containing
HHW are exempt from EPA's land disposal restrictions rule,
we understand that, due to public perception concerns,
some: Subtitle C hazardous waste management facilities
currently do not accept dioxin-bearing HHW. EPA will
explore options with State and local governments so that a
solution to this problem can be found. For example, we
are looking at ways to encourage the waste management
industry to reconsider their position and accept these
wastes. Some communities have chosen to temporarily
store this dioxin-bearing HHW until a more permanent
management option can be found.
1To the extent that non-hazardous liquids are not
containerized in accordance with Sections 40 CFR 264.314(d),
265.314(c), 264.316, and 265.316, such liquids are subject to
the non-hazardous liquids restrictions set forth at Sections
264.314(e) and 265.314(f).
2Likewise, the land disposal restrictions do not apply to
any other HHW.
-------
- 4 -
3. Vfhat liability do HHW collection programs sponsors have
under Subtitle C of RCRA?
As stated above, Section 261.4(b)(l), exempts household
wastes, including HHW, from the Federal Subtitle C
regulations. As a result, handlers of HHW are not potentially
liable under Subtitle C of RCRA for failure to follow the
regulations and are not required to manage collected HHW in
Subtitle C hazardous waste management facilities. As
previously mentioned, however, EPA recommends that this waste
be handled as a Subtitle C hazardous waste.
4. vftiat liability do sponsors of HHW collection programs have
under CERCLA?
CERCLA does not contain an exclusion from liability for
household waste or an exclusion based on the amount of waste
generated. Any waste that qualifies as a hazardous substance
under CERCLA is subject to the liability provisions of Section
107. Hazardous substances are defined under Section-101(14)
and designated under Section 102(a) of CERCLA. HHW may
qual:.fy as a "hazardous substance" if it contains any
substance listed in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302. If a
household waste contains a substance that is covered under
thes
-------
9574.1985(01
JAN 22 1985
Mr. Kevin Bromberg
Small business Administration
1725 I Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20416
Dear Mr. Bronbergt
I am responding to the December 31, 1984, letter that I
received from Mr. Chuck Marshall (JACA Corporation) requesting
information on the disposal of nonhazardous liquid wastewaters
and sludges in sanitary landfills under the "old RCRA law" and
•new RCRA law."
The Federal Government has no specific regulations on the
disposal of bulk or containerized nonhazardous liquids in
sanitairy (nonhazardous waste) landfills. The EPA "Criteria" or
guidelines regarding sanitary landfills were issued under
i Subtitle D of RCRA on September D , 1979, in 40 CFR Part 257.
2 These Criteria, in general, establish performance standards
w for sanitary landfills. Specific design and operating practices
needed to meet the performance standards must be determined by
s the facility owner or operator and may be specified by the
\ State through state regulations or State-issued permits*
\ Restrictions on liquids or certain liquids in landfills may be
1? needed at specific sites, depending on the facility design and
•jj location, in order to meet the Criteria performance standards.
s To get current information on State requirements, you should
£ check ifith the State agencies (list of State agencies is
g enclosed).
u Under the recent RCRA amendments, EPA is to review the
£ adequacy of the Criteria in protecting human health and the
-------
f
1) The landfill has a synthetic liner and a functioning
leachate collection and removal system, as per
S264.301(a), or
2 ) Before disposal, the bulk liquids or free liquids
are treated or stabilised so that free liquids are
no longer present.
In regard to the disposal of containerised nonhasardous
liquids in hazardous waste landfills, CPA's current requirement
is that all free-standing liquids Bust be removed from the
container before the waste is placed in the landfill.
The RCRA amendments will change the rules regarding the
disposal of nonhazardous liquids in hazardous waste landfills.
The amendments require that 22 months after enactment
(Moveeber 9, 1985)* the placement of any liquid that is not
a hazardous waste in a landfill for which a permit is required
under §3005(c) or which is operating pursuant to interim status
granted under S3005(e) is prohibited, unless the owner or
operator demonstrates specific items to the Administrator (see
enclooure).
If you have any further questions concerning this letter,
you mmy contact Hr. Paul Cassidy of my staff at 382-4682.
Sincerely,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid haste
Bncloisure
cci Chuck Marshall
-------
I ^U" •
\~x
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9574.1991(01)
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAY 30 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Lynn L. Bergeson
Weinberg, Bergeson, and Neuman
1300 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 600 East
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Ms. Bergeson:
This letter responds to your April 12, 1991 letter on behalf
of the Battery Products Alliance (BPA) requesting clarification
of the scope of the 40 CFR 261.4(b)(l) household waste exclusion
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Specifically, you have raised the issue of the applicability
of the exclusion to nickel-cadmium batteries (NiCds) removed from
household products by service centers where the household
products are taken to the service center by a consumer. Further,
you express concern that the Agency's interpretation of the scope
of the household waste exclusion is contrary to both the
legislative and regulatory histories of the exclusion.
First, thank you for your interest in developing recycling
program.'; for NiCd batteries and in the applicability of RCRA
regulations to these programs. We are considering the points
that you and BPA member companies have raised in your letters
concerning the difficulties involved in implementing NiCd
recycling programs if the batteries exhibit the Toxicity
Charact eristic.
Turning to the Agency's interpretation of the household
"waste exclusion, you are correct in understanding our
interpretation to be that batteries removed by consumers in their
homes are within the exclusion and are exempt from the hazardous
waste regulations, and batteries removed by service centers from
appliances taken to the service centers by consumers are not
within the exemption.
This means, of course, that if spent NiCds generated by
service^ centers exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, they are subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations. Service centers must determine the total quantity
of hazardous waste generated per month to determine whether they
must manage the NiCds in compliance with the conditionally exempt
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
small gua.ntity generator regulations of 40 CFR 261.5, or the
generator regulations of 40 CFR Part 262. Also, individual
states may have more stringent or additional regulations
governing the management of these wastes.
Although others may have a different interpretation of the
legislative history of the household waste exclusion, the
Agency's interpretation of the legislative history and of the
scope of the exclusion have been consistent since promulgation of
the exclusion in 1980. Note that the May 19, 1980 Federal
Register (45 FR 33099) states that EPA interpreted Congressional
intent ", .. to exclude waste streams generated by consumers at
the household level" (i.e., by homeowners at home).
Additionally, a November 13, 1984 Federal Register notice (49 FR
44978) which amended the household waste exclusion also included
a discussion of the scope of the exclusion in the preamble. The
1984 notice explained that based on legislative history, it is
appropriate to apply two criteria to define the scope of the
exclusion. First, the waste must be generated by individuals on
the premises of a temporary or permanent residence for
individuals (i.e., a household) and second, the waste stream must
be composed primarily of materials found in the wastes generated
by consumers in their homes. If a waste satisfies both criteria,
it is considered a household waste. Thus, spent NiCd batteries
generated by homeowners would fall under the household waste
exclusion, while those generated by service centers and other
businesses would not.
We recognize that the NiCd battery situation (i.e., many
states considering take-back programs and many products
manufactured such that spent batteries must be removed by service
centers) may present some unique opportunities for safe and
effective recycling. We are also aware of your concerns about
implementation of recycling programs in states considering
legislation designed to increase the rate of NiCd recycling. We
are therefore currently examining the available options to
determine how to facilitate such programs. 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 fully informed about our current
thinkintj on an 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 must evaluate issues
such AS the size of the problem, hazards posed by waste disposal
and roc/cling, and the feasibility of possible solutions. Any
information that you could provide concerning the following items
-------
UNi.uD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY „,, loan/ni.
9574.1990(01)
NOV 28 1990
Marilynne Wilson, RN
Quality Assurance Coordinator
Family Home Care
P.O. Box 2145
Spokane, Washington 99210-2145
Dear Ms. Wilson:
Thank you for your letter dated October 12, 1990 regarding the
proper disposal of old medications.
Expired medications from households may fall into the category
of household hazardous waste. Household hazardous waste (HHW) is
appropriately identified by applying two criteria. First, the
waste must be generated by individuals on the premises of a
temporazy or permanent residence for individuals. Second, the
waste stream must be composed primarily of materials found in the
waste generated by consumers in their homes, other items that may
fall into this category may include excess household cleaners, lawn
and garden products, and paint thinners, among others, when
intended for disposal. Based on the information in your letter,
it is not clear whether the medication you manage qualifies as HHW.
However,, you should be able to determine the regulatory status of
the material based on the aforementioned criteria. At the Federal
regulatory level, HHW is excluded from hazardous waste regulations
under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Please note that state or local regulations may be more
stringent than Federal regulations.
^. Although household hazardous waste is excluded from
Subtitle C regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
shares concerns such as yours regarding household hazardous waste.
In fact, EPA attempts to address some of these concerns in the
enclosed publication entitled A Survey of Household Hazardous
Wastes and Related Collection Programs. This report contains the
results of a comprehensive nationwide survey of HHW. In this
publication the Agency identifies: existing information on the
types cind quantities of HHW; the impacts of HHW on homeowners,
solid waste collection and disposal personnel, and the environment;
and existing collection programs at the state and local levels.
You may also be interested in the enclosed publication Household
Hazardous Waste: Bibliography of Useful References and List of
State Experts which lists resources and contacts for HHW programs.
-------
would be extremely helpful: 1) the types and quantities of
cadmium and nickel used in batteries in the United States, 2)
current Management practices for spent NiCds, 3) collection and
storage uystems currently in place and planned, 4) recycling
processes currently in use and planned, and 5) quantities of
batterieu reclaimed within the U.S. and overseas.
Second, as you are aware, we are currently conducting a
comprehensive analysis of the RCRA regulations to determine how.
they could best be modified to encourage environmentally sound
recycling of hazardous wastes. In particular, one of the issues
being studied is how to address reverse distribution systems that
involve 'the return of hazardous wastes to product manufacturers.
Thank you for your continued interest in increasing the
environmentally sound recycling of NiCd batteries and how RCRA-
regulations impact such efforts. Should you have any further
questions regarding the household waste exclusion, please contact
Mike Petruska at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
David^ussard
Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
-------
With regard to disposal of old medications, rinsing the
bottles and flushing this type of waste down a toilet may be the
most appropriate method of disposal. Additionally, most
pharmacists recommend flushing expired tablets and capsules down
the toilet. By disposing of these normally minute quantities of
household waste in this fashion, the possibility of exposing
children that might be attracted to the potentially harmful
material;; while in the trash is removed. Federally, any mixture
of domestic sewage and other wastes that pass through a sewer
system to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for treatment is
not regulated under Subtitle C.
I suggest you consult your local publicly owned treatment
works (I»OTW) to determine if local limits or general/specific
prohibitions are applicable when disposing of expired medications
in this manner. I also suggest you contact your state solid waste
program office to determine if they can provide additional HHW
disposal guidance. The address in Washington is:
Solid And Hazardous Waste Management Division
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 459-6316
Thank you for your interest in proper waste management. I
hope this information is useful when determining the appropriate
disposal, options for expired medications.
Sincerely,
Mike Petruska, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Enclosures
-------
-3-
exceedences are attributable to naturally occurring levels,
laboratoj.-y error, or broken product lines running beneath the
LTF. We believe that Sun has failed to prove conclusively that
the migration did not, in part, result from LTF operations.
Additionally, we believe that Sun has failed to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a)(4). Specifically, Sun has not
demonstrated that the ground-water monitoring system at the LTF
is capable of detecting (and differentiating) releases at the
earliest extent practicable. Sun's 1990 annual report on ground-
water monitoring (dated July 19, 1990) presented a map showing
three pipelines buried approximately three feet below the ground
surface within the treatment zone of the Central treatment area
of the LTF. These pipelines transport a wide range of petroleum
products from crude oil to gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. The
map also showed that the downgradient wells of the Central and
West are.as are located adjacent to these pipelines. Sun stated
that these pipelines could leak and that several leaks, which
were indeed identified during 1989, could have influenced ground-
water monitoring results, as with MW32 where the concentration of
total organic carbon (TOC) has consistently increased from 20 ppm
in 1986 to 79 ppm in 1988.
The ramifications of the contamination from ruptured product
lines in regard to ground-water monitoring of the LTF are
unclear. Sun has not provided detailed analytical results that
describe the known contamination, nor have they proposed an
adequate plan whereby releases from the LTF can be differentiated
from the known contamination. Because the constituents of a
weathered petroleum product plume would be very similar to a
release from a LTF that contains petroleum wastes ( e.g.,
benzene, toluene, and xylene), it will be difficult to
differentiate between the two releases and therefore, conclude
that Sun's ground-water monitoring system will be able to detect
..constituent releases at the earliest extent practicable.
Maintaining Minimum Separation
Federal regulations require that the depth-to-ground water
at land treatment facilities be no less than three feet from the
bottom of the treatment zone to the seasonal high water table (40
CFR 26'l.271(c) (2)) . Based on the discussion below, we do not
believe that Sun has demonstrated that the required minimum
separation is maintained throughout the entire year.
Sun stated that the ground-water table can fluctuate up to
four feet in elevation in a year, and that the seasonal high
water table is more than eight feet below ground surface at the
LTF. Although Sun supported its claim by providing the ground-
water elevation profiles in Exhibits 3.3-1 to 3.3-3 (V.I, pages
3-28 to 3-30), the changes in ground-water table, as reported in
Exhibit 3.3-1, were based on observations recorded in a period
-------
-4-
from 1983 to 1984. We believe that data taken in this relatively
short period is not sufficient to represent the long-term,
temporal variation of the water table beneath the LTF. In
addition, the average depths to ground-water table at MW15 and
MW17 were shown to be 8.2 feet and 8.5 feet, respectively (V.I,
Exhibit 3.3-2, page 3-29). Since Sun has stated that the
potential fluctuations of the water table could be four feet over
the course of a year (or roughly ± two feet from the mean), it is
possible for the water table at these two wells to rise to an
elevation within six feet of the ground surface.
Furthermore, Exhibit 3.3-2 (V.I, page 3-29) presents average
depths to ground water using measurements made in August 1984,
May 1985, and December 1986. As stated above, the depth to
ground water during this period in the East LTF ranges between
8.2 and 8.5 feet. We note, however, that the petition stated
that the ground-water table is at the highest levels during April
- June (V.I, page 3-27). The petition also stated that the level
of the ground-water table fluctuates with rainfall. Because the
greatest amount of precipitation generally occurs during May,
June, and September, ground-water table elevation measurements
collected during these three months may show that the minimum
required separation of three feet between the bottom of the
treatment unit and the top of the seasonal high water table is
not maintained (V.I, page 3-33).
We are also concerned that the aquifer beneath the LTF is
hydraulically linked to the Arkansas River, and the ground-water
table can be further affected by the water level variations in
the river. A 100-year flood could cause "underground flooding"
at the. LTF due to its proximity to the river and the moderately
pennea.ble alluvial soils in the unsaturated zone. That is, the
excessive hydraulic head generated outside the levee by flood
waters; could reverse the ground-water flow direction and cause
the water table to further rise beneath the LTF. Our concerns
are supported by Sun's acknowledgment that during heavy flooding
in October of 1986, the Arkansas River level was at the same
elevation as an abandoned waste site adjacent to the West unit
for at least a week, temporarily reversing the ground-water flow.
We, therefore, conclude that the minimum separation between the
treatment zone and the water table is affected by water level
variations occurring in the Arkansas River.
Air Kodelina for Arsenic
Sun performed air modeling to predict the airborne
concentrations of arsenic at the unit boundary. This modeling,
based on historic and projected data, showed that arsenic would
be found at the unit boundary at a concentration of 1.2 x 10"4
jig/m'" and 1.0 x 10"3 Mg/m3, respectively. Sun compared these
predicted concentrations to a health-based level (HBL) for
arse;nic of 2.3 x 10"3 ng/n? (for inhalation) as reported in Table
-------
-5-
9.5-3 of; the petition. However, the HBL value cited in the
petition bv Sun is higher than that found in EPA's IRIS database
(7.0 x ].0'* nq/m ) . Since both the historic and projected
concentrations modeled for arsenic exceed the HBL of 7.0 x 10
jig/m3, Sun has failed to demonstrate that this constituent will
not migrate at hazardous concentrations beyond the unit boundary.
Incomplete Petition
Finally, our review indicates that the petition is
incomplete and that information and clarification in areas beyond
those highlighted above would be needed to complete the petition.
However, because of the problems discussed above, we believe we
have sufficient information at this time to move toward a denial
of your petition.
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of
withdrawing their petitions to avoid a negative publication in
the Federal Register. If you prefer this option, you must send
us a letter withdrawing your petition and acknowledging that the
petitioned wastes are still considered to be restricted wastes
subject to the Third Third Land Disposal prohibitions. This
letter should be forwarded to the following address within two
weeks of the date of receipt of today's correspondence:
Patricia Cohn, Acting Chief
Assistance Branch (OS-343)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
If you choose not to withdraw your petition, we will
recommend that a proposed denial decision be published in the
Federal Register.
Any questions regarding our findings may be submitted in
writing to Mr. James Michael of my staff.
Sincerely,
Jeffery D. Denit, Deputy Director
Office of Solid Waste
Attachments
cc: Patricia Cohn, PSPD, OSW
James Michael, PSPD, OSW
Fenton Rood, Oklahoma State Department of Health
Bill Honker, Region VI
-------
ATTACHMENT I
\
Soil-Pore Monitoring ttftere Benzene was Detected at Background end Active Area lysi Meters
Benzene Conccntmtion (ppb)
Hani tor ing Period
lurch-April 1987
Background Lymi Meters
iY-1 tT-5 LT-6 LT-16 LY-17
0.97 12 0.5 0.6 0.8
Monitoring Period
March- Apr 11 1987
.hne 1988
June 1989
August 1989
October 1989
Active Are* Lvsi Meters
LT-2 LY-3 LY-4 IT-7 LY-8 LY-11 tY-U LY-15 LY-18
0.8 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.6
33.4
4.0 3.0 5.0
3.6 2.6
4.0 5.0
-------
ATTACHMENT I
Sol I-Pore Monitoring where lenzene MM Detected at lacfcground and Active Area Ly*fMeters
Benzene Concentration (ppb)
Nonltorlna Period
March-Apr 11 1987
•aclrjrnnwl Lyaiaeters
W-1 LT-5 LT-6 LT-16 U-17
0.97 12 0.5 0.6 0.8
Monitoring Period
March-April 1987
JIM 1988
Jww 1989
Auguat 1989
October 1989
Active Area Lysiaetert i
LT-2 LY-3 LT-4 LT-7 LV-8 LT-11 LT-14 LT-15 LT-18
0.8 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.6
53.4
4.0 S.O S.O
3.6 2.6
i
4.0 5.0
-------
UNITED STATES ENVTROMUEHTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9551.1991(03)
JAN 2 9 199!
Mr. David R. Chapman
Exxon Research and Engineering Company
P.O. Box 101
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0101
Re: Ex>:on, Baytown, TX No-Migration Petition (F-91-NMEP-FFFFF)
Dear Mr. Chapman:
At our meeting, September 26, 1990, to discuss EPA's
technical evaluation of the no-migration petition submitted for
the Bay1;own Refinery's North Landfarm, you requested some
documents and further clarifications of a few issues. In
response, I have enclosed copies of the Federal Register notices
for the §3004 (n) rule (June 21, 1990, 55 £R 25454) and the
Benzene NESHAP (March 7, 1990, 55 IB 8292) and provided below
additional information on static fracturing and the use of
indicator chemicals in risk assessment. We are presently
developing information that will address the third issue, metals
mobility, and will provide it to you as soon as it is completed.
Static Fracturing
The term "static fracturing," although not a formal term, is
used to describe the cracking of earthen materials without
significant movement along the crack (plane of failure) . It is
used in contrast to dynamic fracturing (e.g., faults) where the
fracture is related to shear or slip along the plane of fracture.
The tenns are not mutually exclusive as many small fractures with
only slight movement can make up zones of slip (e.g., shear
zones) that are associated with dynamic processes.
Static fracturing in relation to no-migration petitions is
usually limited to shrinkage cracks. Three examples of static
fractures are described below for your information. However, the
first (desiccation cracks) is the only one that would possibly
apply to the Baytown landfarm.
Desiccation cracks - These cracks form as a result of
shrinkage from drying. The simplest example is the
formation of mud cracks. Soils and sediments that contain
-cn and crack (fraarng dry pogieda.Alfeheugh
in most cases, the fractures extend only a foot pr so in 1
• • <>• •• •!••••••••••••••• ••••{• *••• •••••••••. • ••&•••••••••*•••••••• >••••••«••••••*•• »f * •*•*•••*•• •*•••• [• • ••* •*• • * • • n i f *«b •
depth, depending on the makeup I of the soil and uhderlvind
-------
sediments, they are reported to exist at depths in the tens
of feet. In areas where montmorillonitic shales weather
from surface soils, desiccation cracks can be exceptionally
deep.
Cooling fractures - These fractures are common in basalts
and are almost characteristic of plateau basalts. Commonly
referred to as "joint sets" or "columnar jointing," fracture
patterns developed in cooled lava, are widespread. These
fraictures result from shrinkage in the lava as it cools to
basialt rock, and often penetrate the entire layer.
.Tension fractures - Any rock unit subjected to structural
tension may fracture in a direction perpendicular to the
tension. This is very typical of folded units where rock
layers on the outside of the fold undergo tension relative
to rocks along the inside of the fold. Subsequent leaching
by downward movement of surface waters can enlarge
fractures. This is typical of limestone terrains.
Indicator Chemicals in Risk Assessment
EFA's recent guidance - Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund - Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)
Interim Final (EPA/540/1-89/002) - defines the indicator chemical
approach in more detail than the 1986 Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual, which was used by Exxon in its environmental
risk assessment. The methods used to select indicator chemicals
for a no-migration petition are similar to risk assessments
performed for Superfund sites. However, it appears that Exxon
did not completely apply the Superfund approach. EPA's position
is described below and an example of how this approach could be
applied to the environmental risk assessment in your no-migration
petition is presented.
Most Superfund sites have a few chemicals that are usually
present in concentrations that present much higher risks (i.e.,
three or more orders of magnitude or higher) than the remaining
chemicals at the site. Based on this experience, EPA suggested,
at Superfund sites, that between 5 and 10 chemicals with the
highest individual risk factors would be manageable and possibly
sufficient for a human health risk assessment. The selection of
indicator chemicals is not a process of selecting a single
chemical to represent each class of chemicals that may be
expected to exhibit similar fate and transport characteristics
and similar toxicities, but rather, it is a process to exclude
from Jiurther consideration, those chemicals that are unlikely to
contribute significantly to risk. Use of the Superfund approach
with wastes placed at refinery landfarms may result in a list of
more than 5 or 10 indicator chemicals, but it is likely to
eliminate from further consideration some of the chemicals that
have been detected in the waste.
-------
The selection of indicator chemicals is optional; it is
often prudent to consider all chemicals. If there are clear
reasons 1:0 believe that not all chemicals are likely to
contribute significantly to the total risks, the number of
chemical:; carried through the risk assessment modeling may be
reduced using a concentration-toxicity screen.
The indicator chemical selection procedure is a quantitative
approach that requires an evaluation of each chemical detected at
concentrations above background levels: specifically, one must
compare the concentration of the chemical in a medium to a
toxicity benchmark for that medium. Other considerations such as
persistence, solubility and bioaccumulation are included in the
final selection of chemicals.
To select indicator chemicals, each chemical is assigned a
score by dividing the concentration (C) of the chemical in a
medium by the toxicity benchmark (TB). The medium may be a
source medium (e.g., applied wastes), or a transport medium
(e.g., surface water), depending on the availability of
measurement data. The source of the toxicity benchmarks are
dependent on the potential receptors (e.g., recommended criteria
values for the protection of freshwater aquatic life can be
calculated from Ambient Water Quality Criteria documents). The
scores cire then summed for all chemicals to estimate a "total
risk factor" to serve as an initial screen. After consideration
of other factors (e.g., persistence, bioaccumulation), one may
eliminate from the risk assessment chemicals with C/TB values
that an; very low compared with C/TB values for other chemicals
of the same class in that medium. "Very low" may be defined as a
lower limit to the percentage of the total risk factor accounted
for by ii single chemical. For Superfund sites, the remedial
project manager may choose a "cutoff" for "very low" of one
percent of the total risk factor screen, or a lower value if the
site risks are expected to be high.
In the no-migration petition, it appears that Exxon did not
follow the indicator chemical selection approach as described
above. The concentrations of the chemicals in the composite
waste sludge were discussed with qualitative statements about
relative aquatic toxicity of the chemicals rather than comparing
them to numeric toxicity benchmarks. When the appropriate
application of the indicator chemical approach is followed, there
appears to be no justification for Exxon's exclusion of any of
the VOCs and most of the PAHs from further analysis. To assist
Exxon, we have prepared a couple of exhibits applying the
suggested indicator chemical selection approach using the same
organic waste constituents information provided in the risk
assessment section of the no-migration petition. The same
principles also apply to inorganic constituents, but are not
illustrated in the example. Note that Exxon should begin the
-------
risk assessment by evaluating comprehensive waste
characterization data from all the wastes applied to the
landfarm, not just the listed hazardous wastes.
Exhibit 1 shows the aquatic toxicity values that are
recommended for the particular organic constituents in the waste
as identified by Exxon in the petition. Please contact EPA if
you need assistance in determining appropriate toxicity benchmark
values l.'or additional chemicals if they are detected in the
waste. Calculations for the indicator chemical selection process
are presented in Exhibit 2. In this exhibit, column 1 is the
reported concentration of the chemical in the composite sludge
waste that Exxon used to select waterborne indicator chemicals
for the no-migration petition; column 2 lists the aquatic
toxicity benchmarks shown in Exhibit 1; and column 3 is the ratio
of waste constituent concentration to the aquatic toxicity
benchmark, or the chemical-specific risk score. The chemical-
specific risk scores are then summed for all chemicals within a
chemical class to estimate a "total risk factor" for the medium
and the chemical class. The chemical classes are evaluated
separately because they are likely to exhibit different fate and
transport characteristics.
In this example, if one follows the guidance for Superfund
sites, four chemicals (anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, pyrene,
and fluoranthene) each have a total risk factor of less than one
percent (1%). These chemicals could probably be eliminated from
further consideration if there are no other reasons for retaining
the chemical (e.g., high bioaccumulation potential). However, we
need to stress that the risk assessment report should include a
discussion of. each chemical that is eliminated from further
modeling, indicating that other characteristics of the chemical,
such as bioaccumulation and persistence, have been considered.
I hope this information will be useful in the preparation of
Exxon's response to EPA's technical evaluation of the no-
migration petition. If you need additional assistance, please
contact Athena Rodbell of my staff at (202) 382-4519.
Sincerely,
James F. Michael, Chief
Disposal Technology Section (OS-343)
Office of Solid Waste
Attachments (2)
cc: Dave Reeves, PSPD, OSW
Athena Rodbell, PSPD, OSW
Terry Keidan, PSPD, OSW
Howard Finkel, ICF
-------
Exhibit 1
Recommended Criteria Values for the Protection of Aquatic Life
Chemical
benzene
ethylbenzene
toluene
xylene
anthracene
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysenes
l-methy].napthalene
naphthalene
phenanthrene
pyrene
fluoranthene
Toxicity
Value
(D8/L)
5,300
32,000
17,500
3,185
1.2
300
1.2
1.2
620
300
300
3,980
Type of
Value
EPA LC50
EPA LC30
EPA LCJO
LIT LC30
EPA CC sed
EPA PAH LOEL
EPA CC sed
EPA CC sed
EPA LOEL
EPA PAH LOEL
EPA PAH LOEL
EPA LOEL
Recommended
Criterion Rationale
(B8/L)
110
640
350
64
800
1.2
60
1.2
1.2
120
120
60
60
800
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(c)
(c)
(e)
(f)
(d)
(d)
(f)
EPA values are those identified in the chemical-specific Ambient
Water Quality Criteria Documents. "CC sed" is EPA's chronic
criterion for PAHs in pore water of sediments as identified by
Exxon.
(a) EPA or literature (LIT) LC50 value divided by a factor of 10
to extrapolate from an acute to chronic value and a factor
of 5 for variation in species sensitivity.
(b) Assume toxicity value equal to that of fluoranthene (could
use a more conservative assumption than this).
(c) EPA chronic criterion for benzo(a)pyrene in water pore of
s&diments, as identified by Exxon
(d) EPA LOEL (Lowest Observable Effect Level) identified for
PAHs in general, divided by a factor of 5 for variation in
species sensitivity.
(e) Assume toxicity value equal to that of naphthalene.
(f) EPA LOEL (Lowest Observable Effect Level) divided by a
factor of 5 for variation in species sensitivity.
-------
Exhibit 2
Indicator Chemical Approach Examples for Exxon, Baytown, TX
Constituent Waste Aquatic
Concentra- Toxicity
tion Benchmark
(Bg/ks> (B«/L)
[C] [TB]
(1)
Indicator Chemical
benzene
ethylbenzene
toluene
xylene
Indicator Chemical
anthracene
BaA
Bbff
BaP
chrysene
1-methylnapth.
naphthalene
phenanthrene
pyrenai
fluorainthene
(2)
Selection
16
19
87
116
Selection
39
81
12
16
21
267
138
134
45
141
Chemical Percent
Specific Total
Risk Risk
Factor
[C/TB]
(3)
(4)
Of
Aoolied to VOCs
0.11
0.64
0.35
0.064
VOC TOTAL
Applied to
0.8
0.0012
0.06
0.0012
0.0012
0.12
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.8
145
30
249
1813
= 2236
PAH?
49
67500
200
13333
17500
2225
1150
2233
750
176
6.5 %
1.3 %
11.1 %
81.1 %
None < 1 %
0.05
64.2
0.2
12.7
16.6
2.1
1.1
2.1
0.7
0.17
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
PAH TOTAL= 105117
Pour < 1 %
(1)
(2)
(3)
jrrom Exxon, Baytown, TX, Table 9.5-2: sludge composite waste
concentrations .
Aquatic toxicity values from Exhibit 1 (expressed in mg/L
instead of
(1) divided by (2), i.e., concentration in the waste divided
by aquatic toxicity values assuming 1 kg waste equivalent to
1 liter (i.e., 1 kg) of water.
(4) Percent of total risk factor for all chemicals contributed
by the specified chemical.
-------
Administrative Directives
in
oo
-------
9581 - RCRA GRANT
FUNDS
ATKl/l 104/75 kp
-------
9581.1988(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
NOV
MEMORANDUM
SOL10WASTE cv RESPONSE
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 88
FROM: Thea McManus, Project Officer \\^t~
Office of Solid Waste V
Hubert Waiters, Deputy Project Officer-fas
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO: See List of Addressees
Tl\is report is prepared and submitted in support of Contract #68-01-7371.
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES • AUGUST 1988
A. RCRA
1. Source Reduction and Recycling Technical Assistance Grants For States
On July 18,1988 (53 £R 27077) EPA announced the availability of a new financial
assistance program, "Source Reduction and Recycling Technical Assistance" for
States to develop or expand source reduction and recycling technical assistance
profjrams. The program is a grant/cooperative agreement program designed to
provide assistance to a limited number of states to establish or expand technical
assistance programs that address the reduction of pollutants from air, land,
surface, water and ground-water.
How much money is available to states through this program?
Congress appropriated $4 million for the source reduction and recycling
program. Of the total $4 million, $3 million will be awarded to States in fiscal
year 1989 under cooperative agreements. Approximately 10-12 states will be
selected through open competition. Each selected state will be eligible to
receive no more than $300,000.
What procedures should a state follow to receive grant money?
To apply for funds, State environmental agencies must: (1) submit a letter of
intent by August 15, 1988; and (2) submit a grant applications package by
September 30,1988.
-------
1. Source Reduction and Recycling Technical Assistance Grants For States
(Cont'd)
What types of activities are eligible for funding?
These cooperative agreement funds are to be used specifically for establishing
and expanding source reduction and recycling assistance programs that
address the transfer of pollutants across all environmental media. A list of
possible activities eligible for funding include the following:
—Hiring personnel and/or procuring necessary expertise to support the
establishment and development of multimedia program;
—Providing direct technical assistance in source reduction and recycling,
especially to small and medium-sized firms;
—Conducting demonstration activities and/or in-plant pilot scale studies of
pollution prevention technologies;
—Developing and delivering programs to train staff to provide technical
assistance to generators in identifying and implementing source reduction
and recycling opportunities and activities;
—Developing or expanding state technical information clearinghouses that
contribute to national technical transfer networks or clearinghouses;
—Expanding and improving waste exchange programs among industry, states
and local governments;
—Developing and distributing industry/process-specific technical manuals
and/or brochures to help generators identify and implement source
reduction and recycling activities; and,
—Conducting outreach activities such as presentations, workshops and
seminars.
Wh;it are the differences between this program and RITTA?
1UTTA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Integrated Training and
Technical Assistance Initiative) is designed to provide assistance to States to
olan and implement hazardous waste training and technical assistance
activities in support of the States' RCRA programs. The activities funded
under RJTTA must include: (1) the development of a long term plan for
training and technical assistance activities; (2) delivery of RCRA program
training activities for State regulators; and (3) implementation of an initial
pilot technical assistance project in waste minimization.
The cooperative agreement funds will be awarded to States to establish multi-
media waste reduction technical assistance programs. Unlike RTTTA, this
program is not specifically limited to wastes regulated under RCRA.
Source: Jackie Krieger (202) 382-6972
Research: Chris Bryant
-------
9590 - MISCELLANEOUS
AT. Kearney 1/3590/14 cr
-------
9591 - MEDICAL WASTE
Subtitle J
A.T.Kearney 1/3590/15 cr
-------
9592- USED OIL
Part 279
A.T. Kearney 1/3590/16 cr
-------
9592.1988(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
FEBRUARY 1988
1. Us<>d Oi1 Marketer
Corporation A owns both Corporation B and Corporation C.
Corporation B generates an off-specification used oil. The
State in which Corporation B generates the used oil does not
allow burning of the oil. Therefore, Corporation B ships the
us<:d oil to a sister corporation, Corporation C. Corporation
C burns the used-oil for energy recovery. Is Corporation B a
marketer as specified in 40 CFR 266.43(a)?
A marketer as defined in Section 266.43(a) is "any
person who markets used oil fuel...marketers include
generators who market used oil fuel directly to a
burner...." Even though no funds are exchanged during
the transaction, -Corporation B is marketing the used oil
fuel to Corporation C. There are no exclusions which
state that used oil given to a sister corporation is
excluded from regulation, or that marketing requires an
exchange of funds. Thus, Corporation B must comply with
the regulations which pertain to marketers (Section
266.43). Corporation C is also a burner.
-------
9592.1992(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUL-81992
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Cynthia Hilton
Mr. Clifford J. Harvison
Chemical Waste Transportation Institute
National Solid Waste Management Association
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Ms. Hilton and Mr. Harvison:
Thank you for your letter of May 27, 1992 requesting
clarification of language in the preamble to the final rule on
used oil (57 FR 21530). You are requesting clarification on the
term handler and on where the statutory and regulatory
authorities for the transportation of hazardous materials stand.
As currently written, the preamble of the final rule states:
"A used oil handler must comply with all state requirements
applicable to used oil in his/her state, in addition to any
Federal requirements that apply" (57 FR 21530; May 20, 1992.).
This statement indicates that the handler must comply with State
regulations when they are applicable and, by implication, not
when such state regulations are not applicable as a matter of
law. Thus, in cases where Federal regulations, such as those
established by the Department of Transportation's Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act, as amended, preempt State
regulations then the state regulations no longer apply and the
Federal DOT regulations prevail and the handler must be in
compliance with these regulations. The preamble statement was
not intended to and does not, alter the HMTA nor eliminate its
preemptive effect over state regulation of hazardous materials
transportation.
]: trust this will be responsive to your concerns. If you
have ciny further questions, please contact Michaelle Wilson or -,
at (202) 260-4669.
Sincere!
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Pnnrwa
-------
9592.1992(02)
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION
DECEMBER 1992
2. Rebultable Presumption for Used Oil
According to the recycled used oil
managers nt standards in 40 CFR Pan 279,
any used oil containing more than l.OOOppm
of total halogens is presumed to have been
mixed with a listed hazardous waste and
therefore iy subject to RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste regulation. This presumption
may be rebutted by demonstrating that the used
oil does noi contain hazardous waste.
According to §279.10(b)(l)(ii), one way to
make this demonstration is to show that the
used oil df>es not contain significant
concentrations of any of the halogenated
hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII
of Pan 261. What is meant by the term
"significatit concentrations"?
There is no regulatory definition of
significan: concentrations. The Federal
Register of November 29. 1985, however,
does provide guidance on the term as it relates
to hazardous halogenated solvents.
Specifically, EPA has stated that a level of 100
ppm of individual solvent compounds is
generally considered a significant
concentration. Thus, one may try to rebut the
presumption by showing that less than 100
ppm of any individual hazardous halogenated
constituent listed as a hazardous spent solvent
in 40 CFK §261.31 is present (50 EE 49176;
November 29,1985).
This 100 ppm level applies only to
concentrations of halogenated solvent
constituents and cannot be applied to all
hazardous halogenated compounds. For
example, if a used oil contains 1,000 ppm total
halogens, and some of the halogens are
pesticide compounds, the presumption of
mixing would not necessarily be overcome by
showing that each pesticide is present at levels
less than 100 ppm. Showing that individual
hazardous halogenated solvents are present at
levels less than 100 ppm also will not
automatically rebut the presumption, as other
site-specific factors must be considered in
making such a determination. For example, if
documentation shows that used oil has been
mixed with a listed hazardous waste, that
mixture would be considered a hazardous
waste pursuant to the mixture rule in 40 CFR
§261.3(c)(2)(iv), regardless of the level of
halogenated constituents present.
-------
9592.1993(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
F/LE C
JAN 28 1993 OFF.CEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Dennis Redington
Director, Regulatory Management
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63167
Dear Mr. Redington,
Thank you for writing your letter regarding Monsanto
products sold as hydraulic fluids and heat transfer fluids.
This is to confirm that although nonpolymer-based oils are
not specifically discussed in the used.oil management standards
rule under the definition of used oil, it was the intent of EPA
to include all synthetic oils that function similar to petroleum
based lubricants, oils, and surface agents in the definition of
used o:Ll. EPA believes that your hydraulic fluids and transfer
fluids meet this criterion and will be regulated under 40 CFR 279
in lieu of Parts 260-272 of the hazardous waste program once the
regulations become effective in the various states. We expect
most states to adopt the rule over the next two to three years.
If you have any further questions please contact Bryan
Groce at (202) 260-9550.
Sincerely,
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
9592.1993(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 5 1993
OFFICE OF
SOCIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Barry M. Hartman
Kirkpatricx & Lockharc
1800 M Street, N.W. 20036
Dear Mr. Hartman,
Thank you for your letter of January 8, 1993 to Lisa
Friedman requesting written clarification on a particular
application of the used oil management standards under 40 CFR
Part 279.
In your letter, you asked how the used oil management
standards apply to used oil contaminated with HCFCs. EPA
intends to apply the used oil management standards to used oil
contaminated with CFCs and used oil contaminated with HCFCs in
the same manner and to the same extent.
In order to qualify for exemption from the rebut table
presumption, used oils contaminated with HCFCs must be removed
from refrigeration units and the HCFCs must be destined for
reclamation. The HCFC contaminated used oil can not be mixed
with used oil from sources other than refrigeration units.
I trust this will be responsive to your concerns. If you
have any further questions, please contact Michaelle Wilson of my
staff at (202) 260-4669.
Sincerely,
Sylva K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
12-08-004-
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
SOUTH LOBBY - 9TH FLOOR
1800 M STREET. NW. BOSTON. MA
WASHINGTON. DC 10036-5891 HARJUSBUWJ. PA
TOfPHONH OK} 778.9000 MIAMI. R
PITTSBURGH. PA
FACSIMILE OR) T7W100
BARRY M. HAUTMAN
(202)
January 8, 1993
VIA FACSIMILE. ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW
The Honorable Lisa K. Friedman
Associate General Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Clarification of Used Oil Management Standard
Dear Ms. Friedman:
On Thursday, September 10, 1992 the Environmental Protection
Agency (2PA) promulgated a final rule amending 40 CFR Part 260 et
al., "Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste; Recycled Used Oil Management Stand-
ards; Final Rule." 57 Fed. Reg. 41566. Several provisions of
the rule discuss its application to "used oil contaminated with
chloroflourocarbons (CFCs)". These include 40 CFR SS261.3(a)(2)
(v)(B); 279.10(b)(ii)(B); 279.44(c)(2); 279.53(c)(2); and
279.63(c) (2) .
During a series of conversations with your associate, Randy
Hill, I asked if these management standards also apply to used
oil contaminated with hydrochloroflourocarbons (HCFCs) as opposed
to CFCs, since, as you know, CFCs are being phased out and
replaced with HCFCs. Mr. Hill indicated that the regulations
apply to used oil contaminated with HCFCs in the same way they
apply to used oil contaminated with CFCs. Mr. Hill's conclusion
i: lyrical, appropriate, and one with which we agree.
Since the regulation and preamble are ambiguous on this
point, we respectfully request written clarification and
confirmation that used oil contaminated with HCFCs is covered by
these regulations in the same manner and to the same extent as
-------
KIRKPATR1CK & LOCKHART
The Honorable Lisa K. Friedman
January 8, 1993
Page 2
used oil contaminated with CFCs, and that EPA will interpret the
rule in that manner.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Barry M. Hartman
cc: Randy Hill
-------
9592.1993(03)
i
\
3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 2 9 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Douglas Green
Piper & Karbury
1200 Nineteenth St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-2430
Dear Mr. Green:
Thank you for your letter dated August 14, 1992, sent on behalf of
the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group. This response clarifies the
regulatory status of combustion residuals generated from co-burning of
"specification" used oil fuel and virgin fuel oil in utility
boilers/furnaces .
Under the conditions described in the supplemental information
provided in the October 30, 1992 letter from Florida Power & Light
Company, there will be no impact on Bevill status for residuals when
used oil is introduced into utility boilers or furnaces. The data
provided in this letter indicates that the amount of used oil generated
on-site is minimal in comparison to the amount of virgin oil with which
the used oil is co-fired. You have indicated that the percentage of
used oil co-fired is in most cases well below 1% of the total mixture.
Our understanding is that Florida Light and Power does not intend to co-
fire of f -specif ication used oil, and that the percentage of on-
specif ication used oil is very low. Therefore, it is clear that the
contamination levels of residuals will not be affected by the
introduction of small quantities of used oil.
The effect of this regulatory interpretation can be applied to
other utilities that, similarly to Florida Power and Light, plan to co-
fire minimal amounts of on-specif ication used oil that is generated on-
site. Please note that this letter does not affect any other used oil
management requirements under 40 CFR Parts 266 and 279.
Thank you for your concern on this issue, and please contact my
office if you have any further questions.
Sin
Sylvia K. LoVrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1993(04)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
July 28, 1993
Mr. J.W. Eggenberger
Director, Directorate of
Disposal Management and
Environmental Protection
Defense Logistics Agency
Defonse Reutilization and Marketing Service
74 Washington Ave., N
Battle Creek, Michigan 49017-3092
Dear Mr. Eggenberger,
Thank you for your letter of July 9, 1993 requesting
clarification of the RCRA Used Oil Management Standards as they
pertain to used oil that is generated and managed on-site.
Per your request, this letter confirms your interpretation
of EPA's Used Oil Management Standards regarding off-site
shipments of used oil (40 CFR 279.24). The used oil
transportation standards do not apply to "on-site" movement of
used oil (see 40 CFR 260.10 for the definition of "on-site").
Accordingly, used oil may be transported anywhere on-site in any
quantity without being subject to compliance with either the
section 279.40 transporter standards or the section 279.24
requirements for off-site shipments. More specifically, as
correctly stated in your letter, a Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Office (DRMO) may receive more than 55 gallons of used
oil at one time as long as the used oil being received by the
DMRD is generated on the site on which the DMRO is located.
You also requested confirmation of your interpretation of
what constitutes an "on-site" DMRO. According to the section
260.10 definition, DMRO's located on property owned by but
located "across the street" from the used oil generator would be
considered on-site if either: 1) the property is contiguous and
the entrance and exit between the properties on either side of
the street is at a cross-roads intersection, and access is by
crossing as opposed to going along the right of way; or 2) the
property is non-contiguous but connected by a right-of-way which
the owner controls and which is inaccessible to the public.
Recycled/Recyclable
PrtntM with Soy/Cinoli Ink on paper mil
oonuini (I iMtt 50% njcycitd fiber
-------
If you have any further questions on these or other
provisions of the Used Oil Management Standards, please contact
Eydie Pines (202) 260-3509 or Bryan Groce (202) 260-9550.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Petruska
Chief, Regulatory
Development Branch
-------
f n \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"' ? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1993(05)
SEP 2 4 1993
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Christopher Harris
General Counsel
National Oil Recyclers Association
The Evening Star Building
Suite 800
1103. Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Deal1 Mr. Harris:
Thank you for your letter dated July 19, 1993 regarding the
Recycled Used Oil Management Standards. Specifically, you
requested confirmation of your interpretation of the used oil
mancigement standards as they pertain to mixtures of used oil and
characteristic hazardous waste.
In response to your request, this letter provides
clarification of the used oil regulations applicable to mixtures
of used oil and characteristic waste. The used oil regulations
distinguish between mixtures of used oil and ignitable-only
characteristic waste and all other used oil/characteristic
hazcirdous waste mixtures. Under section 279.10(b) (2) (ii) ,
mixtures of used oil and a characteristic hazardous waste that
soleily exhibits one or more hazardous waste characteristics
identified in 40 CFR Part 261 subpart C (other than ignitable-
only characteristic waste) and mixtures of used oil and hazardous
waste that is listed in subpart D solely because it exhibits one
or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste identified in
subpart C (other than ignitable-only characteristic waste) are
regulated as used oil if the resultant mixture does not exhibit
any hazardous waste characteristics. On the other hand, these
mixtures are regulated as hazardous wastes if they display any
characteristic of hazardous waste.
Under section 279.10(b)(2)(iii), mixtures of used oil and
ignj.table-only characteristic hazardous waste (e.g. mineral
spirits) are regulated as used oil provided that they do not
exhibit the characteristic of ignitability. The rationale for
distinguishing between ignitable only solvents and other
characteristic hazardous waste is as follows. If the solvents
are hazardous only because of ignitability, then mixing the
solvents with used oil should not affect the chemical
constituents or other properties of the used oil. The solvents
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy'C*noli Ink on piper inal
comiint n ie*«t 59* recycled fiber
-------
in question (e.g., mineral spirits) are petroleum fractions that
are typically used by the same businesses that generate used oil
and are managed in a manner similar to used oil (e.g., burning
for energy recovery or distillation to recover the solvent).
Therefore, EPA believes these mixtures can and will be properly
managed as used oil. If the mixture exhibits ignitability,
however, this can mean that the mixing has changed the nature of
the hazards involved in managing the used oil, and the mixture
should remain subject to hazardous waste controls.
Regarding the applicability of section 279.10(b)(2), as
correctly stated in your letter, the provisions are not limited
to generators but apply also to marketers, processors/re-
refiners, transporters, and burners.
Finally, you are correct in stating that the used oil
regulations promulgated at section 279.10(b)(2)(ii) do not
establish new policy but reiterate existing EPA policy. However,
the section 279.I0(b)(2)(iii) provisions pertaining to ignitable
only characteristic waste do constitute a change from (or
expansion of) previous regulatory policy. If you have any further
questions on these or other matters pertaining to the used oil
management standards, please call Eydie Pines at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
D. Denit
Actifcpg Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1993(06)
OCT - 7 1993
OFFICE of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Ms. Mary Anne Hunter
Environmental Coordinator
AVM, Gabriel, Maremont Exhaust
Arvin Industries, Inc.
1531 13th Street
Columbus, IN 47201
Dear1 Ms. Hunter:
Thank you for your letter dated November 3, 1992, requesting
clarification of the September 10, 1992, Recycled Used Oil
Manetgement Standards. Specifically, you asked for clarification
of the used oil processing standards as they apply to coolant
recycling and oil/water separation activities and for
clarification of used oil transporter standards as they apply to
transport of metal scrap containing small quantities of oil.
Regarding the applicability of the processor standards, EPA
is ciware that the term "processor," as defined in the used oil
management standards, can be broadly construed to include a
number of basic on-site recycling activities that the Agency did
not necessarily intend to cover (e.g., coolant recycling and
oil/water separation).
EPA intended to include as processing only those used oil
filtering and/or separation activities whose primary purpose is
to produce used oil or to make it more amenable for the
production of used oil derived products. Under this
interpretation, neither the coolant recycling or the oil/water
separation activities referred to in your letter would be
considered used oil processing because, in these cases, the
filtering and separation activities are incidental or ancillary
to the normal manufacturing process, i.e., used oil processing is
not their primary purpose. The primary purpose of the oil/water
separation activity described in your letter, for example, would
be to remove used oil from wastewater to make the wastewater
acceptable for discharge.
Although EPA believes that the current definition of
"processor" can be properly read not to encompass oil/water
separation or coolant recycling performed on-site at an
industrial facility, we are, nonetheless, currently considering
amendments to the used oil regulations to clarify the Agency's
Recycled/Recyclable
Prtnaa wtth Soy/Ctnoi* ink en pwnr m
canuint it lutt 90% rtcyeM HM>
-------
intent to exclude activities such as these from the requirements
for used oil processors.
You also asked for clarification regarding the applicability
of the used oil transporter requirements to metal scrap haulers.
Generally, under section 279.10(c), materials containing or
otherwise contaminated with used oil are regulated as used oil
until the used oil is removed from the material. However, as
clarified in the May 23, 1993, Technical Amendments and
Corrections to the Final Rule, materials containing or otherwise
contaminated with used oil, from which the used oil has been
properly drained or removed to the extent possible such that no
visible signs of free-flowing oil remain in or on the material
are not considered used oil unless they are to be burned for
energy recovery (58 FR 26420) . Therefore, if the scrap referred
to in your letter meets the "no free flowing oil" standard
described in the May 23, 1993, technical correction notice at 58
FR 26420, it would not be considered used oil subject to the
transporter standards. However, the used oil removed from the
metal would be covered under the used oil management standards.
I hope that this addresses your concerns. If you have other
questions regarding the used oil management standards, please
contact Eydie Pines at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
l»
D. Denit
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
9592.1993(07)
OCT 1 3 'ffl3
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Or. F.B. Joshipura
5901 College Drive
Suffolk, VA 23435
Dear Dr. P.B. Joshipura,
This letter responds to your request for clarification of
Part 279 Section §279.10(b)(2)(iii) and its applicability to
igni1:able used oil.
As stated in Section §261.6(a)(4), of the September 10,
1992, Federal Register (57 PR 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.
EPA does not consider the consolidation of different sources
of used oil to be a mixture of used oil. EPA regulates the
consolidated used oil as used oil under the Part 279 used oil
management standards. As discussed in your letter, the used oil
must meet the flashpoint level of 100 degrees fahrenheit as well
as other properties and constituents in 279.11 if the used oil is
burned as on-specification fuel for energy recovery.
However, as stated in Section §279.81(a), used oil that
cannot be recycled and that 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.
If you have any further questions please contact Bryan Groce
of iiy staff at (202) 260-9550.
Sincerely,
Mike Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
R«cycl*d/R«eyclabl«
PrtriM with Soy/Cuwu Ink on piper tint
oonttfn* « Mot 50* recycled flb«r
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9592.1993(08)
NOV | 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Fredrick A. Van Schepen
Environmental Affairs and Resources
John Deere Waterloo Works
P.O. Box 270
Waterloo, Iowa 50704-0270
Dear Mr. Van Schepen:
Thank you for your letter dated April 15, 1993, to Sylvia
Lowre.nce requesting clarification of the September 10, 1992,
Recycled Used Oil Management Standards. Specifically, you asked
for clarification of the used oil processing standards as they
apply to on-site recycling of used oil recovered from a
faciJ.ity's wastewater treatment system.
EPA is aware that the term "processor," as defined in the
used oil management standards, can be broadly construed to
include a number of basic on-site recycling activities that the
Agency did not necessarily intend to cover (e.g., metal working
fluid recycling and oil/water separation activities). EPA
believes that the current definition of "processor" can be
properly read not to encompass oil/water separation or recycling
of rootal working oil performed on-site at an industrial facility,
(provided that the recovered used oil is not being burned for
enercjy recovery) . Nevertheless, we are currently considering
amendments to the used oil regulations to clarify the Agency's
intent to exclude activities such as these from the requirements
for used oil processors.
EPA intended to include as processing only those used oil
filtering or separation activities whose primary purpose is to
produce used oil, or to make used oil more amenable for the
production of used oil derived products or burning for energy
recovery. Under this interpretation, the oil/water separation
activities described in your letter may or may not be regulated
under the used oil processing standards, depending on the
ultimate use of the recovered used oil.
In situations where used oil recovered from the facility's
wastewater treatment system is being reused, (e.g., as metal
working fluid) the oil/water separation activity would not be
considered used oil processing because it is incidental or
ancillary to the normal manufacturing process, i.e., used oil
processing is not its primary purpose. As described in your
Recycled/Recyclable)
Printed wltn Soy'Cinola Ink on piper trial
oonuin* it lee* 50% recycled fiber
-------
letter, the primary purpose of the oil/water separation activity
would be to remove used oil from wastewater to make the
wastewater acceptable for discharge. In cases where used oil
recovered from a facility's wastewater treatment system is being
burned for energy recovery, however, the oil/water separation
activity would be subject to the used oil processing standards
(see subpart G section 279.60(b)(3)).
You also requested clarification of how underground
equalization, transfer, and separation tanks associated with
wastewater treatment systems are regulated under the used oil
management standards. As you correctly note in your letter,
storage of used oil in underground tanks is regulated under the
40 CFR Part 280 standards for underground storage tanks (USTs).
If the equalization, transfer, and separation tanks referred to
in your letter are considered underground storage tanks as
defined in 40 CFR Part 280, they are fully subject to the USTs
standards. The used oil management standards in no way change
the manner in which USTs (including those that contain used oil)
are regulated under 40 CFR Part 280. It is important to note,
however, that underground storage tanks that contain used oil are
subject to the UST standards in addition to being subject to the
used oil management standards. In other words, regulation under
the UST standards does not exempt the tank owner or operator from
compliance with applicable used oil regulations (e.g., labeling
of fill pipes used to transfer oil into USTs, etc.).
I hope that this addresses your concerns. If you have other
questions regarding the used oil management standards, please
contact Eydie Pines at (202) 260-3509. If you have questions
regarding the UST standards, you can contact John Heffelfinger at
(703) 308-8881.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Weddle
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9592.1993(09)
MOV I ? 1993
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Patrick M. Snyder, P.E.
Environmental Engineer and Attornry
407 Cortland Savings Bank Bldg.
1 North Main Street
Cortland, New York 13045
Dear Mr. Snyder:
Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1993, to
Ms. Rajani Joglakar requesting clarification of whether used
cutting oils and used oil coated steel turnings generated during
machining operations are regulated by the Environmental
Protection Agency as hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) or the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Generally, these materials are not regulated as hazardous waste
by EPA. The remainder of this letter explains in more detail how
these materials are regulated.
Used oil is regulated by EPA under the 40 CFR Part 279
standards for the management of recycled used oil (September 10,
199:2 57 FR 41586-41626). However, the Federal used oil
regulations will not become effective in New York until the State
adopts them as State law. New York is currently in the process
of adopting standards equivalent to EPA's used oil standards. In
the meantime, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) regulates the management of used oil under
recently issued State standards. You should contact Michelle
Ching at (518) 485-8988 or Bill Mirabile (518) 457-8829 for
information on the New York State used oil regulations.
Under the Federal used oil management standards, the cutting
oils generated by the machine shop referred to in your letter
would be regulated as used oil. This would include cutting oils
removed from the steel turnings. The machine shop would be
considered a used oil generator subject to regulation under the
used oil generator standards (40 CFR 279.20). I have enclosed a
copy of the used oil regulations for your information.
Regarding regulation of the used oil coated steel turnings,
under 40 CFR 279.10(c) of the used oil standards, materials
containing or otherwise contaminated with used oil would be
RacyelBd/Ricyciabto
7~~\ <~\ Pentad with SevfCanel* mk on eiotr IM
-------
regulated as used oil until the used oil is removed from the
material. In technical amendments and corrections to the used
oil rule, published on May 3, 1993, EPA clarified that "materials
containing or otherwise contaminated with used oil, from which
the used oil has been properly drained or removed to the extent
possible such that no visible signs of free-flowing oil remain in
or on the material are not considered used oil unless they are to
be burned for energy recovery" (58 FR 26420). Therefore, the
steel turnings referred to in your letter would be regulated as
used oil if they were visibly dripping with used oil but not if
all the oil had been drained off.
If the steel turnings are not regulated as used oil, it is
possible that they may still be regulated as hazardous wastes
under the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Steel turnings are
considered "scrap metal" and are exempt from regulations if
recycled. If disposed of, the generator has to determine if the
turnings exhibit any characteristics of hazardous waste (e.g.
toxicity). If so, they must be managed as a hazardous waste.
New York is authorized by EPA to implement the RCRA hazardous
waste program. You should contact the Division of Hazardous
Substance Regulation of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) at (518) 485-8988 to determine
how the State hazardous waste regulations may apply. You may
also contact the RCRA hotline at (800) 424-9346 to learn more
about how the federal waste regulations may apply. Please note,
however, that authorized states generally implement the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations and State regulations may be more
stringent than the Federal regulations.
If you have any further questions about the Federal used oil
management standards, you can call Eydie Pines of my staff at
(202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
Brfete R. Weddle
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9592.1994(01)
JAN I 0 1994
SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. William Patterson
President
Oils Unlimited, Inc.
P.O. Elox 130
Mentcne, Alabama 35984
Dear Mr. Patterson:
Thank you for your letter dated September 8,1993, to Jeffery Denrt regarding
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Recycled Used Oil Management
Standards(40 CFR Part279). Specifically, you requested a regulatory determination on
whether the used oil management standards allow the use of on-specification used oil
fuel as a substitute for #2 fuel oil in the manufacture of ANFO blasting agents.
In its November 29, 1985, used oil rule, EPA discussed the matter of how virgin
fuel o I compares to specification used oil fuel. In the preamble to that rule, the
Agency stated that "[specification] used oil fuel poses no greater risk than virgin fuel
oil and, once it enters the commercial fuel oil market, should not be regulated
differently than virgin fuel oil."(50 FR 49189). In other words, EPA considers
commercially available on-specification used oil fuel to be equivalent to virgin fuel oil
for regulatory purposes. On this basis, we would consider the substitution of
specification used oil fuel for #2 fuel oil in the production of ANFO to be allowed as a
legitimate recycling activity under the Part 279 Recycled Used Oil Management
Standards. It should be noted, however, that use of off-specification used oil as a
virgin fuel oil substitute in ANFO would not be permitted under the used oil regulations.
If you have any further questions about the used oil management standards,
you may call Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro, Director,
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: Alan Farmer, Region IV
John Works, Region VII
Printed on Recydea Paoer
-------
„<« sr,,
g UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
•/ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
*
9592.1994(02)
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
2 2 ioc.1
Mr. Gary F. Lindgren
Vice President, Environmental Compliance
Heritage Environmental Services, Inc.
7901 West Morris Street
Indianapolis, IN 46231
Dear Mr. Lindgren:
Thank you for your letters of August 6, 1993, and February
8, 1!J94, requesting clarification of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Recycled Used Oil Management Standards as they
apply to wastewater treatment activities. I apologize for the
delay in responding to your request.
As you correctly note"in your letter, wastewater that
contains used oil meets the §279.1 definition of used oil and is
subject to regulation under the used oil management standards.
You ::irst ask whether the oil that is recovered from such •
wastuwater during: a) treatment to meet a Clean Water Act (CWA)
permit discharge limit; or b) a used oil recovery process, would
also be considered used oil under §279.1. The answer in both
cases is yes. Used oil that is recovered from wastewater during
treatment to make the wastewater acceptable for discharge under a
CWA permit is regulated as used oil. Similarly, oil recovered
from wastewater generated during a used oil recovery process i3
also considered used oil for regulatory purposes.
Your second question is whether residues or sludges from CWA
treatment of wastewater containing used oil is included in the
definition of used oil. In technical amendments and corrections
to the used oil rule, published on May 3, 1993, EPA clarified
that used oil residues and sludges are subject to regulation
under the used oil management standards. (58 FR 26422)
Finally, you ask whether EPA differentiates between a CWA
wastewater treatment operation that includes oil/water separation
and a used oil processing operation that includes CWA permitted
oil/water separation. EPA specifically addressed this issue in
recently issued amendments to the final used oil regulations.
These amendments were signed by the EPA administrator on February
25, 1994, and have been sent to the Federal Register for
publication. A pre-publication copy of the final rule is
attached.
Pnn*n» yr <%»-n-«d Paper
-------
The attached final rule clarifies that separating used oil
from wastewater generated on-site to make the wastewater
acceptable for discharge pursuant to a CWA discharge permit are
not subject to the used oil processor standards, provided that
the recovered used oil is not being sent to an off-site used oil
burner (see §279.20(b)(2)(ii)(B)). As discussed in the attached
preamble, under §279.20(b)(2)(ii)(B), oil/water separation
activities conducted by a used oil processor (for purposes of
wastewater discharge) on wastewater which has been generated by
that processor are not subject to the Subpart F processor
standards (see pg.38). In other words, EPA does not
differentiate between oil/water separation activities conducted
by used oil processors and oil/water separation activities
undertaken by non-usea oil processors. Provided that the
wastewater is generated on-site, neither activity is subject to
the used oil processor standards. However, as further clarified
in the preamble, persons who perform oil/water separation
activities on wastewater that is received from off-site would be
considered used oil processors (see pg.39 of the attached).
You should note, however, that the Federal used oil
regulations (including the amendments cited in this letter) are
not currently in effect in States authorized to implement the
hazardous waste program and will not become effective in such
states until they are adopted as State law. Also, it is
important to note that State regulations may be more stringent
than Federal regulations. If you have any further questions,
please contact Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
/I" /•
v^> Michael Shapiro
\ Director
Office of Solid Waste
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1994(03)
APR -? loo-
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms. Erenda L. Tollett
Attorney
Vavoline, Inc.,
P.O. Box 14000
Lexington, KY 40512
Dear Ms. Tollett:
Thank you for your letter of November 5, 1993, requesting
clarification of the 40 CFR Part 279 used oil rules as they apply
to used oil collected from do-it-yourself (DIY) oil changers.
Specifically, you asked whether under the rebuttable presumption
requirements of 40 CFR §279.2Kb), DIY used oil must be tested
for t;otal halogens.
The rebuttable presumption applies to used oil that is
managed by "used oil generators." A used oil generator is
defined in §279.1 as "any person, by site, whose act or process
produces used oil or whose act first causes used oil to become
subject to regulations." 57 FR 41613 (Sept. 10, 1992). As
clarified in the preamble to the used oil rule, this definition
includes all "persons and businesses who collect used oil from
hous=holds and "do-it-yourself" oil changers." Household DIY
used oil generators or private individuals who generate used oil
through the maintenance of their personal vehicles are not
subject to the used oil standards. (57 FR 41584). However, once
collected, DIY used oil is subject to all applicable Part 279
standards and DIY used oil collection centers are subject to the
requirements for used oil generators in Part 279, Subpart C,
including the rebuttable presumption requirements of §279.21(b).
(57 FR 41587). According to your letter, Valvoline's affiliate
First Recovery collects DIY used oil as well as used oil from
other sources. First Recovery would, therefore, be regulated as
a used oil generator and would be subject to the §279.21 (b)
rebuttable presumption for the used oil (including DIY used oil)
that, it collects.
The used oil management standards allow that a generator may
rebut the presumption that used oil that contains more than 1000
ppm total halogens has been mixed with hazardous waste by
"demonstrating" that the used oil has not been mixed with a
regulated hazardous waste. Such a demonstration can, but does
not have to be, based on actual testing of the used oil. The
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
regulations allow, that the generator may rebut the presumption by
documenting, the source of the halogens i.e., by showing that the
halogens are not attributable to intentional mixing.
As- you correctly point out, household waste is excluded from
the definition of hazardous waste under 4.0 CFR 261.4 (b) (1) .
Therefore-, a used' oil generator who collects DIY used oil that
contains greater than 1000 ppm total halogens' may rebut the
presumption of mixing on the basis that household waste is
excluded., f rom regulation as a hazardous waste under §261.4 (b) (1) .
Accordingly.,, if First Recovery can provide convincing
documentation to .show that the source of the used oil is
exclusively household DIY used oil and that the chain of custody
ha&.. been maintained so as to preclude mixing with regulated
hazardous waste after collection, such documentation may be used
to rebut the presumption of mixing.
, It is important to note, however, that EPA Regional offices
and States authorized to implement the RCRA program make
determinations regarding the requirements that apply in specific
situations. .. Also, some States have programs that are more
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. If you have
any further questions regarding the used oil regulations, please
contact Eydie' Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
Dave Bussard, Director
Characteristic and Assessment
Division
cc: Susan Bromrn
Susan O'Keefe
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUM ~ 9 1994
OFFICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
9592.1994(04)
Mr. G. W:.lliam Frick
Vice President, General Counsel
•. and Sec:retary
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Frick:
Thank you for your letter dated April 22, 1994, regarding
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final used oil rule
published on March 4, 1994. Specifically, you requested that EPA
publish a technical correction to the March 4, 1994, rule to
clarify t.'iat the used oil regulations allow transportation of
used oil Co locations where used oil can be mixed with crude oil
(e.g., from exploration and production sites to the pipeline or a
petroleum refinery, etc.).
As explained below, EPA believes that the regulations
clearly do not preclude the transportation of used oil to each of
the locations mentioned in your letter. Therefore, we do not
believe that a technical correction is necessary. We will make
this letter available to our Regional and State contacts so there
is no misunderstanding regarding how the regulations apply.
EPA interprets the used oil management standards to allow
for the transport of used oil to crude oil pipelines, exploration
and production facilities, petroleum refineries, and aggregation
points. I.n the preamble to the March 4, 1994, final used oil
rule, EPA specifies how the used oil regulations apply in each of
these situations. In each of the cases described below,
petroleum refining facilities and related sites may in fact fit
the category of used oil transporter/transfer facility,
processor, or aggregation point because of the manner in which
used oil ii; being handled.
1. Transportation to Crude Oil Pipeline and E&P Sites
Transport of used oil to exploration and production sites
and crude oil pipelines is authorized by §279.43(a)(1) of the
used oil standards which provides for transportation of used oil
to another transporter. Used oil that is generated off-site and
transported to a crude oil pipeline or an exploration and
Printed on Rec;-c'ea
-------
production site is subject to the transporter and transfer
facility standards, as applicable, until the used oil is mixed
with crude oil.such that it is exempt under §279.10(g)(2). 59 FR
10532 and 10533.
The transfer facility standards are applicable if the used
oil is stored for more than 24 hours and less than 35 days.
Therefore, in cases where used oil is stored for this period of
time at an exploration and production site, for instance, prior
to being transported to the pipeline, a petroleum refinery,.or
another interim location, the exploration and-production site
would be considered a transfer facility. Used oil that-is stored
at the site for less than 24 hours prior to mixing is subject to
all Subpart E transporter standards except for §279.45.
Application of the transporter/transfer facility standards to
pipelines and/or exploration and production sites that accept
used oil for mixing with crude oil is necessary to maintain a
continuum of management.
More specifically, the transporter/transfer facility
regulations require that exploration and production operators or
crude oil pipeline operators that receive used oil comply with
the provisions of Part 279 Subpart E, including the notification,
rebuttable presumption, and tracking standards (§§279.42, 279.44,
and 279.46) (except where the recipient qualifies as an
aggregation point, as discussed below). You should note that
these requirements must be met even in the situation where used
oil is eventually going to be mixed with crude. In addition, if
the used oil is further transported by these operators, they must
meet §279.43 requirements. And, if residues from storage are
generated, they must comply with §279.47. Finally, if the used
oil is stored at the facility for more than 24 hours before
mixing, the operator must comply with §279.45.
2. Transportation to Petroleum Refining Facilities
Petroleum refining facilities that receive used oil from
off-site for insertion into the petroleum refining process are
subject to the used oil processor standards from the point at
which the used oil is received on-site until the point at which
the used oil is inserted into the petroleum refining process. 59
FR 10554. These requirements, which include notification,
contingency planning, tracking and recordkeeping (§§279.51,
279.52, 279.53, 279.55, 279.56, and 279.57) apply to such
refineries even if the used oil is stored for less than 24 hours
before mixing or directly inserted into the refining process. If
the used oil is stored before mixing, §279.54(a)-(f) and
§279.54(h) also apply. As used oil processors, petroleum
refining facilities can accept used oil as provided under Subpart
F of the used oil management standards, and transportation to
such facilities is authorized per §279 .43 (a) (2) .
-------
EPA believes that application of the processor standards to
petroleum refining facilities that receive used oil from off-site
for .insertion into the petroleum refinery is warranted because of
the mariner in which the used oil is being handled prior to
introduction into the process. As explained in the preamble to
the March 4, 1994 rule, EPA believes that, since these facilities
are accepting used oil for processing, they likely pose the same
potential concerns associated with improper management of used
oil that; are posed by used oil processor/re-refiners.
3. Transportation to Used Oil Aggregation Points
The used oil regulations also allow an exploration and
production or petroleum refining facility owner or operator to
transport used oil to an aggregation point in cases where the
facility meets the quantity and ownership conditions required to
be considered.a used oil aggregation point. An aggregation point
is defined as "any site or facility that accepts, aggregates,
and/or stores used oil collected only from other used oil
generation.sites owned or operated by the owner or operator of .
the aggregation point, from which used oil is transported to the
aggregation point in shipments of no more than 55 gallons." 40
CFR 279.1. Under this definition, and in accordance with
§279.40(a)(3) of the used oil management standards, an
exploration and production facility or petroleum refining
facility may transport used oil generated at sites that are owned
by the facility to collection centers (i.e., aggregation points)
that are also owned by that same facility.
I hope that this letter addresses your concerns. Please
call Eydi.e Pines at (202) 260-3509 if you have further questions
on this; or other issues pertaining to the used oil management
standards.
Sincerely,
f
Michael Shapiro
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 682-8240
isiuuie
it -y
ip
G. William Frick
Vice Presideni, General
Counsel and Secretary April 22, 1994
Michael Shapiro
Director
Office of Solid Waste (Mail Code OS-300)
U.S. Environmental Agency
401 M Strset, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Need For Technical Correction to March 4, 1994 Used Oil Rule
Dear Mr. .Shapiro:
On March 4, 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule clarifying and
amending its recycled used oil management standards, which were promulgated on September
10, 1992 at 57 Fed. Reg. 41566. The March 4, 1994 rule was issued in part to clarify and
expand the pipeline exemption to include other petroleum refinery applications, and to exempt
used oil incidentally recovered in a petroleum refinery's hydrocarbon recovery and wastewater
treatment systems and reinserted into the refinery process. (See 59 Fed. Reg. 10550.)
In the September 10, 1992 rule, destinations for transportation of used oil were restricted by
section 279.43 as follows:
(a) Deliveries. A used oil transporter must deliver all used oil
received to:
(1) Another used oil transporter, provided that the transporter has
obtained an EPA identification number;
(2) A used oil processing/re-refining facility who has obtained an
EPA identification number;
(3) An off-specification used oil burner facility who has obtained
an EPA identification number; or
(4) An on-specification used oil burner facility. 57 Fed. Reg. at
41617.
One of the issues discussed with EPA staff in settlement negotiations concerning API's Petition
for Review of the used oil management standards was that section 279.43 does not allow used
oil transporters to deliver shipments of used oil to exploration and production facilities,
aggregation points, crude oil pipelines, or petroleum refineries.
-------
In October 1993, EPA distributed for comment a draft of the March 4, 1994 rulemaking to
interested parties, including parties to various pending lawsuits filed to challenge portions of the
standards and related rulemakings. The draft rule included a proposed addition to 40 C.F.R. §
279.43(a), the provision quoted above. The proposed addition would have allowed used oil
transporters to transport shipments of used oil to
(a)(5) A location where used oil will be mixed with crude oil or
natural gas liquids such that the used oil is exempt from regulation
under section 279.10(g).
This provision would have provided explicit authority for transporters to deliver used oil to
exploration and production facilities, crude oil pipelines, and petroleum refineries. At each of
these locations, after used oil has been delivered and is mixed with crude oil, it becomes exempt
from the Part 279 management standards. (Note that section 279.10(g) was amended in the
March 4, 1994 rule.) API supported the inclusion of such a provision in its comments on the
draft rule.
API's comments on the draft rule also discussed the need for a provision allowing transportation
of used oil generated at exploration sites to aggregation points prior to delivery to a location
where the used oil can be mixed with crude oil. At many exploration sites, no crude oil is
present and any used oil generated at these sites must be transported to an aggregation point prior
to further transportation to a location where the used oil can be mixed with crude oil. This
comment was not addressed in the preamble to the March 4, 1994 final rule and still needs to
be resolved. See page 5 of API's comments submitted to the EPA RCRA Docket on November
2, 1993. EPA staff suggested that this point be included in this letter.
Unfortunately, the proposed provision quoted above was not included in the final rule published
on March 4, 1994, and no reason for its absence was given in the preamble to the rule. In fact,
the preamble discusses at length the permissibility of transporting shipments of used oil to crude
oil pipelines and to petroleum refineries, which suggests that the omission may have been an
oversight. For example, at 59 Fed. Reg. 10552, the preamble notes that
Used oil that is transported to the pipeline and immediately mixed
with crude oil or stored for less than 24 hours prior to such mixing
is subject to all Subpart E transporter standards except for § 279.45
which applies to transfer facilities.
Further, on page 10553, the preamble states
Used oil that is generated off-site and transported to or stored at an
exploration and production site is subject to the transporter and
transfer facility standards, as applicable, up until the point at which
the used oil is mixed with crude oil such that it is exempt under §
279.10(g)(2).
-------
Likewise, on page 10554, the preamble clearly contemplated the transportation of shipments of
used oil to petroleum refineries:
This exemption applies .. to used oil generated off-site that is
collected and transported to the petroleum refining facility for
insertion into the refining process prior to crude distillation or
catalytic cracking.
Telephone contacts with EPA staff, however, indicated that the provision was deleted because
it was believed to be unnecessary. The rationales given were that: (1) section 279.43(a)
authorizes transportation of used oil to another transporter, which encompass transportation to
locations w'.nere used oil can be mixed with crude oil; and (2) section 279.43(a) authorizes
transportation of used oil to a used oil processor/re-refiner, and refineries are subject to processor
requirements prior to mixing used oil with crude or recovered oil. Neither explanation is
convincing. Section 279.43(a) specifies that transporters may deliver used oil shipments only to
the destinations listed in subsections (a)(l) through (4). Exploration and production facilities,
aggregation points, pipelines and petroleum refineries, as discussed below, do not fit within any
of the permissible destinations for used oil currently listed in section 279.43(a).
The definition of transporters includes transfer facilities. Transfer facilities are defined at section
279.1 as transportation related facilities that hold shipments of used oil for more than 24 hours,
but not longer than 35 days, during the normal course of transportation or prior to being re-
refined or processed. Used oil delivered to an exploration and production facility or crude oil
pipeline generally is placed directly into a crude oil stock tank, thus becoming exempt from the
standards upon delivery, unlike a transfer facility which, by definition, would store the used oil
for 24 homs or longer. At aggregation points, used oil frequently is not held as long as 24 hours
before beir.g transported to a location where it can be mixed with crude oil; thus, these facilities
generally do not fit within the definition of transfer facility, either. Likewise, a crude oil pipeline
and its associated stock tanks cannot be considered another transporter or transfer facility, since
the used oil generally is mixed with crude oil upon arrival, becoming exempt from the standards
at that point. Even in situations where the used oil is held in a separate used oil tank, the
pipeline facility would not be considered a transfer facility unless it stored the used oil for 24
hours or longer, an unlikely scenario. Exploration and production facilities, aggregation points,
and pipeline facilities clearly are not processors, re-refiners, or used oil burners, the other
permissible destinations allowed under section 279.43(a).
Petroleum refineries do not fit in any of the categories currently listed in section 279.43(a),
either. Refineries are not transporters or transfer facilities; any used oil received at a refinery is
held for k ss than 24 hours before being commingled with crude oil by insertion into the refinery
process or by beingmixed with recovered oil. Although the March 4, 1994 rule subjects
refineries to the requirements for processors and re-refiners prior to the point at which the used
oil is mixed with crude or recovered oil, petroleum refineries are defined separately; they are
explicitly distinguished from used oil processors and used oil re-refiners. Petroleum refineries
-------
that insert used oil into the crude oil refining process also do hot fit into the category of used oil
burners or blenders.
For the reasons discussed above, API requests that a technical correction be made to the March
4, 1994 used oil rule that adds the language omitted from the October 1993 draft rule of section
279.43(a)(5), as quoted above, and that the Agency clarify that used oil may be transported to
aggregation points prior to being transported to a location where the used oil can be mixed with
crude oil. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact Betty Cox of
my staff at (202) 682-8250.
Sincerely,
G. William Frick
Vice President and General Counsel
cc: Randolph Hill, EPA
Office of General Counsel
Michaelle Wilson, EPA
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNI J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT.oN AGENCY
JUN 10 1994
9592.1994(05)
Ms. Elizabeth E. Lewis
Baker & McKenzie
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Dear Ms. Lewis,
This letter responds to your request for an interpretation
regarding the applicability of the Part 279 used oil management
standards to the operations of a vehicle fleet servicing
operation.
Specifically you request an interpretation by EPA on whether
each company service vehicle is a "generator" of shipments of
less than 55 gallons of used oil; whether the company must act in
compliance with the applicable requirements of the generator
standards; and whether the company is exempt from the
requirements for used oil transporters/transfer facilities. In
answerinc the letter, we are assuming-no other used oil
generation activities occur at each site other than those you
describe.
Based on the information provided in your letter, the Agency
agrees with your interpretation of the applicability of the used
oil management standards to the company's used oil activities.
Since the; company is handling only shipments of used oil
totalling 55 gallons or less from the generation site to a "used
oil collection center" or a "used oil aggregation point," the
activity would not be regulated under Subpart E (standards for
used oil transporter and transfer facilities). Rather the
activity would be regulated under Subpart C (standards for used
oil generators) of Part 279 used oil management standards.
The fact that the company's employee services the customer's
fleets at night, and subsequently stores less than 55 gallons of
used oil in the company's service vehicle until the next business
day, doe:; not preclude the company from being regulated as a
"used oil generator." Under the provisions of 40 CFR §279.22(c),
however, the 55 gallon drum must be labeled or marked clearly
with the words "used oil." In addition, the company must respond
,to_jrelea:5es..of used.oil in accordance with §279.22(d).
-------
Although activities described in your letter comply with
Federal regulations for used oil generators, individual States
may have more stringent regulations for used oil. Therefore, you
should contact local and state governments where the company's
used oil activities are occurring.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please contact Bryan Groce of my staff at (202) 260-9550.
Sincerely,
Mike Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
-------
MIDDL
QAPCCLONA
BERLIN
BRUSSELS
BUDAPEST
CAIRO
TRANKPURT
GCNEVA
LONDON
MADRID
Mil>N
MOSCOW
PARIS
Q.1YAOM
ROME
STOCKHOLM
WARSAW
ZURICH
GUANGZHOU
•-ONG KONG
MELBOURNE
S«*NGH*1
SINGAPORE.
TAIPEI
TOKYO
BAKER & MC;KENZIE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE PRUDENTIAL PLAZA
I3O EAST RANDOLPH DRIVE
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6O6OI
TELEPHONE (312) 86I-8OOO
CABLE ABOGADO • TELEX 254425
FACSIMILE (312) 861 -2899
NOOTH AND
SOUTH AMCR
BOGOTA
euCNos AI
CARACAS
C-iCAGO
LOS »NGCLCS.
ME>ICOCIT>
OAUO ALTO
OlOOC JANEIRO
SAN O'CGO
SAN TR>NCiSCO
SAO PAULO
TUUANA
TORONTO
VALENCIA
*ASMINGTGN. b C
January 10, 1994
Mr. Michael Petruska
Chief, Regulatory Developments Branch
United Sta:es Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code OS-332
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Request for Determination of the Applicability
of the Federal Used Oil Regulation (40 C.F.R.
Part 279. Subarts A. B. C. and E) to Fleet Servicin Oerations
Dear Mr. Petruska:
On September 1, 1993 and January 10, 1994, I spoke with Mr. Groce regarding the
applicability of the Federal Used Oil Regulation, 40 C.F.R. Part 279 - Standards for the
Management of Used Oil, to a vehicle fleet servicing operation (the "Company"). Based upon
this discu.'.sion and analysis he concluded that for purposes of this Regulation, the Company's
activities classify it as a "generator" who transports shipments of used oil totalling 55 gallons
or less from the generation site to a "used oil collection ceiuer" or to a "used oii aggregation
point." Further, he concluded that under 40 C.F.R. Part 279.24(a) and (b) the Company would
not be deemed a "transporter" subject to Subpart E - Standards for Used Oil Transporter and
Transfer facilities.
B?.sed on our discussion and analysis, and the importance of a definitive determination
of the applicability of this Regulation to the Company's operations, Mr. Groce recommended
that I submit this request for the Environmental Protection Agency's determination as to the
applicability of the Federal Used Oil Regulation, 40 C.F.R. Part 279, Subparts A, B, C, and
E to the Company's operations.
Discussion of the Company's Operations
T.ie Company operates a small fleet of approximately. 10 or 11 service vehicles. These
service vehicles operate nationwide, however, each individual service vehicle operates in only
-------
BAKER & M' KENZIE
Mr. Michael Petruska
January 10, 1994
Page 2
one state. Each individual service vehicle is equipped each day with a 55-gallon drum of virgin
(never used) motor oil and an empty 55-gaJlon drum.
The Company's employee drives the service vehicle to a customer's site. Using
equipment in the service vehicle, the Company's employee services the customer's fleet of
vehicles at the customer's site. Part of this service involves changing the oil in the customer's
vehicles. The fleet's used oil is collected in the empty 55-gallon drum. The virgin oil from the
other 55-gallon drum is placed into the customer's vehicles. Each day approximately 30 gallons
of used oil are collected by each service vehicle; never more than 45 gallons of used oil would
be collected in one day.
The Company's employee leaves the customer's site with 30 to 45 gallons of used oil in
the used oil 55-gallon drum in the service vehicle. The Company's employee delivers the used
oil drum to either the customer's own used oil aggregation point or a third-party's government-
registered (or licensed, permitted, or recognized) used oil collection center, approved by the
customer prior to transport off of the generation site. Because some customers' fleets are
serviced at night, the used oil drum containing less than 55 gallons of used oil may be stored
in the Company's service vehicle until the next business day.
Analysis of Applicability
As noted in both the definition of "used oil generator" found in Subpart A - Definitions,
§279.1, as well as the general provision in Subpart C - Applicability, §279.20, "a used oil
generator is any person, by site, whose act or process produces used oil or whose act first causes
used oil to become subject to regulation." The Company's employees' act of removing used oil
from the customer's fleet of vehicles appears to be cui act that first causes used oil to become
subject to regulation. Therefore, while the customer is clearly the primary "generator" of the
used oil as the owner of the vehicles being serviced, the Company also then would be a
"generator" of the used oil for purposes of this Regulation's definitions.
As a generator, the Company is subject to: 1) the hazardous waste mixing requirements
of §279.21, 2) the used oil storage requirements of §279.22, and 3) the on-site burning in space
heater requirements of §279.23, should any of these three activities occur. At the present time,
the Company does not engage in or otherwise exceed the threshold gallon amount for any of
these three activities, and therefore does not appear to trigger their applicability.
Further, the Company does not appear to be a regulated transporter of used oil subject
to the requirements of Subpart E. Because the Company collects used oil at the customer's site
and immediately transports it in the Company's vehicles in shipments of less than 55-gallons
only to a "used oil aggregation point" or a "used oil collection center", the Company is exempt
from the off-site shipment requirements. §279.24(a), (b). As a result, the Company need not
-------
BAKER & M^
Mr. Michael Petruska
. January 10, 1994
Page 3
obtain a RCRA identification number or comply with any of the other obligations of Subpart E.
Therefore, while the Company must comply with the applicable provisions of Subpart
C, as a "generator" of used oil for the limited purposes of this Regulation, the Company is
excluded from the requirements of Subpart E, applicable to used oil "transporters".
Request for Determination of Applicability
Because of the significance of this.determination to the Company's ability to operate in
compliance with the Regulation, we respectfully request the Environmental Protection Agency's
determination of the applicability of the Federal Used Oil Regulation, 40 C.F.R. Part 279,
Subparts A, B, C, and E, to the Company's operations as previously described in this letter.
We seek to confirm Mr. Grace's initial analysis that:
1) Each Company service vehicle is a "generator" of shipments of less than 55
gallons of used oil.
2) The Company must act in compliance with the applicable requirements of Subpart
C.
3) The Company is exempt from the requirements of Subpart E.
: We respectfully request a determination at your earliest convenience. If you have any
questions, please contact me directly at (312) 861-2868.
Best regards,
•-• s
Elizabeth E. Lewis
EEL:llh
cc: Mr. Bryan Groce
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I S3EZ ^ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
«
.
2
9592.1994(06
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMEF1CENC Y
RESPONSE
Mr. Jack Cameron
President
Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc.
7400 Excelsior Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
Dear Mr. Cameron:
Thank you for your letters of January 5, and May 20, 1994,
requesting clarification regarding the applicability of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) used oil regulations to
used oil contained in discarded household appliances. Your
letter raises three specific questions: (1) whether compressor
oil frorr the discarded appliances must be removed before the
appliance is sent to a metal processor for shredding and
recycling; (2) if so, whether CFCs must be removed from the
drained oil to be eligible for exemption from the rebuttable
presumpcion; and (3) whether the removal of CFCs from drained
compressor oil would be considered hazardous waste treatment.
Removal of .Used Oil Prior to Shredding
In answer to your first question, the recycled used oil
management standards (40 CFR Part 279) do not require that the
used oil be drained from the discarded appliances prior to
transport. However, the used oil regulations are designed to
encourace environmentally sound management of used oil and to
prevent the types of releases to land and air that occur as a
result of the shredding process you employ and about which you
are rightly concerned. To that end, the used oil regulations
apply as follows.
If the used oil is not drained from the appliances before
transport, the appliances would be subject to the used oil
management standards under §279. 10 (c), which provides that
materials containing or contaminated with used oil are subject to
regulation as used oil unless the used oil is removed to the
extent possible such that no visible signs of free-flowing oil
remain :'.n or on the material. Under the management standards, an
ARCA facility would be regulated as a used oil collection center
and all of the used oil containing appliances that it collects
and manages., including household appliances, would be subject to
Recycled/Recyclable '
Pnntefl with So>.Canola ink on paw •• Ji
contains at least 50% recycled neer
-------
all applicable Part 279 standards. (57 FR 41587 (September 10,
1992)). Transportation of the discarded used-oil-containing
appliances would be regulated under either the used oil
management standards or the RCRA hazardous waste standards
depending on whether the used oil is to be recycled or disposed.
According to your letter, the appliances (containing used
oil) are transported to a metal processor where they shredded for
recycling. The used oil, however is not being recycled. Some of
it is burned incidentally during the shredding process (i.e., it
is not being burned for energy recovery) and some of it remains
with the shredder fluff and is landfilled with the fluff. (As
you note in your most recent letter, CFCs/HCFCs that are mixed
with the oil are released to the atmosphere during the shredding
process and, once the fluff is placed in a landfill, the oil may
leach into the soil and/or groundwater.)
In this situation, because the used oil contained in the
appliances is essentially being disposed of, it would be subject
to regulation as used oil that is destined for disposal rather
than recycling. Under the management standards, used oil
destined for disposal is subject to a hazardous waste
determination. If it is determined that the used oil contained
in the appliances exhibits a hazardous characteristic, the
appliances would have to be managed as a hazardous waste in
accordance with the RCRA hazardous waste standards. And, the
used oil that remains with the shredder fluff would have to be
disposed of as a hazardous waste. You should also note that any
spillage of characteristic used oil oh the ground during the
shredding process could also be considered disposal of hazardous
waste, and would be subject to all applicable rules in 40 CFR
Parts 260-268 and 270. If the" used oil is' not characteristically
hazardous, it would have to be disposed of in either a municipal
or industrial landfill in accordance with Subpart I of the Part
279 used oil management standards.
Rebuttable Presumption for CFC Contaminated Used Oil
Your second question concerns the practice of draining the
used oil from the appliances, either before or after transport,
but prior to shredding of the discarded appliances. The used oil
regulations provide an exemption from the rebuttable presumption
for CFC contaminated used oils that have been removed (to the
extent possible) from refrigeration units (§279.10(b)(1)). You
ask whether the CFCs must be removed from the drained used oil in
order for this exemption to apply. Under §279.10(b)(1), the
CFC's must be "destined for reclamation" for the exemption to
apply. In essence, this means that the CFCs must ultimately be
removed (i.e., reclaimed) from the drained used oil in order for
the oil to qualify for the exemption from the rebuttable
presumption. Accordingly, the used oil would be exempt from the
-------
rebuttabLe presumption at the point of draining provided that
the CFCs were eventually reclaimed. It should be noted, however,
that, regardless of the exemption, CFC contaminated used oil from
refrigeration units remains subject to all other appropriate used
oil management standards (e.g., used oil that contains more than
4000 ppm total halogens must be burned in accordance with the
used oil standards for burners of off-specification used oil
fuel, et = .) .
CFC Removal Process
Thirdly, you ask whether the removal CFCs/HCFCs from drained
compressor oil would be considered hazardous waste treatment.
The removal of CFCs from used oil would not be considered
hazardous waste treatment. Rather, the used oil regulations
would apply as follows. Since the used oil/CFC separation.
process is not designed to make ths used oil more amenable for
the production of used oil derived products but is instead
undertaken primarily to take advantage of the exemption from the
rebuttable presumption, the activity would not be subject to
regulation as used oil processing. Instead, the owner or
operator would be considered a used oil generator and the used
oil would have to be managed in compliance with the generator
standards. Additionally, any used oil that cannot be recycled
and is discarded must be disposed of in either a hazardous waste
landfill (if it exhibits a hazardous characteristic) or an
industrial or municipal solid waste landfill (if it is determined
to be non-hazardous).
Finally, it is important to note that EPA Regional offices
and Stat.es authorized to implement the RCRA program make
determinations regarding the requirements that apply in specific
situations. Also, some States have programs that are more
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. If you have
any further questions regarding the used oil regulations, please
contact Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
rncerely,
David Bussard, Di^ectori
Characteristic ana Assessment
Division
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592. 1994(07)
JUL 22 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Ms. Pamela E. Savage, Esq.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
3800 One Atlantic Center
1201 Wes;t Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Ms. Savage:
Thank you for your letter dated October 13, 1993, to Mike
Petruska regarding regulation of surface impoundments under the
September 10, 1992, Recycled Used Oil Management Standards. The
purpose of your letter was to follow-up on a November 20, 1992
meeting with Environmental Protection Agency staff in which you
discussed Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation's (RAC) concerns
regarding the impact of the used oil management standards on the
use of surface impoundments to manage non-hazardous waste
water/o:.l mixtures. Thank you for the detailed information you
provided in response to issues discussed at the November, 1992
meeting.
According to your letter, Ravenswood operates two surface
impoundnents as part of the facility's waste water treatment/used
oil recovery system. Your concern is that, once the used oil
regulations become effective, continued use of the surface
impoundnents may be disallowed under the §279.12 prohibition
against management of used oil in surface impoundments that are
not subject to RCRA minimum technology standards for permitted
(or interim status) hazardous waste surface impoundments (40 CFR
Parts 2(54 and 265) .
You ask whether continued operation could be allowed either
under the §279.10(f) exemption for waste waters that contain de
minimis amounts of used oil, or because Ravenswood's surface
impoundnents were "designed and constructed to meet RCRA minimum
technology requirements." In response to your question, the
following provides clarification of both the de minimis exemption
(§279. K) (f)) and the conditional prohibition against management
of used oil in surface impoundments (§279.12(a)) and explains how
these provisions may apply in your situation. However,
regulatory determinations such as the one you seek (i.e.,
specific to your client's process or products) must be made on a
case-by-case basis by the appropriate State regulatory agency or
EPA regional office.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed witn Soy/dar.oia Ink on paoer i~a:
contains al least 50% recycled liber
-------
t
Section 279.10ffl Wastewater Exemption
Under the wastewater exemption, wastewaters containing de
.minimis quantities of used oil are exempted from the used oil
management standards (40 CFR Part 279) . The de minimis exemption
covers "small spills, leaks, or drippings from pumps, machinery,
pipes, and other similar equipment during normal operations or
when small amounts of oil are lost to the wastewater treatment
system during washing or draining operations." The exemption is
intended to cover losses from drippage, minor spillage, etc.,
that cannot reasonably be avoided. It does not cover used oil
that is intentionally introduced into the wastewater treatment
system (e.g., pouring collected used oil into any part of the
system).
It is difficult to determine from your letter whether the de
minimis exemption would apply in your case. At a minimum, in
order to qualify for the exemption, you would have to discontinue
any practice of pouring used oil that is collected in tanks into
your surface impoundments (as you have suggested). In addition,
your letter seems to indicate that the surface impoundments are ,
used to hold large quantities of spent coolants and lubricants.
It appears from your letter that the oil/water emulsification
that you spray on the aluminum ingots and rolling equipment for
cooling and lubrication, is collected and recycled until spent,
after which it is released to the surface impoundments. If this
is the case, the spent mixture would be intentionally rather than
incidentally introduced into the waste water treatment system and
would therefore not be exempt under the de minimis provision. It
is important to note, however, that a specific determination
regarding the applicability of the de minimis exemption would
have to be made on a site-specific basis by the appropriate State
or Regional authority.
Section 279.12(a) Surface Impoundment Prohibition
The regulatory prohibition against management of used oil in
surface impoundments states that, "used oil shall not be managed
in surface impoundments or waste piles unless the units are
subject to regulation under parts 264 or 265 of this chapter."
In other words, under §279.l2(a), used oil may be managed in
surface impoundments that have either been permitted or are
authorized under interim status to manage hazardous waste in
compliance with RCRA regulations. Conversely, used oil may not
be managed in surface impoundments that are not permitted or are
not under 'interim status — even if they technically meet the
minimum technology standards. (Permitted units are subject to
the requirements of 40 CFR part 264 subpart K. Interim status
units are subject to 40 CFR part 265 subpart K.)
Therefore, assuming the de minimis provision does not apply,
Ravenswood cannot legally store or manage used oil in its surface
-------
impoundments unless those surface impoundments are operating
under a RCRA. permit or under interim status. You should contact
John Humphries, EPA Region III, at (215) 597-7370 regarding the
existing status of the surface impoundments in question at the
Ravenswood site and to obtain information on obtaining a RCRA
permit, if necessary.
Also, 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. You may
contact the appropriate Region or State with future facility-
specific questions.
I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have
any further questions regarding the used oil management
standard.1;, please contact Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-
8551.
Sincerely,
David Bussar
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: John Humphries, Region III
Susan O'Keefe, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Susan Bromm, Office of Compliance
John Rosnic, Office of Compliance
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1994(08)
OFFICE OF
Mr. T.L. Nebrich, Jr., CHMM SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Technical Director RESPONSE
Waste Technology Services, Inc.
640 Park Place
Niagara Falls, New York 14301
Dear Mr. Nebrich:
Thank you for your letter dated August 17, 1994 requesting
clarif'.cation of the rebuttable presumption provisions contained
in the Recycled Used Oil Management Standards. (40 CFR 279.44)
As you correctly note, §279.44(c) of the used oil rules
provides that the presumption that used oil that contains greater
than 1000 ppm total halogens has been mixed with hazardous waste
can be successfully rebutted by documenting the source of the
halogens i.e., by showing that the halogens are not attributable
to intentional, mixing of used oil and hazardous waste. Your
specific question is whether information documenting that excess
halogens are attributable to unintentional mixing of residuals
from "RCRA empty" drums is sufficient to rebut the presumption of
mixing. In this situation, if the containers do in fact meet the
definition of "RCRA empty," information attributing the source of
the halogens to residual heals from these containers would be
sufficient to rebut the presumption because the drums do not, by
definition, contain RCRA regulated hazardous waste.
It is important to note, however, that determinations
regarding the regulatory status of specific products and/or
processes must be made on case-by-case basis by the appropriate
State or Regional authority. Therefore, in order to receive a
definitive determination regarding the regulatory status of the
hologen containing used oil, you should contact the appropriate
State agency or Regional office. You1 should also note that some
authorized States have adopted programs that are. more stringent
than the Federal hazardous waste program.
If you have additional questions, please call Michelle Ching
of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation at (518)
485-8S88 or Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
Recycled/Recyclable
Primed with Soy/Canola Ink on ojotr mti
contains at least 50% recycled ntwr
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC.
August 17, 1994
Mr. M:.chael Shipiro
Director - OSW
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. w.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shipiro:
I am requesting a clarification on what information can
be used under the "Rebuttable Presumption" regulation for
used oil (40CFR279.44).
The scenario in questions involves a drum reconditioner
which accepts empty drums for processing. From time to time
the drums come in with residual heels. The contents of each
drum is segregated between used oil and others. In each case
the drums meet the definition of "RCRA Empty". Either before
cleaning or after, the contents of a drum which contained
chlorinated solvents was mistakenly emptied into the used oil
recep-cacle. Prior to disposal of the used oil, it was
determined that the oil contained greater than 1000 ppm total
halogens.
Since the halogens would have come from a "RCRA Empty"
drum and therefore non-hazardous, could this fact (RCRA
Empty) be used in a rebuttable presumption determination. If
not, please cite references.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Very truly yours,
WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
T. L. Nebrich, Jr., CHMM
Technical Director
TLN/kjl
640 Park Place, Niagara Falls, New York, 14301 Telephone 716-282-4100
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1994(09)
SEP 28 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Lael J. Pickett
Regulatory Specialist
3M Occupational Health and
Environmental Safety Division
3M Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55144-7700
Dear Mr. Pickett:
Thank you for your letter of September 7, 1994, requesting
clarification regarding how the processor requirements (Subpart
F) of the Used Oil Management Standards (40 CFR Part 279) apply-
to activities involving separation of used oil from sorbent
materials. Specifically, you ask whether generators who separate
used oil from sorbents and send the used oil off-site to be
burned for energy recovery would be regulated as used oil
processors.
As you correctly point out, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) clarified the scope of the Subpart F processor
standards in recently promulgated, amendments to Part 279. ' (59 FR
10550; March 4, 1994) :;Under amended §279.20 (b) (2) (ii) , EPA
specifd.ed those on-site maintenance, filtering, and separation
activities that are not subject to; the used oil processing
standards. §279.20 (b)-(2) (ii), (D) generally provides that
generat.ors may remove used oil1- from sorbent materials without
being subject to the used oil processor standards, provided that
the us«id oil is not being sent directly off-site to a used oil
burner. "• • •".' •', ....
AH explained in the preamble to the March 4, 1994, final
rule, 12PA.rl>erlieves- that application of the processor standards is
warrantied^iifeCcases where the used oil that is generated from
specifled^ri-site- activities is being sent directly to an off-
site burner'.;" (57 FR 10556) In essence, the Agency believes that
the prohibition against sending the used oil generated from these
activities to an off-site burner is necessary to prevent
§279.2D(b)(2)(ii) from being used as a loophole through which
compliance with the used oil processors standards can be avoided.
EPA's primary concern is that, in situations where used oil
is being filtered, separated or otherwise reconditioned and then
sent directly to off-site burners, the purpose of the activity
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed wttti 3oy/Canon Ink on paper tnat
contain*
-------
may be difficult discern and that consequently, §279.20(b) (2) (ii)
may be used to avoid compliance with the used oil processor
standards. In other words, persons could claim that their
activities constitute incidental processing under
§279.20(b) (2) (ii), while the primary purpose of the activity may
in fact be to make the used oil more amenable for burning, a
distinction which would be difficult for EPA to ascertain.
As stated in the March 4, 1994, preamble, EPA believes that
by allowing on-site but not off-site burning from designated on-
site incidental processing activities, the Agency can strike a
reasonable balance between encouraging beneficial on-site reuse
and recycling activities that pose very limited risks, and
ensuring that activities undertaken to make used oil more
amenable for burning (i.e., used oil processing) are properly
controled.
It is important to note that EPA Regional offices and States
authorized to implement the RCRA program make determinations
regarding the requirements that apply in specific situations.
Also, some States have programs that are more stringent than the*
Federal hazardous waste program. If you have any further
questions regarding the used oil regulations, please contact •"•
Eydie Pines of my staff at (2021 260-3509r
Sincerely,
.. Mike- Petruska
: Chief ' .
*: Regulatory Development Branch
_,-..'"..-• -- » & , .
.^•^.sii.^.ai'^v•-'•',': .-v*-.~:"
^.-::^is^&:.;-»» -i- '••••;-
~, • >"•;• •-• -'''*'••> •"•..:'-if ••'.. . •• "
-------
3M Occupational Hea.
Environmental Safety i_.
3M Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55144-1000
612/733 1110
September?, 1994
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director, Office of Solid Waste
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M .'Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
4 '
Subject: Definition of Used Oil Processor Under the Used Oil Management
Standards, 40 CFR Part 279.
Dear Ms. Lowrance:
The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Occupational Health and
Environmental Safety Division (3M, OH&ESD) wishes to confirm its
understanding of the regulatory status of separating used oil from sorbent
materials. Specifically, we focus on the definition of "processor" under the Used
Oil Management Standards at 40 CFR Part 279 ("UOMS") as it relates to on- or
off-specification used oil separated from sorbent materials and sent off-site to be
burned for energy recovery.
The UOMS promulgated by EPA on September 10,, 1992, articulated a strong
preference for all free flowing used oil to be removed from solid wastes (e.g. oil
filters, sorptive minerals, sorbent materials, scrap metals etc.) and recycled
rather than disposed with these wastes. At that time, EPA defined "used oil
processing" as "chemical or physical operations designed to produce from used
oil, or to make used oil more amenable for the production off, fuel oils, lubricants
or othesr used oil derived products." According to the preamble, (and regulatory
language) "used oil processing" includes "chemical of physical separation" of
used oil from the solid waste material. At that time, EPA also defined recycling
of used oil to include "any used oil which is reused,... for any purpose ...
including] oil which is re-refined, reclaimed, burned for energy recovery or
reprocessed."
^r:' ' ' •
The May 3JJI993, technical corrections to the standards clarified that the physical
separation of used oil from non-teme plated oil filters by draining did not
constitute processing because the act is in essence "removing used oil from solid
waste" so that the used oil can be recovered and the filter properly disposed.
(58 Efid- Reg. 26420, 26421.) On March 4, 1994, EPA revisited the issue of
what constitutes "processing," stating that the act of removing excess used oil
from materials contaminated with used oil is not considered processing unless
the recovered used oil is to be burned off-site for energy recovery. (59 Efid. Reg.
1055C, 10557.)
-------
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
September 7,1994
Page 2
3M is a large producer and marketer of polypropylene sorbents. OH&ESD is
concerned that EPA's March 4 clarification imposes "processor" regulations on
the many used oil generators who separate used oil from sorbent materials and
recycle the used oil by sending it off-site to be burned for energy recovery.
Often, generators using sorbent, and in particular polypropylene sorbents,
mechanically wring out the sorbents to remove the free-flowing oil for recycling.
Sorbents wrung in this manner may then be reused up to eight times before
either being disposed or burned for energy recovery. (The BTU content of
polypropylene sorbents is approximately 19,000/LB).
Imposing processor requirements on generators who separate used oils from.
sorbents and send the oil off-site to be burned for energy recovery has the effect
of making such used oil recycling more onerous. For many of our customers,
sending their used oil off-site to be burned for energy recovery is the most
environmentally responsible means of managing their used oil. Thus, imposing
processor requirements on generators who separated oil from sorbents may
prove counterproductive to EPA's stated goal of encouraging recycling by
making it simpler to dispose of the used oil/sorbent mixture than to separated the
used oil and recover its energy value.
If 3M/OH&ESD is correct in its understanding that the processor requirements
apply to generators who physically separate used oil from sorbents and send
that oil off-site to be burned for energy recovery, then we urge the Agency to
reconsider this requirement in light of the negative impact such a requirement is
likely to have on used oil recycling by burning for energy recovery.
We thank you for your consideration of this matter. We would be happy to
provide you with more information should you desire it and would also be happy
to meet with you or your staff to discuss this matter further. Please call me at
(612) 736-1332 to discuss this matter or to arrange a meeting.
- ." " "*>
Sincerely, " ;
Lael J. Pickett
Regulatory Specialist
cc: Eydie Pines
-------
UNITt J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 28 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Robert Madden • 9592.1994(10)
Assists.nt Director
Hazardous Waste Services
Solid Waste Authority
of Ps.1m Beach County
7501 North Jog Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33412
Dear Mr. Madden:
Thank you for your letter dated September 8, 1994,
requesting clarification regarding the "rebuttable presumption"
provisions contained in the Recycled Used Oil Management
Standards. (40 CFR 279.44) Specifically, you ask whether a '
public collection center (i.e., a used oil generator) that
accepts only used oil from households and do-it-yourselfers
(DIYs), can use the household hazardous waste exemption to rebut
the presumption that the used oil has been mixed with hazardous
waste.
Under the used oil management standards, a used oil
generator may .rebut the presumption that used oil that contains
more than 1000 ppm total halogens has, been mixed with hazardous
waste by "demonstrating" that the used oil has not been mixed
with a regulated hazardous waste. Such a demonstration can, but
does no; have to, be based on actual testing of the used oil.
The generator may rebut the presumption by documenting the source
of the iialogens i.e., by-showing that the halogens are not
attributable to intentional mixing.
As you. correctly note, household waste is excluded from the
definition.of hazardous waste. (40 CFR 261.4(b)(D) Therefore,
a used oil-generator who collects household DIY used oil that
contain/3 greater than 1000. ppm total halogens may rebut the
presumption of mixing on the basis that household waste is
excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under-§261.4(b)(1).
Accordingly, if the generator can provide convincing
documentation showing that the source of the used oil is
exclusively household hazardous waste and that the chain of
custody has been maintained so as to preclude mixing with
regulated hazardous waste after collection, such documentation
may be used to rebut the presumption of mixing.
Recyctod/RecyclablA
Printed *rWi Soy/CenoU Ink on paper mat
t Met* 50% recycled fiber
-------
Secondly, you ask whether this rebuttal can be used by
subsequent used oil transporters. Again, if the transporter can
document conclusively that the shipment consists solely of
household DIY used oil and that no mixing has occurred during
transport, this information can be used to rebut the mixing
presumption.
It is important to note, however, that EPA Regional offices
and States authorized to implement the RCRA program make
determinations regarding the requirements -that apply in specific
situations. Also, some States have programs that are more
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. If you have
any further questions regarding the used oil regulations, please
contact Eydie Pines of my staff at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely,
Mike Petruska
Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
-------
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
7501 North Jog Road
West Palm Beach. Flo.Tlda 33412
Telephone (407) 640-4000
September 8, 1994
Michael Shapiro, Director
USEPA
401 'M' Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
RE: Rebuttable Presumption for Used Oil
\
Dear Mr. Shapiro,
I would like to ask for a written clarification for a specific
situation relating to the "Rebuttable Presumption" in 40 CFR 279.
The question is posed as follows:
Can a public used oil collection center, which accepts only
used oils from households and do-it-yourselfers (DIY's), use
the household hazardous waste exemption to rebut the
presumption that used oils were mixed with a hazardous waste?
If so, can this rebuttal be used by subsequent used oil
handlers which transport this oil?
You may contact me at (407) 687-1100. Thank you in advance for your
assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
'faV-i
Robert Madden, Assistant Director, Hazardous Waste Services
o~—i—i a—
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
September 1994 9592.1994(11)
3. Used Oil Storage Tank Bottoms:
Hazardous Waste or Used Oil When
Burnecl for Energy Recovery?
A garage servicing automobiles and trucks
generates significant quantities of used oil,
which it manages in compliance with the
federal regulations at 40 CFR Pan 279. The
used oil is rai mixed with other wastestreams
from the facility. Instead, the operator of the
garage accumulates the oil in an on-site
storage tani:. A used oil transporter
periodically empties the tank and delivers the
used oil to (.mother company that burns it for
energy recovery. Over time, gravity causes
solids and heavier fractions to settle out of the
used oil stored in the tank at the garage. As a
result, thick tar-like layers accumulate at the
bottom of the storage tank. The garage
operator wishes to remove these tank bottoms
from the used oil storage tank and send them
off-site to bi* burned for energy recovery.
Although only used oil has been placed in the
tank, the accumulated tank bottoms and the
original used oil differ significantly in physical
form. The garage operator is concerned that
the tank bottoms may not qualify as used oil
and may not be eligible for handling under 40
CFR Pan 279. Laboratory analysis shows that
the bottoms typically exhibit the toxicuy
characteristic for lead, cadmium, chromium,
and benzeni'.. When sent off-site to be burned
for energy recovery, must these bottoms from
the used oil storage tank be handled as used oil
or as characteristic hazardous waste?
. When burned for energy recovery, these
tank bottoms from the used oil storage tank
qualify as used oil and may be handled in
accordance with the used oil recycling
regulations of 40 CFR Part 279. Under current
EPA rules, residues or sludges resulting from
the storage, processing, or re-refining of used
oil are considered used oil when they are
recycled through burning for energy recovery
(40CFR§279.10(e)(2)). EPA clarified the
status of such residues in the preamble to the
May 3, 1993, Federal Register (58 ER 26420,
26422). As is the case with all used oils sent
for recycling, the fact that the tank bottoms
from the garage exhibit one or more
characteristics of hazardous waste identified in
Pan 261, S ubpart C does not alter their status
as used oil (§279.10(a)). The tank bottoms
recycled through burning for energy recovery
must be handled as hazardous waste only if
they fail the reburtable presumption described
at §279.10(b)(l)(ii), or if they have actually
been mixed with hazardous waste
(§§279.10(b)(l)and(2)). If the tank bottoms
are not being recycled, however, they must be
handled as characteristic hazardous waste when
disposed of or sent for disposal (§279.20(a)).
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
f
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9592.1994(12)
NOV I 0 IQqyi ' OPFICEOF
iyy4 SCUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. Lar:ry Northup
Executive Director
Convenient Automotive Services Industry
P.O. Bore 34595
Bethesd;i, Maryland 20827
Dear Mr. Northup:
Thank you for your letter dated August 22, 1994, requesting
clarification of how provisions in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-
apply to "Service Station Dealers" (SSD's) that handle used oil.
I apologize for the delay in responding to your previous requests
on this issue.
The following provides a response to each of the specific
questions raised in your letter.
1. Mo.y quick oil change and lubrication service providers be
considered SSDs?
Yes. In order to be considered an SSD as defined by
§101(37) of CERCLA, the establishment must, receive a
significant percentage of its gross revenue from the
fueling, repairing, or servicing of motor vehicles and must
a!.so accept "do it yourself" (DIY) generated used oil for
collection, accumulation, and delivery to an oil recycling
facility. Fast lubes that accept DIY used oil would
generally fall within this definition if they receive a
significant portion of their income from servicing motor
vehicles. Fast lubes would therefore be eligible for
limited exemption from CERCLA liability for recycled oil as
provided under CERCLA §114.
2. Does the SSD exemption pertain to all used oil collected at
the Dealer's facility?
The SSD exemption applies to both DIY used oil accepted by
the SSD and to used oil collected from customer's vehicles,
the two sources of used oil specifically mentioned in your
letter.
Recycted/ftocyclable
Prtrutd wtui Soy/Canon Ink on pap«f thai
oontatra * !«»«» 60% recyclad liber
-------
3. For purposes of determining protection against CERCLA
liability under the SSD exemption, at what point in time
does EPA deem that used oil destined for recycling falls
into the category of recycled oil, as defined by Section
1004(37) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act?
EPA has interpreted the term "recycled oil," as defined by
§1004(37) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as not limited to
used oil that has already been processed or re-refined, - EPA
applies its management standards for "recycled oil" to used
oil that is destined for recycling. EPA presumes that used
oil destined for recycling includes all used oil which is
not being disposed of or being transported or stored prior
to disposal. Used oil that is destined for recycling (i.e.,
all oil managed under Part 279) falls within.the scope of
the §1004(37) definition of "recycled oil" for purposes of
determining applicability of the SSD exemption.
4 . Does the mixing of spent mineral spirit solvents with used
oil invalidate the SSD exemption?
The plain language of §114(c) and 101(37) prohibits mixing
of used oil with any other hazardous substance as a
condition of eligibility for the SSD exemption. (57 FR
41583) Therefore, if the mineral spirits contain either a
listed hazardous waste or exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic (e.g., ignitability) the SSD would not be
eligible for the SSD exemption.
5. Is the SSD exemption retroactive to the date when a facility
first began accepting used oil from the public?
No. As clearly specified by §114 (c) (4) of CERCLA, SSDs
become eligible to assert the exemption on the effective
date of used oil regulations promulgated pursuant to §3014
of RCRA that require corrective action in compliance with
RCRA subtitle C and subtitle I. EPA interprets this
provision liberally to mean the date on which the Federal
used oil regulations become effective in non-authorized
States. The Federal regulations became effective on March
8, 1993. Accordingly, the SSD exemption became effective in
all states as of March 8, 1993. (57 FR 41583)
6. Is a SSD exempted from Superfund liability, provided it
complies with all other terms of CERCLA §114 and stores,
treats, transports or otherwise manages the used oil in
compliance with regulations or standards promulgated
pursuant to §3014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and other
applicable statutes; or must all. subsequent handlers,
processors or consumers of the material also comply with the
same standards for the dealer to be entitled to such
protection?
-------
The legislative history of §114 (c) makes it clear that the
SSDi3 who manage the used oil in accordance with the §3014
standards are not liable for releases that occur after the
SSD relinquishes control of the oil. The exemption applies
to -.he SSD even if the subsequent handlers fail to comply
wita §3014. It should be emphasized, however, that general
compliance with the Part 279 standards, which implement the
§3014 statutory requirements, is also a condition of
eligibility for the SSD liability exemption (e.g., to retain
eligibility, the SSD must comply with Part 279 Subpart C
standards for used oil generators and the Subpart E
standards for used oil transporters, as applicable).
7. Is the protection under the SSD exemption assessed on a
facility-by-facility or company-by-company basis.
The SSD exemption applies on a case-by-case basis to
individual dealers (i.e., individual establishments) for
releases of used oil that were managed in accordance with
the: §3014 management standards while in control of the SSD.
The: exemption does not necessarily apply to all dealers
wit.hin a given company, nor even to all releases of used oil
managed by the same establishment unless the used oil that
is later released was properly managed by that
establishment. In other words, some establishments within a
conpany may be eligible for the exemption, others may not,
depending on whether the conditions have been met by the
individual establishments.
I hope this letter adequately addresses your concerns. If
you havis additional questions regarding the used oil management
standards, please contact Eydie Pines at (202) 260-3509.
Sincerely
Cotaworth
Deputy Director
of Solid Waste
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
CIS!
Comvnienl
Serritv*
hiMiitute
Post Office Box 34595 Bethesda, Maryland 20827 301-697-3191
Ms. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Deputy Director (Acting) August 22, 1994
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 MSt., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Cotsworth:
On behalf of the quick oil change industry, I am writing to request your assistance in obtaining
clarification of an EPA regulation relating to used oil generators. Specifically, our organization
would like an official interpretation of several provisions of the so-called Service Station Dealer
Exemption from CERCLA liability.
CASI members account for approximately 2,600 individual quick oil change facilities around the
nation. These companies are deeply concerned about liability that may stem from the
downstream mishandling of used oil. In addition, many of our members actively collect and
transfer to recyclers, used oil generated by do-it-yourself oil changers. As you know, the Service
Station Dealer Exemption was intended by Congress to encourage the private-sector collection of
DIY motor oil.
Unfortunately, we have had an extremely difficult time receiving an Agency interpretation of this
rule. We have requested the information three times over the past year and to-date have met with
no success. I initiated our most recent request on May 10 only to find out last week that the
individual with whom I was corresponding was too busy to respond.
The regulation and the statute upon which it is based are both confusing and vague. Although
our members would like to rely upon them when collecting DIY oil, without some official
clarificatiDn, such reliance may prove to be detrimental. While we fully understand the burdens
Agency personnel must face when it comes to rulemaking and implementation, the lack of
guidance on this particular rule could adversely impact many of the quick lube DIY collection
programs upon which so many state and local programs depend.
-------
Therefore, we ask that you forward the enclosed letter to someone at the OSW who can and will
respond to our request for clarification. Please have that individual contact me at (301) 897-3191.
I will be happy to provide any additional details. CASI has a meeting of its membership on
September 19 and would very much like to provide them with a report on this important issue at
that time.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
L
Larry Northup
Executive Director
cc: CASI Environmental Committee
Barry S. Neuman, CASI Counsel
COTS8022.LTR
-------
CIS!
(ommienl
tufomofrre
huttilute
Post Office Box 34595 Bethesda, Maryland 20827 301-897-3191
Ms. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Deputy Director (Acting) August 22, 1994
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Su, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms Cotsworth:
With the U.S. EPA's September 10, 1992 rulemaking on used oil destined for recycling, the
long-awaited "Service Station Dealer Exemption" ("Exemption") from CERCLA liability
was triggered for certain businesses Who engage in the collection of used oil from the
public.
As the national trade association for the quick oil change and lubrication industry, CASI is
concerned about several issues which relate to the Exemption. Due to the significant
impact that the Exemption could have upon CASI's member companies, it is critical that
CASI receives some clarification and guidance on the Exemption.
Listed below are several specific items which we would like clarified for the purpose of
applying: this Exemption to fast lube operations.
1. May fast lubes be considered "Service Station Dealers"?
Under 42 USC 9601, Section 101 - Definitions
"(37)(A) The term "service station dealer" means any person --
(i) \v!io owns or operates a motor vehicle service station, filling station, garage, or similar retail
establishment engaged in the business of selling, repairing or servicing motor vehicles, where a
significant percentage of the gross revenue of the establishment is derived from fueling, repairing, or
servi:ing of motor vehicles, and (ii) who accepts for collection, accumulation, and delivery to an oil
recycling facility, recycled oil that (I) has been removed from the engine of a light duty motor vehicle or
household appliances by the owner of such vehicle or appliances, and (II) is presented by such owner to
such person for collection, accumulation, and delivery to an oil recycling facility."
-------
Page 2
Quick oil change and lubrication service providers, in our opinion, fit within the scope of
the above definition so long as they accept used (recycled) oil from the public. Quick
lubes are certainly engaged in the servicing of motor vehicles and derive a significant
percentage of their gross revenues from such business. This point is key to any further
discussion of the Exemption as it pertains to our industry.
Please advise as to whether you concur with our assessment that quick oil change facilities
that accept used oil from the public are in fact Service Station Dealers ("Dealers").
2. Does the "Service Station Dealer Exemption" pertain to all used oil collected at
the Dealer's facility?
Under 42 USC 9614 - Section 114
(c) Recycled Oil. --
(1) Service Station Dealers, Etc.-- No person (including the United States or any State) may recover,
under the authority of subsection (a)(3) or (1)(4) of section 107, from a service station dealer for any
response costs or damages resulting from a release or threatened release of recycled oil, or use the
authority of section 106 against a service station dealer other than a person described in subsection (a)(l)
or (a)(2) of section 107 if such recycled oil-
(A) is not mixed with any other hazardous substance, and
(B) is stored, treated, transported or otherwise managed in compliance with regulations or standards
promulgated pursuant to section 3014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and other applicable authorities."
Quick oil change companies collect used (recycled) oil from two sources: customers'
vehicles and the general public, often referred to as "do-it-yourselfers". Does the
Exemption pertain to both these streams of used oil, should a release or threatened release
occur off-site?
Please provide us with an official interpretation of this provision.
3. For purposes of determining protection against CERCLA liability under the
Service Station Dealer Exemption, at what point in time does EPA deem that used
oil destined for recycling falls into the category of recycled oil, as defined by
Section 1004 (37) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act?
EPA's response to this question will literally determine the value of the exemption to the
quick lube industry or any other party which qualifies for the exemption. As provided
under CERCLA Section 114 as stated above, the Exemption extends protection to a Dealer
"for any response costs or damages resulting from a release or threatened release of
recycled oil..."
-------
Page 3
If EPA defines the term "recycled oil" narrowly so as to only protect the Dealer from any
release or threatened release of the material after it has been processed, the Exemption
would be of little value to used oil collection centers. This is because releases prior to
processing or recycling into a finished product account for most Dealer liability. On the
other hand, if EPA defines "recycled oil" more broadly so as to provide the Dealer
protection against releases or threatened releases of the o\\from the time that the material
is picked up by a qualified used oil recycler, or otherwise introduced into the used oil
recycling system, then the Exemption would have significantly more value to the Dealer
and it would establish an incentive for the Dealer to accept do-it-yourself oil.
Therefore, CASI hereby requests that EPA provide further guidance regarding to point in
time when used oil destined for recycling qualifies as "recycled oil" pursuant to CERCLA
Section 114.
4. Does the mixing of spent mineral spirit solvents with used oil invalidate the
"Sei-vice Station Dealer Exemption"?
As indicated in the citation noted in question #2 above, mixing used oil with any other
"hazardous substance" would seem to invalidate the Exemption. However, certain
automoiive service companies, including some fast lubes, routinely mix spent mineral
spirit solvents with their used oil prior to recycling. This is done with the full knowledge
and consent of their used oil recyclers. Mineral spirits, sometimes known as Stoddard
Solvent?, are petroleum products that, when fresh, exhibit no hazardous characteristics with
the possible exception of ignitability, depending on the flash point of the particular
Stoddard Solvent. When used in a parts washing sink (the typical application), the solvent
is contaminated only with used oil.
Please advise whether non-hazardous mineral spirits that become contaminated with used
oil can be mixed with more used oil in the operator's storage tank without invalidating the
Exemption from CERCLA liability? [Note: EPA ruled on Sept. 10, 1992 that mineral
spirits may be mixed with used oil so long as the resulting mixture does not exhibit the
characteristic of ignitability and is recycled].
5. Is the "Service Station Dealer Exemption" retroactive to the date when a facility
fin t began accepting used oil from the public?
Many ifast lube operators have for years been serving as public used oil collection centers.
They have long been abiding by the various state and federal regulations pertaining to the
storage, handling and transport of used oil. Indeed, many fast lubes have been providing
this public service ever since the Exemption was established by Congress.
-------
Pace 4
Our question, therefore, is whether the Exemption is retroactive so that it would, under the
scenario described above, include volumes of used oil generated before final promulgation
of EPA's used oil management standards in September of 1992? Liability for releases or
threatened releases under CERCLA is of course retroactive. It would be logical to assume
that protection against such liability, when used oil is properly managed, would be treated
similarly. Many quick lube operations have participated in do-it-yourself collection
programs relying to their detriment on the expectation that such conduct would be
rewarded via the Exemption.
Please provide us with an official Agency interpretation on retroactivity.
6. Is a Service Station Dealer exempted from Superfund liability, provided it
complies with all other terms of CERCLA Section 114 and stores, treats,
transports or otherwise manages the used oil in compliance with regulations or
standards promulgated pursuant to Section 3014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
and other applicable statutes; or must all subsequent handlers, processors or
consumers of the material also comply with the same standards in order for the
Dealer to be entitled to such protection?
Based on the language of CERCLA Section 114, it is unclear whether the Dealer is
provided coverage under the Exemption solely as a result of actions taken by the Dealer
while the material is in its possession, or whether the management standards must be
followed by every party which possesses or controls the material after it leaves the Dealer's
location, possession or control. CASI would argue that an interpretation of this language
which applies the Exemption to Dealers only when all subsequent handlers comply with
the management standards, would render the Exemption worthless in the eyes of Dealers.
It is evident from the legislative history that the intent of the Exemption was to provide an
incentive for Dealers to accept used oil from the public. Most all Dealers would argue that
a broad interpretation of this language would vitiate the effect because Superfund liability
only arises when parties fail to comply with practices such as are defined in the referenced
management standards.
Please explain under what downstream mismanagement scenarios, if any, would Dealers
lose their Exemption.
7. Is the protection under the Service Station Dealer Exemption assessed on a
facility-by-facility or company-by-company basis?
For purposes of this discussion, let's assume EPA agrees that protection under the
Exemption should be extended to a Dealer, so long as said Dealer complies with all
management standards promulgated by the EPA while the used oil stream is within the
-------
Page 5
control or possession of the Dealer. Given the many qualifying prerequisites attached to
the Exerr.ption, CASI and its membership would strongly recommend that the protection
associated with the Exemption be assessed on a facility-by-facility basis. In other words, if
a particular facility complies with all applicable management standards in the storage,
treatmeni, transportation, or other management of the used oil stream, that facility could
rely upor. protection under the Exemption. Our concern is that if EPA extends coverage
under the Exemption on a company-by-company basis and all but one facility owned by a
company operating a chain of facilities are in strict compliance with the applicable
management standards, then it would be unfair for EPA to wipe out protection under the
Exemption for all the other locations because of non-compliance at one facility. This
issue is particularly important to the vast majority of CASI's members which own and
operate multiple locations.
Therefore., CASI requests guidance relative to the practical application of the Exemption.
CASI was encouraged by the adoption of used oil management standards that triggered the
Service Station Dealer Exemption. We are hopeful that the Exemption will have a positive
effect on the number of new public used oil collection centers. Many of our member
companies currently serve as used oil collection facilities across the country with the
expectation that by doing so, they are obtaining protection against Superfund liability.
However, without further guidance, it is impossible for our membership to determine the
relative value and applicability of the Exemption to their fast lube operations. A clear and
concise Agency interpretation of the above issues, consistent with the recommendations
herein, would create the incentive for thousands to continue their used oil collection
programs. Moreover, fast lubes that do not currently accept do-it-yourselfer oil could be
expected to enter the system, should the terms of the Exemption make it advantageous for
them to do so.
If you require any additional information prior to responding, please feel free to call
write. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
or
Sincerely,
Larry Northup
Executive Director
cc: CASI Environmental Committee
Barr> S. Neuman, CASI Counsel
CERCLAOl.LTR
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
FILE C
CP'I
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9592.1995(01)
AU6 ' 0 1995
OFFCEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Frederick S. Phillips
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-1128
Dear Mr. Phillips:
This letter is in response to your letter of May 25, 1995 concerning the management
of the used oil in your clients' industrial facilities.
Specifically, your clients want to reduce the volume of the used coolant by either
filtering out or evaporating off the water before the remaining used coolant is managed by
rerefining or fuel-blending. Dewatering the used coolant will reduce the volume of the
coolant wastestream by as much as 90 percent. Your clients would like clarification as to
whether dewatering is a process that triggers EPA's Used Oil Processor requirements.
Dewate^jig of an oil-based coolant does not require the owners/operators of an
industrial facility to follow the Used Oil Processor requirements as long as dewatering of the
oil-based coolant removes the water and does not change the physical and chemical condition
of the oil -based portion of the coolant. Dewatering, as described in your letter, would meet
the exemption from the Used Oil Processor requirements as described in §279.20
(b)(2)(ii)(b), "Draining or otherwise removing used oil from materials containing used oil ...
in order rx> remove excessive oil..."
In your letter you. indicated that after dewatering, the oil is sent "to be re-refined or
fuel-blended." It is important to remember that the exemption from the Used Oil Processor
requirements is contingent upon the oil being generated on-site and not sent directly to an
off-site burner, see §279.20(b)(2)(ui). Sending the remaining coolant to a rerefiner and
fuel-blender, as mentioned in your letter, would meet this requirement; however, shipment to
an off-site burner would cause the generator to become regulated by the Used Oil Processor
requirements.
Recycled/Recyclable
PnnM with Soy/Cinou Ink on paper that
conuln* *t feMt SOS nBcydca fiber
-------
Thank you for sharing your clients' concerns with us. I hope this letter clarifies the
issues you raised. If you have any additional questions, please contact Tracy Bone at
(202)260-3509.
Sincerely,
Michael Petruska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
-------
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
<203)
2300 N STREET. N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037-1128
(202) 663-6000
FACSIMILE
(202) eea-aoo7
May 25,1995
NCW YOMK. NEW vonx iooaa-rra«
MAAM cneorr onive
MeUBAN. V1ROINIA 231Oa-OOOO
us SOUTH UNION smeer
ALEXANDRIA. VIMOMIA 22314-3M1
8IMEEI. S.W.
22070-3721
Directo,:, Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M .Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Application of Used Oil Processor Requirements Under
the Used Oil Management Standards. 40 C.F.R. Part 279
Dear Ms. Lov ranee:
I write on behalf of several clients seeking clarification regarding the application of
the used oil processor regulations (40 C.F.R. § 279, Subpart F) to industrial facilities that
employ evaporation and/or filtrationjto minimiy-e the volume of their oil-based coolant
wastesiTeams. EPA's position on this issue will likely have significant consequences for
thousands of users of oil-based coolants.
Many machine shops and other industrial facilities use coolants composed of 90-96%
water ;ind 4-10% petroleum-based (or synthetic oil based) cooling compound. The used
coolant must be drained and replaced regularly, producing a sizeable wastestream. To
minimize the volume of their used-coolant wastestreams, many facilities have installed, or
are contemplating installing, evaporation and/or filtration systems. The purpose of these
systems is to evaporate or filter out the water component of the coolant, thus reducing by
90% or more the oil-based wastestream to be recycled or disposed. Most clients employing
such systems report that their dewatered coolant is picked up by Clean Harbors, Safety
KJeen, or a similar entity to be re-refined or fuel-blended.
The evaporation and filtration processes at issue are being employed to minimiTg the
volume, and thus the expense of managing, the coolant wastestream. This action constitutes
"a basic step that is incidental or ancillary to a primary activity," in this case reducing waste
volume, "that is distinct from used oil processing" (59 Fed. Reg. 10550,10556). These
activities are not designed to "make used oil more amenable for production of fuel oils,
lubricints, or other used-oil derived products" (40 C.F.R. § 279.50) and should not be subject
-------
.SHAW,''PiTTMAN. POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
r-.«.»A*THf Mil* INCIUOINO ••OMS1IONAI
, Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
May 25,1995
Page 2
to the used oil processor requirements. However, because EPA's amendment of the processor
provisions (59 Fed. Reg. 10550, ej ssjj.) does not specifically address evaporation and/or
filtration of water to reduce the volume of an oil-based wastestream, we are requesting this
clarification from the Agency.
Generators who dewater their oil-based coolant wastestreams do so to minimize the
volume of the wastestream and thereby simplify wastestream management. Imposing the
used oil processor requirements on generators who minimize their waste by evaporation
and/or filtration creates a powerful disincentive to do so and runs contrary to EPA's stated
goal of waste minimization.
I appreciate your consideration and look forward to learning your views on the
applicability of the used oil processor requirements to the described activities. Please do not
hesitate to call me if I can provide additional information or if you would like to discuss this
matter.
Best
Frederick S. Phillips
cc: Sheila McC. Harvey, Esq.
Stephanie M. McQueen
167099
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
9592.1995(02)
AUG 2b B95
OFFICE OF
SOU) WASTE AND EMERGENCY
Norman H. Nosenchuck, P?E. RESPONSE
Director
Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation
New York: State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-7250
Dear Mr. Nosenchuck:
Tlds letter is iu response to your letter of May 24, 1995 concerning the exemption for
burning vised oil in space beaters found in the Federal Used Oil Management Standards.
Ixi your letter you request EPA's interpretation of the regulatory exemption for
burning used oil in space heaters in three specific used oil collection scenarios. The
scenario!! all involve a county highway maintenance garage accepting additional used oil to
burn in u on-site space heater. The vised oil is collected by the County from: other County
mainteniiDce facilities, County-run Do-it-yourselfer (DIY) collection centers, and from
businesses. Specifically, your letter requests clarification as to whether the County can bum
these thi«e sources of used oil in their space heater and still qualify for the space heater
exemption in 40 CE& 279.23(a)(l)).
A generator may only burn used oil from DIYs or oil generated by mat generator. A
generator may not bum used oil generated by another business. EPA never intended to limit
the generator to burning only used oil generated at the same facility as the space heater. An
owner/ operator may burn used oil generated from another of the generator's facility as long
as the used oil and space heater meet all the requirements of §279.23. Certainly, your state
may chose 'to be more stringent than EPA as reflected in the Used Oil Management
Standards.
The first two scenarios clearly meet the intent of the exemption which is to allow
genenitors to burn their own used oil in space heaters and to encourage the collection of DIY
used oil. The owner/operator, in this case a county aggregation point, is allowed to bum
used oil from other County facilities and the DIY collection program as long as the County
follows the requirements for self-transportation of 55 gallons or less used oil (see §279,24
-------
capacity of not more than 0.5 million BTU per hour, mat the combustion gases are vented to
the ambient air, and that the space heater is operated as legitimate recycling (i.e., operated
during cold weather and business hours).
The third scenario, concerning the burning of used oil at the County collection center
from businesses, does not meet the language or the intent of the exemption. The
owner/operator is limited to burning self-generated used oil and used oil from household
sources (DIY). No amount of business waste (other than the used oil generated by the
owner/operator of the space heater) may be burned in a space heater. In your letter, you
referred to an exemption based on a 55 gallon limit that would allow the used oil to be
burned hi space heaters. This exemption applies to generators self-transporting their used oil
to an aggregation center and exempts the generator from Transportation Standards (Subpart
E) only and has no impact on the burning of used oil in space heaters.
I hope mis information has been helpful to you. If you have any additional questions,
your staff may contact Tracy Bone at (202)260-3509. Thank you for your interest in used oil
management.
Sincerely,
Shapiro, Director
if Solid Waste
-------
New .York Statt; Department of Environmental Conservation
'50 Wolf Road. Albany. New York 12233-7250 n 10
518-457-6934 FAX 518-457-0629 -V T •
v&> .^
i
MAY 2 41995
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Re: Exemption for Burning Used Oil in Space Heaters
Enclosed is a copy of a February 6, 1995 letter that we
received from Ms. Auralie Ashley-Marx, a Research and Compliance
Coordinator in Oswego County (one of the Counties in New York
State), concerning the referenced exemption.
Mr. William Mirabile, of this Department, brought up this *
issue with you at the Used Oil Roundtable in March, 1995, at «%
which time you stated that this issue would t>e evaluated by the
United! states Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at some
future: point in time.
Our interpretation of the applicability of the regulations
for burners of used oil is predicated on the assumption that,
once Ji generator or other party who intends to direct their used
oil for burning determines that the used oil is on-specification,
then such on-specification used oil is no longer regulated as
used oil (40 CFR 279.11). In other words, transportation and
destination are no longer regulated under the used oil
regulations.
Therefore, based on the above assumption, the following is
our interpretation for each of the scenarios presented in the
Ms. Ashley-Marx letter:
1. Used oil that is sent from off-site County highway
maintenance garages to other, off-site, highway garages
or the off-site airport maintenance facility, all of
which are owned and operated bv the County:
In this case, we believe that the receiving facilities
would be acting as used oil aggregation points.
However, since the heading to the space heater
exemption in 40 CFR 279.23 says "On-site burning in
space heaters," we do not believe that aggregation
points could burn the used oil brought in from their •
own off-site facilities unless the used oil is
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
on-specification. Although New York State's used oil
and air regulations are somewhat different from 40 CFR
Part 279, and nay further preclude aggregation points
from burning used oil, we will reevaluate our position
if you determine that aggregation points may burn used
oil from their own off-site facilities under the terms
of the space heater exemption.
2. Used oil that is sent from County-run do-it-yourselfer
fDIYi used oil collection centers to other, off-site.
County maintenance facilities; all locations are owned
and operated bv the County;
In this instance, we believe that the used oil could be
burned at the DIY used oil collection centers under the
terms of the space heater exemption. However, if the
used oil were sent off-site to other County facilities
for burning, we believe that the used oil would need to
be on-specification. Again, if your interpretation is *
different, we will reevaluate our position on this
issue. For this particular scenario, we believe that
if the space heater exemption in'40 CFR Part 279
applies, there might be a possibility of granting a
variance from State regulations to allow this type of
burning. Further, we would particularly like to
facilitate recycling of DIY used oil.
3. Used oil that is sent from private businesses to off-
site. County maintenance facilities?
EPA's regulations allow for "used oil collection
centers," which receive used oil from generators in
quantities of 55 gallons or less to meet the same
standards as used oil generators. This Department's
used oil regulations do not have a similar provision
for used oil collection centers. Therefore, the used
oil received at County maintenance facilities from
private businesses for burning must be on-
specification. However, we are interested in finding
out whether, under 40 CFR Part 279, used oil collection
centers (e.g., those that accept used oil from •
generators in shipments of no more than 55 gallons)
would be allowed to burn such used oil under the space
heater exemption.
Is our interpretation of the used oil regulation concerning
the above scenarios correct, or does EPA have a different
interpretation? We need to know in order to advise the County
and other interested parties in this matter.
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro
If you have any questions, or require any further
information, please have your staff contact Ms. Michelle Ching,
Of my Staff, at (518) 485-8988.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Norman H. Nosenchuck, P.E. ^*
Director
Division of Hazardous Substances
Regulation
Enclosure
cc: w/€-.nc. - A. Ashley-Marx, Osvego County
Eydie Pines, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
-------
• DONALD F: MOREY
^ OSWEGO COUNTY s**™-*.****,*
. MARK LiCHTENSTEiN
February 6, 1995 . .
Ms. Michelle Ching ' : .
Hazardous Waste Compliance Unit
NYSDEC . . .
50 Wolf Road . . -.'-..-
Albany, NY 12233-17253 ,
RE: Clarification of Used Oil Space Heater Regulations . .....'
Dear Ms. Ching: ......
As discussed by phone last month, I have been asked to research and provide specific
documentation in reference' to the use of used motor oil in space heaters. Oswego
County is considering using used motor oil for fuel in space heaters to heat several
highway garage facilities and/or an airport maintenance bay. The used oil could
potentially come, from the following sources: .
•-Several off-site, County highway maintenance garages..
• Five off-site transfer station holding tanks that accept used motor oil
from, household-do-it yourself oil changers. Each person leaving oil signs a
certification sheet stating that the used oil is from a household and not a
.business. It is not possible to have residents deliver their used crank-
case oil to highway garages, as it is not as convenient, nor is staff
• . available at those sites to monitor such activities.
.• Used oil from off-site businesses. . •
What specific regulatory requirements would apply to each of these activities? What
steps would the County be required to take to insure that we are in compliance with all
applicable state aud federal regulations: Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Any information you can. provide would be appreciated. If you need further information
about my request please contact me during business hours at (315) 593-8924. . •
Sincerely, ; . • . .
•Auralie Ashley-
Research and Compliance. Coordinator
315 «593-3850 R. R. #4 BOX 106« FULTON-NEW YORK 13069 / 315 •593-8923
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB. I 7 1995 . .'. . 9444.1995(01)
OFFICE OF
• . SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM . • •
SUBJECT: P and U Listed Wastes and the/ Contained-in Policy" '
FROM: ' jsjievefeaux Barnes,^uirecfeSrV^'^--'^ . - .
/y Permits and State Programs Division, QSW
TO: Norm Niedergang, Director .
Office of RCRA, Region V
Recently your staff contacted us in regard to the Agency's
current RCRA contained-in policy as it applies to environmental
media tha.t contain P and U listed hazardous wastes. Since this
question has been posed several times by other Regions, we would
like to take this opportunity to articulate the Agency's position
on this matter.
The RCRA contained-in policy applies to P and U listed
wastes in the same manner as for other listed wastes. Although
§261.33(d) specifies that contaminated soil and water generated
from the cleanup of releases of P and U listed wastes must be
managed as hazardous waste, such soil or water would not be
considered "contaminated" in this particular context if the
implementing agency determined that the media did hot contain
such a listed waste.
As you may know, the Office of Solid Waste is currently
developing a new rulemaking--the HWIR Contaminated Media Rule--
that will likely codify the contained-in concept in some detail.
That rulemaking should hopefully resolve a number of the
questions that are often asked regarding the current contained-in
policy. Several of your staff are members of the HWIR-Media
workgroup, and we will keep them apprised of any further
.developments regarding this concept.
If you have'any questions, please contact Dave Pagan or
Carolyn Hoskinson of my staff, at (703) 308-8620 and
(703) 308-8626 respectively. . ,
cc: J. Boyle
K. Pierard
B. Pace .
T. Kaneen
Recycl«d/R«cycUbl«
Prlnttd «ltti Sey/OHWU ink en paptr mat
contain* «t lost SO* recycled fiber
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
|>' A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
s ^•""^ "j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
8 1996
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
9592.1996(01)
Mr. Gary S. Johnstone
CASIE/PRC'TANK
P.O. BOX 93
Franklinville, NJ 08322
Dear Mr. Johnstone:
Thank you for your letter of November 3, 1995 regarding the
definition of significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous
constituents as contained in used oil, and which agency has
regulatory jurisdiction over this waste.
Your letter concerns the rebuttable presumption for
halogenated constituents present in used oil. This provision is
located in several places throughout 40 CFR part 279, depending
on the specific activity related to used oil. Generally, under
this provision, if used oil contains greater than or equal to
1000 ppm total halogens, it is presumed to be a hazardous waste
due to mixture with listed halogenated hazardous waste. This
presumption may be rebutted by a demonstration that the used oil
does not contain hazardous waste.
In your letter, you cite the rebuttable presumption
provision in 40 CFR 279.10(b) (1) (ii) . However, under th'e Federal
regulations, the provision that would be applicable to your
situation is actually in 40 CFR 279.53, which applies to used oil
processors and re-refiners. This provision was promulgated as
part of the September 10, 1992 used oil rule. Pursuant to the
statutory authority for this rule, it cannot take effect in
states that are authorized for the base RCRA program (those rules
promulgated as of January 26, 1983), until those states adopt
equivalent requirements. Further, EPA cannot enforce the
requirements until the state adopts them and is authorized by
EPA. Note that "RCRA authorization" is an administrative process
where EPA evaluates a state's regulations to ensure that they are
equivalent and consistent with EPA's regulations, and authorizes
them as part of the RCRA program. EPA then has enforcement
authority based on a state's authorized RCRA program.
Therefore, because New Jersey is authorized for the base
RCRA program but not the 1992 used oil rule, this provision will
not be applicable to your facility under the Federal regulations
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least S0% recycled fiber
-------
until New Jersey becomes authorized for the rule. New Jersey
does have jurisdiction regarding used oil regulation under .its
authorized RCRA program and other state laws. While EPA can
provide assistance to New Jersey, the state should be the primary
source of information regarding its regulatory program and your
RCRA permit.
. *
If you have further questions regarding the Federal used
oil rules in 40 CFR part 279, please contact Tracy Bone of my
staff at (202) 260-3509. For information regarding state
authorization issues, please contact Wayne Roepe of my staff at
(703) 308-8630.
Sincerely yours,
Shapiro, Director
of Solid Waste
-------
PROTANK
November 3, 1995
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste MC-5301
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Rebuttable Presumption
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I am writing to you to receive clarification or an opinion from the Environmental Protection
Agency regarding the definition of "significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous
constituents" as stated in 40 CFR 279.10(b)(l)(ii).
Casie/Protank, through our attorney, submitted two requests to the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) seeking their guidance concerning this issue. Mr:
Edward H. Post, Chief of the Southern Bureau of Water and Hazardous Waste
Enforcement, responded to our request with a letter dated January 19,1995 (copy enclosed).
He stated in his letter that the only existing guidance regarding significant concentrations
of individual hazardous halogenated constituents exists in the November 29, 1985 Preamble
to the EPA used oil regulations noting "More than 100 ppm of any particular solvent".
Casie/Prot:ink's hazardous waste facility permit and the above referenced regulation state
that the total organic halogens in excess of 1000 ppm may be rebutted by analytical to
demonstrate that the used oil does not contain hazardous waste.
I spoke with Ms. Tracy Bone of your department approximately two weeks ago regarding
this issue. She stated that ultimately the EPA would defer back to the State of New Jersey
for a decision concerning this matter.
Mr. Post stated in his letter that the NJDEP would not enforce any specific concentrations
less than 1000 ppm for individual hazardous halogenated constituents until further written
guidance is received from the appropriate Federal Hazardous waste groups.
Casie Protank believes that the NJDEP would not have responded to our request without
contacting the EPA and conducting extensive research before submitting this letter.
However, our NJDEP inspector believes that the NJDEP has no jurisdiction over this issue
and that only the EPA can make a ruling concerning these levels. He also supports the
• P.O. BOX 9S: • FRANKLINVILLE. N.J. 08322 • (609) 696-4401 • TELEFAX NO. (609) 696-7065
-------
PROTANK
statement that significant levels of hazardous halogenated concentrations is 100 ppm, as
stated in the November 29, 1985 Preamble.
I spoke with a representative at the EPA Region II office in New York. He stated that
their office would only enforce EPA regulations and not the Federal Register,
I'hope that your response can clarify the different interpretations of this issue. Thank you
in advance for your cooperation. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience..
Sincerely,
CASIE/PROT
GanrS. Jobflstone
GSJ\ta
Enclosure
•P.O. BOX 92 • FRANKLINVILLE. N.J. 08322 • (609) 696-4401 • TELEFAX NO. (609) 696-7065
-------
E
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB 15 1996
OFFICE CF •
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
George (Rock) Pring, Chair RESPONSE
Hazardous Waste Commission
State of Colorado
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
Dear Mr. Pring:
This letter is in response to your letter dated October
19, 19?>5, concerning data on the use of used oil as a dust
suppressant. Specifically, you asked to be provided data
that the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) relied on to ban the
use of used oil as a dust suppressant, and used to allow the
use of commercial dust suppressants. You also asked for any
data OSW has concerning compressor oil or mineral oil.
The decision to ban the use of used oil as a dust
suppression is discussed in the preamble to the Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 48034). That
rulemaking and the references cited on dust suppression are
enclosed. You also reguested specific data on "climates,
rainfall conditions and soil composition". No such
information was evaluated by OSW in connection with the use
of used, oil as a dust suppressant.
OSW did not evaluate the use of commercial dyst
suppressants under this or any rulemaking because we have no
authority to regulate commercial products (other than waste-
derived or discarded commercial chemical products) under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Concerning your request for information on mineral oil
and compressor oil, we searched databases of EPA documents
produced under RCRA or Superfund authority for data on
compressor oil and/or mineral oil. There were two
references to data sent to EPA from industry sources as
comments on a rulemaking. No EPA data were found in the
database. If you would like more information on the two
outside-EPA documents, please call the RCRA Docket
at(703)603-9230 and refer to documents: F-91-UOLP #415E and
F-92-U02F #8.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy Canoia ink on paper mat
contains at least SO* recycled fiber
-------
If you have any further questions concerning data
supporting EPA's decision to ban the use of used oil as a
dust suppressant please have your staff contact Tracy Bone
at (202)260-3509 or the RCRA Docket at (703)603-9230.
racerely,
Vid Bxissard, Dii^ctor
Hazardous Waste and Identification
Division
cc: Scott Klarich, Colorado DEC
Randy Lamden, EPA Region VIII
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
f fa o ' OFFICE OF
l-0 £ B J90X SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
9592.1996(03)
The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell
300 Main Street
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Dear Senator Campbell:
This letter is in response to your letter dated, February 5,
1996 concerning the use of used oil as a dust suppressant. You
inquired as to EPA' s response to a letter from the Colorado
Hazardous; Waste Commission concerning the use of used oil as a
dust suppressant. A copy of EPA's response to the Hazardous
Waste Commission is enclosed.
In your letter you also asked for an explanation of how EPA,
"intends to balance the major gains we can achieve in air quality
through the use of a cost effective dust suppression material . . .
[with the] negligible risk to our waterways and groundwater from
the use of this form of mineral oil." With respect to national
requirements, as you know, EPA banned the use of used oil as a
dust suppressant in its final regulation related to used oil
management standards (see 57 CFR 41626, 9/10/92) . At that time
some forty states had already banned this use of used oil, and in
addition, the Federal statute called for a ban on used oil
applied as a dust suppressant if the used oil was mixed with
hazardous waste. Environmental damages cases, such as those at
Times Beach, Missouri, were known at the time. Possible
environmental problems associated with such a practice include
heavy metals deposition in soil or migration to ground water,
among othesr potential issues. As you are probably aware, used
oil varies; significantly with respect to the types and
concentrations of contaminants it may contain.
In the final standards, EPA included a provision to allow
States to petition the Agency for authorization to use vised oil
as a dust suppressant. The requirements for such a petition are
described in 40 CFR 279.82(b). To date, no such petitions have
been received, and no resources have been allocated for reviewing
such petitions. There are no specific criteria which have been
developed to guide such a review, but we would consider
environmental benefits and risks from using a particular used oil
as a dust suppressant as they relate to our broader concerns
about used oil in the environment. As already mentioned, these
R »cyclod/R»cycUbla • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recyded Paper (40% PosJconsumer)
-------
include potential metals releases to the environment, and how to
ensure hazardous waste is not mixed with the used oil in '
violation of the statutory prohibition.
Thank you for your interest in used oil management. If you
have further questions or would like additional information,
please have your staff contact Tracy Bone at (202)260-3509.
Sincerely;
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
.Enclosure
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
• •• - ' ' 9593.1995(01)
December 1995
RCRA
1. Lead-Acid Batteries and Universal
Waste
How do the Pan 273, Standards for
Universal Waste Management, affect the
managenu'.nt of lead-acid batteries regulated
under the Pan 266, Subpan G, regulations for
spent lead-acid batteries being reclaimed?
•
Lead-acid batteries that are managed under
Pan 266, Subpan G, are not subject to the
universal v/aste management standards. The'*
universal management standards only apply to
those lead- acid batteries that are not managed
under Pan 266, Subpan G. The existing
recycling program for automotive lead-acid
batteries has been extremely successful, with
recycling rates in excess of 90 percent
nationwide! By retaining the Pan 266,
Subpan G, requirements. EPA can continue
to operate this program without modification
or adverse effect on the environment. EPA
expects that most non-automotive lead-acid
batteries will be managed under Pan 273 (60
ER 25492, ;i5505; May 11.1995),
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
> £* \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
9593.1996(01)
APR | T 1996
OFFICE OF
SOLtt) WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Mr. William K. Taggart
Lion Technology Inc.
P.O. Drawer 700 •
Lafayette, New Jersey 07848
Dear Mr. Taggart: . .
Than): you for your letter of August 25, 1995. I apologize
for the' delayed response. .In your letter you ask if, in the
recent revision to 40 CFR 261.5® in the Universal Waste Final
rule (60 Ji£ 25492) , the EPA intended to subject the following
waste types to substantive hazardous waste regulations (including
the Land Disposal Restrictions at 40 CFR Part 268): 1) Waste that
is generated and managed under Clean Water Act regulated systems
without intervening RCRA-regulated accumulation or management;
and 2) Wa:ste that is generated and then inserted directly into a
reclamation device where .it is regenerated for future use.
Afteir careful review of the amended 40 CFR 261.5 (c), the
Agency agrees that it has inadvertently subjected generators of
the aforementioned wastes as well as treatability study samples
described at 40 CFR 261.4(e) to substantive regulation, and as a
consequence, to the one-time LDR notification requirement of 40
CFR 268.7(a)(6). The Agency did not intend such a result.
Instead, -he. Agency intended to specify that 40 CFR 261.5® should
be used to make generator quantity .determinations, and t,o specify
which washes are counted towards the quantity generated. In
addition, the Agency redrafted 40 CFR 261.5® to clarify that
hazardous waste generators are not required to count universal
wastes managed under Part 273 requirements toward the monthly
quantity calculation used to determine generator regulatory
status.
The Agency agrees that the revised 40 CFR 261.5® regulatory
language will need to be amended in order to reinstate the
previous provisions. Such a revision will require the Agency to
publish a technical correction in the Federal Register. The
Agency will do so in the near future. In the meantime, I will
inform the EPA Regional offices of this matter.
Itocyclod/RacycUbto . Printed win Vegetable Oil Based Inns on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsuner)
-------
If you have any further questions regarding this .matter,
please contact Bryan Groce of my staff at(202) 260-9550.
Sincerely yours,
Michael 1 Shapiro, Director
Offideybf Solid Waste
-------
UON
TECHNOLOGY MC Lafayette New Jeraey 0784a
P.O. Drawer 700
Lafayette, New
(201) 383-0800
August 25, "A995
Mr. Michael Shapiro
Director
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Envirormental Protection
401 M Streei, SW -
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Recent regulatory amendment to 40 CFR 261.5, May 11, 1995.
Dear Mr. 5h,ipiro:
As an instructor with Lion Technology Inc., I present many Hazardous Waste Management
workshops to thousands of people across the United States each year. It is therefore important
that I have a solid understanding of the details of the hazardous waste regulations.
I am writing to obtain clarification regarding a recent change to the hazardous waste regulations,
which was made as part of the "Universal Waste" rulemaking. I believe that certain regulatory
language was inadvertently omitted, which resulted in a change in the status of certain wastes
with regards to the Land Disposal Restriction regulations (LDRs).
In the May 11, 1995 Federal Register, EPA published the final rule for Universal Wastes. As part
of this rulemaking, the language of 40 CFR 261.5(c) was changed to specify that §261.5(c) is to
be used in making a generator's quantity determinations, and to specify which wastes were not
required to be counted towards the quantity generated.
Prior to this change, §261.5(c) stated:
"Haz;irdous waste that is not subject to regulation or that is subject only to
§262.11, §262.12, §262.40(c), and §262.41 is not included in the quantity
determinations of this Part and Parts 262 through 266, 268 and 270 and is not
subject to any of the requirements of those Parts." [Emphasis added]
In the Federal Register on March 24,1986, EPA explained that this was meant to address wastes
which met the definition of hazardous waste, but were never subject to "substantive regulation"
under RCRA. The term "not subject to substantive regulation" for the purposes of this provision
was discussed in some detail [51 FR 10152].
Under this previous regulatory language, a waste which was generated and then immediately
managed in CWA-regulated systems with no intervening RCRA-regulated accumulation or
management was not considered to be "subject to substantive regulation", and was therefore
excluded not only from the requirement to be counted towards a generator's monthly total, but
Continued...
-------
Mr. Michael Shapiro Page 2 of 2 August 25,1995
U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
was also excluded from the substantive requirements of the hazardous waste management
regulations. This meant that the waste was not subject to LDRs.
The same would be true of a hazardous waste that was generated directly into a reclamation
device, where it was regenerated for future use. The waste was not subject to substantive
regulation and was therefore "not subject to any of the requirements" of Parts 262-266,268 and
270. LDRs did not apply.
As a result of the May 11, 1995 Universal Waste rulemaking, §261.5(c) was changed such that
the language "hazardous waste that is not subject to regulation" and "is not subject to the
requirements of those Parts" was completely omitted. The current language of §261.5(c), as
modified by the Universal Waste rulemaking, changed the approach to this issue and instead
provides a list of the wastes that do not have to be counted when making quantity
determinations.
This means that these wastes are not required to be counted, but there is no provision that these
wastes are not subject to the rest of the hazardous waste regulations, as there was previously.
This would mean that a waste managed as described above would be subject to LDRs, and at a
minimum, a "one-time notice" would have to be prepared and maintained on file as required
by 40 CFR 268.7(a)(6).
I believe that the effect of this change regarding LDR status of these wastes is a substantive
regulatory change, and I believe that it was unintended. If it was the Agency's intent to change
this rule specifically so that these waste become subject to LDRs, this needs to be clarified
through proper rulemaking, as it was not discussed in the Universal Waste rulemaking.
Either way, I would like to know the Agency's position on this issue, as I have had and continue
to get questions on this issue from students in my workshops.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this issue. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
UON TECHNOLOGY INC.
William K. Taggart
------- |