The compilation of documents in this Compendium, as well
as the policies, procedures  and interpretations outlined
in the documents themselves, is intended solely for the
guidance  of   employees  of  the   U.S.   Environmental
Protection Agency.  This compilation may not include all
documents discussing Agency views on particular subjects.
In addition,  these documents are not intended and cannot
be  relied upon to create  any  rights, substantive  or
procedural,  enforceable by any party in litigation with
the  United  States.    The   views  expressed  in  these
documents do not necessarily reflect the current position
of  the Agency, and  EPA reserves  the  right to  act  at
variance with these views or to change them at any time
without public notice.

General OSW Policy And Procedures

ATKI/1104/12 kp

Hazardous Waste Management
System (Part 260)

9431 - GENERAL
Part 260 Subpart A
ATK1/1 10412kp

SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
Cr: ate ? ot.’ction St3nr arci5
1. uest o Do the efLnitions of up errnost aquifer and
uLfer inc1u e the top most saturated clay layer even though
i t stratum is net used as a groun water resource? 40 CFR 260. C.
.\rts er: Tro 26 July 1982 pr ar ble s.ag .sts that algnificant
yiel o çroun iater is ter %ined on a case by case basis,
dr en iru on site specific tactor . . Significant yield in the
outhwesr. is likely to be a !Duch loq.,er quantity than si;niftcant
ylol. In the I:act. In addition, the flow from a nuriber of well
systei s c. n e totaled in order to reach the Level of significance.
Thus, if the saturated. clay layer can produce a significant yeild
of groundwater frert a sin.;le well or fror a co inati rt of
wells, then that layer may et the ofinition of an aquifer.
If tnat layer is als the forr.ation nearest to the natural ground
snrface or is hydraulically interconnect.d to such a surtace.
it cets the efrnition of u;pe ost aquifer.

. aste M 2fllrtizat:or. ec..nre-rts
s t-e a s 5:: . aste inzat. :r -c era- :s recn:e ?
:- t. e .354 azarJous and Solid Waste kt en.±ner jts (p.5t j to t-te
esou.re Conservation and Recovery Act (ERA) ;section 3002), Concress
stated that as a natter of national policy, the generation of haza.r±ocs
waste should oe reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possiole.
Waste that is nevertheless generated should be treated, stored or
iispsei of so as to rrurunize the present arid future threat to hran
hea..tt and the env:ronrnent.
9ST.’U required that generators of a hazardous waste subrut a bienniaL
report to the Regional ASranistrator drach culd include: I ) efforts
•.nderta en during the year to reduce the vol’.xne and toxicity of waste
enerated, arid 2) the changes in vo1 re and toxicity of waste act alIy
a& eved during the year in carpaz-ison with previous years (Section
3002(a)(6)(A-C). £ffeesie Septeroer 1, 1385, generators had to ‘use a
-ranifest containing a certification by the generator that he had a
prcqrarn in place to reduce the volre or quantity and toxicity of
hazardous waste to the degree determined by the generator to be
econarucally practicable. The program rm st include a practicable
-ethol currently ava..1. lable to the generator whidi riu.nsmsze the present
and future threat to huran health and the envirorrent. Also effect:ve
Septe mber 1. 1985. any penn issued under Section 3004 of the Soii
Waste Disposal Act for the treat.-nent, storage or disposal of haz.ardoLs
waste must require that the perrruttee certify no less often than
annually that he has a pr’ gram in place to reduce the vol.re and
toxicity of hazardous waste that he generates to the degree determr.ine±
by the ceruttee to oe econaiucally practica.ole. The pentuttee’s
crooosed -aethod of treacment, storage or d sposal must include a
practicac.e rethai currently avai lable to him which nuninizes tne
present and future threat to huran h lth arid the envirorrent.
The tent “waste msrwtuzation” has been defined differently by different
organizations. The U.S. EPA. Ln its October 1986 Report to Congress or.
the rtirwnizanon of hazardous aste, defined waste urumizaton as:
“The reduction, to the extent feasible, of hazardous waste that
is generated or subsequently treated, stored. or disposed of.
It includes any source reduction or recycl:ng activity undertaken
by a generator that results in either: (1) the reduction of total
vo iLne or quantity of haz.arious waste or (2) the reduction of
toxicity of hazardous waste, or toth, so long as the reduction is
consistent with the goal of minimizing present and future threats
to 1 niran health and the envirornent. Waste mlnsr!uzation does not
include treatzrent of hazardous waste. t ’
Source: Elaine E2y (202) 475—7237
Research: Carla A. Rellergert

7. PA as’ e r..izatio’, Prc rar’ kC tiv ’tieE
what IS EPA currently doing in the area of waste nuL T.1zat .on?
ie oast ‘c ;ears, the Office of SOI as e as c e-
ii ie area cf .as e tn a .986 re — -c
c ress : eou :e •. 4 nder Section 8002Cr) of RC A. P stated nat
ce-r. ;es ft,r . .as-. e i.inization are strong and gring. Since
ata s scarce on existing waste nurwiuzation programs. EP
stated that it. .ould report tack to Congress in 1990 on the need
for Cci.i arid and control” regulations for ‘aste riurwruzation.
under Sect .on 6002(r) Congress had asked EPA to L k at desiraDillty
and feasibility of c ru .nd and control” regulations.
As it .s presently structured, the Agencys waste au .ru.mization
program has t’ . principle objectives: (1.) evaluate the need for
regulatior.s for waste r!urumlz.ation and present this evaluatLon
along with a ropriate rec rn endations in a report to Congress in
1990, and 12) foster the use of waste rniru .mizatlon through technology
transfer and inforrr tion d ss iunation activities. In order to
aclueve these coals, 05W developed its 1987 and 1988 Fiscal Year
programs to focus on gathering inforn tion and data to deter une
waste nu.rwiuzation trends arid to develop inforir tion diss runation
arid technology transfer activities.
Presently, W activities include:
(1) Revising the requir nent for a narrati e stat ent for waste
r’u-uiiuzatiori in Dierizual reports. The current fori t consists
of a “blanX page” with instructions to provide a “narrative
escription” of waste mi.ru.rru.zation activities. The revised
bienru.al report will consist of yes/no questions which will
indicate enerators awareness of waste rruru.rr.lzaticn, soecific
a estior.s about waste mirwnization techniques, a.nd voi e of
toxicity of data.
(2) initiating a c ip.iterized data and infon ticn retrieval
syst n for waste mj .nirnizatiori.
(3) DeveLoping waste minimization policy stat *nts which will be
non-binding and reflect EPA $ ideas on what does and does not
constitute waste rTu.rumization.
(4) Co-Sponsoring two meetings “ ationa1 Roundtable of State
Waste Reduction Programs” and Wcods Hole III “Waste Miru.m.ization
- The urdles ahead”.

I 1JLY 87
4. a oratorv Autht trsoection
ai-. is the La oratory Audit Inspection (LAX) Program?
The Resc&irce orser tion and ecovery t (RCRA) r uires the c3Qner/
cperator of a surface ir un ient, landfill or land treatment unit that
s used to manage hazardous ‘ aste to iirpl nent a ground water r autori.ng
pr rain capable of determining a facili.ty’s irrpact the upperncst
sow. fer. The thviromental Protection Agency has developed gui f.ance
tit .ed, R A Ground Water n..1toring Technical D forcenent Guidance
a ent (T D), hid details the technical aspects of qround-water
rron.itoring syst n design and ration dee ned in rtant by the Ager y to
ass st a gro d water rrorutoring syst to meet the goals of the RCRA
r ram. ce it has been established that the o 1 inerfoperator has
ately designed and constructed the ground rater n.itori.ng water
Sj5 1S and that these systa s are providing representative ground-c ’ater
sa.- es, EPA must confii that these sai ples are beirq properly analyzed.
The )ff ice of Waste Program forc nent ( #1PE), RA iforc erit Division,
s developi.ng a A Laboratory Audit Inspection (LAX) program. The
goal of the inspection program is to enable the nar/operator to
determine whether the laboratory that the ner/operator is using for
ground water sarrple analyses is properly equipped, maintained, and
staffed, and whether sarrples are properly logged and tracked throughout
the laboratory.
This ir.spection does not constitute a laboratory certifica 1 on for
purses of the CRA prz razn. It i si..mply iesigneti to confirm t at tne
1a oratory s capable of performing quality analysis ork for the ‘ner/
operators grourid-.wate r ror i tong program.
Soi..xce: Ned Pryor (202) 475—7033
Research: Caroline Canek

1. Definition of Used Oil
Nur ber 2 fuel oil is used to clean air filters and then is
burned for energy recovery. Is “used oil” subject to the
regulations of 40 CFR 266, Subpart E? If the substance used
for cleaning the air filters was gasoline, and then was
burned for energy recovery, would it be considered “used
oil “?
Currently, there is no more specific definition of
“used oil” than that found in RCRA Section 1004 and in
40 CFR 266.40(b). When the “used oil” technical
standards are proposed, a more specific definition of
“used oil” will be included in that proposal. EPA’s
current position is oil that has been refined from
crude oil, used as a lubricating hydraulic or heat
transfer fluid, and has become contaminated through
use, is a “used oil.” Petroleum distillates which have
been used only as cleaning agents, or only for their
solvent propertieB, would not be regulated as “used
oil” when burned for energy recovery or recycled in
some other manner. It is important to note that “used
oil” does not need to be a solid waste per Section
261.2 in order to be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C,
because the authority to regulate “used oil” is found
in Section 3014 of RCRA.
Source: Dave Tompton (202) 382-2550
Research: Becky Cuthbertson

i. Disposal of .‘lixed cicact e i- z ru us
A generator of a mixed radioactive and hazardous waste,
which is a listed hazardous waste with a pH below 2,
disposes of it on-site in a land disposal unit. The
disposal began in early 1986 and ended in the summer of
1987. The owner never submitted a Part A or Part B permit ‘°
application. The State in which the facility is located
became authorized for RCRA in late 1985, but is not
authorized to enforce HSWA provisions, and is not authorized
to regulate mixed waste. However, the State has its own
regulations regarding mixed waste. If the owner wants to
close the land disposal unit, will he be required to submit
a Part B permit application and conduct groundwater
monitor i ng?
According to the Federal Register of July 3, 1986 (51
FR 24504), mixed radioactive and hazardous waste is
subject to RCRA regulation. In a state which is
authorized to implement Subtitle C, the mixed waste
will not be subject to the Subtitle C authorized
program until the state becomes authorized to regulate
mixed waste; however, state regulations enforced under
state law would apply to the mixed waste. In addition,
if the facility contained a RCRA-regulated unit, and
was applying for its permit, EPA could use RCRA Section
3004(u) authority for releases of hazardous
constituents from solid waste management units (the
mixed radioactive and hazardous waste would be a solid
waste, per Section 261.2(b).
Once the State receives authorization to regulate mixed
radioactive and hazardous waste, the disposal unit
would become subject to the State’s authorized program
0 regulations, and would become subject to the HSWA
X provisions (which would be enforced by EPA until the
State gained authorization to implement HSWA
If the disposal unit was closed and was an inactive
facility prior to the date chosen by the State to be
z the interim status in existenceN date, the disposal
unit might not be subject to State Subtitle C
regulation unless the waste was subsequently managed in
a manner that would constitute treatment, storage, or
disposal. However, if State law does not otherwise
prohibit it, the State could elect not to grandfather
any inactive mixed waste units. A State could do this
because a State RCRA program can be broader in scope
than the Federal program. Thus, a State could choose
to regulate inactive units in some manner.
If the disposal unit was still an active facility on
the date the State selects as its interim status in
existenceu date. which can be no later than the date on
which the State’s authorization to regulate mixed waste
became effective, the facility would need to submit a

3. Disposal of Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous Waste
Part A permit application within the timeframe
specified in the State’s regulations or statute to
qualify for interim status.
Depending on the regulatory dates selected by the
State, closure of the disposal unit could occur while
the facility was under interim status. State law on
closure, post-closure permits, and groundwater
monitoring will control.
Source: Betty Shackleford (202) 382-2221
Research: Becky Cuthbertson

_____ WASHINGTON, 0 C Z0460

JUN 2 6 geg
Peter R. Simon, M.D., M.P.H.
Assistant Meical Director
Division of Family Heath
Cannon Building
Davis Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908-5097
Dear Dr. Simon:
Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1989, regarding the
potential effect of the leach testing procedure on programs
designed to remove lead-contaminated soils from residential
Under existing solid waste regulations, if a contaminated
soil is removed from a site, the generator must determine
whether the soil is contaminated by a hazardous waste and thus
must be managed as a hazardous waste. (Contaminated soil that
is left in place is not subject to any hazardous waste
management requirements, including any testing.) This
determination can be made either by testing the waste
containing soil or through knowledge of the composition of the
waste soil. If the soil is deemed to contain a hazardous
waste, it must be managed under the Subtitle C regulations of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RcRA).
RCRA requires that regulatory decisions regarding a
hazardous vasts take into account the potential risks to human
health and th. environment posed by mismanagement of the waste.
The Envirouasntal Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that a
municipal landfill, which doe. not have design and operating
standard. a. stringent as those under Subtitle C of RCRA, is
not an appropriat, site for disposal of hazardous waste. Under
the existing statutory and regulatory framework, hazardous
waste generated as a result of cleanups at industrial and
residential sites are subject to the same management standards.

AS you know, EPA also has authority to clean up releases
of hazardous materials under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and I4ability Act, more popularly known
as “Superfund. 0 superfund, like RCRA, requires cleanups to
protect human health and the environment. Furthermore, unless
certain exceptions apply, Superfund cleanups must comply with
requirements from other environmental statutes, such as RCRA,
when those requirements are “applicable” to the Superfund
activities. The Superfund statute also encourages compliance
with these other laws where they do not apply, but are
“relevant” or “appropriate” to the clean—up action. Currently,
EPA follows the rules outlined above to determine whether the
hazardous material at a Superfund site is a RCRA hazardous
waste -- in other words, we test the material or determine
whether it is hazardous based on knowledge of its composition.
If the material were a RCRA waste, RCRA standards would
probably be “applicable,” and disposal in a municipal landfill
would not be acceptable.
You have expressed concern that EPA has proposed to change
its regulatory test for determining whether a waste is toxic
hazardous waste. Section 3001(g) of the 1984 amendments to
RCRA specifically directed EPA to examine the extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity test as a predictor of the leaching
potential of waste and to make necessary changes to improve its
accuracy. In June 1986 (see 51 21648), the Agency proposed
to require a new, more precise, leaching procedure, using a
buffered solution instead of an acid titration, to determine
whether a waste is characteristically hazardous based upon its
toxicity. This test, the toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP), is more precise than the original EP toxicity
test. A second notice (53 18792, May 24,
1988) provided additional information and opportunity for
comment on the TCLP. When the toxicity characteristic proposal
is promulgated as a final rule, the TCLP will supersede the EP
We ar. aware that under certain conditions the TCLP may be
somewhat more aggressive than the EP toxicity test. For this
reason, we irs gathering information on the relationship
between t two test procedures. We would like to ensure that
the test p scsdur•. we use to determine whether a waste is
hazardous .ppropriat.ly model our reasonable worst-case
mismanagement scenario -— in the case of the toxicity
characteristic, management of a hazardous waste in a municipal

At this time, we are working closely with EPA Region I
officials to assess the possible implications of applying the
TCLP to lead—contaminated soils. I encourage you to provide us
with any information you may have that compares the results of
the two procedures on identical lead—contaminated soil samples.
We will be using these data in our continuing efforts to
improve the accuracy and reproducibility of our test
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us. To keep up
to date on our progress regarding this matter, we suggest that
you contact Gerry Levy, Branch Chief of Massachusetts Waste
Management, in our Region I office. Mr. Levy can be reached
at (617) 573—5720.
Sincerely yours,
J Jonathan Z. Canr n
Acting Assistant Administrator

SEP 2 6 !389
Mr. Jeffrey J. Wells
Regulatory Consultant
HazMat Environmental Group Inc.
P.O. Box 676
Buffalo, NY 14217
I -.
Dear Mr. Wells:
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 1989, requesting
verification of your interpretation regarding the wastewater treat-
ment unit exemption. Specifically, you are seeking confirmation
that a facility, which operates a wastewater treatment unit that
discharges to a POTW as defined in section 260.10, may also receive
and treat wastewater from any off—site source and not affect the
exemption under which the unit operates.
As you pointed out in your letter, in the September 2) 1988
Federal Register notice (53 34079), EPA stated that the
applicability of the exemption does not depend on whether the on-
site wastewater treatment facility also treats wastewater generated
off-site. As long as the facility accepting and treating the
wastewater from an off—site source does not violate the conditions
of its NPDES permit or pretreatment agreement, it is the Agency’s
intent to allow a facility to operate with this exemption.
Of course, as also discussed in the same notice, any storage or
treatment tank system used to manage the wastewater at the
generator’s facility, prior to shipment to the off-site exempted
wastewater treatment unit, is not eligible for the wastewater
treatment unit exemption.
Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your
letter. If you should have any further questions regarding this
issue, please call me at (202) 475—9614.
William J. Kline
Environmental Scientist
cc: Chester Oszman, PSPD
Kirsten Engel, OGC
Randy Hill, OGC

June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Management of Test Samples as Hazardous Waste
FROM: Howard Wilson, Manager
Environmental Compliance Program
TO: Environmental Compliance Managers
This memo is intended to clarify a letter from the EPA’s
Office of Solid Waste on the management of laboratory samples
under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (40 CFR Part 261).
According to 40 CFR Part 261.4 (d)(1), samples collected
solely for the purposes of testing are exempted from the
regulations for hazardous waste management. I would like to
emphasize that this is a qualified exemption. The samples are
exempt from regulation as long as they meet any of the following
conditions contained in 261.4 Cd) (1) (i..vi):
(i) Being transported from the collector to the
(ii) Being transported from the laboratory back to the
collector following testing
(iii) Being stored at the collector waiting to go to the
(iv) Being stored at the laboratory before being tested
(v) Being stored at the laboratory after being tested
but before being returned to the collector
(vi) Being stored at the laboratory for a specific
purpose after being tested (i.e. for a court case
in which the sample is evidence, etc.)
Regulation 261.4 (d) (3) states that the exemption does not ap 1y
if the laboratory determines the waste is hazardous and the
conditions listed above are no longer being met.
According to 40 CFR Part 261.5 (a), facilities that generate
less than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste or 1 kg/mo of acute
hazardous waste are exempt from hazardous waste regulations.
This exemption is also conditional, based on a generator’s
compliance with the following:
This document has been retyped from the original.

o Determining if their waste is hazardous; this is
required by 261.5 (b), which references 261.5 (g),
which cites 262.11.
o Disposing of their waste at a facility authorized to
accept it; this is required by 261.5 (f) (3) and 261.5
(g) (3).
Generators of less than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste would also
be subject to RCRA requirements under regulation 262.34 if they
accumulate, for the purpose of disposal, greater than 1000 kg of
hazardous waste.
In summary, samples held for testing need not be
managed as hazardous waste while they are being tested. Once
they are determined to be waste, a determination of whether the
waste is hazardous must be made if it hasn’t been already. If
the waste is determined to be a hazardous waste, it must be
managed in full compliance with all applicable regulations,
including 40 CFR Parts 261.5 and 262.11.
This document has been retyped from the original.

NOV 5 1990
NOTE TO: Sylvia Lowrance
THROUGH: Dev Barnes
FROM: Susan Absher
SUBJECT: Yakima Indian Nation Involvement in R RA Program
Decisionmaking on Tribal and Ceded Lands
We recently received a memorandum from Region X concerning
an issue raised by an Indian Tribe during the public comment
period of a Washington State program revision decision. The
Yakima Indian Nation (YIN) raised the question of Federal and
State laws and regulations that allegedly affect YIN Treaty
rights under the Treaty of 1855. Under that Treaty the YIN ceded
land to the United States Government (land, which subsequently
became 25.4% of the State of Washington), and the U.S. Government
guaranteed the YIN certain rights (fishing, hunting, etc., at
“all usual and accustomed places”). The YIN have expressed
concern that current and future HWMFs may “affect the Yakima way
of life, its cultural resources, the freedom to practice religion
on tribal and ceded lands , or the promises guaranteed in the
Treaty of 1855” (emphasis added).
At this time the YIN has not asserted any legal claim but is
requesting the opportunity to be involved on a “government—to—
government” basis in RCRA program decisionmaking on tribal and
ceded lands. The Tribe also wishes to be assured that their
Treaty rights are not disregarded by agreements between EPA and
the State. Finally, the YIN believe that EPA and the State must
provide technical and financial assistance to the YIN to develop
the ability needed to protect their Treaty rights and resources.
The Washington revision program decision has become
effective. Region Xwrote the YIN agreeing to explore the
“ceded” land issue, and has sent information on the issue to OGC.
Region X ORC has the lead on researching the issue further. We
will track developments through the Region and OGC.
The Tribe’s claim of an interest in “ceded” land is
interesting. One of the fundamental cases of U.S. Indian law,
U. S. v. Winans , 198 U.S. 371 (1905), was brought by the U.S., in
behalf of the YIN, to ensure the Tribe’s fishing rights under
that same Treaty, on “ceded.” and now State/private land. In

that decision “the Indians were given a right in the (ceded] land
— the right of crossing it to the river - the right to occupy it
to the extent and for the purpose mentioned (in the Treaty] •0
is unlikely that fishing and hunting rights can be broadened to
general environmental rights in the “ceded” lands, but it is
certainly possible that a court could so rule, especially in the
event a HWMP were to be proposed near one of the “usual and
accustomed places.”
cc: Jeff Denit
Matt Hale
Suzanne Rudzinski
Karen Morley
Judi Kane

M R 26 1991
SUBJECT: Fate and Transport Model
FROM: David Bussard
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I—X
This memorandum concerns the possible use (or misuse) of a
subsurface fate and transport model (EPA’S Composite Model for
Landfills, EPACML) which was developed by the Office of Solid
Waste (OSW) for the Toxicity Characteristic Final Rule (55 FR
11798, March 29, 1990).
The EPACML was developed for national regulatory purposes
and is implemented using the Monte Carlo procedures. The model
is not intended for site-specific use, since it is not designed
to simulate site heterogeneities and irregular site boundaries.
This is pointed out in the User’s Manual for the model.
The OSW is now in the process of proposing to adopt the
EPACML for use in evaluating delisting petitions. In this use,
we plan to propose the continued implementation of the model on a
nationwide basis, although in a modified form. The final
implementation procedure will depend on the nature of comments we
receive on our forthcoming Federal Register Notice, which is
expected to be published later this year. This intended use of
the model has significantly increased interest in its use for
site—specific purposes. We understand that in some instances EPA
Regional staff have recommended using the model in connection
with Corrective Action at a particular site.
We would like to discourage these applications of the EPACML
and ask that you inform your staff working on RCRA as well as
Superfund sites appropriately. We would be happy to assist your
staff ir*’locating a model which is suitable for use on a site-
specific basis. Please contact Dr. Zubair Saleem of my staff at
FTS-382—4767 with any questions on EPACML or on suitable models
for site-specific applications.
cc: Jeffrey Denit

MAY 9 I99
SUBJECT: Application of TC Compliance Date Extension to Shell
Oil Company’s Wood River, Illinois Facility
FROM: Sylvia I C. Lowrance, Direct . .. J—_.-
Of f ice of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Ulirich, Director
Waste Management Division
We have carefully reviewed your March 19 memorandum and
attachments regarding Shell Oil Company’s Wood River facility in
light of our recent action to extend the Toxicity Characteristic
compliance date for hydrocarbon recovery operations at petroleum
refineries. While we understand that someone may view the
operations at Wood River as somewhat similar to the operations
addressed in the proposed (and now final) action-—see 56 FR
13406, April 2, 1991--the subject wastestream and waste
management unit are, in fact, significantly different and cannot
reasonably be interpreted to fall within the scope of the
extended compliance date.
First, in our discussions with the petroleum industry
regarding application of the TC rule to hydrocarbon recovery
operations with reinjection components, we were made aware that
treatment of the extracted petroleum—bearing groundwaters (e.g.,
removal of naturally occurring minerals) prior to reinjection can
esu1t in the production of additional wastestreams, some of
which exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic. Issues associated
with the management of these additional wastestreams were given
consideration, but these wastestreams were never considered to be
within the scope of the “groundwaters” for which the compliance
date was extended. More specifically, we concluded that these
treatment wastestreams could and should be managed under RCRA
interim status provisions. This is different in the case of
reinjection of extracted groundwater, given the statutory
requirements of RCRA Section 3020. Because of Section 3020 anc’
the impossibility of receiving the required UIC permit, the
reinjection wells could no longer be operated. It is these
rein) ection wells, and not treatment wastestreams, that are the
subject of the extended compliance date. These treatment waste
materials are considered as separate from the groundwater stream,
Pnnted on Recycled Paper

as they are more appropriately defined as treatment sludges per
40 CFR 260.10.
As to the Wood River Solid Waste Disposal Basin (SWDB) as an
infiltration gallery, note that the final compliance date
extension applies only to injection wells. Infiltration
galleries are not included and have been provided with six months
to comply with Subtitle C requirements. However, this six-month
compliance date would not apply to the SWDB since the leaking of
a disposal impoundment, which is designed to contain materials,
is substantially different from the intended design and operation
of an infiltration gallery. Thus, the SWDB would not be
considered as an infiltration gallery for purposes of TC
compliance dates.
Should you have any further questions regarding the
background or scope of the TC compliance date extension for
certain hydrocarbon recovery operations, feel free to contact
Dave Topping of my staff at FTS 382-7737.

MAY 1 1 7 1991
Honorable John D. Dingell
Subcommittee on Oversight and nvestig .tions
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of February 12, 1991, requesting
information about the progress of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act’s (RCRA’s) corrective action program, and the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) current approach and
future plans for managing this program. I appreciate the
opportunity to respond to thes. important issues.
To provide the facility-specific information you have
requested, we have initiated a considerable effort within our
headquarters and regional offices. A substantial amount of
data will also need to be obtained from state agencies. Due
to the volume of this information and our desire to respond as
completely and as accurately as possible to your questions, we
were not able to fully respond to your letter by the March 29
date that you requested. As my staff indicated in a recent
telephone conversation with Deborah Jacobsen, the Subcommittee
Counsel, we are in the process of collecting this information.
We will b• able to give you a complet, and detailed response in
I would like to take this opportunity, nevertheless, to
address a number of issues that you raised in your letter. These
include EPA’s long-term action plan and budgetary strategy for
implementing corrective actions at RCRA facilities, EPA’S plans
for seeking statutory changes to RCRA in the area of corrective
action, EPA’s timetable for publishing the final corrective
action rul., and EPA’S plans and budget for meeting the 1992
deadlina for issuing permits to storage and treatment facilities.
vv.a on Recycled Pa

.ong—Tsra Pisa for CorrectLy. Action
Our recently published RCPA Im 1ementation Study outlined
a long-term strategy for managing the corrective action program.
Over the past several months, we have been working to put the
components of this strategy into place through the following
DeveloDment of a Consistent National System for Settinc
This new national system is ire idy being implemented in
several EPA regions. It’ uses standard decision c riteria to
evaluate specific environmental data, and generates high—,
medium—, and low-priority rankings for faci3ities. By October
1991, we expect to have completed setting prio?ities for all
facilities that are currently in thc. “pipeline” (i.e., pursuing
corrective action under enforcement actions or permits). All
remaining facilities for which preliminary environmental
assessments have been completed will bs ranked by April 1992.
Acceleration of the Znvironm.ntal Priorities Initiative
The EPI is an integrated RCRA-Sup.rfund effort to identify
and evaluate sites that present the greatest risks to human
health and the environment. As noted in the RCRA Implementation
Study , this program has experienced initial start-up problems.
However, beginning in FT 1992, EPA will expand this effort to
greatly increase ths number of facilities assessed, and to
broaden the scope of the assessments performed to generate
additional data for purposes of ranking. At this time, we are
developing detailed plans and schedules for each EPA region for
implementing the EPI in FT 1992 and beyond.
Development of a Stratecv for Stabilizina RCRA Facilities
We ar. currently developing a set of operating directives
and technical guidance documents to focus interim msasures at
facilities to r.duce existing exposures to contamination and to
prevent the contamination from spreading. Although fully
implementing this new program direction will be a longer-term
effort, we expect that it viii enable the program to accelerate
the overall pace of cleanups, by initiating remedial activities
at a faster rate at a greater number of facilities. For FT 1992,
we expect to be identifying potential candidates for interim
measures and to expedite the collection of the data needed to
evaluate RIA facilities (those facilities &t the RYA stage of the
corrective action process) for stabilization measures.

Differential Oversight
In May 1991 we will be issuing guidance for use by the EPA
regions and the states to tailor their oversight approaches for
implementing corrective actions, as appropriate to site—specific
Eudget strategy for Corrective Action
EPA’S proposed Fl 1992 budget for RC A correctiv, action and
the RCRA—Superfund EPI effort is as follows:
EPA Regions: 169 full-time employtes (FTEs)
$22.3 million (extramur 1 funds)
EPA Headquarters: 28.5 FTEs
$3 million
State Grants: $14.2 million
EPI: 16.6 FTEs
$18.3 million
There was a relatively small decrease in regional FrEs in
Fl 1992 from Fl 1991 levels (about 17 FTEs). However, EPI
resources in Fl 1992 were increased over FT 1991 EPI resource
levels by 4.9 FTEs and $5.8 million. When FT 1992 EPI resources
are factored into the total Corrective Action Program resources
for Fl 1992, there is a net loss to the Corrective Action Program
of 12.6 FEE. and a net gain of $5.4 million in extramural
resources. In addition to the above resources, several
corrective actions will tak. place under the Great Lakes
Initiativ, as well.
These resource levels reflect the high level of importance
that EPA attaches to the Corrective Action Program. At the same
time, in managing the national hazardous waste program, we must
strike an appropriate resource balance between RcRA’s mandates
for both cleanup and prevention. The FT 1992 RCRA Implementation
Plan, which should be released shortly, will describe in more
detail hay EPA intends to rank the environmental priority of all
facilities in the R A universe and balance priorities between
corrective action and other program activities. We exp.ct,
however, to reevaluate the resource needs for corrective action
over the next two to three years, as vs gather mere definitive
data on the number of facilities requiring cleanup, and the
severity of their environmental problems. At that time, EPA will
be better able to assess the effectiveness, and th. resource
implications, of the corrective action management strategy
outlined above.

The results of the forthcoming Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for the corrective action rule will also be useful in
establishing the program’s resourc. needs. The RIA will evaluate
the costs and human health and environmental benefits associated
with different regulatory options for implementing the corrective
action program. Among many other things, it will specifically
address how the timing of corrective action affects both the
costs and the benefits of this program.
The RCRA corrective action program is clearly in a
transition phase. In light of this, we agree that the “outyear
scenarios” that we provided to the Subcommittee in igag are o
longer accurate projections of our longer-term expectations for
implementing the program. Although we are unsurs at this early
stage of implementation of precisely how adopting our tre. o y
will change these outyear scenarios, we can see that it will
alter th. fundamental assumptions we used to develop those
earlier projections. Once we have completed the prioritization
effort and the other analyses now under way, we will provide you.
with our new assumptions and our updated multiyear projections. “
Potential Statutory Changes
At this time, EPA is examining a number of potential changes
to the statute, in the context of a possible reauthorization of
RCRA in the coming months. Relating to corrective action, we are
analyzing approaches to statutory and regulatory requirements for
managing rem.diation wastes. We are also considering options for
changing the existing procedural Subtitle C permit requirements
as they apply to cleanup actions to accelerate and create more
incentives for privat, party cleanup actions.
Timetable for Publishing the Rule
As outlined in the Federal Reaister preambl. to the proposed
“Subpart S” rule (published July 27, 1990), EPA has committed
itself to conducting a revised RU for this rule. Before
finalizing the rule, vs will publish the results of this major
new analysis for notic. and comment. We will provide you with a
detailed status report and description of this RIA effort in our
follow-up xsspon.. to your letter. In short, however, we expect
to be able to publish the results of the new analysis no sooner
than June 1992. The final rul, should be published within one
year thereafter, or by June 1993.
1992 Deadline for Issuing Per*its
As of March 12, 1991, permitting decisions were made at ever
1,000 treatment and sterag. facilities. Of these determinations,
more than 900 permits were issued, and 64 permits wars denied.
We have approximately 850 remaining R RA Part B applications to
process for treatment and storage facilities, and just over 1,700

facilities are not pursuing RCRA permits (i.e., they did not file
Part B applications and/or are on track to close).
As you know, the RCBA Imolementation Study noted that the
1992 deadline for issuing permits to treatment and storage
facilities constrains EPA’S efforts to focus the program’s
resources on those facilities that pos. the highest risks to
human health and the environment. We believe strongly that it is
EPA’s responsibility to allocate the program’. resources in such
a way as to maximize the environmental benefits to be gained.
Our draft Fl 1992 RCRA program guidance establishes a priority-
setting framework - for the RCRA program, and we expect to be
evaluating the environmental priority of all RCRA facilities
beginning this year and ending in mid-FT 1992. Accordingly, we
plan to continue making permit determinations at treatment and
storage facilities to the extent that determinations at thesc
remaining facilities are a high environmental priority.
Although we recognize the importance of substantial prog:ess
in issuing permits to storage and treatment facilities, it is ou
responsibility as managers of this program to balance that goal;’
against the many other environmental priorities that place
demands on the program’s capabilities. We will rank corrective
action needs at these facilities using the national priority
ranking system discussed earlier.
* a *
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to these
important issues. We look forward to sending you th. remainder
of the information that you have requested in June. In the
meantime, please do not hesitat. to contact me if you have any
Sincerely yours,
Don R. C].
Assistant Administrator

9431. 1993(01)
JUL 2 8 1993 O FICEOF
Mr. Kevin Igli
Chemical Waste Management, inc.
3001 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, IL 60821
Dear Mr. Igli:
You requested a clarification of whether the triple-rinsing requirement found at
40 CFR 261.7(a)(3) applies to containers holding residues from the incineration of acute
hazardous wastes. ‘You argue that the triple rinsing requirement should not apply to
these residues because incineration eliminates the hazardous constituents in the acute
hazardous wastes.
The triple rinsing requirement (40 CFR 261.7 (a)(3)) does apply to containers
holding residues from the incineration of acute hazardous waste. EPA does not agree
that residue from acute hazardous (e.g., P-listed waste) can be reclassified as other than
P-listed waste under the current Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste regulations. Our general policy is that a waste’s code designation
carries through to residuaLs from treating or otherwise managing that waste.
As you are aware, the hazardous waste regulations allow the use of an alternative
cleaning method in place of triple-rinsing. The regulations in 40 CFR 261.7(b)(3)
describe the conditions under which a container that has held acute hazardous waste
(e.g., P-Listed waste) becomes empty. If “the container or inner liner has been cleaned by
another method that has been shown in the scientific literature, or by tests conducted by
the generator, to achieve equivalent removal”, then the container is empty (40 CFR
26].7(b)(3)(ii)). EPA requires no formal approval process if an alternative cleaning
method is used to empty the container 1 and no variance is necessary under the federal
regulations when using alternative cleaning methods pursuant to 40 CFR 261.7 (b)(3)(ii).
We would suggest that if you do use an alternate cleaning method, you document the
method used and keep this record as part of your facility’s operating record.
Please note that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6926) individual
States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste programs
in lieu of the federal program. When States are not authorized to administer their own
n,, .,,.

program, the appropriate EPA Region administers the program and is the appropriate
contact for any case-specific determinations. Please also note that under Section 3009 of
RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6926) States retain authority to promulgate regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. If you have
questions specific to a particular site, contact the appropriate State or EPA Regional
If you have further questions, please contact Allen Maples of my staff at (202)260-
855 1. Thank you for your interest in the safe management of hazardous waste.
.Jeffery D. Denit,
Acting Director,
Office of Solid Waste

_____ WASHINGTON. D C 20460
JU7 21994
Mr. Tony M. Margiotta
Kleen-Rite, Inc.
4444 Gustine Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63116
Dear Mr. Margiotta:
Thank you for your letter dated February 18, 1994, concerning the Hydro-Mist unit
used in the treatment of wastewater at drycleanrng facilities. I apologize for the delay in
responding to your letter. In your letter you specifically requested a “letter of approval”
from the U.S. EPA for the Hydro-Mist process. Let me begin by clarifying that our office
is riot able to certify, endorse, or otherwise “approve” specific technologies, but we
sometimes are able to provide information on how your technology would be regulated
under the hazardous waste regulations, and I hope this will be helpful to you.
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) responded in writing to an inquiry last June
regarding evaporator units and the applicability of the hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In that letter dated June 2, 1993,
from Sylvia Lowrance to Mr. William Fischer (of the International Fabricare Institute), we
stated that the evaporator units described to us by the drycleaning industry representatives
met the definition of wastewater treatment unit (WWTU) in 40 CFR 260.10, and as such
were exempt from federal hazardous waste permitting requirements per 40 CFR 261 .4(g)(6).
Based upon the information you provided to Mr. Ross Elliott of my staff over the
telephone. it appears that you are interested in a determination as to whether or not the
operation of the Hydro-Mist unit is comparable to other types of evaporator units, with
respect to the federal hazardous waste regulations under RCRA. The principal issue
requiring clarification is the mechanism by hich the wastewater is eliminated: the Hydro-
Mist unit uses an atomization or misting technique to eliminate drycleaning wastewater,
while other types of wastewater evaporators use heat to evaporate the water.
One of the conditions of the WWTU exemption is that wastewater meeting the
definition of hazardous waste is “treated” in a tank. EPA defines “treatment” rather broadly
under RCRA (40 CFR 260.10), but “evaporation” is not specifically defined. According to
the information you provided, after treating the perchiorethylene-contaminated wastewater
with carbon adsorption, the Hydro-Mist unit uses an atomization process that releases the
treated water into the ambient air in very small droplets, where evaporation of these
Q ’ Recycled/Recyclable
‘) (‘ Prtrlted will, SoyCanola ni, on aoer ai
contain. at least 50% ‘ecycied i.øer

droplets occurs. With respect to the definition of “treatment” as Lt would apply under the
WWTU exemption, we see no difference between the evaporation of water from a tanic
using elevated temperatures, and the evaporation of very small water droplets at ambient
temperatures using an atomization technique. Therefore, provided the unit meets the other
criteria for the WWTU exemption as outlined in § 260.10, the use of atomization would not
preclude the unit from being eligible for the WWTU exemption.
Finally, I would like to point out that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
Section 6926), individual States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own
hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal program. Please also note that under
Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. If a
State agency authorized to implement the RCRA hazardous waste program does not
recognize the wastewater treatment unit exemption, or is regulating WWTUs more
stringently or broader in scope than the federal program, the authority exists for that State
to deal with the situation directly.
I hope this information helps to clarify the issue you raised concerning your Hydro-
Mist unit. If you have any questions, please call Ross Elliott of my staff at 202-260-8551.
Thank you for your interest in the safe management of solid and hazardous waste.
Michael J. Pe ska, Chief
Regulatory Development Branch
Office of Solid Waste

_____ WASHrNGTON. D.C. 20460
.‘ p i
NOV 9431.1994(02)
SUBJECT: E*ide Co orp. .i 1 n Prop sed Fuming/Gasification Unit
FROM: ,. D
Off c of Solid Waste (5301)
TO: Marcia Parisi Vickers
Associate Division Director
Office of RCRA Programs, Region III (3HW03)
This is in response to your September 29, 1993, memo
requesting a Headquarters’ determination as to whether the RCRA
regulations apply to a fuming/gasification unit that Exide
Corporation proposes to build adjacent to its existing lead
smelting facility near Reading, Pennsylvania. In particular, you
ask if the device would be subject to RCRA regulations, and, if
so would it be classified as an incinerator, industrial furnace,
or miscellaneous treatment unit (i.e., Subpart X unit). Further,
you asked, if the device is considered to be a Subpart X unit,
how would the permitting priorities established under the
Combustion Strategy relate to the Exide facility? The remainder
of this memo provides some basic information that needs to be
considered in making a decision and then provides our response to
your questions.
Description of the Process . As we understand, the fuming!
gasification device would use a plasma arc to process lead-
contaminated soil and soil mixed with spent battery casings.
Lead and organic compounds would be vaporized in the device and
exhausted to the afterburner section of an existing reverberatory
furnace. The reverberatory furnace and its afterburner is used
for secozid ry lead smelting and would qualify for the metals
recovery exemption under the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (ElF)
rule. The afterburner would serve to destroy the organics in the
exhaust from the plasma arc device and the lead would be captured
(i.e., by condensation onto particulates and gas cleaning for
particulate matter) and returned as feed to the reverberatory
furnace for processing into salable product. The inorganic soil
fractions that do not vaporize would be tapped off as slag.
£j RecycledlRecyclable
Q P4lflted wiffi $oWCanoIl Ink Or, Ospe’ aI
contains si tea,* O% recyc e rib ..

Classification of Devices vs Process Trains . Given that the
off-gas from the plasma arc device would be vented to an existing
secondary lead smelter, previous guidance would require that we
evaluate the classification of the new device - - that is, the
fuming/gasification unit - - for determinations such as interim
status eligibility, when applicable. For determining what
regulatory standards and permit conditions should be applied, we
would look at the process train in which the device would be
incorporated (i.e., the plasma arc, secondary lead smelter, and
afterburner). This guidance describes how the regulations apply
to combustion devices at a facility where: (1) more than one
device type (e.g., incinerator, industrial furnace, Subpart X
unit) is connected in a process train: (2) the emissions from the
connected devices emanate from a single stack; and (3) each
device is separately burning or processing hazardous waste. See
my July 29, 1994, memorandum to Allyn Davis (copy attached).
As discussed in that memo, a case-by-case determination
needs to be made to identify the standards, and permit conditions
that should apply to the process train in its entirety. For
purposes of making interim status determinations, the
classification of the individual device must be determined
separately. Since there is no issue with respect to the
eligibility of the new device to qualify for interim status, that
evaluation need not be made and is not discussed further in this
memo. -
Evaluation of the Process Train . The process train would be
comprised of the existing reverberatory furnace with its
afterburner and the new plasma arc device that is also connected
to the afterburner. The question is whether the new plasma arc
device would affect the regulatory standards and permit
conditions applicable to the process train. In this particular
case, we believe the first step is to look at how we would
classify the plasma arc/afterburner portion of the process train
if it were a separate unit. If it would not be classified as an
industrial furnace, we then need to determine what regulations
are applicable to a process train comprised of an industrial
furnace and some other device (i.e., the plasma arc/afterburner).
Given that the plasma arc device would be vented to an
afterburirer- that uses controlled flame combustion, that portion
of the process train would meet the definition of an incinerator,
industrial furnace, or theoretically, a boiler, as those devices
are defined in §260.10. Thus, this part of the process train
would not be classified or regulated under Subpart X, Part 264,
if it were a separate unit. Further, this portion of the process
train would not be classified as a boiler because energy is not
recovered and exported. Consequently, this portion of the
process train would be classified as either an incinerator or
industrial furnace depending on how it would be operated.

We have previously determined that a retorter is a type of
pyrornetallurgical device that meets the definition of smelting,
melting, or refining furnace. See my December 17, 1993,
memorandum to Joseph Franzmathes (copy attached). In the
metallurgical industry, a retorter is a furnace consisting of a
fire chamber in which metals are recovered by vaporization and
subsequent condensation. The plasma arc/afterburner portion of
the process train would meet the definition of a retorter if:
(1) wastes or materials fed into the device contained
economically recoverable levels of lead (see 56 FR 7143 (Feb. 21,
1991)); (2) Exide is in the business of producing lead for public
sale, whether to an ultimate user or for further reprocessing or
manufacture (see generally, §260.10 (definition of industrial
furnace); see also EPA Region VI, Statement of Basis for Denial
of Permit Application by Marine Shale Processors, Inc., Sept. 15,
1994, p. 6 (devices on enumerated list of industrial furnaces
must still be operating as an integral component of a
manufacturing process to be an industrial furnace)): and (3)
significant levels of lead are recovered. If any of these
criteria are not met, this portion of the process train would
meet the definition of incinerator.
If it is determined that the plasma arc/afterburner portion
of the process train would be an industrial furnace and if it
were a separate unit, then the entire process train (i.e.,
including the secondary lead smelter) would be regulated as an
industrial furnace. The emission standards and exemptions for
industrial furnaces would apply. If the plasma arc/afterburner
portion of the process train is determined to meet the definition
of an incinerator, however, then the evaluation of what
regulations would apply is more complex.
Would the Process Train Be Sublect to RCRA Reaulation ? If
the plasma arc/afterburner portion of the process train meets the
above criteria, then the entire process train would be classified
as a smelting, melting, or refining industrial furnace. In this
case, even though §260.10 defines a plasma arc incinerator as
“any enclosed device using a high intensity electrical discharge
or arc as a source of heat followed by an afterburner using
controlled flame combustion and which is not listed as an
industrial furnace,” the plasma arc/afterburner portion of the
process t- a-i-n would meet the definition of an industrial furnace.
The process train would be conditionally exempt from the Boiler
and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule if it met the exemption
criteria in §266.100(c) pertaining to levels of recoverable
metals, heating value, and concentration of toxic organic
compounds in the hazardous waste feed. Such exempt metals
recovery facilities are not subject to RCRA permit requirements
for combustion air emissions.
If the plasma arc/afterburner portion of the process train
does not meet the above criteria, the entire process train would

be subject to the incinerator standards of Subpart 0, Part 264.
This is because the devices (e.g., reverberatory furnace and
plasma arc device) share a common afterburner and stack and the
plasma arc device is burning or processing hazardous waste.
Given that the reverberatory furnace portion of the process train
is conditionally exempt from the BIF rule, the incinerator
standards would be the only applicable standards.
Permitting Priority for the Device . The permitting
priorities of the draft Waste Minimization and Combustion
Strategy, issued in May 1993, relate to Regional and State
efforts to work on permit applications submitted by RCRA
facilities that combust hazardous industrial process wastes. To
the extent that a combustion facility handles only remediation
wastes (under either RCRA or Superfund), the priorities under the
draft Strategy are not applicable. In addition, in a memorandum
of May 9, 1994, Assistant Administrator Elliott Laws clarified
that the Agency’s shift of RCRA permit priorities did not mean
that incineration should not be considered in assessing Superfund
remedies. For further information on Superfund issues, please
contact John Smith, Chief, Design and Construction Management
Branch, Hazardous Site Control Division, at (703) 603-8830.
I hope that this information will be helpful. If your staff
have questions or would like to further discuss the issues, they
may contact Mr. H. Scott Rauenzahn at 703-308-8477.
Attachments (2)
M. Straus
S. Silverman
S. Sasseville
P. Borst
B. Holloway
S. Rauenzahn

Part 260 Subpart B
ATK1/1104/13 kp

fl ’
- S)L D MSTE a i. . ;. -
OSWER Directive * 9432.00—i
SUBJECT: Totally Enclosed Treatment
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH —562) 1 -
TO: David Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
5HS-JCK— 13
This is the regulatory clarification you requested on
December 30, 1985 for the application of the totally enclosed
treatment facility exemption to a tank treating emission control.
dusts at a scrap metal recycler. The system you describe is not
totally enclosed because of the reasons given below.
Your description of the Grede foundry indicates that it
heats scrap in a cupola. nissions from the cupola rise into a
hood which is connected to a baghouse via ducts. Ms. Randi Kim
of your staff pointed out that hazardous waste is not generated
prior to the baghouse unit, and the hood is not directly connected
to the cupola. The emission control sludge captured in the
baghouse is EP toxic for lead, and possibly chromium, according
to Jim Roberts of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Grede Foundries proposes to directly connect a mixing tank to the
baghouse by pipeline where the dust will be rendered nonhazardous
by mixing with nonhazardous foundry waste sands and dusts contain-
ing bentonite clay. Since the mixing tank does not exist, we
cannot determine whether the tank can technically prevent release
of hazardous waste into the environment during treatment through
use of traps, recycle lines, etc. Therefore, the central issue
you raise is whether the mixing tank can be considered directly
connected to the industrial production process, satisfying one
condition of a totally enclosed treatment facility as defined in
S 260.10.
The definition in 5260.10 of totally enclosed treatment
facilities specifies that the treatment must be directly connected
to an industrial production process. In your foundry example,

the cupola is part of the industrial production process, since it
produces reusable metal; and the baghouse is part of the waste
treatment process, since the sludge is not associated with product
or raw materials, i.e., the sludge is disposed of, not recovered
for further recycling. Therefore, the treatment that occurs
downstream of the baghouse cannot qualify for a totally enclosed
treatment exemption, since the cupola is open to the air before
the hood collects the dust.
Although our preliminary information indicates that adsorption
to clay can be an acceptable treatment method, you should pursue
the question of whether the specific clay adsorption process pro-
posed for this facility will provide the effective treatment that
would allow it to be permitted as a treatment facility. Canton
Wiles, ORD/Cincinnati, FTS 684—7871, may be able to provide you
with further guidance on clay adsoption treatment standards that
should be incorporated into the treatment permit to assure effective
with alternate management practices, the emission control
sludge would not be defined as a solid waste, and, therefore, would
not be a RCRA hazardous waste. If the fines were returned to the
cupola for metal recovery, the entire process would be viewed as -
closed loop recycling, and the baghouse sludge would not be con-
sidered to be a solid waste according to S261.2(e)(1)(iii). If the
sludge were reclaimed elsewhere, it also would not be considered
to be a solid waste, according to S261.2(c)(3). Sludges being
reclaimed are not considered to be solid waste unless specifically
listed by EPA, and this particular sludge is not so listed.
Alternatively, the system could be engineered differently.
By connecting the hood directly to the cupola, the system could
then meet the criteria for being directly connected to an
industrial production process. The system may then qualify
as a totally enclosed treatment system if the treatment met
the technical standards for being closed to the environment.
Since mixing the baghouse dust with bentonite clay as
described would require a RCRA permit for treatment, Grede
Foundries may wish to pursue one of these other approaches that
are not regulated under RCRA. According to data from the 1981
mail survey, many waste streams of K061 and K069 sludge are
recycled both on and off site, so Grede may find that recycling
is a cost effective management strategy. If you have any ques-
tions about this matter, you can contact Irene Homer of my staff
at FTS 382—2550.
cc: Solid Waste Branch Chiefs
Regions I—IV and VI—X
Jim Roberts, Michigaf DNR

Deceniber 30, 1980
Lawrence W. Beirlein, Esq.
Council for Safe Transportation
of Hazardous Articles
910 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Dear Mr. Beirlein:
This is in response to your letter of December 8, 1980,
requesting written clarification of whether puncturing, crushing
or shredding of aerosol cans prior to disposal is a treatment
process subject to our RCRA hazardous waste management
As you know, we clarified our regulations as they pertain to
containers which hold or have held hazardous wastes in amendments
published in 45 Federal Register 78524—78529, November 25, 1980.
In those amendments, we clearly indicated that our regulations
are directed at controlling the management of hazardous wastes or
hazardous waste residues in non—empty containers as opposed to
controlling the management of the containers per se.
Accordingly, with respect to aerosol cans, our regulations are
confined to regulation of the contents of the cans, not the cans
Based on this and the definition of “treatment” in §260.10
of our regulations, the puncturing, crushing or shredding of
non—empty aerosol cans which contain hazardous wastes does not
constitute hazardous waste treatment. Treatment is defined as
“any method, technique or process, . . . designed to change the
physical, chemical or biological character or composition of any
hazardous waste . . . . “ Although puncturing, crushing or
shredding of an aerosol can changes the physical character of the
can, the can is not the hazardous waste. The materials in the
can are the hazardous waste and the puncturing, crushing or
shredding of the can does not change the physical, chemical or
biological character or composition of these materials.
Accordingly, the puncturing, crushing or shredding of such
aerosol cans does not require a RCRA permit or does not need to
comply with other requirements of our hazardous waste management
This document has been retyped from the original.

Although this is beyond your request, I hasten to point out
that the materials removed from aerosol cans that are punctured,
crushed or shredded and the residues remaining on such cans, in
some cases, may be subject to our regulations. Let me discuss
several situations where this may be true.
The first set of situations involve aerosol cans which hold
commercial chemical products listed in S261.33(e) and (f) of our
regulations. Where these chemicals are removed from aerosol cans
when they are punctured, crushed or shredded, they are subject to
our regulations if they are discarded or intended to be
discarded; (if they are recovered for re—packaging and beneficial
use or recovered for other beneficial uses or legitimate
recycling or reclamation, which is their normal manner of use
they are not solid wastes and therefore not subject to our
regulations. If the removed chemicals are kept segregated from
the punctured, crushed or shredded cans, the regulated management
of those wastes would not involve management of the cans (except
see discussion below relative to §261.33(e) chemicals). If the
removed chemicals are not kept segregated from the punctured,
crushed or segregated tans, one has a “mixture” of chemicals and
cans (see §261.3(a) (1) (ii)) and this mixture is subject to our
regulations. Finally, even if the removed chemicals are kept
segregated from the cans but the chemicals are §261.33(e)
chemicals, then the residue on the punctured, crushed or shredded
cans (and, for all practical purposes, the cans themselves) are
subject to our regulations until they are triple—rinsed or
equivalently decontaminated (see §261.7(b) (3) at 45 Federal
Register 78529, November 25, 1980).
The other type of situation is where the cans hold products
which are not listed in §261.33(e) or (f) but which are to be
discarded (therefore are solid waste) and exhibit one or more of
the characteristics of hazardous waste (therefore are hazardous
waste). If those waste products are kept segregated from the
punctured, crushed or shredded cans, then, as above, their
regulated management would not involve management of the cans.
If segregation is not accomplished, then the mixture of these
products and the punctured, crushed or shredded cans would have
to be managed as a hazardous waste if the mixture also exhibits
one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste. Of
course, if the product removed from the punctured, crushed or
shredded cans is not to be discarded but, instead, is to be
beneficially used or legitimately recycled or reclaimed, then our
regulations do not apply.
This document has been retyped from the original.

i. S;.
____ UN1TE 51ATZ5 ENvrpoN;.jEN AL P cTz:TlcN AGEN
_____ WASI-IIN TON Z046C
e • .e’ ’ FFI E OF SOLID AS
Z i9 l
o,lict or WA?CR
Mr. Chris Howell
Chem ca1 Processors, Inc.
5501 Airport Way south
Seattle, WA 98108
Dear Mr. Howell:
I am in receipt of your letter of June 1, 1981 to Mr.
Ken Schuster regard.ng your request for a working defin.ti.ori
of a ‘liquid’ waste.
As you are aware, the Agency is actively working to
develop improved laboratory procedures for defining both
“.gnitable” and “liquid.’ In tne interim you may employ the
followLng work ng defiriit on of a ‘qu.d ” when
eva1uat .rig wastes:
A liquid is any material that will pass through a 0.45
micron filter at a pressure differential of 75 psi. If
the material to be evaluated consists of 2 or more phases
then the phases should be separated by centr .fugation or
other means prior to evaluating whether any of the phases
meet the above definition. ‘Free liquids as defined ri
5260.l0(a)(25) are a subset of this broader class of 1 qui ds.
Any waste am phases of a waste found to meet the above
definition of a 1iqu’ d ” should then be evaluated for ignitabi1 ty
us ng the procedures in S261.21. All such wastes which contain
or consist of liquids which have a flash point below 60 ’C are
to be considered as ignitable wastes.
I hope this response serves to answer your question. If
you would like further information please feel free to give
me a call at (202) 755 9l87.

David Friedman
Waste Analysis Program
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WE—565)

1 think this covers all of the situat’ 1 ons that iay be encountercd.
hope this is helpful to you.
Sincerely yours,
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
bcc: Filomena Chau w/incoming
Jack L.ehnan
Alan Corson
Don Darrah
Regional A&HM Division Directors, EPA Region I, II1-X

Resolution of Difficult Ouest ons - RC A —. (ç-—)
The d!’lnttion o ‘ex1;ting port on” (40 CF’ 253.10) r ’ r; to t’ e
“ riginal Part A iermit appHca:iori.” r)oes t is mean t e
first Part A subi itted (Sef,re November 19, 1980, f r mos
facilities) or the l t ai er deJ Part suDmit ed n; intgri
stdtu s?
Resolution: The ten’ “oniq nal rt A” means t e first Dart A sub’iitted which
fu’filled the requirements for interim status.
Source: Fred Lindsey, 05W
Research: Karen Gale

9432. 1983 (01)
February 18, 1983
Mr. Duane W. Marshall
Regulatory Affairs Program Manager
260 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Dear Duane:
The subject of what is and what is not a Totally Enclosed
Treatment Facility has come up a number of times since we
discussed the issue in July 1980. In the course of answering
these questions, we prepared the enclosed Regulatory
Clarification, which we now send to everyone that asks. It
treats the subject generally, but I think it answers your
If I can provide any further clarification please let me
Sincerely yours,
John P. Lehman
Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
bcc: Fred Lindsey
This document has been retyped from the original.

Regulatory Clarification
I. Issue : From questions asked since promulgation of the
regulations on May 19, 1980, it is clear that the definition and
practical application of the term “totally enclosed treatment
facility” require clarification.
II. Discussion : The definition appears in §260.10(a) as
Totally enclosed treatment facility means a facility for the
treatment of hazardous waste which is directly connected to
an industrial production process and which is constructed
and operated in a manner which prevents the release of any
hazardous waste or any constituent thereof into the
environment during treatment. An example is a pipe in which
waste acid is neutralized.
A facility meeting this definition is exempted from the
requirements of Parts 264 and 265 (See §S264.1(g)(5) and
265.1(c) (9)) and, by extension, the owner or operator of that
facility need not notify nor seek a permit for that process. The
purpose of this provision is to remove from active regulation
those treatment processes which occur in close proximity to the
industrial process which generates the waste and which are
constructed in such a way that there is little or no potential
for escape of pollutants. Such facilities pose negligible risk
to human health and the environment.
The part of the definition which has generated the most
uncertainty is the meaning of “totally enclosed.” The Agency
intends that a “totally enclosed” treatment facility be one which
is completely contained on all sides and poses little or no
potential for escape of waste to the environment even during
periods of process upset. The facility must be constructed so
that no predictable potential for overflows, spills, gaseous
emissions, etc., can result from malfunction of pumps, valves,
etc., associated with the totally enclosed treatment or from a
malfunction in the industrial process to which it is connected.
This document has been retyped from the original.

Natural calamities or acts of sabotage or war (earthquakes,
tornadoes, bombing, etc.) are not considered predictable,
As a practical matter, the definition limits “totally
enclosed treatment facilities” to pipelines, tanks, and to other
chemical, physical, and biological treatment operations which are
carried out in tank-like equipment (e.g., stills, distillation
columns, or pressure vessels) and which are constructed and
operated to prevent discharge of potentially hazardous material
to the environment. This requires consideration of the three
primary avenues of escape: leakage, spills, and emissions.
To prevent leaking, the tank, pipe, etc., must be made of
impermeable materials. The Agency is using the term impermeable
in the practical sense to mean no transmission of contained
materials in quantities which would be visibly apparent.
Further, as with any other treatment process, totally enclosed
treatment facilities are subject to natural deterioration
(corrosion, etc.) which could ultimately result in leaks. To
meet the requirement in the definition that treatment be
conducted “. . . in a manner which prevents the release of any
hazardous waste or any constituent thereof into the environment
.“ the Agency believes that an owner or operator claiming
the exemption generally will have to conduct inspections or other
discovery activities to detect deterioration and carry out
maintenance activities sufficient to remedy it. A tank or pipe
which leaks is not a totally enclosed facility. As a result,
leaks must be prevented from totally enclosed facilities or the
facility is in violation of the regulations.
A totally enclosed facility must be enclosed on all sides.
A tank or similar equipment must have a cover which would
eliminate gaseous emissions and spills. However, many tanks
incorporate vents and relief valves for either operating or
This document has been retyped from the oriqinal.

emergency reasons. Such vents must be designed to prevent
overflows of liquids and emissions of harmful gases and aerosols,
where such events might occur through normal operation, equipment
failure, or process upset. This can often be accomplished by the
use of traps, recycle lines, and sorption columns of various
designs to prevent spills and gaseous emissions. If effectively
protected by such devices, a vented tank would qualify as a
totally enclosed treatment facility.
When considering protective devices for tank vents, the
question arises as to whether the protective device is itself
adequate. The test involves a judgment as to whether the
overflow or gaseous emission passing through the vent will be
prevented from reaching the environment. For example, an open
catchment basin for overflows is not satisfactory if the
hazardous constituents in the waste may be emitted to the air.
Similarly, it may also not be satisfactory if it is only large
enough to hold the tank overflow for a brief period before it
also overflows. However, even in this situation, alarm systems
could be installed to ensure that the capacity of the catchinent
basin is not exceeded. Where air emissions from vents or relief
valves are concerned, if the waste is non—volatile or the
emissions cannot contain gases or aerosols which could be
hazardous in the atmosphere, then no protective devices are
necessary. An example might be a pressure relief valve on a tank
containing non—volatile wastes. Where potentially harmful
emissions could occur, then positive steps must be taken. For
example, the vent could be connected to an incinerator or process
kiln. Alternately, a sorption column might be suitable if
emission rates are low, the efficiency of the column approaches
100 percent, and alarms or other safeguards are available so that
the upset causing the emission will be rectified before the
capacity of the column is exceeded. Scrubbers will normally not
This document has been retyped from the original.

be sufficient because of their tendency to malfunction and
efficiencies typically do not approach 100 percent.
Tanks sometimes have floating roofs. To be eligible as a
totally enclosed facility, such tanks should be constructed so
that the roof has a sliding seal on the side which is designed to
prevent gaseous emissions and protect against possible overflow.
The part of the definition requiring that totally enclosed
treatment facilities be “directly connected to an industrial
production process” also generates some uncertainty. As long as
the process is integrally connected via pipe to the production
process, there is no potential for the waste to be lost. The
term “industrial production process” was meant to include only
those processes which produce a product, an intermediate, a
byproduct, or a material which is used back in the production
process. Thus, a totally enclosed treatment operation,
integrally connected downstream from a wastewater treatment
lagoon would not be eligible for the exemption because the
process to which it is connected is not an “industrial production
process.” Neither would any totally enclosed treatment process
at an off—site hazardous waste management facility qualify,
unless it were integrally connected via pipeline to the
generator’s productioff process. Obviously, a waste transported
by truck or rail is not integrally connected to the production
Hazardous waste treatment is often conducted in a series of
unit operations, each connected by pipe to the other. As long as
one end of a treatment train is integrally connected to a
production process, and each unit operation is integrally
connected to the other, all qualify for the exemption if they
meet the requirement of being “totally enclosed.” If one unit
operation is not “totally enclosed” or is not “integrally
connected,” then only unit operations upstream from that unit
This document has been retyped from the original.

would qualify for the exemption. The unit and downstream process
would require a permit.
The device connecting the totally enclosed treatment
facility to the generating process will normally be a pipe.
However, some pipes (e.g., sewers) are constructed with manholes,
vents, sumps, and other openings. Pipes with such openings may
qualify as totally enclosed only if there is no potential for
emissions or overflow of liquids during periods of process upset,
or if equipment (sorption columns, catchment basins, etc.) has
been installed to prevent escape of hazardous waste or any
potentially hazardous constituent thereof to the environment.
This exemption for totally enclosed treatment facilities
applies only to the facility itself. The effluent from that
facility may still be regulated. If the waste entering the
totally enclosed treatment facility is listed in Subpart D of
Part 261, then the effluent from the facility is automatically a
hazardous waste and must be treated as such, unless it is
“delisted” in accordance with §S260.20 and 260.22. If, on the
other hand, the waste entering the totally enclosed treatment
facility is hazardous because it meets one of the characteristics
described in Subpart C of Part 261, then the effluent waste is a
regulated hazardous waste only if the effluent meets one of the
characteristics. Since the totally enclosed treatment facility
is exempted from the regulatory requirements, it is only the
effluents from such processes which are of interest to the
Agency. Thus, whether the waste in a totally enclosed treatment
facility must be considered towards the 1000 kg/month small
quantity generator limit, depends on whether it is a regulated
hazardous waste as it exits the totally enclosed treatment
Finally, it is important to note that if the effluents from
a totally enclosed treatment facility are discharged to a surface
This document has been retyped from the original.

water body (lake or stream) or to a publicly owned treatment
works or sewer line connected thereto, then these wastes are not
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste controls at all but are,
instead, subject to the Clean Water Act and regulations
promulgated thereunder (See 45 FR 76075).
III. Resolution : In sum, a “totally enclosed treatment facility”
(a) Be completely contained on all sides.
(b) Pose negligible potential for escape of constituents to
the environment except through natural calamities or
acts of sabotage or war.
(c) Be connected directly by pipeline or similar totally
enclosed device to an industrial production process
which produces a product, byproduct, intermediate, or a
material which is used back in the process.
This document has been retyped from the original.

!rT%7 ’C r, Recent Court ! eei ton on RC A ‘ pp1icabi1tty to
tormye fscilit2ea
.7o,n 5 inn.r, Director
Ofrice of Solid ‘taste ( . 5 3)
Waz5rt ou$ -35te Djvjstrn Z ireetoge . e.)ions t—
In recer.t rect 1 n, Sr vir’ ,nr ntal fl.’ r.BO Purc v. La’ r.t r 1
714 .2ct 33t. t i. Unitod itaten Court of Ap eais, Vourtt C rcuit.,
declared that a person in control of a sit. where dru ioe
hazardous wa.t.s are held ii engaged in atora .’ of hazardous
waste under aCRA even though all th• wastes were placed at t e
site bef r. 4ove” b.r 1,, l9 A ?he defendent ‘s .d areved ne wan
not covered by the RCflA regulation. Decause be had ‘iot placed
4ny want•s in •torag after t . atS t o r.çu.Lation: vent i’it ’
effect. The court, citing the definition of .torarje in £() CPS
26 .lO, h j tnat th. fact t et no vestea had o t in
storage after ?4ovr bsr 19, ] 9O, was i aterial because the
ietendant had continued to stor. wastes deposited bet ore that
rhis i.ciston support. previou, guidanc. we have issusa a ,,
this su ect (attached). It is particularly .t ntricant because
it was delivered by a court which has tradition.sUy taken a
narr’ view of EPA’s authority. Please note this d•ctsion and
ensure that boeT tchnicsl staff and .qional Counsel are aware
of it.
cc i S øraech Chief.
Permits Contacts
Mark Gr..nwood
WH-563zC$jllerzCM: r .S243Dz382-4692:1l/25/83iMifler’S disk IS

January 27, 1984
SUBJECT: Determination of Operator at the DOE Oak Ridge Facility
FROM: Bruce R. Weddle, Acting Director
Permits and State Programs Division (WH—563)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
I am writing in response to your letter of December 30
regarding who should be the operator in the pending permit for
the DOE facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. My staff has been in
contact with your staff and other HQ offices concerning the
issues in this case. It is my understanding that the Office of
General Counsel has requested copies of the permit and related
documents and has asked your Office of Regional Counsel to delay
any decisions in this matter until OGC has reviewed these
documents. You should also be advised that the generic issue of
contractors serving as RCRA permittees has been raised in the
negotiations between EPA and DOE Headquarters. We will let you
know of any developments in these negotiations and we urge you to
keep us advised of developments in the Oak Ridge case.
I have two general conunents at this time regarding the Oak
Ridge operator issue.
First, the decision as to which party should be the operator
in the permit should be made by the Regional Office, based on
application of the definition of “operator” in §260.10. As
general guidance in such determinations, I suggest that you
consider the role of the contractor in making major decisions at
the facility. If the contractor has considerable autonomy to
make such decisions without DOE involvement, then the contractor
could be considered the operator. If on the other hand, DOE
retains responsibility for major decisions, then DOE could be
considered the operator. Obviously, there will be cases where
the contractor’s responsibility is less precisely defined; in
those cases, the Region should exercise judgeinent given the
factual situation. (OGC may have additional guidance in this
area following their review of the Oak Ridge situation. In
particular, OGC will examine the contract language and site
This document has been retyped from the original.

management practices at Oak Ridge in respect to the §260.10
Second, your letter states that the Region may deny the DOE
permit if the disagreement with DOE is not resolved. I suggest
that you consider, instead, making a determination as to who is
the “operator” and issuing the permit. (This assumes that the
application demonstrates compliance with RCRA and is signed by
the proper owner and operator.) If the permittee objects to
permit conditions, he may appeal those conditions. But I’m not
sure whether there are grounds to deny the permit and I doubt
that such an action would help resolve the larger questions.
(Again, OGC may have some suggestions in this regard as well.)
Please let me know if we can provide additional assistance
on this issue.
cc: Gene Lucero
Peter Guerrero
Terry Grogan
Elizabeth Cotswoth
Susan Schmedes (OGC)
Tony Baney (OWPE)
Sandy Williams (OPA)
This document has been retyped from the original.

26 t984
P 1 M 0i4 A 0 U ; i
SU8J CT: Peri tt Policy for Decanning an Crvsbin Operations
John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: James H. Scarbrou h, Chief
Residuals Mana9eaent Branch, Region IV
This aesorandum Is In response to your April 6, ]9d4,
request for a headquarters policy interpretat1o. on permitting
of hazardous waste decannln and crusnlng operations.
Based on our understanding of the process at Shulton, Inc.,
the toiletry crushing operation clearly meets the definition of
treat ent’ as specified in §264.10. It is therefore subject to
pere1tting under Parts 264 and 270. e have based our conclusion
on the foIlowin :
. . a) ihe addition of wastowater In the crushing op rat1on
‘ serves to reduce the potential for fires and explosions,
and also dilutes the alcohol to a non hazardous state.
This Is consistent with the treatment definition, which
extends to any •process...deslgaed to change the physical,
cne ical or biological character or composition of any
hazardous waste,.,so as to render Such waste eon hazardous,
or less hazardous, or safer to transport, store or dispose
of..., That the water may serve other purposes, such
as keeping tne gears of the mechanism clean and cleaning
the container residuals, does not alter th. fact that
treatment of the hazardous wastes Is taking place. We
also would disagree with your Suggestion that tne use
of the wasnwater Is lncldental (and thus does not
constitute treatment) by virtue of the fact tnat
washwaters are used In other slo llar crushing
.2 . operations tnat do not Involve hazardous wastes.
b) The memorandum of April 2, 1981, which dealt with a
liquid Stivex decanning operation, was not Intended to
be.interpretedas applying to aU decanning and crushing
operations. The Silvex decanniag process In question

was deslyned st!s )1j to a r gate the waste; into
‘arger containers. The wastes were not rendered
on—haZafdogs or ess hazardous, an any change in
tr’e wastes’ cnaracterlstlcs (such as a posslole cnanje
In concentration) was In this instanca tr .iIy Incliiental.
Chan es in a waste’s characteristics cannot be j,r suiied
to D I Iiiciøentel simpLy because tfley occur In a crusnl’i
or aeca.inIn process,
P s se et me know If you hava an, f jrther questions o.
tn ls Issue.
cc: a, Wedd e
A. Lindsay
P. Guerrero
T. Grogan
£. Costwort!
A. Corson

9432.1984( 04)
MAY 84
1. Can a tanklike portable fflter press use. In a wastewater treatMent tscilItj b
excluded frog regu at1on if the filter press ee•ts afl of inc 260.1(1 criterIa
unoer ‘wastewater treat.ent unit’ despite the fact it Is not a stationary Oeric ?
Yes; the filter press would be exclsded leo. regulation by 2b .1(c)(1U)
an 24.1(g)(6) as a vastewater treatment enit.

9432 .19 4(O5)
I.t••. ‘I- -
• ._, •; :.
Mr c p ”r’cu
SURJECT: Oefirt tton of Treat’ient; Application to
Cre3t Lakes Carbon Corp.
F1 OM John i. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH— 562)
TO: 1 7a es scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Manacement Branch
EPA Region IV
We have reviewed and interpreted the definition of treatrnent
as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, Subpart B — efLnitions. The defini-
tion is made up of two parts: the c angein the waste’s character
.ffected by treatrnent and the purpose of the change. Based on this
definition, the process proposed by Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
(CLCC) does not constitute trea ent. GLCC’s plan to add watqr to
the cyanide contained in dissolvable plastic bags will change the
physical character of the cyanide waste. Rowever, the purpose of
this chance is to facilitate disposal. The chance will. not make
the waste safer to dispose. None of these purposes listed in the
definition, that is to neutralize; to recover energy or material
resources: to render such waste non—ha2ardous or less hazardous,
safer to transoort, store, or dispose; or amenable for recovery,
ax, enab1e for storage, or reduced Ln.vol ne, apply to the process
proposed by CLCC.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Thor as Raugh of
the Waste Treatment Branch at FTS 382—2550.

4. teJC I ra,usata’u øc: Lrt an as a . ..fratiai - :“ le of yieldir
a sip’tif taunt wct%t çra.ar wutsr to ‘wefls ari’çs9SflO.IO). Pu tM
IsJrIcses r the C A gtate , Ms si ptiticant anø t’ u siptiticant ytelø
been dot L ?
Significant yielc has mx en asstred a disa.t. nz c because sitpdfiearce
% varj’ traa Jocatias to locatlai. Significant yiela 6 depe-nOent. in part,
a’ geologic aM hytolu4c caidttiu.s. r u instance. an lr ,ati a ’ y Mn
Ajrtãant surface ar raa%ater rssa.ns with u çen t geologic strata
yieldia asly wry nil caznts. M .hc’ lntia ny Pave sS. i1ar uçer
strata D.a wiUtOit sufl rith rna.r . c6ta’a en tin aiçnificance of
U t yield trot thaue sbtilar stats n at be visit Sn 1i ht of such r.gtnl
wsidoratSens. becazsd of this variability, the ?çeney has not etaLlistsed
a nininr sinitiant yield figure. Sate ‘A Recta’s have toed that 20
a.llan per day C ) to be a .. tete. Other Mgtn S n %sed loni
definitin a rai’çes (a;., S-SO pd). -A disaissien of siin.tf Leant yield
is in the July 26, 1982, r&aral v1ster (47 FR 32 9).
Saraut kirreLl Vincent (2142) 38-4b53
Geas Din’s (202) 382—4494
Mscardts GaOa Lavt a

SUBJfCTs P.que.t far Guidance/Ckarificstion of Wastsvatsr
Trsatasnt Unit tiuiItioa
Job.a a. 5kinn•r, Director
Qtfic of lolid Waste (WM—562)
TOs Jaaes B. Scarbrough, Chief
1 si4uaLs anagsnt Iranch
Wists Mans .je .nt Division
£.P.A. Mgian lv
Your ao at c.aber 1 1, 1984 is one of sv•ral requests for
guidance that 0 5W has received fran the gions since ths wast.water
treatment unit sz. ption was promulgated on November 17, 1980.
The case on which you requested gutoanc. involves tanks
storing hazardous wastewatsrs that ar. then truck.d across the
1a artaent of nerg Oak idç e reservation to a treatment facility
tnat haa an h1’Le .s erm1t. You ask•d whsther a direct mechanical
connection between the components of the treatment facility w.rs
necessary for the tanks to be part of tn. wastewater treatment
ror the purpo..s of this exemption, a vastewater treatment
unit £5 oatined La 40 C8R 0.30 ass
(1) a tank,
(2) which is part of a vastevater treatment facility subj.ct
to regulation under •ith.r .ction 402 or Section 307(b)
of the Clean water Act, and
(3) which rec.ives and treats or stores an intluent waste—
water that s a hazardous waits or which u.n.rat.s,
accumulates, treats, or stores a wastewater treatment
sLud . that is a hazardous waste.
In providinci uidanc on iaj4emsntation of this rule, vs have
besn basin9 our interpretations on th. intent of the .zsm tion as
well as an the wording at he r. ulation.

You acknowl.dg. that the E reservation is a faclllty,
and we bay. followed this lnt.rpr.tstion in accepting their Part A
RCRA application. .caus. there is no reguirei eitt that co ponente
of the wa.t.vat.r units in a facility be connected, there is no
rsas why vat.rvat.r could not be pipsd, truak.d, or otherwise
conveyed from on. vaterwit.r unit to another. Th.r•fors, the
wastsvster tanks in question irs part of a wast.watsr treatment
unit, •zsmpt undar 40 C l i $264.l(g)(6).
Purth.r. this of tic. has aoknowl.dged that if wastsvatsr ii
•torsd and tr.at.d in a tank at one facility prior to shipment to
a POTW, the tank is .z.mpt und.r 40 Cli g264.l(g)(6) (see the
attached memorandum).
If you have any questions, pleas. call Donald Whit.
(3B2—7917) of my staff.
AttacP .nt

MAY 85
Generator DeteX X2ti
5. i1e . i ne vers, a U.S. t va1 vessel generates various ‘ ‘ is wastes ••
card, audi as spent listed solvents and reactive wastes • These wastes are
placed in caitainers b.td.le still en the vessel. The vessel cs at a shipyard
and the wastes are un1 wied the ship and placed en the pier. The rJra er/
operator (0/0) of the shipyard stores the wastes for up to 90 days without a
storage per.t and then iranifests the waste for shi i&i t off-site. Is the naval
vessel or the shipyard operator the generator of the waste.? If the shipyard
operator is risidered the rator, is he entitled to the 90 day accimul.ation
tine per 262.34?
The naval vessel is sidered the site where the waste is generated.
Lan iags in the tcber 30, 1980. Federal Register (45 FR 72024) states that
in certain cases a waste is r t generated until it is r ved fran a product
or raw natarial transport vessel. This naval vessel is r t a product or raw
naterial transport vessels it is the site where a proc se produces a hazar-
dous waste aid is the generator ac rding to the definitien in 260. 10. The
shipyard operator is r t the generator aid is i t aut) rized to store wastes
for up to 90 days without a pexiidt.
Source: rolyn Barley (202) 382-2217

MAY 85
Free Liquids 32.b3 g5)
1. secti 3004(c) (3) of R A as a eended by the PJIVkVdOuS and Solid Waste
Ar 1u t.a of 1984 states that “Effective twelve ttha after the date
of enec it. • .the plaees nt of any liquid thid is r a hazard aa
weste in a landfill for bk ith a permit is r uired in er Section
3005 (e)...ia prc*d.bited.” There is no eention of “free liquids” in
this prthibition. I is EPA ing to define er y liquid”?
EPA believes that Ccqress intended the term “liquid” in Section
3004(c)(3) to eica pass free Liquids (as r ’fir u3 in 260.10) as
well, as liquids. The legislative history to Section 3004(c)
indicetes that Congress seant EPA to deve1 a iform definition of
“liquid” as to prescribe a test to determine when a waste containe
liquids and free liquids. See S. Rep. t . 284. 98th Cong.. 2d
Seas. 22 (1983). In eddition. the legislative history sh s that
Congress generally used the term “liquid” to include b h liquids
and free liquids.
Hence, the Agency intends to use the paint filter test for the pirpose
of determining k ether a neterial is a liquid er Section 3004(c) (3).
The paint filter test is an a rq riate test eeth to determine the
presence of free liquids. The ?hpril 30, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR
18370) ira and discusses the final rule wh.ith reguires the e
the paint filter test. The paint filter test will be the r esthod
9095 as set ait in “Update II to ‘7-346, ” (Test Met3 ds for Evaluating
Solid Wastes).
S roe: Paul ssidy (202) 3824682

94 3 2 . 198 5 (04)
.6 301565
Mr. John Quarles
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear John:
This is in response to your letter of June 25, 1985, requesting
clarification as to whether above—ground portions of landfills
in which waste is placed only within the lateral boundaries of the
unit are considered to be existing units N under the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.
Section 3015 of HSWA requires new units, lateral expansions
of existing units, and replacements of existing units, to con 1y
with the minimum technological requirements set out in Section
3004(o). Th. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has
interpreted Section 3015 to provide that for a unit to qualify
as an existing unit, it must have received waste by November 8,
1984, and must also have been fully uoperationalN by that date.
In order to be considered operational, the unit must have been
constructed to coz 1y with all federal, State, and local require-
ments, including licenses and permits, in effect prior to
November 8, 1984, so that as of that date there was no legal
in ediment to the operation of the unit. See 50 Fed. Reg. 28707
(July 15, 1985).
Your June 25, 1985, letter suggests that while under some
circumstances an above—ground area must be classified as a new
unit, such an area may be exeupt from the new requirements if
it is part of an existing unit. We agre. that the statute provides
for such a distinction.
The boundarie, of an existing unit are limited by the
specifications in operating or closure plans, permits, etc.,
that were applicabl, on November 8, 1984, that describe a final
elevation or maximum capacity of th. unit. The elevation or
capacity limitation will z’estrict the maximum allowable height
of the existing unit. If a State permit, for exauple, placed an
interim restriction on the height of the unit, only the height

allowed in the permit on November 8, 1984, is included in the
existing unit. Additional placement of waste would constitute a
new unit.
An above—ground area must also be considered a new unit if
a new or modified State or Local permit would be required prior
to receipt of waste in that area after November 8, 1984. We
believe that such areas do not qualify a. existing units nor a
portions of existing units. This is because such vertical
expansions do not meet the existing unit criterion of being
“operational 0 on November 8, 1984, since there was a legal
impediment to the operation of the unit on that data.
On the other hand, an above—ground portion will be considered
part of an existing landfill unit if (1) the ner or operator,
prior to November 8, 1984, had been granted the legal authority
to expend vertically, i.e., all required permits and licenses
for the vertical expansion had been obtained by that dat., and
(2) no further State or local approval is needed for such vertical
expansion after November 8, 1984. Placement of waste vertically
in such existing landfill units, including vertical expansions
that involve additional construction of berm., liners, leachate
collection systems, or other physical structures or appurtenances,
constitute portions of existing units provided that the additional
waste is placed only above waste placed wit iin the lateral boundaries
of the existing Landfill unit; i.e., there must be no lateral
placement of waste. If required construction features added
after November 8, 1984, would result in expanded lateral placement
of waste (i.e., would result in a lateral expansion). Section
3015 would require that this expanded area be in compliance with
the new minimum technological requirements.
We will very shortly clarify to our Regional Offices that
the minimum technological, requirements are applicable to above-
ground landfill areas if such area. constitute new units, as
described above.
We have not yet completed a detailed review of the information
we have received regarding your client’s facility in Deer Park.
Texas. In fact, vs hav• not yet received frcm you all of the
information I requested in my letter of August 9, 1985. Specifi-
cally, a. requested in my previous letter, we need drawing.
that clearly identify which portions of the unit were constructed
and where the liner and leachate collection system were located
on November 8, 1984. In addition, it is possible that we will
need even more informatioil regarding this unit before a final
determination can be made. Hence, we express no opinion here
about whether your client’s unit would qualify as an existing
unit under the definition and guidance set out above.

I hope that the information contained herein is helpful
to you, and look forward to receiving the information we are
requesting regarding your client’s facility.
Sincerely your.,
ohn H. Skinner
Office of Solid Waate

Definition of Existir Portion
3. The definition of ‘existing portion’ in Title 40 CFR S260.l0 refers to the land
surface area of an existing baste managanent it inc1 ed in the original Part A
pe it application on which bastes have been placed ior to the issuance of a
pe nit. If a larrif ill mit has baste placed oiier fifty percent of tie surface area
of such igiit, is tie whole tr it considered the ‘existing portion?’
1 e whole trait is not considered the ‘existing portion.’ Only tha fifty percent
coi,ered surface area bould meet the definition of ‘exiating portion.’ Hence, at
pe nit issuance, the nor -couered fifty percent portion bould have to have a
single liner as re aired by 5264.301. If the trcwered area baS also c ered
with baste ior to pe nit issuance, the whole iit w’iuld then meet tie
definition of ‘existing portion.’
The Het rdoua and Solid ste knendments (H A), in effect, unit the appli-
cability of the ‘existing portion’ cor pt to those Lr its that are ‘existing
.r its’ .rider I k. This is becauae riits that are not ‘existing traits ’ ix der
H must meet the minimun technolc ical requiranents of B9FIA (i.e., lardf ills
and surface npo& nents that are not existing is its imet have double liner
and leachate coLlection systa , and baste piles that are not existing tr&its
must. have single liner and leachate collection systaus). See the guidance
entitled ‘raft Guidance on Implenentation of the Mthimtsn Technological quire-
ments of the Ib rdcus and Solid ste kner tents of 1984’, dated Hey 24, 1985.
Source: Les Otte (202) 382—4654

9432.198 5(07)
: v g
Mr. Lewis D. Walker
Deputy for Environment, Safety and
Occupational Health
RO0r1 2E613
washington, D.C. 20310—0103
Dear Mr. Walker:
My staff and I have reviewed the Technical Document dated
27 June 1985, which was submitted by the U.S. Army Chemical
Agent/Munitions System (CAMDS) Directorate, to consider the
CAMDS site at Tooele Army Depot in Tooele, Utah as a “totally
enclosed treatment facility and thereby exempted from RCRA
Subtitle C requirements. The substance of this document was
presented to technical, policy, and legal EPA staff at a meetini
on September 5, 1985, by several Department of Defense (DOD)
A “totally enclosed treatment facility” under RCRA is
defined in 40 CSF.R. §260.10 as:
a facility for the treatment of hazardous waste which
is directly connected to an industrial production process
and which prevents the release of any hazardous waste or
any constituent thereof into the environment during treat-
ment. An example is a pipe in which waste acid is neutra—
The CAMDS facility does not meet this definition for two
reasons. First, the objective of CAMDS is to destroy obsolete
chemical munitions; this activity constitutes treatment as
defined in S260.1O and is not directly connected to an industrial
production process. Second, this treatment involves incineration
of hazardous waste, thus releasing emissions of hazardous con-
stituents to the environment. These emissions (e.g., byproducts
of the combustion process during normal operation and during
upset conditions before the wastefeed is shut of f) are inherent
in the normal operation of a hazardous waste incinerator. Even
a highly efficient incinerator will not destroy 100 percent of
all constituents of the Itazardous wastes that are fed into it.
The regulatory exclusion of a totally enclosed treatment facility
pertains only to treatmept that prevents releases of both hazardous
wastes and their constituents.

‘s.c realize tt t ...oL ray soon b r’anuatec to cor 1etelv
ucbt.roy 90 perc r.t cf tt r.ilitary stocL: i1e of lethal cherical
icnts and ruriiticris y Sct7terL’er 3( , 1 94 ( i d. 197, 131
Ccrc. ec., t.o. C, June 26, l?c )s Conseauently, T T intends
to use the CAhCS facility to devclor and der’cn trate the incin—
rat1on technology to accorplish this proposed statutory oh ective.
in view of the structural rodifications enc/or operating chanr,es
necc.ssary to rovido t D and Connreac with infor satton about th
eftectiveness of incineration to denilitarize eherical agents
anc rnunitions at the CAflE’S facility, we rec ii’ end that the U.S.
I.rry ap Ly tar a research. develorrient, end denonatration (PT&r.
perrut uncier 4C C.p.?. f270.ciS a full PCR,\ incinerator pet-nt
iasueu uncer 40 C.P.F.. Part 2€4, Subpart C would not rrovicfe
Liexihility in nocifying tne design and operation of the facility.
• All intor 1 cied ,odificatioris to the facility rust he identified
in the R &D perrtit. However, unlike a Subpart C pcr ”it, a trial
burn for each nodification is not recuired to denonstrato corpliar.ce
ivith S2(i4 requirerents since t1 is would be counter to the intent
of an P &r perrit. You should note, however, that before the
facility ray be operated outside the conc 1tions ereettied in the
KL D lerrit (i.e., structural or operational noc1ificaticni ) the -
I D&C porr it must t re—drafted to reflect the rsorliticatiens
reçuirkd and c ust be nadc available for public notice and cannent
tot 45 days (5270.41). Therefore, I roca mend that attention be
given to planniri the ro ect so that it is not delavc d toY t’is
RD&D perrits are lirited to one year of operation (3€5 r&ryi,
ot actul2l operation treatinn hazardous wastes), ray be renewei
three tines, and r ust specify the type and cuantities of ha?arciou
waste intended for treatr ent ( 27O.€5(a)(l) and (2)). The Cont res
and A intend to lint these cuantities of hazardous waste tc
Uic r’ini ur necessary to deronstrate the feasibility of the
incinerators. In order to expedite the review anc issuance of
tte hi &D pernit, the FPA Regional Office can tailor tPc’ rcri
pcrrit a F’lication and procedural rec uirer ents of 4C c.F.r.
Iart 124 and 270 (except for the public particiratior prococ iIrcs
6nc tanancial aceuranee tocuirereents) to the research objectives
of the CA LS facility (527O.6 (b)).
Until the Rfl&D per iit is issued, the C i1flS facility car
continue to operate under intenT ’ status, provicUrici it continues
to operate accordinc to the r.quirerecnts of £270.71. flurinn the
IcZ&L testing, CM-DS could apf ly tot a full :CRA incinrrator
pernit it you intend to continue using the incinerators to de’il—
itaraze stockpiles of charical o ents and munitions followir.Q
the t r,w of the RU4t ç eri it ire this C SN, date fro the’ U’T r
activity ray be subritted in lieu of a trial burn (see nclcsurc’
1, Rescarct Plan ).

To assist the Regional Office, we reviewed the information
in t .e Technical Docurient and made a prelirrinary determination
about the aciczitional type of intorr’ation necessary to prepare a
cor plete RD&D application (see enclosure 1). We also described
the type of performance data, which would be necessary in lieu
of conducting a trial burn, thereby accelerating the permitting
of similar hazardous waste incinerators based upon the RD&D
demonstrations. Also, we are .ncloeing a copy of the draft
Guidance -ianua1 for Research, Developnent, and Demonstration
Ferl’its , dated October 3, 1985, to assist you In preparinti an
RD&C application (see enclosure 2).
The Agency is encouraging the development and demonstration
of new and alternative technologies and processes to treat and
minimize hazardous wastes. e recognize the critical need for
DoD to demilitarize chertical agent munitions, particularly in
view of the limited technical data on processes and technologies
and the lack of facilities to treat these wastes.
You ahoulo contact Mr. Larry Wapensky at (303) 293—1662,
Chief, RCRA Perv its Section, EPA—Region VIII about processing
the RD&D application.
Marcia E. Williams
of f ice ot Solid Waste
cc: Bruce .eddle
Peter Guerrero
Truett DeGeare
Art Glazer
Nancy Porerleau
Robin Anderson
Dov Weitnan (LE—1328)
Ken Gray (LE—132B)
Jack Iahaan
Warren Bull (A —104)
Larry Wapeneky, Region VIII
Dale D. Parker, Ph.D., State of Utah
Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X

SU 3JCTt Reicholds Cher.icals in Elizabeth, :J
Robin Anderson (h ’563)
Permits Branch
TOi John Broqard
Region II
As YOU requested, I bays reviewed the blat rico ery unit
Lor keicftold Chez icals in Elizabeth, t ew Jersey, to deterriine jf
it should be classified as a boiler and, therhy, •xerpt from
f Ct A r.çiulations under 40 C?R 261.6 based on energy recovery.
The applicant has requested that a variance be çrante under
40 CE S 26C.32 to classify th. unit as a boiler. The request
is priPQarily based on ti’e efficiency of the heat recovery unit
(i.e., 65% heat recovery), th• fact that 100 percent of the
ther l •nertjy çj.neratod La used throughout the year, and because
the applicant clat ’e the systel ’ provides bettor destruction of
bazarth us constituents than boilers as defined under 5 2 0.lO.
Although the intent of the operation appears to be leqttiri te
en rc y recovery under 5261.6, the boiler variance canrot be
granted because the heat recovery unit, which is the Dear. P’nerc y
Recovery Systern, is an add—on device. Purthur, the the clas-
sit ication of such a unit would set a precedent whict way h
contrary to EPA regulation. to be proposed in June 19R6. The
eci-buetion syater is j’roperly classed as an Lncinsretot, arn ruEt
be peri Ltts! as such under PCRA Subpart C to ensure tt e aaeguate
treatw. nt of the hazardous waste. The definition of a botler
under 5 260.10 requires the energy recovery syster to be of
integral design to the co buation chasber and specifically
excluoes a unit in which the cctbu tion tha ber and the recovery
chasber a )oined by ducts or connections carryinri flue qas.
The variance procedures shoulO n be used to .vac’e a restrictlcn
dotthitely stated. The procedure was es ’ t to apply to devicet
not tUlly considered by the definition and, therefore, suet’
variances should b few.

ith regard to the destruction efficiency of a boi1er as
det ned under S 260.1O, theAg nCy agrees that sore boilers may
pose a hazard when burriLng certain hazardous wastes, and is
devalopang regulations for boilers. The Plazardous and Solid
haste Amendment of 19B4, Section 3004(q), requires the Agency to
develop standards for the burnir of hazardous waste as a tuel
within two years of enactn*nt. As part of this activity the
Açjency has proposed regulations (50 FR 1684—1724, January 11,
1985) to provide administrative control of hazardous waste burned
in boilers. The final rule, to be published shortly in the
Federal kegister , will prohibit the burning of hazardous waste
in non—industrial boilers (e.g., boilers used in a residential,
commercial, and institutional setting) unless such activity was
permitted as a hazardous waste incineratør under RCRA. Other
regulations are presently being developed which would regulate
the burning of hazardous waste in industrial boilers and industrial
furnaces regardless of the purpose of the activity.
The Reichold system was also reviewed by Piarc Turaeon of the
I- 1 a te Treatment Branch and he is in acreanent that the system can-
not be classified as a boiler under RCRA for the reasons presented
above. Please call me on FTS 382—4498 if further clarrification
of this issue is needed.
cc: leter Guerrero
Davic Sussinan
Art Glazer
arc Turgeon
Incinerator permit Writers Work Group

!‘r. prank 7. ‘r x, Yr.
3orc , ra,, re vjs & P ue
230C TV Center
ralla , Texas 75201
near Mr. pox:
In your letter of T ecer’ber 13, l9 5, you reauested our
oninion as to whether the Lutrizol cor bustion unit at Pajnesvjfl.e,
Ohio t of inteara]. desiryn under 40 CFR 260.1C.
fter reviewino the enaIneerin drawinne, which you rrovtde ’,
our staff has concluded that the corbu tor is a rotary heci furnace
with secondary coi it’ustton to which a wasre heat boiler has been
attached. It appears that the entire unit was desthred a ’ one
tire, an. that It incorporates soi e unicu deslrrn features, i ost
rticular1y the use of firebrlck linino in the secondary cop—
ustion cP’a P er. It does appear that the unit was ipsioned to
burn a slurry ii’aterial with hiah ash content.
owever, the Paineeville esian does not “eet the jntec,ral
riesinn standard aiven in the holler definition, and does not
fall under the fluidized bed or process heater exe vptjon to the
intearal desian criterion. enecifically, we consider the boiler
section con ’ected by a ductb ,?urnace out i’ie the msantnci of
the •lntenral d.stctn .lefth [ tion. Thus, we consider the unit en
incinerator. We believe your arauI .nt that the secondary co bus—
tion chamber (labeled flueu in the blueprints) is not a duct if
accepted would also allow coini’ ercial rotary ‘rune with heat
recovery boilers to be Classed as boilers, defeatino the main
purpose of the definition.

We aLso helteye the variar’ce nrocedure un 4 er 2F0.32 i ’ not
r’r ronri re for furnaces ducte to heat r crvery boilers.
Please call r. Pobert F o11oway or r. ‘arc Turaeon at
(202) 382—79 4 if you have any further c’u ctiong on this r’atter.
John P. tahpian
Waite Manaaen ent and
rconoznics Division (W}i—565)
cc: Pecion V
Waste Manace ent Division

—. . - p S
- -
j. -ay 7 ) :ast
• )r. -)ripts, ‘ran as 719C11
Dear Philipo:
In your letter of t ecember 5, 1995 you reauested that the
kgency identify the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(R( RA) statue of sludge dryers that are nart of a convention l
treatn ent qv tem not regulated by RCRA. You questioned whether
ad inei a sluice dryer to a wastewater treatment unit exempted
frr i RCRA nermittir g will jeoT arc1ize the exa’aption. The RCRA—
unerfunr1 Mntline correctly identified sludge drying for you as a
treatment orocess accordina to the definition of treatment in
40 CFR 526O.l . However, when sludg, dryers meet the definition
of wastewater treatrvent units, they qualify for the wastewater
treatr ent exemption of SS2 4.lCg)(€), 265.L(c)(lO), and
270.l(c)(2)(v). In your case, adding a s1uu je dryer to treat
sludqe generated by a treatment system operating under a wastewater
treatment exemption does not subject the treatment system to RCRA
As you know, sludge dryers must meet the three criteria in
th definition of wastewater treatmnt unit in order to be
part of a wastewater treatment exclusion. First, the i forrnation
you sent shows that your sludg. dryer qualifies as a tank as
defined in S260.lOi that is, it is designed to contain hazardous
waste and is constructed priaarily of nonearthen materials that
provide structural sup rt. Furthermore, the Agency has clarified
the definition of tank—for this exemption——to include unit
operations such as presses, filters, suntns, ano zdany other types
of processing .quip nt. (S.. th. attached rnevt randun dated
July 31, 19S1, tram John tehman to Region I.) In addition,
the preamhle of the november 17, 1980, proposed rule (45 PR
76077—76078) clarified the definition of a wastewater treatment
unit as followes
This !efinition...covers...the sludae 1iaeeters,
thickeners, dryers and other sludçe processing tanks...
in which hazardous aetewater treatment sludge is
treated; and any...tanks used for the stora’ e of
such sludae .

Second, the sludje dryer treats or stores a wastewater
treatment sludge which is a hazardous waste as defined in 5261.3
(i.e., the sludge itself is a listed waste, derived fra’ treat”ient
of a listed waste, or is hazardous on the basis of characteristics
identified in S261 Subpart C). This T’leans that the treatment of
sludges generated fro wastewater treatrient units is also exemnt
fr recjulation under the RCRA treatment standards.
Tanks (here a sludge dryer) that do not themselves have any
discharge sub)ect to regulation under Sections 402 or 307(b) of
the Clean Water Act, but that ar, part of the wastswater treatment
systei , qualify for the exemption if other tanks in the treatment
train have Qischarges that are subject to these Clean Water Act
provisions. So the third condition, being part of a wastewater
treatment unit subject to regulation under Section 402 or 307(b)
of the Clean ‘ater Act, cart be met by sludge dryers in certain
circumstances. However, as t he November 17, 1960 preamble stated
(45 f 76077), even the nropo.ed regulationa....may not provide
adecuate environmental protection where treatment of the hazardous
wastewater tends to result in the escape of hazardous waste
constituents into the atmosphere (e.q., the treatment of highly
toxic volatile wastes in coen tanks). Unless the Adrinistrator
promulgates regulations covering wastewater treatment units, -
wastewater treatment tank. that qualify for exemption under
current RCRA standards may volatilize their contents and retain
the exemption.
Sludge dryers may be used as part of a program to meet the
waste minimization requirements of Section 3002(b) of RCRA without
requiring permitting if the above conditions are met. Of course,
although exempted from permitting requireciente in the wastewater
treatment units, any hazardous waste sludge that is removed frcin
the tanks is subject to applicable regulations under 55260—266,
such as manifesting off site, permitted storage after 90 days,
and so on. If you have any additional questions regarding this
exemption for wastewater treatment units, please do not hesitate
to call Irene Homer at 202-382—7917.
Sincerely yours,
T• insto? rrtnr
i t11t ‘uitni i rP t %r
LL JuC L.C ’ •.3I , CC -
ruce :cdcle, PSt L’ ift fe Q r
(gene J,ucero QI ’E •. ncy L Omerlea1J
! arK ureen do , o C Tina Parker
&lazardous aste Division .Jirectcrs, Ken Gray
r e ion T—X

943 2.1986 .O2
U JFCT: riiv rstty nf uth AJe aria Ieat Pecovery unit
FPOM i 1 .d4 aSI ’
t’eputy Agqi tarit Administrator
TO, Thomas t)evine
t irector, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division
Pec,jon IV
This is in reference to a Novenber 22, 1985, nemorandus from
James H Scarhrouoh to 1 , Winston Porter requ.stinç consnts on a
y .tttion to classify a heat recovery unit at the University of
South Alabama as a PoLler.
Ws understand from your memo and conversations with your
staff that the University plan. to build a solid waut• combustion
unit •cuipped with a heat recovery boiler. The device would also
burn hazardous wastes at a eazimum rate of less than 4 percent on
a heat input basis. Pecovared steam would he used in a hospital
laundry at the University.
Thu device cannot he classified as a boiler becau*. it fails
the fundamental and objectiv, criterion for a boiler —— that the
combustion chamber •nd heat recovery unit must be of intecral
d.siqn. The variance procedur. pztvidsd by 40 CPR 260.32 ii
intended to consider claasifyina a. boilers devices not antici-
pated durinq developaant of the rules. Tbe definition of a
boiler and t . variance procedur. criteria, however, were
structured s .citically to classify incinerators with waste
heat recovery boilers a. incin rstora. I am not aware of any
cheract.riittcs of this case that indicate that this is a type
of desiqn net anticipated by the ?nvironmental Protection Acency
(EPA) when it adopted he I asic definition of boiler end variance
r rocethire en January 4, l9 5 (see 51) PP c6l— 2).
It is trinortant to he able to clearly c fsPint utsh between
incinerators and boilers hecause they are uh1ect tr
standards. ners nd oneratore of hazardous wasta incinerators
are suhiect to neri it re ’uire,rert under uhnart 0 r,f Darts 2 4

and 265. The t urnina of hazardous waste in industrial boilers
and industrial furnaces is currently exe’i’nt frr r ree,ulatjon.
Per,’,jt standards to control eini sions rc’i’ these are
under development, however, nd are schedu]ed to be proposed
In June 1986. Even thouflh we plan to model the boiler and
industrial furnace standards aerierally after the incinerator
standards, it still ‘nay be necessary to distinauish between
incinerators, boilers, and industrial furnaces because standards
or permit procedures ev he somewhat different (e.o,, we are
considerinc an automatic waiver of trial burns for hollers
operated under ariecif ted conditions that would ensure 99.99%
destruction and removal efficiency of toxic oraanics).
In addition to hein a clear, unambiguous test to distinguish
between boilers arid incinerators,the intenral desian criterion
has environmental sianificance. Devices where the combustion
chamber an heat recovery unit are of inte wal deei’n recover
enercy more efficiently. Thus, such devices are more likely to
be operated for the primary purnose of .nerav recovery and, in
turn, more likely to he operated and maintained to achieve peak
combustion (and destruction) efficiency (see 50 PP 626).
I should also oLnt out that the final rule .stabliahina
administrative controls on blendino and burnino huardous
waste and used oil fuels published in the Lederal P..gieter on
P ovewber 29, 1985, prohibits the burnina of hazardous waste fuels
in nonindustrial boilers (copy attached). Fven if the University’s
combustion unit were of inteoral desian and otherwise determined
to be a boiler, it would be considered a nonindustrial boiler
under that rule. Thus, hazardous waste could not he burned in
the device, unless the University complied with an exception to
the prohibition provided by that rule for nonindustrial boiler
owners and operators who c ply with the hazardous waste incin-
erator standards under Subpart C) of Parts 264 or 265. When the
technical, permit standards for boilers and industrial furnaces
are ultimately promuloated, any nonindustrial boilers burnino
hazardous waste under the interim status incinerator etandar”e of
Part 265 would become subject to the standards for t’oilers. We
exp et that few nonindustrial boiler owners and oPerators wi]1
e1 r t conti ue (or P entn burninr’ ha,ardnus wsste fuels under
these reoujre , pntq.
fjr 1 prtc , vc u ‘ “ nt tr r lcjr çr whPPh’ r 1 -”e
to he hu y ør 1 i r’ 1c jl-1e rr f -Pj y, cr r ‘ nv r
tl in n .’r lte r ‘•;t e Ph?t rc ir,rit ’-1e, r ectiv , ,
r cr rrri jvc ., r- r r. r jrc- ,,jcjc rP vc L -
iji r ri1r • — r r Ar (I_ r • 3 ç) ::.r.. ‘-—‘: •l.fr ()
If yr” ‘r r r” r r rr’ , - .“tc r “ -.rir
#,jye r ‘ flr r r r ’ rl!r”r r.r. C ’11
- ‘- P- —I —s r’

Ur. r ber, . r.
rreenhouse9, tr c.
5Q0 cc,uth 5 tr eP
Paynhai”, Massachusetts (‘27 7
Dear Mr. Punke:
We have considersel your T’ece her 1P, l9P5, recuest for
deteri’ in tion as o the reoulatorv status of your areenhouse
boilers. ‘e a re that boilers used in areenhouse overations
are industrial’ boilers within the ineanina of the Novei h.r 29,
l9R5, FPA used oil fuel rules. The i ain factor influencinc, this
detar,nirtation is that the enerav is used in the nrocess of nro—
ducina a r roduc1 ’, in this case niants. ‘ reenhouse oneratione
are thus considered more like inanufacturin tact titles than non—
industrial coii” ercial, institutional, or residenfial facilities.
John P. Lehman
‘aste Man ae”ent and
Pcono ic flivision ( ‘—5 5)
cc: Razardous Waste Division
Directors, Reaions I—X

2 9432.1986(04)
Mr. Gary L. Ford
Senior tt3rney
Stauffer Chemical Company
Westport, Connecticut 06881
Dear Mr. Ford:
This is in response to your December 17, 1985, request
that we confirm that ‘combust ion devices used in the recovery
of sulfur values from spent sulfuric acid’ are industrial
furnaces subject to the adinthistrative controls on burning
waste fuels published in the Federal Register on November 29,
As you know, EPA defined industrial furnaces in the
January 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 661, S260.10) as any
of the specifically identified and listed devices that are
‘enclosed devices that are integral components of manufacturing
processes and that are controlled flame devices to accanplish
recovery of materials or energy’. The definition also includes
criteria that the Administrator may use to add other devices
to the list. That list includes sulfur recovery furnaces and
other furnaces that were inadvertently omitted f rant the list
of industrial furnaces provided in the November 29 notice
on pages 49194 and 49211.
Notwithstanding those omissions, sulfur recovery and
other furnaces included in the definition of industrial
furnaces under S260.10 are industrial furnaces subject to the
November 29 rule.
Robert Holloway (
Environmental Engineer
cc: Hazardous Waste Division
Directors, Regions I—X

9432. 1986( O5
FEB 51986
Vice Admiral Peter 3. Rott
Chief, Office of Marine !r.viror.ment
er .d Systems
United States Coast Guard
2100 2nd St., S.W.
Washir,pton, D.C. 20593
Dear Vice Admiral Rotz:
We have been • ked by meithers of your staff to clarify the
applicability of EPA’! re ulatior s under the Resource Conservation..
ar .d RCCOVCVV Act (RCRA) to operational wastes from ships. The
Coast Cuard’s Recertior . Facility Requirements for Waste Materials
Retained Or. Board, issued under Ar.r.ex I of PIARPOL 73/78 (50 FR
367AR, September 9, 19R5), have raised a number of questions regardir,
the status of ships and teru’irals/ports under the RCRA repulatioL, !.
In particular, we have beer asked to determine who is the generator
of oily waste that is produced on ships and required uncier the
Coast Cuard’s September 9, 1QRS reaulattors to be diacharped to
reception facilities at ports and terminals.
‘.Je have determined that, as a seneral matter, for any oily
waste that is produced in product or raw material vessel units,
such as those used for bulk shipment of oil, both the ship and, ir.
some circumstances, the operator of the central facility involved
in removing the waste from the ship would be considered hazardous
waste . enerators. For other types of oily waste, such as bilge
water in vessel en ir .e rooms cor.tamir.ate .d with er.eine lubricant
drippir s or solvents, only the ship would he deemed to be the
hazardous waste generator.
1. Generator requirements
The RCRA repulatior.s define a generator as any person, by
site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste identified or
]isted ir. 40 CFP Part 261 or whn e act first causes a hazardous
waste to become subject to regulation. 40 CFR S2AO.l0. Any
person who ger .erates a solid waste must deteri’iine if that waste
is hazardous, and if so, rust receive Sr. EPA identification ( I D)
r.ur’ber before treatiri, stortr , trarsporttn or disposir .p f the
waste. If the generator plars to move the waste off it for
tveatt”ert, storaQe or disposal, he must corplv with certain
requiremerts it Part 262, tr.clur 1 ir. preparing ar FPA manifest,
msrkirp the waste, keeptra reCOr’l ar.d filing reports. In addi—
S — — — — — — ——. —— _.., —— ‘ — —— aJe•ea • .aS .. 55 54 •SS

9432.1986 (06)
Mr. ‘Ridgway M. Hall, Jr., Esq.
Crowell & Moring
3.100 Connecticut Aye, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Hall:
This is in response to your letter of August 2, 1985, and
our meeting with you and your client, VerTech, on September 13,
1985, asking our opinion on whether the VerTech wet—air oxidation
system could be considered a totally enclosed treatment system
and thus exempt from the regulatory requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C. You provided
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the generic plans
for a wet air oxidation proces. that could be directly connected
to a hazardous waste generator’s process equipment. Since the
meeting in September, Jack Binning and Gerry Rappe provided
additional details on the nature of the gaseous phase and above
ground treatment units in their process in order to support your
contention that the process could be considered a totally enclosed.
treatment facility.
After reviewing the information provided on the process
blueprints, written descriptions of the treatment process,,. and
data on treatment of a synthetic waste stream, it is our opinion
that the VerTech process is not totally enclosed under RCRA. The
definition in c26o.10 iii
uTotally enclosed treatment facility means a facility for
the treatment of hazardous waste which is directly connected
to an industrial production process and which is constructed
and operated in a manner which prevents the release of any
hazardous waste or any constituent thereof. into the environ-
ment during treatment. An example is a pipe in which waste
acid is neutralized (45 PR 33076).
The May 19, 1980, Federal Register elaborated on the intent
of the totally enclosed exclusionz
Conunenters pointed out that in some production processes,
wastes (particularly acid and alkaline solutions) are treated
in-pipe, often resulting in a non—hazardous discharge.

EPA agrees that to classify totally enclosed
treatment Bystems ,N such &8 pipes, as hazardous waste
treatment facjl.itjee...would not make a great deal of
sense. These facilities by definition do not release
wastes or waste constituents into the environment....
The key characteristic of such a facility is that
it does not release any hazardous waste or constituent
into the environment during treatment. Thus, if a
facility leaks, spills, or discharges wastes or waste
constituents into the air during treatment, it. is not
a U totally enclosed treatment fecilityN within the
meaning of these regulations (45 FR 33218).
A review of the regulation and preamble demonstrates that
the totally enclosed treatment exemption was intended to exclude
from regulation a very narrow subset of treatment facilities.
The regulation provides only on. example: neutralization in
pipes. The preamble emphasizes that a facility that discharges
wastes or waste constituents to the air during treatment cannot
be considered totally enclosed. Your wet-air oxidation unit.
like many other types of thermal treatment units (defined in
40 CFR 260.10). does emit constituents to the air during treat-
ment. The totally enclosed treatment exemption was not intended
to exclude such units.
The enclosed regulatory clarification, prepared in July 1981,
in response to an inquiry from Travenol Labs, limits totally
enclosed treatment Nt O pipelines, tanks, and to other chemical.
physical, and biological treatment operations which are carried
out in tank—like equipment.... While the clarification does
recognize some situations in which minor releases to the air
would not preclude eligibility for the exclusion, continuoqa
gaseous by—products emitted during treatment represent an 6pen
system that interacts significantly with the environment. In our
opinion, extension of the exclusion to thermal treatment units
would be inappropriate and unjustified by the rationale for the
exclusion as expresBed in the preamble language quoted above. We
believe that thermal treatment units, like incinerators, should
be subject to regulatory control to assur. that they are designed.
maintained, and operated at all times in a manner that protects
human health and the environment.
The Agency does not have 40 CFR 264 Subpart P standards to
establish a permit for VerTech’s thermal treatment unit. There
are, however, other types of standards that might be used to
permit an underground wet—air oxidation unit and the associated
abovegraund treatment processes.
Section 270.65 research, development, and demonstration
permits allow short—term, limited operation for processes that
have no applicable permitting standards. Th•se RDIiD permits

are currently being issued for innovative technologies and would
allow experimental operation of wet—air oxidation with actual
RCRA wastes. A copy of the draft guidance manual for RD & D
permits is being sent to you under separate cover.
Part 264 Subpart X Miscellaneous facilities regulations
are currently undergoing accelerated rulemaking development.
Currently, promulgation is anticipated in December 1986. Sub—
part. .X will provide EPA with permitting standards that could be
applied to thermal treatment processes.
You also may be required to meet the requirements for
treatment tanks. The tank regulations proposed on June 26, 1985,
50 FR 26444, would allow treatment in underground tanks that
cannot be entered for inspection, and, based on our preliminary
review, the VerTech process may meet the proposed standards for
secondary containment. These proposed tank regulations are
scheduled for promulgation in June 1986. Presently, tank regula-
tions do not allow permitting of an underground tank that cannot
be entered for inspection.
In any case, thermal treatment that occurs one mile
underground presents unique permitting requirements not specified
for any RCRA unit. Section 3005(c)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR
270.65(a)(3) allow EPA or the State to add terms and conditions
to permits when necessary to protect human health or the environ-
ment. Therefore, when a permit is issued under a particular
subpart of 40 CFR Part 264. additional permitting standards may
apply, such as the operating conditions of a thermal unit and
conditions from the Safe Drinking Water Act covering aspects of
construction and operation of injection wells (e.g.. sealing.
cementing, location, pressures, size and grade of casing. 1,0g.
and reporting). The underground injection standards that ‘nay
apply can be found in 40 CFR L46.12(b)(1)—(7), cl46.12(d)(2) ,
]46.l2(e), l46.l3(b)(l)—(4), fl46.13(c)(1.) & (2), and ç146a4.
Specific standards will be specified during the permitting process.
I appreciate your patience while we addressed the difficult
policy issues creatsd by your request. EPA welcomes the opportunity
to work with you to develop wet air oxidation as an environmentally
acceptable alternative to incineration and other types of chemical/
physical and biological wastewater treatment systems.
Sincerely yours,
seistant Admini

to 90 days without a permit if he complies with the rvqutres’rrts
of 5262.34(a)(l—4).
2. Types of waste subject to regulation
The oily wistes subject to Coast Guard regulation under
MARPOL Ag.rjex I g nerall are produced in two ways. The first is
through bulk shipment of oil, whereby sludge. and sediments that
•ettl out in th. oil storage tank or unit must be periodically
removed. Oil tankers also need to pertodical1 dispose of oily
ballast water and tar.k cleaning water. The second type of waste
is produced from the use of oil as a fuel ar.d lubricant in a
ship’s propulsion and auxiliary system. Miac water that accumulates
in engine rooms of ter. contains hub concentrations of oil from
lubricant drtppir.se and other routine losses. The bilge water
may also be contaminated with other types of wastes. Both type.
of waste are solid wastes under 5261.2.
Whether these wastes are hazardou. waste, would be deter -
aired under 5261.3. It. general, the waste would have to be
either (1) listed in Subpart I) of Part 261; *2) identified in
Subpart C of Part 261 ( i• , exhibits tgnitabtlity characteris-
tic); (3) a mixture of solid waste and a listed hazardous waste;
or (4) is derived from treating a listed hazardous waste. Under
current EPA regulations, used oil is not listed as a hazardous
waste */ and therefore, would have to meet (2), (3) or (4) above.
We do not anticipate many situations in which one of the*e criteria
would be met, with the possible exception of contaisiration of bilge
water with spent solvents. (5261.31) However, even this possi-
bility car, he minimized if the bilge waters are segregatd from
other wastes generated or. the .htp.! / -
I EM’s recent proposal to list used oil as a hazardous waste,
if finalized, will change its current status under the RCRA
regulations. See 50 Ped , 49212 (November 29 19B5).
**/ Under EPA’s spent solvent listing, sir.ce a solvent is consi-
dered spentu when it has beer. used and is no lonier fit
for use without being reclaimed or reprocessed, It is likely that
•olvet.ts dripping from machinery and collecting L v. bilge water
would not cause the wastewater to be hazardous. See 50 Ted. Ret .
53315, 53316 (December 31, 1985).

3, Ru1attor of oily waRte ur.der RCRA
The two types of oily waste from hip - - waste produerd
in product transport units arid Waite produced ir. the propulsiot ar.d
a iliarv systems - - are treated differeritly uridet the RCRA reprula-
tiors. Under 1261.4(c), a hazardous waste sererated in a product
or raw v,aterial transport veseel is exempt from regulation until it
exits the ur,tt Ira which it was generated or urileas it remain.. in
the unit more than. 90 days after the unit ceases to be operated for
storage or transportation of the product or raw materials. These
wastes are sludges and residues produced in tanks or holds that
carry products or raw material ., where the product. or raw “sterials
are r.ot in thei’ selves hazardous wastes. See 45 Wed . . 72024,
72026-27 (October 30, 1980).
As a result of this exemption. partie. who remove the Waite
from the ship at a central facility by either emptying the pro-
duct-holding unit or cleantn* the holdtnc tank are deemed to br
generators under 40 CFR 1260.10 because their actions cauSe th
hazardous Waite to become subiect to regulation. In addition, .t h.
actions of both the operator and owner of the VCI*ael acd the ovth r of
the product or raw material result in production of the hazardous
waste. Thus, these parties, and any others that fit the perierat r
drftriittora, are loir.tly arid severally liable as generators. See
Id. at 72026.
The Agericy looks primarily to the central facility operated
to remove sediments arad residues to perform the ger.erator duties,
since it is the party beat able to perform such generator dutici as
det i’ trijtip whether the waste is hazardous. Where the wastes are
not removed at a central facility, hovever, the Aecrey looks to the
operator of the vessel to perform the generator duties. Id. at
En ir .e—related wastes are treated quite differently in that
they are regulated from the moment they are produced. Since the
operation of the ship’s propulsion. system produces the oily wastes,
the ship’. owner arid/or operator are generators. The facility
involved in removing this waste from the ship is not a generator
because it Is not caustrg the waste to become subject to re ulattor.
- - thtsvaste is- already subject to regulation when prodUced in.
the. shLp The facility may be a transporter (Part 263) or a treat-
ment storage or disposal (TSD) facility (Parts 264-265), deperdtr
upon the actions it takes.
The Coast Cuard’s requirement that certain ports arid terminals
be certtfi d to have available adequate reception, facilities for
ships’ -oily wastes does riot necessarily determine the role of the

port or teri”iral in the RCRA regulator, •chetse./ For exat pIe, s
po or terminal that has available an indeperdaent waste hatler who
trar.sfers erzine rooi waste directly into a tark truck do. s rot
appear to fit the definition of venerator, transporter or TSO
facility. The waste hauler, or whoever is engaged in the nffslte
(i.e., off the ship) traz .portatton of the Waste, would be deemed
the transporter.
Of course, if th manifested waste is stored for any period
of time in tanks or cor.tair ,era at the port or termir.al, or if th
waste is removed to and stored in a barge, both the port aDd barge
storing the waste would be deemed T D facilities subject to the
requirements of Parts 270, 264 and 265. If whoever 1. transporting
the manifested waste from the ship stores the waste in coritairer.
e’eeting the requirement, of 3262.30 at a transfer facility, such as a
loading dock, the waste may be stored for 10 dave without being
subject to regulation under Parts 270, 264 and 265. See 40
CFR 3263.12.
The ship, as the generator, is also a TSD facility to
the extent th.t it is storing hazardous waste on board. Under
3262.34, a generator may accumulate hazardous waste on site for 90
days or less without having a permit provided certain requirei’enta
are met. EPA is currvrtlv finalizini a proposed rerulation that
would exter.d this accui’iulation period for generators who generate
between 100 - 1000 kilosrams of hazardous waste per month. See 50
Fed . !. !. . 31278 (Auvu.t 1, 1985).
The Apercy believes that the application of thy PCRA regula
tiors in this way will be workable for the ship. and reception
facilities subject to Coast Guard regulations. In situatic ns where
ships’ owrera or operators are unable to perform the generator
duties, ships’ agents that are, available at porte or terminals to
handle fueling aid other necessary functions, such as carrvtna out
Customs requirements, may perform these duties on behalf of the ship.
The Mercy would expect the shipping company or agent handlinp the.
required manifesting and record keeping functions to retain records
either at its U.S. business headquarters or at thi loeal.sgent’s
office located near the port or terminal where the ships have their
waste removed.
*1 Similarly, potential liability of parties under the
Comprehinstve Envtrotiuental Response, Compensatior
ard Liability Act (C!RCLA) is not necessarily determined
by RCRA responsibilities. For example’, under CERCLA 3107,
persons who arrange for transportation, disposal or treatment
of hazardous substances are liable fot certain costs, so
that parties who are not .generaeorsN under RCRA m y r.onetheleas
have certain CERCLA liahilitici.

Also, arty parties liable! for perfor tr4 lererator duties may
de t rate amorip themselves the pereor who will actually carry out
those fur ,ctiors. Par exai ple, where bnth the ship ard a central
waSte removal facility are dee ed to be peneratora, they may i utual1y
a t-ee that the cer 4 tral facility will perform the er erator duties.
We hope that this ha. beer. responsive to the Coast Guard’s
concerns yI .FardtrR the tnteractior betve,er. the MARPOL nd RCRA
regulatiors. Please dov ’t hesitate to cortact me or truce Weddle.
of my staff at 3 2 -4746 if you have, any further questiors.
S ircerely,
Original signed by
Marcia E. Williams
Marcia William.
Office of Solid Waste

April 30 1986 9432.1986(08)
SUBJECT: Standards Applicable to Pipelines
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director, Office of Solid Waste
TO: Barry Seraydarian, Director, Toxics and Waste
Management Division (T-1)
This is a follow-up to my interim response of March 19
(attached) concerning standards applicable to transportation by
Since my interim response, Carolyn Barley has been in
contact with Mostafa Badmand of your staff to discuss the
questions you raised in your memorandum of February 21.
Specifically, you ask whether transportation of hazardous waste
by pipeline is acceptable under RCRA when the definition of
transportation contained in 40 CFR 260.10 includes only “the
movement of hazardous waste by air, rail, highway, or water.”
The fact that the definition of transportation does not
include pipeline as a mode for the transportation of hazardous
waste does not mean that hazardous wastes via pipeline is not
acceptable under RCRA. Rather, because the definition of
transportation does not include pipeline transport, the
provisions of 40 CFR §263 do not apply to the transportation of
hazardous waste by pipeline.
While the §263 regulations do not apply to the transport of
hazardous waste by pipeline, there are other provisions under
RCRA and CERCLA which may apply. For example, a release of
hazardous waste from a pipeline which is not immediately cleaned
up could constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to
health or the environment under RCRA S7006, and, therefore, be
subject to a §7003 action. Such a release may also be reportable
under §103(a) of CERCLA. The generator or owner/operator of the
pipeline could be liable under §107 of CERCLA for clean—up costs
and damages to natural resources, and may also be subject to a
§106 administrative order to clean up the release.
This document has been retyped from the original.

If you have other concerns or questions regarding
transportation by pipeline, please call Carolyn Barley on 8—382—
cc: Nostafa Radmand
cc: OSW
This document has been retyped from the original.

9432. 1986(10)
Lefinition ot ypro’uct “aterial
rarcla L. r.ilLia,rs, .irectorOrtg,i al S ’ed ‘Y
Office of bolid :aq e Mania I . LLLL
ru: IPomas . . Cevine, Liroctor
aste anaqement Livision
lecion IV
L resr onse to your -ei, nrandu” of larch 12, 19â6, e have
outlined below how you and the state ot South Carolina can roceed
with n r’ ittin’ and/Or enforcetient actions leaclincj to i su s ce of
d C A per’ it at the Savannah River Plant (SRP).
inverse of Mixed aste
‘?A has seen nd reviewed some of the Waite stream hook letc
r repareci by GE tactliciee. We reviewed tne one for P several
y ?ars a’)o, but we understand that it was since revised. :
‘:ooklets do not çrcvlde letinitivo lists of wastes t! at anc 1
are not rcaulated under KCPA. They i are1y provide a startir
‘oint for neqotiatirtq with th. facility to determine which
‘astes are re u1ated under PC1 A.
The ‘ ef1nition of ‘byproduct material’ in the Atoric Pnerqy
ct (, tA) ac,*s not explicitly resolve the question of which wastes
are, in their entirety. byproduct material, and are thus exe ”i t
Lrr RCi A, and which are ‘ iztur.s at byproduct and haxardous
waste and ar. thus r.qulaPed under nCR ?. The definition of
‘y roduct in 10 CPR 20.3 which you referenced in your o oranau t
ts rerely • restate nt of the statutory d.Unition arid, thu*,
noes nOt pro,Ld. definitive quidance to deterrnine which byproduct
etee ars.. qulated and which are excluded.
rC E recently proposed a revised definition of byproduct
‘aterial ( .ove iher 1, 1985, 50 FR 45736). The rroposal rUd ‘icr
‘ e witt favorable ub1ic co ents and it is unlikely that the- i
il1 tinalize the rule in the near future. The only way states
.iLl e able to judri wnich waste streams at any L ’O f cii .ity
c u1d na reQulated is to-work directly with the facility to
-a case—ty—caze •ieci5iong based on the A A datinition.

-ow ver, PA cors 4ørs all. mix.frd wast btr...aml to 1.; ct.
...ri1 regulation .in r RCRA. ‘J wo l1 -‘ct that t t3
t .c 3a radio ctiv ’ waste czam’ t’ or PA would 1so
1l wast s ..n t cir r ’juat:)Ly .-r,
t . tatas ar uthor e. d .ur UAet wast , L
t. cLr i t r .rt .tetions o,f t e r tat t s iiay r’m
r1 .’i L.)tLr .r t. t.on
U . o’ I CR.A tuthoriti .s
The avannah Uver Ptant s rnuLd provid to the tat ’ ol.
.ar iir a a er iit app cation or ali Waat unj t.s r ;uL t ii
under State Law. flescd on thnt iufor ation , t e ;tate s ould
•roc ed to roccss and issue a RCRA ‘ernit covering ai BCRA-r cu-
Lated units at tn facility. Units containing ni ed wastes (or
usi Ct. d o containing mazed wastes) are currentLy not covered
under the authorited RCRA program in south .arolina. Iiowevmr,
tnt . .tate rt gu1at.s mized wastes un r tat. law, units
c nta1ning such wastes may £1.0 be addressed wi tnin the stats
r:n . t.
The State sr ou1d obtain security clear nccs, wher*
n .cessary, a.nu use its rull rang. of ruorce nt authorities
to ç ain access to th. site and to require sa tplinq and analysis
y the lacility to dstermirit whether units should bo x qutated .
headquarters D0b has sssured full cooperation in obtaining
si curity c .earances Lor tate personnel.
PA can also use its H WA authorities to supp1e iont an auth—
orizd’l state’s authority over RC A-rta uiate.1 unite. Under 3 U4(u) ,
PA can jointly issue a permit with the 5tat. and impose corrective
action requirc tenta on has.srdous ste manag nt units and soLid
waste z anag.ment units (SWMU’s) at facilitie, that contain R4..RA—
re-ulat d unite. Altziou h ni.ged waste uniti are ot kCRA—r uulated
under uthor.zed Stats RCPA programs, Lxed waste will. cnnsid rt d-
tu a “sok d waste for PUttOSSS O corrPctivs s tion at solid
iaste anages snt units.
federal d.finition of M .oli4 waste” is to be used in
J’-ti rrina .ng what unit. are WMU’s, becaud. State defInitions were
not crutinLs.d in eveluating ap iLications for Stat• authori.ation
a. as necessary to as ic .. the adequacy of the tates
. r.iverse of basardous waste).t E .causo rixed waste is considored
e 3O1 C waitS under the r’cderai RCRA ro ram, an ts contaaninç7
.;ixed 4stes are SWPIU’s and ere subject to correctiv, action .
s anQther unit requiring a RCRA ?ermit at the aci1ity.
‘ reforri , in order to obtain authorlz3tlon for corrective
ct.On, .t5tts must obtain authoritation .or their ‘Jefinition
o eeljU waet , which ay not zclude rixed waste.

. s rt • rlier, -i e’ .aste unit is rot a C—re. u1.t r
t..n3.t in n authorizel h r tor , r.;: re -rnust “e it least
cnc. r ! — jc9 i, hazartiouc ste unit at a raciUty in orcer t r
-‘P tr’ • ti jsct mixe.1 .;5t ‘ nit tr cc’rrective actl ri r uir. ”onts
•.i ’- r :_‘.4(u).
d’-il rly. ‘PA -‘ , s’;ue an nr ir Jflt1i 3 iOL (h) rer’,jjri
- it - r1n ;, r.:esti 4 atjon ut reLeases and c.rrective a tjon, t ut
ti r er can aroly to ix ’ daste untts only if there j c’n or
- re unit u ject t interi ’ tatti 5 require ent!’ at tne jte.
- e!ronse to S’ eif1c ‘Jt’estion ’
In response to the t? r e P u11ets and the three nu’ bere1
it n a;e 2 of your ‘e orandum, we have the fojlowine,
‘ If you suspect that Part ‘s have not been submitted
for all i C A units, and/or the State should take
jr e iate enforce ent ction. tou and the tat. should
eteri ine who should aç propriately take enfo ce ent
action. If t ’ete are tized waste unite in c uestion ,
PA cannot enforco su r i sion of the part ‘s in an
authorized state. hhile PA cannot issue penaltie. to
anotner Federal aqency, the dispute resolution process
jescrihed in the revised Yederal Facility Coi plianc.
trateqy may be used.
• view at the Part submitted v SRP tay provide you
and/or th. State with sufficient intorivtation to ‘aks
such a deteri,inatiori. i owever, if it does not, then
CPA and/or the Stat. should recuire SP?, throuqh enforce-
ment action, to take such a deteri ination through
a pling and analysis or whatever other method
application of knowl•dgs of waste generation process)
-tay b appropriate.
• As stated earlier, th. booklets only provide a startiric
point for n.qotiations. PA HO will not be reviewing
or approvinq th. individual facility booklets.
I. he Nay 10 letter to CO did not delegat. any authority.
Th.refer., it need not be withdrawi .
2. The ! A definition of byproduct is the only appropriate
and legally entorceabte dot inition that can b• used.
ou should use that definition to make case—by—case
decisions, a. described on page 2 of this memorandum.
3. there is no locumentation availatle of the EPA review
of the sRP waste stream booklet.

I o e thLs 5Utticjgntly cLatifte3 your 4nd tne ,tate’g
UTtPflt authorities tt resr,ect to Deri itting and enforce’ient
acti0fl you might take t asP. We Li1 continue to rk
1 oti to resolve any re rainir’, LS J S, and would a ,precj tc,
. ir u kept irtforrieu about tne ,ror.resa ‘ou and t. .e state of
-uth L 1rojina are r”a tr’iu resolvirtq tr se isues with EP ’.
cc: .Ji’ c.3r rL ir . cion TV
£icParct Car pbeIl, ± er ton IV
Jc e ret dR an, (.GC
e ny 3aney, yPE
P ttr Cuerrero, USW
CkA ivision Dtrector , Regions X I II, V—X (wjt1 jncot in )
CRA Branch Chiefs, i eiijon5 I— lIZ, v—x (with incoming)
bcc: Henry Elsen, P.egional Counsel (613),
iegion X (with incoming)
State Programs Branch

Mr. lonald D. Conce
Operations Coordinator
petrosuill C1! .mica1.. Inc.
2523 Plogadore load
Akron. Ohio 44312
Dear liz. Cant.:
I ii’ responding to your 1ptter o’ J me 27. 19S6, vbtc
reque’attd ciaritication at tht etLn1tion o stverai t.rm. In
iO CFR 27C .2.
Th tero “holdin ’ and tss orary period’ are not
. zpiic&tLy oeiined in the ICk A r. ulations. holding in corcext
of these re ulatio s means containment. Storage, as ilefthcd
n C1 A means th. CoDta nent at hazardous waste, either on a
temporary basis or t r a p.riod of years, in such a n nneg a.
not tO COnStitUte disposal oi such hazardous waste.’ The t.rr
disposal (the opposit, of atora e or containment) is defined
in Ici.dcA (anø in the tCi’IA regulations) as “the dLschar ,...
leaking, or pl.cin or any waste into or on ativ lav d...sc that
such...wsstt...nav enter the .rvtronment.N Tht types o
“hoLdin device. (i.e. containers. tank., •urtace Lmpoundm iits,
and waste p2ies) are d,rined in the r ulatioo..
The term temporary pertod . although not explicitly
d zin d , is u dircctly ltmttrd in the regulation, b the closure
pLan and financial. responsibilIty r.qtair.menta . These require
the tacility ownerloperator to specify up Lront the operating
period (closure tire) a d the aaxis ano t of waste to storaile
at any tin, and at cLosure. This da t ins. the •zteut or the
teuporary p.ried and slorag. activity. At closure, the
vast, must r ov.d tram all •tS$e
ALL hasardous vast. •tora . wilts, jnCt%Mtm$ stori atta
at recycilng tacUttt.e, ar. regulated by the RCIA rml.. l.as
exampted inPsrt 261. 264, or 265. Items associated with
storage wit. that are used to transfer hasardous vaste, •wcb
as pip.., fansis or hoses, ar. regulated as part of the storage

I understand that you recently met with staff in EPA’s
Region V to discuBs these definitions as well as the appl.tc-
ability of the requirements in 40 CFR Parts 264, 265 and 270
to your facility. Since implementation of our regulations is
the responsibility of our Regional offices I urge yo u to continue
working with Region V. However, if you need additoz al help
please feel free to contact me.
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Y.J. Kim, Region V
Lisa Pierard, Region V
CQszman:WH—563:5—256: 382—2210:7/15/86
Disk Os #6/Index 26

432. 1996 (13;
AUG 61985
Honorable Matthew 3. Rinaldo
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. RinhidDi
Thank you for your JuLy 1, 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent Mr. Paul DeCosimo. Mr. DeCosimo requests an
interpretation as to whether he would be considered a co—
generator of hazardous waste as a result of recycling solvent
at a generator’s site using a mobile treatment techrtoloqv.
Based on the infori’ ation provided by Mr. DeCosimo, we do not
believe that he would be considered a co-generator for
regulatory purposes under most circumstances.
A generator is defined in Section 260.10 of the hazardous
waste regulations as, ...any person, by sit., whose act or
process produces hazardous waste identified or listed in Part
261 of this chapter or whose act first causes a hazardous
waste to become subject to regulation.’ Since the spent
solvent is presumably already a hazardous waste prior to Mr.
DeCosimo coming onto the generator’s site, and since the
solvent is likely to have been accumulated prior to being
recycled, the hazardous spent solvent would already have been
subject to regulation under the accumulation provisions of
Part 262 of the hazardous waste regulations. Thu., none of
the actions taken by Mr. DeCosimo would appear, in the limited
circumstances described in his letter, to cause him to become
subject to RCRA liability as a RCRA hazardous waste generator.
Mr. DeCosimo should, of course, be aware that if he
transports a hazardous waste off of the generation site, he
would be considered a hazardous waste transporter subject to
If you have any further questions, please call. Bob
Axeirad at (202) 382—5218.
3. Winston Porter
AS jj. nt Administrator

• -- .A, Jr ic .r1.* . .
9 4 3 2.1986(14J

s. uzann t . nger
I adi .ation Safety Officer
£1errell Dow Research Institute
9550 N. Zicnsvifl e Road
P .O. Box 68470
IrtdianapOLi8 . IN 46268 — 0420
Dear Ma. Unger:
This is in response to your letter of AUgust 18 in which you
proposed to incinerate on—site a waste that is both a by—product
material and hazardous.
After reviewing the information presented in your ].e er, E.PA
has concluded that the waste strewn in question would be considered
a radioactive mixed waste (see enclosed Federal Re iste notice.
which sets forth EPA’s interpretation of this term and RCRA’s
)urisdiction over it). As the Federal Pegister notice discusses,
in the past. EPA has not made authority to regulate the hazardous
components of radioactive mixeds waste a prerequisite to a State
obtaining authorization to run the Federal RCRA program. The
notice change. this, buy requiring States to pick up this piece
of ECRA if they wish to become, or remain, authorized. Since the
currently authorized Indiana program does not include authorization
for mixed waste., these wastes are not now sub)ect to the RCPA
regulations in Indiana, and RCRA approval is not required for your
proposed incineration.
Uowever, you are still subject to whatever regulations the
State of Indiana may have adopted pursuant to State law that are
applicable to the hazardous components of radioactive mixed wastes.
Therefore, I recommend that you work closely with the State of
Indiana to discuss th. appropriate management of these waste streams
under Indiana law. You should contacts
Mr. David Larnm, Assistant Commissioner
for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
105 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis. IN 46225
(317) 243—5026
Once the State receives authorization under RCRA for radioactive
mixed wastes, you will then also be aub ct to the RCRA regulations.

I cu r ave any c’ iitic 1 1ca e . c?cj t.r . 1so tc
cc :r ct 4ichaei, ;tatc Ir arar-.s LrarLc. , C±. ce c: ,c1 c 1
tr (_ ) . 32—2231.
::LrcGr i•J,
arcia L.
Office of o1id caste
cc; : i aae1
La: n’
L Vi trinçhar

‘ ‘ I
9432. 1986 15
CEO 2 2 g86
Mr. Frederick M. Swed, Jr.
RiIT. Inc.
Suite 124
1406 East Washington Ave.
Madison. Wisconsin 53703—3009
Deer Mr. $wedz
Thank you for your letter of November 10 requesting guidance
on application of the totally enclosed treatment exemption to the
treatment prior to disposal of baghouss dust generated in the
foundry industry. Your letter addressed a generic case in which-
an miesion control baghous. system and the treatment equipment
are directly connected to a cupola furnac. through a closed system
of duct.. The Agency does not beLir . that the totally enclosed
treatment exemption applies to the system you describe, subject
to the conditions described below.
As you stated, totally enclosed treatment is defined in 40 CFR
260.10 as(l) being directly connected to an industrial production
process and (2) constructsd and operated to prevent the release of
hazardous waste and any constituent thereof into th. environment
during tzeatment. In addition, the regulatory interpretive l.tter
iasued July 27, 1981to Travenol Laboratories (RIL 84) further
clarified what constituted totally enclosed treatment.
In the March 25. 1986 latter £r Region 5 to Grads Foundries.
EPA found that the specific configuration of th. Gr.d. baghous.
did riot qualify as totally enclosed because the hood collecting
emissions was riot directly connected to the cupola, only to the
baghouse. Aa part of that d.t.rmination. EPA stated that
a foundry cupola qualifies am an industrial production process.
but that the baghous. is an air pollution control dsvjc•
associated vit)i waste treatment prior to disposal.
Iowever, our answer to Gz.de may have been misleading.
Connecting the ductwork to the.cupola only fulfills half at the
totally enclossd treatment requirement. Th. question remains
as to whether a system that includes a baghouss qualifies a.
totally enclosed treatment. Since baghouse. do not rssoV 100%
of the hasardous constituents, treatment downstr.aa of a
bachouse (a not part f totally . n 1a a d rp n t Ji i

rou suggested that the baghouse is part of the produc’ ion
process because the cupola cannot be operated without the baghouse.
While your system night require modification in order to operate
without the baghouse, I do not believe that the baghouse is
inherently necessary to the operation of a cupola furnace. In
fact, prior to the development of air quality standards, cupolas
typically operated without baghouses. Baghouses limit emissions
from units sub)ect to Clean Air Act standards. Therefore,
the Agency still maintains that the baghouse is not part of a
production process, but is associated with waste treatment.
You asked whether adding the treatment reagents prior to the
baghouse would qualify as totally enclosed treatment. Since we
agree that the point of hazardous waste generation is typically
the bottom of the baghouse hoppers, any processing that occurs
prior to that point would not be treatment subject to RCRA
You are also correct in stating that even if a production
unit is open to the atmosphere. the unit downstream could still
qualify as totally enclosed. As stated in a preamble to the
§261.4(c) amendment. ‘Except for surface impoundments and non—
operating units, EPA did not intend to regulate...manufacturing
process units in which hazardous wastes are generated.” (45 FR
72025. October 30. 1980) In your case, however, the production
unit is the cupola, not the baghouse.”so treatment that occurs
downstream of the baghouse is not totally enclosed treatment.
In summary, although production units may not necessarily
prevent releases of constituents to the environment, units
downstream may still qualify for the totally enclosed treatment
exemption. However, while cupolas are production units, bag—
houses are not considered to be production processes. Further-
more, baghouses release hazardous waste or constituents thereof
to the environment during normal operation as a waste management
method. Therefore, dust treatment downstream of a baghouse system
directly connected to a cupola does not perform totally enclosed
treatment under the Federal program. In addition to this Federal
determination, of course, the States would have to be consulted
for State hazardous waste and air quality standards that apply to
these systems. I apologize for any inconvenience that arose from
your reading of the EPA letter to Grede Foundries.
Marcia Williams
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chief, Region V
bcc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I—IV, VIX
RCRA/Superfurid Hotline
Irene Homer, WTB

13. 3D 2 for Waste ter
Best orst te AvaLa Le Tethnology (BY T) for solvent stes
includes three aste treatabi. Lity groups (spent solvent - astawaters,
‘ast ters Er r the pha raceuticaL i.ridust.ry and other solvent
estee). Ho are wast.ewaters defined?
5 ; ‘ as established a separate treatabLilty group for spent
solvent wastewaters. Wastewaters are efined as solvent- ater
nix xres ntai ing total organic car .x’n (‘iCC) of or e percent
or less 51 FR 40609).

9432. 1987(01)
w IT
SUBJECTZ Total Enclosed Treatment and the Stsel Industry
Marcia E. Williams. Director ‘ /
Of fic. of Solid Waste
TOs James H. Scarbrough
Chief. Residuals Manag.nt Bran
Pagion IV
I have reviewed your mesorandum of February 4, 1987. regarding
our guidance to RN?, Inc., advising that it. baghous. dust treat
merit system does not meet th. requirement of a totally enclosed
treatment system. It i. unfortunat, that Region IV apparently has
reviewed a similar facility in Alabama and reached the opposit.
conclusion. Although I understand your reasoning in that decision,
I cannot concur with it. I believe this interpretation would
unnecessarily broaden the .zemption and create new problems in
th. definition of what constitute, a treatment unit.
The concept of a totally enclosed treatment unit in 40 CFR
1260.10 was designed to prevent the need for a permit for treatment
that occurred in pipes exiting a process unit. As a result, this
definition made clear that th. treatment units must be connected
directly to an industrial production process. By not adhering
strictly to this principle, your interpretation would broaden
the universe of exempt units beyond what was intended for this
As you note in your memo, the baghouse is not part of the
production process. Therefore, as stated in my December 22. 1986,
letter to RMT. the dust fixation system cannot be considered
irectly connected to the process because the baghouse is open to
the environment. Although listed waste is ot generated until the
er’.ission control dust is collected in the baghouse hopper, this
clocs not change thn fact that there is an opening between the
producti.on unit and the fi.xationsvstem. I recognize that this

meari.s that any treatment provided downstream of a baghous. Cannot
be totally enclosed treatment. To find otherwise, however, would
require us to find that the baghous. i a process unit. I think
this would hopelessly confuse the definition of treatment units
and process its and complicate enforcament by introducing how
a unit is us.d into th. definition.
Therefore, I b.lL.v. that despite its possibis environmental
advantag.s, this unit should not be ex.mpt.d fr permitting as a
totally enclosed treatment unit. Ms.6 on your eztensiv. involve-
ment in th. design ar construction of this sy.t , I expect pr—
mitting will not cr.at,. an unreasonabis b..rri.r to the us. of the
closed fixation t.chnology on bsqhous. duets. Bxp.dited permit
r•vi.w would uem appropriat..
I also would not. that treatment in 90—day accumulation
unite i. currently .z.mpt from permitting. Managsa.nt within 90
days could mak• this jesus moot for the Alabama facility at this

I 9 7
SUBJECT; Regulatory Classification of Three and
Four-5 Lded, Floored Structures. oSW-185
FROM: Marcia E. Williams. Director/ 9”
Office of Solid West.
TO; Karl Brecer. Acting Director
Region V Solid Waste Branch (5HS—JCK-l3
Thank you for your patience in waiting for our response to—
your mer craridum of April 23, 1986. requesting guidance onhow
nine example. of three arid four-sided, floc red structures should
be regulated -— as tanks or waste pile.. As you noted, the
ramifications of these decisions are significant since tanks and
waste piles are subject to different regulatory standards. For
example. waste piles are subject to the land disposal restrictions
and have lost interim status unless the November 7, 1986, certifi-
cation deadlines were met.
We have been having a great deal of trouble and have spent a
great deal of time in an effort to develop a methodology that could
be used to identify these various odd—shaped units. Ws believe
that such an approa i is necessary to ensure that similar units
located throughout the country can be classified on a consistent
basis by Regional and Stats permitting authorities. Unfortunately.
there is a great deal of overlap with respect to the definitions
of “tank aM pil. found at 40 CPR 260.10. This overlap can
create a ob3am when it is necessary to identify certain specific
units su aa thos. described in the attachment to your memo. We
concluded: tbat the only viable long-term solution is a regulatory
“fix TM that-will be described in detail below.
Por the short term, on the advice of our Office of General
Counsel and the ffic. of Waste Programs Enforcement, we would
advise that individual units be identified identically to the
applicant’. Part A designation unless the unit clearly cannot be

a specific type of unit (e.g., flowing liquids cannot be managed
in piles; primarily earthen units cannot be tanjcs). If permitting
or closur. requirements are deemed inadequate, we would use the
corrective action (assuming there is a permitted unit at the
facility) and o ibus authorities to impose additional require-
ments, as necessary, to protect hu nan health and the environment.
The advantage of this approach is that it provides the most
legally defensible position in view oC the ambiguities of the
various regulatory definitions. The disadvantages include our
inability to use omnibus authoritie, for 90—day accumulation and
wastewater treatment tanks that do not require RCRA permits, and
our inability to apply corrective action r.quirements to these
same units at facilities with no other permitted units.
As explained above, our long-term strategy for dealing with
these units would be to mak. regulatory chang.s as needed. In
that regard, vs are considering a regulatory fix that we would
pursue as expeditiously as possible. This approach involves
reviewing the various definitions found in 40 CFR 260.10 including
thoss for (a) tanks, (b) pilas. and (c) surface impoundments, and
miscellaneous units under Subpart X. While various definitions
tend t overlap (for example both tanks and piles can accept solid.
non—flowing waste), we are abi. to make certain distinctions. Por
example, the definition of tank states that tanks contain materials;
the definition of a pile states that a pil, is a noncontainerised
accumulation of solid, non—flowing hazardous waste.
Therefore, our approach to classifying these units would be
to focus on th. terms Ncontainu and ‘noncontainerized.’ The
methodology that we have developed to classify thes. units is ro
first review the regulatory definitions. In general, this enables
one to distinguish tanks and piles from surface impoundments and
Subpart Q or Subpart X units. However, thers is considerable
overlap in th, definition of tank and pile. Where either defin.i-
tion might apply, vs would ask the question —— Is containerization
a function of the structur. or is it a function of the waste
itself? If the waste is contained within the unit by virtue of
the fact that it is a cchesiv• solid, the unit La a pile. If the
unit would contain any vast., including a free—flowing liquid, it
is a tank.
we w .2d describe this approach in a Federal Register notice
and, in tb same notice, would propose to amend the regulatory
definitiome.-of pile and tank, as required. so that this methodology
could be .mplcy.d nationally. For your information, we are pro-
viding an attachm.nt that classifies each of ths nine units based
on our use of the proposed methodology.

We welc e your input in critiquing Our long-ter1 strategy.
Additionally, if you would 1i ke to . jaCU8s this matter in Et re
detail, please have your staff contact either Bob DelLinger. ob
April, or Bill, Kline of y staff at (202) 382-7917
t tachrneflt
cc; Hazardous Waste Branch chiefs. Regions I-LV. VI-X
L .Loyd (3uerci. RCRA Ertforcomsnt
Matt Hale, Permits Branch
Robert Tonetti, Land Disposal Branch
Mark Greenwood, Office of General Counsel

Proposed Long-Term Approach Applied
to Uine Specific Units
Unit 1 is a four—sided structure used to store dry waste on
a floor P hat slopes towards the part of the building that has
three doors designed to admit front—end loaders and dump trucks.
The building floor is not designed to contain the waste (that is.
if the material being stored in the structure were a liquid i
could escape). Although the company has designated the unit as a
90-day storage tank, our methodology would classify this unit as
a waste pile with some wind dispersion control.
Unit 2 is a four—sided structure with windows and a 20—foot
opening partially closed with a 3—foot removable steel. barrier.
This unit was originally identified on Part A of the permit
application as a storage waste pile, and Region V correctly
denied a subsequent request to red.si p at. the unit as a tank.
Applying our methodology. ws would classify this unit as a waste
pile. If th. waste ware a liquid, it could escape; thus, only
the characteristics of th, waste allow it to be contained.
The structure is not designed to contain waste.
According to a consent order between th. State and the
company, Unit 3, when built, wiLl either treat reactive waste
in gondolas or in free form on th. floor by adding water to the
unit. If the unit treats reactive waste in gondolas, the unit
serves as a 264.175 contairus.nt system for containers and should
be subject to the Subpart I container regulation. If the wastes
are treated in free form on the floor, the unit cannot be a waste
pile since the unit will, be fleod.d with water, with the water
contained during waste treatment. Therefore, the unit is a tank
when waste is managed on the floor in such a manner that all the
waste is kept within the unit. However, if th, waste is mounded
higher than th. retaining sides or highest ]svel of the floor,
then the unit would be subject to the Subpart X regulation, pro-
posed on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40726). Specifically, applying
our methodology, Unit 3 couLd be operated, at times, as a container
area, a tank, or a niscellan.oua unit. Whil. operating as a
particular typ. of unit, the specific unit standards would apply;
thus th. p.1’ t would contain standards for each operating mod.
for which t unit would be used. To do this, the most stringent
design and.. psrsting standards that would apply in .ach of these
situations would be incorporated into the permit. For example,
this unit would eventually have to be closed under the most
string.nt closur, requirements applicable to any of its op.rwting
modes. Should the permitt.. maintain that the unit is always
operated as a tank, it could be psrmittsd as such. In a case
where the height of the waste was found to exceed the height of

the walls, the Region would have a choice of enforcement action..
The Region would either enforce against an improperly operated
tank (no freeboard) or a false permit application.
Unit 4 was initially a four—walled concrete tank that flooded
a reactive wacte with water to render the waste nonreactive.
i!owever,. one wall has been removed, and the fourth side is n
errted with sand while the unit is inundated with water to render
a reactive waste nonreactive. After treatment, the berm is
broken, and the Liquid flows into a drain in a concrete slab also
bermed with sand. Since the sand berm is not stationary when
emptying the unit, the unit is not a tank. Although the waste
is nonf lowing when covered with water, th. unit is not a pu.
ecause piles ar. not designed to contain liquids. Therefore,
using our approach. we would classify the unit a. an interim
statue Subpart Q unit, which will eventually be permitted under
the Subpart X standards.
Unit S is designed to solidify sludges that contain free
liquids. from the Limited a unt of information availabl, about
the unbuilt unit, th. unit would -iav• a roof, 3 walls, a sloping
floor, and a leak detection system. Applying our methodology,
this unit would be classified as a tank or a pile depending on
it. operating mode. If wait.. ar. always kept lowsr than t1 e
floor and wall height, the unit would be a tank. Howsver, if the
waste is managed in suds a manner that th. wastes pile up above
the floor and wall, height, the unit would be a pi].. Th. contain-
ment that is provided in the latter cas. would partially be a
function of the waste being managed, not solely of the design of
the structure.
Unit 6 mixes noncontainsriz.d wastewater treatment sludges
with lim, when the sl.udg contains free Liquids. Th. floor of
the unit slop.. towards catch basins which collect the liquids
that separat. from the pile.. Applying our methodology, Unit 6
would be a waste p11... Tha unit is manag.d •0 that waste exceeds
the height of th. retaining walls. If this waits were a liquid,
it could escape the unit. Th.r.fors, we would argu. that th.
structure is not designed to contain waste, the properties of the
material allow it to be contained in this unit.
In Unit 7, hasardous waste sludges and nonhazardous wastes
would be mised with sand and coal ash to eliminate Er.. liquid..
The propos ..unLt has a run-off control drainage syst•w that is
designed to-collect liquids draining into floor drains from the
waste pile. This design has a 12-inch r.inforc.d floor over a
6-mu polyethylene sheet, a leak detection system, and a 10—inch
reinforced concrete slab underneath. Under our proposed approach.
this unit would be a waste-pile. Liquids are controlled by drains,
not contained. Ps with Units 1, 2, and 6, the structure is not

designed to contain the waste, i -n that slope of the floor is not
sufficient to qualify as the fourth side of a four-sided tan)c.
Unit 8, which js to be closed, contai-ns EP toxic netai dust
that has bean premixed in a cement truck with another waste to
control fugutive dusts. A front—end Loader mixes in foundry sand
(which contains clays) t -o render the waste nonhazardous. The
unit is concrete, below grade, and has three concrete walls with
metal wall extensions that rise eight feet above the sLoping floor.
Applying our methodology 1 this unit could either be a tank or a
pile depending on how wastes are managed. !f waste is never
piled up higher than the highest floor level, it would be a tank.
However , if waste is piled higher than the level of the concrete
wall, jt would be a pile.
Unit 9 managed listed and characteristic waste in solid, semi-
solid, and Liquid form in a below grade, three-walled structure
with a sloped concrete floor and a pump—out sump at th. bottom.
According to the dimensions of the unit, utilizing the maximum
capacity of the unit would fill the unit over to the top of the
sloping floor. Therefore, under our proposed methodology, it
would not be a tank. hlthough the unit handled liquid wast. the
unit would be closed as a waste pil, if the waste was kept solid
and nonf lowing. Otherwise, th. unit would need to dos, as a
t i.cel 1.aneous unit.
n summary, applying our methodology, Units 1, 2. 6, and 7
appear to be waste piles; Unit 4 ii a Subpart Q treatment unit.
Depending on the nod* of operation. Unit 3 would either be a con-
tainment system for container., a Subpart X miscalleneous unit.
or a tank. Units S and B would be either tanks or piles, depending
on how wastes are managed, and Unit 9 would either be a waste
pile or a miscellan.ous .mit.

9432. 1987 C 03)
N iH 87
Mr. Anthony Basson
T.chnical Assistance and
Engin..ring Section
Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
Stat. of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43266—1049
Dear Hr. Basson,
Your letter of January 7, 1987, r.queat.d an opinion frou
this of fic. on th€ r.gulatory status of evaporators used to rov.
vat.r fron hazardous wastes. First, you ask.d wh.ther evapora-
tion would be considered tr.atment, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10.
Second, you asked whether if evaporation is considered to be
treatnent, an evaporator would be eligible for an exclusion from
permitting und•r th. generator 90—day accumulation exclusion or
the totally enclosed treatment exclusion.
You ar. specifically concerned about the blordal. Fluid
Eliminator, a devic, that in one circuastanc. would be used to
remove water from aqueous waste that is hazardous because of
its metal content. We consider that this unit is a treatment
unit because it meets the definition of tr.ataent contained
in 40 CFR ç260.lOj i. .. , it reduces th. volume of th• waste.
Additionally, for the reasons described below, the Nordale
units do not app.ar to meet the criteria established for totally
enclosed treatment.
A totally .nclo.ed treatment facility is defined in
40 CFR 260.l0 as a facility that is ...dir.ctly connected to
an industrial production process and. • .which is constructed and
operated in a manner which prevents the release of any harardous
waste or any constituent thereof into the environment during
tr•atment. As operated, the Nordal. unit discharges vapor
directly into the environment. Sinc. neither the definition
containsd in 40 CFR 260.l0 nor the preamble (45 U 33218)
distinguishes betve•n hazardous and nonhazardous constituents
in the hazardous vast. a totally enclos.d treatment system can
not release any constituents into th. environment. Although the
wet. y u L. )Isrs 4 idW iJt jitc Il bs.i. 1 it. .l . i iit.iit,
•_ __ J ... ..IL. I I.i.a I I
ei o •

evaporation could rel.a.. volatil, organic. a. v.31 an water
vapor into the environment. Therefore, we believe the Nordala
units do not meet th. criteri, of totally enclosed treatment.
with r.gcrd to the 90—day accumulation ezclusion, g.nerators
who accumulate hazardous waste on—sit, for 90 days or less in a
tank do not nead a permit if they meet the requirement. of 40 CP’R
1262.34. Thu policy is stated in the pr.ubl. to the snail
quantity g.n.rator regulation. that vets promulgated on Play 24,
1986, (51 PR 10168). The Uordal. Fluid £ liainator nests the
definition of a thermal treatment tmit in that it is a dvjce
that us.. elevated tsap.ratur.s as the primary means to g.
the chemical, physical, or biological character of th. hazardous
waste (a.. 40 CFR 1260.10). Bowever, our review of the manufac-
turer’s literature leads i, to the conclusion that this speettia
evaporative unit also me.ts th. definition of •tank a. that
term is used in 40 dR 1262.34. Therefore, generators could
remove water from hazardous wastes using the Nordal. mit.
without obtaining a RCRA permit provided they comply with the
provisions of 40 C I I 1262.34.
I want to mak, you aware of ths fact that the Agency a
currently developing regulation.. that would apply to air anissioni
from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Th• first
phase of thi. rulemaking effort was p iblish.d in proposed form on
February 5, 1987, (see enclosed 52 P13748). Additionally, we are
considering modifying the 90-day accumulation standards as dis-
cussed in an advanced notice of propo.e rulemaking that appeared
in the Federal R inter on July 14. l9 , Cs.. enclosed Si PR
25487). Thus, n the utur•, we would regulat. air emissions
from evaporative equipment if we were to determin, that emissions
from these units posed an unacc.pt.ble risk to human health and
the environment.
If you would lik, to discuss thi. matter in more dstail,
please contact Robert Dellinger, ief of the Waste Treatment
Branch, at (202) 382—7917.
• inc.r.ly,
Ilarala 1. William.
Offic. of Solid W t•
tt Ea e

5. lobi le Waste ter Treatment L n.its
ste.,a-.er treat-ent units, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, are excluded
fran the perr’..ltting requira nts per §270.1(c)(2)(v). In order for a
unit t reet the “waste ter treatment” excLusion, it rust meet the
tnree criteria set in §260.10.
(1) : st pert of a waste ter treatment facility that is
sub:ect to §402 or §307(b) of the Clean Water Act;
(2) tst receive and treat or store a waste ater or wastewater
treatrnent sludge that is a hazardous waste, or generate and
acc . uiate a hazardous wastewater treatment sludge, and
(3) it rust be a t.arik as defined in §260.10.
1 stewater trea ent units, by definition, must be tanks. A tank is
defined in §260.10 as ‘a statutory device. desi ed to contain an
acc.rtu I at ion of hazardous waste which i.s constricted prirnari i.y of
non-earthen r teriaJ.s. .. which provide structural support.
A otent.ia1 application of r bi1e treatment unit technol y is for a
- c c i. ie eat.-ent uru t to be used for . ..astewater treatent Ce .
erir c s1ud es). iS it oossib le for a robile treatment unit to
be a as iefiried in §260.10?
Yes. A n bi1e treatment unit could be 3 tank as efined in §260.10.
Mthcuc h 260.10 defiies a tank as a stationary evi.ce”, EPA has
eter .tned that a robile tank could be a tank” provided that it
is ir terided to be stationary when in operation and that it meets
the defiruti n of a tank in all other respects (See 52 FR 20g19).
In adthton, EPA prcçx ed regulations in the June 3, 1987 Federal
Register (52 FR 20914) for permitting of nobile treatment units
( 1Rs) that are sub)ect to RCRA. According to the proposed rule,
‘1I’U .ould obtain a state- ’ide technical permit and a site specific
permit that would a1la. it to operate. EPA is also r uesting
cannents on the Hazardous Waste Treati nt Council • a suggestion
to exclude certain “lad risk” treatment ni. such as evaporation
or dewatering units, fran the permitting process.
Source: Robin Anderson (202) 382—4498
Research: Jennifer 3. Plane::

Marc R. Wolman, P.E.
EnerGroup, Inc.
The Thomas Block
116 Commercial Street
Portland, Maine 04101
Dear Mr. Wolman:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 19, 1987,
in which you request an opinion on the regulatory status of a
hypothetical waste treatment facility. Since the premises you
provided in your example stipulate that the facility neither
receives nor generates hazardous waste, none of the RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste rules would apply ( i.e. , the hazardous
waste rules only apply to the management of “hazardous waste”).
However, if the facility was subject to the hazardous waste
rules, incineration would not be considered “totaLly enclosed
treatment” because some emissions would inevitably be released to
the environment. (In your example, the incineration is of
nonhazardous waste, so the point is moot.) You should also note
that EPA does have RCRA Subtitle D guidelines for solid waste
incinerators at 40 CFR Part 240; these guidelines are implemented
through State regulations.
If you have any further questions in this area, please call
Mike Petruska at (202) 475—6676.
Marcia E. Williams
Di rector
Of f ice of Solid Waste

WASHINGTON . 0 C 20460
1 Z
JUL . I 7 987
Major Jesse Cah lLon
U.S. Army Material Command
5001 Ciserihower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333—0001
Dear flajor Cabellon:
This Letter is in response to your request to Sonya Stelmack
cnncerning confirmation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(E PA’s) policy on deactivation (popping) furnaces. As we have
stated verbally and in past correspondence (copies enclosed) to
the Department of Defense and Region VII, EPA classifies popping
furnaces as incinerators.
Under 40 CPP. 260.10, “incinerator” is defined as “any enclosed
device using controtLel flame combustion that neither meets the
criteria for classification as a boiler nor is listed as an
industrial furnace.” Popping furnaces meet the definition of
LncLllerator because the process that occurs in the enclosed unit
is controlled f tame cnmbustion. The reaction which occurs is
initiated by controlled flame heating and the resulting detonation
products are combusted.
Existing units are thus subject to the 1989 statutory deadline
for permitting of incinerators. Section 3005(c) (2)(C) of HSWA
states that interim status shall terminate on November 19, 1989,
for incineratorn which have not been permitted, and for which a
permit application was not submitted by November 19, 1986.
According to information provided by your office, there are two
popping furnaces (Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Missouri
and McA1.ester Army A’nnuinition Plant in Oklahoma) for which Part
B applications have not been submitted, and which plan to burn
onLy munitions classified as non-hazardous. These facilities
should be in touch with their permitting authorities regarding
closure requirements associated with the cessation of hazardous
waste hurniny.

I trust that you will disseminate this information to
the appropriate personnel at the popping furnace facilities.
Souiya steirnack wtlI continue to work with you arid the Regional
offices to define the permitting approach for popping furnaces.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Sonya at
(202) 382—4500.
c: 1
Bruce Weddle
Permits and State Programs Division
i nclosures
cc: Incinerator Permit Writers 1 Workgroup
Connie N kah r , Utah Depart nent of Health
Suzamte Rudzitiski
Liz Cotsworth
Jim Mich te1
Chris Gruridler

9 432.1987(08)
.r. ic Ciseri. . a1es ar.ager
Fenton Cc. pany, Inc.
16L)8 4. Beckley
Lancaster. Texas 75134
Dear 4r. Olsen:
Thank you for your letter of June 30, 1987, in which
you requested information on the regulatory status of sludge
dehydration equipment which is part of a wastewater treatment
Your understanding of the r.quirem.nts contained in
40 CFR 270.l(c)(2)(v) is correct. Sludge dehydration equipment
that is dart of a wastewater treatment system is excluded from
the neea to obtain a RCRA permit provided the equipment meets
the definition of wastewater treatment unit as defined in
40 CPR 2b0.lO, and actually is used to evaporat, water from
the sludge.
It is important to note that the exclusion provided by
270.l(c)(2)(v) doe. not apply to conventional incinerators.
Such devices are subject to Subpart 0 of Parts 264 or 265 even
when part of a wastewater system.
I must caution you that various States haQe requirements
that are different from the Pedaral standards. Under their own
authorities, States can establish requirements that are more
stringent than the Federal requirements. In this instance, the
owner or operator is required to cemply with the more restrictive
requirements. Thus. I encourage you to contact an appropriate
State official to determine what the requirements will be for a
specific unit.

If you have any further questions regarding the Federal
ra uir ients, please contact Mary Cunningham of my staff at
(202) 3d2—7935.
Si ncerely,
•1arcia E. Williams
Offic. of Solid Waste
cc: Mary Cunningham
Steven Silverman, Eeq.
bcc: R. Holloway
B. Weddle
S. Rudiinski
IL Dellinger
it. Hale
G. Garland
D. Perle

August 19, 1987 9432.1987(09)
Mr. R.J. Barnhart, Ph.D.
Technical Manager
American and Chemicals, Inc.
Buddy Lawrence Drive
P.O. Box 4912
Corpus Christi, CA 73469
Dear Mr. Barnhart:
This letter is in response to your July 12, 1987 inquiry
regarding the status of the K006 wastes and the on—site disposal
unit containing these wastes at your Corpus Christi facility. As
mentioned in your letter, these wastes received a temporary
exclusion on May 25, 1982. Based on our evaluation of the
information submitted in support of your petition, however, the
temporary exclusion for this waste was revoked and a final
exclusion denied on November 14, 1986 (51 41320-41321) with an
effective date of May 14, 1987.
The State of Texas has been authorized by EPA to administer
and enforce a hazardous waste management program pursuant to
Section 3006 of WCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6926. In light of the State’s
authority, the future status of this disposal unit should be
determined by the Texas Water Commission. This will ensure that
the use of the unit will be commensurate with ongoing and planned
waste management requirements at the facility. In a similar
manner, if this unit is to close in the future, all closure
requirements should be determined by the Commission.
I hope this explanation has addressed all of your concerns
regarding the status of your petitioned wastes and the on—site
disposal wait in which they are contained. Should you have any
further questions concerning the Federal regulatory compliance
f or the petitioned waste, please feel free to contact Suzanne
Rudzinski of the Office of Solid Waste at (202)382—4206.
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Allyn Davis, Region VI Div. Dir.
Lee Haze, Region VI Delisting Contact
Sam Becker, Region VI RCRA Enforcement Contact
Randy Brown, Region VI RCRA Branch Chief
Bill Honker, Region VI Permits Section
This document has been retyped from the original.

LJ6 28 98T
Mr. Marc B. Wolman, P.E.
The Thomas Block
116 Commercial St.
Portland, iaine 04101
r..ar Mr. Walmart:
Thu letter is in response to your letter dated July 9. 1967
sent to Mike Petruska. Office of Solid Waste. Your questions
concern the applicability of the totally enclosed treatment
exemption for your ash treatment facility and the applicability
of other RCPA regulations for your facility. Your letter addresses
a hypothetical waste treatment facility that includes incineration
for purpose of energy recovery. The ash from the incinerator is
mixed with a non—hazardou. reagent, which you state substantially
reduce. metal LeachabiJity and EP toxicity levels. You also
state that the reagent addition vessel and mixing apparatus
prevent releases of any hazardous material into the environment.
The Agency does not believe that the totally enclosed treatment
exemption applies to the system you describe 1 for the reasons
explained below.
The definition of a totally enclosed treatment is defined in
40 CFB 260.10 as (1) being directly connected to art induetrial
production process and (2) constructed and operated in a iranner
which prevent! the release of any hazardous waste or any constituent
thereof into the environment during treatment. For your information,
I have enclosed the, regulatory clarification of a totally enclosed
treatrent facility issued by EPA in 1981.
In your hypothetical waste treatirent process, you state that
the incinerator is considered an industrial process. The Açency
disaqreee with your interpretation and insteaa, considers the
incincrator as a waste t e trcrt proc 5s. Therefore, the ash
nc trer.t cannot cualify as a totally r.clcsed treatment facility
L causc it is not cor.nccted to an ir t ustrial poccss and ( )
thc inci: er cr stach is op r t the air which c u1 inevitah.ly
lt a c r.rp r.3Z8. ’ k $ ccnEti !t rr t Z. ‘c t3.c. envi cr-er.t.

As you have requested, the other applicable RCRA regulation
that would apply to your facility is the small quantity generators
rule (40 FR 261.5). This rule allows generators of 100—1000
kg/month to accu ulete waste on—site in tanks or containers
for up to 180 days (or 270 days if they must ship their waste over
200 j ijes for treatment or disposal). Generators of more than
1000 kg/month only are allowed to accumulate w ete in tanks or
containers for up to 90 days. In either case the generator
would be exerpt from the permitting proces. for treatment that
occurs in the accumulation tank (see 51 FR 10146).
In summary, your hypothetical treatment facility would not
meet the totally enclosed treatment facility sz.aption becaus. the
incinerator is not considered an industrial process. Therefore,
the ash system is not connected to an industrial process but
connected to a waste treatment process that produces a hamardous
material a. a residual. t wever, some flezibility with respect
to permitting your treatment system may •zist it it can be described
as treatment in an accumulation tank as described in the preamble to
the small quantity generators rule. If you should hay, any
questions or clarification, please contact Monica Chatmon of my
staff at (202) 475—7236.
James Berlow, Chief
Treatment Technology Section
cc: Robert Dellinger
Robert April
Michael Petruska

4. Treatment of Infectious Waste
There is growing national concern over proper infectious
waste management. What are some of the treatment
methods currently used for infectious wastes?
Although RCRA section 1004 includes wastes with
infectious characteristics in the definition of
hazardous waste, there are presently no Federal
regulations for management of infectious waste
under RCRA Subtitle C. Instead, regulation of
infectious waste has been left up to the States’
discretion. EPA has, however, issued a guidance
manual entitled EPA Guidance for Infectious Waste
Management (May 1986), available through NTiS
(publication number PB—86--199] .30) which describes
numerous methods for effective treatment of
infectious waste. Many treatment methods employ
some form of heat or chemical sterilization.
Stear sterilization uses steam at a temperature
high enough to kill infectious agents in
combination with pressurization in a vessel such as
a steam sterilizer, autoclave, or retort. Steam
sterilization is an effective treatment method for
low-density wastes such as plastics. A method that
can be used for most types of infectious waste is
incineration. Incineration converts combustLble
wastes into a rtoncornbustible ash while combustion
gases are vented to the atmosphere. A third type
of heat-related treatment is thermal inactivation.
For liquid wastes, thermal inactivation heats the
waste at a set temperature for a designated period
of time. Solids may be chemically inactivated by
heating them in an oven, typically at 320 degrees
to 380 degrees Fahrenheit for two to four hours.
Chemical treatment methods include gas vapor
sterilization and chemical disinfection. In
gas/vapor sterilization, the infectious waste is
fumigated with a gaseous or vaporized chemical such
as ethylene oxide or formaldehyde. Chemical
disinfection (the name is self-explanatory) is
effective for, liquid wastes but may also be used
for solid wastes.
A technology that may be used in the future is
sterilization by irradiation. Ionizing radiation
has already been used to sterilize other materials
such as food and medical supplies.
Source: Jacqui. Sales (202)475-8933
Research: Jennifer B. planert

9432 .1987(12)
r ‘ZL ifl
Mr. Richard A. Uhlar
International Chemical Workers Union
1655 West Market Street
Akron, OH 44313
Dear Mr. Uhlar,
Thank you for your letter of September 17 regarding the
definitions of “owner” and tioperatoru under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAJ and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Recovery Act
(CERCLA). You have asked whether your members can share in any
liability for RCRA or CERCLA violations that occur at a plant.
Although RCRA does not contain a statutory definition of
“owner” or “operator,” the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Section
260.10 state the following:
“operator” means the person responsible for the
overall operation of the facility.
“owner” means the person who owns a facility or part
of a facility.
Section l0l(20}(A) of CERCLA provides:
“ [ O]wner or operator” means . . . in the case of an
onshore facility or offshore facility, any person
owning or operating such facility . . . . Such term
does not include a person, who, without participating
in the management of a facility, holds indicia of
ownership primarily to protect his security interest
in the . . . facility.
It is clear that one must hold an ownership interest in a
facility in order to fall within the definition of “owner”
under either RCRA or CERCLA. With regard to the definition of
“operator,” the courts have consistently held under either
statute that this term requires some degree of participation in
the management of the facility or authority to make decisions
regardinq the handlina or clisnncal of hazardous substances.

Therefore, non-management orkers of a plant ou!d typ zal:
not fall under tne definition of an “owner” or an “operator”
under either statute.
You should be aware, however, that the civil enforcement
provisions of RCRP 1 Section 3008(a), which is the basic permit
enforcement authority, extend to all persons. Nonetheless, to
date, there have been no civil enforcement actions taken under
RCRA (or CERCLA) against employees below the level of corporate
officer or manager. Of course, individual employees may be
criminally prosecuted for knowing violations of RCRA under
Section 3008(d) arid (e).
Finally, depending on applicable state law, an employer may
also “pass through” civil liability to employees by including
indemnification provisions in employment contracts. In such a
case, the employer’s right to indemnification or contribution
would not be governed by RCRA or CERCLA.
I trust this information is responsive to your inquiry. If
you have additional questions, feel free to contact Anna mode
in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring at
(202-475—8212) or Frank McAlister in the Office of Solid Waste
at (202—382—2223).
Marcia Williams
Office of Solid Waste

SUBJECT: Office of Solid Waste Activities for Persistent Marine
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Cynthia Dougherty, Deputy Director
Office of Marine Estuarine Protection (WH—556F)
The Office of Solid Waste has no activities or programs
that relate directly or indirectly to persistent marine debris.
However, we would like to stay abreast of any activities that
may be pursued with respect to such material because of tile
impact or interrelationship with our ongoing program for
effective management of solid waste. Please add Michael Flynn
(WH—565) as your contact point for this office; he may be
reached at 382-4489.
Under the definitions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)--and the regulations developed in response
to it—-the term “disposal” includes deposition of solid waste
into or on any land or water, Thus, debris deposited on or into
rivers or continental waters of the United States is subject to
control under RCRA. To date we have taken regulatory action
only on those wastes that we have defined as hazardous; some
guidance—type regulations have been issued for non—hazardous
wastes. We are developing additional control approaches for
non-hazardous waste and welcome any information or options you
may offer. As part of that developing program for non-hazardous
waste we did conduct a study of the municipal waste stream. A
copy of’ the report is attached.
Please let Mike 1a ow if you need anything else, We look
forward to participation in your program.
cc: Jeffrey Denit, OSW

Elihu I. Leifer. Esq.
Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Counts
1125 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 801
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Leifer:
Thank you for your letter of October 19, 1987, in which you
requested guidance and a clarification of our position regarding
the regulatory status of the spent pickle liquor to be generated
at the USS/POSCO facility at their plant in Pittsburg,
California. Since we have been involved, the Agency has
reviewed information provided by both the Contra Costa Building
and Construction Trades Council and USS/POSCO. This information
was provided to assist us in reaching a decision as to whether
the spent pickle liquor at the POSCO facility was considered a
hazardous waste and subject to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste rules. We regret that we
could not provide an answer before the Council’s October 20
While we appreciate and understand your desire to resolve
this matter as soon as possible, the Court of Appeals decision
in American Mining Conaress v. , 824 F.2d 1177 (D.C. Cir.
1987), has complicated our decision. In particular, the court
held that EPA’s authority over hazardous waste recycling
activities is limited to those activities that, in some sense,
involve discard. In addition, the court indicated that EPA has
no authority under Subtitle C of RCRA regarding those activities
involving the recycling of hazardous secondary materials that
are recycled in on-going, manufacturing-type processes. The
activity to be conducted at the USS/POSCO facility in Pittsburg,
California, may involve such type of recycling. The Agency
intends to deal with questions regarding the scope of the
court’s opinion by issuing B .j .t.ez notices interpreting
the opinion and clarifying which portions of the existing rules
must be amended. Because these issues affect the entire
regulated conununity, and not just indivi uaj. facilities, we
believe that use of rulemaking procedure is a fairer and more
appropriate way of proceeding. As we h ve indicated previously,
we expect to publish these notices within the next one to three
months. However, we will provide an update in three to four

In the meantime, we have reviewed the available information
to determine whether the spent pickle liquor generated at the
USS/POSCO facility is abandoned by being incinerated. We
believe the spent pickle liquor is being processed in an
industrial furnace to produce the usable products hydrogen
chloride and ferrous oxide. Therefore, the spent pickle liquor
is not being incinerated. We consider the reclamation furnace
to be an industrial furnace under the expansive definition of
“smelting, melting, and refining” furnaces designated as
industrial furnaces under 40 CFR 260.10. Specifically, we
believe the furnace is an integral component of the finishing
process. We also believe that the finishing process is an
extension of the smelting, melting, and refining process because
it processes on-site intermediary products produced by those
operations. The pickle liquor recovery unit is an integral
component of the finishing operation because the feedstock,
pickle liquor, is generated on-site by the finishing process,
and one or more products produced by the recovery unit are
reintroduced into the smelting, melting, or refining (or
finishing) processes.
We believe that an expansive definition of smelting,
melting, and refining furnaces is justified. The recovery unit
clearly meets the criteria for designation as an industrial
furnace. It produces usable products -- hydrogen chloride and
ferrous oxide. rhe unit is not used to destroy a waste by
incinerating organic compounds. In addition, in 1985, when EPA
changed the definition of an incinerator from a test based on
the primary purpose of the combustion device (i.e., use for
destruction of wastes) to a test based on the physical
characteristics of the device (i.e., enclosed device using
controlled flame combustion but not meeting the definition of a
boiler or industrial furnace), the Agency stated that “this
change is essentially a clarification of the existing rules
which should nave little effect on the number or identity of
units already subject to (regulation as incinerators]”. (See 50
617 (January 4, 1985).) Given that the primary purpose of
the recovery unit is not to destroy waste but, rather, to
produce products, the Agency did not intend to regulate the unit
as an incinerator. This unit is not used to destroy abandoned
materials, but rather to recover usable products.

In closing, I want to assure you that we are closely
examining the issue at USS/POSCO and will do our best tO get an
answer to you as soon as possible on EPA’s authority to regulate
the spent pickle liquor.
t 4 1 4 4 /
. W ton Por;er
ssistant Admitiistrator

9432.1938 (01)
FEB I 11988
SUBJECr: Regulatory Interpretat
F 4: Marcia E. Williams,
Office of Solid
Judy Kertcher, Acting Qkie (5HS-13)
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
As requested by Chevron Chenical Canpany, a meeting was held on October 23,
1987 with Chevron representatives and m lnlers of my staff to discuss the possi-
bilities for reversing an earlier interpretation made by the Agency that a still
bottan waste generated at their polystyrene production facility in Marietta,
Ohio, is a F005 hazardous waste. (See attached meno EPA/OSW to EPA Region V 1
Septeuber 1, 1987).
During the meeting, the Chevron attendeec agreed to forward oi r office
additional information that uld support their opinion that their waste is a
process waste contaninated with toluene (4%) and does not meet the definition
of a spent solvent (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F005).
After careful review of the information that has since been forwarded,
our Office agrees the waste is not the F005 hazardous waste as was interpreted
earlier. Chevron uses toluene as both a solvent (i.e., to solubilize snail
quantities of additives) and a feedstock (i.e., a chain transfer agent) in
their process. The primary purpose of the toluene, however, is to control the
rate of reaction as a chain transfer agent. During the reaction, polymer chain
growth proceeds until it is stopped by sa event such as an encounter between
t “growing ends of a chain resulting in imatual termination or utilization of
a readily renovable group fran another nolecule (chain transfer agent). Every
toluene xnoiecUe utilized in this chain transfer activity then becanes a seed”
and an inherent part for the growth of a new polymer chain, and, as a result, is
partially consuned. The excess toluene is recovered for reuse in the process.
Chevron claims that years of research indicate that toluene is used in lieu of
other chenical. agents because it is the ideal chain transfer agent for their
process and is safer to use.

A sinilar issue was reviewed by the Agency several. years ago. In that
case, taLent, methanol, and m-cresol (camcn solvents) were used as reactants
in the production of pesticide products. The quantities of these materials fed
into the process were of such excess, that large anount of the chanicals did
not react and had to be reinved fr a n the process as waste. The Agency concluded
that these wastes were not the listed spent solvent wastes because toluene,
methanol, and m-cresol were used as CheiLiCal reactants in the production process.
(See attached letter EPA/OSW to R. Scott, btbay Ctenical Corp., May 24, 1985).
Based on the sinilarities of the use of toluene in Chevron’ s process and
the process cited above, in addition to the additional information received
fran Chevron; our Office has determined that the recovered toluene is not an
F005 hazardous spent solvent waste. Therefore, the still bottaus that are
generated fran this process are also not an P005 waste.
Please advise Chevron of our interpretation and make then aware that as
the generator of this waste, they are responsible for determining whether the
still bottans exhibit any A hazardous characteristics (e.g., corrosivity,
toxicity, reactivity, or ignitability — see 40 CFR 261.21—24). Also, you
should investigate whether this waste is regulated by the state, which may
have note stringent regulations. Finally, careful handling of the still
bottan waste is advised because of Superfund lipbility that exists for wastes
containing CERCLA hazardous constituents.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if you wish to discuss
the matter further, please contact Ed Abran5, FF5 382—4787, of ny staff.

4. identification Numbers
Corporation A Owns a large site. Corporation B, a wholly
owned aubsidiary of Corporation A, is a permitted treatment
facility on the site. Corporation B baa an identification
number associated with this Bite activity. Corporation C,
another wholly owned subsidiary of Corporation A, is also
located on this site and will be generating hazardous waste.
Should Corporation C use the identification number which is
associated with the site, although a different Corporation,
or is Corporation C required to obtain its own identification
Section 262.12 requires a generator to have an EPA
identification number before treating, storing,
disposing of, transporting, or offering for
transportation, hazardous waste. The definition of
generator, in Section 260.10 is keyed to both person and
site: “any person by site whose act or process produces
hazardous waste...”. The definition of person in
Section 260.10 is “an individual, trust, firm, joint
stock company, Federal agency, corporation (including a
government corporation), partnership, association,
State, municipality, commission, political subdivision
of a State, or any interstate body.” The definition of
individual generation site in 40 CFR Section 260.10 is
the contiguous site at or on which one or more
hazardous wastes are generated.” An individual
generation site, such as a large manufacturing plant,
may have one or more sources of hazardous waste but is
considered a single or individual generation site, if
the site or property is contiguous.
In this situation Corporation B and Corporation C are
two distinct entities (i.e., persons). They must each
apply for a separate EPA identification number. Even
though identification numbers are usually site-
specific, where different people conduct different
regulated activities on a site, a person conducting each
regulated activity must obtain an EPA identification
number. This does not preclude an EPA Regional office
or State from issuing the same number to two persons.
Source: Diane Regas (202) 382-7706
Research: Craig Campbell

1. Definition of Tank/Definition of Wastewater Treatment Unit
A facility includes a wastewater treatment unit that meets
the definition in Section 260.10 and the Section
264.l(g)(6) exclusion. Piped directly to the wastewater
treatment unit is a tank on wheels that is used to collect
an EP toxic wastewater treatment sludge. When the wheeled
tank is full it is disconnected from the piping and towed
to the generator’s 90—day accumulation area where the
sludge is emptied into the generator’s accumulation tanks
and/or containers. The wheeled tank is then moved back to
the wastewater treatment unit and reconnected. Does this
wheeled tank meet the definition of a tank or a container?
If it is a tank, would it also be covered by the wastewater
treatment unit exemption?
The wheeled tank would meet the definition of a tank
under Section 260.10 because it is stationary during
operation. Devices that are typically used as part of
the storage/treatment system and that are directly
connected by piping to the wastewater treatment system
are regarded as being stationary units. If the
wheeled tank is used to accumulate a wastewater
treatment sludge as part of a wastewater treatment
facility, it would fall within the definition of a
wastewater treatment unit per Section 260.10 and would
be included in the Section 264.1(g) (6) exemption.
Source: Carrie Wehling (202) 382—7706
William Kline (202) 382—7924
Research: Randall Eicher

9432.198 ( 34)
c Si 41
_____ WASN1NCTON. D.C 20460
Kurt E. Whitman, Project Coordinator
Saukville, WI 53080
Dear Mr. Whitman:
This is in response to your July 1, 1988 letter requesting
clarification on EPA’s current interpretation on whether the
depressurization of aerosol cans on-site would be considered
treatment, requiring a RCRA permit. You also requested
pertinent information on Ru *43 and on whether or not it has
been rescinded. I am enclosing per your request a copy of RU
*43 arid the 1985 memorandum which I believe is the one you are
You revealed in a July 26, 1988 telephone conversation with
Doreen Sterling of my staff that your main interest in this
issue was to determine the requirements for disposal of a wide
variety of aerosol cans located at a number of Department of
Defense facilities throughout the country.
The Agency is aware that conflicting interpretations have
been given by the EPA Regional Offices, EPA Office of Solid
Waste, and the RCRA Hotline regarding whether certain aerosol
can disposal methods constitute treatment and whether or not a
permit is required for this activity. The Agency is currently
evaluating this problem and may decide to issue more specific
guidance in the future if it is warranted. It is our policy,
however, to refer issues of this nature to the Region in which
the facility is located since they are normally best able to
make a case-by-case determination on whether: (1) the waste in
question is hazardous according to our regulations arid
(2) treatment is occurring.

According to our regulations, cans are hazardous if: (1)
they contain a commercial chemical product on the 40 CFR
261.33(e) or (f) lists or exhibit one or more of the hazardous
waste charactreistics, and are not empty as defined under Sec.
261.7; and/or (2) they exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste identified in Part 261, Subpart C.
Treatment, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, means any method,
technique, or process, including neutralization, designed to
change the physical, chemical, or biological character or
composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such
waste, or so as to recover energy or material resources from the
waste, or so as to render such waste nonhazardous, or less
hazardous; safer to transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable
for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume.
It should be noted that if any of the aerosol cans are
included as part of household waste. (i.e., from military
housing), those cans are exempt from RCRA Subtitle C under
Section 261.4(b)(.1).
If you have any further questions, you may contact Doreen
Sterling of my staff at 202—475—6775.
Sylvia K Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste

3. Definition of Wastewater Treatment Unit
On September 2, 1988 (53 34079), EPA published a clarification concerning the
scope of the wastewater treatment unit exemption (see 40 CFR Section
264.1(g)( 6 )) One aspect of this clarification concerned whether or not a ank
system is “dedicated to an on-site wastewater treatment facility. Specifically,
EPA stated, “. .if a tank system, in addition to be being used in conjunction with
an on-site wa.stewater treatment facility, is used on a routine or occasional basis
to store or treat a hazardous wastewater prior to shipment off-site for treatment,
storage or disposal, it is not covered by this exemption (emphasis added].”
Hazardous waste tanks which are part of wastewater treatment facilities
sometimes have waste removed from them for off-site disposal. Examples of
this situation include hazardous waste accumulation tanks (dedicated to on-site
wastewater treatment facilities) which must occasionally be cleaned out, and also
those tanks which produce (ort a routine basis) filter cakes or sludge residues as
part of the wastewater treatment process. Does the removal of these wastes from
tanks for off-site disposal preclude these tanks from qualifying for the wastewater
treatment unit exemption?
EPA stated that the wastewater treatment unit exemption applies to “any tank
system that manages hazardous wastewater and is dedicated for use with an
on-site wastewater treatment facility’ (53 ER 34080). The removai of waste-
water treatment sludges or tank bottoms for off-site disposal from tanks
should not disqualify these tanks from the exemption. provided that this
occurs as part of normal wastewater treatment activities. The removal and
off-site disposal of treatment sludges and tank bottoms are not necessarily
indications that the tanks in question are being used in a manner other than
for on-site wastewater treatment; on the contrary, the generation of tank
bottoms and filter cakes is a common process in wastewater treatment
operations. The definition of a wastewater treatment unit (Section 260.10, as
amended in 53 EE 1 34079) includes tanks which generate and accumulate
wastewater treatment sludges (either solid, semi-solid, or liquid) or tanks
which treat or store wastewater treatment sludges. The intent of the
September 2, 1988 notice was to clarify that the exemption does not apply to
those tanks that are used to store or treat a hazardous waste/wastewater prior
to shipment (either on a part-time or full-time basis) to off-site facilities rather
than manage it in an on-site wastewater treatment facility.
Source: William Kline (202) 382-79 17
Research: Ross Elliott

WASHiNGTON, D .C. 20460
EB 2 9432.1988(06)
SUBJECT: Totally Enclosed Treatment System Proposal
from TDJ Group, Inc.
FROM: Joseph S. Carra, Director, 1 ,,J 1 4-’ ’ ’ ’
Waste Management Divisio
TO: David A. Wagoner, Dire or
Waste Management Division
EPA Region VII
This is in response to your memorandum to Marcia Williams,
which has been referred to my division for a response. I have
reviewed your request for a determination of the applicability of
the totally enclosed treatment (TET) exemption as it applies to the
process proposed for generic marketing by TDJ Group, Inc. TDJ
Group has claimed confidential business information for the
description of their treatment system. ‘ iou have requested
clarification on three issues:
1. whether the TDJ Group’s proposal meets the TET exemption;
2. guidance on what parts of the treatment train would be
considered TET; and
3. the location at which samples must be taken to demonstrate
the success of treatment.
The Agency defines a totally enclosed treatment system in CFR
§260.1 as a treatment system that:
1.. must be connected to an industrial process; and
2. constructed and operated to prevent the release of
hazardous waste and any constituent thereof into the
environment during treatment.

In your memorandum, you stated that the TDJ Group’s proposal
is siiniliar to the proposal received by Region V for the Grede
Foundry. The differences between the TDJ proposal and the Grede
Foundry are the location of treatment and the method of collecting
emissions dust from the cupola. In the TDJ proposal, treatment
occurs between the cupola and the baghouse7 while treatment occurs
after the baghouse at the Grede Foundry. In the TDJ proposal, the
flue dust from the cupola is connected to the treatment system via
ducts. In the Grede Foundry, the hood that collects the flue dust
was not connected to the cupola but to the baghouse. Because the
cupola was open to the environment, the Grede’s Foundry treatment
system would not qualify for the exemption. In the OSWER directive
#9432.00-1, the Agency clarified to Region V that the cupola is
part of an industrial production process and that the baghouse is
part of a waste treatment process. Therefore, treatment downstream
of a baghouse would not qualify for the TET exemption.
The Agency also responded to a letter received by Mr. Swed of
RMT, Inc., dated December 22, 1986, requesting guidance on the
application of the TET exemption to the treatment prior to the
disposal of baghouse dust. In this letter, the Agency restated
that cupolas are part of an industrial process while baghouses are
part of a treatment process. Any totally enclosed processing that
occurs in the ducts directly connecting the cupola to the baghouse
would not be treatment subject to the RCR& permitting
requirements. However, the baghouse and any treatment downstream
of the baghouse would not qualify because the baghouse is open to
the environment. This should answer your first and second
Your third question refers to the location at which samples
must be taken to demonstrate the success of treatment. because the
treatment system prior to the baghouse qualifies for the TET
exemption, the equipment is not subject to the RCRA permitting
process. The TDJ Group would have to show, through the design of
the treatment system, that the system is totally enclosed. That
is, there are no routine leakages of flue dust from the cupola
throughout the treatment system. No other sampling is necessary,
unless your office believes a sampling program is necessary to
assure that no releases occur.
Attached to your memorandum, you have included a detailed
description and drawing of the TD3 proposal. Based on our review
of the design of the system and our best engineering judgement, the
treatment system is totally enclosed because the flue dust from the
cupola is transferred through the treatment system via closed
ducts. Therefore, there appears to be no possibility of routine
releases of the dust to the environment.

In summary, the treatment system prior to the baghouse would
qualify for the exemption, but the baghouse and treatment
downstream of the baghouse would not qualify for the exemption. In
order to determine the effectiveness of the treatment system
enclosure, the design of the system must show that the cupola and
the treatment train are sealed, thereby preventing routine releases
of constituents to the environment. Our review indicates that the
TDJ Group design appears to meet these requirements. If your staff
has any questions, they should contact Monica Chatmon of my staff
on FTS 475—7236.
cc: Marcia Williams
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I—X

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

3. Clarification of Electroplating Listings
The background document which supported the listing of F006 initially
included electroless plating within the scope of the definition of
electroplating. However, the December 2, 1986 Federal Register (54 , 43351)
clarified EPA’s interpretation of the definition of electroplating as it pertained
to the F006 listing. The clarification stated that electroless plating was not
considered an electroplating process. Would electroless plating baths which
contain small concentrations of cyanide meet the P007 listing when disposed?
No. Although the December 2, 1986, clarification was written specifically
for the F006 listing, the definition of electroplating may be applied
analogously to the F007 , F008 and F009 listings. Therefore, plating bath
solutions from electroless plating operations will not meet the F007 listing
when disposed. The bath would be regulated, however, if it exhibited one
or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste.
Source: David Topping (202) 382-7737
Research: Kent Morey

MAY 1 6 1999
Mr. John R. Jacus
Bradley, Campbell & Carney
1717 washington Avenue
Golden, Colorado 80401-1994
Dear Mr. Jacus:
This letter responds to your request of March 28, 1989 for
clarification of the definitions of “in existence” and “under
construction.” You explained that you want to evaluate the
business risks associated with proceeding to install an
industrial boiler to burn hazardous waste prior to the effective
date of the final rule governing the burning of hazardous waste
in boilers and industrial furnaces. You further expressed your
desire to be “grandfathered” under existing RCRA regulations and
not subject to new regulations, and your belief that being “in
existence” on or before the effective date of the new
regulations would allow you to do so. You cited previous Agency
interpretations of “in existence” and “under construction” in
the Federal Register notices of January 9, 1981 (46 FR 2344) and
May 19, 1980 (45 FR 33324) and asked three specific questions
related tO those interpretations. I have addressed your
specific questions below. However, in order to help you make an
informed decision, I must first clarify the effect of the new
regulations on existing boilers and furnaces burning hazardous
Currently, the burning of hazardous waste in boilers and
industrial furnaces is not regulated. When the proposed
regulations of May 6, 1987 become final, all boilers and
industrial furnaces not specifically excluded will become
subject to those regulations. Thus, non-excluded boilers and
industrial furnaces will be required to obtain a RCRA permit
before they-may continue to burn hazardous waste. However, as
is true for other operations that become newly subject to RCRA
permit requirements, the regulations allow for existing
facilities to obtain “interim status” if they satisfy certain
requirements ( see 5270.70). This allows continued operation
while the permit application is reviewed by the Agency. During
the period that the facility has interim status, it must comply
with the appropriate standards in 40 CFR Part 265. Once a final
RCRA permit is issued, it will impose standards pursuant to 40
CFR Part 264.

One of the threshold requirements to be eligible to obtain
interim status, discussed in the regulations at 40 CFR
270.10(e), IS that the facility be “in existence” on the date it
becomes subject to the regulations. Thus, the preamble
discussionS in the proposed rule of May 6, 1987 on “in
existence” or “existing hazardous waste management i.initS” relate
to the opportunity to obtain interim status, not, as your letter
suggests, to an opportunity to avoid new regulations. The
following discussion answers your questions as they relate to a
newly regulated facility’s ability to obtain interim status
where EPA is administering the RCRA program. Authorized states
may have equivalent or more strigent regulations governing
qualification for interim status. Please also note that if a
boiler or industrial furnace is currently operating at a
multi-unit facility that itself already has interim status, 40
CFR §270.72 is applicable.
1. Under current Aaencv policy, is 10% of the total prolect
cost the threshold br determining whether a potential loss due
to contract cancellation is “substantial” ?
Yes. As EPA stated in the preamble of the May 19, 1980
regulation, if the amount an owner or operator must pay to
cancel construction agreements exceeds 10% of the “total project
cost,” the loss would be deemed “substantial” within the meaning
of the regulatory definition of “in existence” (40 CFR
§260.10). The Agency reiterated that policy in the January 9
preamble, and has not changed it since that time. It should be
noted, as was discussed in the January 9 preamble, “total
project cost” refers to the total cost incurred for physical
construction of the project, and not to all costs that might be
associated with the project.
2. What constitutes a “continuous ohvsical. on-site oro ram of
construction” ?
As was discussed in the May 19, 1980 preamble, the Agency
believes that owners and operators who have commenced facility
construction in good faith prior to the date they became subject
to regulations should be classified as existing. The preamble
also explained that a continuous on-site, physical construction
program means physical site preparation, and does not mean
design, non—physical, or non-site specific preparatory
activities. The scenario you describe in your letter, where
foundation work has started, and no substantial delays between
curing of the foundation and actual equipment installation are
built into the schedule, describes, on its face, a continuous,
on-site, physical construction program. However, it should be
noted that the decision as to whether a good faith construction
project has commenced is based on the facts of each case and
will be made by the Agency or the authorized State at the time
the facility applies for interim status.

3. Does the term “all necessary Federal.. State. and local
pre-constructign approvals and permits” include county building
or constraction Dermits ?
No. The Agency discussed this issue in the January 19, 1981
preamble. There, the Agency stated that the permits and
approvals required under paragraph (a) of the definition of
“existing facility” (40 CFR 260.10) are those required under
Federal, State, or local “hazardous waste control laws or
regulations.” This preamble clarifies that the permits required
are limited to those issued under any law intended to control
the management of hazardous waste, including any laws designed
to regulate the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous
wastes or the siting of hazardous waste management facilities.
County building or construction permits would be included only
if they satisfy this condition, which usually they do not. As
the Agency also noted in the January 19 preamble, although the
Federal regulations do not require the facility to obtain such
local permits to have “commenced construction,” the facility
remains responsible under State or local law for obtaining such
permits before actually beginning construction.
I hope this answers the questions you raised. If you have
any further questions on this matter, please contact Barbara
Foster at (202) 382—4751.
Joseph Carra, Director
Permits and State Programs

Honorable Bill Goodling
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr Goodling:
Thank you for your May 9, 1989, letter referring the
communication from your constituent, Mr. Edward E. Shott of
Wellsville, Pennsylvania. Mr. Shott is interested in
reclaiming palladium, platinum, and other precious metals from
discarded automotive and electronic devices, and questions
whether there are EPA regulations applicable to such a
processing activity. Also Mr. Shott is interested in the
production of deuterium oxide (heavy water).
Regarding reclamation, more information is needed to
determine whether the materials in question are subject to
regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RcRA). If the material from discarded automotive
and electronic devices is scrap metal 1 the material meets the
definition of a solid waste; however, scrap metal that is
reclaimed is exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste
(assuming it meets the definition of a hazardous waste). If
the material is a spent material that does not meet the
definition of scrap metal (e.g. 1 a circuit board that has
relatively small amounts of metals)? it may be subject to RCRA
In defining hazardous waste, EPA specifically listed
residuals from many types of industrial, processes as hazardous
wastes and has identified characteristics that when met would
cause a waste to be considered a hazardous waste. Specific
state laws sometimes vary from Federal law, but must be at
least as stringent as Federal requirements. Thus, residuals
that would be produced in metal recovery may be subject to
state or F.deral. regulations.
The Stat.’of Pennsylvania is authorized to administer the
Federal hazardous vests program. Thus, I strongly encourage
Mr. Shott to contact hi. Stat, regulatory agency to determine
what, if any, regulations apply. In addition, Mr. Shott should
contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine the
regulations governing th. production and distribution of heavy

Thar k you for your interest in reclamation activities. If
I can be of further assistance, please let e know. If your
constituent Mr. Shott, has any further questions, he should
contact either Robert Delliriger or Mitch ICidwell of my staff at
(202) 475—8551.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Acting Assistant Administrator
0S-305/DELLINGER/T. MCXANUS -382-4646/CSH/5—26—89
CONTROL W AL89233 .2/DATE DUE: 5/30/89/DISK 25/NAI4E:G000LING

JUL 20 1989
Mr. Jeffrey A. Leed
Director — Waste Management
Exide Corporation
P. 0. Box 14205
Reading, PA 19612—4205
Dear Mr. Leed:
In response to your recent letter, while your understanding
is correct with respect to 40 CFR 261.22 defining the
characteristic of corrosivity, your letter appears to indicate
that there is still some confusion over the RCRA definition of a
The term liquid has three different definitions in the RCRA
program depending on the specific regulatory application. In
addition to the general definition used in the characteristics,
the other types of liquids include “free liquid” and “releasable
liquid”. These other definitions of “liquid” find application in
the waste management standards dealing with land disposal.
Specifically, the regulations prohibit the landfilling of
containerized wastes containing “free liquids”. Similiarly, the
amendments to RCRA passed in 1984, banned the use of absorbant
materials that would release liquids under the overburden
pressure present in a landfill (i.e., “releasable liquids).
The specific test procedures used in identifying the
different types of liquids are:
A “liquid” is the material (liquid phase) that is expressed
from the waste in step 2 of Method 1310 (the Extraction

Free Liquid:
A “free liquid” is the material that drips from the waste
using Method 9095 (the Paint Filter Test).
Releasable Liquid:
While we have not yet promulgated a specific test procedure
for defining when a waste contains “releasable liquid”, a
draft procedure has been developed and proposed - The Liquid
Release Test - method 9096.
Therefore, the first question to answer when characterizing
a waste to determine if it exhibits the 40 CFR 261.22 (a) (2)
definition of a corrosive waste, is whether the waste is a
liquid. For this purpose the first definition, using step 2 of
Method 1310, is to be used.
I hope that this helps to clear up any misunderstanding with
respect to the hazardous waste identification characteristics.
If you have any additional questions relative to waste testing,
please contact my office at (202) 382-4761. For general
questions on the hazardous waste identification characteristics,
please call the Characteristics Section at (202) 382—4798.
Sincerely yours,
David Friedman
Methods Section (0S—331)
cc: Devereaux Barnes
Reva Rubenstein

Mr. Carl A. Evers
Vice President
Trici]. Environmental Services
3055 Kettering Boulevard
Suite 400
Dayton, Ohio 45439—1900
Dear Mr. Evers:
I am writing in regard to your August 22, 1989 letter in
which you discuss your definition of a batch as it pertains to
the conditional testing requirements included as part of Tricil’s
November 17, 1986 final exclusion. [ Please note that we did not
receive an original copy of this letter; we were first made aware
of the letter through David Hefner’s November 17, 1989 letter to
us.] Based on your definition of a batch, it is clear that
Tricil and the Agency interpret the term “batch” differently, and
as discussed further below, this situation must be corrected.
As stated in our July 31, 1989 letter, we believe a batch
should, at a minimum , be confined to the sludge contained within
1 lugger box. Under Tricil’s current practices, however, 4—4 1/2
lugger boxes are represented by only a single composite sample.
We believe Tricil. is over-compositing the waste samples from
individual lugger boxes, and thus, is not collecting and
analyzing samples which are representative of the waste. As also
noted in our July 31 letter, we assume that the lugger box is
filled gradually over a given time period; grab samples should be
taken from each of the periodic loads transferred to the lugger
box. All grab samples representing wastes transferred to a
single lugger box should then be composited to form a single
comDosite sp inDle . This composite should then be subjected to the
appropriate conditional testing requirements. We suggest that
this same approach be used to collect batch samples at all three
of your facilities.
If you do not agree with our definition of a batch for
Tricil’s treatment system, then we believe it is necessary to
meet with you to discuss the matter further. In particular,
under such circumstances we believe it may be necessary to reopen
Tricil’s exclusion to include a significantly more precise
definition of a batch. As we mentioned in our July 3] letter,
any new proposal would also incorporate updating Tricil’s
conditional delisting limits. If you do agree with our definition
r f kat , hewetrer, irhsn ue gj3,ijj Jfj tL y ilQLui r qionai.
rd gtatie. auth.ritjas, and i ib€t sill tJ i C JMiaI i5 e h .

Should you have any questions or require any additional
information regarding this matter, please contact Linda Cessar of
my staff at (202) 475—9828. -
Robert Kayser, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Linda Cessar, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ

FEB I 6 99o
Sc.. .. ..s-: = E .E E :- SE
Mr. Robert D. Wyatt
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
Spear Street Tower
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
I am writing in response to your letter of January 6, 1990,
concerning the uses of the terms “liquid” and “aqueous” in the
RCPA characteristic tests for ignitability and corrosivity.
This letter will describe the background on this issue as well as
our current position.
As a preliminary matter, I want to clarify that EPA has not
promulgated any rule establishing a mandatory test method for use
in determining whether a waste is “liquid” or “aqueous” for the
purposes of ignitability or corrosivity testing. The generator
of the waste may use any method for which he can provide
appropriate scientific or technical justification. The Agency
has in the past provided guidance indicating that it is generally
willing to accept test results from the use of Method 9095, the
“paint filter” test. As explained in more detail below, however,
the Agency is in the process of re-evaluating its general view of
the suitability of Method 9095 for characteristic testing.
Mr. Friedman’s memorandum is one indication of this re-
When the Agency promulgated a rule requiring the use of
Method 9095 for completely different purposes in 1985, it
believed the method could also be used as a fast, inexpensive,
and reasonably accurate means of obtaining the liquid to be
evaluated in the ignitability and corrosivity tests. It believed
that material that passed through Method 9095’s mesh filter would
also be a liquid under more stringent tests such as step 2 of
Method 1310 (the “extraction procedure” test). Consequently, the
preamble to the 1985 rule stated that Method 9095 “...may be used
to obtain the liquid portion of the waste for subsequent
evaluation under the ignitability or corrosivity tests.” 50 FR
18370 (April 30, 1985).
Pruusd K. -.CIeJ P: ’

Si 11ar1y, in 1986, the Agency published the proposed Third
E ::.cn of SW-646. ThiS dcc e :, w .ich is cucted j v u
iet er, also endorsed the use of Method 9095 for determining tne
free liquid in the waste for purposes of the corrosivity test.
Subsequent experience with Method 9095 has raised concerns
about its suitability for identifying liquids for characteristic
testing. The Agency’s concerns with Method 9095 are described in
the discussion for the Toxicity Characteristic proposal of
June 13, 1986 (51 FR 21681). In that notice, the Agency
discussed problems with using the paint filter test for hazardous
waste identification purposes. Especially serious was the fact
that, in some cases, whether and how much liquid separated out of
the waste depended on how the waste was poured into the filter.
Under the 50 psi pressure the Agency selected as representative
of a landfill environment and specified in the Toxicity
Characteristic, liquid which would not pass through the paint
filter might be released from a waste and cause environmental
damage. We believe that landfill disposal represents reasonable
worst—case mismanagement for both toxic and corrosive or
ignitable wastes. Consequently, the concerns about the test’s
performance under landfill pressures are equally valid for these
additional characteristics. Also, certain particulate materials
are capable of passing through the paint filter, and using Method
9095 would lead to classification of these solids as liquids.
For these reasons, the Agency expects to announce in the
final rule revising the Toxicity Characteristic that Method 9095
is not appropriate for determining whether a liquid is present or
not for purposes of toxicity testing. The same reasoning applies
to the corrosivity characteristic, and we intend to provide
appropriate guidance in the preamble accompanying the final rule
adopting the changes in the proposed Third Edition of SW-846. We
also intend to revise the recommendation in the text of SW-846 in
our next update.
With respect to your quote from the 1980 background document
where we indicated we did not believe we needed to regulate solid
materials, that discussion was intended to deal with materials
which would “form an aqueous solution of high or low pH” (in
other words dissolve) rather than materials which contained and
could release liquids, which is the case here.
With respect to the issue of whether Mr. Friedman provided
testimony in the Hassayampa litigation, the aforementioned
memorandum was not addressed to any specific litigation. Rather,
it was in response to continuing questions that his office has
received on this matter and a desire on our part to reduce the
confusion. The cited regulation (40 CFR 2.401 sea.) therefore
is not germane in this instance.

In conclusion, there is currently no specific test for
liquids which the Agency mandates under regulation as part of the
corrosivity characteristic test. Mr. Friedz an’s
October 24, 1989, memorandum and this letter describe and explain
our Office’s current thinking on this issue, which we intend to
include in future guidance and in the next update of the Third
Edition of SW-846. We regret any confusion that may have arisen.
If you have any questions on this issue, please contact
Alec McBride on 202—382-4761.
Sincere yc irs,
I / — -
/ /1/11
/JI ’,’ir
;;?v4’ c
Di ctor
O(f ice of Solid Waste
cc: Christina Kaneen
Alec McBride
David Friedman

9432.199Q (02)
Mr. Christopher J. Jaekels
GSX Government Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 140
902 South Main Street
Saukville, WI 53080
Dear Mr. Jaeicels:
This letter is in response to your January 22, 1990 request for
-clarification of regulations applicable to bulking or containerizing.
compatible hazardous wastes for transportation. Specifically, you
requested EPA’s concurrence on your interpretation of the
regulations: that bulking and containerizing practices do not
constitute fuel blending, and thus, do not require permitting.
Determinations of this type are made by authorized states and
EP regional offices. In some cases authorized states have
promulgated applicable regulations that differ from Federal
regulations; hence, you should contact the authorized state
hazardous waste office. If you need information in an unauthorized
state, you may contact the appropriate EPA regional office.
However, for your information, this letter discusses in a
general fashion the federal regulations which may apply. First, it
is important to distinguish between bul}cing and containerizing
different hazardous wastes for the purpose of efficient
transportation and disposal from bulking and containerizing
different wastes to produce a hazardous waste fuel.
The bulking of characteristic hazardous waste shipments to
achieve efficisnt transportation may result in incidental reduction
of the hazards associated with that waste mixture. However, this
incidental reduction may not meet the definition of treatment (as
defined under 40 CFR Section 260.10) because it is not designed to
render the waste nonhazardous or less hazardous. Accordingly, such
activity may not require a RCRA permit. For a specific situation a
determination is made by the appropriate Regional office or
authorized State based on the particular circumstances, state
reg iations, and policies.

There is no definition for “fuel blending” in Federal
regulations. However, the March 16, 1983 Federal Reaister (48
11157) discusses the Agency’s current enforcement guidance for
blenders of hazardous waste fuel. In the preamble, the Agency
explains that “waste—derived fuel blenders are responsible for
ensuring that low-energy value hazardous waste are not blended into
fuels” (48 11159). Therefore, bulking and containerizing of
hazardous wastes which are intended to be burned for energy recovery
(i.e., “fuel blending”) are su.bject to RCRA jurisdiction.
Specifically, a RCRA permitted storage facility consolidating
compatible hazardous wastes for the purpose of burning for energy
recovery must ensure that the resulting hazardous waste fuel has
substantial heat value (i.e., 5,000 to 8,000 Btu) and that each
consolidated hazardous waste fuel constituent possesses substantial
heat value.
The Agency has clearly stated that the storage requirements of
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 apply to hazardous waste fuel blending
tanks. (See the April 13, 1987 Federal Register (52 11820).)
Therefore, unless the fuel blending operations are conducted in
units exempt from permitting requirements (e.g., a gene-ator’s
accumulation tank or container in compliance with standards for less
than 90 day storage), these units are subject to RCRA permitting
requirements under Federal regulations.
Again, we remind you that the final determination of the
regulations that apply at a particular facility is made by the
authorized states and EPA regions. Should you have additional
questions regarding this letter, please contact Daily Roth of my
staff at (202) 475—8551.
0 ice of Solid Waste


( It
Charles Winwood
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Inspection and Control
U.S. Customs Service
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20229
Dear Mr. Winwood:
Thanic you for your letter of July 12, 1990 concerning the
current and future regulatory status of “empty” containers under
40 CFR 261.7.
Your statement is correct that this section allows, in some
cases, up to one inch of residue to remain in a container that
held certain hazardous wastes and be considered empty for
purposes of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations. However, the “one-inch” rule is only part of the
definition of an “empty container” in 261.7(b). This definition
has three parts and is dependent on the type of waste the
container held. In other words, how one determines whether a
container is empty depends on the material previously contained.
Enclosed with this letter for your review, and for the use of
your staff, is a discussion ofthe Agency’s interpretation and
rationale for this important provision. The current rule was our
way of defining when a container no longer poses a serious
hazard, but we did not have definitive data to support the
I have asked Mike Petruska, chief of the Waste
characterization Branch, to contact your staff. His Branch is
responsible for generator and transporter issues, and I think it
appropriate for them to meet as this would allow us to understand
more fully your concerns and to discuss alternative regulatory
definitions to rectify this situation.
My understanding of your concern is that border inspections
of containers may unknowingly expose your agents to hazardous
waste through this regulatory definition. This is a legitimate
concern, and you should note that this situation may be rectified
through our work on the administration’s Export Bill pursuant to
P?ivmdai Ru,ei.d Pqmr

the Basal Agreement. When it is finalized, it is anticipated
that it will subject hazardous waste that is currently exempt
from Subtitle C requirements ( e.cr. , “empty” containers) to the
provisions governing the import and export of hazardous waste.
My staff will codtinue working with your staff to ensure that
situations such as this are covered in the final bill.
In the interim, EPA will continue working with Customs on
training efforts such as the recently completed U.S. Customs/NEIC
training of 500 customs inspectors on the Mexican border.
Currently, we are discussing the feasibility of expanding this
effort to include joint training of U.S. and Canadian customs
officials with Environment Canada. Adequate training for
inspection procedure. for hazardous waste shipments is probably
the best method of ensuring the continued safety of Customs
Thank you for your interest in this issue, I look forward to
continuing to work with the Customs Service on hazardous waste
issues. If I or my staff can be of any further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Office of Solid Waste

The definition of “empty” containers in 40 CFR 261.7 has
three parts and is dependent on the type of waste the container
held. In other words, how one determines whether a container is
empty depends on the material previously contained.
The first part of the definition applies to containers which
held hazardous wastes other than compressed gases or acute
hazardous wastes. For such containers, the regulations provide
that an empty container is one from which all wastes have been
removed that can be removed using practices commonly employed to
remove materials from that type of container, (e.g., pouring,
pumping, aspirating), and that no more than 2 • 5 centimeters (one
inch) of residue remain on the bottom of the container or inner
liner (40 CFR 261.7(b) (1) Ci) and (ii)). Additionally, in the
August 18, 1982 j J the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) provides a weight alternative to this “one-inch”
rule. Specifically, the Agency allows 3 percent by weight of the
total capacity of the container to remain in containers that are
less than or equal to 110 gallons in size. For containers
greater than 110 gallons, an empty container is one from which
all residues have been removed by normal means, and no more than
0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container
remains in the container (40 CFR 261.7(b) (1) (iii)).
In the preamble to the August 18, 1982 EPA
discusses the incorrect substitution, by members of the regulated
community, of the word “or” for the word “and” at the end of
paragraph 261.7(b)(l)(i). This substitution would lead an
individual to believe that the practice of leaving one inch of
residue in a container qualifies the container as being “empty”,
whether or not all of the waste has been removed to the extent
possible using methods commonly employed. The Agency
emphatically states that this is not the case. When the two
paragraphs are correctly read together, it is clear that one inch
of residue is an overriding constraint, to be utilized only if
all wastes cannot be removed by normal practices.
The second part of the definition covers containers which
have held hazardous wastes which are compressed gases. For these
containers to be considered empty under RcRA, the pressure inside
the container must approach atmospheric pressure.
The third part of the definition covers containers that have
held acute hazardous listed in 261.31, 261.32 or 261.33(e). For
such a container to meet the definition of “empty” under
261.7(b), the container must be triple rinsed with an appropriate
solvent, or in the case of a container with an inner liner, the
inner liner must be removed.

The EPA discusses the rationale for the definition of “empty
container” in the preamble of the November 25, 1980 Zcj
i1 Z (45 78525). “EPA believes that, except where the
hazardous waste is an acutely hazardous material listed in
261.33(e), the siall amount of hazardous waBte residue that
remains in individual empty, unrinsed containers does not pose a
substantial hazard to human health or the environment.” However,
EPA was still (and remains) somewhat concerned with unregulated
container residues.
This concern was illustrated later in the November preamble,
when the Agency set forth three options for regulation of the
residues in “empty” containers and solicited comments on these
options, as veil as any data indicating that unregulated residues
may pose a substantial hazard to human health and the
environment. The three options were 1) to require triple rinsing
for all containers; 2) to regulate the residue when it iB removed
from a container; and 3) to impose a limit on the amount of
unregulated residue. Of the three options presented, EPA
considered triple rinsing for all containers to offer the
greatest protection to human health and the environment. This
approach would ensure that the only container residues left
unregulated would be trace amounts remaining after triple rinsing
or an equivalent cleaning operation 1 Thus if all containers
were required to be triple rinsed before they were considered
“empty” under RCRA, the potential for environmental and health
problems associated with these containers could be substantially
The Agency addressed the comments received in response to
the November 25, 1980 solicitation in the August 18, 1982
LQgL . . Most commenters found the triple rinsing option
undesirable and the Agency had no data to support the proposal of
the triple rinse option based on the comments received.
Accordingly, the Agency has continued to implement the “one-inch’
rule (or the 3 percent/0.3 percent alternative) under Federal
It is also important to note that the shipment of empty
containers which have held hazardous wastes may be registered
under more stringent or additional State, local, or Federal
regulations. For example, under the Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulations, a container which has held a hazardous
material must be cleaned and purged of its contents before the
hazardous material label can be removed (49 CFR 173.29).

SEP 2719gj
Robert H. Scarberry
Chemical Waste Management
1155 Connecticut Avenue
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Bob:
In your letter of July 9, 1991, you request clarification of
the RCRA definition of “designated facility” with respect to the
treatability study exclusion, which was published on July 19,
1988 (53 27290). You also ask the Agency to reconsider
whether this exclusion is a XSWA requirement.
On January 23, 1990, EPA clarified the definition of
“designated facility” (see 55 2342). This amendment to the
definition in §260.10 clarifies that EPA’S regulations allow
waste shipments from a state where a waste is subject to the
hazardous waste regulations as a result of a listing
determination to a facility in a state where the waste is not ye
regulated as hazardous. In this situation, the designated
facility might not need to be permitted or under interim status.
provided that the receiving facility is allowed by the receiving
state to accept such waste.
In your letter, you describe a situation similar to the one
addressed in the January, 1990 clarification notice, regarding
the transportation and management of treatability study samples.
In your example, a treatability sample is transported from a
state which regulates the treatability sample as a hazardous
waste (because it does not have the exclusion), to a state that
has adopted the exclusion, and therefore does not regulate the
sample as a hazardous waste. You ask whether the hazardous wast.
manifest, which is required in the originating state, can specie,
a treatability study facility as the “designated facility” even
though it does not have a permit or interim status. Furthermor.
the facilities which perform the treatability studies in same
cases do not have permits or interim status.
As an initial matter, you should be aware that the
interpretation of the definition of “designated facility” in ar’
authorized state is a matter of state law. An authorized stat.
may interpret the provisions of this regulation in a more
Pflnte .

stringent manner. Therefore, any interpretation of the term
expressed in this letter reflects only EPA’s interpretation of
the definition of “designated facility” and should be confirmed
with the appropriate state agency in the authorized state.
The primary reason for the January 23, 1990 amendments was
to state clearly that EPA interprets the manifest requirement and
the designated facility definition as not prohibiting the
shipment of hazardous wastes from states where the waste is
hazardous to authorized states where the wastes is not hazardous.
The clarifying amendment to the definition of “designated
facility” was to address one specific scenario to which this
interpretation applies. By adding the clarifying language
regarding newly listed wastes, EPA did not intend to preclude the
interstate waste shipment of wastes in similar situations. EPA
believes that the shipment of treatability samples is directly
analogous to the shipment of newly regulated wastes. In both
cases, protection of human health and the environment is somewhat
assured by the threat of potential future liability for the
generator and the receiving facility arising out of management of
the wastes and by federal and state standards that apply to the
receiving facility. EPA noted that Subtitle D standards would
apply to facilities receiving newly listed wastes; facilities
conducting treatability studies would have to comply with
§261.4(f). Finally, it is plainly apparent that this
interpretation is consistent with the purposes of the
treatability exemption. If you choose to follow this
interpretation, the generator should arrange for the designated
facility owner or operator to sign and return the manifest to the
generator, and forout of state transporters to sign and forward
the manifest to the designated facility. Although the receiving
state may not require the completion of the manifest loop, the
originating state would likely require the return of the
You suggest that an alternative approach to address the
interstate shipment problem would be to determine that the
treatability study exclusion is a HSWA provision. In the course
of the rulemaking, the Agency determined that the exclusion was
not a “requirement or prohibition” pursuant to HSWA. We believe
that any reexamination of this matter would result in the same
conclusion. Furthermore, a HSWA designation would not be a
panacea for the transportation of samples since even a HSWA
exclusion would not supersede an existing, more strigent state
requirement, and therefore would have no practical effect in
states where the treatability exclusion has not yet been adopted.

If you have any further questions regarding this
clarification of the term “designated facility,” please call
Wayne Roepe of my staff at (202) 260—2245.
Sylvia IC. Lcwrance
Office of Solid Waste

tO “ ‘k ,
3 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
‘. 5 ‘993
Mr. Christopher G. Swanberg
Senior Vice President
Separation and Recovery Systems
1762 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, California 92714.4962
Dear Mr. Swanberg,
Thank you for your Letter dated November 12, 1992, concerning the use of the
Separation and Recovery Systems (SRS) SAREX Process for the recycling of petroleum
refinery oily wastes, and the status of this activity under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiries. We
appreciated the opportunity to meet with SRS personnel and Mr. Daniel Steinway (of
Anderson, Kill, Olick and Os1 ndy) on October 23,1992, to discuss the issue in detail.
You specifically requested that EPA concur with you that the SAREX Process, operating
in the manner you described, meets the definition of “closed-loop” reclamation as
provided in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(8). You also requested that EPA concur that if the
SAREX Process was receiving listed hazardous wastes (e.g., KO4 - K051), and met the
conditions delineated in §261.4(a)(8), then the secondary materials within the process
would no longer meet the definition of solid waste; and, residues exiting the SAREX
Process (exclusive of recovered petroleunt 1 ) would be subject to RCRA only if
exhibiting a characteristic of hazardous waste.
Based upon the information provided by SRS, Mr. Steinway, and a careful review
of the RCRA regulations, EPA does not agree that the SAREX Process meets the
definition of “closed-loop” reclamation as defined in (261.4(a)(8). We would
characterize the operation of the SAREX Process unit (as described by you) as meeting
‘With regard to wastewater effluent from the SAREX Process that is returned to the
refinery’s wastewater treatment system. EPA policy has been that if the refinery can show
that the return water stream is chemically equivalent to the non-listed wastewater influent
to the wastewater treatment device that originally generated the listed waste, then the return
water stream is not derived-from hazardous waste. Return water that is “chemically
equivalent” is defined for purposes of this policy as water that does not contain significantly
higher levels of Appendix VIII constituents and total suspended solids (TSS).

the definition of recycling and therefore would not require a RCRA permit under the
federal RCRA regulations (40 CFR 261.6(c)(1)); however, listed sludges and by-products
being reclaimed in the process would remain solid and hazardous wastes within the unit,
as would any non-reclaimed residues exiting the unit (see Footnote 1 concerning
wastewater). The rationale for this determination is described below.
One condition of the closed-loop exclusion is that the reclaimed material cannot
be used to produce a fuel, or to produce a product used in a mnnner constituting
disposal ( 261.4(a)(8)(iv)). Because the oil recovered using the SAREX Process is being
returned to the refinery where it will be used to produce a fuel (or possibly to produce a
product applied to the land), the closed-loop exclusion does not apply. 2
If the oil is returned to part of the refining process where non-fuel (or non-land
application) petroleum products are produced, it is possible that the SAREX Process
might be eligible for the closed-loop exclusion. However, the SAREX Process must still
be configured in a mpnner consistent with the other conditions of the closed-loop
exclusion. EPA promulgated the closed-loop exclusion as part of the revised haz irdous
waste tank rules (51 ER 25422; July 14, 1986 Federal Register) . Based upon comments
received during the development of that rule, EPA determined that there was a
substantial number of potentially regulated tanks engaged in “types of reclamation
operations [ thati are best viewed as part of the production process, not as a distinct
waste in nagement operation.” 51 ER 25442. One of the conditions for the closed-loop
exclusion that reflects the Agency’s desire that the reclamation be integral to the
production process is that wonly tank storage is involved, and the entire process through
completion of reclamation is closed by being entirely connected with pipes or other
comparable enclosed means of conveyanceN (*261.4(a)(8)(i)). Whether or not the
SAREX Process will receive listed sludges and by-products directly from the production
processes generating them, in a mnnner consistent with this provision, is a site-specific
determination. This is especially true because the SAREX Process is designed to be
installed at different refineries with potentially different configurations of production and
the generation of listed sludges and by-products.
As you mk know, the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force is presently revisiting
the existing regulations governing the definition of solid waste and the recycthig of
h ii rdous secondaiy materials. The Task Force’s goals include exploring ways to
simplify the current regulatory system, in order to better encourage safe recycling and
resource recovery. I can assure you that the issues and ideas presented by SRS and Mr.
Steinway during the meeting on October 23. 1992, (e.g., performance standards for
2 However, ihe recovered oil returned to the refining process is exempt from hazardous
waste regulations per 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(vi), as are the fuels produced from such oil (see
§261.6(a)(3)(v) and (vu)).

recycling processes, definition of hazardous waste fuel) will be taken into consideration
as the Task Force proceeds with its efforts. In addition, EPA is involved in an on-going
dialogue with interested parties as part of the rulemaking process specifically related to
the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR), proposed on May 20, 1992 (57 EE
21450) and subsequently withdrawn on October 30, 1992 (57 E I 49280). Part of the
original proposed rule discussed concentration-based exemption criteria (CBEC),
whereby listed wastes would no longer be subject to Subtitle C requirements if treated to
below certain constituent concentration levels. We would encourage you to participate
in the on.giing dialogue, specifically with regal i to the types of materials entering the
SAREX process, and the residuals generated.
If you have any questions, please contact Ross Elliott of my staff at (202) 260-
8551. Thank you for your interest in the safe recycling of hazardous waste.
of Solid Waste
cc: Mr. Daniel M. Steinway

oC r 22 993
Ms. Katy Wolf, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Institute for Research and Technical Assistance
1429 South Bundy Drive, Suite 6
Los Angeles, CA 90 TJ25
Dear Ms. Wolf:
Thank you for your letters dated March 26, 1992, and June 14, 1993, concerning
separator water and the use of evaporators at dry-cleaning facilities. 1 sincerely
apologize for not replying to your letters sooner. I hope that this response addrebses the
concerns expressed in your letters.
In your March 26, 1992 letter, you inquired about the regulatory status under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1) the separator water generated
at dry cleaners, and 2) the use of various devices for filtering and/or evaporating the
separator water. These issues were addressed in a letter dated June 2, 1993, from EPA
to Mr. William Fisher of the International Fabricare Institute (IFI), and you have
indicated you already have received a copy of that letter. In your June 14, 1993, letter,
you expressed concerns about EPA’s discussion in the June 2 letter to Mr. Fisher
regarding the applicability of the wastewater treatment unit exemption under RCRA to
separator water evaporators. -
The wastewater treatment unit exemption in 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6), originally
promulgated on November 17, 1980 (45 ER 76074), is contingent upon the unit in
question meeting the three-part definition of wastewater treatment unit in 40 CFR
260.10. In our letter to Mr. Fisher of IFI, we explained that based upon the information
we had received from many different sources on the dry-cleaning industry, separator
water evaporators met the three-part definition of wastewater treatment unit. I believe
that you have communicated well your concerns about the effect this interpretation will
have on dry cleaners, and possibly on other industrial sectors as well. The determination
discussed in the June 2, 1993, letter could be interpreted by some as having a broad
effect, as you have expressed in your letter and in conversations with my staff. However.
it is important to note that we only addressed the narrow issue of the applicability of
RCRA permitting to the specific types of units used in the dry-cleaning industry, based
upon the information we were presented. We also stated in the letter to Mr. Fisher that

RCRA permits would not be required “provided the criteria for qualifying as a
wastewater treatment unit outlined in 40 CFR Section 260.10 are met.” If, due to site-
specific circumstances, any of these criteria are not met the exemption does not apply.
For example, if certain hazardous wastes entering the unit are not wastewalers (as you
discussed), but concentrated wastes, the exemption does not apply. It is also important
to understand that we did not discuss specific process units from other industries, or units
processing other types of wastes.
We also did not intend to preclude the potential applicability of other
environmental statutes and regulations. both federal and State. As you know, EPA ’s
Office of Air and Radiation has promulgated a final rule governing perchioroethylene
emissions from dry-cleaning fa iities (published September 22, 1993; 58 49354).
That office is aware of the determination made by the Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
regarding the RCRA-permitting of evaporator units, and took this determination into
account during the rulemaking process.
I would like to point out that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.s.c. Section
6926), individual States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous
waste programs in lieu of the federal program. Please also note that under Section 3009
of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. If a State
agency authorized to implement the RCRA Subtitle C program does not recognize the
wastewater treatment unit exemption, or its interpretation of such a provision is more
stringent or broader in scope, the authority exists for the State to deal with that situation
Let me emphasize that the points you raised in your letter were given thorough
consideration during the evaluation and analysis of this issue. Given our understanding
of the facts presented, we feel that the interpretation outlined in the letter to Mr. Fisher
to be consistent with the curient exemption for wastewater treatment units. Thank you
for your comments and input on this issue, and I again apologize for the long delays i.n
responding to your letters.
e(2& c ZL
$ Bruçl Feddle
7( Act( g’Director
V Office of Solid Waste

tO S? 4 , 1

•‘•4L pqQl*f
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Shell Oil’s Norco, Louisiana
Facility Ditch System ____
FROM: Frank McAlister, Chief
Assistance Branch (5303W)
TO: Bill Gallagher, Chief
Arkansas/Louisiana Section
RCRA Permits Branch, Region VI (6H-PL)
We have reviewed your November 22, 1993 facsiiñile requesting
assistance in determining the regulatory status of a wastewater/
stormwater ditch system at Shell Oil Company’s Norco, Louisiana
manufacturing complex.
As we understand it, theD ditch system is composed of five
interconnected trenches/ditches that drain into an open-top in-
ground tank referred to as the Storm Water Impounding Basin
(SWIB) Inlet Tank. Five pumps within the SWIB Inlet Tank lift
the wastewater/stormwater into the 22 acre Storm Water Impounding
Basin with subsequent flow into the 12 acre Aeration Basin.
The ditch system was desjgnated a hazardous waste management
unit by Shell when the TC ru],e bedaine effective on September 25,
1990 (See 55 11798). .Shell apparently would like to consider
the SWIB Inlet Tank either an excluded tank or suin und r the
wastewater treatment unit exemption (See 40 CFR 264.1(g) (6)).
According to Shell, the unlined trench system would then be
considered either ancillary equipment to an exdludedjank or a
componel?t o .f an eicluded sunip, nd would, thereby, beoexempt from
RCRA permit regulations (e.g., liner and leak detection system
Based on a review of Shell Oil’s Qctober 26 and December 15,
1993 submissions, and of the Agency’s historical position on
ditch systems, Shell’s general conclusion that a ditch system
could be construed to be ancillary equipment to a tank, or for
that matter troughs/trenches connected to a sump, is correct.
However, Shell’s conclusion as it relates specifically to the
Norco facility is in error.
Pnntedor’ ,‘cyc’ec caper

The error lies in the assumption that Norco’s unlined
conveyance systems can be considered ancillary equipment to a
tank system. The following discussion supports the Agency’s
position that ancillary equipment must be a device, or devices
that are designed and operated not to leak, and that any device
designed to allow•leakage or discharge into or on any land such
that hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the
environment constitutes disposal (see definition of “disposal,”
40 CFR 260.10).
First, in reviewing the definitions of “tank,” “tank system”
(which includes ancillary equipment), and “wastewater treatment
unit,” (40.CFR 260.10), as well as the “Applicability”
requirements of Subpart J of Parts 264 and 265, it is evident
that tanks and tank systems are used for treatment and storage - -
not for .land disposal. Secondly, the kinds of devices
specifically noted as ancillary equipment (piping, fittings,
flanges and pumps) provide containment ‘for the purpose of
treatment or storage (or conveyance) in accordance with the above
mentioned general ëfinitions. The fact that an entire tank
system including ancillary equipment must provide containment is
clearly illustrated by the regulations:
(a)...(The] owner or operators must determine that the
tank system is not leaking or is unfit for use...
(The] owner or operator must obtain and keep on file t
the facility a .written assessment reviewed and
certified by an independent, qualified registered
professional engineer.., that atteststo the tank
system’s integrity... At a min imum this assessment
must consider the following:
(5) Results of a leak test, internal inspection, or
other tank integrity, examination such that:
(ii) For other than non-enterable tanks and for
ancillary eauiDment , this assessment must inclu4e
either a leak test as described above, or other.
integrity examination.’., that addresses cracks, leak
corrosion, and erosion... — -
(d) If, as’ a result of the assessment conducted in
accordance with paragraph (i), a tank system is four
to be leaking or Unfit for use, the owner or operatc:
must comply with the .requirements of §264. ,l96
(Emphasis added). 40 CFR 264.191.
We conclude, therefore, that in orçler for a device to be
defined as “ancillary equipment,” it m’ ist be designed to preve
leakage ‘or discharge. Since Shell ha not demQnstrated 0 that t
ditch system meets the above criteria (i.e., thatthe ditch
system is not leaking, leak test, etc.),° this system cannot be
considered ancillary equipment.

Shell’s second key argument that the conveyance system is
not or cannot be regulated is also in error. Shell’s argument is
based partially on a 1983 EPA trip report written before the
development of a clear regulatory mechanism to address land
disposal of hazardous wastes in ways other than a narrow set of
traditional units such as surface impoundments and landfills.
However, even the 1983 trip report makes it clear that
“... Permit writers should evaluate the potential for these
ditches to leak-into the subsoil. If those ditches are conveying
hazardous waste. suth a discharge can be considered to be an act
of disposal, with aresulting reauirement that the discharge be
either cleaned up or the area (ditch). be managed as a disposal
unit.” 1 (Emphasis added). Since 1ñ1983 there were no “ditch”
regulations, permitting authorities- chose the management option
of treating ditches as impoundments for the purpose of addressing
discharges from ditches, particularly in those cases where waste
was impounded in drainage ditches by a weir-or natural
depression. On December 10, 1987 the Agency published standards
for owners of miscellaneous units, i.e., those hazardous waste
management technologies an Units not covered by the existing
regulations (51 40726). These rules were published more than
six years ago..to address circumstances similar to those which
appear €o be oc urringat Shell’s facility in Norco, Louisiana.
Furthe , land disposal restrictions regulations define th
limited-circumstances under which F037/038 wastes (which are
relevantto Shell) may ,continue to be disposed by broadly
defining land disposal to mean “... placement in or on the lan
and includes, but not limited to , placement in a landfill,
surface impoundment...” (See 40 CFR 263.2(c), Emphasis added).
This definition recognizes, in concert with the Subpart X fina.
rule, that other forms of land disposal exist aside from those
traditionally practiced. Examples of other forms of land
disposal (i.e., placement into or on the land) are specified
within the context of the listing for F037/038 waste. These
include “ ditches and other conveyances.” You will notice that
ditèhes and onveyances re listed in the same context as, but
are separate from, tanks and sumps. (See 40 CFR 263 .. 1)
Finally, Shell wrongly argues that the cdnveyanc°e system
a Solid Waste Management Unit arid is, therefore, not r .egulateJ
Since the conveyance system received hazardous waste a fter
January 26, 1982, it is subject to full Part 264/265 r gulatic
as a hazardous waste management unit.
In light of the regulatory requirements discussed above,
there appears to be two options for id ntifying the unit-spec
1 Shell did not address this underlined portion of the 1983
trip report in their December 16 letter.

status of this ditch system as it currently stands. For the
purposes of permitting, one option is to consider the ditch
system either a Subpart X disposal unit or a surface impoundment.
If it is determined that the ditch system is a Subpart X land
disposal unit, relevant design and operation requirements from
conventional units that function in a similar manner, such as
surface impoundments, would apply. The most obvious relevant
requirement in these standards is the liner/leak detection system
requirement. If it can be determined that waste is actually
being impounded (for example, in depressions in the drainage
system), then the ditch system should be considered a surface
impoundment, as originally designated by Shell in its Part A.
Alternatively, the ditch system could be retrofitted in
accordance with. the tank regulations. If that were the case, the
ditch system would, in fact,. be a part of a tank system (i.e.,
ancill -ary equipment) and, therefore, eligible for the wastewater
treatment unit exemption.
With regard to the R egion’s question of similar ditch
systems in other Regions, two systems seem to most closely fit
Shell’s circumstances. The first similar ditch system was
operated at the Dow Chemical Company’s Midland, Michigan
facility. In the mid - 1980’s (prior to the final Subpart X
regulations) these ditches were designated surface impoundments
by Region 5. They were closed as such, and are now undergoing
post—closure care. The second similar ditch system was operated
at the Sun Oil Company’s Marcus Hook Refinery in Marcus Hook,
Pennsylvania. Sun Oil recognized the need to retrofit the ditch
system, and is currently constructing a new above—ground piping
Although this discu°ssioui analyzes whether Shell Oil’s ditch
system is ancillary equipment, we would arrive at the same’
conclusion under an analysis of whether the ditch system is a
trough/trench connected to a sump. The re ason for the same
conclusion, no matter how we characterize Shell Oil’s ditch
system, is—that suntps and connected troughs/trenches are defined
as tanks and are governed by the same regulations as are tanks
(“...it is CPA’s intention that iazardous waste taIl)çsystems,
including suaps used to transport hazardous wastes,, are managed
in a manner that wou’d e sure protection of human health and the
environment.” (51 £ 25441) July 14, 1986). Even Shell agrees
that the definitions of tank and sump and their respective
components (e.g. trenches, troughs, conveyances, and ancillary
equipment) .are used inter Itanq ably. (See especially page 11,
paragraph D of Shell’s December 15, l99 3 letter to Ms. Elaine
Taylor and 43 34080 (September 2, 1988) quoted on page 4 of
the same letter.)

Should you have questions regarding our analysis of Shell
Oil’s Norco, Louisiana facility ditch system, please contact
Chris Rhyne of my staff at (703) 308—8658.
cc: Chris Rhyne, AB, PSPD, OSW
Chet Oszman, ABS PSPD, OSW
Frank McAlister, AB, PSPD, OSW
Rafael Casanova, Region VI
Kathy Nam, 0CC

,IO ST 4 ,

9432. 1994(02)
MAY 1 2 1994
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Shell Oil’s Marco, Louisiana
Facility Ditch System
FROM: Michael H. Shapiro, Di o
Off ice of Solid Waste LI
TO: Allyn H. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region 6
In your March 30, 1994 memorandum, you requested
clarification of the regulatory status of the Shell Oil, Norco,
Louisiana refinery ditch system that has been used to convey
hazardous waste. In previous correspondence, Headquarters
provided a detailed interpretation regarding RCRA applicability
to the facility. That interpretation concluded that Shell Oil’s
Norco facility ditch system can not be considered ancillary
equipment to a tank (or as troughs/trenches connected to a sump)
within the meaning of “tank system” in 40 CFR 260.10. Therefore,
the ditch system is not eligible for the wastewater treatment
unit exemption. (See February 1., 1994 memorandum from Frank
McAlister (OSW) to Bill Gallagher (Region 6)). Below we have
provided further explanation of this interpretation.
The RCRA regulations require that ancillary equipment, as
part of a tank system, must be designed and operated so that it
will not leak. See 40 CFR 265.191. Natural soils, such as those
at the Norco ditch system, although useful for many construction
applications, are not leak-proof materials. One of the
fundamental properties of natural soil is that it allows
transmission of liquids; no natural soil is leak-proof. The
Norco ditch system, therefore, fails to qualify as part of a tank
system under this regulatory test.
Shell maintains that it should be able to demonstrate
(pursuant to 40 CFR 265.191(a)) that its ditch system is leak—
proof by using a leak test or other integrity assessment.

— 2—
However, this regulatory provision is intended only to confirm
that tank systems constructed of leak-proof materials do not in
fact leak. As discussed above, the Shell ditch system is not
constructed of leak-proof material.
Furthermore, the Norco ditch system does not meet the
requirement in 40 CFR 265.191 that tank systems be constructed of
materials that provide structural strength. The tank system
regulations require that the owner/operator obtain a tank
assessment attesting to the tank system’s integrity. 40 CFR
265.191(a). This assessment must determine that the tank is
adequately designed and has “sufficient structural strength and
compatibility with the waste(s) to be stored or treated to ensure
that it will not collapse, rupture or fail.” 40 CFR 265.191(b).
We interpret the term “structural strength” required of tank
systems in 40 CFR 265.191(b) consistently with our interpretation
of the almost-identical term “structural support” in the
definition of tank in 40 CFR 260.10. Specifically, EPA has
interpreted the term “structural support” to mean that the sides
of the structure must be capable of supporting themselves, and
the wastes they contain, without the aid of adjacent sails.
These structural support qualities are what distinguish tanks,
for example, from surface impoundments.
This distinction for tanks was made in an April 8, 1983
memorandum from Bruce R. Weddle, Acting Director, State Programs
and Resource Recovery Division to Thomas W. Devine, Director, Air
and Waste Management Division, Region IV. The Third Circuit
further articulated this distinction in Beazer East. Inc. v. U.S.
EPA Reaion III , 963 F.2d 603 (3rd Cir. 1992). In the Beazer
case, the Third Circuit determined that a surface impoundment
that was lined with concrete was not a tank, because the sides of
the impoundment were not capable of supporting themselves, and
the wastes they contain, without additional support from
underlying dike soils. Similarly, Shell’s partially lined Norco
ditch system is not ancillary equipment that is part of a tank
system, because it is not capable of demonstrating that it can
support itself without additional support from the surrounding
You also inquired about what we meant in our February 1
memorandum by the sentence, “Alternatively, the ditch system
could be retrofitted in accordance with the tank regulations.”
By this we mean that in order to convert the ditch to an exempt
wastewater treatment unit, Shell would need to reconstruct the
entire Norco ditch system using materials that are both leak-
proof and provide the structural strength required of ancillary
equipment that is part of a tank system.

I hope this memorandum clarifies our position on this issue.
If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact
Chris Rhyne of my staff at (703) 308—8658.
cc: J im Michael
Frank McAliater
Matt Hale
Dev Barnes
Kathy Nam, OGC
Allyn Davis, Region 6
William Honker, Region 6
Mike Roulier, ORD

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

tO S r 4
_____ 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200
/ DALLAS. TX 75202-2733
4 L qcfl ’
MP • °4
SUBJECT: Regulatory Determination
Refinery Effluent Ditch System
Shell Oil Company, Norco, Louisiana
EPA I.D. No. LAD008186579
FROM: Allyn M. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
TO: Michael H. Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS—300)
Attached is a memorandum forwarded to Frank McAlister of your staff
requesting written clarification of the issues included in his
memorandum of February 1, 1994, concerning the regulatory status of
Shell Oil’s (Norco, Louisiana) ditch system. A meeting was held on
March 22, 1994, at EPA regional offices which included, among
others, counsel for Shell and the Deputy Director of the Hazardous
Waste Management Division. Shell has sent a letter requesting
clarification of the February 1, 1994, Frank McAlister memorandum
(see attachments).
Shell contends that the wording of the referenced memorandum
specifies that if Shell demonstrates that the ditch system is not
leaking, then the ditch system could then be considered ancillary
equipment and thus exempt from regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Shell proposes to make this demonstration under 40 CFR §265.191
(Assessment of existing tank system’s integrity). Region 6 argues
that Shell’s reading of the memo was not our intent. Therefore, we
are requesting written clarification of these issues in order to
respond to Shell in a timely manner. Shell plans to request a
meeting with you to present their argument. Therefore, we are
reques ing that clarification come from your office. If you have
any questions or comments concerning our request, please call Bill
Honker of my staff at (214) 655—6770.
‘1 Printed on Recycled P ’ er

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

SUBJECT: Regulatory Determination
Refinery Effluent Ditch System
Shell Oil Company, Norco, Louisiana
EPA I.D. No. LAD008186579
FROM: William K. Honker, P.E., Chief
RCRA Permits Branch (6H-P)
Hazardous Waste Management Division
TO: Frank F. McAlister, Chief
Assistance Branch (5303W)
Permits and State Programs Division
Office of Solid Waste
The purpose of this memorandum is to request written clarification
of the issues included in your letter of February 1, 1994,
concerning the regulatory status of Shell Oil’s (Norco, Louisiana)
ditch system. A meeting was held on March 22, 1994, at EPA
regional offices which included, among others, counsel for Shell
and the Deputy Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Division.
Shell contends that the wording of the referenced letter specifies
that if Shell demonstrates that the ditch system is not leaking,
then the ditch system could then be considered ancillary equipment
and thus exempt from regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. Shell
proposes to make this demonstration under 40 CFR §265.191
(Assessment of existing tank system’s integrity). Shell states
that the natural clay liner (hydraulic conductivity 1 x 1O
cm/sec) underlying the ditch system along with the hydraulic
gradient of the groundwater towards the ditch system will not allow
contaminants to migrate into the groundwater. Shell proposes to
model groundwater under the two following worst—case scenarios: the
ditch system full of water and the lowering of the water table to
a level below the ditch system.

Region 6 argues that Shell’s reading of the memo was not the intent
of EPA and that in order for the ditch system to be designated as
ancillary equipment, it must be designed according to those
specifications (e.g., leak tested, secondary containment, etc).
Additionally, EPA has not determined that the ditch system is part
of a tank system and is thus ineligible for the demonstration
specified in the regulations for tank systems. If a demonstration
were conceivable, this demonstration should have been made one year
after the date that the waste became a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
§265.191(c)]. This deadline has already passed.
Region 6 is requesting written clarification of these issues in
order to respond to Shell in a timely manner. Additionally, the
Region is requesting clarification of the term “retrofitting” as
used in the context of the referenced letter. Since Shell may
request a review from a higher authority at EPA Headquarters, the
Region is also requesting that the clarification memo be signed by
Mike Shapiro.

(202) 887-4000
(OIl) 32-2-535 29 II
(212) 872-1000
(512) 499-6200
FAX (512) 476-3866
SUITE 4100
DALLAS. TEXAS 7 5201-4618
(214) 969-2800
(210) 270-0800
(713) 220-5800
Mr. lack S. Divita
Deputy Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
March 24, 1994
Dear Mr. Divita:
Re: Shell Oil Company, Norco Louisiana
EPA ID No. LAD008186579
This letter is in response to issues raised at our March 22, 1994 meeting with you
concerning the regulatory status of the wastewater collection and conveyance system at the
Norco Manufacturing Complex (“Norco”) owned and operated by Shell Oil Company
(“Shell”). The purpose of the meeting was to determine what action Shell may take to
demonstrate that this conveyance system meets the definition of ancillary equipment based
on the Dr. Allyn Davis’ letter of March 4, 1994 and an earlier advisory memorandum from
the Office of Solid Waste. Shell disagrees with the apparent interpretation of these two
documents by the Region as discussed at the March 22 meeting. This letter is intended to
provide you our understanding of the regulatory criteria applicable to the conveyance system
and request clarification of the Agency’s position.
In an EPA memorandum, dated February 1, 1994, from Frank McAlister to Bill
Gallagher, the Office of Solid Waste advised the Region that a facility ditch system could
be construed to be ancillary equipment to a tank. To qua]if v, ancillary equipment must be
designed to prevent leakage or discharge. Shell has not demonstrated that the conveyance
system is designed to meet this criteria. This advise was incorporated without any significant
modification or analysis by the Region in Dr. Davis’ letter of March 4.

Mr. Jack S. Divita
March 24, 1994
Page 2
Based on our reading of the analysis from the Office of Solid Waste, we believe that
the conveyance system would be classified appropriately as ancillary equipment to a
wastewater treatment tank if Shell could meet the tank assessment and certification
requirements of 40 CFR § 265.191. In the March 22 meeting, we were informed that we
were misconstruing the EPA documents. We were told that it was not the agency’s intent
that Norco conveyance system, as it is presently designed, could qualify as ancillary
equipment. The conveyance system should be classified as either a Subpart X
(Miscellaneous Unit) or as a surface impoundment. We believe that the Region’s statements
are neither consistent with the very clear language in the EPA documents nor with the RCRA
Shell appreciates the Region’s apparent concern with what appears to be “unlined-dirt
ditches” that typically would be the source of uncontrolled discharges and releases of
hazardous waste or hazardous constituents. This concern is misplaced because there is no
evidence that the conveyance system has resulted in releases or discharges constituting
disposal. The unique geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the site provides
containment meeting or exceeding other types of engineered devices, including underground
piping considered ancillary equipment at other facilities. Under these circumstances, Shell
should be allowed the opportunity to perform the tank system assessment and obtain a
Based on preliminary review of the substantial amount of site-specific data on Norco’s
conveyance system, Shell believes that the conveyance system could be certified after
additional analyses and groundwater modelling. The natural clay bottom of the conveyance
system exhibits low permeability. The physical characteristics of the surrounding soil are
similar to the clay bottoms. The groundwater elevation in the soils surrounding the
conveyance system are higher than those inside the conveyance system and is maintained
through the operation of the conveyance system. Little or no organic constituents have been
detected in chemical analyses of the underlying clays.
Shell is requesting that the Agency clarify its position on this matter. Shell intends
to meet with appropriate representatives of the Office of Solid Waste to confirm that Norco’s
conveyance system could be classified as ancillary equipment if the conveyance system is
certified by an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer to have integrity
sufficient to contain the wastewater and prevent leakage and discharge. Shell believes very

Mr. Jack S. Divita
March24, 1994
Page 3
strongly that, if its conveyance system can be certified, Shell not be forced to incur
significant construction costs to address a non-problem.
We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and desire that this clarification can
be made expeditiously.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Seals
cc: Dr. Allyn Davis
Frank McAlister
Bill Honker
Bill Gallagher
Elaine Taylor

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

• c.D
\IL ?
Mr. Thomas R. Trafton, President
Recovery Express, Inc.
197 Portland Street
Boston, MA 02114
Dear Mr. irrafton:
Thank you for your letter of February 18, 1994, in which you requested a regulatory
intrepretation. You contend that processing of lead abatement debris at generator’s site
to meet the hazardous waste recycler’s specification, is not Dtreatment as defined in 40
CFR 260.flO. As discussed below, we believe that processing of lead-based paint (LBP)
waste could be construed as “treatment” as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, but might not be
subject to Subtitle C regulations.
Typically, recycling of hazardous wastes meets the definition of treatment under
40 CFR 260.10. In general, legitimate recycling processes, however, are not subject to
RCRA Subtitle C regulations under 40 CFR 261.6(c) except as noted in 40 CFR 261 .6(d).
if proces ing (e.g., cutting, chopping, shredding, or grinding) of the LBP waste exhibiting
the toxicity characteristic for lead, is a necessary part of a legitimate recycling process
O.e., necessary to meet the vendor’s specification, as in this case), it would not be subject
to ACRA Subtitle C requirements except as specified in 40 CFR 261.6(d). The processing
activities may occur at the generator’s site, or at the recycler’s facility. In either case,
such processing is considered a first step in the recycling process and remains exempt
under 40! CFR 261.6(d).
A suming LBP waste processing is done as part of legitimate recycling, a RCRA
hazardoLls waste treatment permit is not necessary. Under 40 CFR 261.6(c), any storage
of LBP hazardous waste before or after processing is subject to RCRA Subtitle C
regulatiop (e.g., 40 CFR 262.34 for generator accumulation or 40 CFR Part 264 for other
storage) ‘under 40 CFR 261.6(c). In addition, EPA advises that generators/processors
should take care to protect workers from paint dust, and any dust generated during the
processi g should be minimized and contained. Also, please note that any materials that
exhibit hazardous waste characteristics and that are disposed of are subject to full Subtitle
C regulation, including treatment under the Land Disposal Restrictions at
£ CyCIWRecycisb1.
<9 so i ioi. -
CS,,t flU t ISi O% , cyc3ed rb.

40 CFR Part 268. EPA believes that processing shredding or grinding of LBP debris
whether h zardous or not, prior to disposal, should not be practiced, since such action
may make lead in waste more amenable to leaching.
Undpr RCRA, most States are authorized to administer and enforce the hazardous
waste program in lieu of the Federal program. If you have any questions about how
recycling th d storage requirements apply to your specific activities, you should consult
the appropriate State agencies (or EPA Regional office in an unauthorized state) for a site-
specific de ermination.
The Agency is currently evaluating various LBP waste disposal alternatives to
address cqncerns of HUD and local housing authorities, lead abators, advocacy groups,
and States For example, the RCRA hazardous waste rules may impede and discourage
lead paint abatement. EPA may amend the existing RCRA regulations and propose
different rules under TSCA governing LBP waste disposal.
EPft$ Region Ill forwarded your letter to us for interpretation, and we ace
concurrent’y sending a similar letter as our response to EPA Region Ill. If you have any
specific qubstions, please contact Mr. David Friedman, EPA RegIon Ill at (215)597-2863.
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste

e x p r e. s s
February 18, 1994
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street Southwest
Washington, DC 20460
RE. Proposal for site preparation of hazardous lead paint waste debris
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Recovery Express Inc. proposes to use a Shred Pax AZ4O machine to grind lead
painted wood debris into pieces approximately three inches across. (See diagram and
photos Attachment A) The purpose of this process is two fold. First, our preferred TSD
Facility requires wastes to be presented in this fashion. This facility, Exide Battery, Reading,
PA, is a lead smelter and recycles the lead content and will take debris in no other form
Landban of this type of waste makes this kind of disposal the most environmentally sound
alternative available Second, reduction of large pieces will make them easier to package into
our thirty cubic yard transportation containers and thus more cost-effective to transport.
This machine will be used only on the generator site. No transportation will take place
until after processing is completed. Precautions have been taken to eliminate air emissions
Crushed material falls directly into a specially prepared, covered transport container because
the machine is positioned on. eight-foot legs over the container and intervening spaces are
covered with polyethylene. A HEPA vacuum device is available if necessary to add to these
precautions. Our air testing shows negligible emissions from this process. (Results available
on request.) After processing the container is covered as per US DOT regulations. (See
our Operations Manual, Attachment B.)
Our workers are OSHA trained, and our manager is a forty-hour OSHA Hazardous
Waste supervisor. Transportation is provided by our sister company, Jeffrey Chemical Co.
Inc., which is a Licensed Hazardous Waste Transporter in eighteen states.
Before Recovery Express Inc. undertakes to use this machine in any state we ask that
each State Environmental Agency settle two questions regarding its use. Firstly, is this
process treatment of hazardous waste as defined by state regulations. Secondly, would this
process require obtaining any permit for its use. Because the answers we have received so
far have varied from state to state, we ask your department to respond to these same
questions. Interpretations from Region One and various states which agree with our own are
attached. States which consider this process treatment by definition, such as Maine and New
Recovery Express. Inc
Hazardow Waste Specialists
197 Portland Scree. Boscon. MA 02114
Tei. 617 523 7740 Fax 617 367 3627

Page two
York have presented us with other options, all different. We hope that a definitive response
to us from your department wiU provide these states and others which we have not yet
contacted with guidance on their future actions.
Request for Interpretation
We consider this process to be site preparation of hazardous waste. The volume of
hazardous waste remains unchanged and the hazardous element of the waste is unaffected.
The enclosed approval for its use by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection presents our case for this belief in the most succinct terms. We ask that you read
and consider their opinions carefully. (Attachment C)
The definition of treatment consists of two parts, according to the letter of John
Skinner of EPA, 11 -6-84,( Attachment 0): 1. the change in character, and, 2. the purpose of
the change. While it may be argued that our process makes the waste more amenable to
transport or recover, under the listed purposes of the definition in 40 CFR 260.10, we do not
believe that we will change the physical charactenstics of the waste. What is changed is the
physical shape of the debris. There is no change in any of the physical characteristics of the
wood substrate nor of the hazardous lead paint constituent of the waste. All that is changed
in the end process is the amount and conformation of the air spaces which surround the
waste when it is containenzed for transport.
Presently on all sites where lead paint waste is generated, some preparation of waste
for transport and disposal is now taking place. The physical shape of all wood debris, and
other debris as well, is being altered to conform to disposal requirements of landfills in the
United States. We have enclosed a chart which gives the size requirements of these
hazardous waste landfills. (See Attachment E) As can be seen here, the reality of
hazardous debris disposal is such that some form of preparation of the waste is neces ry.
Material is now routinely broken up, sawn, sorted, and shredded for transport to the disposal
sites on our list. (See the enclosed article from Deleading Magazine, Vol. 2 No. 10. which
discusses the handling of lead wastes on-site by an abatement company which operates in
the New York/New England area. Attachment F) Other activities, such as planing, sanding,
or sand-blasting are also common.
We believe that these activities are not considered treatment as per 40 CFR 260.10.
Environmental agencies are aware of the requirements of lead debris disposal and do not
regulate this site activity. Leave is given to prepare matenal to become an acceptable
“waste”, even though it is hazardous, and this preparation is not considered treatment so as
not to overburden the procedures for transport and disposal. In a manner of speaking,
matenal still on-site is not discarded, therefore not “waste”, until it has been packaged and
prepared for disposal Of course, not all such activities in all industries would fit this analysis,

Page three
but the small danger posed by our process justifies considering it as site preparation. We
believe that our process is only a more efficient form of the type of activities described above.
Over the past two to three years changes have occurred in the way disposal of lead
based paint waste was envisioned. At first, regulators and public officials believed that most
lead paint would be stripped from the wood substrate and disposed of in drums. Disposal
itself was viewed as a simple process of landfihling these small particles. Predictions of the
amount of lead paint that would be found to be hazardous in any case were quite low, usually
estimated at about 30 % or below.
The reality of today is very different. Our experience, which is not unusual, is that
more material is hazardous than was predicted, as much as 75 to 90 %. Work practice by
abaters has shown that labonous stripping of old wood is very time-consuming and
expensive, as well as not being as efficient as originally hoped. The disposal field has also
changed. As of May, 1994 no hazardous lead debris will be accepted for landfdling unless it
is treated, as per 40 CFR 268.30, the ‘Third third’ landfill ban. Treatment, i.e., stabilization,
requires that the debns be reduced in size to very small pieces. Even now most hazardous
waste landfills require some processing of the debns before they will accept it. Preferred
state of any wood debris is in pieces less than 3 feet long or even, in some cases, less than
three inches long. And this says nothing of the expense of tandfilling the large amounts of
material generated by even a modest sized project (as much as 5200 -300 per cubic yard).
None of the above difficulties takes into consideration likely future possibilities such
as refusal of landfills to take in the huge amounts of material generated by large projects
which the Federal government and states may mandate or the possibility that these wastes
may not be acceptable for landfilling under any circumstances should the current regulations
We do not feel that this process needs a permit. However the guidance of your
department in this matter will help settle that question. We ask that you keep in mind certain
points. Transportation is by state-licensed Hazardous Waste Transporter. All preparation
workers are adequately trained. No air or ground contamination can result from proper use
of the equipment. All reduction is strictly on-site.
Our company feels that, with all the safeguards descnbed , this process is an
important and necessary step in the safe and cost-effective disposal of large amounts of
Hazardous Lead Paint Waste Debns. The TSDF described above is the only one of its kind

Page four
at the moment and provides the safest, most permanent solution to this important and
growing disposal problem. Our ability to offer this solution to the large number of Housing
Authonties and large housing projects which need it, depends on our use of site preparation
We hope that all the information we have provided here will adequately address any
concerns your department may have We request that your department send us your written
opinion on regulatory concerns raised by our proposed process. If further information is
necessary, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Very truly yours.
cZ M A SZZ 4$
Thomas R. Trafton

February 1995
1. Status äfWWTUs!ENUs it
Generator Sites
A generdwrnury treat hamrdou.r Waste
without a permit or itwim staTzLg in anon-size
accw’nuladon uii: that it in compli in e with
the regulations in §262.34 (March24, 1986;
Si 10146,10168). If a generator chooses
to treat I”zardous waste in anon-size
waste water rre rent wilt or in an on-site
demesuary neutralization unit, must the
generator comply with §26234?
No. A generator treating b idOuS waste
in an on-site waszewatcr 1eaimeni unit or in
an on-site elementary neutr 1i? tion unit, need
notcoznply with*26Z34, which isa
conditional exemption from perzpitxirig
requirements, becausethesi a e already
exempt frpw certain RCRA requirements.
Specifically, wastewater treatment nrth ji4
elementary neun 1i tion units, as defined in
§260.10. are exempt from RCRA eatment,
storage, and disposal facility CrSDPI
s andaidsas well as from pespiitting standards
G*264.l(g)(6), 265.1(c)(IO), and.
9432. 1995(01)

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

9432 .1995 (02)
•OCTI2 95
Mr. Scott Kuhn
Corporate C mp2. iance
Laidlaw Environmental erviceg, Incorporated
P. 0. Box 210799
Columbia, SC 29221
Dear Mr Kuhn:
This is in response to your letter of July 26, 2.995
requesting clarification of treatment, as defined at
40- CFR 260.2.0, as -it relates to hazardous waste ue1 blending
activities • You also present two interpretations of treatment
related to fuel blending, and ask whether they are consistent
with RCRA Subtitle C regul&tiens.
As your letter correctly notes, there is no definition of
‘fuel blending’ in the Federal regiil ticma. However, there are
letters arid memorinda that present Agency policy regarding fuel
blending as discussed below.
Your first interpretation states that the consolidation -or
blending of. con atible bulk ox containerized hazardous waste into
-a tank or container for the purposes of efficient transportation
or disposal would not be considered treatment, as long as there
was no change in the physical, chemical or biological character
of the waste, except for incidental reduction of hazards
associated with the waste mixture which may occur. In support of
this interpretation, you note a ‘letter from Sylvia Lowrance to
Christopher Jaekele (March 2, 2.990). -
We generally agree with thia interpretation, but wit h the
following clarification. You used the term ‘blending 1 ’ to
describe the combining of waste streams for- efficient
transportation or disposal. Rowever, the activities you
described would not be consider&i ‘fuel blending’ for regulatory
purposes, so the use of the term IblendingW may cause confusion
on this point. Also, please note that site-specific
determination. would be made by authorized States, because
individual Stitea may have regulations and policies regarding
treatment that are more stringent than the Federal regulations.
?oux second interpz’etation states that the blending of
hazardous waste fuel with the in 1 tention of eecing a
specification would be cons1 ered treatn2nt, because tbe physical
n c P nofl r
I1 it lis t 10% ytsd t-

NQV— 2-95 THU 13:03 P 1 02
aM chemical chareot.xiatice of the weate ore bei intentionally
changed so *5 to make the waste miaLture anienabl• £uzr energy
We agree with this interpet.ticn. I am euo3oaingt
memorandum which I sent to the : icns1 flasardous Waste
Management Division Director’s (October 17. 3594) e that contains
additional guidonee on the regulatory_status of fuel. bleudiv9
You wiLt find that page 3 of this mawrand%ua siz ozta your
interpretation by conc1udin that B6lsotivO blending of
baz rdoue v ate fuel. to meet a fuel specification. . . would
constitute haaardoui waste treatptent requiring a permit .‘
Thank you for the açport aity to address your fuel -blen’ hig
related questions. If you have a y further qus.tirt . please
contact James )Iich l of my staff at (703) 30 5-8610.
cc i Matt Eale, PSPD
Prank McAI.ister, DSPD
Jim Michael, PSPD
Jeff Oaines, ?BPD
Jim Thotipson os
Stave SLlv.r ”i’, OGC
R A Pe mit Section Chiefs
Regions I.X

#00 sz 4 ,
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR I 2 1996
Mr. Randall A. Jones
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Molten Metal Technology
51 Sawyer Road
Waltham, MA 02154
Dear Mr. Jones:
This is in response to your July 21, 1995 letter to Stephen
Bergman of my staff regarding MMT’s proposal to use industrial
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes as feedstock for your
Catalytic Extraction Processing (CEP) unit to produce a synthesis
gas. These wastes include but are not limited to RCRA-listed
hazardous wastes such as chlorinated organic compounds F024, K019
and K020. In your letter, you seek OSW concurrence on the
following points:
• “the CE? unit deployed in such an application is a
legitimate recycling unit that is not subject to RCRA
permitting requirements,
• the secondary materials are ‘used or reused’ pursuant to 40
CFR §261.2(e) (1) (I), and
• the CE? synthesis gas that meets established specifications
for material use is a legitimate commercial chemical product
with a variety of normal uses, including use as a fuel.”
During its analysis, my staff has not attempted to make a
determination as to its status as a legitimate recycling unit.
Such a determination is made by the appropriate RCBA authorized
state or EPA regional pffice. The CE? process, should it meet the
established criteria in the judgement of the appropriate
regulatory authority, would be considered a legitimate recycling
operation. We. are aware that the state of Texas recently
reviewed your proposal to use a CEP unit to produce syngas from
RCRA—listed hazardous waste at the Hoechst Celanese facility in
Bay City, Texas and found it -to be a legitimate recycling process

subject to a nwnber of conditions specific to the site. At the
state’s request, EPA provided input to Texas on the Agency’s
direction on comparable fuels, as discussed below.
This letter responds only to general regulatory questions
regarding the CEP technology. Different regulations and site—
specific conditions in RCRA authorized states may dictate
different outcomes at different sites.
Application of the “Use/Reuse” Provision
As I stated earlier, it is the responsibility of EPA
regional offices or RCRA authorized states, using specific
criteria related to a particular site, to determine whether or
not a particular process is a legitimate recycling operation or
whether it is a form of waste treatment. Once this determination
is made, the state or EPA region could then determine whether or
not the hazardous waste input meets the terms of the 40 CFR
§261.2(e) (1) (I) “use/reuse” exemption
This “use/reuse” provision exempts from the definition of
solid waste materials that “can be shown to be recycled by being
used or reused as ingredients in an industrial process to make a
product, provided the materials are not being reclaimed... This
exemption does not apply if the product is either placed on the
ground or burned for energy recovery. Therefore, as long as the
products of the process are not burned for energy recovery or
used in a manner constituting disposal (see “Status.. .When Used
to Make a ‘uel” below) and assuming the process is determined to
be legitimate recycling, the materials used by the CE? unit to
make the gas would not be regulated as solid waste. In such a
case, the syngas would not be regulated as a hazardous waste-
derived product since the feedstock would no longer be regulated
as a solid waste. Should both legitimacy of recycling and
“use/reuse” be established, the CEP unit itself would be.excluded
from RCRA jurisdiction.
As for the status of residuals of the synthesis gas
production process, those residuals that are not themselves
listed and do not fail one of the hazardous characteristics, as
described in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C, are not regulated as
hazardous waste, providing that the findings mentioned above are
made. However, listed or characteristic residuals would be
considered newly generated wastes subject to RCRA.
Status of the CEP When Used to Make a Fuel
The status of the feed materials changes when the output
from the CEP is burned as a fuel, since the use/reuse provision
does not apply when the hazardous waste feedstock is used to
produce a fuel. According to 40 CFR §261.2(e) (2) (ii) , “materials
burned for energy recovery, used to produce a fuel, or contained

in fuels.. . are solid wastes, even if the recycling involves use,
reuse, or return to the original process...”
Comparable Fuels
Our current regulations do not distinguish among hazardous
waste-derived fuels based ipon how a particular fuel might
compare to a fuel that is not derived from hazardous waste. The
Office of Solid Waste has spent considerable time looking at this
issue. EPA recently proposed an exclusion for “comparable fuels”
that resemble fuels made from virgin materials. The Agency also
proposed an exclusion for synthesis gas meeting stringent
specifications from the definition of solid waste (and therefore,
from regulation as hazardous waste). The Agency believes that
syngas meeting the stringent requirements of the proposed
exclusion are more appropriately classified and managed as
products than as wastes. Based on the information you have
provided on NNT’s proposed CEP unit, the syngas produced by this
unit should qualify for this exclusion.
We are persuaded that these changes will have a positive
impact on the development of new recycling technologies. Such
changes are a high priority in the context of our overall
reevaluation of hazardous waste regulations to remove
disincentives to environmentally sound recycling technologies
that produce products comparable to those manufactured using
virgin materials.
Thank you for your interest in hazardous waste recycling and
innovative technologies. If you have any further questions
regarding the regulation of solid and hazardous wastes, please
don’t hesitate to contact Stephen Bergman of my staff at (202)
lSh oDirctor
Office of Solid Waste

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Part 260 Subpart C
ATK1It1O4It4 kp

9433.19B4( 03)
Jo- l3 ?aV
‘r. John C. Oliver
Porcelain EnaneL Institute, Inc.
1.9L1 L orth Fort I yer Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22209
t oar .)c,hn:
As r.e have discussed previously, the Agency considers
i s J U .y 27 interpretation (see encLosure) of the spent pickle
1. .;uor listing to be the correct reading of the hazardous waste
regulations. Therefore, the i ent jickLe liquor (as well as
any sludge generated frog the treat enc of the spent pLekie
liquor) that is generated fro a the procelain enameL thdustry
La cor,siderad to be a listed hazardous waste n eLy, EPA
Hazardous Waste No. g062. En order for the industry to
change the regulatory status of this waste, they will need to
sub Lc an industry-wide rul aking pecicion.1/ At your
reques:, we have made a preliminary assessment of the rn ber
ox pLants to be sacpled and the specific toxicants that
woula need to be evaluated to support an industry-wide exclusion
petition for the Procelain Enaneling Category. In addition,
the petition should address the reçuire ents cited in 40 CFR
5260.20. ue ‘would not view an industry —wide petition as
a 1yLng to pLanes that are integrated with electroplating
operations and generating wastes covered by the F006-F009
Listings. Wastes oi this ty?e would have to be evaluated
e esci ate that in order to obtain a 95 degree of
con:ider.ce that you have a representative eaple of the
industry you will need to sanpl.e 2Li integrated and 5 non-
integrated racilicies. (U post integrated porcelain enanelthg
plants are integrated with electroplating operations unuer
the circu seances described above, then we would accept
saoples from a Lessor n ber of incegrat d facilities, since
/ Of cuurse, any person ay aub tt a s te-specific deliating
petition pursuant to 40 CF 5S260.2G and 260.22.

the petition would not be addressing porcelain enamel plants
that are integrated wth electroplating operations.) These
figures were determined using an approximate sa p].ing rule
deceloped by OS (A. This type of sapling approach has been
successfully used in the past by the institute for Scrap
Iron and Steel in a similar study for EPA. The actual. ntber
of samples which should be analyzed cannot be identified as
precisely. However, a sufficient n ber of samples should
be taken £rom each facility which would represent the variable
nature of the waste. In this regard, conposited samples
representing any variability in raw materials or process
would be the best approach in minimizing the overall analytical
Sample analysis should include determination of a Limited
n ber of both inorganic and organic constituents and tests
for the four hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability;
corrosivity, reactivity, and Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity).
The specific constituents that should be analyzed for in the
wastes are as fo .lows:
Category Constituent
Inorganic Q romit
Category Constituent
Organic Carbon tetracb.loride
l-d ichloroethylene
trans 1 ,2-dicbloroethylene
1, 2—dichloropropane
1., 3-d ichl.oropropylene -
Tetra chloroehtanes
Te trachloroe thyl ene
2/ The metals should be analyzed using the Extraction Procedure
(EP) toxicity test and for their total metal content.

Tr tehioropropane
Methyl ethyl etone
Methyl isobutyl ketene
ethyl Eenzeue
To 1 ene
XyL enes
The organic constituents vera selected du. to the likelihood
that both halogenated and non.halogenat.d solvents at, used
at integrated facilities, end that the.. facilities are doing
painting operations. ovever, if you have in for atLon which
would indicat, that sane of these tozicants are not expected
to be in the waste Iran thcegraced facilities, we will consider
cMs infornation to determthe whether analysis for these
co thants is necessary. We will require that all these
contaninarits (i.e., organic and inorganic tozi ’ -a tcs) be
analyzed for at the 2D integrated facilities; however, since
the non -integrated facilities are not expected to contain
stgniiicanc levels of organics, we vii ]. only r.quir. that
two of the fivenon . int.graced facilities be anaJ.yzed for
the organtcs. Al]. five non-integrated facilities should be
analyzed for the inorganic coutanin.nta. Test methods for -
these constituents are provided in the Methods Manual “Test
Mochods for Evaluating Solid Tiaace SW—846.
We believe it La in the thdustry’a beat interest to
proceed.with a dalisting, whether or no: it pursues the
peu ingi.icigmcion. EPA will expedite processing of the
petition no netter ‘how the litigation is proceeding. If you
decide to nave forward with an industry-wid, petition and
need specific infornation on samplthg and analysis aethode,
pLeaae.c.all Jin PoppLtia:(202).382.4690.
Macthiw Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
WH_56251JPO?PITI/pe s/475’855l/ LO Z3 84/Di3P840L2

_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Op ’cE OP
Mr. Dave Rudder
Vice President - Environmental/Process Control
Seigel-Robert, Inc.
8645 South Broadway
St. Louis, Missouri 63111
Dear Mr. Rudder:
The purpose of this Letter is to describe the test methods
and standards used in evaluating cyanide levels in inorganic wastes
petitioned for exclusion under S260.22 of the RCRA regulations.
As explained in our telephone conversation on December 5, 1984, the
Agency requires four forms of cyanide to be evaluated for the
purposes of petitioning to delist an electroplating sludge. These
include total, free (amenable to chlorination), leachable, and
phocodegradable cyanide.
Total and free cyanide in the waste is determined using Method
No. 9010 “Total and Amenable Cyanide” in Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste . The delisting program imposes no
limitations on the amount of total cyanide present in the
waste other than the requirement of running the photodegradable
cyanide test if total cyanide in the waste exceeds 10 ppm. Free
cyanide in the waste however, is considered hazardous at
levels at or above 10 ppm. The 10 ppm limitation is derived
from the workroom air threshold standard of 10 p m set by the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
Leachable cyanide is the only cyanide parameter evaluated in
the extract rather than in the waste. The test method used for this
determination is the EP Toxicity Test with no acetic acd adjustment.
Therefore this is a distilled water extraction. The delisting
program looks at all cyanide showing up in the extract as being
leachable cyanide, therefore cyanide in the extract is measured as
total cyanide. This total cyanide concentration in the extract is
evaluated using a generalized ground water dispersion model which
predicts a receptor well concentration 500 feet from the disDosal
site. The receptor well concentration is then compared to a health
based standard - the U.S. Public Health Services’ suggested drinking
water standard of 0.2 ppm. If the receptor well concentration exceeds
0.2 ppm then the waste is considered hazardous. The model uses
the maximum extract level reported as well as the volume of waste
generated on an annual basis. The model automatically yields
a ten fold dilution of the maximum extract value, therefore a waste
exhibiting a maximum extract concentration at or below 2.0 ppm
would be delistable while.a decision on higher extract levels
would depend on the volume of waste generated.

As indicated above, a determination of photodegradable cyanide
is required when total cyanide concentrations in the waste exceeds
10 ppm. The test used for this determination is Method 9011
“Method for the Determination of Photodegradable Cyanides”
in Proposed Sampling and Analytical Methodologies for Addition
to Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. This test measures
any hydrogen cyanide gas that might be generated after irradiating
the waste with a UV lamp. The concentration of hydrogen cyanide
generated in this test is again compared directly to the A GIH
threshold of 10 ppm as cited above. A concentration of less than
10 ppm would be considered non-hazardous.
In wastes exhibiting high concentrations of total cyanide
it is possible that artificially high free cyanide levels can
be recorded. This is due to positive interferences attributable
to the couiplexed iron cyanides in the waste. In these instances
the Agency has a number of alternate test methodologies that
are less prone to interferences. The most frequently used is
“Test Method for the Determination of Cyanide and Sulfide
Containing Wastes” (copy attached). This test measures the
generation of hydrogen cyanide gas which is then evaluated
in terms of the 10 ppm A GIR threshold previously discussed.
Again, a concentration of less than 10 ppm would be considered
I have enclosed a background article on the ground water
model now being used by the Agency in petitort evaluation. A
detailed appendix explaining the assumptions used in the model
will appear in the Federal Register as a part of the next
group of proposed delistings (hopefully in February of 1985).
If you have any questions regarding any of the tests or
standards descibed in this letter do not hesitate to call
me at (202)—382-4782.
S incerely,
Myles E. Morse
Environmental Protection Specialist
Delisting Program

tV “* f
‘ WAS 4INGT0N. 0 C 20460
OcFICt 0’
SO. 0 WASTE AP D (i E C . -
Mr. Tom Horvath
Environmental Control
Wejrton Steel
400 Three Springs Drive
Weirton, West Virginia 26062
Dear Mr. Horvath:
As indicated in my telephone conversation with Mr. Wood
on Tuesday, December 18, 1984, three additional issues reearding
Weirton’s deliscing petition need to be resolved. These Include
testing representative waste samples for the EP toxic metals
using the EP Toxicity Test for Oily Wastes; testing representative
waste samples for photodegradable cyanide; and an explanation
of where in the process 1 ,1 ,1—trichloroethane is used including
analyses of representative waste sam les if it is determined that
this toxicant has a reasonable likelihood of being present in the
The Agency previously indicated that the EP toxicity test
is not applicable to wastes containing greater than 1 percent
oil and grease since the oil fraction may act as a binder.
(See 49 FR 42591, October 13, 1984). Weirton has submitted
data that indicate a maximum oil and grease content of 2.8
percent. Therefore the data supporting the lack of mobility of
metals from Weirton’s waste (as measured by the EP toxicity
test), is cuestionable. I have enclosed a copy of the EP
Toxicity Test for Oily Wastes. This test should be run on
representative waste samples from the impoundments.
The Azency is concerned about the possible hotodegradation
oE complexed cyanide to free cyanide upon exposure to sunlight.
The Agency has data indicating that this conversion can occur
in some wastes, resulting in the formation of free cyanide that
can escape from the waste by leaching or by the generation of
hydrogen cyanide gas. Due to the levels of total (complexed)
Cyanide in Weirton’s waste (maximum concentration reported
was 96 ppm), testing of representative samples for hotodegradable
cyanide is recuired. The Agency requires all petitioners to
test for photodegradable cyanide when total (complexed) cyanide
concentrations in the waste exceeds 10 ppm. I have enclosed a
cofly of this test methodology. If you have a problem locating
a laboratory that is set up to run this test please call and we
will assist you.

Finally. Weirtori indicated that 1,1 .1-trichioroethane is
used in the process. The A encv must deterr ine if this to icar :
has a reasonable chance of entering the petitioned wastestream,
as required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 19B .
If Weirtort indicates that 1 1 1 .1-trichloroethane can enter the waste
as alluded to by Mr. Wood, then you are reautred to present an
explanation (including mass balance relationships) detailing why
it could not be present in the waste in hazardous concentrations,
or analytical test data on representative waste sa”ple.s. If
you find it necessary to test the waste for this toxicanc, I
have included the appropriate analytical method.
.Ic is important that these issues be resolved as soon as
possible so the Agency can complete its action on the Detition.
If you have any questions regarding the information requested above,
do not hesitate to call me at (202)-382-4782.

Myles E. 1orse
Environmental Protection Specialist
De].iscina Program

tO I14 ,
_____ WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460
. ..
)4A1 i 1985
oc ’ce oc
SUBJECT: RCRA Reauthorization Statutory Interpretation * 4 :
Effect of Hazhardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 on State Delisting Decisions
/ /rA . .
h / v” 11!
FROM: P4éGt ’aw
Acting Assistant Administrator
TO: RSI Addressees
ISSUE: What effect do the delisting provisions of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 have
on State delisting decisions?
Since November 8, 1984, EPA has administered all RCRA
delisting programs, and will continue to do so until a State
is authorized for delisting under the new provisions of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA or the
Amendments). To receive authorization, a State must conform
its delisting program to the Federal program and apply to the
Agency for authorization. Any temporary exclusion.granted by
a State before November 8, 1984, must be reevaluated using
the new delisting criteria and procedures. If a final
decision to grant or deny a petition has not been made by
November 8, 1986, the temporary exclusion will cease to be
in effect for purposes of RCRA.
Before enactment of the Amendments, EPA’S evaluation of
exclusion (delisting) petitions addressed only those factors
considered by the Agency in listing the waste as hazardous.
The regulations also allowed the Agency to grant a temporary
exclusion without prior notice and comment if there was
substantial likelihood that an exclusion would be finally
granted. In addition, once EPA authorized a State program,
EPA suspended the administration and enforcement within the

State of those parts of the Federal program for ..‘hich the State
was authorized. Cor.sequently, any autrior zed State that had a
delisting program could make delisting decisions without prior
EPA review of each decision. Any delisting decision made by the
State still was subject to EPA oversight, however, to ensure
that the State program did not become less stringent than EPA’S.
(Any delisting decision made by the State was in effect only
while the waste remained under State control.)
HSWA Effect On State Delisting Decision
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 modified
both the substantive standard and the procedures to be used in
evaluating delisting petitions. The Amendments require the
Administrator, when evaluating delisting petitions 1/ to:
O consider factors (including additional constituents) other
than those for which the waste was listed if there is a
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste; and
o provide notice and an opportunity for comment before
granting or denying a petition.
Furthermore, the Amendments require the Administrator to re-
evaluate all temporary exclusions granted before the date of
enactment ( i.e. , before November 8, 1984); if a final decision
to grant or deny a petition has not been promulgated within 24
months ( i.e. , by November 8, 1936), the temporary exclusion
will cease to be in effect.
Under Section 228 of the HSWA, any requirements, including
the delisting requirements, imposed pursuant to the Amendments
are effective in authorized States at the same time they are
effective in other States. Therefore, until the States are
authorized for these requirements, EPA is responsible for admin-
istering these provisions. Based on this provision:
o any further RCRA delisting decisions made by States (once
authorized) will have to be based on the new delisting
criteria and procedures noted above;
1/ In evaluating a petition, the Agency does not consider
the evaluation to be completed until a final decision s published
in the Federal Register .

° any State delisting decision made on or after November 8,
1984, and before authorization under the new standard
would not qualify as a RCRA del sting decision; and
o any temporary exclusion 2/. that was granted by the State
before November 8, 1984, must be reevaluated by the
State (if they have been authorized under the new
delisting criteria) or by EPA. If a final decision to
grant or deny a petition has not been made within 24
months of that date, the temporary exclusion will cease
to be in effect.
Finally, any final exclusions that were granted by the State
before November 8, 1984, are not affected by the Amendments
( i.e. , no additional action is required by the State or by EPA).
The States, however, are encouraged by EPA to reevaluate those
decisions if the other factors were not considered by the State.
The effect of the Amendments on the States is summarized on
the attached table.
2/ Temporary exclusions are any delisting decisions which
are not considered the final delisting action under the
regulations of the issuing authority. For example, EPA issued a
number of temporary exclusions, pursuant to 40 CFR 5260.22(m).
That provision explicitly states that these decisions are made
“before making a final decision.” Similarly, several States
have mechanisms for removing a waste from regulation before
promulgating a final decision, such as delistings patterned on
the Federal temporary exclusion. All such exclusions are
A final exclusion is an Agency determination done in
accordance with the issuing authority’s regulations; e.g., with
notice and comment after which no further review of the petition
is contemplated. EPA issues final exclusions pursuant to 40 CFR
5260.20, which requires publication of a tentative decision in
the Federal Register , receipt and evaluation of public comments,
and publication of a final decision in the Federal Register .
Decisions not to prosecute petitioners because it was believed
that a delisting later would be issued do not qualify as
final exclusions.

— States do not need to reevaluate decisions made before
November 8, 1984.
— States must use new delisting criteria for decisions made
after November 8, 1984.
— States must provide an opportunity for comment before
making a final decision.
— EPA will need to act on previous State temporary
exclusions, unless, within 24 months of November 8, 1984,
the State:
a) modifies its regulations;
b) requests and becomes authorized by EPA for delisting;
a nd
C) acts on previous temporary exclusions.
— If the State (as described above) or EPA does not make a
decision within 24 months of November 8, 1984, the waste
is hazardous again.
— States must use new delisting criteria for decrisions
made after November 8, 1984.
— States must provide an opportunity for comment before
making a temporary decision.

oi .d .aste Variance
5. A solver t p UC iS sent off—site for use. The solvent te:ial ecames spent
and is sent saCk to the pr uctiOn facility as a Pazardous waste. The
facility reclauns the waste and then uses it as a :aw material in the pr uction
pr eSS. S this waste . T an g nt Scenario qualify f a var. a tt’or. tr
definition of solid waste for a material than is ec2 ain ed and then reused wit tin
the original pr zTary : ucticn pr ess i.n which it was generated (S26O.3Oc ?
. The variance applies to a waste which is reclaimed and then reused wi un
the original. r iziary pc iuction proress in which the waste • not the pr uct
.ias generated. In contrast, the waste here is not used ultimately in the
pr ess fran which it was generated. The foll 4n scenario may quality for
variance unde S260.30(b): aw material A i S pat into iaary pr ucticn ocess
a. Ira this process, raw material A becai s spent and is generated as aazardcu.s
waste A.. This waste A is recl.aix d and then reused in the iginal primary
prcducticn process iii which it was generated.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475—8551

9433.198 5(04)
OCT 2 3
Mr. Ronald Panicucci
LAM Associate
662 Gofile Road
Hawthorn., New Jersey 07506
Dear r. panicuccii
This is in r.sponie to your letter, dated 5.pt.ab.r 25,
1985, conc.rning the liability of an industry once a waste
is delisted. In particular, you request clarification of
the gsn.rator’s liability if a waste that is delisted and
disposed of in a non—hazardous waste landfill is, at son.
point in the future, considered hazardous again.
In g.rteral, after a waste has been delisted, it 1.
no longer subject to the RCRA hazardous waste r. ulation.
However, the generator is still liable for any daaa e the
waste nay cause and can b• held responsible under the Comprehensive
£nvirora.ntal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
or can be sued by any citizen for damages incurr.d. In
response to your concern over revoking a previous d.listing
decision, if a delisting were revoked it would not effect
any wast. that has already been disposed as non—hazardous,
since th. waste was corisiG•red non—hazardous at the time of
disposal ( i.e. , you would not be required under RCRA, to
dig up the waste). Howevir, as indicated earlier, you still
nay b helø responsible under CERCLA if it is shown that your
waste contaminated the environment.
Should you have any further questions regarding this
matter, pleas. contact Mr. James Po iti at (202) 382—4780.
Sincerely yours,
.3. nston porter
MSblStant ,iur.ii nistrat r

NCV 2 7 5
Honorable Dan Glickman
Member, United States
House of Representatives
U.S. Court House
Box 403—Roam 224
Wichita. Kansas 6 2Ol
Dear Mr. Glickman:
This l.tter is in response to your inquiry of October 29,
1985, conc.rnlng the delisting petition filed with the Agency b
Boeing Military Airplane Corporation for its wichita, Kansas
facility. The Ag.ncy has proposed (in the Federal Register , on
February 26. 1985) the is. of a v.rtical and horizontal spread
(VHS) model to aid in the evaluation of delisting petitions.
After addressing tn. public cc:nts received on the model, this
model was made final (with few adjustments) on November 4. 1985;
it viii b used to assist us in making delisting evaluations.
Thi VHS model us.. 1.achate data and vast. volume estimates in
order to predict waste tozicant concentration. in ground water
at a downstream compliance point, and allows the comparison of
predicted values with appropriat, health—based numbers. The
Agency’s use of this model involves several reasonable worst
Case assumptions concerning the land disposal of hazardous
wastes. Thes. assumptions ar. based on reviews of th. technical
literature and informal surveys of States and State Solid and
Hazardous Waste agencies, arid are not based on site-specific
factors. Ths Agency believes that the VHS model is quite
conservative, and represents a reasonable worst case tor the
factors considered.
The Agency has considered the use of site—specific factors
in its delisting evaluations. Specifically, the local geographical,
hydrngeological, and de nographic conditions were considered as
ractors that. could affect the Agency’s decisions. Once a waste
is ielisted, however, there is no guarantee that the waste will
c e r ana ed at the site that was evaluated. That is, the yenerator
O t! ie waste is under no obliç ation to manaye the waste at a
.articu1ar site. Therefore, we believe the use or sate—speciriC
tactors ar na ro .riate. Th A ncy also considered ‘lacin
Conc itions on t aelistiny. d •cisions that would ro9uire S Cit1C
WaSt . !i na. rrt nt. This o ticr was also rejectea since such an

evaluation would essentiilly be the same a. the per itt n j
process. The Agency reels that if management conditions need to
be specified to ensure that a particular waste does not damaç e
hu * health or the environment. the waste is hazardous and
should be managed at a site that is fully peri tlcted to handle
that waste.
I would alSO like to point out that the Agency do..
consider ground—water data tram a facility as part of the
delisting evaluation. The lack of ground—water contamination
is viewed as being supportive of a ptition; however, this
information is indicative of what has h!. 2 at the sit.
receiving the waste and not what will happen. Thsr•f re ,
ground—water data alone are not sufficient to d•tsrain.
whether a waste is non—hazardous.
i am hopeful that this respen.. addresses your concerns.
If you have any question., please contact my off ic. at your
Sincerely yours.

J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
bcc: GWTF
Nancy H. Fussell, Boeing
Faye Sandberg, EPA Region VII
Congressional Liaison/Craig Deremer, EPA

OCT 29 85
r. Verrill N. Norwood, Jr.
Vie. Pr.sident, Environ..ntal Affair
Olin Chemicals
P.O. Box 248
Lower River Road
Charleston, Tennsssee 37310
Dear Mr. Norwood:
This is in r.sponse to your l.tt.r to me dat.d October 8,
1985, regarding the applicability of a variance from
classification as a solid waste for a spent material which
is r.gen.rated and then recycled at the facility which produced
the original co ercia1 product. Before I respond to your
specific request, I would like to define the facts (as I
understand them)s
A co ercial alkaline etchant (produced by the Philip A.
Runt emica1 Company) is distributed for use to ac r*ufacturars
of printed circuits. After a period of use, th• akhalin.
etchant is reduced below acceptable levels and th rsfor.
becoties spent (i.e., a material that has been used nd
as a result of contamination can no longer serve the
purpose for which it was produced without processing).
This material (as you indicated) would be defined a
hazardous becaus. of its corrosive nature. This spe ’It
material is then returned to the manufacture of the
alkaline etchant where copper is first recovered
(defined as reclamation), the remainder of the etchant
(after reclamation) is then used as a raw material to
produce additional alkaline etchant. (Although not
germane to the decision, you indicate that the recovered
copper salts are sold providing additional economic benefits.)
Based on this description, I do not believe that you
qualify for a variance under the modified closed—loop provision.
In particular, to qualify for a variance pursuant to S260.3l(b),
the material that is reclaimed must be used as a feedetock
within the original primary production process in which the
waste was generated . You are correct that the regulations do
not requir. that this all occur at a single production/regeneration
facility, h ever, the material (after reclamation) must be
returned to the process fro. which it was generated. In your

situation, the proc.ss which generated the waste is the us.
of the .tchaat by the print.d circuit board manufacture; th.
reclaimed material is not return.d and u..d as an etchant but
rather used U an ingredient to ziek. additioru 1 stcttcnt.
(It chould 1ao be noted thet if you wore to return eho
etchant to Ut. print.d circuit board manufactur.r at tsr
rsclaaatiori, you still would not qualify for a varianes
since the material is not being used as a tsedstock/inqr.dL.nt.)
Thus, sinc, you do not return the r.clat..d material to the
process which generated the waste, your particular situation
does not n.et the basic conditions of the modified closed-loop
provision. 1/
Therefore, the spent alkaline etchant is subject to
regulation by the generator (which includes the manifest),
muát be transported by a hazardous waste transporter, and the
reclamation facility ist co ly with the appropriate standards
regarding storage of the spent alkaline etchant. I had
discussed this with several of the Regions when you originally
sent in your petition and, therefore, I believe vs are all
being consist.nt.
Pleas. feel free to give me a call if you have any
questions, my telephone niaber is (202) 475—5531.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Waste Identification Branch
/ Mthough you do not qualify for a variance pursuant to
$2 O.3l(b), the r.claimsd material that is used as a
raw aat.rial to produce the alkaline .tchant is not a
waste, and thus is not subject to regulation.

Ms. Elizabeth Rose (6H—C8)
£PA Region VI
1201 Ela Street
Dallas. TX 75270
Dar Ms. Rose:
This letter is in rsspons• to your r.c.nt telephone
conversation with Mr. David Topping of my staff. Specifically,
you requested information concerning the definition of hazardous
waste contained in 40 CFR Part 261 and the delistirig criteria
related to leachate levels.
g261.3Ca)(2H iii) th• deals with wastes which are included
in Subpart 0 solely because they .et the characteristics of
hazardous waste d.scrib.d in Subpart C (i.e., Ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity). Thus, a mixture of 0002
waste (included solely for corrosivity) and a solid waste would
not be hazardous if the mixtur. no longer exhibits the characterist ic
of corrosivity, nor any other hazardous waste charact.ricttcs,
Mowever, waste which an, listed in Subpart D because of this presence
of specific hazardous constituents (e.g., (048, (049, and (051,
all of which are listed for hexavalent chromium and lead) remain
hazardous unless thy are excluded from the list under ff260.20 and
260.22 (i.e.. delisted),
The delisting criteria include a sliding regulatory scale
which dictates allowable leachat. levels for specific volumes of
wastes. For wastes which ar. typically disposed of in a landfill,
this scale i described at SO FR 7882, February 26. 1985 and 50
PR 48886, November 27, 1985. In general, the allowed leachate
levels for landf tiled wastes range from 32x the drinking water
standards for small volumes of wastes (c 475 yd 3 ) to approximately
6x the drinking water standards for larg. volumes of waste
() 5000 yd 3 ). Also, as required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Aaen nts of 1984, the Agency’s evaluation of petitioned
wastes is not restricted to the constituents for which the waste
was orginally listed. Rather, the Agency evaluates all factors
(including additional constituents) which could reasonably be
expected to be present and would cause the waste to be hazardous.
It should also be noted that the type of leachate test to be performed
may vary, depending upon the nature of the waste being evaluated.
For example, oiiy petroleum refinery wastes are typically sub3ected
to the EP for Oily Waste procedur. rather than thi standard EP
leachate test.

Evaluation criteria for wastes that a e subject to disposal
other than in landfills (e.g., land treatment or management in
surf ace impoundments) are currently being d.vo]oped; in fact, the
evaluation criteria for waste that are land treated was proposed
on lovember 27, 1q65 (50 FR 4S9 3). W? ile these models have not
yet been made final, it is expect.d that the allowed leachat.
lev•ls for these disposal scenarios will be more strig.nt than
thos. described above for landf tiled wastes.
Should you have any further questions concerning the hazardous
waste definitions or the delisttrtg program. please contact me or
r. David Topping of my staff at (202) 475—85 i.
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)

943 3 .1986(04)
ç f’) Jk 1S
John Pamsey
I a:isas epartre:it of
Aealth an Lnvironrnent
Hazardous Waste Section
‘orries Field
Topeka, W ansas 66620
Dear Mr. i’a’ ey:
As per our teler one conversation, this letter summarizes
thc information that our office would have reoujred for the
evaluation of the filter cake from the new filter press systen
at r oeinr ’s :ichita facility. Typically, we rec uest the
tollowing items from all petitioners. ‘e ask for a minthur of
tour re Lesentative samples (usually co’nposites) to be taken
over a tthe period sufficieit to encompass any nori al variations
in the process syst :. Janis Butler had indicated to me that
tineina woula likely be pre aririg weekly composites for ana’ ysis.
—Analyses for total constituent concentrations of the
EP toxic metals, nickel, anl cyanide
—EP leachate data for the CP toxic metals and nickel
—D .stilled water leaching test for ctr (sub titutinr
istiiJ.ed water tor acetic acid in the CP t.!st)
—Total oil and LeaSe content of the waste (the EP Test
for Oily Waste nay be necessary if there is >14 O&C
in the waste)
—Testing for the other characteristics of hazardous waste
( i.e. , jgnjtabi]ity, corrosivity, and teactivitv)
—Averace and maximum annual slud ie volumes (projected if
necessary——waste voluro is a variable in our VHS moael)
—Raw materials lists and/or Material Safety Cata Sheets
(to evaluate the waste for the presence ot Appendix
V I I I constituents)
—Detailed descriptions of the production pLoce ses an
. 4 a—ll ii.,
— wa Lc’ t •I —
ciIip.tt ns
pr4coduros, and cusl ty contr l
tM. an 1yst
rroced res use 9 in
EPA F. . .. 1320.1 (12.70) OFFICIAL FILE COPY
3N3 0 -

Son’e ot this i to .t’iatior is pLo aDly i your. tiles already,
a id there may De additio a1 ite riot rne’ttoned here for which
you will want more i forr .atio fror Boei c.
I hope this will help your office with the Le—evaluatio
of Boeing’s waste. If w’u have a y questions, feel free to
call me at (202) 382—47U3.
Si ,cerely,
Scott 3. Maid
Erivironmental Protection oecialiat
Office of Solid Waste (W14—5 2 )

SW3J!CT : kequlatory Status of Temporarily and Inforir.ally
Delisted Wastes
FRO!is Marcia C. Wi]liazrs, Director by
Otf ice of Solid Waste (Wf4—562) Ci .
TO: Solia Laste Branch Chiefs
Regions (I-X)
A number of questions have arisen regarding the status of
informally excluded wastes (i.e., those facilities that submitted
delisting petitions and were informed via lett.r that th.’ir wastes
would be delisted). After ciecussions with Enforcerent personnel,
the Office o GeneraL Counsel, and Conaressional staft, we have
determined that intormal exclusions are no longer effective.
This menorandur sets our current policy with reqerd to informal
PiLst, riowever, I would like to review where we stand with
regard to petitioners with t porary exclusions. As you are
aware, those facilities that were granted teMTorary exclusions
are those that weue noticed in the Federal Register (see attached
list). These exclusions terminate on November 8, 1986, unless
the A ency grants a final exclusion before that date. Petitioners
with temporary exclusions, that have outstanding data recuests,
have been notified by letter that if a complete petition is not
received by a certain date, we will propose to deny their oetition
based on insufficient data. The first notice of this kind was
published at 51 FP 2526, January 17, 1986.
Informal exclusions, on the other hand, are those previous
decisions where the staff of the delietin progrvi evaluated the
petition, and decided to grant the exclusion; however, the decision
was never published in the Federal Recmistor , as reouired under
5260.22(r). (See attached list.) The i gency informed the
petitioners and Regional enforcement counsel of the anticipated
delistir . We requested that the Recions exercise discretion with
rec)ar’l to these facilities until the decision was published in the
Feae.al Pecister as a ter’porary exclusion. ;htle the Auency inforr’e
etitioners and enforce nent counsel that this interiri period shou1
be hurt, no specific time period was mentioned.

It was ultimately decided, however, not to publish the decisions
in the Federal Register due to the anticipated chariciea in delistinc,
criteria as a result of the Av’endr ents (I.e., the consideration of
other factors in evaluating the hazards posed by the waste).
Instead, these petitioners wei.s asked to submit th. additional
information, as would be r.quir.d under HSWA, to evaluate the
pet i t ion.
since notices were never published in the Federal Pegister ,
leqally, informal exclusions were limited to the •xercise of
enforcement discretion, and these wastes are still considered
hazardous. Since the provisions under Section 3005 (e)(2)
apply to hazardous wastes , any person who manaqes hazardous
waste in a land disposal facility, including petttion.rs with
informal exclusions, lost interim status on November 8, 1985,
unless the requirer ents of the loss of interim status provision,
42 U.S.C. 6925(e)(2) are satisfied. petitIoners with informal
exclusions will, receive a letter very shortly clarifying this
issue, and recuestinç that they contact you regarding the specific
concerns of their facility. A copy of any letter sent to a
facility in your Region will be sent to you. In addition, those
facilities that manage their waste off—site must transport it
to a Subtitle C facility (i.e., a facility that has been fully
permitted or one that has interim status).
For those facilities with en active petition still on file
with us, we are processing their petitions in an expedited
manner. When a decision is made on these petitions, it will
be proposed in the Federal Register as soon as possible.
If you have any questions or need any further information on delist—
ing, please contact Matthew A. Straus or Myles Morse of levy staff,
at (202) 475—8551. Please direct any guestions on enforcei’ ent to Lloyd
Guerci at (202) 382—4808.

? tAR I 0 %
:. hJ .:tLr. Srjth
P I- Iawalia?t Inde ende.-it Refi .:y
PRI Tows:, 733 ‘Ueho St.
tiu o1ulu. I•I 96a42
rea: Mr. Si ithz
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the
irifo al delisti that your facility received , with te ’arc2 to
the wastes iJent fie in the petitio.n (tGll ) you subr’itteei
pu: uant to 40 C?P S 260.20 and 260.22 of the PCPP hazsrdo i
waste :eculatic,ns, is no lonoe: effective. In articula:, o n
Lecerou: .3, l 8l, you: cor pany SubmitteG a petition to e iclude
the wa 5tei cenerated (arid toreriJ at you. facility (listed a
PA aza: c us % iste P!oS. TL 5O arid E051). Pase’I on our eveluation
of the petition at that tire, the delistinQ o:oqrar :eco’ re ied
that you: petition be granted. 1 ’ The fltfice of Solid 4aste sent
a letter to you (datwd Auqust 7, l9f l) infornini; you that
a p:eli inary decisiori had been ada on your Detitian, an’] that
tno wastes qerierated (arid steredi at your facility were likely
to be declared non—haza.dous (based on the o:ic inel listinr cri
te:ia). Accordix to this letter, a notice wouLd be puhlislie’J in
the Fect :al Peciste : in the nes: future tP t woulc, c jve your
tacility a tef po:ary exclusion. In the interim, however. It was
suested to rho Region that your facility be allowed to han le
the petitioned wastes as non-hazardous.
The Assistant Adr inist:ator for Solid taste arid E erc .nc”
ospOribe decideu, however, not to cirarit your facility a te? nor
ary exelusiori due to the anticipated statutory chana., Sn delist’—
irlQ criteria (I.e., the consideration of other factors in evaluat—
m c the hazards posed by the wastes). Instead, you e:e ask i to
sub”it the adCitiond i infor tic’,, as would oe recutred undc:
} S” A. to evaluate the petition. As a result, a notice q:antint
tenporary exclusion was never published in the Lederal R c Sster .
a required uri’ier 5263.22(r). Coneerueritly, you nave: receive’ a
1/ It snould be noted that the Hazardous arid solid I ast• Ar en —
.nts (HSWA), enacted in l9 4, recuire the Agency to
other racto:s (includinçs additional constituents) w’ien evalu—
anne a delistirir petition, it there is a reasona le basis to
believe that thee. factors sey c uae the nctitioned W5 t5 1:0
be hazardous. Prior to ‘S ’A, tIi evaluation of d c i (‘tine pett—
tioris az based solely on the otic thai li tirir erSteria to:
th waste.

t : :or ir’, c1tu ioi for t - - c ”c [ “-iS’ 9
n.: E- I itV? Veu: Wd!tEj’c C .J It’r.r. ( ; ‘pv”
cc. ‘ rJnUc w t’ •
-.. st r ’- J1e you: ste s S r’?2 :c ous. f vc j
YWP’ W, ’. Otf ite, ‘ u r st tr nerc:t th to tit1e C
facility (i.e., a facilit” that as teen fully r’-itt ’
or one t .t ‘a inter ir status) • If, on th ot’ er Pan ,
y u :-a ajc y u WÔSt G on—site, you rust rdnar tt ev. ii an
o tully -ert,itteJ facility. You s ou) !.e
Aware t t if you use a 1.in isr saI f ctlitv, en vo 1irI
not cc ’ly with the “rovisions of Fection 3(Y ’5(e)(7) (i.e.,
u:-( i . a co ’:’lc t P t .‘ iie:rit a plLcation n’ certi v cc—t’l i—
ance wit ” ouw Watt: ani financiaL respo,sir,ility rrcuireri nts
r y ‘ ove’ :e , 19R!) , you 1 avc lost tntex 1’- st.)tu • iu&, I
tI lan ui o. al tacil ty is still active, you iete1.”
Clo it an ’. i n it a closuru plai. If you have any inactlt-c ’
dia osaL facilitjcs that were ‘ise 1 to r a’w t ws( t’ct c,
you uzt al zu it a clozu:e rlai for th sv units. You •- v
m su ect to ento:cer ent actions, incluiinq enforc .r ’ nt in th.
event .‘f oneration of land dj osal units that have not co; ’ lied
witr: Fectio- 3O (e)(2).
The petition that is currently on tile with this ottice
i1l e created as an activ tition tot wt±cL a r: ’ vious
ecision has not en rinc ’ “our tacility nd)Vc: r ce1v(:’
a tei. .;or r ’.’ e clusio.i, :C letters sent to you 3nn Ju cin a -—
datory de !linta to: a final tecision on your netition (:ove- ‘,
l M) are no lo:v ,e: vali i. le 1an to ex’enite tPe : roces - ’ cit
your petitiC! . (nce your petition is corr lete, a decision will hø
:.ar.e, and a notice proposing to qrant or e cny your ( dlusicn
wilL b pu ljshoci i ’ the h’e oral ? eristc’r .
I L yciu have any cuestions re ;ardin’ this øectslon, rleas
contact :. ‘atthow strays at (2U2) 47 —85SI. Also,
on t you re jona1 enfoxc rient otfice (see enclosure) to i&cass
ti c particular n eus of your fbcility as a result ot this actio ,.
S i ’cere1y,
Original s!gned bY
viarcIa E. v iliamS
t arcja rilliar ’s
Office of colid *aste
Gano Lucero
Cftici of ‘aste Pxo’ra’-s Cntorce -cnt

& ?
Mr. Ronald Shiver
Staff Engineer
K.W. Brown Associates, Inc.
6A Graham Rd.
College Station, TX 77840
Dear Mr. Shiver:
I have reviewed the ground water monitoring data you
submitted on behalf of Falcon Steel, Kaufman, Texas. The
increase in conductivity is not, in itself, sufficient reason
to deny a delisting petition. Unfortunately, data for the
remainder of the EP toxic metals and nickel (in addition to
lead and chromiuri) were not included in the 1984 and 1985
monitoring reports; ground water data for these constituents
is also necessary to insure that no contamination has occurred.
As a result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, we are required to consider all factors (including
additional constituents) when evaluating de1istin pet4 .-t+ons,
if these factors may reasonably cause the waste to be hazar-
dous. (The CP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide re—reaso ri—
ably expected to be present in the waste—as-a fesult of the
operations performed at _fae-ii:ity, i.e. , the tanks and
steel involved).
I also, once again, reviewed the closure nan submitted
in February, 1985. I want to clarify what will be required
in order to submit a complete delisting petition. The follow—
ing information will be needed:
1) all information under 40 CFR 260.22(b) and (i)(1—12);
2) a detailed list, description and schematic of all
r anufacturing processes, including surface and
eouipment nreparation, cleaning and/or degreasing,
coating or painting processes, which may have contri-
buted waste, wastewater, painting or rinse water to the
waste petitioned for exclusion;
3) a cor’plete list of all raw materials used, including
chemical compositions, and material safety data
sheets, if available, identifying all solvents, acids,
cleaners, surface preparation agents, paints, etc.,
C CD ICDt_flt_O’

used i the manufacturinq process which may have
entered the waste petitioned for delisting;
4) an explicit statement verifying that the number
of samples collected and analyzed is representa-
tive of any variation in constituent concentrations,
and the basis for such a conclusion;
5) a detailed description of the sampling methodology
and analysis methods used on the representative
waste samples;
6) data indicating that representative sat-pies were test-
ed for the ignitable, reactive, and corrosive charac-
teristics outlined in Subpart C S261.21—13.
The following testing requirements must be performed on
samples collected from each impoundment. The impoundments should
be divided into quadrants; at least four core samples should be
collected in each quadrant and composited (at least four composites
are needed from each impoundment).
7) total constituent analyses of the waste (comniete acid
diaestion) for each of the EP toxic metals, and nickel
on a representative number of samples (but not less
than four);
8) total analysis for cyanide on a representative number
of samples (but not less than four); if the cyanide
concentration exceeds 1 ppm, then tests should be
run for free cyanide on represeitative samples;
9) an CP leachate analysis/ of the waste for each of the
EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide (usina distilled
water for the CN analyses) on a representative number
of samples (but not less than four);
10) a determination of the total oil and grease content of
the waste be testinri a representative number of samples
(but not less than four) using the enclosed method;
11) ar ount of waste present in each inpoundt ent after neutral-
12) describe quality assurance procedures followed during
sampling and analysis. For example, results from the
method of standard additions for the EP toxicity tests
should be included.
If the oil and grease level of the waste exceeds one percent,
the I’ for oily waste r.etholology should be followed during

If after reviewing the data specified above, the Agency finds
that organic toxic constituents or other toxic metals are used in
the facilities manufacturing processes, you may be reauired to sub-
mit representative test data quantifying these constituents in
the waste.
If you have any auestions about these information recuests,
please call me at (202) 382—4519. In addition, the final guidance
manual is available through NTIS i you have not already accuired
Ann Burke Sarno
Environmental Protection Specialist
Waste Identification Branch (WH—562B)

WASIIINGrONOC 20460 9433.1986(08)
24 I 1&
Mr. Samuel Mostkoff
Legal Counsel
Monroe Auto Equipment
International Drive
Monroe, Michigan 48161
Dear Mr. Mostkoff:
This is in response to your letter dated February 21, 1986,
formally requesting the Agency’s reconsideration of, and a
rehearing on, its decision to deny, in part, Monroe’s delisting
petition No. 0020. Monroe also requested the Agency to stay
the effective date of the final decision to deny the petition
for the waste contained in Monroe’s lagoon.
Monroe raises three issues as the bases for its request
for reconsideration. These include: (1) Monroe’s lack of
an opportunity to comment on the final VHS model; (2) the
Agency’s evaluation of Monroe’s waste using a total chromi
regulatory standard rather than a standard based on the waste’s
hexavalent chromium content; and (3) the use of the present
drinking water standard for chromium rather than the use of
the proposed recommended maximum contaminant level (RMCL) in
the evaluation of the petition.
The Agency has evaluated Monroe’s request, and has decided
that the final decision published on November 27, 1985, denying
Monroe’s petition for the impounded waste was correct. The
Agency believes that the issues raised by Monroe do not warrant
a reversal of our decision.
Monroe had an opportunity to comment on the model and its
application to Monroe’s waste during the comment period. The
final version of the VHS model and its application to Monroe’s
waste consider the same elements as the proposal on which
Monroe commented. The change in the VHS formula, an altera-
tion in the vertical dispersion term, was made in response to
comments, and did not alter the Agency’s basic approach.
Monroe had an opportunity to comment on this aspect of the
proposed model.

Monroe, reiterating its April, 1985 comments, suggests
that separate standards for hexavalent and trivalent chromium
are appropriate. A single standard for hexavalent chromium
and total chromium is currently warranted. The current maximum
contaminant level (MCL) and the EP toxicity test level both
refer to total chromium. The Agency has considered revising
its standards to refer only to hexavalent chromium but has not
done so, and is concerned that trivalent chromium may be con-
verted to hexavalent chromium in the environment. The Agency
continues to believe that total chromium is an appropriate
factor to consider in its evaluation of delisting petitions.
The Agency I. using the current MCL (50 ppb) set for
drinking water as the health-based standard for deliating.
As noted in the November 27, 1985 Federal an increase
has been proposed for the recommended maximum contaminant level
to 120 ppb. As this new level is only proposed, and comments
on this proposal are still being evaluated, the Agency intends
to use the current MCL (to grant or deny petitions) until a
new RMCL or MCL can be set.
Finally, the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), referred
to in your letter, are standards applying to waters of the United
States, which are primarily surface waters. We have decided to
use MCLs in the VHS model, which considers the potential for
contamination of ground water. AWQC will, only be used when no
MCL or no other regulatory standard is available. The AWQC would
be used in that situation, until an MCL was developed.
If you have any further questions regarding these issues
please contact Mr. Steven Hirsch in our Office of General Counsel
at (202) 382—7703.
Marcia William.
CC: Jeffrey K. Sherwood

-.; ;5
SUBJECTs RCM Section 3001(f)(2)(b) and States’ Exclusion
of Wastes from Regulation as Razardous
FROMs Marcia E. Williams, Director
Ott ice of Solid Waste Marcia E. Williams
TO: Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Regions 1—X
Since November 8, 1984. EPA has administered all RCRA delistTng
programs and will continue to do so until States become authorized
for delisting under the new provisions of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amc.ndments of 1984 (HSWA). A State is not required to have
a delisting mechanism . and may be authorized under HSWA without
one. To receive authorization, a State must conform its delisting
program, if any, to the Federal procram and apply to the Agency
for authorization.
Effective November 8. 1986, temporary exclusions automatically
expires. Any temporary exclusion granted by a State before
November 8, 1984, should be re—evaluated either by EPA or a State
that has been authorized to conduct delisting pursuant to HSWA.
If a final decision to grant or deny a petition has not been made
by November 8, i986, the temporary exclusion will cease to be in
effect for purposes of RCRA Section 3001(f)(2)(B).
Temporary Exclusions
Temporary •zclusion.s are dslisting decisions which exclude
• waste from regulation as hazardous, but are not the final
d.ltsting action under th. regulations of the issuing authority.
For example, IPA issued a numb.r of temporary •xc1usioni pursuant
to 40 C?I 2 0.22(.). That provision explicitly stated that these
decisions are made ‘betor• making a final decision’. Similarly,
several States hay, mechanisms for removing a waste fr t r.gulat ion
before promulgating a final decision, such as delistinga patterned
on the Federal temporary exclusion.

These temporary exclusions should be distinguished from
grants of •nforcement discretion, where a State did not remove a
waste from regulation, but stated only that it would not initiate
an enforcement action against a person treating this waste as non—
ht ardous. Enrorcement discretion, sometj es c l1ed in orm&l
exclusions, are not temporary exclusions (nor are they final
Final Exclusions
A final •xclusion is an agency determination done in accordance
with th issuing authority’s regulations; e.g., with notice and
comment after which no further review of the petition is contemplated.
EPA issues final exclusions pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,
which requires publication of a tentative decision in the Federal
Register, receipt and evaluation of public comments, and publication
of a final decision in the Federal Register. States issue final
exclusions in accordance with their State legal authorities.
Any final exclusions that were granted by authorized States
betore November 8, 1984, are not attected by HSWA (i.e., no
additional action is required by the State or by EPA). EPA
encourages the States to re—evaluate those decisions if all
factors (including additional constituents) which could cause
the waste to be hazardous were not considered by the State.
Actions Required
On November 8, 1986, all temporary exclusions will cease to
be in effect for purposes of RCRA if a final exclusion has not
been granted. States and Regions should plan to verify that the
handLers of these previously excluded wastes are complying with
applicable requirements after November 8, 1986. To this end, the
Regions and States should begin to evaluate all State delistings
(1) detørmine the typ, of State exclusion (temporary or final)
that was granted before November 8, 1984;
(2) determine vheth•r a final exclusion has been granted or
denied by EPA; and
(3) take appropriate action to ensure full compliance with
RCRA(..g., prior to 11/8/86, you should send handlers
written notification of their regulatory responsibilities.

Pros a practical standpoint, the expiration of a temporary
•xclusion will have greatest immediate impact on those who
manage their waste in land disposal units. These units may
be i,tmediiitely subject to ground-water monitoring requirementt
and, on November 8, 1967, may be •ubj.ct to the ‘loss of interim
status’ requirements of Section 3005 (.)(3) depending on vh.thir
other hazardous waste management activity is occurring at th.
fact 1 i ty.
currently, there are no Stat.s asthorised for the BSWA
delisting asthority. Even if a State were to receive the
required authorisation befors November 8, 1986. it is highly
unlikely that adequate tim. •xists to collect and evaluate the
additional information from petitioners •o as to avoid termination
of the temporary exclusion.
A ‘Reference Guide to Delisting Petitions’ ii compiled at
EPA Headquarters and distributed weekly to the Regional delisting
contacts. In turn, the Guide is distributed to the State.. This
reterence can be used to det.rain. if EPA is reviewing a particular
petition and the status of EPA’s review. - -
Please feel free to contact the delisting staff of the Waste
Identification Branch or the Regional Liaisons of the State
Programs Branch here in the Office of Solid Waste it you have
any questions regarding State delistirigs.
cc: Matt Straus, 08W
Truett DeGeare, OSW

APR 2 it
bJ L1t estruction ot L ioa in Cont inated Soil Using Mobile
Lncinerat ion
Marcia L. .aliiams, Director
Lttice ot bolid haste (WH—St,2)
Ihorias h. Devine, r irector
h .astc P anage nt Division, kegion IV
In raw onse to your letter ot kebruary 8, 19db, you
requested clarification on two issues concerning the JtCflA research,
oevelopment, and dei onstration (kL &Uj p.r it application tor the
U. . hir Force in (.iultport, P ississippi. The issues you raised
involve c elistincj the residues resulting trom treatx.ent and all —
inç site construction prior to per;$t iseuance.
1 elisting
ou requested tne UbC of delisting infor natLon from the
trial burn or LPA’s burn at Times beacn to expedite NC EC
cclibtir ctitiun. (During the k.& cU triaL tráci loroethane,
onocrloroDenzene, an trichiorobenzcne were incinerated an 1 the
. (at th 5t.ac ) was calculated.) This intorir ation can only be
usea indirectly to support the M1 C petition. The delistincj
r uLation explicztly state (see 4U Ct 1 6U.2 (kj) tnat an
eiiciusion will onjy a jl to the waste generated at the Indivicual
racility cc vered ty the demonstration anø will not a ly to
waste tror any other facility. In addition, kCkA ç3OO5(f (l)
r ;uire& the &*titioner to Gemoristrate, to tne satistoction of
the Au ’inistrotor, that the waste does not r est any of the criteria
Lor which it Is listec nor contain any ottiwr acklitional constituents
wnich coulu cause tz e wdste to be hazarcous. The Celisting
c e&onstration, thereLor , is required to be i aoe on the waste
itself, and cannot be aaoe on surrogates (i.e., PciUC’s).
t ChC may, however, incinerate a Irall portion ot the
contaz .inate soil trosr u1tport, Mississippi on another £kSCG
unit certitiec as ochievinci six 9’s D& L as a basis for ttieir

coiistjnQ ?etition. NCL C wcujcj need to der onstrate that: (1)
ti.e wo LO units are ssentia1ly iden ica1, and (2) the waste
inc neratea uurin. the test. burn is representative or a worgt—
case ot tne waste tt at wjjj incinerated aring the tiela
de on6trdtion. Furthermore, hCdC s ust provide test burn data
on a nii uri C L tour representative nples of the solid residue
and ot the scruoo.r water. These sawp les iust be analyzed for the
characteristics ot a hazardous waste aria for all the Appendix V II I
constituents that are reasonably exoected to De present in the
waste. £nu A enUix v iii constituents would be chosen bas. d on
the results ot the analyses on the contaminated soil from
(.ult ort, t1ississip i. Providing that the concentrations of the
nazaruous constituents in the waste meets the delisting require—
rents, the Açency could propose to ,rant a conditional exclusion.
The conoitional exclusion is needed to verity that the two t .t4Cu
units do indeed ochieve the same destruction etriciency.
bite Construction
hCk A )Juu (a), as amended cy tne Hazarucus and Solid Waste
i en0r ents ot 19U4, requires owners and operators of all hazardous
wabta treatz ent, storage, and ciiaj.osal tacilities to obtain a
‘C A ere it prior to constructinçj a i CRA tacility. While I can
appreciate tne L Si ’s intent to expedite the testing of the
r ooiie incinerator, M)SD permits are also subject to this
restriction. (.. ection 3270.65(5) only ali s tPA to rodity or
waive tne perniit application and procedural requirements of
..u C.c.ic.. i arts 7U anu 1s4, not the statutory requirements
or CkA.) ihis eans that the mobile incinerator can prefab-
ricated and transported to trie proposed treatrent site, but
construction or the site itself, Such as pouring concrete founcla—
tions and connecting the MTU to physical structures on—site
cannot occur until the zU D permit is issued (L CK S1UU4(2)).
it iou nave any additional çuestions on these issues, jieaso
contact L.oreen sterLing at FT /475-dS5l with regard to delistinq
and ancy ocierleau at VTS/3d —45uu with reçara to site
construct ion.
cc: iiruc. Weddle
k eter 1.,uerrero
rt (ilazer
tdancy i omerleau
Lioreen sterling (hH —5bib)
Matt Strau ( H—5b4u)
en ( ray (LL —132 )
1 yles horse (WH—562t )

9433.19€ 6(11)
q 2 i!
Mr. Laland Herning
Chevron USA, Inc.
P.O. box 7
Cleves, OH 45002
)ear Lr. Kerningi
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the February 13,
1986, telephone conversation between yourseLf and L’or.en ter1in
of my statt and th, ensuing conversation, with Chris Tanner, CR 4—
Southweet, Inc. regarding Chevron ’s sa lir g and analysis plan.
The plan was submitted on January 13, 1986, and covered 00th the
separator sludg. and pond sludge. We agree with Pir. Tanner that
it is imperativ, that we document our position to ensure no m si.ander—
standings in the future.
Chevron proposed to take ten grab sample. of the separator
sludge as it is pumped to the thickener during a five—minute pump
cycle. Thus, sample. would be taken every 30 seconds over the
course of five minutes. Chevron further ropo..d to allow the
samples to settle for a halt—hour, and the samples wruch snowed a
tm reiatively significant volume ot soiida would be mixed. ..rab
sauples or th. essentially solius tree war. r pumped at the end ot
the cycle and the solids tree water left in the line would .
discarded. Chevron claims tnat the grab samples are representative
of the pump cycle. A composite sample would be constructed from
equal, volumes of three grab samples taken over a tour hour period.
The Agency is concerned that the proposed sampling pLan
may not result in collection of samples that a e truly representative
of the Listed waste. Iii particular, we believe that the samples
would consist of the list.d API separator sludge diluted with a
large volume of non-listed wastewater. Chevron conceues that the
water, which purges the sludge from the line, is easiiy separatea
from th. sludge and returned to the intluent or the oil/water
separator. The Agency has, therefore, concluded that the dilute
samples taken from the separator are not representative ot the
waste. Although the Agency recognizes that it is the i’I separator
sludge which is tn. listed waste, the Agency oelieves, however,
that samples of tne thickened sludge would more accurately represent
the waste for the reasons discussed below.

Ordinarily, the combination of API separator sludge and
w.t.r would be considered a mixture of a listed hazardous wait.
am nom—listed waat.water. By virtu, of the mixture rule (40 CFR
$2 l.3(a)(2)(iv)), th. resultant wastestream would be detin.ø as
hazardous. I en if the sludg, is dewatered, the resultant liquid
stream would be conaidered a hazardous wacte by virtue of the
‘derived frog’ rule (40 CFR 26l.3(c)(2)(i).
According to a n*aorandum dated August 23, 1985 se. enclosure),
however, the Agency concluded that the ‘derived from’ rule is not
uniformly applicabl, to the aqusous stream generated in a sluuge
dewatering process. The basis for this determination was that
properly conducted dewatering of API separator sludge woulo insure
that none of the listed waste is returned to th. system, while
simultaneously reducing the total amount of waste generated. This
assumes that th. non—listed wastewater came in contact but was not
‘mixed’ with the sludge.
The burden of proof is on the facility to establish that
‘properly conducted’ dewatering had occurr.d. bpecitically, it
the facility can demonstrate, to th. satisfaction ot the Regional
authorities, that the return water stream is chemically equivalent
to tne non—listed vastewater influerit to th. wastewater treatment..
device that originally generat•d the listed waste, then the return
water stream is not ‘derived from’ the hazar us waste. EPA may,
however, mike its own •valuation and determine that the waste in
question is indeed a miztur•.
Chevron’s tour bay aerat.d lagoon is not currently reported as
a regulated waste management unit. We, therefore presume that
Chevron has satisfactorily made the demonstration, to the appropriate
Regional authorities, that effective dewatering of sludg. had
occurred and that the return wastewater is not the listed vast.. U
this is correct, then the s.parator sludge, which is diluted with
water, is not considered a mixture. Sampling of a waste, diluted
with a large volume of water, does not constitute a reprwsentative
sample. It is, therefore, necessary that you sample the dewatered
sludge by either: (1) sampling the thickener, or (2) analyzing the
sludge from the separator once the water has been removed. It you
choose elis latter option, the samples should tie allowec to settle
for ninety minutes (th . calculated wastewater residence tine in
the separator). During settling, the samples should os properly
stored to prevent the possible loss of hazardous constituents
through volatilization ( i.e. , the samples should be capped and
If we have misrepresentsd your position that properly conducted
dewatering has occurred and you believe instead that the dilute
sample coming of f of your s.perator is ndsea a ‘mixture,’ you
should be aware that your downstream impoundments are then hazardous
waste management units. If the units in question were not included
on Part A of your RC1 A p rmit application, or subsequent moditicatiun
thereof and/or wsre not coversd in your certification of compliance

with applicabl, ground water morutoring and firtancta.L re4u1r.mwnte,
then th•se units do not have interim Status unoer XCRA. They must
cease the r.cipt ot nazarooua waste i amediat.ly and closure plans
must be submitted to EPA or an authorized State agency for
pproval, nd implcm.ntation (S30Q5(e)(2) ot RC A, eee 5u .sd 46),
FaiAure to compl,y ay suoject you to entorce er t action.
If you have any further c uestiona rs arding this iuu., 1esse
contact Doreen Sterling of my staff at 202—475—6775.
b Lnc.rely,
Eileen Claussen
Characterization and Assessment
Division (W —5ô2S)
ccs Chris Thnrier, ERN—Southw.st
bcc: Ben Smith
Lloyd Guerci, OWPE
L)ale Helmers, egion V

5. Delistirq 9433.L986’ 12)
A petroleirn refinery obtained interim status in 1980 for a suz ace
impounónent used to treat and store K051. The facility manages no
other hazardous waste. In 1981, the EPA granted a de1istir for
the K051 waste because the owner/operator proved that the refining
process waste did not contain lead and hexavalent chronium, the
constituents for which K051 was listed. ) es the K051 delistino
effectively mean at the facility never man ed a listed hazardous
waste? How would the delisting affect the facility’s interim status?
A person may suI nit a petition to EPA, pursuant to 40 CFR
SS260.20 and 260.22, to have a waste at a particular facility
delisted. Prior to September 21, 1985, EPA granted only
TM informal” or temporary exclusions. “Informal exclusions
were suggestions to the Reg ions that enforce nt discretion be
used when a tentative decision to grant a temporary exclusion
hed been made. T i rary exclusions reroved a waste at a
particular facility fra i regulation, pursuant to 260.22(m)
(then in effect, see 50 FR 28727—28, July 15, 1985). EPA
follows the procedures set forth in 40 CFR S260.20 to grant
final exclusions, which are regulatory americbnents.
Wastes which were informally excluded were technically still
hazardous wastes. An impoundment holding informally excluded
KOSi waste was subject to the Loss of Interim Status provisions
on November 8, 1985.
For temporarily excluded wastes, the facility’s status depends
on the scope of the temporary delisting granted. If only the
waste generated after the date of the temporary exclusion was
delisted, waste placed in the i.mpoundmerLt prior to that date
would still be hazardous 0 (051) waste. The impoundment would
have had interim status and should have met Part 265 standards.
The Loss of Interim Status provision applied to the impoundment
on November 8, 1985.
If the temporary exclusion covered the waste already in the
impoundment as well as K051 waste generated after the exclusion
< date, then the facility would still have interim status, but
none of the Part 265 interim standards would apply to that
surface impoundment. The facility would technically have been
subject to the Loss of Interim Status provision, but not
required to certify ccrnpliance with financial responsibility or
ground water rronitorjng requirements, since none of these Part
265 requirements were “applicable,” or to subnit a Part B
permit application on November 8, 1985, (50 FR 38947, Septembe-
25, 1985).
If EPA revokes the temporary exclusion, or It ceases to be in
effect by operation of law, e.g., if the Agency does not make
a final decision on the petition by November 8, 1986, (RCRA
S300l(f )(2)(B)), the facility will becare subject to the Par’
265 interim status requirements. The facility must then
certify ccmpliance with financial responsibility and ground
water n nitorlrç requirements and subait a Part B permit
application within 12 n nths or lose interim status (RCRA
§3005(e) (3)).
Source: Steve Hirsch (202) 382—7703
Research: Jennifer rock

ir. 3. K. White
Unitec Chair
P.O. ox 96
114 Churchill Ave. NW.
Leeds, AlaLama 35094
Dear tlr. White:
I have received your Letter dated April 17, 1985, regarciing
the informal exclusion issued to your Irondale, Alabama tacility
on flay 5, 1982, and withdrawn on March 10, 1986. The issues
addressed in your letter are discussed separately below.
(1) There is an apparent conflict in the Agency’s claims that
United Chair received an informal delisting, but that
the waste generated has always been considered hazardous
and must be treated as hazardous.
There is no conflict. A temporary exclusion and an intor a1
exclusion are very different. A temporary exclusion is a change
in ttie regulatory status of certain wastes, troin hazardou3 to
non—hazardous. A temporary exclusion could only be granted by t 1e
Assistant Administrator tor Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S260.22(m). In contrast, an informal exclusion
was not a regulatory change at all. It was an indication y tne
Agency that it would not take enforcement action against a petitioner.
This enforcement discretion was exercised when it was bejieveci
that a temporary exclusion would be granted, but before tX e petition
had been processed and the temporary exclusion granted. (see
enclosed memorandum from R. Sarah Compton to the Regions, January 12.
In May 1982, a memorandum was sent trom Headquarters Enforcement
Counsel to our Regional contacts advising them that the Office of
Solid Waste had made a preliminary decision on United Chair’s
petition (see enclosure). The memorandum suggested the use of
enforcement; discretion until the Uelisting was published in the
Federal Register . This memorandum reflects only the use of
enforcement iiscretion, i.e. , an informal exclusion, not a temporary
exclusion. As noted above, a temporary exclusion could only be
issued by the Assistant Administrator for Solid Zaste and t.mergency
Response. The Assistant Administrator never acted on United Chair’s
petition, and thus an temporary exclusion was never granted.
Accordingly, your waste is, ui k s has oeen, a Listec nazaru.ub
.‘ __

(2) Unic d Chair believes that the informal exclusion was the
sar u as a temporary exclusion and that £?A used these
terms synonymously to Indicate the waste’s non—hazardousne .
Despite the regulatory ditference between these two types
of aecisi ons, the Acjency for a perLod of time, treated i.nforiai
and temporary exclusions similarly ( i.e. , all Wastes were allowed
to be managed as non—hazardous wastes, although Agency discretion
had been used with regard to informally excluded wastes). The
Agency, however, cannot legally ignore thi, regulatory distinction.
(3) United Chair believes that its exclusion was a temporary
exclusion which would require EPA to provide notice and
opportunity for public comment before eftectively withdrawing
this decision and further claims that IISWA under 42 U.s.C,
S6921(f)(l), (f)(2)(A) requires notice and comment.
As indicated above, there is a clear regulatory definition of
a temporary exclusion. If a recommendation to exclude a waste was
never signed by the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response then the petitioned waste is still a listed
hazardous waste. Despite the Agency’s choice to exert discretion
for a period of time, your waste was never legally an exempted
waste, and notice and public comment are not required for the Agency
to withdraw an informal decision. it should be noted that notice
and an opportunity for public comment is not necessary for issuing
and witndrawing enforcement discretion. 4 U.S.C. S6921(f)(l) and
(2)(A) indicate that the Agency must provide notice and an opportunity
for public comment before granting or denying a petition. The
March 10, 1986, action withdrew our decision to exert enforcement
discretion. It was not a decision to grant or deny United Chair’s
petition. It, therefore, was not necessary to provide notice and
an opportunity for public comment.
(4) EPA muSt make a tinal decision on United Chair’s petition
by Novemoer 1986, and must, in the meantime, consider the
waste as non—hazardous.
The Leovember 1986 deadline referred to only affects teulporary
exclusions. The Agency is not required to make a tinal decision
on temporary exclusions by November , 1986. The 3984 Antenomnents
state only that if a final decision is not made by that oat.,
the temporary exclusion will cease to be in ettect. The Agency
intends, however, to make a tinal decision on all temporary
exclusions by November 8, 1986. Again, no decision to exclude
United Chair’s waste was ever signed by the Assistant Administrator
and, therefore, a temporary exclusion was never granted. The only
statutory requirement imposed on the Agency for petitions for
which a temporary exclusion has not been granted is that a cecision
be proposeo in the FeoeralRegister within one year of receipt of
a cor.iplete petition, and that a final decision be Made within two
years of receiot of a complete petition, to the maximum extent
practicable. We expect to meet these deadlines tor your petition.

(5) Representatives of the Alabama Department o Ln ,ironmcnta!
Management (ADEtI) are prepared to teStity that EPA
representatives had made a decision to approve United Chair’s
petition and had granted Unite’ Chair an informal delisting.
Th Agency has never denied granting United Chair a
discretionary or informal exclusion. The Agency’s Regional Ottice
correctly relayed this information to the ADEM.
(6) An EPA letter dated September 17, 1985, reauestjng additional
data under HSWA indicated that the data be submitted as
soon as possible since all exclusions not made final by
November 1986 will expire.
As indicated in #2 above, the Agency had tracked both informal
and temporary decisions together in its etforts to collect additional
irttorrnation in a tinely fashion under HSWA. The Agency, however, is
not required by statute to issue a final decision on any informal
decisions by November 8, 1986. Nevertheless, we would like to
process your petition and issue our final decision by this date.
(7) RSWA acknowledges that EPA had granted non—published
temporary exclusions and that they are valid.
The HSWA reference means only that temporary exclusions were
granted without a prior opportunity for comment and th& full
consideration of such cor:trients (i.e., temporary exclusions were
issued with a request for comment after the effective date of the
(8) United Chair also requests that a final decision be made no
later than November 8, 1986.
The Agency expects to issue a final decision by November 8,
1986. Much of our analysis has been completed, and our tentative
decision to deny is based on highly variable levels of barium
and chromium in the waste and the unacceptable mobility of both
barium and chromium exhibited by the population of waste samples
tested. United Chair will receive a letter providing the details
of this analysis in the near future.
If you have any further questions regarding these issues,
please contact Mr. Myles Morse of my staff at (202) 475—8551.
3. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator

flyron S. Crary, isq.
Environmental Law Section
The L)ow Chemical Company
2030 WilLard I. Dow Center
Midland, Michigan 48674
Dear Mr. Crarys
This is in referenc, to your rulemaking petition to classify
your halogen acid furnaces (k1 Ps) as industrial furnaces under
RCRA. Although tha Agency has not yet reached a decision on t) .
merits of your petition, our thinking has progressed sufficiently
to provide you with our initial views
I understand that you and other DOW representatives met with
members of my staff and our Office of General Counsel on July 10,
1986. to exchange information. At that meeting, we provided an
overview of our regulatory authority and existing arid planned
controls for materials that are recycled by burning. We also
discussed the information you provided in your July 8. 1986,
Based on our und.r.tandirig of your operations as su’ arised
in the enclosure, we believe it could be appropriate to classify
those H Fs that are not currently boilers as industrial furnaces.
Accordingly, we currently plan to propose to designate your non—
boiler iPils as industrial furnaces in a Federal Register notice.
We hope to be able to d.ve1 the notice? T blication this
fall and to sake a final decision early next year after considering
public c ’ nt.
Please review the enclosure and correct any misunderstandings
we may hav about your operations. In particular note that we
consider the nonboiler HAPs that we tentatively plan to propose
to de.iynat. as industrial furnaces to be burning the secondary
streams both as an ingredient and for energy recovery. The heat
energy released from burnin9 the materials provides substantial,
useful energy to drive furnace reactions (i.e., to thermally
Uegrad. chlorinated organic compounds). (Energy recovery does not
have to involve export of energy iron a combustion device such as
steam produced by boilers.) Accordingly, these nonboiler UMs as

well as the boiler HAFs would be subject to regulation under
the rules we are planning to propose this fall f r boilers and
industrial furnaces Durning hazardous wastes.
Furthermore, we consider the secondary streams to be
inherently waste-like and subject to designation as a solid
waste under §261.2(d) when burned in the KAFs. However, given
that the HAPs are considered to be burning partially for energy
recovery and would be subject to the soon—to—be proposed rules
for industrial furnaces, there is no need to undertake a desig-
nation at this time.
If you have questions or co znente, please contact Bob
Mol)oway, Chief, Waste Combustion Section, at (202) 382—7938.
Marcia E. Williams
Office of Solid Waite (WB—562)
cc: Bob Holloway
Steve Silv•rman, Esq.
bcc: David Garrett
Dwight Riustick
Marc Turgon

A I3OLLLRS u i. sr u cL t c
1. e .AFs are :i.re—tuc e otiers ii.fie to ro uce :iC.1 fr j
cnLori e—Deari eccmdar 3t rear1s y scruz . .. ..L
u3t1o’ Tr typicdi cnLor.Ln content t. ie r .i:o
is 2U—7u .
2. Seine MhFs operate as boilers and meet .PA’s efiniti on ‘f a
bo Ller.
3. The nonboii.r HP-F. meet EPA’s criteria for designation as an
indu .tri i furnace (see 40 CFR 260.10) and related preamble
language C50 PR at pp. 625—627 (Janaury 4. 1985)) for the
following reason.
a. Although industrial furnaces normally prec.s. raw materials
and, thus. there is no question that they sr. integral
components of a manufacturing proc... the BAPs are eon—
sidered to be integral components of a manufacturing proc...
began .’ 11) they are located on the site of a &nufacturing
preceas and th. only s.condary .tr.ams they handle are from
that manufacturing process i (2) the UCI produced is a bona
Lid . product in that it has a HC1 content of 7-20% and is
used on—site. Thus, for these reasons and others id.ntified
below, the .. devicse are clearly distinguishable from
device, used to incinerate waste where soma output from the
incinerator may be considered to be a marketable product
(e.g., HCX—bearing scrubber water bottom ash).
b. The d.vics is designed and used primarily to accomplish
recovery of materiaL products. The devices are p.c tally
designed and operated fire—tub, boilers that enable them to
acompt highly chlorieat.d fe.dstocks without unacceptable
corrosion and to mazimisa MC I production and recov.ry •
ha. patents on the HP-Vs as evidenc, of their special design
differing fro. normal incinerators. Th. materials ar. also
burned in thea. nonboiler I ?s partially for energy recovery
because subetantisi., usable heat energy is released by ths
material during combustion. (Energy recovery occur. when
substantial. usabi. heat energy is provided either to drive
furnase reactions or for export (e.g.. steam generation by
a boi3isr).) Th . materials have an as—fired heating value of
apprc i.tely 9,000 Etu/ib. Th. heat released results in
the th.re.l degradation of chlorinated organic compounda to
form MCi. If the material, bad insignificant heating
value. auxilliary fusis would have to be used.
c. The devic, is used-to burn a secondary material a. sri
ingredient to mak. a aatsrial product. Chlorine—bearing
secondary strea from chemicals manufacturing operations
ar. burned to produce MCi.

9433. 1986(17)
George Bays
Sethiehem Steel Corporation
burns Harbor Plant -
Box 246
Ch..terton, lndiana 46304
Dear Mr. Bays;
Sinc, our last tslephone conversation, I have looksd into
the regulatory requirements that would be applicabl, to Bethlehem’s
wastS should the t.mporary exclusion for this wait. b. withdrawn.
Since your waste ha. a temporary exclusion, it may b. bandl.d and
disposed as a non—hazardous solid waste. If Bethl.hsn were to
ve the petitioned sludge to a new site closer to the Burns
Marbor ainter plant ira order to prepare the sludge for metal.
recovery, a hazardous waste manifest would not be necessary while
the tznporary exclusion was in effect. Manifesting would be
necessary in order to transport th. waste to th. new site after
the exclusion was withdrawn.
Whenever the exclusion for this waste 1. lost, the wabte
must be managed as hazardous wherever it is located on Bethie—
he ’e property. If the waste was re—located prior to loss of the
exclusion to another site on Bethlehem’s property closer to the
sinter plant, then Bethlehem may be eligible for interim status
as a storage facility under 3O0S(e) of RCRA, sub3ect to Part A
permitting requirements and compliance with storage standards
(40 CFR Part 262). Please contact your Regional representative
for further information.
Concerning Hr Sapia’. desire to store the waste on site
for future reclamation, it may be possible for Bethlehem to do
so under the conditions specified above. It may also be possible
that trie future management of this waste may be affected by the
Agency’. definition of solid waste, which contains several
exemptions for the recycling and recovery of waste materials.
For additional information, you should contact ) . Matthew £traus,
chi.f of the baste aract.rization Branch, at (202) 475-8551.
If you have any questions concerning the delisting petition
revisw process, please call me at (202) 382—4783.
Scott J. Maid
-Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division

John B. Hagar
Stone Industrial Division
J.L. Clark Manufacturing Co.
51st Avenue & Cree Lane
College Park, Maryland 20740
Re: Delisting Petition #582
Dear Pir. Hagar:
I have completed th. review of the confidential business
information submitted by you in support of the delieting
petition that J.L. Clark Manufacturing Co. has on file here
at the Agency. My concern is focused primarily on the
detection limits provided for the organic constituents of
the still bottom solids. These limits are expressed in units
of percent by weight, and a. such are too rough to allow a
precise evaluation of actual waste concentrations (that is,
if these rough percentages were used as inputs to the Agency’s
organic leaching model and VHS groundwater model, several
resultant compliance—point values would be too high to consider
delisting). Finer detection hints for these compounds ( i.e. ,
parts per million) must be produced in order to evaluate the
organic content of the waste.
Also, inspection of th. materiel safety data sheets has
indicated the potential presence of several other toxic Appendix
VIII constituents in the waste stream. These compounds must
also be evaluated in the waste in a manner similar to that
needed for the re—evaluation of the previously tested solvents.
A list of the. . constituents is given below.
Phthalic acid ester.
Methylene chloride
Tolylen. ditsoeyanat.
The Agency would like to receive further clarification about
the ingredients of several other compounds mentioned -I ii - the
•u g L Lal • Lvuy ui .s •il wL IR. lI43 I luiji ., . .g&
‘h1La h d c.I,, anJ lipkaLii LvLun rb 11811 i.L p. U cii4li &,It JL
SvM OI. mtion..i4..pxopzLe4exy. 4 ..the. Aency...4hL.atake.. rramqrn e$rita..ta
JNNaNf have thi inforiae ion kept confidenfiel.
D&ttI I I I______________
EPA P.i 1320.1 (12-70) OFFICIAL FILE COPY

In order to ensure the timely review of your petition,
this Lntormation should be forwarded to the Agency as soon
as possible. If you have any questions, please call me at
(202) 382—4783.
Scott J. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division

9433 .19C6(20)
DEC J f935
Del.L.tinq Issues a.lating to LP ’s Mobile incinerator
L avid Wagoner ir.ctor
raste Mana3e ment Civision
? eg on VII
i ruce Weddle, irsctur
Per ita and Stats Programs D LvisiorI
This r.mo urvas to summarize the questions r.solv.d and
data to be sabaitted as discuseed in a conference call on
December 8, 1986 with Myl.. Morse c 1 my staff. The questions
imcuss.d included th. extent of coverage of the d.liatir;
decision for the Denney Farw site (oricjinall. propoc.d on June 5,
1985); redefinition of th. terms of the cont .ng.ncy testiog
requirements? areas cf the the original etiticn that w u1d
r ain r4ndiathsr.dk and oata requirooenta and scheduling
for a new petition deronstretion re ardinc waste from Syntex
First, you asked if the resjdu generated rci the iz cL ier tic r.
o ar iait o a,L (spproziat.Iy) 55C drur e of waste eouid e
covered b the original 3ecision artu t erviore he ccnsiderei
non—haLaroo s unier th. terms of the ezciu ion. rn waetws ir.
tttese dru 1 . s were d.scrib.a as either •. erive rr r” wastes frc,
the roc ssi ot the D.nn.y Farm soi.i and soil ro th ?i zza
cad site. You indicated that many of theae dri 1 u contair e
;arboge Lr m these sites which may have inclt ed lateretory
cbris from processing sam les ot t ’tesa wastes as well as
cija osable clothing worn during the sai ling e . forts. s 1e
and Steve Uirsch ot our Office of eneral counsel (cuC) indicatec
tP w s wastes would o cQv•r.d by the orl,ina 1. de1istin decision
since they would tavs been implied as simiLar1 stated in cato ycry
iu. 13 NSoil. and otner materials frog cLssn—u , from baldwin
of th. field desonstr tion categorie, irt the jroposed d.cisior.
(so. 5C 2J722), The original decision therefor. would not
hay, to be reopened for public comment to treat thee. wastes. e
do howev.r, naed an accurate description of the9e waStes nd
th•tr .stioatd volw m. for the file and to assure D CC that this

interpretation is correct. Several other drums were described
as containing olv.nt and stillbottom wastes. sither Pegion V I I
nor Frank rrsestoi%s of our Edison Lab adequately described this
watts or itt source. Therefore, tines it could not be surr j ed
over the honc that thes. wastes were in ny way derived rrow the
original 13 categories of the exclusion, we could not conclude
that the •zclusion covered the.. drums. We will furth.r evaluate
whether this waste is cov•r.d by th. original decision if ecr•
d•tail.d information is sent. concerning the charact.rization and
souc. of this aatsriai. incLudin j your basis for believing that
it is a waste derived from th. original cateqori.s.
Th. second question regarding the original decision was
whether the definition of batch testing’ for the continyency
testing progra could be changed. and would such a change neces-
sitate reopening trio decision for public coms.nt. You inuicated
that the r.quir.ment of sampling and testing each tank of waits-
water for mercury selenium and chromium generated during the
field demonstration, and the testing of daily composites of
sample. fro. each C iIAf roll and each drum of ash, were too
prohibitive logistically and economically. W. can propose to
change these conditons to cov.r a less frequent sampling regime
(i... w..kly instead of daily), however, this would reopen this
portion of th. decision. That is. an amendment of this nature
would need to be proposed Federal Pegist.r allowin. a suitable
public comment period. Th. original proposal included language
that indicated if representative data on at l cst 10 samples were
•uk mitted and were below the limits of 0.03, U 14, 0.68 ppm for
mercury, ssleniu . and chromiun. respectively. in the wastewatar
and 0.044 and 0.22 ppm for mercury and seleni in both the CI4EAF
, edia and ash, then the Agency would drop the testing conditions.
During the conference call. Frank Freestono inGicatod that you had
collected representativ, test data. This data (on the wastewater,,
Ck-I AF media, and ash) should b• submitted to the Variances ,.ction.
If th. data indicate that these materials are consiatent1 non—
haLardous, t ten wc can publish a notice amendin j the decision to
drop the testin’ requirement completoly. It the ata is satis-
factory we ahould be abl, to propos. this change within a isv
wee)s. This we.ndment would not reopen any other arts of t e
previous decision to public cam ent. that is. we will not re uirc
the a plicatiom of different TCDD detection lis ita as a result
of this amendment.
You should submit an explanation of the rise in chromium
levels noted in som. samples due to the chroaiu content of
patching material used on the refractory after removal, of ;arti-
culate build-up in the r.fractory. You should also identify
which samples this affected. - We are not at this time indicatinq
that. this is an acc.ptabl• variation. e will need to review tr e
data and dstsgiiins if a sufficient number of sar. l .s have te.n
tested before this decision ‘can b. made. If a suitable number of

samples (at least forty five if non—parametric statistical
procedures are used) are presented it ii.ay be possible to use
art average chromium level rather than a az u .um level in c r
evaIuatio .
Your third concern was wh.ther any new (lower) detection
limits for TCDC would be applied to the original decision if
r.op•ned for either of the reasons menticn.d above. A. already
mentioned the only situation where a different TCDI lcvel. would
be considered would be in a new petition request for a waste not
covered b 1 the previous decision. The TCDD levels used in the
original decision will not be changed a. a result of .mendi
the decision to remove the cortting.ncy testing conditions ‘he
final topic of discussion was the initiation of a new etitjon
action for the Syntex waste. It will not me necessary to reeubm. .t
descriptive data on th. treatment system. You should however
describe s ecific alterations in flow throu h rates, residence
time. etc. The vast. to be incinerated neeils to be adejuately
characterized. This should include physical description o the
waste, estimated volia e and historical knowledge of the generating
source. and a description of how the charg. was prepared.
Representative samples of this particular waste matrix must be
treated and representative samples of the wast.water. CHEAF media
and ash must be testud for suitable Appendix VIII parameters
(including all priority i’ollutants). The cenditioas of the test
rn should be described as well as the samting procedure of the
waste for treatment and the sampling proc.d.re of the trsat wnt
residues for analysis. The volumes of tree ent residues should
be esti atcd or the total volume o Syntex iaste to e treated.
Frank. rsestone ask.ed whether analytic l date coLlected from
arii.r samples o the .yntex waste could me used in our i..va. uaticr..
This data can be usel if you can ‘iescrime the sa piing çrocedure
for both tne untreated waste and the treaUuent resioues in enou h
detail for us to determine hew re reeentative thesa sales wele
of the wast .a rernaining to be treated. and Li the cey conclitioiss
of the trial burn. (i.e.. resid rtce tir e) werL sir iiar er.ou h to
th. actual conc..itiens that will occur durinc treat .ent.
Using the r.co ended test r ethods in SW— ..-.Cp, the . eti ctic’n
limits for all other Appendix VIII constituents 3t1 er then the
TCL’D’s do u t fall below the ppb range. The Characteri aticn at c
Assessment Division (CAL#) is currently worming with C D ant.. thte
Chlorinated Dioxin Workgrou to Cetermine if the assu a 1 tions
made about the wobility a: dioxin throu h envirorui . . ntal ;.ieUii
and subsequent exposure levels were too strinacnt. s will let
you now if our health standards change as a result of this
review. To date, we have not promulgated a recjulatory standar 1
for dioxin which is ap Licable to delisting evaluations. As
1 .reviously mentioned we are consideriflg using various exrosure
scenarios such as overland sediment and soil trans crt and jrc.unu—

water transport. If we determine that dioxin containing waste.
should b evaluated usin the OI ,i ( 5 .e 51 Fk 410a2—4l10O, !;ov. 13.
l b) and the V S model (see 50 FR 4 87, a QpefldiX. Nov. 27. l c j
then a r.gulatory standard of 0.2 ppç and a solubiLity of 0.2 7pL’
would be u .d .n conjucticn ‘ith the vclu e of treatz ent r..i .due
to determine an acceptable dioxin level in the incin.ratjon
residu.. It the CAD finds that W exposure routes are more
relevant for dioxin wastes th4z ’thes. scenarios thi- . may result
in a less conservat ive l.vsl of anc.rn.
.Je have attached a list of maximum acceptabl. levels of some
Appendix V I I I constituents based on the health based stalidar s
end the mininua attenuation allowed through the OL.J end V’I
r..odeis currentl, used by tne Variance Z.ctien. It. shoul be
noted that th. attached Levels only apply to a landfill waste
.anatjement. scenario (i.e.. exposure to contar.tnetea groundwater
from landfilling of the treatment residue). It should also be
noted that altnouyh the standards for son. of the s constituents
are extremely low, we would not r.quir. detection limits below
those normally achievable using the rscomwsnd.d extraction and
analytical procedures froi’i Test 1et ods for k.valuating Solid
waste (8W— 46). (he can make the detection l its from Sli-846
available to you if you do not have th.m.) Where haxardous
ccnstituents in a waste are not dst.ctsd using appropriate
analytical methods, we will, as a matter of policy, not us.
those constituents as a basis to regulate the waste as haxerdous.
,e will make every att.npt to meet your April deadline
or tnis new etiti.on. However, it should noted thet if a
complete petition with all necessary descritions and test data
s not. received e ore the end o Ceceniber. t en achievint
April 1, 1987 deadline beco .s less likely. ven if all necessar
t ata is ruceived by January 1 19d7. we culd need to propose
decision in the FF. by January 30, 19a7. I thirty day ccr ier.t
riod rin e us to the first week of t• arch. l avin us Less
than a month to address public cox .nts and jnCijze tne decislcer.
in the FR. hi. process usually takes u montL s froi. the ciate e
receive a cer plet. petition. We will attc pt to accelerate the
process as much as possible. it should be not that petitiuha
are handled as th.y ar. submitted (i.e. on a first co’ e. first
served basis). ke are currently acting on abcut 150 active
petitions. therefor. an accelerated schedule en a new petition
could have an adverse •tfect on the schedules of several otl.er
petitioners in your Pegion.
If you have any additional questions concerninq the originaL
Denn.y Farm decision or about information requirements tor the
new petition. pleas. cell I:yl.s P’ors. of ny steft at FTS 3 2— ’i7 .
At tach .nt

Mike !verhart
Boeing i’ilitary AirDlane Company
P.O. ox 7730
Wichita, Kansas 67277—7730
Dear Mr. Everharti
This lett.r is in response to several recent t.lei hone
conversations I have had with you and with 7anis Butler of
rlutler & Associates concerning the waste samolina necessary
to be performed in order to complete your dslisting petition
(p200). Mg. Butler and I have discussed at l.nath the
s.iuolina nian for the landfill. Th• vast, is landf tiled in
trenches at th. site. The trench.s, as near a. they can be
d.termined, would be divided into auadrats of roughly eaual
size, ao roximatsly 10,000 ft 2 each, and 3 to S randomly chosen,
full—depth corings would be taken from each cuadrat. The ss
coring. would th.n be co.posit.d to oroduce a sample from each
cuadrat for analysis. This particular samnling olan would ensure
that composite sa ’iples would he very rspre.?ntativ. of the nrocess
onerations utilized by Boeina over the oast 25 years, while at
the same tim. minimizing the actual costs of analysis.
In order to move ahead with the delistina of the landfill,
it j i necessary for th. landfill to be samnied as co’ wrehen,tvely
as oossihte, o that a full accountinn may be made of the sr,ectru,
of wastes which may be present in the landfill. Such a samolinc,
qf fort ‘oust be completed a. soon as oossibte the Aoency has a
November , 1*86 deadlin, for finalizina all deltatina decisions
for facilities holding temporary exclusions. If final decisions
on these petitions are not rendered by that date, these exclusions
become void. In order for our office to have sufficient tiThe
to process the data from all the affected facilities, we have
reauested petition.rs to forward their a’ditional information
by January 31, 1986.
If you have any au.stions, pleas. contact me at your
earliest convenience at (202) 382 —47fi3.
scott 7. Maid
nvironm.ntai Protection Specialist
Office of Solid Waste (WM—562p)

I : CEO i9
Jack H. Luckhardt
Manager, Corporate Safety and
Health/Environmental Affairs
Keller Industries
18000 State Road 9
Miami, Florida 33162
Re: Delisting Petition •650
Dear 14r. Luckhardt,
I am responding to a letter dated September 30, 1986,
in which you outline several reasons why Keller Industries
should not have to submit additional test result. (besides
the single organic analysis already performed) for the
impoundment aubsoils at Keller’s Ililford, Virginia facility.
I believe that the information requested in the letter sent
to you by Technical Resources, Inc. (TRI), dated September 9 f
1986, is necessary for the further review of the petition,
and SO the remaining three quadrants of the impoundment sub
soils must also be evaluated for organics.
The first point you raise, that no organics would be
expected in the other three quadrants if none were detected
in the first quadrant sample, is fallacious. Such a procedure
may not allow the evaluation of the waste in terms of prior
management, accidental spill., or hot spots, and certainly
does not allow for evaluation of laboratory error. The Agency’s
experience is that predictions of waste consistency cannot be
made on the basis of a single composite sample. Such a value
is not statistically defensible and will not allow a valid
estimate to be made of the variability of the waste. The
federal regulations also require a minimum of four samples to
be evaluated in a delieting petition (see 40 CFR S260.22(hJ).
The fact that the impoundment 1. no longer active does not
excuse Kell., from meeting the same delisting standards that
all waste managers must meet in order to receive exclusions
for their wastes,
The Agency has provided guidance on numerous occasions
to petitioners to indicate- how many samples must be evaluated
in a petition. The Agency’s method of dividing impoundments
_ IJ i .Jtili, i.t i l sized I.& Ar tp (a ,‘tinim .a ef f i.r )
IJ.5. 9I —467—I 3

of no cireater than 10,000 ft 2 each, selecting sampling points
at random, and collectina complete—depth core samples has
been in active use for several years. The Agency’s guidance
document, ‘Petitions to Delist Hazawdous Wastes,’ was published
in April 1985, and also describes this sam. method for sampling
solid wastes. The r.quium.nt of four samples does not subj•ct
Keller Industries to a sampling progra, any mor. rigorou, than
that routinely performed by any other facility.
In response to your point that Kell.r’s treatment syst.a
was designed to cisate a homog.n.ous waste, I wish to point
out that the delisting evaluation must includ, an appraisal
of the uniformity or variability manifested by the waste.
Process variability has been found in the past to be quite
substantial at a number of different facilities, as seen in
test data (on file at the Agency) submittsd in support of
other delistirtg petitions. Homogeneity of a waste cannot
be assumed but must be proven in a delisting petition.
You have established the presenc. of substantial
quantities of natural vegetation in the impoundments, and
have cited this v.g.tation as the cause of th. elevated TOC
levels exhibited by the subsoils. I agree that this occur-
rence is very likely in Keller’s impoundment, and also believe
that the TOC results may not accurately depict potential con-
centrations of toxic organic compounds. I do not believe that
use of the TOC test as a screeninig procedure for the presence
of toxic organic compounds in Keller’s impoundment subsoils is
effective, and do not believe that TOC levels should serve in
any way as a basis for limiting sample size. My office will
adhere to its previously published guidance, namely the
r.quirement for a minimum of four representative samples.
The Agency affirms the previous information request that
was forwarded to Keller Industries by TRI. In order to ensure
the timely review of the petition, the information should be
forwarded to this office as soon as possible. If you have
additional questions concerning the review process, please
contact m. at (202) 382—4783.
Scott J. Maid
environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division
cci A. McLaughlin, TRI
Joel Karmazyn, Region III

hark E. Grwnmer, Esq.
Enviroruriental. Enforcement Section
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of 3ustic.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Rei United States V. Keystone Consolidated Industries
Dear Mr. Gruaim.rs
I have reviewed th. description of the sampling plan
submitted by Keystone Consolidated Industries for the impounded
hazardous sedim.nts at its Bartonville facility. The outline
of the proposed plan seems to be consiat•nt with the methodology
discussed in our earlier conference call with Keystones
representatives. I would like. howsv.r, to make some modif-
ications to the list of organic compounds compiled by Keystone.
Tb. list of Appendix VIII compounds presented by Keystone
is not complete. After consultation with two chemists. I have
determined that testing for acid—extractable ( i.e. , ph.nolic
compounds) organica should be performed. Phenols are often used
in degreasing operation., and could have been used by Keystone
in that context. In addition. if oils are present in sludges,
the oily sludges will likely contain phenolic compounds as
degradation products. Keystone has proposed testing for other
compounds polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons or PAils)
that are often associated with the presence of petroleum hydro-
carbons, which suggests that Keystone is aware of the presence
of some oil or grease in the sediments. The phenolic compounds
can be evaluated either in separate or combined fractions with
the other compounds on Keystone’s list for minimal additional
cost (estimated at approximately $200/sample, about l4,000
Keystone should evaluate its sludge for total oil and
grease content prior to any other analysis. If the amount of
oil &nd gr.as. is found to exceed one percent, then the waste
should be subjected to the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure
(OWEP), which involves a dual solvent extraction, instead of
the conventional EP test, which uses a dilute acetic acid
IPI. P.. ,, 132G..i (f2.7O)

I al& o believe that formaldehyde is a potential hazard
ar.d should be evaluated in the sediments based on the fact
that formaldehyde as known to be influent to the waste •trea .
(In the Agency’s evaluation process, the delisting office uses
a regulatory standard of 7 z i0 mg/i for foraaid.hyd., which
is classified as a Class A carcinogen.) The Agency, however.
do.. not have an approved test method for formaldehyd, in
solids, and alt.rnat. test methods inorganic colorimetric
tests) do not offer a detection limit as low as the calculated
worst—case level (0.057 ppm) presented by Keystone. A GC/MS
scan may be possibl. if the end of the analytic spectrum is
lowered to below 30 to acco odat. the low molecular weight of
formaidehyder the analysis would also involve the use of a
fOrmaldehyde standard in order to identify the compound by its
retention time, and a strict quality control/quality assurance
program. even if such an analysis were performed successfully.
however, ther. is little indication that a detection limit lower
than 1 ppm could be achiev.d. The Agency labs are working on a
high resolution method for formaldehyd., but it is not expected -
to be available until mid—1987 at the .srli.st. Until the Agency
has an acceptabl. test method for formaldehyde, I do not believs
that analysis of the sediments would be worthwhile in Keystone’s
case. It may be necessary how•ver, to require Keystone to test
its ground water for formaldehyde (analysis of water is ich
easier than analysis of solids) in order to sh. that none of
the formaldehyde has entered the aquifer.
The other constituents pesticides, plastics, etc.)
not found on Keystone’s list are not reasonably expected to be
present in the sediments since they ar. not used (and have not
been used, according to Keystone) in th. production of fabricated
steel wire products. Testing for these constituents is, there-
fore, not necessary.
Sampling for th . purposes of submitting a delisting
petition should begin as soon as possible. If you have que.-
tions concerning the chemical analysis of wastes, please con-
tact Pir. Ian Phillips (of ERCO, an Agency contractor) at (617)
661—3111. If you have any questions concerning the petition
review process, pleas. contact ma at (202) 382—4783.
Scott J. Maid, 3.P.
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and Stat. Programs Division

433. 1986(24)
12. Variance fran a Treatment Standard
Can a facility obtain a variance fran the trcatment standard
51 FR 40642, 268.4]. and 268.42] for a oarticui.ar waste stream
i id cannot be treated to the level (or by a method) specified by
the treati t standard?
stes mey be subject to a t.reatability variance in cases where
the treatment standard for a perticular waste cannot be met
because the waste does not fit into one of the B tre tabi1ity
grotçs [ 51 FR 40605] used to set the treatment standard.
Fac .1ities interested in obtaining a treatment variance gust
suthtit a petition in accordance with procedures set forth
40 ( R 260.20 [ 51 FR 40642, 268.44 as amended].

1 i96i
Mr. W. Frank en
American Environmenta].
Pollution Control 1 Inc.
Post Office 8oz 98
Dad.vil.le, Alabama 36853
Dear Mr. Oweru
This is in respons. to your lsttsr of September 9, 1986.
regarding a petition for a boiler variance under 40 CER 260.32.
now pending befor. the Region IV EPA Administrator. We ar. sorry
not to have been ebi. to respond earlier. I und.rstand. however,
that you. with Drs. Moellir and Whitti. of the University of
Alabama, were able to meet with my staff on October 20. 1986. to
cLarify your Letter and to provide additional information.
Our understanding is that the installation will. us. a waste
heat recovery boiler to produce stsaa for use in drum ci.aning.
The unit will maintain a thermal energy recovery efficiency of
at least 60 percent, and at learnt 75 percent of the steam will
actually be used for drum cleaning or for othsr purposes and will
not be vented.
At your meeting with my staff on October 20. 1986. you
provided further information in support of arguments that the
design of the facility warn innovative and should be considered
to be of integral design. We have sinc, received a copy of your
submission of October 27, 1986. to Ms. Beverly Spagg of EPA
Region IV.
Our conclusion after consid.xing the information before us
is that the American Environmental Pollution Control combustor
design as Jnitall.d for Buckner Barrel and Drum does not meet the
definition of boiler because it is not of integral design. Ws
consider it to be a two—stags ccaibustion systsi with a waste heat
recovery boiler connected by insulated ducting. We do not believe
that the special nature of th. insulation is sufficiently unique
to consi d.r the boiler and combustion chamber to be of Integral

Your letter of September 9 stated your belief that the
4nteg al design test is arbitrary and capz icious. You believe
that test regulates as incinerators waste neat recovery Combust3 n
syste ts that recov ir ener- j as ef fi C, ently as integrally des, ned
oileLs 1 which aze exempt rzom regulation. LPA na considered
the czitic srn of zelying on physical ctiteria to dtLferentiate
between incJneratozs and boilers (see the pz amble to the January 4,
1935, final zule on the def ri tion of solid waste (50 FR 626)).
Given, however, that significant regulatozy consequence . result
fran the dlstinct3on, EPA believes it is important that the test
for the distinction be unambiguous and easy to apply. The physacal
test of integral design meets that need.
The Region has interpreted your petition in a manner con—
ii atent with previous decleion, denying variance. to units with
waste heat recovery boilers. We are sending the appropriate
officials in Region IV a copy of this Letter for inclusion in
theiz decision record.
Marcia E. William,
Office of Solid Waste
cc: James Scarbzough, EPA Region IV
beverly Spagg. EPA Region IV
bcc: Bob Holloway
Marc Turgeon
Art Glazer, Permits Branch (WH-563)
Sonya Stelznack

FEB-25 t T
Harv.y E. Henjum
Pr.. I dent
IFS Investors Services, Inc.
7800 Metro Parkway
Suits 100
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420
Dear Mr. Henjuzi
Thi. letter I. in response to your October 20, 1986 letter
to Ms. Marcia William., in which you r.quested information about
discharges generated by the U.S. Warieplate Company (Nameplat.)
and the possibility of ground water contamination at its facility
in Mt. Vernon, Iowa. I am sorry that our’ respon.e has been so
long in cowing, tut the Agency has only recently been abi. to
address th. issues of concern to you.
We ar. aware of two types of waste management units at the
Narn.plate siter a drainag. field and a waste lagoon. Prior to
1979. Nameplate’s liquid wastes were treated in septic tanks and
discharged to an on—site drainage field which flowed into a nearby
creek. The .. acidic wast•s were generated from Nameplate’s metal.
etching operations, and wastes such as these typically contain
high concentrations of several metals.
As a result of the discharg. from the drainage field,
Nameplate was proposed in October 1984 to be included in the
National Priorities List (NPL) for future clean—up under’ the
provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compeui—
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA. or Superfund), based on the
potential for copper, zinc, and fluoride to reach ground water.
This sits remains in proposed status until the Agency implements
it. finalpolicy for listing sites on the NPL that are still
regulated under the authority of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
After a number of citizen complaints to the Stat. of tows
about the drainag. field, Nameplate constructed a waste lagoon
to treat the waste.. The Stats subsequently determined that the
lagoon was treating hasardous wastes aM requested Nameplat. to
f ii• a Part A p.r.it applicatL f th 1a 1! as a hazardous

a.te management unit. The Part A permit application was sub—
u itted in February 1981, but th. lagoon did not receive interii
itatue from the State, and hac, therefore, been operating cc a
non—p.rmitt.d haxardous waite treatment unit. In 1982, aftar a
State inspection noted several deficiencies, the State of Iowa
determined that the lagoon was leaking, based on high fluoride
level, in ground water at the Nameplate sit..
Nameplate petitioned the Agency in December 1984 for an
exclusion (dalistirig) to sxempt it. lacoon from compliance
with the federal hacardous wasts program. Samples of lagoon
sludges taken by EPA Region VII personnel in July 1985 indicated
the presence of triehloro.thyl.ne (TC!) in Nameplate’. sludge
at concentrations of up to 95 parts per million (ppm). TCE
was also detected, as well as barium, lead, chromium and nickel,
at elevated levels in the ground water, although the data was
insufficient to make any statistically valid determination
about the ground water contamination at Nameplate’. facility.
I amep1.at. did not indicate in its petition that ?CE was used
in its process. In addition, the Agency has knoviedge that
highly corrosive wastes (pH C 2) were allowed enter the
lagoon from 1982 through 1983, which created conditions amenable
to increased leaching of metals from the waste into the ground
based on the Agency’s findings, Nameplate’s petition for
its lagoon was proposed to be denied by the Agency (51 FR 26417,
July 23, 1986) due to the unaccounted presence of ‘!‘CE in the
lagoon, the preliminary indications of ground water contamination.
and the documented past management history of the lagoon. The
etching processes at Nameplat. have stopped, and the lagoon is
no longer accepting haxardous waste.
In response to a request by Uam.plate, Agency Headquarters
personnel visited the Nameplate site in August 1986 in order to
take 45 additional lagoon sludg• samples and two ground water
samples for analysis. Nameplate had retreated the lagoon sludge
by mixing (which aerated th. waste) prior to the Agency’s visit
in order to reduc. possible levels of volatila organic constituents
such as ?CE. ‘I’CE levels in the sludge were found to be lower
than the levels previously documented by Region VII. TCE
contamination in the ground water, however, was shown to be at
levels higher than previously reported. The Agency has prepared
a Notice of Availability which will provide an opportunity for
interested parties to review and comment upon th. analytical
laboratory report on the Nameplat. site. Publication of thic
notice in th. Federal is expected to occur during the
week of Februa l987

This sunary represents th. body of information presently
available concerning r4am.plat.. Som. additional technical
information on Na .plate’s drainage field can be obtained
from the Regional docket at the U.S. EPA Region VII Library,
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City. Kansas, 66101. A. more
information becomes available to the Agency, this information
will be made available to the public. If you have any question.
plea .. do not hesitate to contact the Agency or EPA Region VII.
Sincerely yours.
Suzanne Rudzinski
Branch Chief
Assistance Branch

9433.1987 (04)
5. . ppealing a Petition Denial
A generator su nitted a petition under §260.22 to amend Part 26]. to
exclude a hazardous waste pr uced at a particular faciuity but
the .kgencys final decision was to deny the petition. at options
does the generator have for appealing the Agency’s decision to deny
the petition?
A generator who has had his petition deued by the Agency y
appeal to the U.S urt of P peals for the District of Col mibia
Circuit, pursuant to §7006(a)(l) of RA.
The generator nay also wish to petition the Agency for
reconsideration of the decision. Denial of a delLsting petition
is a final Agency action, hc iever, and a petition for
reconsideration does not. extend the tine to file suit in court.
Source: Steven Hirsch (202) 382-7706
Research: Joe Nixon (202) 382—3112

9 433 19 87 ( 05)
M AR 9 t93T
Mr. Ontar Muniz DIaz, P.E.
Manager - Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Caribe, Inc.
Firm Delivery
Ponce, PR 00731
Reference: DeUsting Petition for Union Carbide Caribe, Inc.
Dear Mr. Diaz :
The Permits and State Programs Division has completed its
review of Union Carbide Caribe Inc.’s (UCCI) petition requesting
the exclusion of its aeration basins, which are located at UCCI’s
Penuelas. Puerto Rico wastewater treatment facility and are
presently classified by application of the derived—from and
mixture rules as EPA Hazardous Waste Number K022 (distill tion
bottom tars from the production of phenol/acetone from cumene).
Based on existing ground water contamination and results from
our evaluation of aeration basin sludge, wastewater, and soil
composition data, we will recoT nend to the Aes1 tant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that your petition be denied.
We believe that UCCI’s aeration basins are at least partially
responsible for contamination of the ground water underlying the
wastewater treatment facility based on the detection of organic
and inorganic contaminants in nearby monitoring wells and on the
existence of a ground water mound beneath the basins. Monitoring
well data submitted in support of your petition for monitoring
wells 13B and 14B, which are ii nediately downgradient from the
aeration basin., exhibit silver, mercury, and lead levels above
their respective drinking water standards. Constituents found in
these walls were also found in the wastewater and sludge of the
aeration basins and in the soils below the basins. These reported
concentrations of heavy metals are above background levels and
are most likely indicators of the downgradient ground water
transport of these contaminants from the aeration basins. Other
contaminants (e.g., benzerie, toluene, naphthalene, dimethyl
phenol, fluoranthene, anthracene, chrysen., dibutyl phthalate.
barium, cadmium, chromium, and selenium) were also reported as
detected in nearby monitoring wells. With respect to monitoring

well 158, UCCI has claimed that the coritamf nation of ground water
in its vicinity is a result of a leak from an underground concrete
transfer pipe for influent to the wastewater treatment system. We
believe, however, that the tracer test conducted to investigate
this claim is inconclusive. The tracer test did not demonstrate
that the leaking fluid would reach well 15B under normal conditions
(i.e., in the absence of the test’s rigorous pumping conditions).
Therefore, we cannot conclude that the leaking fluid has reached
well 158 and is solely responsible for the ground water contamina-
We believe that all unite of the wastewater treatment facility
and rnariagentent area, including the aeration basins, have contributed
to the ground water contamination since a ground water mound uni-
formly surrounds the complex. We cannot conclude, however, that
the area’s ground water contamination Is solely a direct result of
seepage from the aeration basins since constituents similar to those
found in the basins are also contained in wastes found in other
units of the wastewater treatment facility and waste management area.
Even though underlying ground water is not potable, we consider the
existence of ground water contamination to be sufficient grounds for
petition denial.
In support of delisting decisions, the Agency uses a ground
water transport model, the vertical and horizontal spread (VHS)
model, that was developed to pre4ict the environmental impact of
toxicants leaching from wastes. 1 / The Agency also has developed
an organic leachate model (OLM) to predict the mobility of organic
toxicants from land—disposed wastes. The 0124 calculates organic
leachate concentrations which may then be used as Inputs to the VHS
model. (See 50 FR 48944, November 13, 1985; 51 FR 27061, July 29,
1986: and 51 FR T084. November 13, 1986.) The tM and VHS models
were used to evaluate the sludge and wastewater contained In the
aeration basins, as well as the soils below the basins. This
analysis predicted that levels of certain constituents at a hypo-
thetical drinking water well will exceed regulatory standards.
As a result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984,
the Agency is now required to consider all toxicants and factors
that may cause the waste to be hazardous. In addition to these
changes, the Agency has developed new tools to evaluate petitions.
The VHS model (see 50 FR 48886—48967, November 27, 1985) is one
of those tools used by the Agency in making delisting decisions
regarding leachable toxicarits contained in a land—disposed
waste. The VHS model establishes a sliding regulatory scale
that is based on the volume of waste generated and extract
data. The model predicts the concentration of each toxicant at
a hypothetical compliance point located 500 feet from the disposal
site. The Agency considers the hazards presented by the waste by
comparing the compliance point concentrations of the toxicants
predicted by the VHS model with a regulatory standard for each

Specifically, broniomethane. trichioroethylene, and 1,1,22-
tetrachioroethane levels in the sludge; benzene, fluorene, phen-
anthrene, and tetrachloroethylene levels in the wastewater: and
bromornetharie, trichioroethylene, arid 1,1, 2,2—tetrachloroethane
levels in the soils generate conipliance point concentrations that
exceed health—based standards (i.e.. fail, the 0L24/VHS model
analysis). A sunmiary of our analysis is presented in the following
table. This table presents the maximum allowable level (MAL) for
each constituent of concern, a. determined by the VHS model, that
would be allowed in the sludge. wastewater, or soil. The number of
samples that exceed this level and the number of samples analyzed
are also presented.
No. of Samples No. of Samples
MAL (ppm) that Exceed MA.L Analyzed
Sludge :
Bromomethane 0.69 1 8
Tr ichloroethy lene 0.59 1 8
1,1,2,2—Tetrachloro— 0.15 1 8
Wastewater :
Benzene 0.0076 6 24
Pluorene 0.013 2 14
Phenanthrene 0.013 2 14
Tetrachloroethylene 0.004 1 7
Soil :
Bromornethane 0.69 3 10
Trichioroethylene 0.59 3 10
l,1,2,2—Tetrachloro— 0.15 1 10
As a matter of policy, the Agency does not consider site—specific
factors (such as ground water salinity and hydrogeologic site
characteristic.) when determining whether or not a petitioned
waste is hazardous. Instead, because waste, once delisted, can be
moved to any other site and be disposed, the Agency uses a model
(OLM/VHS) with general applicability to evaluate the potential
hazard. The model results combined with the existing ground water
contamination discussed above are the basis for the Agency’s intent
to deny your petition.

We conclude that the aeration basins and the materja g con-
tained therein present significant hazards to both human health
and the environment. The basins sheuld be considered hazardous
and sub)ect to regulation under 40 CFR Parts 262 through 265 and
the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270. Accordingly, we will
recommend to the Office Director and Assistant Administrator that a
notice proposing to deny the petition be pubUehed in the Federal
Register . Our policy is to give petitioners the option of with-
drawing their petitions instead of publishing a negative finding
in the Federal Register . If you prefer this option, you must send
us a letter withdrawing your petition and indicating that the
aeration basins are considered hazardous and will be managed as such.
If you send such a letter, it should be forwarded to this office
within 2 weeks of the date of receipt of today’s correspondence.
If you choose not to withdraw your petition, a proposed denial
decision will be published in the Federal Register . If you have
any questions regarding any of the above, please contact Myles
Morse of my staff at (202) 382—4788.
Susan Bromm
Acting Director, Permits
and State Programs Division
cc: J. Utz, SAIC
F. Kozak, Region II
S. Siegel, Region II

! Z ) WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
‘ 4t
Ms. Julia L. Phillips
Counsel, Environmental Division
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
Wilmington. DE 19898
Dear Ms. Phillips:
The Agency is still in the process of reviewing E.I. du Pont’s
request for reconsideration of our denial decision regarding the
K103/Kl04 waste streams. I apologize for the delay in responding;
however as explained in your meeting with my staff on
February 19, 1987, several, questions involve resolution of
cross—cutting policy issues at the Agency. Therefore, this is
only a partial response. The remaining issues, such as the
impact on future management and closure requirements, of the date
of your initial delisting and the effect of terminating input of
listed wastes into the impoundment prior to the effective date of
the denial on future management and closure requirements, will be
resolved as soon as practicable and addressed in a separate
While the Kl03/Kl04 waste streams may meet the best available
technology (BAT) effluent limitations established under the Clean
Water Act, it is not within our regulatory purview or policy
directives to consider this compliance as a basis for delisting
decisions. The statutory authorities and objectives of the Clean
Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are
different and were not designed as integrated directives from
Congress. Hence, the levels of concern developed under SAT and
the VHS model have been derived differently with different
assumptions and goals.
In your letter you also point out that your treatment
methods for the Kl03/Kl04 wastes are included in the BDAT
treatment technologies identified in the November 7, 1986 land
disposal ban rule. Again, this is not considered in the delisting
process. BDAT treatment will assure that the waste can be land
disposed, but not tiecessarily delisted from the hazardous waste
management system.
You requested that EPA reconsider its denial decision if
E.I. d’i Pont could demonstrate that (a) the lagoon does not have
the potential to leach K103/Kl04 constituents into potable water,
and (b) the waste streams will never be transported to another
location for disposal where a usable aquifer might be affected.
Our current policy is not to consider site—specific factors
(such as local hydrogeology and aquifer potability) in the

application of the Agency’s vertical and horizontal spread
(VHS) model. Specifically, the VHS model analysis does not
take into account the potability of the aquifer beneath a
netitioner’s facility, i.e., it is Limited to waste—specific
rather than site—specific evaluations. We also will not limit
our analysis to K]03/K104 waste constituents. Due to both the
HSWA requirements and the mixture rule (40 CFR 261.3 (a)(2)(iii))
the waste must be evaluated for all hazardous Appendix VIII
constituents likely to be present in the mixture, regardless
of their origin. In addition, EPA has made a policy decision
riot to grant exclusions which are based on the future management
conditions of a waste. Again, this is due to the fact that
delistirig decisions are based on the characterization of the
waste rather than on management conditions.
E.I. du Pont requested confirmation that if it can be
demonstrated that the K103/K104 wastes do not contribute to
lagoon sludge generation, EPA will, not consider the lagoon
sludge to be hazardous. Theoretically, we believe that this
may be possible and the suggested filtration and waste mixing
experiments may show that the wastes, as currently generated,
do not add to the lagoon sludge. Practically, however, we do
not believe that this demonstration is possible. For example,
you would need to demonstrate that the wastes have historica].Ly
never contributed to the sludge. Because you have implemented
a number of process and treatment changes over the past five
years, we are skeptical that such a demonstration can be made.
If the impoundment continues to receive hazardous waste four
years after the date of promulgation of the petition denial,
HSWA §3005( )(6) requires that the impoundment be retrofitted to
meet minimum technology requirements. Accordingly, the deadline
for installing a double liner and leachate collection system is
November 18, 1990, if the unit continues to receive hazardous
waste after that date.
We realize that several key questions regarding applicable
requirements for continued management after the effective date
have not been answered. The Agency’s policy is presently
being prepared and will be forwarded to you in the near future.
If you have any questions regarding either the issues addressed
above or our progress on resolving any outstanding issues, please
call Mr. Steven Hirsch of our Office of General Counsel at (202)
iM - — L)’” -v’ ’
Marèia E. Williams
Office of Solid Waste

APR 13 19 3 7
T 4 ’ir’! flavis
P RA roord4n ,tor
Brush 1Jpllman In c.
5cutP Piver Roirc’
r1 ore, OhIo 43416
Dna.r Mr. Davis:
In v ur løtter of Mnrch 23, 1987, you indicated your concerns
over our dec 1on I o deny the dt tinn retition (10573) that
we71 , has had on file with the Aa rey s nr. 0ctoh r 2 ,
19°f. In our denial lettcr of Decei’bar 5, 19P5 , the 1a oon
sl)udaes (F.P a ardous Wa t Ko. P0CC) sceumulatino at your
F1i c r., Ohio fscility ware dee i.d to he harardoue. TP ia deter-
m1napin,’ waa haeeti largely or t ie evaluation of th W 5 A5 wi h
a oround water mode) (the vertical arid horizontal cpreaC LV!451
mo’ ’ l’ , which rredicteci that thee. s1uc’q.’ , when lsn c 4 faroseil,
woujti tend to l. ch lead into c,round water, roducina contamin-
ation a leve3e ahove our levels of re ul.tory concern. This
)etter sunt*arizea our rear onses to your corcerns at-out the derIa
deislon, as were ad reseed n a meeting with Ken huater, My)v’F
Mnr , ar’d Scott øid, on NovemPer 17, 19R6.
Your primary contention was that each impoundment shoull
h analyred as a separate entity, and should not he corIL1ne( itP
the nth.r roundmenta In the VP anaJyses. Combination of
4mrcunr ed i1uda s to determine a maximum waste volume haa been
rerfor n.’d routinely fri c!eUetinq decisions: examrle. of reiioualy
riuhljahed deciciorie which have combined volumes of imr,nunde1
wastes for V14S analysis are oi’er, belgw. These listed facilities
have either hcen granted final exe1usicin or have t-€er. prorosc•
“y the Aaency to be Qranted fins) ewclusions f or their wastes.
Pet tloner Citation I mpoundments
Waterv]iet Arsenal ) PR 1253 (1/10/86) 2 drytnç ec
Boinmer Industries 50 PP 48 3 (31/27/P5) 2 ponds
General Flectric 50 FP 48949 (11/27/05) 4 ponds

The rationale behind the combining of your irpounded
.astes is that these wastes are the same (F006) waste that
: ave seen subject to a ccr ’r’ori treatment regine, contain cornzr on
constituents, may possibly be disposed together 1 arid in fact
have been impacting the underlying aquifer as a single unit.
The consideration of the combined wastes in the VHS evaluation
would, therefore, be a reasonable worst case. :e cannot
restrict the disposal of the waste after it ha. been delisted.
Our position has been that if management restrictions must be
placed on a petitioned waste to ensure the proper treatment of
the waste, then the waste should be considered hazardous.
Consequently, the analysis of a waste for delisting must
necessarily take into account all viable management practices,
including simultaneous disposal of the wastes. Because of the
small amount of F006 sludges accumulating in these three lagoons
(less than 300 tons total), our model calculations used the
raximuni dilution rate of 32—fold dilution In the aquifer. No
greater dilution would occur, therefore, if each lagoon was
considered separately.
Our findings, as stated in the December 5, 1985 letter,
indicate that lead may leach from the waste and cause ground
water contamination. Although lead 35 not a listed constituent
of F006, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Ai’ eridmente of 1984 (IISWA)
require the Agency to consider additional factors (other than
those for which the waste was originally listed) to deterrine
the hazardous nature of a waste. The presence of leachable lead
in the impounded waste has been determined to be a significant
problem, in spite of your contention that the lead may have
entered the waste stream from a non—listed source. More recent
evaluations of the data have indicated that beryllium, another
Appendix VIII constituent, is also capable of leaching from the
waste at levels which fail th. VHS evaluation. The impounded
wastes are defined as F006 sludge, because a portion of these
sludges were derived from the treatment, storage, and disposal
of a listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR ç261.3(a)(2)(lv),
which states that such a combination of solid wastes and listed
hazardous wastes is defined a. hazardous.
You have mentioned previously that ground water monitoring
data for the Elniore facility shows that no hazardous constituents
are migrating from the surface impoundment., and that this site—
specific data should be used in the evaluation instead of the
compliance—point concentrations predicted by the VHS model.
Ground water data is used in the course of petition evaluation.
because it is an indicator of past management practices at a
site. Ground water data which indicates contamination from
on—site waste management may be used as a basis for petition
denial. Ground water monitoring data does not, however, offer
a means by which we can evaluate potential future impacts of a

disposed waste upon ground water, since such data represents
only a snapehot In time. Ground water data, therefore, is
useful for evaluation of past nanagement practice but cannot
be used as a predictive tool such as the VHS model.
You requested a delisting decision for the nickel plating
rinse waters and electrocleaning/bright dip rinse waters prior
to their commingling with numerous non—listed waste streams in
the lagoon system. These two wastewaters are not eligible for
delisting. These wastewatere are not disposed wastes, but are
subsequently treated in the lagoon., where wastewater treatment
sludges accumulate. Because th. accumulated sludge. are listed
(P006) wastes, it Is inappropriate to delist the wastewaters
prior to treatment in th. lagoons. We would l e to note that
even if the nickel plating rinse waters were to be examined as
the waste of concern, using your naximum generation rate of
36,000 gallon. per month and the average cadmium concentration
in this wastewater (frou the petition), the VHS model indicates
the compliance—point concentration for cadmium in the ground
water would be 0.016 ppm, which exceeds our regulatory standard-
of 001 ppm.
Finally, meeting the BAT guideline, for rineewaters under
the Clean Water Act ha. no bearing on the regulation of sludge.
generated from the treatment of these wastewatere under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCP.A). as amended. The
sludges generated from these bright dip and plating rinsewaters
are regulated as EPA Hazardous Waste No. P006 under RCRA.
We re—affirm our earlier decision to deny the retition for
the impounded P006 wastes at the Elmore, Ohio facility. We
anticipate that a denial notice will be published in the Federal
Register in the near future. If you have any additional questions
or concerns, please direct them to Scott Maid at (202) 382—4783.
Sincerely yours,
Li / Signed
Suzanne Rudzinskl
Branch Chief
Assistance Branch
cci file
Al Debus, Req. V
William Muno, Reg. V

Affi U l T
?4r. Wflljajn U. Loon!
Pros! dent
Grand Blanc Landfill. Inc.
2277 W. Grand Blanc Road
Grand Blanc, Michigan 48439
D.ar r. Leon!i
The Permit. and State Program. Division has completed
Its review of your delisting petition (10631) for all 40 CFR
Part 261 listed and non-listed hazardou. wastes disposed in
your landfill, located in Grand Blanc, Michigan. Based on our
evaluation of ground water monitoring data presented by the
Stat. of Michigan, and the lack of representative data necessary
to characterize the wastes disposed in th. landfill, we will
recos nsnd to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
merg.ncy R.sponse that your petition be denied.
Our decision to deny the petition i. based on th. fact
that significant ground water contamination has occurred at and
around the Grand Blanc Landfill (see Attachnient 1). Bariur,
cadmiuiii, lead. bis(2—ethylhexyl) phthalate, di—n—octyi phthalate,
benz.n., and chlorofori have been detected in the ground water
at levels abov, their regulatory standards (these standards are
1.0 Dg/1, 0.01 izig/1, 0.05 mg/i, 0.7 mg/i. 0.6 mg/i. 0.0012 mg/i,
and 0.0005 mg/i. respectively) used by our offic, in petition
evaluations. Th. above constituents wer, detected, in .11 cases
(except. cadmium), in higher concentrations at the downgradient
monitoring wells than at the upgradient monitoring walls.
We us. positive indications of ground water contamination
as a basis to deny an exclusion petition. W. note that it is
the petitioner’s burden to adequately demonstrate that the
petitioned waste is not th. actual source of contamination.
Based on th. fact that th. waste disposed at the Grand Blanc
Landfill contains th. same constltu.nts detected in the
surrounding ground waters (based on our review of the hazardous
waste manifests submitted by the petitioner), we must conclude
that th. waste di.pos.d at the Grand Blanc site has contributed
to the overall degradation o the ground waters.

W c rot cor sj’ r Phe Gr r Pla’ c landfill v titior
b rnrp)ete, and av cer us r servatjnr.s a our th
r rr9r In whj ’ it w cOr,r1l (1. r etjtjon r’r eR rot
C ? fl pr v o’ t r’ t tC as n c sarv in 41’ CFR
Part 24 O.21’ and 2 fl.77. Tnste*d, ‘he r”.ttPic,n rontainc
rian festc w1 cP Detfl ent ‘he hazar’s cf r ’e wiiste. ?‘ceented
th lsnrlfllJ (°orn. of t’e Istc ’ )‘azar’1nu! w tr c iron—
Prat t1 the cParaceeristlc of PP Toiticity) and tho resules
rnrn one coinrositi aofl qa nlp.
W will r eoirini,nd tc the eh. t
your netiticrn hø r’pnj 1 and Phat a ublfc notice to that
‘“ ‘ ct he ruh i! ”ed In t h Federal ? eciisPer , In accorr’i’nce
cur rolicy. It is our ,‘racrice o allow rwtjtjonerg to
wie iraw tP øir fl tiPion9 to avoid ruiblicatirm of a rorutrive
Fjnrij in the Federal Register . T you rrefer that a puhlic
n’tice not he please suhnit a latter to our of 1c,
w thc’raw na t retitlon and tat1nn tFat ? ‘e waste will te
w”le as a h r’c u waatp aa re uired under 4fl CFR Parts
2A thronoh 2 5 and 4fl CPP Part 270. Pl a . 1nfori us ac to
iour d.r 1sion within two weeka of recefr,t of today’s corres—
tt t e letPor of wjth rawa1 le not r cejv.ii y
t ’at Pir’e, a denial notica will ‘ e nuhJi t’o” in tPte Federal
Pecist .r .
If you have any cu tiona rer7ardino our derision, please
corta t r. P’VieB Morse, of v”v staff, at (2C 2) 3R2—47P8.
Sincerely yours,
Pruce R. Wec ’dle
P1 rector
Periitits and State Proarams Division
P tar’hrnerP.
cc: Privard Finkel, TCF
At Debus, Pe • V
:jl1ja ., !uno, Req. V
WH—5f3/RFinkel/SMajd/387—4783/l—30—87/S2$9/HF flR
reu,sed 4—8—87, 4—lfl—87

JUN 8 I 87
Mr. Mark Gruminer, Esq.
Environmental Entorcement Section
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department or Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Subjects Keystone Consolidated Industries
Dear Mark.
We have tinished our review o the intormation submitted
by Keystone Consolidated Industries tor its tacility in k’eoria,
Illinois. Based on th evaluation or EP leechate and total
constituent data tor the wa.tewatez- treatment sludges (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. P006) contained in the waste management
units at this racl.Lity, we have concluded that i.t is extremi ly
unlikely that this waste could be granted an exclusion from
regulation under 41) CFR Part 261.3 or the lists ot hazardous
wastes in Subpart D ot Part 261. Our evaluation indicates that
the waste has the potential to leach high levels or lead, chromium,
selenium, and several organic constituents into ground water.
Specifically, Keystone submitted EP leachate and total
constituent data for waste contained in eight locations at the
Peoria tacility. A list ot waste locations and constituents of
concern are presented in Table i.!i
.1/ Our decision is based on an analysis using thevertical and
horizontal spread (VH S) model (see 50 Federal Reqjster 48886,
November 27, L985). We use this model to predict constituent
concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical compliance
point located 500 feet downgradient from the site. The VHS
model uses the waste volume and maximum leachate concentrations
as inputs to determine the amount ot dilution that may occur
in an underlying aquifer. Por Keystone, we assumed co—disposal
ot the wastes ot the ditterent areas and assumed a maximum waste
volume of at least 8,000 cubic yards. The results ot the model
(i.e., the calculated compliance-point concentrations) are
compared with the Agency’s level of regulatory concern for
each constituent.

— 4 —.
m• surmitt data o ions rate tr t the waste may pose a
thr at to human health and the envi.ronm nt accorc ing to delisting
protocoL. Th samples described in Table 1 were taken over a
substantiol geographic area and are presumed to be representative
ot the waste. The test data from these samplea do not support
Keystone’s contention that the sludges are non—hazardous, We are
extremely concerned about the Retention Reservoir, the tinal
resting point bt the waste. In tact, the average leachate con-
centration of lead in the reservoir Samples demonstrated the
characteristicot EP toxicity tor lead (i.e., the average of
9.87 mg/i exceeded the EP toxicity standard ot 5 mg/i for lead).
There has been no evidence presented to suggest that other testing
to evaluate the hazardous waste characteristics of these impounded
wastes hao been performed by Keystone at any other time. In
additLon, sul’ide lcv’ ls in the sludges tor six locations exceeded
our interim thrcshold tor sulfide ot 500 ppm.1 / The suomitted
data have taiJeo to demonstrate that the s.Ludqes at this facility
are not hazardous. In tact, every portion ot the system tailed
our analysis tor either suttides or lead. 1’o r locations also
failed our analysis for organics.
In adJition, based on a preiiminarj revtcw of the ground
water monitoring data, we determined that the waste has attect d
the aquiter. Specitically, we ar conc rn d with potential
contamination of the agulter with halogenated organics ana lead.
D listinc protocol r quiros that faciLities manaiin wastes
on—site have a cround water monitorinq syst m in compliance with
40 CIR Part 2 4 or 265.3/ It is our policy to require at least
tour quarters of ground water monitoring data betore we will
consider a th..Jiating zor a waste manag’..d in an on—site, waste
management unit.
/ See internal Agency morandum dated July 12, 1985 •ntlt]sd
lnterim Thr.sholds for Toxic Gas Generation (in SPA public
?J Additional wells would be needed for the North Ditch, Mid Mill
Ditch, and the abandoned ditch (culvert). The petitioner
would be requested to identity which halocenated orqanics
were present in the ground water and the origins ot these

Table I
. .onstituents or Concern for Keystone Consolidatea industries
Number of
Samples (of
total) that
exceed Delist—
in; Standard
tor the
Waste Location Constituents ot conc.rn Constitui nt
North Ditch Suit ides 9 of 9
Mid Miii Ditch Lead I or 5
Tetrachioroethylene I of 5
Suit ides 4 ot 5
Soutn Ditch l ,1—Dichloroethan 2 ot 4
(north nait) Suiti ies 4 ot 4
South Ditch Su ltides 4 or 4
(south halt)
North Dr dcje Lea.] 3 ot 6
buciiment ..tockpiL. / Benzo(a)antnracent 1 or 6
Bcnzo(a)pyrene I ot 6
South Dr ge btdi—
ment StockpileiJ Ben!o(a)anthracene 1 or b
Suit ides 2 or b
Surrac3 Drainaçe aG 3 or 6
Ditch Chromium 2 of 6
Selenium I of 6
24—Bour Retention Chromium 11 of 16
Res.rvoir Laad 16 ot 18
SuIt Id. . 8 of 18
/ We usually r.quire that the Oily Waste. EP (OWE?) be used as
the leachat. protocol tor wastes that costain greater than one
percent oil and grease. Several of the sampled wastes contained
greater than one percent oil and grease. Because the OWEP
includes an organic diqestion step, the leachate concentrations
are exDected to be higher than El’ leachate concentrations. Thus,
since even Ek’ l.achate concentrations are exceedlnci delieting
standards, we b 1teve that the Eh’ data may be used as a basis
tor petition denial.

Thus, in te s o delisting criteria, the waste contained
in these locations is hazardous and should be treated as sucri.
If you have any questions concerning the review process, please
contact me at (2U2) 3b2—4783.
Scott .7. Maid
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits and State Programs Division
cc; Robert Aten, Keystone
Andrew Running, Esq. (KirkLand Ellis)
D. Jansen, Illinois EPA
C. Lje nan, 1li inois EPA
K. Pierard, Rt gion V
H. Radeji, Region V
K. Palmer, SAIC

.Lt I2 8T
SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Filter Press
at Butham Corporation
PROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Judy Kerteher, Acting Chief
Solid Waste Branch
EPA Region V
I as responding to your May 5, 1987, memorandum requesting a
determination of the regulatory status of a filter press proposed
as part of a corrective action at the Burnham Corporation. You
asiced whether this unit could be excluded from permitting as (1) a
totally enclosed treatment unit, (2) a wastewater treatment unit,
or (3) as recla tion exempt , nder the definition of solid waste.
With respect to totally enclosed treatment, it is clear to
us that this exemption is not available because the treatment is
not connected to the process. EPA ’s position with respect to this
issue was clarified in our March 17, 1987, memorandum to James
Scarborough of Region XV which is attached. Further, it appears
in this case that, even if direct connection to the process were
somehow achieved, the filter press, as diagrammed, could be open
to the •nvironment and could release hazardous constituents to
the environment. Therefore, we do not believ, it could be con-
sidered totally enclosed.
Your second approach appears to provide the proper basis for
exemption. OSW currently has no formal definition of wastewater.
Although Agency guidance suggested that wastewater should not
exceed more than a tew percent constituents other than water,
this definition was never promulgated. Therefore, our current
interpretation is that any waste that is treated in a unit that
is subject to regulation under Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean

Water Act and meets the other requirements specified in 40 CFR
260.10 for a wastewater treatment unit is eligible for the exemp-
tion. This definition does not requir. a permit under the Clean
Water Act, only that it be subj.ct to regulation under Section 402
or 307(b) should a discharge occur. The attached letter from
John Lehman to Richard Boynton of EPA ’s Region I explains our
interpretation in greater detail.
Finally, we do not agree with the third possible exemption,
which was suggested by the company. The exemption from the
definition of solid waste for reclamation requires that th. water
be returned to the manufacturing process. As explained in the
attached memorandum on totally enclosed treatment, the emission
control device is considered a treatment unit, not the manufac-
turing process. Therefore, the water is recycled back to another
treatment unit, not back to the process. As a result, this
recycle would not qualify as reclamation under the definition
of solid waste.
Any questions regarding these int.rpr.tations should be
referred to James Berlow, Chief of the Treatment Technology
Section, on FTS 382—7917.

IT —
SUBJICTZ Total Enclos.d Treatment and the St.el Industry
f Ms Marcia E. William.. Dir.ctor
Of fic. of Solid Waste
Ja... B. Scarbroiagh
Chief, Residual. Manag.nt Bran *
R.gion IV
I have r.viswed your m. randuo of ?ebruary 4, 1987. r.garding
our gujdanc. to RH?. Inc.. advising that its baghous. dust treat-
ment system do.. not meet the r.quirrnnt of a totally .nclosed
treatment system. It is unfortunat. that R.gion IV apparently has
reviewed a similar facility in Alabama and r.ach.d the opposite
conclusion. Although I understand your r.asoning in that decision,
I cannot concur with it. I belive this interpretation would
unnecessarily broaden the .xeaption and create new problme in
the definition of what constitutes a tr.atmsnt unit.
The concept of a totally enclosed treatment unit in 40 CIR
1260.10 was designed to prevent th. need for a permit for treatment
that occurred in pipes exiting a process unit. As a result, this
d.finition made clear that the treatment units oust be connected
directly to an industrial production process. By not adhering
strictly to this principle, your interpretation would broaden
th. universe of exempt units beyond what was intended for this
As you note in your memo, the baghouse is not part of the
production process. Therefore, as stated in my December 22, 1986.
letter to RMT, the dust fixation system cannot be considered
ciirectly connected to the process because the baghouse is open to
the environment. Although listed waste is r ot generated until the
‘?J .5SiOfl control dust is cQl lected in the bac house hopper. this
ocs not change the fact that there is an opening between the
product .on unit and the fixation system. I recognize that this

aris that any tr.atmsnt provided downstream of a baghous. cannot
be totally •nclo..d treatment. To find otherwise howev.r. would
r.quir. us to ficid that t te baghous. is a process unit. £ think
this would hopelessly conf use the definition of tr.ata.nt units
and process its and complicate enforcement by introducing how
a unit is us•d into the definition.
Th.r.for.. I believ, that d.spit. its possible •nvironmntal
advantages, this it sho l4 not be .x.mpted fros p aitting as a
totally .nclosed treatment mit. Msid on your sztdasiv• involv,—
meat in the d.sign aid construction of this systme, I .xpct per-
mitting will not crest. an r.a.oasbl. bsrri.r to the uss of th.
closd fixation technology on beghous. dusts. Expedited permit
rsviw would s.em appropriate.
I also would not. that treatment La 90-day accumulation
, .its is currently exempt from permitting. Management within 90
days could k. this issu. moot for th Alabama facility at this

9433. 1987(j4)
Q..,c1 01
I0i O *AS?( *,.0 LMImGIP.ICY ESP0 !
J.L 2 0 19$?
SUBJECT: Enforcement of Applicable RCRA Regulations at Facilities
with Pending De].isting Petitions
FROM: Gene A. Lucero, Directot
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I, IV, V, VIZ, & VIZ!
Air & Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Hazardous Waste Management Division DI.rector
Region III, VI & X
Toxics & Waste Management Division Director
Region IX
The purpose of this memorandum is to restate Agency
policy regarding the enforc.m.nt of applicable RCRA
regulation( àt hazardous waste handlers that have pending
delisting petitions. It has come to our attention that some
Regions and States may be allowing non—compliance with some
or all of th RCRA Subtitle C requirements pending a decision
on active dlisting petitions. We are reaffirming here that
these wastes remain hazardous wastes and that they, and the
units In which they at. managed, are subject to all applicable
RCRA regulations, including financial responsibility, groundwater
monitoring and closure requirements, until the delisting is
officially granted. In addition, facilities are still subject
to the 1988 and 1989 statutory deadlines for permit issuance.

Sections 260.20 and 260.22 establish a petition process
, hich allows a facility to demonstrate that its waste, although
captured by the broad listings of Section 261 Subpart ,
does not meet any criteria under which the waste was listed,
including the presence of additional constituents. Decisions
on waste delisting have aiwaysbeen based on a chemical
characterization of the waste itseLf and of the processes
generating that waste, not on faciLity design, management
practices or site conditions. Therefore, until a final
decision is made to ;rarit the petition, the waste is hazardous
and the facility remains sub ect to enforcement of all applicable
regulations (including compliance with Subpart F groundwater
monitoring requirements). Facilities that are not in coI tpLiance
with RCRA regulations are sub3ect to enforcement action.
Concommitantly, facilities (excluding those with temporary
or informal exclusions) that had pending delisting petitions
on November 8, 1985, were subject to the Loss of Interim
Status (LOIS) provision of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Facilities that failed tovalid ly
certify compliance with Subparts F and H and submit a Part B
application for an operating permit on or before November 8,
1985 were required to cease operating their hazardous waste
land disposal units and submit a closure plan for those units
by November 23, 1985. Facilities with pending delisting
petitions that failed to retain interim status and continued
to operate after November 8, 1985, and/or failed to submit the
required closure plan are subject to enforcement actions
under Section 3008 of RCRA.
Facilities whose only waste was subject to a temporary or
informal exclusion were not required to meet Part 265
standards during th. effective time of the exclusion.
However, all temporary and informal exclusions that had
not previously been acted on expired by statute on 11/8/86
(Section 3001(f)(2)(8)). Facilities that had either a
temporfly or informal exclusion were in one of four
categories on 11/8/86: (1) the final delisting was granted
and that vast, is no longer subject to regulation under
RCRA; (2) th• petition was denied when, after repeated
requsstá from the Agency, the facility failed to provide
additional information for the petition; these facilities
had to te in compliance with Part 265 regulations immediateLy;
(3) the completed petition was denied based on th. merits
of the petition (I.e., the waste was determined to be
hazardous); these facilities had six months from the date
of publication of the denial in the Federal Register to
come Into compliance with Part 265 standards; or (4) the
exclusion expired by Statute; these facilities petitions
moved back into the standard dalisting process and the
facilities were immediately subject to all, applicable RCRA

Attachment 1 is a listing of all pending delistirtg
petitions broken down by Region. Please assure that these
facilities are in full, compliance with all applicable RCRA
regulations. If you have arty questions regarding the iteration
of this policy, please call. Steve Heare at 392—22 7.
cc: Elaine Stanley
Bruce Weddle
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I — X

9433 . 198 7 (15)
JUL 2 8 T
Mr. Omar Muniz-Diaz, P.E.
Manager-Safety, Health and
Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Carihe Incorporated
Pence, Puerto Rico 00731
Dear Mr. Muniz-Dtas:
We have received your June 24, 19R7 letter asking the Agency
to place Union Carbide Caribe’s delisting petition on hold until
it can provide additional data to the Agency. As a matter of
policy, we do not allow delisting petitions to remain inactive
or on “hold”. Union Carbide Caribe may withdraw the petition
and resubmit a new petition at such time as it can supply the
additional data. Our March 19, 19R7 letter-to you, indicated
the reasons we believe your petition should be denied and stated
that we would publish our decision to deny the petition in the
Federal Register unless we received a written notice of Union
Carbide Caribe’s intent to withdraw the petition. We will allow
you two additional weeks to withdraw the petition if you so
choose before we proceed with our decision to deny.
If you have any questions regarding the above decision,
please contact Mr. Myles Morse of my staff at (202) 3 2-4ThR.
iv Rruce R. Jeddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division

JUL 3 1 1981
SUaJECT Status of Holl an Air Force Ba .. 1isting Action
FROM. Marcia Williams, Dir.ctor
Office of Solid Wastes (WN-’562)
TO. Allyn P1. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
i(egiOn VI
In your memorandum of June 6, 1987, you inquired about the
statue of the Holloman Air Force Base (BAFB) petition to delist the
waste contained in s.v.n impoundments and two lake.. S ecifica1ly.
you requested the status of policy issues that have been raised
during the review of HAFB’S preliminary characterization of the
wastes. You were primarily concerned with the amount of samp1in j
that would be required by the listing Progra” for proper
characterization of the wait.. In response to your memorandum,
my staff has completed a chronology of meetings between }iAFB and
EPA representatives and outlined the progress that has been made
concerning the major outstanding issues that were discussed at
these meetings.
EPA and Air Force representatives have met three timfs to
discuss delisting options and issues for their treatment train
system. The impoundment train, which was established to treat
the base’s domestic sewage, also received hazardous wastes.
Therefore, under the mixture rule (40 CFR 261.3(b)(2)J, the
waste contained in the seven impoundments, Lake Hollosian, and
Lake Stinky is considered to be hazardous.
At the first meeting on August 29, 1986, Air Force officials
submitted background information and preliminary sampling data.
EPA and Air Force representatives met again in November 1986 to
aiscuss the results of the EPA evaluation of the information
that was submitted at the August meeting. The meeting focused
on the additional data that would be needed to complete the
deliating petition. Three major issues were discussed at this
meetingi sampling requirements; analytical requirements; and
ground water monitoring needs.

Air Forc. official, were informed that to pro er1y
characteriz, the waste and evaluate its unifor’i ity and
variability, diluting policy would require the collection
and analysis of over 1600 cot posite samples (439 of impound-
ment sludge, 439 of impoun i.nt licuid, 723 of lake
water and soils).
In addition, they were informed that, generally, any delisting
decision is based on the maximum detected concentrations of
hazardous constituents for which the waste is analyzed.
However, a mean concentration value may b used if a sufficient
number of samples is coliseteci, but this approach would greatly
increase the number of samples required for characterization.
Air Force officials were informed that they would have to
analyze each composite for all Appendix VIII constituents
in order to fully characterize the waste as required under
the iiazardous and Solid Waste Amends entsof 1984. Petit
ioners can deviate from this requirement only if they can
demonstrate through historical records and/or raw material
input information that certain Appendix VIII constituents
cannot be present in the waste. Air Force oLficial wer.
concerned that their records could not support such a
deviation from the requirements.
Groundwater $
Air Force officials were informed that a complete delisting
petition should include four quarters of groundwater
monitoring data from a system that had been inspected and
approved by kPA Region VI authorities.
The meeting concluded with the understanding that Air Force
officials would evaluate this information and decide whether to
pursue a delisting.
The third meeting between EPA and Air Force representatives
on February 6, 1987 focused on Air Force requests for possible
allowances to delisting sampling and analytical requirements due
to the large volume of vast, involved. EPA was not encouraginq
but agreed to reevaluat, the issue.
We undárstand that in June, based on telephone co ’mwnications
with delisting staff, Will Focht (formerly of Region VI) -
informed Air Force officials that the EPA was still evaluating
the remainjnq outstanding issues regarding delistinq a portion
ot the treatment train, removal of hot spots, and more lenient
sarpling and testing requirements. In addition, it is our under-
standing that Holloman officials will delay submitting a formal
petition pending resolution of these issues.

r a resent status of each of these issues followsz
Delisting Portions of Trest ent Trains
At the February meeting, Air Force officials were informed
that only the entire treatment train, not portions of it,
couli be subject to delisting. The Air Force believes
that contamination of on. impoundment in a treatment train
does not impLy contaainatiot of all impoundments in that
train. Thus, even though two of the ir poundm.nts are
showing PCB contamination, they believe that th. remaining
five impoundments and two lakes should be delisted if they
meet all of the Agency’s delicting criteria.
We are reevaluating this issue and hay, not yet reached a
resolution. We will inform you of our decision as soon as
Hot Spot Removal
A final decision has not yet been reached concerning the
Air Force’s request to remove hot .pots from the two
contaminated impoundments and eliminate from consideration
the failing samples that were collected from this area.
Holloman officials believe that if these samples are not
considered, that all seven impoundments will meet delisting
Sampling and Analytical Requirements
EPA has reevaluated the Air Force’s request to reduce the
number of samples to be taken for analysis and agrees that
the large size of the impoundments and lakes in question
warrants a departure from standard procedure. A statistically
valid characterization of these impoundment wastes may be
achieved with a fewer number of sampl.s. We ar. developing
guidelines for a sampling approach that would be appropriate
for the Holloman situation and hop. to reduce the number of
samples required.
EPA will continue to requir. a full Appendix VIII analysis
of all samples since a complete history of the chemicals
disposed in th. area is not available. As noted previously,
thi. complete analysis will be required to ensure that all.
hazardous constituents that have been dispos.d in the
impoundments are properly characterized. The background
information and preliminary sampling data illustrate several
inconsistencies in the Air Force’s disposal recordei f or
example, there is no mention of transformer oil disposal in
the impoundments, however, the waste is contaminated with
CBs and l,2,4—trichlorobenzene, two constituents commonly
found in transformer oils.

understand that our decisions on the Ho1lo an situation
may potentially affect your neqotiatior. with Ho1lori n. However,
we hiust proceed carefully to ensure that our elistin cecision
con i Jere all pertinent factors and aximizes protection of the
environment. I’e hope to resoLve these issues soon and will keep
YOU intorifleii of our proaress.
If you have any questior*s, please contact Suzanne Rudzinski,
(2Q2) 3e2— 2O6, of my staff.

PUG r 1987
Mr. B. A. Steiner
tlanager, Environmental Engineering
Ar co Incorporated
P.O. Box 600
Middletown, Ohio 45043
Mr. Steiners
In your letter of May 18, 1987, you raised several questions
concerninq Delisting policy as it relates to waste treatment units
operated at your Butler, PA facility. The issues you raise are
concerned with managing the number 5 surface impoundment wastes
as hazardous. However, your d.listing petition $0613 applies
only to the Chrome Reduction Pond (CRP). Your petition raises
two concernas th. effect the CRP has had on the underlying aquifer
and the adequacy of your ground water monitorinQ system. Before
we consider the issues raised in you May 18, 1987 letter, we r ust
resolve the concerns raised by your petition.
The data submitted to d6te on the CRP’s impact on ground
water are mixed but indicate that the CRP has potentially leached
metals (including chromium and cadmium, two metals for which
the CRP waste, K061, is listed). Some of the 1985 data indicates
contamination above the National Primary Drinking Water Standards
(NPDWS) for some metals. The 1986 data which was filtered prior
to analysis indicate metal concentrations at downgradient wells
at the drinking water standards. We believe tnat if the samples
had rec ained unfiltered as per EPA’s recommended procedures, that
these levels may hay, exceeded the standard.
The specific information you submitted that leads us to believe
the CR? sludge has adversely affected the underlying ground water
aquifer is summarized below. Metal concentrations and around
water indicator parameters for znonitorin data are of particular

o The second, third fourth quarters of the 1985
ground water monitoring results indicate that the
chromium concentrations exceeded the regulatory standard
for both the downgradient (MW—8&9) and the upgradient
(MW—lO) wells.
o Our information indicates that the 1985 ground water
sampi.es were collected improperly. Specifically, the
wells were not purged prior to sampling. As a result,
the samples may reflect constituent concentrations that
are either higher, lower, or the same as the concentrations
of the constituents in the aquifer. These samples are,
therefore, not necessarily representative of ground
water quality.
o The 1986 samples were filtered at the time of collection.
This is an inappropriate method under RcRA guidelines;
samples should be split when filtering is used with both
filtered and unfiltered analyses su nitted for evaluation.1/
Since filtering ten4s to decrease the concentration of
metal constituents 2 ’ contained in the sample, filtered
samples will contain lower concentrations of metals than
the leachate as it exists under the CRP. Thus, the
concentrations presented for the 1986 filtered sampling
are expected to be lower than the actual concentrations
of these constituents in the ground water as it exists
under the CRP. If the ground water contains levels of
constituents that exceed regulatory standards we are
unlikely to deliat the waste in the CRP.
As a result, your reported 1986 ground water monitoring
data raise several concerns about selenium, lead, and
cadmium. No analyses for these constituents were conducted
in 1985. First, a sample fran the downgradient well MW-8
on November 17, 1986 contained selenium at a concentration
of 0.013 mg/L which exceeded the regulatory standard.
Second, lead detection limits are reported as <0.10 mg/L.
This value is twice the regulatory standard for lead.
Therefore, your detection limit needs to be decreased
below the standard (0.05 mg/i). Third. cadmium concen-
trations for the January 31, 1986 sampling round were
reported as 0.01 mg/L. This value is equivalent to
the regulatory standard for cadmium, however the actual
unfiltered concentration may have exceeded the standard.
1/ See “RCRA Ground-Water’ Monitoring Technical Enforcement
Guidance Document”, Section 4.3, page 114.
2/ Approved analytical procedures for metals require that the
total metals concentration be determined. These procedures
discourage filtration. See “Methods of Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes,” EPA—600/4—79—020.

o 3oth £985 and 1986 data demonstrate that the CRP has
increased the concentration of chlorides, fluorides,
sulfates, manganese. sodium, and nitrates in downgradient
wells as compared to the upgradient well MW—lO. All three
quarters of the 1985 data also demonstrate an increase in
pH for all. downgradient wells. These indicator parameters
support the previously mentioned metal finding., in that
they identify the CRP’ . impact on the aquifer.
In addition to the problems outlined above with your ground
water analyses. we believe that your ground water monitoring
system is inadequate. Specifically, we have evaluated well
placement and construction and have concluded that your monitoring
system cannot properly characterize the extent of contamination
that may have been caused by the CRP. Our specific concerns are
summarized below:
o Well MW—li (brought into service after the 1985 sampling)
is not a valid downgradient well because it does not
intercept ground water that flow, through the CRP. Based
on the map of the CR.P which includes water levels, well
MW—il is laterally offset fran the CflP (and thus is
neither upgradient nor downgradient of the cRP).
o As reported by our Regional office, the wells for this
unit may be monitoring more than one aquifer or are not
screened at consistent depths within a single aquifer.
Their information leads us to believe thats the shallow
aquifer is not monitored by an upgradient well; the
system lacks enough wells to monitor the ground water in
each aquifer: and that the upgradient and downgradient
wells are not. screened at appropriate depths. Construction
diagram. of wells NW—8 and 11 demonstrate that these
wells nay be inadequate.
The inadequacies of the monitoring system, sampling, and
testing make definitive characterization of ground water quality
difficult and the proposal of an exclusion impossible. It is our
policy not to exclude any waste until it has been properly charac-
terized and that the characterization demonstrates that the waste
pose. no past or present threat to the environment. In your
case, existing data indicates that ground water contamination may
exist. Accordingly, we plan to deny yqur petition. If you choose
to refute this conclusion, additional I data from a compliant
ground water monitoring system would be necessary for proper
3/ You need at least four quarters of data that include, but
are not limited to. testing for all metals expected to be in
the waste.

T”ue 1 since e j lan to dent your petition tu exclu g
C stc, we b lievc t - . 1 t s c ra ae in : r . 1.
letter are pre?ature for cor i er ticn. Th data prc a1te fcr
t’ c Cr2 rotition in .ii te tr t t c F r y Vu cO t .i tei
the roun water. In a iticn, the data werc generated £r t t
Pt .ly3i C’ tb t erc .:ro:sc’r y cu1l ct J (un c
wt’1l. in l 5 and fLltersJ se pLee in l G) fro an inacie uatc
ey;t (tno few Jownçra 1ic t srefc.re t e ;. orretion
ubitte cannot •ur rt any other concLusi n but denial of y u
ietitior U.ferral of the concerns raised in your Maj 10, l 7
;cccr’ir—ly. we ‘tll rece.. a..end to t &e Assistant AJ .ir.1a trator
that a denial notico be ruhituhed in the Feicral Pecister fo
y’,ur petition to erclu!e the CKP stu es. 1 •jo rrcl.1r. you .ay
eubrit a letter withdrawin’ your petition to avoid the pu licatior
of.a rçativ fincit . will have two weucs fror the date c’
receint of this letter to withdraw your pstit.iou.
Wber ou save installe i a a projriate grour water ronitcrii
syster ( e.’ . , inspected and er o t coi .liant by the State ox o r
i eeion 111 C1Lici ). coLl&ctee. four cu rters of cjroun water
roritoring data . you ray rei’etition the Zt ency LoT an e&clus oc .
Urtil that time, t:io CflF w .ate con icte . ha rUcu az s c:t
to r.e’ulatic’n under ‘0 CFP Part 262 tnrou h 2 L, 1’ rI$tti .nC
stanards c t 4C CPP Part 270. arid ariditiurial x.guJ tion.unosr 25
PA Code Cf 75 2( O—2C2. (The £tate rer ulatic ,ns re uize a rounct
w t r r.cnitor n: RyateL. t t is cG!.e le ot ter .iaiL 1 , ti w t aCil .t.
irract or. any underlying a. uiLcr .) c etroiitiy teco I .sz: th t
yc,u c ztt ct Pcter c iatl, Chief of the Peniisylvania :iJ. .nLorce ’ant
.ection, LC PA , ? jton Ill in Fiilade1 .hia. at (21) 7- .3 4 Lu
cruet tu ozr.lcre a r.utually convenient etnod uf ccirr.ctin; tk
deIicie,cies of the round water rv nitoriug .yats .
A $ u:anrie Rud ineki aiscussed wLth Carl &atliner, of Ar sco ,
• ie will t c 1a’! to ,re.t with you and Prr co officals to discuts
our eor.ciusicts. You should contact s. t u1zin.a3 clirectl.j at.
(02) .2—4 GG for answers to any question. or to arr ng. a utiz .
2 L’ a-•
Parcia .illa s , irtctcr
Uf iee oC solid haste
cci Peter bc* a l , .iqtoi . III

C.! . Spalaria
Technical Director
Quadrex Recycle Center
10° Tli’ t Road
Oa Pidge, T!4 37 30—7O3
Deer Fr. aleris:
r ha”e r°ceive! your letter requeet1ri a dc init1on o tJ
maxi uw conc ntr tion limit ! r rreon (trichioro trifluoroeth n:)
in still o toms thet would be non—hazerd ue. I have perfort e4 r
cal ulati n urin t! e 0r anic Le chin yodel (OIr) and th ‘ ertie
and !orizont l C rea3 (V S) model in order to reach a en ra1 -
con Iusion about t e relativ hRzard posec by the disrose.1 o a
zr on — cor.tainin still bottom in a landfill.
Tha regui .tcry etqndar . for 1,1 ,2—trichloro—1,2,2tr1 ].’ orct F r’
khR Is i’ curr°nt use or deii ttnp purposes is 1050 m /l (IT
wat r), a relatively hICh valuc that au 6eats a low to icit tc
hu an9. Baced on a rough e roxthatIon o ’ waste volume, r.
! orse save you a out of 0± (000 m /l. This was likely baee i
a reaonnahle vorst.—case where there ma be a large ount o
w tø. I h1n inctance, the VIT mo el would asai ’n a I1utior
o only .3 times to tne wa tc 1e c:iete, allovtn corcer2t o
of p bcut ,600 m /l In the stIll ottoir leachate. } y thc
tot i c nteT t of I ,1 ,2—trichloro—l,2,2,—trifluoroetha in
t’lE sctu l wante helow 6.600 pp (i.e., 0O ppm) an:’ rotPr&ti l
eschtn : rcUPT would be circ unvent ti.
Since you aenerat a email volume of waste (<475 tons/yr.).
thc’ V !! model would assign a dilution factor of about ‘2.3 to yoir
vse’ e, which means that your still bottom leachate could contalr.
almost 54,000 m /l of 1,1,2—trichlorol ,2,2—trifluoroethane and
still pass the VH .valuetton. Becaue 1,1,2—trichlorol,2,2—
trifluoroetha e is only slightly solubl in w%ter (170 m /l’ ,
th total oontent of this compound in the still bottoms the selvc r.
could ap roacb lOO and still pass the A ency’e evaluation.
0I. l l - s

PLeaPP zeep 1?! B n %flft, Otfl ? cIUortrate fluOrOe&rbOflB iey
.i’ et sipni?icently different olubilitiee and/or toxicitle,,
e ic? could lead to different so el results for tbos co pourtdc.
since ou mentioned your eonc.r t for eontivn e1 eonpliaitce
vtt halts on lan4fi ted vest.., I ) av. forv.rd.4 a cops’ oc your
letter (end sy ree onse) to !teve Veil, Chief of !PA’e Lan !
Diapoeal Restrictions Prsnoh. for his off is. to answer Bepar*t.ly.
Th•y say be able to id.ntify any potential probr..e with the land
dipposal of your fr.oo still bottou in ooajunetton with the
Ag•ncy’P on.- oing prograa of land disposal restrictions.
I hope this has addressed your oono.rns. If yon have fnrtb.r
qn.etlons. piece. call a. at (202) 82— 783.
Scott J. si !
Variane. s $.ctton (V!..5f3)
cc: Pt.ve Vel’

fv r. John P. Gay
Mana er-Envi ronmerrtal .nginee r
Ashland Petroleum Company
Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated
P.O. Bo c 391
Aenland, Kentucky 41114
Dear Mr. Gay:
The Permits and State Programs Division has comrleted a
preliminary review of your petition (#0700), submitted on July
7, 19*J7, which requested the exclusion of EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. K048 through K052 generated at Ashland’s Kentucky facility.
Based cr our preliminary evaluation of your petition we will
recommend to the Administrator for Zolid Waste and i ergenoy
P.es:onse that the pctitiori be denied for the reasons discussed
We now require all petitioners who employ on—site land— Ksed
management of petitioned waste(s) to submit four quarters of
pround—water monitoring data collected from a monitorir system
judf•ed to be adequate by the Regional EPA office or at thori:e
State (i.e., the system must comply with all of the 40 CFR §2&5
ub •art F requirements). We note that your petition did not
contain any mon±t’ ririg data characterizing the around water at
the sedimentation basin, and therefore, your petition ic inccmpi te.
Submission of around—water monitoring data which show no exietiric
contamination is not, in itself, sufficient grounds for thcl
exclusion of petitioned vaates. The Agency also evalt atec tn
ane1yt1c l data for the petitioned wastes to evaluate their
T OteI1ti2l to conteainate ground water.
Despite the fact that your petition is not complete,
the analytteal data submitted for the sedimentation solids
is statistically sufficient to characterize the petitionea
wastes, and therefore, a preliminary evaluation of these date.
was conducted. Based on our evaluation of the EP leachate
data for lead and total constItuent data for berizo(a)anthraccne
presented in your petition, your wastes have the potential to
cor.taminate ground water at levels which exceed the regulatory
atandarda for these constituents. Our evaluation is based on
results computed by using the vertical and horizontal spread
(VHS) model (see 50 Federal 48886, November 27, 19e5).
We use this model to predict constituent concentrations in the
ground water at the compliance point located 500 feet down radier.t

xro ne cie oeai. site. ne OQ..L uses ;ne taxlaum anrtuai
vaste generation rate to detersine the asount of dilution that
may occur in art underlying aquifer. The results of the aodel
are compared with the A ency’e level of re ulatory concern for
that particular constituent.
We also use, in cor.junctton with the YHC model, an or an1c
leachate model (OL1 ) that was developed to predict the mobility
of or anic toxicante from land—disposed wastes (see 51 Pedsral
Register 41084, oveaber 13, 1986). The 0L generates leachate
values for •ach organic constituent which are used a. inputs to
the YH model. The calculated compliance—point concentrations
are then compared with the Ag.ncy’s regulatory standards for
each constituent. For lead and benso(a)*nthr.oene we have
•stahllehid the levels of r.gulatory concern as 0.05 m /l and
1.0x10 5 ag/I, respectively. Data presented in the petition
for the sedimentation basin solids reported a maxiava EP Isachate
value for bsnzo(a)anthraoene as 1.6 me/kg. Using tb.se values
fpr our preliminary evaluation, the OLII/YRS model predicted a
mazinu lead and bengc(a)anthracen. concentration of O.C75 n /1
and 5.98x10 mg/i, respectively, in the ground water at the
dovr radient compliance ;oint. !vo of the four !P leachate
values for lead ard two of the four total constituent values for
bcn:o(a)anthracene valuee generate compliance—point concentrations
that exceed the A ency’e standards. These failing values were
derives f rot a saxrlirig scheme that involved cozIositin , thereby
allo tn the avera ir. of five separate samples (per section) of
which, one or more may have exceeded the reported average values.
In order to irevent dout le a7era ir , a performed by your con-
tractors in their Y}W model evaluation, we do not allow tr e
averae’in of composite samples.
based on our preliminary evaluation of your petition, we have
concluded that (1) your petition is not complete due to the lace
of Thur quarters of ground—water monitoring data, and (2) based on
the analytical data submitted a. part of your petition, the wastes
could present a significant hazard to both busan health and the
.r.vironment. Ve believe that the waate shou1d therefore bc con-
sidered hazardous, and subject to regulation under 40 CF Parts
2 2 througP 26C and the permitting standards of 40 CTh Part 270.
We will therefore recommend to the Assistant Administrator tb t a
dental notice be published in the P.deral 5 Sf.
It is our practice to giv, petitioners th. option of with-
drawing their petition, to avoid a negative publication In the
Pederal RI ster when our preliminary evaluation determine.
that the vms a will be denied exclusion. If you-prefer this
option, 7O mast send as a letter withdrawing your petition
and isdicatiag that the wastes ar. conlidered hasardoue and
sill be managed as such. If yea sand such a letter, it should
be forwarded to this office within two weeks of the date of
receipt of today’s correepondence. If you choose not to
withdraw your petition, a denial decision will be published in
the Federal -

If you ?tave arty queetie a reearding oiar re1L.1nsry fin itn a,
please contact r. Mylee Morse of y etaff at (202) 382.478$.
Brucs B. Y.ddle, Director
Psralt. and State Prograa. Division
cc: Tricia Berbert . Region IV
Allan tley, Region IT
Howard ?inksl, IC? ?ec nology

Mr. Richard Davis
RCRA Coordinator
Brush Weilman, Inc.
South River Road
E] .more, Ohio 43416
Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter is to inform you that the Permits and State
Programs Division (PSPD) has re—evaluated its earlier decision
regarding Brush Weliman’s exclusion petition (#0573) submitted
October 25, 1984. Based on our original policy of considering
on—site management units as a single waste volume for purposes
of delisting, we had indicated to you (in correspondence dated
December 5, 1985) that our office would recommend a denial
decision to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Recent delisting policy changes, however,
now would allow for exclusion of separate waste treatment units
at a multi—unit facility.
Based on preliminary data in the petition, we are now
considering an exclusion for Lagoon #6 only. Based on the high
level of clay in the Lagoon #6 samples, however, we believe that
more sampling data from this lagoon are needed before a final
decision can be made. As stated in earlier correspondence, we
will recommend to the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response that your petition to exclude wastes frog
Lagoon #3 and the Triangular Lagoon be denied. You may wish
to withdraw your petition for these two Lagoons rather than have a
negative decision published in the Federal Register . If you choose
to do so, please advise us in writing within two weeks of
receipt of this letter.
As noted in Table 4 of Brush Weliman’s revised petition,
which was submitted on June 14, 1985, visual inspection of the
Lagoon #6 samples indicated the absence of sludge material;
samples appeared to be 100% clay. Thus, these samples may not
be representative of the waste because of the dilution .by the
clay substrata. We suggest that the samples be collected in a
horizontal plane, so that contamination and dilution by clay
are minimized. This will necessitate the use of a grab—sampling
device, e.g. , “clam—shell” type sampler, to collect sludge
samples. The sample locations should be determined in the
random fashion used in your original petition. As described
in our previously published guidance document, Petitions to
Deljst Hazardous Wastes——A Guidance Manual (EPAI53O—SW—85—003,

Ar...l 193 c), on. sasp)e per each tO,O04 square ‘oot Incresert,
or a tota’ of twent7 ix sasples, should be nr%slyael for totn.i
O1 . and grease, Cyacidee, stid for total and P lss.cnable concen-
trations of the EP toxic setal., pl . nickel and b.rylliu .
In this ease, the P3PD lsvilliu to wtili . a ‘tiered’ ap;rcac
to the EP analyses, whereby the total aetal corcentration
viii first b. evaluated to detersine whether enough of each
sets) is present in sack sludge asaple to warrant further
analysts with tb• P test. Th. threshold value for arsenic,
lead ehrosiu., and silver is 32 agfk ; for oad.i and •.l.ntja,
6.4 ag/kg; for banns, 640 s /k ; for aeneviy, 1.28 ag/kg; for
b.ryllins, 128 ag/kg; for nickel. 224 si/kg. Sasples sontainin-
aon. than ta. .. asounta of s.tals aust be tested with th• EP
tilt (or . Oily Wait. 3P, if tOtal oil and grins. 1. f.und
to exceed one p.ro.nt).
Once this iaforsstion ha. been r•e.ived, the evaluation
of the 1 a ocn S6 portion of your petition aay proc.e . After
review of these data, vs viii evaluate the analyses uein , t e
•szlsus val . obtained for each constituent, ir’. accordance
with our policy.
We voull also like to infon. you of a related policy
chan e made by our oficc. tn th. past, when we requested
ir.forsetion from etitionens then. would often be a sinific’ nt
period or Use elapsed before the information would be presented
to the ARency. This delay has, in turn, oc.ntnibut.d to delays
in petitioc r. i.ve. In order to solve this recurring proble ,
our office baa inetitutee a •ix sonth deadline for the sub ir ion
of requested inforastion. Vhen requested 1nforntton is net received
in t i, time frane, the petition viii be diesiesed for lack o
inforu tior. and the petition file vifl be c1ose . Specific
items of inforsatioz’ .111 only be requested once. A petltlcr.er say
reprtitioi the Agency with complete inforsation but it viii t
handle4 as a new petition in chronologtcel order of receipt.
In Prush Veilsan’s ease, the additional waste analyse. from
Lsçoon 46 should be submltt•d no later than AprIl 1, 19 - .
Should the data not be submitted bj that date, your petiti’, i
viii be dteaieaed. V. would provi3e written notification to
ycu at that tine in The event of petitior. dieslasal.
Should you have any questions or require any additional
inforuatton, pleas. oats.ot Soett laid, of ay staff, at (202)
382 -4783.
8ns.nrt. Rudsin.ki, Chief
Assistance rueh
cc: Allen Debts, EPA ‘egion V
12l uno, EPA Repion V

ocr 5 BT
Rs. Nancy Stein
Radian Corporation
8501 tlo—Pac Blvd.
P.O. Box 99118
Austin, Texas 78766 —091i8
Dear Ms. Stein:
This letter is in response to your August 11$, 1987
inquiry retarding the regu1ator status of Thernex Energy
Corporation’s surface impoundments located at their Brooksville,
FL; McCleanaville, NC; and Casper, WY facilities. In that
letter ou requested an interpretation of the regulatory status
of the surface impoundments at these facilities which contain
X01 111 wastes that had been temporarily excluded. Th18 response
addresses only the regulatory status of these units under the
Federal hazardous waste managenent system but does not address
whether the units have met the closure requirements of 10 CPR
Part 265.
Based on the information provided by Thermex and reiterated
in your letter, the subject surface impoundments, which contain
wastes that were generated prior to and during the time that the
temporary exclusion was in effect, stopped receiving these wastes
while the temporary exclusion was still in effect. Since the
impoundments at all three facilities stopped receiving wastes
prior to the effective date of the final denial decision, which
was lIovember 8, 1986 (see 51 FR 25887, July 17,1986), the surface
iv pouradrients at these facilities are not subject to hezardous
waste re u1ation other than would typically arply to solid waste
nana ,erient units. The wastes in these units, however, are no
considered hazardous and must be handled in accordanQe with
Subtitle C requirements It the are ever managed in such a wa 1
as to trigger Subtitle C regulation ( i.e. , they are removed,
excavated, shi ed off—site, mixed with other wastes, or receive
further on site treatment).
The States of North Carolina and Florida are authorized b
EPA to adritnieter and enforce hazardous waste management progrars
pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA, 1$2 U.S.C. S6926. The closure
requirements of Thermex’s impoundments at the facilities in these
states, therefore, should be determined by the appropriate State
authorities. The State of Wyoming, however, is not authorized
under the aforementioned statute and therefore, the disposal unit
at Thermex’s Wyoming facility should comply with the applicable
Federal hazardous waste closure requirements of 110 CFR Part 265.
St S

I hop that this •xplenat ion has addrsssed your concerns
.gardtnç tha regulatory status of Thir ez’s patitloned wastes
and the o sit. units in which they are contairi.d. Shoutd you
have a. y t srth.r qu..tions, p ).as. feel fre. to contact e at
(202) 3$2 420 .
Su ann. Rudsineki, Chief
Assistance Sranch
Office of Solid WSIt.
ccs Doug P cCurry, R•qion IV
Allan Antley, .gion IV
Mike Gsnsecki, Region VIII
Diana bhannon, Reniort VIII

9433. 19 C 7 ( 25)
t T 26 1987
Mr. John Ramsey
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Eazardoue Waste Section
Forbes Field, Building 730
Topeka, Kansas 66620
Pear Mr. Ramsey:
In your telephone conversation on October 13, 1987 with
U?. Scott Maid o my staff, you requested a statement from our
office regarding the models used to evaluate wastes in surface
impour.dment and how they differ from those used to evaluate
landfilled wastes. We are glad to comply with your request.
As you are aware, our office developed the Vertical and
Horizontal Spread (VHS) model based on & landfill scenario.
The site characteristics at the hypothetical site were fixed
at reaportab’ 4 .e worst—case levels, which allows the modc ]. to
operate using just two variables, leachate constituent concen-
tration and waste volume. Potential ground water impacts are
evaluated at a hypothetical drinking water well, called the
compliance—point, located 500 feet from the disposal site.
We have, as a matter of policy, used the V HS model as it
presently exists to evaluate wastes in surface impoundments.
We have indicated in numerous Federal jr notices that
the VHS model wee used in those instances where surface
impoundments were eveluated and that this use of the model
was justified in the evaluation process. We believe the VHS
model is sufficiently conservative to provide a reasonable
degree of protection to human health and the environment
when used to evaluate impounded wastes. For example, the VHS
landfill model assumes no attenuation, no biodegradation, and
no photolysi.; each of these mechanisms may be significant
in an impoundment scenario. The ‘IRS landfill scenario also
assumes the use of the EP Leachate results (or the results of
the Organic Leachate Model (01 ? !) which is an empirical model

—2 —
of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure ( CI P) and
p results); the ZP assu ez an acetic acid leachinr ed1e
frot a municIpal landfill whIch cenerally viii overest ltete
leaching potential in an aqueous impoundment, ac well r a
20 to I dilution flctcr for a municiral landfill which will
underestiatate the dilution which is expected to occur in most
impoundments and thus overestimates the l chate concentration
for impoundlente. We therefore believe that the VES model is
the beet model currently available to evaluate data included
in delieting petitions. Until, in our judgment, a more
suitable model is developed for Impoundments we viii continue
to use the VHS landfill model for delisting.
I hope that this letter addresses your concerns. If
you have other questions about delistinc , please call e at
(202) 382—47P .
les L. Morse, Chirf
Variances Section

OCT28 7
SUBJECT: Delisting Petition Information Requirements
FROM: Suzanne Rudzinski, Chief
Assistance Branch (WH-563) I
TO: Judy Mec)unan, Chief
Management Support Staff (TS-769C)
The purpose of this memo is to outline the critical elements
of a delisting petition for the residues from the incineration
of the indemnified 2,4,5-’? and Sil.vex pesticides. Other general
requirements are presented in the delisting petition guidance
document; I believe you already have a copy of this document.
The most important data requirements are summarized below:
o A discussion of history behind the petition (i.e., the
litigation) for inclusion in the Federal Register .
o Identification of all Appendix VIII constituents
present in the waste. This characterization is needed
for each different product formulation. We believe you
should be able to provide sufficiently detailed
information in the format of the confidential product
formulations and MSDS. We suggest that you supplement
these data with one full Appendix VIII scan of both the
major liquid product formulation and the Silvex
o A catalog of the pesticides which will be burned,
including physical state (aqueous, organic
solvent-based liquid, solid, etc.), volume, and
origin. If other materials are going to be mixed with
‘the pesticides prior to incineration (e.g.,
contaminated soils), they must also be fully
characterized (including contaminant profiles,
volumes, origin, etc.).

o A list of any Appendix VIII constituents which may be
formed as products of incomplete combustion in the EPA
Mobile Incineration System (MIS).
o A detailed description of the high resolution CC/high
resolution mass spectrometry method which will be used
to analyze the incineration residues for PCDDs/PCDFs,
including a discussion of the analytical detection
limits which you intend to achieve and the
appropriateness of such detection limits.
o Process information regarding the carbon filtration
unit which will be used to treat the wastewater and the
management of the resulting carbon filter cartridges.
Also describe any other process changes which will be
made so that the MIS can effectively treat the
indemnified products.
o Expected waste generation rates for each of the
petitioned residues, per batch and over the entire
incineration period. Also, provide a definition of
‘batch’ for each of the petitioned residues (i.e.,
solids from one day/week’s run, one full tanic of
wastewater, 10 drums of solids). We will use these
definitions in the development of the verification
testing requirements for the exclusion.
o Describe the expected residue disposal scenarios if the
residues are successfully delisted.
CC: Bob Hall
Dick Valentinetti
Fred Lindsey
Steve Johnson

9433.1981 (27)
Mr. Jordan Dern
Manager, Environmental Regulatory Programs
Koppers Company, Incorporated
36 . Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Dear Mr. Dern:
The Permits and State Programs Division has reviewed your
September 21, 1983 petition (#0528) requesting an exclusion from -
regulation for sludges, presently classified as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K035, generated at the Koppers’ Pollanabee, West Virginia
facility. We will recommend to the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response that your petition be denied.
There are two reasons for this recommendation: (1) groundwater
monitoring data indicates that the subject units and waste may
be contaminating groundwater; and (2) the waste has not been
sufficiently characterized to demonstrate that it is non—hazardous.
(Note: We have not previously requested some of the missing
information because of (a) contusion created by the petition as
to which wastes are treated in the system, and (b) the evolving
requirements of the Delisting Program). The specific bases for
our recommendation are further described below.
However, before further explaining our denial recommendation,
let us first address your contentions that the waste to be delisted
is not subject to regulation.
Your firm contended that its wastewater treatment system does
not generate or treat a listed hazardous waste. Specifically, you
argued that the waste is a sludge generated from the biological
treatment of creosote production wastewaters and that the 1(035
listing (wastewater treatment sludges generated in the production
of creosote) is not applicable to this waste because the listing
background document does not include biological treatment sludges.

The Agency disagrees. The K035 listing background document
specifically includes biological sludges:
“2. Creosote Wastewater Treatment Sludge
The wastewater treatment sludges that remain after
biological treatment are also hazardous. The carcinogenic
constituents of creosote, namely benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)-
tluor’anthene, and benzo(a)pyrene, are especially likely to
be present in the treatment sludge since these constituents
absorb to sediments at very high levels (App. B). Where
treatment is incomplete, creosote (which is, however, somewhat
amenable to biodegradation (App. B)), is projected to be
present in the sludge as well. If these sludges are placed
in a leaking landfill, an unlined holding pond, or an improperly
sited facility (i.e., as in an area with permeable soil), the
waste constituents may be released.”
For this reason, the Agency concludes that the wastewatez’ treatmeflt
sludge generated at the Koppers’ Follanabee, West Virginia facility
is a listed hazardous waste K035.
In addition, your firm contends that the aeration basins are
tanks, not surface impoundments, and are therefore exempt from
regulation under 4O CPR 26l. 4(c). As explained in the attached
October 11, 1985 letter from Stephen Wassersug (EPA Region III),
EPA examined the structural details of the aeration units and
found that the units do not meet the criteria for tanks. Therefore,
the §261.Z1(c) exemption does not apply.
Because the units and waste are subject to Subtitle C
regulations, we evaluated the merits of your delisting petition.
As mentioned previously, our evaluation has resulted in our
decision to recommend the dental of your firm’s petition. The
primary basis for this decision is that the submitted groundwater
monitoring data indicates that the waste units may have contributed
to groundwater contamination. Also, we are concerned about the
adequacy of your ground-water monitoring system. Finally, you
did not supply all of the data needed to fully characterize the
waste in the treatment system. We address each of these concerns
in more detail below.
It is EPA’s policy not to exclude any waste until the
petitioner demonstrates that it poses no past or present threat
to the environment. For waste that has been treated, stored or
diposed of in a land—based unit, EPA will investigate the potential
for ground—water contamination. Our policy is to request four
consecutive quarters of groundwater monitoring data from a ground-
water monitoring system meeting the requirements in 4O CFR 265,
Subpart P• These data must show no exceedance of regulatory

We reviewed the data that Koppers submitted and concluded
that two of the monitoring systems (wells in the Ft-A and Ft-B
series) were not adequate to monitor ground-water quality in the
uppermost aquifer underlying the aeration units because they
were installed in shallow till materials that are typically dry.
The R—C series wells which are downgradient of the units and the
upgradient A—115 well, although not fully complying with the
Subpart P requirements, can be used to sample the uppermost
aquifer. Koppers submitted two quarters of data from these wells.
Data from the downgradient wells showed concentrations exceeding
background levels for the following hazardous constituents, which
are among those we would expect to find in K035 waste; cadmium,
barium, phenathrene, benzo(a)—pyrene, dibenz(a,h)a.nthracene,
jndeno(1,2,3 —c,d)pyrefle, anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)tluoranthene
and phenol. In all cases, concentration levels at the downgradient
wells exceeded the levels of regulatory concern that EPA uses to
evaluate delisting petitions. In some cases wells at the background
(upgradient) well also exceeded these deliating levels. Moreover,
the downgradient wells also showed higher concentrations of TOC,
pM, and specific conductants, three of the tour general indicators
of ground—water contamination measured under the Subpart P
monitoring requirements. Appendix I presents these data In
greater detail.
We discussed the need for data on ground—water contamination
with representatives of Koppers in 1986. At that time, we focused
primarily on a CERCLA action that addressed ground—water problems
at a airrerent part of the facility. We were concerned that
releases from the wastewater treatment units might be contributing
to that problem. In response to our letter of March 1986, Koppers
submitted information intended to show that the wastewater
treatment units were not contributing to the ground—water
contamination subject to the CERCLA response. We have serious
questions about this demonstration. More significantly, that
demonstration provides no basis for us to conclude that the
wastewater units are not contributing to the contamination closer
to the units at the three Ft—C series wells. Because samples from
these wells contained a large number of constituents frequently
found in X035 waste, and because the wells are located downgradient
of the units we have tentatively concluded that the units are
contributing to the contamination at those wells. Accordingly,
we must recosnd that the Agency deny your petition.
Furthermore, as mentioned briefly above, none of the wells
in the vicinity of the aeration units fully complies with the
monitoring standards in Pert 265, Subpart P. !or example,
two of the monitoring systems (the Initial Ft series arid the RB
series) were installed in fill materials that are typically
dry, and have been determined to be inadequate for monitoring
groundwater quality in the uppermost aquifer underlying the
aeration units. EPA ’s current delisting policy also requires us
to recommend dental of your petition on this basis.

Finally, we must again recommend denial because your pet tion
does not fully characterize the wastes in the wastewater treatment
units. Without a complete understanding of the composition and
nature of these wastes, we can not exclude these wastes or assoc-
iated treatment units from regulation under 40 CFR Parts 262
throuch 268 and 270. Each of these deficiencies discussed
First, Kopoers requested that the waste in all units of the
wastewater treatment system (i.e., 2 aeration basins and 1 clarifier)
be delisted. Among other things, delistirig procedures reQuire
that the petitioner (1) properly sample and characterize the waste
in all units seeking delisting; and (2) analyze the waste for factors
(including constituents other than those for which the waste was
listed) which may cause the waste to be hazardous. The Koppers
petition is significantly deficient in both these areas.
Koppers provided sampling data only for the waste in
the clarifier. We do not consider the samples taken from the
clarifier to be representative of the waste that accumulated in -
the two aeration basins because potentially hazardous organic
residues (that may be more dense than the wastewater) may be
settling out in the aeration basins. This may cause the waste
in the aeration basins to be substantially different from the
clarifier wastes. Therefore, the Agency has no basis to delist
the uncharacterized aeration basins.
Second, submitted data indicate that material other than
K035 waste was added to the wastewater treatment system. Your
firm added contaminated groundwater removed from other locations
at the facility (as reauested under CERCLA) to the wastewater
treatment system before the units were sampled, but failed to
clearly document the source or contents of the added groundwater.
This information is essential under EPA’s definition of “hazardous
waste.” Mixtures of listed hazardous wastes, such as K035 and
another solid or hazardous waste, are hazardous wastes. See
40 CFR S261.3(b)(2) (“the mixture rule”). EPA would need to
evaluate all of the constituents in the resulting mixture before
granting a delisting petition. To succeed, your petition would
have to desonstrate that the ground water that you added to the
units contained no wastes. Even if you could show that the
ground—water contained no RCRA wastes, you would need to perform
a full Ap ndix Vt!! analysis if you wanted to demonstrate that
any of the constituents found in t)ie samples from the R—C series
wells originated in the contaminated ground—water frost the CERCLA
action rather than the K035 waste.
Third, the constituent analyses you conducted were limited to the
constituents for which the waste was originally listed. However,
available data indicate that other processes at your facility
use pyridine, picoline, cyclohexane, or naphtPtalene. It is not
clear whether constituents from these processes may end up in the
oetitioned wastewater. Further, contaminated groundwater
containing these and/or other constituents has been added to the

wastewater treatment system. Consequently 1 your petition should
have included an evaluation of the aeration basin wastes (including
the volume of previously generated waste) and the clarifier
wastes for the total concentrations of the following constituents
as well as any other constituents that may be present from these
process waters and/or contaminated groundwater:
acenaphthalene 2-methoxy— 1—methy1phenol
arsenic dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
barium ethyl benzene
benzene fluorantherie
benzo(a)anthracene indeno(l,2,3—cd)pyrerte
benzo(a)pyrene lead
benzo ( b) fluorantherie mercury
benzo (2—choroisopropyl)ether naphthalene
cadmium nickel
chz’ysene phenol
chromuim picoline
cyanide pyridine
cyclohexane silver
cresote selenium
2, 4—dimethyl phenol toluene
Fourth, a petitioner must also provide data indicating the
waste to be delisted would not be hazardous based on any charac-
teristic of the waste. You failed to provide such data despite
our requests for it. The aeration basin wastes should have been
analyzed for corrosivity (pH), ignitability, reactivity, and EP
Finally, submitted data indicate that mercury, although not
expected to be present in K035 waste, is present in the waste.
This fact further supports the Agency’s position concerning the
inadequacy of the waste characterization and analytical data you
provided. Specifically, we are concerned with the source of
this metal contaminant. The summary EP toxicity data submitted
on November 11, 1986 showed that the mercury concentration in
the March 12, 1986 esaple, when subjected to the V! S model,
exceeds the r•gulatory level of concern (i.e., National Primary
Drinking Wet•r Regulation for Mercury).
We recognize that we have not previously requested that you
submit some of these missing data (e.g., aeration basin waste
characterization data). As we explained above, however, your
groundwater monitoring data and thf status of your groundwater
monitoring well network provide independent grounds for denying
your petition. Therefore, even if you had supplied the missing
data, and if it had allowed us to predict that no constituents
in the waste exceeded a level of regulatory concern, we would
have recommended denying your petition. The missing data, although
potentially useful, is therefore not needed to support our decision.

Per all of the above reasons, we consider the waste to be
hazardous and subject to regulation under 0 CPR Parts 262 through
265 and to the permitting standards of 0 CPR Part 270. Accordingly,
we will recommend to the Assistant Administrator that a denial
notice be published in the Federal
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of with-
drawing their petitions to avoid publication of a negative
finding in the Peder . Register . If you prefer this option, you
must send us a retter withdrawing your petition and indicating
that the petitioned waste is considered hazardous and will be
managed as such. If you send such a letter, it should be rorwarded
to me within two weeks of the date of receipt of today’s correspon-
derzce. If you choose not to withdraw your petition, a denial
decision will be published in the Federal Register . You and
other interested parties will be able to submit comments if you
disagree with the Agency’s decision.
If you have any questions regarding our decision, please
contact Fft’. Scott Maid of my staff at (202) 382— l783.
Sincerely yours,
‘ c
Bruce H. Weddle, 1 irector
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Bob Greavee, Region III
Sharon Feldstein, Region III (Superfund)
Jenny Uta, SAIC

NOVEMBER 88 433.1988(O2)
2. Used Oil Court Decision
On March 7, 1988, a petition was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia by the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, the
Association of Petroleum Re-Refiners, and the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., versus the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The petition
called for a review by the Court on a decision of the EPA concerning the
regulatory status of recycled used oils under RCRA. The Court issued a decision
on the petition on October 7, 1988.
Specifically, on what decision were the petitioners asking the Court to rule?
What was the Court’s decision?
In its final action of November 19, 1986 (51 , 41900), the Agency decided not
to list used oil that is recycled as a hazardous waste. The Agency based this
decision on its finding that such a listing would attach the stigma of the label
“hazardous waste” to recycled oil, thereby discouraging recycling.
Furthermore, the Agency stated that its authority to regulate used oil under
RCRA is not dependent on a hazardous waste listing, under the authority of
the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980, which was redesignated as RCRA Section
3014 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. (See the
discussion at 50 ER 1691; January ii, 1985 and 51 EB. 41900; November 19,
The petitioners in this case were challenging this determination made by
EPA. The petitioners argued that the Agency acted contrary to law in basing its
determination on the stigmatic effects of listing. That is, the petitioners
argued that the RCRA statute does not give EPA the authority to not list a
waite based on the stigmatic effects of such a listing. Consequently, the
petitioners requested that the court order EPA to list recycled used oils as a
hazardous waste.
The Court agreed that EPA erroneously based its decision not to list recycled
used oils as ha, ardous wastes on the stignkatic effects of such a listing, a factor
not permitted by the statute. Thus, the Court is requiring EPA to determine
whether any recycled used oils meet the technical thteria for listing under the
Source: Sarah Carney (202) 382-7932
Research: Chris Bryant

______ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
1 ?
4 , it
P1 Y 2 i 1 90 OFFICE OF
Jim Sherman
U.S. Army
Watervliet Arsenal
Watervliet, New York 12189—4050
Dear Mr. Sherman:
We have received Mr. Russell Wells’ letter of February 7th
concerning the proposed substitution of magnesium sulfate for
aluminum sulfate currently used as a flocculating agent for waste
soluble oils in your wastevater treatment system. As discussed
further below, such a substitution may result in a waste which is
not covered by your 1986 exclusion.
The substitution of treatment chemicals (or any change to
your 1986 exclusion) may be considered a major process change if
it significantly alters the composition of your waste. We
believe that the substitution of magnesium sulfate for aluminum
sulfate may significantly alter the composition of the petitioned
waste, particularly if the rationale for the substitution is to
reduce constituent concentrations in the resultant wastevater.
However, we cannot fully assess the impact this substitution
might have on the exclusion status of your wastewater treatment
sludge without knowing more about the flocculation step.
Therefore, if the substitution that you describe is
implemented, you may be producing a new waste that is not covered
under the existing delisting. In this case you would have to
submit an amended petition and we would have to reopen your
delisting petition for review and comment. Please note that
current delisting criteria are somewhat different than those used
in 1986. For example, the health-based levels used in delisting
decision-making may have changed for some hazardous constituents,
and petitioners with on—site units containing the petitioned
waste are now required to demonstrate that the petitioned waste
has not adversely impacted ground water.
If you still believe this change in process is not
significant and will not adversely impact your waste, you may
submit the following information to allow us to fully evaluate
this proposed change:

o A description of the chemistry of the flocculation
procedure, a discussion of why you believe that it
would be beneficial to switch to magnesium sulfate, and
any other process information that you believe might be
o An estimate of the new (using magnesium sulfate)
average and maximum sludge generation rates on a
monthly and annual basis
o Results of Oily Waste Extraction Procedure tests on
samples of the new sludge, if your bench—scale work has
reached this stage.
Please be aware that if you proceed with the substitution of
magnesium sulfate for aluminum sulfate in your treatment process,
the resulting sludge may no longer be excluded, and should be
handled as a hazardous waste. Should you have any questions
about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202)
Robert Icayser, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Jim Kent, EPA HQ
Linda Cessar, EPA HQ
Andy Bellina, Region II
David Smith, SAIC

PlAY 31 1990
Ms. Christine A. Mathias,
Environmental Project Manager,
Heritage Remediation/Engineering, Inc.
P. 0. Box 51020
Indianapolis, IN 46251
Dear Ms. Mathias:
I have received your letter dated April 18, 1990 regarding
delisting of a soil contaminated with toluene diisocyanate (TDI).
In your letter, you 1) described the spill that caused the soil
contamination, 2) submitted Material Safety Data Sheets for
Mondur 437 (65% to 75% TDI) and ortho-toluenediamjne, 3)
presented results of soil analysis, and 4) requested that the
Agency specify delisting levels for your use in discussion with
the State of Indiana on site clean-up.
Please be advised that contaminated environmental media such
as the above TDI-contaminated soil must be managed as if they
were hazardous wastes until they no longer contain the listed
hazardous waste, or unless they are specifically excluded from
RCRA regulation. Also note that this contaminated soil is
considered hazardous because it contains a substance (TDI) listed
as U223 waste, but not according to the “derived from” rule as
you cited. You should discuss the necessary clean—up activities
and appropriate clean—up standards with the permitting authority
( i. e . the State of Indiana). To have a hazardous waste excluded
(or delisted), a petition must be filed with EPA Headquarters.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22 (k), any exclusion rendered by the
Agency will only apply to the specific waste generated at the
individual facility covered by the petition and detailed
demonstrations must be presented to show that hazardous
constituents listed on Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 that may be
present in the petitioned waste are not found at levels of
regulatory concern.
You should be aware that the Agency in its delisting
evaluation considers any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which a waste was listed.
Accordingly, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does
not exhibit any of the hazardous characteristics, and does not
contain an constituents at hazardous levels. ic 11 w
r i.r ausea a rc ri.
Test M noas ro vaLuat g so aste”, ra eat on,
, ...I u•* •SS .PSI SSSSSSS . . - - - __ .... . . susu. —. I. r. -

IJII1 141990
o.p,cE OF
SOi .ID ealYt AID t ’I QI’dCv tIPOtdSI
Dear P.titioner:
The purpos. of this latter is to inform you that the Agency
has finalized the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule (published in
the Federal R. i.tar on Xarch 29, 1990, see 55 11798). This
rul. r.plac.a the Extraction procedure (EP) Toxicity test found
in Appendix I! to 40 CFR Section 261.34 with the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) • The TCLP is a more
sophisticated leaching procedure that predicts leaching and
expands the Toxicity Characteristic to includs organic hazardous
constituents. The TCLP currently is used for other hazardous
waste programs, and the procedure has also bee i dspcribed j.
Appendix I of 40 CTR Part 268. The intent of this letter is to
notify you that t e TCLP will be required for all new testing
used to support petitions submitted by hazardous waste facilities
to exclude (Ndelistu) a waste pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and
We have chosen to adopt the TCLP as a requirement for
delisting demonstrations in order to remain consistent with the
leaching procedure used to define a characteristic waste. Vs
believe this early notification to you of the changes will enable
petitioners to prepare in advance and adjust any future sampling
and testing plans accordingly. Petitioners who have recently
received correspondence from the Agency shou)d have already been
informed of some of the information in this letter.
As noted in the preamble to the final TC Rule, we will soon
publish a notice of our intent to require TCLP data for all
delisting demonstrations. This forthcoming Federal Recister
notic. will discuss in more detail the effects of these changes
en required delisting petition information for both futur. and
pending petitions. A copy of that notice will be sent to you
upon its publication in the Federal R.aist.r . We are taking this
opportunity, however, to briefly describe for you the key impacts
of the change to the TCLP.
In order to minimize the impact of thie change on the
current schedules for individual delisting decision-making, we
are establishing an effective date of December 31, 1990, beyond
which we will no longer accept new petitions without TCLP data.
h i4 a — P

For petitions submitted prior to D.cembez 31, 1990, if we believe
the EP and total constituent data submitted prior to the
effective date az. complet. and az. sufficient to support a
delisting decision by the Ag.ncy, then we do not plan to require
r.testing using the TCLP. For example, if the EP leachat. data
for inorganic constituents and the total constituent data for
organic constituents ar. judged to be complete, we do not plan to
require retesting. However, additional data (including TCLP
data) may be requested at any time if we believe the information
is needed to complete a petition or to address coents received
on a proposed decision. In any case, all petitioners should plan
to use the TCLP for any new sampling and analyses conducted for
delisting petitions.
As part of all delisting demonstrations, we will require
that the TCLP be used to predict the leaching potential of any.
inorganic and organic constituents (listed in Appendix VIII to 40
CFR Section 263). Therefore, the TCLP extracts should be
analyzed fox any inorganic or organic constituent that may be
present in the waste. We will continue to also require analysis
of total constituent concentrations of metals, cyanide, sulfide,
and any organic constituents which may be present in your waste.
Please note, if your petition is for a liquid waste ( i... . less
than 0.5 percent solids), then the TCLP cannot be performed, and
the TCLP requirements will not affect the delistirig
demonstration. Total constituent data will continue to be used
to determine if a liquid waste should remain hazardous.
For wastes which have a total oil and grease content of more
than one percent and/or which are difficult to filter using the
TCLP apparatus (jj,,,, tars), we will require use of the Oily
Waste Extraction Procedure (OWEP) (SW-846 Method 1330) in place
of the TCLP to determine the leaching potential of inorganic
constituents. The OWEP has been used in place of the EP in.th.
past, and we plan to continue to require its use for oily wastes
because the TCLP currently has no special provisions f or oily
wastes. We will evaluate the applicability of the TCLP for
organics in problem matrices (such as oily wastes) on a cassby-’
case basis. For stabilized wastes, we will continue to require
use of the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP) (SW’846 Method
1320) in addition to the TCLP f or inorganic constituents.

Should you hays any qusitioni or r.quir. any additional
information r.qardinq this attsr, pisass contact Linda Cassar of
ay staff at (202) 475—9828.
S inc.rsly,
II r1 LL
Dsvsrsaux Barns., Acting Dirsctor
Parnit. and Stats Proqrw

Mr. Dennis R. Parker
Conoco Inc.
Post Office Box 1267
Ponca City, Oklahoma 74603
Re: No—Migration Petition submitted for Conoco Inc. ‘s Ponca
City, Oklahoma Land Treatment Facility (F—90—NPCP—FFFFF)
Dear Mr. Parker:
I am writing in regard to your October 12, 1989 “no-
migration” petition, which requests a variance under 40 CFR
§268.6 to allow Conoco Inc. to continue the land treatment of
restricted wastes (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K049, K05l, K052, and
DOOl) at Conoco’s Ponca City, Oklahoma land treatment facility
(LTF). Based on our evaluation of your petition, we believe that
Conoco’s soil—pore liquids and ground-water monitoring systems
are inadequate for the purposes of a no—migration variance and
that Conoco has failed to demonstrate, to a reasonable degree of
certainty, that constituents will not migrate beyond the land
treatment unit boundaries at hazardous concentrations. As a
result of our evaluation, we will recommend to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that the
petition be denied.
Our decision to recommend denial of the petition is based on
the lack of a monitoring plan that detects migration at the
earliest practicable time. In addition, the information
presented in the petition indicates that migration of hazardous
constituents beneath the treatment unit has already occurred.
Lastly, we believe that Conoco has failed to provide a
comprehensive characterization of the disposal unit site. We
discuss the results of our evaluation below.
Soil-Pore Liauid Monitorina System
Conoco has failed to meet the requirements of 40 CYR
§ 268.6(a)(4). Specifically, the facility is required to have a
monitoring system cq able of detecting migration of hazardous
constituents fro LTF. .at . the s r 1 1 t mracticabla.

program. Conoco’s petition indicates that only four lysimeters
were installed in the 38 acre LTF (of which approximately 24
acres are actively used) (Figure 5—19, “Location of Monitoring
Wells, Lysimeters, and Land Treatment Demonstration (LTD) Plots,
page 84). This means one lysimeter monitors approximately six
acres of active area. In addition, Figure 5—19 indicates that
the four ].ysimeters were installed in the upgradient corner of
Plot 1, the upgradient edge of Plot 7, and the two upgradient
corners of Plot 9. Based on the locations of these lysimeters
(assuming that wastes are actively applied in the LTD plots), we
are concerned that these four lysimeters are subject to edge
effects ( e.a. , reduced loadings) and, therefore, do not believe
these lysimeters are capable of collecting representative samples
of the active areas within the LTF. Furthermore, as a result of
Conoco’s anticipated closure of Plot 9, in the future there will
only be two lysimeters installed at the LTF.
Given the amount of time generally required for a
constituent to be detected at a downgradient ground—water
monitoring well (especially an inorganic constituent), lysimeters
are important in detecting constituent migration at the earliest
practicable time. Neither current reliance on four lysimeters
nor Conoco’s reduction to two lysimeters in the future fulfill
the requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a) (4).
Ground—Water Monitoring System
Conoco has further failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
§268.6(a) (4) as the result of the anticipated closure of Plot 9,
which will result in the downgradient ground-water monitoring
well (8A) being located more than 610 feet from the “new” outer
edge of the LTF (Plot 7). The magnitude of the distance between
the unit and the downgradient monitoring well means, once again,
that Conoco’s ground—water monitoring system for the Ponca City
LTF will be incapable of detecting hazardous constituent
migration at the earliest practicable time.
In addition, Conoco stated in its February 6, 1990 letter to
Ms. Karen Dihrberg (Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH))
that “a remediation plan is being developed for a part of Plot 9
where hydrocarbons and phenolics have been detected below the
treatment zone.” Specifically, cresols, phenol, benzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes were detected below the
treatment zone (BTZ) at the concentrations summarized below in
Table 1.

Concentrations of Organic Constituents
Detected in the BTZ (ug/kg)
Constituents Bore Hole Concentrations
Creed BH—10—4 9,000
BH— 17—4 35,000
Cresol, o Plot 9 43,000
Creso]., p Plot 9 96,000
Phenol 311—10—4 5,000
BH— 17—4 19,000
Plot 9 210,000
Benzene 311—11—4 J 300
Ethyl benzene 311-11—4 . ,/ 14,900
Xylene, m & p 311—11—4 / 119,200
Xylene, o 311—11—4 / 39,500
KEY: Bore Hole data identified as “311” were obtained from
the December 11, 1989 letter from D.R. Parker (Conoco)
to Mr. F. Rood (OSDH).
Bore Hole data identified as “Plot 9” were obtained
from the September 13, 1989 letter from D.R. Parker
(Conoco) to Mr. F. Rood (OSDH).
Text presented by Conoco in their December 11, 1989
letter indicated that detectable levels of volatile
organic constituents were present in two bore holes
(Bfl—l1 and BR-lB). Tabulated data were not received
for BR-LB.
The presence of these organic constituents below the
treatment zone and other organic and inorganic constituents in
the zone of incorporation and treatment zone presents several
problems. First, if these or other constituents continue to
migrate and are detected at the downgradient monitoring well
(8A), it will be impossible for the Ponca City ground—water
monitoring system to determine whether these hazardous
constituents migrated from the active or inactive plots. Second,
if Conoco were to install a new downgradient monitoring well,
this well would have to be installed inside Plot 9. As a result,
the new well would be drilled through contaminated media and
could possibly act as a conduit for additional ground—water
contamination. Again, we believe Conoco would be unable to
distinguish whether the contamination resulted from hazardous
constituents migrating from the active or inactive plots.
Lastly, the detection of the constituents listed above in Table 1
in the soils beneath the treatment unit raises the possibility

that these constituents may be contained in the soil-pore liquids
and the ground water beneath the other plots at the LTF. As
discussed above, Conoco’s deficient soil—pore liquid monitoring
system does not allow for the early detection of these
constituents. EPA, therefore, is unable to clearly conclude
whether these constituents are absent from the soil—pore liquids
and ground water beneath the LTF. For the Agency to determine,
with a reasonable degree of certainty, that no migration of
hazardous constituents has occurred, we must be able to clearly
conclude that these constituents are not present in the soil—pore
liquids and ground water.
Our concerns that the present ground—water monitoring system
is inadequate are also supported by the following information
regarding the presence of hydrocarbon plumes and monitoring well
construction. According to a memorandum sent by Mr. Bill Honker
(EPA Region VI) to Mr. Jim Michael (EPA HQ) dated November 27,
1989, there are numerous hydrocarbon plumes in the ground water
beneath the facility. Previous correspondence between the OSDH
and Region VI (dated November 2, 1988) stated that one of the
upgradient monitoring wells at the LTF was filled with an oily
fluid, which we note Conoco contends was not released from the
LTF, but rather that a hydrocarbon mound was encroaching upon the
LTF. Nonetheless, we are concerned that the hydrocarbon plume(s)
eventually will influence all of the upgradient monitoring veils
and that Conoco will no longer be able to clearly compare the
ground—water quality at monitoring wells 8A, 11, 13, and 14 to
the background levels as specified in Provision VI(5) (b) of the
facility’s permit. Furthermore, with time, as the hydrocarbon
plume continues to move beneath the LTF, it will become
increasingly difficult for Conoco to differentiate whether
hydrocarbons detected in the monitoring program are coming from
the hydrocarbon plume or the wastes applied at the LTF. Again,
for the Agency to determine with a reasonable degree of
certainty, that migration of hazardous constituents has not
occurred, we must be able to clearly conclude that any
hydrocarbons (if detected) originated from a hydrocarbon plume
and not the wastes applied at the LTF.
Lastly, in the petition, Conoco has assumed that the vast
majority of contaminants found in a refinery are lighter than
water and will, be found at the unsaturated zone/water table
interface (Attachment 9, Page 10-3). The petition, however,
indicates that the monitoring well.s are screened in the basal
coarse sand and gravel layer of the alluvial terrace sediments
overlying the shale bedrock. The depth at which the monitoring
well screens were installed, therefore, does not allow for the
detection of the “light” contaminants which Conoco assumed would
be found at the unsaturated zone/water table interface. These
inadequacies further impede the ability of the present ground-
water monitoring system to fulfill the requirements of
40 CFR §268.6(a) (4).

Ability to Prevent Future MicTration
COnOCO’S December 11, 1989 letter to the OSDH provided a
rationale and procedure for how Conoco will prevent future
overloading and subsequent migration of phenolic compounds. We
do not believe that the rationale provided by Conoco, or future
testing, as proposed by Conoco, will prevent future migration of
phenolic compounds or hydrocarbons (benzene, ethyl benzene,
toluene, and xylenes) below the treatment zone.
First, analytical data provided in the petition (Table 3-6,
page 20) indicated that phenol was not present in any of the
wastes sampled using the following detection limits: 10, 20,
100, 200, and 990 ug/kg. If these data are representative of the
wastes managed at the LTF, how can Conoco demonstrate which waste
had or will exhibit elevated levels of phenol. Second, we note
that many of the wastes sampled and analyzed contained
significant concentrations of benzene, ethyl beuzene, toluene,
and xylene (Table 3-6, page 19); therefore, limiting phenolic
content may not be sufficient to prevent future migration of
these hydrocarbons (see Table 1). Lastly, assuming that Conoco
screens the wastes and is able to determine which wastes have
excessiveN concentrations of phenol, we do not believe that the
“water leaching” test, as proposed by Conoco, is adequate to
determine the leachable concentrations of phenol. The Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) should be used to
determine the leachable concentration of phenol (and the
hydrocarbon constituents). At a minimum, Conoco should conduct
the TCLP using distilled water. We note that Conoco should use
and adhere to the analytical methods and protocols established in
Test Methods for Evaluatina Solid Waste Phvsicallchemical
Methods . Publication SW-846 (third edition), November 1986.
Incomplete Petition
Although the Agency limited its technical review to the
soil—pore liquids and ground-water monitoring portions of
Conoco’s no—migration petition, we found that Conoco also failed
to meet the reguirementB of 40 CFR §268.6(a)(3). Specifically,
during our review, we noted that Conoco acknowledges that the
underlying geologic unit had not been completely characterized,
Conoco recognizes that the thickness of the basal sand and
gravel unit and the top of the shale bedrock are still
incompletely defined (Attachment 9, Page 10—4). Conoco stated
that this data is scheduled to be collected in the near future,
however, a specific date was not given. Without this
information, we are unable to fully evaluate the design and
effectiveness of the ground-water monitoring program at the
facility. In addition, possible interconnections between the
upper and next lower aquifer have not been thoroughly explored.

However, because the technical basis for denial already exists,
we are not requesting you to provide this, or additional
information on waste characterization, revised VIP modeling
results, or air monitoring and modeling for particulates, that
would be necessary for EPA to judge your petition to be
technically complete.
As discussed above, we believe that Conoco has failed to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a) (4) and that the results
of the unsaturated zone monitoring (soil—pores) show that Conoco
has failed to demonstrate, to a reasonable degree of certainty,
that hazardous constituents will not migrate beyond the land
treatment unit boundaries at hazardous concentrations. Conoco
has also failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR §268.6(a) (3).
We will therefore recommend to the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response that the no-migration petition
for your Ponca City facility be denied.
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 scheduled
to be effective November 8, 1990. This letter should be
forwarded to the following address within two weeks of the date
of receipt of today’s correspondence:
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Chief
Assistance Branch (OS—343)
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 N 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
Register .

Any questions regarding our findings may be submitted in
writing to Mr. James Michael of my staff.
Jeffery D. Denit, Deputy Director
Office of Solid Waste
Attacb ent
cc: Docket
Bill. Honker, Region VI
Bill Gallagher, Region VI
Randy Brown, Region VI
Damon Wingfield, OSDH
C. Michael Swindoll, Conoco
Elizabeth Cotsworth, EPA HQ
James Michael, EPA HQ

SEP 2 6 1990
Ms. Melinda Young
Viking Pump - Houdaille, Inc.
406 State Street
Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613
Dear Ms. Young:
I am writing to inform you of the Agency’s review of your
sampling plan (#D0811) that pertains to a petition which, when
submitted, will request exclusion of wastes from the treatment of
cyanide furnace crucibles. currently listed as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. FOil. The subject wastes are presently contained in
two slurry ponds and a flood control reservoir located at your
South Main Street Plant, Cedar Falls, Iowa.
Please note that, while EPA has granted exclusions for
wastes contained in land—based units, recent proposals to exclude
such wastes have led to negative public comments ( e.a. , see 55
11188, March 27, 1990). This opposition was based on the use of
delisting to supersede formal closure of the units under RCRA.
Therefore, to avoid the uncertainty associated with a petition
for the in—place wastes, we suggest that you excavate the units
and store the waste in question and pursue a delisting for the
excavated materials. Further details concerning this strategy
are given in Enclosure I. Excavation also more clearly defines
the aerial extent and volume of the petitioned waste. An
accurate estimate of the volume of the petitioned waste is
critical to the evaluation. If you desire to pursue this
strategy, we encourage you to confer with the State and EPA
Regional office to determine the regulatory status of the
residual soils remaining in the treatment units.
A key issue arising from the delisting of in-place waste is
the regulatory status of the unit after delisting. Typically,
when EPA delists a hazardous waste, the waste remains a solid
waste and must be managed according to all applicable State solid
waste regulations. If Viking is still interested in delisting
the in—place waste, we suggest you provide a full explanation of
the regulatory status of the unit after delisting. It would be
helpful if the petitioner can demonstrate that existing State
laws (or binding consent agreements) require that the unit (and
any delisted waste contained therein) remains a solid waste
fflanaçement unit and is sublect to some level of requlatory
L,t intrO1 Th di tinction bC II5MtN lean” closure and delistina
1 jj this icase would be cle4rer and 4asiar to liustify. I I

After reviewing our comments, you may find that many of our
suggestions overlap with State or Region requirements. In
particular, the State or EPA Regional office may have ground-
water monitoring, waste sampling, and soil sampling requirements
for closure. we encourage you to investigate the applicable
requirements for your units so that your sampling and analysis
program might fulfill both delisting and State or EPA Regional
requirements concurrently.
If you choose to pursue a delisting of the wastes, we
recommend that you consider our comments regarding spatial
variability, temporal variability, and sample collection
procedures. These comments are presented in Enclosure I.
In addition, we are concerned that your sampling and
analysis plan will not characterize all hazardous constituents
that may be present in the wastes. Specifically, additional
hazardous constituents are likely to be present as a result of
waste management practices that allowed non—hazardous wastes and
facility run—off to be discharged to the units. A discussion of
analytical parameters necessary to characterize the wastes is
presented in Enclosure II.
We also are concerned that issues which were grounds for our
dismissal of your previous petition (#0543) are not addressed in
the sampling plan. Specifically, your proposed sampling plan
fails to identify how representative ground—water sampling will
be conducted. The Agency has recently proposed a rule clarifying
the Agency’s use of ground—water monitoring data in delisting
decisions (see 54 41930, October 12, 1989). Our specific
requirements concerning ground-water monitoring are presented in
Enclosure III.
Should you have any questions concerning our review of your
sampling plan or need to clarify the information required for
submitting a revised sampling plan or formal petition, please
feel free to call me at (202) 382—2224.
Robert Kayser, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Elizabeth Cotsworth
Bob Scarberry
Jim Kent
Chet McLaughlin, Region VII
Mike Sanderson, Region VII
Gary B. Enloe, J?fl1
Eileen Regan, SAIC
John Vierow, SAIC

Waste Sampling Strategy
You may pursue one of two waste sampling strategies:
sampling the waste in the units, or excavation of the units and
subsequent sampling of the excavated materials. Regardless of
which strategy you choose, sampling must account for variability
resulting from historic process operations and the introduction
of other wastewaters to the units.
Spatial and Temporal Variation
Based on the information provided in your sampling plan, we
believe that you have chosen an adequate number of samples to
represent the spatial variability of wastes in each unit ( i.e. ,
the collection of four composite samples from each slurry pond;
the collection of eight composite samples from the flood control
reservoir). We also recommend that five grab samples be drawn
from each section of each waste unit to form each composite
sample, as determined by random sampling methods discussed in the
Guidance Manual’. We believe this approach will result in the
collection of samples that are more representative of constituent
variability than the perimeter sampling approach presented in
your previous petition.
Variability over time, or temporal variability, must be
accounted for in your sampling plan. This is dependent upon the
operating characteristics of your units. For example, your
petition must specify whether facility run-off, process waters,
and non—process waters currently enter the units, whether liquid
is discharged or evaporated from the units, and the quantity of
standing liquid in the units. If the units are not presently in
use, then your wastes are expected to show little or no
variability in the future and thus you do not need to provide
further information in this regard.
Current influents will affect the future waste composition
of the units. Although waste classified as EPA Hazardous Waste
No. FOil is no longer introduced into the flood reservoir, other
influents will contribute sediment to the units and thus will
affect the variability of the petitioned wastes over time and
must be accounted for in the sampling plan. To address this
concern, you may be able to show that current influents are
similar in composition to inf]uents of the past, due to similar
plant operations. If thfluents are expected to change, or have
recently changed, you must describe how these influents are
expected to influence the composition of the petitioned wastes.
Based on our evaluation of petition information, we may require
I “Petitions To Delist Hazardous Wastes - A Guidance
Manual,” Office of Solid Waste (EPA/530—SW—85—003), April

additional sampling of the sediment or the influents in the
Sample Collection
We are concerned that the full depth variability of the
wastes will, not be sampled. For example, depth is dependent on
free liquid above the sediment, which in turn is dependent on
current influents to and effluents from the units. You must
demonstrate that the sampling equipment will penetrate the
sediment to the bottom of the units. You have not provided
sufficient information for the Agency to determine if a three—
foot Shelby tube would be of sufficient length to sample the
petitioned wastes. Because it is likely that the sediments are
not homogeneous due to settling and due to historic changes in
inf]uents over time, it is important that the full-depth of the
wastes be sampled. Please also state the overall dimensions of
the petitioned units; the dimension information presented in
Figures 1—2, 2—1, and page 3 of your draft sampling plan are
inconsistent. Also include the waste depth and volumes in each
of the three units.
In addition, any liquids present in the units are also
classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. Foil. You must explain
whether a significant volume of free liquids is present above the
sediments and, if so, if these liquids are to be included in the
scope of the petition. If you desire to include the liquids as
part of your petition, you must collect and analyze samples of
the liquid in a manner similar to that described for the unit
Samples to be analyzed for volatile organic compounds should
not be composited in the field due to the potential loss of
volatile compounds. We recommend that you either analyze grab
samples separately for volatiles, or carefully composite grab
samples in the laboratory prior to analysis.
The equipment decontamination procedures described in your
sampling plan (steam cleaning) are adequate to prevent cross—
contamination of the composite samples. However, we are
concerned that the use of Shelby tubes may not adequately
represent the volatile organic composition of the sediments due
to the necessary sample extraction procedure. Rather, we suggest
the use of a split spoon or co],iwasa depending on the physical
state of the sediments. Sampling equipment should be constructed
of stainless steel, or be lined with other inert material, to
prevent metal contamination.

Analytical Parameters
The selection of constituents for testing should be
dependent on the historical introduction of materials to the
units. In particular, our review is not limited to the
constituents in the FOil waste, but encompasses all influents
( e.a . , process water and surface run—off) over the lifetime of
the units.
Therefore, you must provide descriptions of:
o All historic operations, including process and non—process
sources of wastewater, that contributed wastes to the three
units, and the composition or characteristics of these
streams. Please specify when the units were constructed and
when they began receiving wastes.
o The identification of sources of facility run—off, both from
your facility and surrounding areas that could have
contributed run-off to the units. We believe that run-off
may contribute significant levels of hazardous organic
constituents to the petitioned wastes.
o Sources of oil and grease, including oils that are present
as contaminants in run-off and in process water as a result
of inpiant use or from residual oils on metal received at
your facility.
o Sources of hazardous organic constituents that could be
present in additives to corrosion inhibitors, cleaners, and
treatment materials. All relevant material safety data
sheets (MSDSs) should also be included.
Based on the information submitted thus far, you have not
justified why organic analyses should be limited to the
constituents listed in Section 3 of your draft sampling plan.
Arialytes should include all constituents listed on 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix VIII, acetone, ethyl benzene, isophorone, 4-methyl-
2-pentanone, styrene, and xylene (total) that may potentially be
present in the wastes. You may determine that some hazardous
constituents are not expected to be present in the petitioned
wastes because the constituent was not used as a raw material at
the plant, is unlikely to be present as a raw material
contaminant, and is not likely to be formed as a byproduct in the
plant processes. You must include a justification for not
analyzing other Appendix VIII constituents.
Your ability to characterize the past and present influents
to the units will affect your choice of analytical parameters.
Based on the process descriptions provided above, you may be able
to limit the required analytical parameters. However, in

limiting constituents for testing, it is not sufficient to just
state that a constituent is not 1 ]cely to be present. Based on
the numerous historic processes contributing wastes to the units,
we do not believe that you would be able to limit constituents
for testing (except perhaps for special constituents, such as
We recognize that the Appendix VIII list presents a number
of analytical problems for some constituents. However, we
request that any available information concerning the presence of
these constituents be included as part of a complete petition.
For analytical testing purposes, you must analyze the samples for
those compounds which can be accurately quantified using
appropriate methods front “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes — Physical/Chemical flcthods,” (third edition), EPA
publication SW-846, Novenber 1986. It should be noted that
SW—846 analytical test i ethods exist for all constituents listed
in 40 CFR Part 264, Appendix IX.
Representative samples of the petitioned wastes should be
analyzed for the following parameters:
o Total oil and grease content
o Total constituent concentrations of all the TC metals,
nickel, cyanide, sulficio and any hazardous constituents
that are potentially prc:or.t in the wastes
o Leachable concentrations of all the TC metals, nickel and
cyanide. Use disti11e .‘ater in place of the acetate buffer
in the cyanide extraction. Fox waste samples that contain
less than one percent oi.l and grease, use the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Prccedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311,
see the TC rule in 55 f. 11798, March 29, 1990). For waste
samples that contain greater than one percent oil and
grease, use the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure (OWEP, SW-
846 Method 1330) and suh titute the TCLP for the extraction
procedure in Step 7.9 of the OWEP. We plan to continue to
require the OWEP for d: .istxng demonstrations because the
TCLP currently has no specIal provisions for oily wastes.
In all cases, the TCLP c o Lld be used to determine the
leaching potential of hazardous organic constituents that
are potentially present in the wastes. Please note that for
liquid wastes, the leachable concentration of a constituent
is equivalent to the tot 1 concentration of that
o Total concentrations of i-e ctive sulfide and reactive
cyanide, if total sulfi: ar total cyanide levels exceed
500 and 250 ppm, res .e:tiva1y.
o characteristics of ign :iiity, corrosivity, and
reactivity. In lieu o ing for a particular

characteristic, you r ay provide a detailed explanation as to
why the wastes do not cx bit the characteristic.
Appropriate quantification li tiits are given in 511—846; these
limits should be et for all e’:tract and ground—water samples.
SW—846 also gives practical c antitation limits (PQLs) for other
matrices. As stated in yz ur a plinq plan, the reported
laboratory detection units chould be as close as possible to
established drinking :ator ‘-dards.
The following infornati n also should be provided:
o A detailed description of nrocedures used to collect,
prepare, preserve, i J ‘JyZe each sample. Include the
names and qualifications (a brief resume will suffice) of
all personnel involvc: ...n the zampling and analysis program.
Also provide a list :.a cs and model numbers of all
sample collection, r - .ci, preservation, and analytical
instru”cnts used. r- - : rpling, extraction, and
analyses should Lo r::
o A description of all Lty Control (QC) procedures
follo :cd during ceU: —: 3nd analyses of samples. This
should include, as e trprc iate: 1) method blank analyses, 2)
field QC analyses (j. ... l J blanks, equipment blanks and
trip blanks), 3) r . :e md matrix spike duplicate
analyses, and 4) cr - - ar C EP) toxicity test run for
each cf the TC net:’l, l, and cyanide using the method
of star.:iard additi:: -. :c res for these and other
apprc r.ate QC pr c: - o sully described in Chapter One
of S - ‘G. Each rir - - t:-t method in SW—846 notes
labor tcry QC prcc:: - ropriate for that particular
test rcthod. In - : ll of the sample preservation
proc s and hol:i -a rc juired by SW—846 must be
fo1lc.: J.

Mr. George Mavris
Roy P. Weston, Inc. P4CJtj 27 ! O
44 Burlington Mall Road
Suite 604
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803
RE: Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan for New Hampshire Plating
Company, Merrimack, New Hampshire
Dear Mr. Mavris:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that we have
completed our review of your draft sampling and analysis plan for
the New Hampshire Plating Company (NXPC), submitted to the Agency
on October 29, 1990. This letter also confirms our initial
response to your plan provided in a conference call on November
8, 1990. The proposed sampling and analysis plan will be used to
collect representative samples of both untreated and treated
soils/sludges. These materials are presently listed as EPA
Hazardous Waste No. P006. We note that these materials also may
be listed as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F007 — F012; however, due
to the limited information provided we were unable to make a
determination as to the exact classification of these materials.
We discuss below the results of our review.
Chemical Stabilization Process
Your draft sampling and analysis plan indicates that between
1962 and 1985, NHPC used three unlined lagoons to dispose of
lectroplating wastes consisting of various heavy metals,
cyanide, acids, and chlorinated solvents. You also indicate that
EPA is currently remediating the site and chemically stabilizing
the contaminated soils and sludges removed from the site. First,
the contaminated soils are mixed with the sludges in a pugmill at
a ratio of 4:1 (soil:sludge). The mixture of soil/sludge then is
mixed with Type I Portland Cement (presumably in another pugmill)
at a ratio of 3:1 (soil/sludge mixture:Type I Portland Cement).
The chemically stabilized residue is transferred via a six-yard
dump truck to a lined storage cell. The sampling plan states
that between 24 to 38 loads are generated daily; therefore,
approximately 144 to 228 cubic yards of chemically stabilized
residue are generated daily.

Your description of the chemical stabilization process is
not complete. A complete description should include information
The maximum total volume of stabilized waste you expect
to generate (an accurate measure of waste volume is
critical to our evaluation):
• Addition of other reagents and/er water, including
source of water (or does the process rely on the
moisture content of the soil/sludge mixture?);
• Physical nature of chemically stabilized treatment
residue (solid, monolithic, friable, etc.,);
• Length of time soil/sludge mixed and length of time
soil/sludge mixture mixed with Type I Portland Cement;
• Size of pugmills used to mix soil/sludge and
soil/sludge mixture with Type I Portland Cement;
• Procedure for measuring/metering quantities of soil,
sludges, and reagents to ensure proper mixture ratios;
• Safeguards (if any) to prevent short-circuiting (e.g.,
inadequate mixing or insufficient quantity of
• Initiation and completion of chemical stabilization
process (i.e., start date, end date, elapsed time
required to treat all of the material).
• Elapsed time required for reaction to occur, and
elapsed time required for material to fully cure;
• Explanation for why treatment residue generated between
August 1, 1990 and September 12, 1990 were placed back
into the lagoon system:
Clarification of whether the treatment system was down
during the period of September 12 and September 17,
1990; and
• Procedure for removing chemically stabilized treatment
residue from storage cell.
Sampling and Analysis
SamDlina Performed To Date
Your draft sampling and analysis plan states that prior to
October 22, 1990, representative composite and grab samples of

the chemically stabilized treatment residue were collected at
various frequencies. Initially, aliquots of treatment residue
were collected from each truck and composited every five
truckloads, resulting in the generation of one composite sample
representing 30 cubic yards of treatment residue. Individual
grab samples also were collected, one from each truckload. It is
unclear whether composite and grab samples were collected
concurrently or separately (i.e., collection of composite samples
and then at a later date, collection of grab samples). The draft
sampling and analysis plan states that between August 1, 1990 and
September 12, 1990, the treatment residue was analyzed for the
TCLP extraction concentrations of cadmium, chromium, lead,
nickel, and zinc.
The draft sampling and analysis plan then states that
beginning on September 18, 1990 aliquots of treatment residue
were collected from each truckload and composited every ten
truckloads, resulting in the generation of one composite sample
representing 60 cubic yards. Individual grab samples also were
collected at a rate of one every five truckloads. Again, it is
unclear whether composite and grab samples were collected
concurrently or separately (i.e., collection of composite samples
and then at a later date, collection of grab samples). The draft
sampling and analysis plan states that starting October 4, 1990,
the list of analytes analyzed using the TCLP increased to nine
with the addition of arsenic, barium, mercury, and selenium. On
September 21, 1990, analyses were again modified to include TCLP
analyses for cyanide and volatile organics. (Due to the
chronological progression of your draft sampling and analysis
plan, we question whether the date should be October 21, 1990.)
Lastly, samples of the treatment residue also were analyzed for
total, amenable, and reactive cyanide. Unfortunately, we do not
know how many samples were analyzed for TCLP concentrations or
total concentrations, nor do we know the size of each aliquot or
grab sample. We also note that TCLP concentrations of silver do
not appear to have been completed. Lastly, the draft sampling
and analysis plan does not identify the volatile organic
constituents tested for using the TCLP.
Saaolina to be Imolemented
The draft sampling and analysis plan states that a 16—ounce
aliquot of treatment residue will be collected from every
truckload and an 80—ounce composite sample will be generated. As
we discussed in our conference call, please confirm that the 80—
ounce sample will be taken from a composite sample of all
truckloads generated daily. The plan goes on to state that the
80-ounce composite sample will be divided into three samples: 1)
32-ounce sample for analysis by primary laboratory; 2) 32—ounce
sample for archiving; and 3) 16-ounce sample for QA/QC check by
secondary laboratory. A minimum of four samples will be analyzed

• TCLP for the TC metals, nickel, and zinc;
• TCLP for the volatile organic compounds;
• TCLP for amenable cyanide;
• Characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and
• Total metals and volatile organic compounds;
• Cyanide (total, amenable, and reactive);
• Reactive sulfide;
• Total organic carbon (TOC); and
• Oil and grease.
Although it is stated that a minimum of four samples will be
analyzed, the draft sampling and analysis plan also states that
daily composite samples of the treatment residue will be
collected and analyzed for the TCLP analyses for the TC metals,
nickel, zinc, and cyanide. In addition, it states that one
composite sample of treatment residue will be analyzed for TCLP
analyses for the volatile organic constituents every five days,
or as deemed necessary following screening of soil and sludge
with a photoionization detector (PID). As a result, we are
unclear as to the total number of samples of the treatment
residue to be collected and analyzed.
As we discussed in our recent conference call, we believe
that the above sampling and analysis procedures are inadequate.
Specifically, we believe that the proposed list of analytes is
insufficient. Based on the information provided in your plan and
our telephone call, we recommend that the following analyses
should be performed:
• Total oil and grease content.
• TCLP extractions for all of the TC metals, nickel, and
cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide
extraction). However, in the unlikely event that the
treatment residue exhibits a total oil and grease
content in excess of one percent, the TCLP must be
replaced with the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure
(OWEP). See SW-846 method number 1330. Lastly, the
draft sampling and analysis plan does not specify if
the TCLP analyses will be performed on the cured or
uncured CSEAFD. If your demonstration is based on
analyses of the fully-cured material, the exclusion (if
granted) would only apply to the fully—cured material.
If you wish the demonstration to be for the uncured
material, the TCLP analyses must be performed on the
uncured material.
• TCLP extractions for all of the 40 CPR S261, Appendix
VIII constituents likely to be present in the waste (we
note that an analytical feasible subset, such as 40 CFR
264, A ipendix IX, may be used).

• Total concentrations of all the TC metals, nickel, and
all of the 40 CFR §261, Appendix VIII constituents
likely to be present in the waste (we note that an
analytical feasible subset, such as 40 CFR §264,
Appendix IX, may be used).
• Total concentrations of cyanide and sulfide. If the
total concentration of cyanide exceeds 250 mg/kg,
analyses for reactive cyanide must be performed; and if
the total concentration of sulfide exceeds 500 mg/kg,
analyses for reactive sulfide must be performed.
• Multiple Extraction Procedure EP) concentrations of
all the TC toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide (using
distilled water in the cyanide extraction) on
representative samples. The MEP analyses should be
modified by using the TCLP to generate the initial
extraction (see SW—846 Method 1320). However, in the
unlikely event that the treatment residue exhibits a
total oil and grease content in excess of one percent,
instead of using the TCLP, you must perform the initial
extraction using the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure
(OWEP). Furthermore, the samples of chemically
stabilized treatment residue must be ground and passed
through a lOOX mesh screen prior to the TCLP and MEP
analyses. Lastly, If you wish the demonstration to be
for the uncured material, the MEP analyses must be
performed on the uncured material.
• Characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and
We note that analyses for TCLP and total concentrations of zinc
and total concentrations of TOC are not necessary.
You must perform all of the above analyses on representative
samples of the stabilized waste. Based on the limited
information you provided to date, we suggest that you complete
the above analyses on a minimum of 8 representative composite
samples collected over the course of the stabilization process.
In addition, we recommend that you expand your routine analysis
of all daily composite samples to include the following:
• TOG; as noted above, if >1%, OWEP should be used to
measure leachable metals.
• TCLP analyses for all TC toxic metals, nickel, and
cyanide (using deionized water for cyanide).
TCLP analyses f or volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
likely to be in the waste.

The above recommendations assume you will be able to document
that the k.y analytes of concern are the metals, cyanide, and
selected organics (e.g., VOCs). Therefore, you must demonstrate
(through all available data on the site, the production processes
operating on the site, etc.) that the metals and selected VOCs
are the only constituents likely to be in the waste. Such
arguments would appear to be most persuasive for the absence of
certain classes of compounds (e.g., herbicides/pesticides,
dioxins, PCB5, etc.).
The draft sampling and analysis plan also states that
samples of the untreated soils, sludges, and soil/sludges will be
collected using the above sampling procedure, and analyzed using
the same set of analyses and parameters. The plan states that
this information will be used to assess the effectiveness of the
onsite treatment process. We agree that samples of the untreated
materials should be collected and analyzed to better characterize
the waste feed. We, however, believe that it is more important
to fully characterize the treatment residue. We, therefore,
suggest that only four representative samples of the soil/sludge
mixture be collected and that the analyses be limited to the
total concentrations of the TC metals, nickel, cyanide, and the
40 CFR §261, Appendix VIII constituents likely to be present in
the waste. You may prefer to perform more extensive testing of
the untreated wastes to support treatability studies.
Ground-Water Xomitoring Data
The draft sampling and analysis plan states that historical
analytical data including ground-water data will be used to
document the absence of Appendix VIII constituents. We do not
believe that ground-water monitoring data are sufficient to
document which constituents were not present in the waste.
Specifically, we are concerned that the wells may be improperly
installed or insufficient in number, the list of analytes
monitored may be incomplete and the concentrations and
solubijitieg of the materials potentially in the waste vary
widely. Therefore, the mere absence of a specific constituent in
ground-water is not sufficient basis to determine that it was
never in th. waste. A more suitable procedure for excluding
potential analytes, is to review the list of chemicals, products
and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all trade name
products used at the facility to determine if a specific chemical
was or was potentially present. As noted above, you also may
rule out the presence of specific classes of chemicals if these
chemicals were not used or generated at the site. We do request
that any ground—water monitoring data that may be collected from
wells installed to specifically monitor the storage cell be
submitted. Ba&ed on our recent conference call, however, such
data apparently are not available.

We note that a complete review of your draft sampling and
analysis plan was difficult du, to th. limited nature of the
information presented. Nonetheless, we believe that your draft
sampling and analysis plan, with the above modifications, is
adequate. We also believe that we have addressed to the fullest
extent your draft sampling and analysis plan; therefore, we are
closing your petition file (fD0828).
If you choose to submit a formal petition in the future,
your petition will be assigned a new petition number and reviewed
in chronological order along with all new petitions. We remind
you that your formal petition (if submitted) must contain all of
the information discussed in the “Petitions to Delist Hazardous
Wastes — A Guidance Manual,” U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
(EPA/530—SW—85-003), April 1985. Please forward any petition to
the following address:
Mr. James Kent
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mail Code: OS—333
Should you have any questions regarding today’s
correspondence, please call me at (202) 382—2224, or the
technical reviewer of your draft sampling and analysis plan,
Howard Finkel of IC? Incorporated, at (703) 934—3656.
Sincerely you,e,
Ro ert Kayser, thief
Delisting Section
cc: Linda Murphy, Region I
Andrew Miniuks, Region I
Janis Isang, Region I
Bob Scarberry, EPA HQ
Narendra Chaudhari, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
Howard Finkel, IC? Incorporated

DEC 2 I iggo
Mr. James D. Phillips
Director of Engineering Development
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
John F. Kennedy Space Center
Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899
Dear Mr. Phillips:
We have completed our review of your delisting petition
(#0823) which requests the exclusion of nitrogen tetroxide (N 2 0 4 )
rinsate generated from draining and rinsing operations associated
with N,0 4 propellant use at the Kennedy Space Center facility
located on Merritt Island, Florida. This waste is currently
classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. P078. Based on our
evaluation of the petition, we will recommend to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response that the
petition be denied.
Our decision to recommend denial of the petition is based on
the results of the corrosivity analyses for two of the four
samples collected on July 26, 1989. The pH of these two samples
was reported to be 2.0, which indicates that the petitioned waste
exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity. Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), liquid wastes which exhibit
a pH of less than or equal to 2.0 or greater than or equal to
12.5 are considered to exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity.
See 40 CFR §261.22. As statedin 40 CFR §260.22(e) (3), the
petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any
pf the characteristics defined in H261.21 through 261.24, which
include the characteristic of corrosivity.
Therefore, we conclude that the analytical data submitted as
part of your petition show that the waste exhibits the
characteristic of corrosivity. We believe that the waste should
be considered hazardous and subject to regulation under 40 CFR
Parts 260 through 268 and the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part
270. Accordingly, we will recommend to the Assistant
Administrator that a notice proposing to deny your petition be
published in the Register .
It is our practice to give petitioners the option of
withdrawing their petition to avoid a negative publication in the
Federal Register . If you prefer this option, yc’u must send us a
letter withdrawing the petition and acknowledging that the wastes
are considered hazardous and will be managed as such. If you
Prü s.d R.cyck4 Paper

send such a letter, it should be forwarded to this office within
two weeks of the date of receipt of today’s correspondence. If
you choose not to withdraw the petition, we will recommend that a
proposed denial decision be published in the gia .
Please forward any correspondence to the following address:
Mr. James Kent
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code OS-333
Please realize that you also have the option of resubmitting
a new petition, at a later date, if you can treat the waste such
that it no longer exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity.
Enclosure 1 to this letter outlines the deficiencies in the
information provided in your present petition that would need to
be addressed should you re-petition the Agency. We suggest that
you contact us if you do plan to submit a new petition so that we
can inform you of any revisions to the petition review process
that may be relevant to your petition effort.
If you have any questions regarding our findings, please
contact Narendra Chaudahari of my staff at (202) 382—4783.
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment
cc: Doug McCurry, Region IV
James Scarbrough, Region IV
Bob Scarberry, EPA EQ
Robert Kayser, EPA EQ
Narendra Chaudahari, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
Howard Finkel, ICF Incorporated

The following is a list of information that was either not
included or not sufficiently presented in the delisting petition
submitted in July, 1990.
(1) General description and schematic of all cleaning, treating,
decontamination, maintenance, handling and all other
processes associated with the application of nitrogen
tetroxide (N 2 0 4 ) (i.e., all procedures and activities prior
to, during, and following application of N 2 0 4 propellant):
Documentation of the use and location of use of
sampling equipment (e.g., containers, hoses),
mobile equipment (e.g., tankers, drums,
cylinders), transfer equipment, drums and other
containers, storage and transfer systems,
propellant components and hoses, and any other
equipment used; and
Documentation of any hazardous constituents
associated with surfaces treated with N 2 0 4 or with
equipment used in cleaning, treating,
decontaminating, and handling treated surfaces
that could potentially enter the rinsate waste
2) Specific description of the cleaning/passivation processes:
• Explanation of the types of products/surfaces that
undergo each of the cleaning/passivation
• Description and quantity of all substances and
materials used (provide Material Safety Data
Sheets for constituents considered hazardous by
the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration), including trichloroethylene
(listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 5261 as
hazardous) and substances described/identified in
the petition as “caustic”, “detergent”, and
“deoxidate”; and

Justification that undergoing the
cleaning/passivation processes precludes the
introduction of residual solvents or other
cleaning agents in the waste stream.
(3) Specific description of all types of surfaces on which N 2 0 4
is applied.
(4) Specific description of surface and equipment
preparation/decontamination processes fol lowing W 2 0 4
application, including draining, rinsing with water,
decontamination, validation, certification, maintenance, and
Description of the location(s) at which the
petitioned waste rinsate is generated; and
Explanation of method(s) of draining waste
rinsates from equipment and surfaces and
subsequent handling of the petitioned waste prior
to drum storage.
(5) Specific description of spillage collection system:
Explain type of system(s) (e.g., floor drainage);
• Discussion of potential for substances other than
the petitioned waste to enter the system,
including a list of these substances and
quantities entering the waste stream annually; and
• Explanation of the way in which the spillage
collection system operates in conjunction with
cleaning/passivation, N 2 0 4 application, and post-
application cleaning, decontamination, handling,
(6) Description of waste stream generation and management:
• Length of time that the petitioned waste has been
• Explanation of the difference between drum
accumulation and “bulk” accumulation;
• Explanation of the method and length and location
of bulk accumulation;
• Documentation of storage equipment used for drum
and bulk accumulation and method(s) of
transferring accumulated wastes to drum storage;

• Description of treatment method used on petitioned
waste generated in the past;
• Explanation of means of on—site storage of the
entire volume of the petitioned waste that was
generated in the past (if the waste rinsate has
been stored in surface impoundments or any other
type of land-based unit, you are required to
submit ground-water monitoring data); and
• Specify which of the waste management options will
be used if the petitioned waste is delisted.
(7) Description of waste sampling procedures followed:
• Description of strategy for sample collection
(i.e., frequency, duration, method of sampling,
number of drums sampled, location of waste
Justification of sampling frequency given facility
use of N 2 0 4 during launch schedules;
• Justification of claim that rinsate generated from
water and residual N 2 0 4 is uniform given that
different types of equipment are used to apply
N 2 0 4 propellant at different locations in the
facility (i.e., prove that the type of equipment
used in N 2 0 4 application and the location of use
do not cause the petitioned waste to vary
• Discussion of the potential for waste rinsates to
settle in temporary storage and final drum
storage; and
Documentation of chain-of-custody procedures.
(8) Description of waste testing procedures followed:
• In the absence of adequate procedures to test for
the presence of NO 2 in the petitioned waste, the
petitioner must provide a convincing demonstration
to account for the complete conversion of NO 2 to
other compounds upon contact with water;
• Justification that the petitioned waste does not
exhibit the characteristic of reactivity (pure
N 2 0 4 is known to react with various organic
substances, solvent residues, chlorocarbons,
alcohols, and other chemicals, resulting in
spontaneous ignition). You should provide

evidence that the petitioned N 2 0 4 rinsate is not
capable of reacting violently with any chemicals.
This argument can be based on the documented
absence of N 2 O and NO 2 , as required above.
Justification that the petitioned waste does not
exhibit the characteristic of ignitability (the
petitioner is required to show that the flash
point is not less than 60 degrees Celsius; in this
petition, it is stated that the testing laboratory
extinguished the flame at approximately 60 degrees
Celsius; the petitioner must specify exactly when
the flame was extinguished in order to determine
whether the testing method was in accordance with
test required as specified in 40 CFR §261.21); and
• Provide testing date(s) for all samples collected
on October 10, 1989.
(9) Description of quality assurance and control procedures
• Collection and testing of field, trip, equipment,
and laboratory blanks to ensure that contaminants
were not introduced during sample collection and
transportation (the petition states that seals
were not used on the samples because of adhesive
(10) Assuming you somehow treat the waste to ensure that the
waste does not exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity
(i.e., pH of 2.0 or less), you must analyze at least 4 more
representative samples for the total concentrations of all
the TC metals, nickel, cyanide, sulfide, and any
constituents in 40 CFR §261 Appendix VIII or 40 CFR §264
Appenidix IX likely to be present (see #2 above), and for
the characteristics of ignitability and corrosivity. You
must explicitly justify that the samples are fully
representative of any variation in constituent
concentrations over time.
(11) Description of the procedures used to collect and analyze
the newly collected samples. The petitioner is reminded
that the samples must be analyzed as soon as possible
following collection. Please provide resumes for any new
personnel involved in the collection or analysis of the

Mr. Johnny S. Udo
Safety/Environmental Engineer
Fuji Photo Film, Inc. -7 1991
P.O. Box 1306 ‘•• ‘ I
Greenwood, South Carolina 29648
Dear Mr. Udo:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that we have
completed our review of Fuji Photo Film, Inc.’s (Fuji) petition
(#0835). The petition is for dried wastevater treatment sludge
filter cake resulting from the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum generated at your Greenwood, South Carolina facility.
As indicated in your petition, Fuji believes that, this waste is
currently classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019.
Fuji stated in its petition that the Greenwood, South
Carolina facility manufactures pre—sensitized plates for the
lithographic industry. The surface preparation operation
includes the following processes:
• Etchina Process — an aqueous etching solution of
sulfuric acid and aluminum sulfate is used to etch the
aluminum surface and to remove any rolling oil from the
aluminum surface;
• Desmutina Process — an aqueous solution of sulfuric
acid and aluminum sulfate is used to remove surface
smut produced in the etching process;
• Grainina Process — nitric acid, aluminum nitrate, and
ammonium nitrate, and a system of ferrite and carbon
electrodes to electrochemically grain the aluminum
• Anodizinci Process — an aqueous solution of sulfuric
acid and aluminum sulfate, and a system of aluminum
electrodes to,electrochemically anodize the aluminum
surface: and,
• Silicate Process — sodium silicate is used to form a
hydrophilic layer on the aluminum surface.
The spent aqueous solutions and other materials, along with rinse
waters and wastewater from three fume scrubbers (sulfuric acid,
nitric acid, and scdium hydroxide) generated from the above

processes are neutralized on—site. The neutralized wastewaters
then are clarified, and dewatered using a filter press and a
sludge dryer. The resulting material is the subject of Fuji’s
delisting petition. We note that wastes generated from the
subsequent surface coating operation (utilizing organic solvents)
do not enter the petitioned wastestream.
Wastewater treatment sludges generated from (1) sulfuric
acid anodizing of aluminum, and (2) chemical etching and milling
of aluminum are specifically exempt from the EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F006. Although wastewater treatment sludges generated from
the chemical conversion coating of aluminum are listed as EPA
Hazardous Waste No. P019, none of Fuji’s processes (including its
silicate process) utilize any chromate compounds or involve an
oxide—conversion, phosphate-conversion, or chromate—convers ion
coating process. Therefore, we are not convinced that Fuji’s
surface preparation processes (including its silicate process)
fall within the scope of the chemical conversion coating
processes regulated by the EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019 listing
(see UBackground Document, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, Subtitle C — Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste,”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,
November 14, 1980). We suggest you contact South Carolina’s
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management to confirm whether
or not the waste you generate is Hazardous Waste No. F019.
Based on our review of Fuji’s manufacturing processes, we do
not believe that the petitioned waste is a listed hazardous
waste, and therefore, have closed the petition file. However, we
note that in accordance with 40 CFR §262.11, Fuji still is
required to determine whether this waste exhibits any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste in 40 CFR § 261.21 to
261.24 ( e.g. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or TC
If you have any questions regarding the closing of your
petition file, please call Narendra Chaudhari, of my staff at
(202) 382—4787.
Sincerely yours,
Robert Kayser, Chief
Delisting Section
cc: Doug McCurry, Region IV
7ames Scarbrough, Region IV
Narendra Chaudhari, EP2 HQ
7im Kent, EPA HQ
Howard Finkel, ICF Incorporated

Mr. Lloyd Williams
Plant Engineer April 26, 1991
Davis Pipe and Metal Fabricators, Inc.
Birch Street
Blountville, Tennessee 37617
Dear Mr. Williams:
I am writing in regards to your delisting petition (#0758),
which requests the exclusion of the liquid phase obtained from
the lime neutralization of spent pickle liquor and associated
rinse waters generated at Davis Pipe and Metal Fabricators,
Inc.’s (Davis Pipe) Blountville, Tennessee plant. This waste is
currently classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062.
On February 26, 1991, I was contacted by Davis Pipe’s
attorney, Ms. Gladys Smith of Caldwell, Heggie & Helton. Ms.
Smith requested that we postpone any decision regarding your
petition until after Davis Pipe had collected and analyzed weekly
samples generated over a six- to eight-month period. In light of
our concerns regarding the apparent variability in both the total
concentrations of chromium and nickel and the volume of waste
generated annually, we agree that it would be useful for Davis
Pipe to collect additional . WÔ also believe that
representative weekly samples collected over the course of six to
eight months (roughly 26 to 35 weekly samples) will allow us to
characterize completely any variations in total concentrations of
chromium and nickel. Therefore, we have decided to give Davis
Pipe an additional six months to fully respond to our previous
request for analytical data representative of the petitioned
During this six-month period, we expect Davis Pipe to
gollect samples of the waste on an as—generated basis and to
produce weekly composite samples representative of all the waste
generated during that particular week. Each weekly composite
sample should be analyzed for pH and the total concentrations of
all the Toxicity Charac eristic (TC) metals, nickel, and cyanide.
Davis Pipe also should:
Demonstrate that the waste does not contain any of the
TC organics by analyzing a minimum of four weekly
composite samples for the total concentrations of all
the TC organics. See 40 CFR §261.24 for a list of the
organic analytes. Note that delisting levels may be
somewhat lower than TC levels. Therefore, we require

detection levels to be well below TC levels. (We
suggest that your laboratory reach the PQLS for a water
matrix as defined in SW—846.)
• Record the volume of vastewater generated and update
(finalize) its estimate of the maximum annual
generation rate. Note that, if delisting is granted,
the waste volume excluded will be specified in the
regulatory language.
• Provide a detailed description of the sampling strategy
and explain why you believe the collected samples
adequately capture the waste stream’s variability.
• Provide the professional qualifications ( e.g. , a brief
resume) for all new personnel (if any) involved in the
planning and execution of the sampling and analysis
Document the analytical methods and equipment used, the
sample collection and analyses dates, and the sample
• Provide analysis with appropriate detection limits, and
include all of the quality control (QC) information
associated with the analytical procedures conducted.
This should include information on method blanks,
matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, and standard
additions curves. Information on appropriate QC
procedures can be found in Chapter One of SW-846 (third
edition). Quantification limits (PQL5) for an aqueous
matrix are given in the appropriate chapter for the
individual method.
• Provide schematic diagrams documenting any changes made
to the wastewater treatment system, treated wastewater
storage system, and waste management practices, and
fully discuss such changes.
In order for us to complete our evaluation of your petition
in a timely manner, you must fully respond to this request for
additional information within six months of the date of receipt
of today’s correspondence. If we do not receive a complete
response from you within six months, in accordance with EPA
policy, we will dismiss your petition from the petition review
process (see 53 6822, March 3, 1988). In that case, we will
notify you of dismissal by letter.
Please note that it is to your advantage to submit the
requested information before the six months expire, so that any
remaining deficiencies identified by the Agency subsequent to
your submittal can be remedied within the six month time frame.

If you do not believe that you can fully respond within six
months, you may wish to withdraw your petition now and submit a
complete new petition later at your convenience. If you prefer
this option, you must send a letter to EPA withdrawing your
petition and indicating that the petitioned waste is considered
hazardous and will be managed as such. This letter should be
forwarded to:
Jim Kent
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Mail Code OS—333
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Should you have any questions regarding the information
requested in this correspondence, please contact either Narendra
Chaudhari, of my staff at (202) 382-4787, or Howard Finke]., of
ICF Incorporated, at (703) 934—3656.
Robert Kayser, Chief
Delisting Section
cc: Doug Mccurry, Region IV
James Scarbrough, Region IV
Narendra Chaudhari, EPA HQ
Jim Kent, EPA HQ
Howard Finkel, ICF Incorporated
Gladys F. Smith, Caldwell, Heggie & Helton

Mr. Ramon Marrero, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
P. 0. Box 628
Barceloneta, PR 00617
Dear Mr. Marrero:
This letter concerns delisting petition No. 0801 submitted
by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the exclusion of ash
generated from the incineration of F002, F003, and F005 process
wastes at its Barceloneta, Puerto Rico facility. Six months have
passed since our November 20, 1990 letter requesting additional
information was sent out to you, and we have not yet received the
information requested in that letter.
On May 7, 1991, we met with you and your contractor (ERM) to
discuss the deficiencies in your petition and the information
required for a complete petition. At this meeting you indicated
that, in the future, Pfizer plans to incinerate several new non-
liquid waste streams, as well as the liquid wastes currently
incinerated. Furthermore, you raised the prospect of upgrading
the incinerator in order to burn the new wastes. We discussed
several options for gathering sufficient data to support a
delisting. Moreover, you and your contractor suggested that you
needed to consider the options further before deciding whether to
pursue the existing petition, or withdraw and resubmit a new
petition in the future. As a result of this meeting, as well as
several follow—up telephone conversations with ERM and other
Pfizer representatives, we expected Pfizer to either withdraw its
petition, or attempt to provide sufficient information to support
the existing petition. However, we have received neither a
withdrawal, nor any further information.
As indicated in our November 20 letter, the Agency published
in the Federal Reaister its policy to dismiss petitions that are
either seriously deficient upon receipt or still incomplete six
months after an Agency request for additional information (53 R
6822; March 3, 1988). This policy was developed to facilitate
processing of complete petitions by avoiding burdensome,
iterative requests for needed information. In accordance with
this policy, I am writing to inform you that we have dismissed
Printed on Recycled Paper

your petition from the delisting petition review process since
you have not responded to our information request within the
specified six months. The effect of this dismissal is to close
your petition file (No. 0801). Please note that your petitioned
waste is considered hazardous and must be still managed as such.
If you choose to submit a new petition in the future, you
should provide the information outlined in our November 20, 1990
information request letter. Any new petition would be assigned a
new petition number and reviewed in chronological order along
with all new petitions. Please forward any new submittal to the
following address:
Mr. Jim Kent
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste (Mail code OS—333)
403 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
If you have further questions regarding the dismissal of
your petition or require any information on hazardous waste
delisting, please feel free to contact Chichang Chen of my staff
at (202)382—7392.
David Bussard, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
cc: Ed Abrams, EPA HQ
Bob Kayser, EPA EQ
Jim Kent, EPA EQ
John Gorman, EPA Region II
Andy Bellina, EPA Region II
Henry Huppert, SAIC
Sarah Bennett, SAIC
Basilis Stephanatos, ERM

October 12, 1994
Ms. Stephanie C. Akers
Quality Assurance Assistant
Analytical Technologies, Inc.
11 East Olive Road
Pensacola, Florida 32514
Dear Ms. Akers:
I am writing in response to your letter of September 29, 1994,
inquiring as to whether or not your laboratory must use the “SW-846
‘A’ organic methods which were recently promulgated”. The Office
of Solid Waste believes that the Federal Register Notice of August
31, 1993, which promulgated Update I (58 PR 46040), is very clear
in stating that “Any reliable analytical method may be used” to
meet the requirements of RCRA 40 CFR parts 260 through 270 which do
not requir,e the use of a specific method for a particular
application, or the use of appropriate SW-846 methods in general.
In addition, the Disclaimer and Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of Chapter
Two of SW-846 allow for flexibility in using methods already
included in SW-846.
However, as a chemist, I do not understand why your laboratory
would not wish to use the most current methods available. If you
have any additional questions, please call me at 202-260-4761.
Barry Lesnik, Chemist
OSW-Methods Section (5304)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

AnalyficolTeChflOlOgies,Inc 11 East Olive i?oad Pensacola Rondo 32514 (9C4) 74-1OO1
September 29, 1994
Mr. Barry Lesnik, Chemist
Methods Section (OS-331)
RCRA Organic Methods Program Manager
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Lesnik:
I have a question regarding the SW-846 “A” organic methods which were recently promulgated.
Do we, as a laboratory, have a choice as to whether or not we use the new methods, or may we
continue to use the original methods?
Please respond in writing so I may have documentation of your reply.
Thank you for your time.
(2&/ L
Stephanie C. Akers
Quality Assurance Assistant
cc: K. S. Hered - QA Manager
0. Taffe - QA Assistant
wpdocs qa swS46\swS46a Ict ’ sca

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOV I 5 i9g
iances from Classification as a Solid Waste under 40
260.31( ) o pent Catalysts
of Solid Waste (5301)
A11 i M. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6ff)
U.S. EPA Region VI
This memorandum responds to your September 1, 1994 letter
requesting my office to evaluate the appropriateness of a
variance from the definition of solid waste granted by the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). TNRCC granted
the variance pursuant to a provision in the Texas Administrative
Code which closely tracks a variance provision in the federal
regulations (40 CFR 260.31(b)).
Following is a general discussion of how we believe the
federal regulation was intended to be interpreted. Because I
have not reviewed all of the information that TNRCC evaluated,
including possible case-specific considerations, this memorandum
is intended as general guidance on the variance criteria, rather
than a specific opinion about the Texas decision.
This variance applies to secondary materials that are
reclaimed and then reused within the original primary production
process in which they were generated. EPA promulgated the
variance on January 4, 1985 (50 FR 662) to address those
situations that are very similar to “closed—loop” recycling but
are not excluded under 40 CFR 261.2(e) (1) because the secondary
materials are reclaimed before they are reused in the production
As the preamble to this rule states, the Regional
Administrator (or the authorized state) is to decide whether the
reclamation operation is an essential part of the primary
production process. The preamble then discusses the criteria
which bear on that decision (50 FR 654—5). If a variance is
granted, the facility receiving the variance is not subject to
any RCRA requirements, including those for incinerators.
Q j’ Recycled/Recyclable
<9 PrInted with Soy/Canals ink en paper that
MaIfl$ 5 1 1* 1St 50% ecyclad fIber

The preamble also states that there are some conditions an
applicant must meet before he is eligible for the variance (50 FR
654). First, the material must be returned as feedstock to the
original primary production process. In addition, the material
must be “reused” when returned to the original process, meaning
that the material must contribute directly to the production
process as an ingredient, reactant, or an alternative feedstock.
While a catalyst is not used in a production process as an
ingredient or reactant, it is generally considered to contribute
directly to the production process by facilitating chemical
reactions. Therefore, we would consider the reuse of a reclaimed
spent catalyst to be “reuse” for the purposes of this variance,
assuming the catalyst is actually reused in the original primary
production process (rather than an ancillary process) for its
original purpose.
Another condition of eligibility is that the reclamation and
reuse must be conducted by the same “person” as defined in 40 CFR
260.10, i.e., a single corporation or other legal entity (50 FR
655). If the spent catalyst is reclaimed by a legal entity other
than the generator (e.g., a third-party recycler), it would not
meet this condition.
In addition to the conditions for eligibility, the preamble
to the January 4, 1985 rule also discusses criteria which the
Regional Administrator (or the State) can consider and weigh as
appropriate. These criteria are not discussed at length, but I
will briefly state what we believe are some factors which should
generally be weighed and which seem especially relevant to spent
catalyst regeneration.
One consideration is the extent to which the material is
handled before reclamation to minimize loss (see 40 CFR
260.31(b)(3)). Inmost cases, this would include an examination
of how the material is handled at the generating facility as well
as the reclaiming facility. Another consideration is the time
period between generating the material and reclaiming it, and
between reclaiming it and returning it to the original process
(see 40 CFR 260.31(b)(4)). This consideration would include an
evaluation of the time elapsed between generating the material
and transporting it to the reclaimer, as well as the time elapsed
between receipt of the regenerated material by the generator and
its actual reuse in the original production process.
Another factor which should be examined is the location of
the reclamation process in relation to the production process
(see 40 CFR 260.31(b)(5)). Although the reclaiming facility does
not have to be located at the same site as the generating
facility, it should be in reasonably close proximity. I realize
that this factor is necessarily subject to subjective
interpretation, but a distance of halfway across the United

States would normally mitigate against the regeneration being
considered a form of closed—loop recycling.
You should note that the preamble states that “the Regional
Administrator can rely on any or all of these criteria, and can
weigh them as he deems appropriate” (50 PR 654). Because the
criteria include “other relevant factors” (40 CFR 260.31(b) (8)),
TNRCC is accorded much flexibility in granting such variances.
However, insofar as TNRCC based its decision on the criteria
promulgated by the Agency, this memorandum should provide
guidance on how EPA intended these criteria to be evaluated.
I hope that the considerations discussed above will prove
useful in evaluating applications for variances under the State
counterparts of 40 CFR 260.31(b). If you have further questions
on this issue, please call Mitch Kidwell of my staff at (202)

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

November 1994
2. Delistlng Petitions for Hazardous
Wastes From The Petroleum
A petrolewn refinery is submitting a
delisting petition to EPA for its listed refinery
hazardous waste. Does EPA provide a list of
constituents typically found in petroleum
refinery wastes that should be used in
developing such a delisring petition?
The EPA publication, Petitions To Delist
Hazardous Wastes: A Guidance Manual
(EPA/530-R-93-007, March 1993) contains a
list of constituents of concern for hazardous
wastes from the petroleum industry (Exhibit
6-3). This list (referred to as the delisting
“petroleum List”) identifies the specific
hazardous constituents of concern that
typically may be found in petroleum wastes.
As delisung is “generator-specific”, individual
petitioners should also investigate if other
hazardous constituents arc present in their
particular wastes. The guidance manual
provides details about developing an
analytical plan.
EPA initially provided such a petroleum
list in the first edition (1985) of the delisting
guidance manual. This list was based on the
“Skinner List” developed by OSW in 1984 (or
land treatment associated with petroleum
refinery wastes. The 1985 version of the
deisting petroleum list has since been
modified based on new data from various
sources. The current petroleum list in the
1993 dcisting manual provides the most
recent federal guidance for submitting a
deisting petition. States that are authorized
for delisting implement the RCRA delisting
program in lieu of the Federal program,
therefore, petitioners in these states may have
additional requirements. Furthermore,
facilities should consult with other appropriate
EPA and/or state regulating authorities to
determine if this list should be used mother
aspects of the RCRA program, such as RCRA

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

9434 OTHER
Part 260
AT. Kearney 1/3590/1 cr

Mr. Joseph E. Cothern
Envirorunental Protection Specialist
Department of the Air Force
HQ Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center (AFLC)
Newark Air Force Station, Ohio 43057-5000
Dear Mr. Cothern:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 2,
1989, in which you requested an assessment and characterization
of beryllium wastes generated at Newark Air Force Station.
In follow-up conversations with you on February 10, 1989 and
February 13, 1989 to obtain more information related to the
process involved, you indicated that the beryllium is generated
in the form of a very fine dust. In order to meet the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) worker
protection standards and the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), the airborne dust is
collected by vacuum hoods and directed through a two stage
filtration system. As I understand the vacuum—filtration
process, the system consists of the following components:
vacuum hood
10-foot tube
air trap
cyclone hopper (with a bag filter located on top of hopper)
collection container
vacuum unit (with three filters inside)
The dust-laden air initially enters the vacuum hood located
on the ceiling of the grinding/polishing room and travels up the
10—foot tube. It then enters an air trap in which heavier
particUlate matter is collected. The lighter air-suspended
particleE are then channeled into a cyclone hopper. A bag filter
is situated at the top of the hopper. This is the first

filtrati stage. The vacuum unit, which provides suction for
the entire system, is attached to the outside of the hopper. The
vacuum unit houses the final filtration element, which consists
of three filters. This second filtration stage traps the
remaining dust in the air before it is discharged into the
ambient air.
The collection container is detached from the hopper and
vacuum unit when it is filled to capacity with dust, two percent
of which is beryllium. It is then replaced with a new container.
The subsequent management practice is to stabilize/solidify the
dust in cement prior to disposal. The container filled with
concrete (stabilized dust) is then sent off site to a disposal
The final filtration element, on the other hand, has never
been replaced since the start-up of the operation. As I
understand the current operating procedures, the final filtration
element will eventually be discarded when gross dust
contamination renders it useless.
The materials that you wish to characterize are the final
filtration element, the beryllium dust, and the dust collection
container. To identify the materials as hazardous waste under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act , they
must first be classified as solid wastes under 40 CFR Section
261.2. Based on information you provided over the phone, the
final filtration element, the solidified dust (concrete), and the
container holding the concrete are abandoned by land disposal
and, therefore, meet the definition of solid waste (40 CFR
Section 261.2(b)(l)].
Based on the additional information you provided over the
phone about the subassembly grinding/polishing and air filtration
process, I have concluded that the dust is not a commercial
chemical product (i.e., P015) and is not any other listed
hazardous waste identified in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D. The
solidified dust, the container holding the solidified dust, and
the firta filtration element contaminated with dust also are not
RCRA ii hazardous wastes. If the dust does not exhibit a
hazardo waste characteristic (prior to solidification) as
defined in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, the dust is not a
hazardous waste and is not regulated under RCRA Subtitle C.
Also, if the filter element contaminated with the dust does not
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic once rendered useless,
it is not regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA.

Identification And Listing Of
Hazardous_Waste (Part 261)


9441 - GENERAL
Part 261 Subpart A
ATK1/1 104/16 kp

944 . 1980 ( O2.
.. i, ..
F)r. WilLiar Connors
Public Intervenor 0Cfice
iii F:. State Capitol
iadison, tli.sconsin 3702
Dear Dr. Connors:
This i.s in response to your telephone conversation of
1ay 30 with Susan Absher of the It’7 . Office of Solid Waste.
You asked about EPP ’s interpretation of the agricultural
waste exclusion of 40 CFR Part 257.
The agricultural waste exclusion in Part 257.1 (c)(l)
“The criteria do not apply to agricultural wastes,
including r anures and crop residues, returned to
the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners.°
This exclusi on stems from thr House Report (H.R. Rep.
No. 4—l4 )1 , 94th Conc’.. 2nd session (1976) thich states
th it “aciricultural wa tes which are returned to the soil, as
fcrtilizc s or soil c.onditionerz...” (are not teant to be
covered :y the pr jr rn). The relevant page of the report
is 1 cttached.
You specifically asked whether PA intended food
processing wastes which are land spread to ca ine under the
e.gri.cultural waste exclusion. EPA intended the exclusion
to apply mainly to manures and crop residues used to enhance
the quality of the lan’i. In general 1 CPJ considers food
processing waste to be commercial or industrial waste and
not to come under the agricultural waste exclusion. ‘.Where
large quantities of food processing wastes are land spread,
this procedure can have adverse envirozm ental effects.
(WFt-.563 ) Susan/kw/x59145/2624/8—14—RO

441.1980 (03)
f)FFLC . CF Ci.l .A rz
4 1980
:-‘r. tan1ey L. Z ick r
Union iI Conpany of California
l. nion Oil Canter, box 7600
Los Angeles, California 90051
Dear Mr. Zwicker:
This to in res ’onse to your 11 tt(’r of August 18, 1980,
in which you cug:cst that certat:i lAstis fran drilling op—
er.itions (other than irOn oil, Dqt’1T31 gas, or geothernal
energy exploration) should be excluded fran control as
hR:ardous wastes. Also, you indicated you did not feel it
necessary to file a notification of hazardous waste
act ivity.
ihe cpecific exclusions Cittid in 261.4(b)(5) of the
rcjulaLion3 (45 1’!’ 3L20, May 15, 1 RC) were included since
t c Con:.rvns os incLuded such l ttic u*te in i s pending bills
(soc the di3cussLon In the preanbie, 1i . FR 33089). This
exclusion applies only to oil, n ittsral as or teothernal
exploration. Thus, siiiilar wast!e reaniting fran other
operations are not specifically nxclud’ d; to the extent
these other wastcs czhibLt any of tile characteristics of
hazardous waste they ars include” in th. regulatory progran.
Section 261.11 defines a generator’s responsibility to
1et tr L e whether his waste is h zardo ss. This section does
not c rirgate testing and does allow tile generator to nake the
cIeLi r tr attOQ based on knowledge of Lito oatsrials and
rroceRses iuvol ved. £our decisicu to ‘lot notify is appropri-
ate if adc for this reason, rat’ er tii n the analogy to
eitur y exploration castes.
If you have any ,uestions iIeace call Alan Corson of sy
staff. s nay b. reacted at (207) 755—9187.
Sincerely your?,
John P. Lr’.Iinsn
D ire c tit
ezardo ’ “d Industrial ant.. “‘vL.ion (Wlt—565)

9441. 1980(04)
flOY 1 7 1980
Mr. Willia S. Stcwe
Boston Edisøn Conpany
000 oyLeston Str.et
noeton, Massacnus.tt. 02199
Dear ir. Stowe
This is in respons. to your letter of Septezber 5 , 1980, requestina
the ieeuarce of regulation. interpretation emorandg CR1 14.) an three
qucations you have about our RCUA hazardous waste management regulations
Although we may consider issuing RIM. or amendment, to our regulations
of these issues at sons point in the future, I do not wish to further
delay cur response to you. Therefore, I an providing answers to your
questions in this response;
First, you raise thã question about whether the mixture rule of
4261.3(a)(2)(jj) causes railroad ties to be hazardous wastes because
they contain creosote whiCh is listed in 4261.33(f) or causes insulating
ateria1s to be azardau. waste, ‘when and because they contain asbestos
which also is listed in 1261.33(t). The answer is no. Th, intent and
purpose of 261.33 is to list cc iercial chemical products end
manufacturing chemical int.rmadiate. as hazardous waste, when and only
when they are discarded ax intended to be discarded. Thus, we are
jnteresti!d in crecsat. and asbesto, in their c non cutercial form as
a:ardous wastes if discarded. If we should ever be interested in
listir.g railroad tics or insulation materials as hazardous wastes, when
discarded, becaus. of their content of creosote, asbestos or other
che ieala, we will specifically list them in 3261.33 or in a •isiilar
section. SimilarlI, if we should ever be interested in listing used
railroad ties or used insulation materials (insulation material removed
fron building.) a, hazardou, wastes because of their Content of
chemicals, we will list th in j261.31.
The mixture rule of 3261.3(e)(2)(jj) does apply in . limited way
to c26 1.33 chemicals. If these listed chemicals ar. discarded by being
mixed into a solid waste, then the r.sulting solid waits mixture beca es
a ha:ardaus waste. xsmpl.s are disiping excess acetone into a wastewater
sewer or dv.x pLng excess in4entory or expired—date inventory of pesticide
into a refuse bin.- In the.. cases, the caw ercja1 chemical bec es a
hazardous waste instantly when th. act of discarding takes place. s a
hazardous waste at that point, the mixtur. rule operates to cause the
riixturo to bec ne a hazardous waste. Incorpcratir.q creosate into
railroad ties or asbestos into insulation -aterials is not an 30t of
dj3e .:Jin these chemical., thus, these chemical, do not, at that point.
“ — ‘ r h . ..i.
a ..ee

Your second question is whether the c”all quantity generator
special requirement of §261.5 apply to each facility; a facility beina
z anufacturing plant or, possibly several manufacturing or other -
o erstions on the same or geographically continguous sit. (see definition
af on—site in §260. 10(a)). The tern ‘ peraon was erroniously used
in §263.5. The gency meant to use the term generator which by its
definition in §260.10(a) means any person, by site, . . . . we will
be correcting this error in a forthca ing sntendnent of 1261.5. The
terms “person as defined in §260.10(a) includes whole canparties and
this causes §261.5 to be applicable only on a c iparty—wi6e basis. Thus,
for example, a c npany that operates several plants, each of which
could qualify for th. small quantity generator special requirements
because each generate. slightly lass than 1000 kilograms of ha:ardous
waste each month, could not qualify, under a literal reading of the
provision as n written, because the ca parzy’. aggregate generated.
quantity of hazardous waste exceeds 1000 kilogra. s each month.
Finally, you ask whether the full regulations apply to intermittent.
or very snaIl quantities of hazardous waste generated by a facility that
citnnot qualify for the small generator special requirements because it
also generates one or more large quantities of hazardous waste. The full
regulations apply to these intermittent and very small quantities of
hazardous 5te as they do to all, other quantities of hazardous waste
9enerated by a 1arge quantity generator.
I hope I have clearly eiswered your questions and apologize for
the tardiness of this response——we have si p1y been overburdened wit),
questions requests for RIM. and other demands.
Sincerely yours.
Gary N. Dietrich
Pssociate Deputy kssietant Mrtinistrator
f or Solid Waste
boa: Fil nena w/inccminq
Regional A&EM Division Directors w/inca ing
3ack Lehman w/incaning
WH:GDietrich:brn:11113/B0:401 II

94 41. 1980 (05)
NOV 1 7 98O
Mr. WiL1i&’ A.. t4aClintic
Defense T ivision
runswick Corporation
150 Johnston Road
Marion, Virginia 24354
Dear Hr. McC1intie:
This is in response to your letter of Se te’ ber 25. 1980. asking
for clarifieat on of th. applicability of our ha:ardous waite management
regulations to very small quantities of hazardous wastes generated
by a generator who also generates a large quantity of hazardous waste.
-The small quantity generator special requirenents of 26L.5 of our
‘regul tions are only available to generators that generate an aggregate
rnount of hazardous wastes of less than 1000 ki1o remz per month at any
ne site or facility. If the aggreqate ar.iount of hazardous wastes
generated at a site or facility exceeds this monthly amount. then the
special requirements of 26l.5 do not apply to a of the hazardous
wastes generated at that site or facility. I am afraid, therefore.
that the very sr tal1 quantities of hazardous waste generated at your
arion facility are subject to the 0 full” recjulations because the single
large quantity of hazardouo waste disqualifies the facility for the
si ecia1 small quantity generator require.’ tents.
h ” this sue:2ci Atiy answers your questions.
Sincerely yours,
Gary 7. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Matinistrator
for Solid Ia.t.
boo: 7il rtena Chau w/inc ing
.__ n.., %

January 13, 1981
Mr. Paul Emler, Jr.
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Suite 700
1111 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Emler:
This is a response to your letter of October 10, 1980 to
Administrator Costle, regarding the recent Solid Waste Disposal
Act Amendments of 1980 and their relation to the electric utility
industry. In your letter and its accompanying document, you
discussed the specific amendments which address fossil fuel
combustion wastes, and suggested interpretive language which EPA
should adopt in carrying out the mandate of the amendments. You
requested a meeting with our staff to make us more fully aware of
the solid waste management practices of the electric utility
industry, and to discuss the effect of the amendments on the
utility solid waste study which EPA is currently conducting.
I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you, in your
capacity as chairman of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
(USWAG), on November 21 to discuss your concerns. I am taking
this occasion to share with you the most recent EPA thinking on
the exclusion from our hazardous waste management regulations of
waste generated by the combustion of fossil fuels, and to confirm
certain agreements which were reached during our meeting. The
language contained in this letter should provide you and your
constituents with an adequate interpretation of the fossil fuel
combustion waste exclusion in Section 261.4(b) (4) of our
regulations. This letter is also being circulated to appropriate
Agency personnel, such as our Regional Directors of Enforcement,
for their information and use. We intend to issue in the Federal
Register an official Regulations Interpretation Memorandum
reflecting the policies articulated in this letter.
In our May 19, 1980 hazardous waste management regulations,
we published an exclusion from Subtitle C regulation for those
fossil fuel combustion wastes which were the subject of then
pending Congressional amendments. The language of that exclusion
in §261.4(b) (4) of our May 19 regulations is identical to
pertinent language of Section 7 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-482) which was enacted on October 21,
1980 and which mandates that exclusion. Specifically, the
This document has been retyped from the original.

exclusion language of our regulations provides that the following
solid wastes are not hazardous wastes:
“Fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas
emission control waste generated primarily from the
combustion of coal or other fossil fuels.”
Residues from the Combustion of Fuel Mixtures
The first point which you raise in your letter and your
“Proposed RIM Language” is the interpretation of the term
“primarily” used in this exclusion language. EPA believes that
Congress intended the term “primarily” to mean that the fossil
fuel is the predominant fuel in the fuel mix, i.e., more than 50
percent of the fuel mix. (See Congressional Record, February 20,
1980, p. Hl103, remarks of Congressman Horton and p. H1l02,
remarks of Congressman Bevill.) Therefore, EPA is interpreting
the exclusion of §261.4(b) (4) to include fly ash, bottom ash,
boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes (hereinafter
referred to as “combustion wastes”.) that are generated by the
combustion of mixtures of fossil fuels and alternative fuels,
provided that fossil fuels make up at least 50 percent of the
fuel mix.
This interpretation begs the question of whether the
exclusion also extends to combustion wastes that result from the
burning of mixtures of fossil fuels and hazardous wastes. We
have limited data which indicates that spent solvents listed in
§261.31 of our regulations, certain distillation residues listed
in §261.32, waste oils that may be hazardous wastes by virtue of
characteristics or the mixture rule, and other hazardous wastes
are often burned as supplemental fuels——sometimes in
proportionally small amounts but sometimes in significant amounts
(comprising 10 percent or more of the fuel mix ratio)——
particularly in industrial boilers but sometimes in utility
boilers. EPA is concerned about the human health and
environmental effect of the burning of these hazardous wastes:
both the effect of emissions into the atmosphere and the effect
of combustion residuals that would be contained in the fly ash,
bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes.
We intend to address the first of these concerns in our
future development of special requirements applicable to
hazardous wastes that are beneficially used or legitimately
recycled. In §261.6 of our May 19, 1980 regulations, we
currently exempt from regulatory coverage hazardous wastes that
are beneficially used or legitimately recycled, except that,
where these wastes are listed as hazardous wastes or sludges,
their storage or transportation prior to use or recycle is
subject to our regulations. We clearly explained in the preamble
to Part 261 of our May 19 regulations that we fully intend to
This document has been retyped from the original.

eventually regulate the use and recycling of hazardous wastes
and, in doing so, would probably, in most cases, develop special
requirements that provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment without unwarranted discouragement of resource
conservation, Consequently, although the burning of hazardous
waste as a fuel (a beneficial use assuming that the waste has a
positive fuel value) is not now subject to our regulations
(except as note above) it may well be subject to our regulation
in the future.
Our second concern with combustion of fuel mixtures is the
one at focus in this interpretation. It must first be noted that
we do not intend for S261.6 to provide an exemption from
regulation for combustion wastes resulting from the burning of
hazardous wastes in combination with fossil fuels; it only
provides an exemption for the actual burning of hazardous wastes
for recovery of fuel value. Thus, if these combustion wastes are
exempted from our regulation, such exemption must be found
through interpretation of §261.4(b) (4). Secondly, we note that
although the pertinent language in Section 7 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 and the related legislative
history on this matter speak of allowing the burning of
alternative fuel without precisely defining or delineating the
types of alternative fuel, the only examples of alternative fuels
used in the legislative history are refuse derived fuels.
Therefore, a literal reading of the legislative history might
enable us to interpret the exclusion to include combustion wastes
resulting from the burning of fossil fuels and other fuels,
including hazardous wastes. However, since each of these
legislative comments was made in the context of refuse derived
fuels or other non—hazardous alternate fuels, we do not believe
the Congressional intent compels us to make such an
interpretation if we have reason to believe that such combustion
wastes are hazardous.
Presently, we have little data on whether or to what extent
combustion wastes are “contaminated” by the burning of fossil
fuel/hazardous waste mixtures. The data we do have (e.g.,
burning of waste oils) suggests that the hazardous waste could
contribute toxic heavy metal contaminants to such combustion
wastes. When coal is the primary fuel, the amount of resulting
contamination is probably in amounts that are not significantly
different than the metals that would be contributed by the fossil
fuel component of the fuel mixture. This may not be the case
with oil and gas, where huge volumes of waste are not available
to provide a dilution effect. We suspect that the other
hazardous constituents of the hazardous wastes that typically
would be burned as a fuel are either thermally destroyed or are
emitted in the flue gas (and therefore are part of our first
concern as discussed above). If these data and this presumption
are true, then combustion wastes resulting from the burning of
This document has been retyped from the original.

coal/hazardous waste mixtures should not be significantly
different in composition than combustion wastes generated by the
burning of coal alone. Because the Congress has seen fit to
exclude the latter wastes from Subtitle C, pending more study, we
feel compelled to provide the same exclusion to the former
Accordingly, we will interpret the exclusion of §261.4(b) (4)
to include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission
control wastes generated in the combustion of coal/hazardous
waste mixtures provided that coal makes up more than 50 percent
of the fuel mixture.
We offer this interpretation with great reluctance and with
the clear understanding it is subject to change, if and when data
indicate that combustion wastes are significantly contaminated by
the burning of hazardous wastes as fuel. We also offer this
interpretation with the understanding, as discussed at our
meeting of November 21, that the utility industry will work with
us over the next several months to improve our data on this
matter. We believe it is essential that we make a more informed
judgement and possible reconsideration of our interpretation of
the exclusion as soon as possible and before completion of our
longer-term study of utility waste which is proceeding.
Accordingly, we would like you to provide to us all available
data on the following questions by August 1, 1981:
1. What types of hazardous wastes are commonly burned as
fuels in utility boilers? In what quantity? In what
ratio to fossil fuels? How often? what is their BTU
2. Does the burning of these wastes contribute hazardous
constituents (see Appendix VIII of Part 261 of our
regulations) to any of the combustion wastes? If so,
what constituents, and in what amounts? How does the
composition of combustion wastes change when hazardous
wastes are burned?
Co—disposal and Co—treatment
The second issue raised in your letter was whether the
exclusion extends to wastes produced in conjunction with the
burning of fossil fuels which are co—disposed or co—treated with
fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control
wastes. As examples of such wastes, you specifically mention
boiler cleaning solutions, boiler blowdown, demineralizer
regenerant, pyrites, cooling tower blowdown, or any “wastes of
power plan origin whose co—treatment with fly ash, bottom ash,
slag and flue gas emission control sludges is regulated under
State—or—EPA—sanctioned management or treatment plans.”
This document has been retyped from the original.

The legislative history on this matter clearly indicates
that the Congress intended that these other wastes be exempted
from Subtitle C regulation provided that they are mixed with and
co—disposed or co—treated with the combustion wastes and further
provided that “there is no evidence of any substantial
environmental danger from these mixtures.” (See Congressional
Record, February 20, 1980, p. H 1102, remarks of Congressman
Bevill; also see remarks of Congressman Rahall, Congressional
Record, February 20, 1980, p. H1104.)
We have very little data on the composition, character and
quantity of these other associated wastes (those cited above),
but the data we do have suggest that they are generated in small
quantities relative to combustion wastes, at least when coal is
the fuel, and that they primarily contain the same heavy metal
contaminants as the combustion wastes, although they may have a
significantly different pH than the combustion wastes. These
limited data therefore suggest that, when these other wastes are
mixed with and co-disposed or co—treated with the much larger
quantities of combustion wastes, their composition and character
are “masked” by the composition and character of the combustion
wastes; that is, they do not significantly alter the hazardous
character, if any, of the combustion wastes.
Given this information base and given the absence of
definitive information indicating that these other wastes do pose
a “substantial danger” to human health or the environment, we
believe it is appropriate, in the light of Congressional intent,
to interpret the §261.4(b) (4) exclusion to include other wastes
that are generated in conjunction with the burning of fossil
fuels and mixed with and co-disposed or co-treated with fly ash,
bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes.
We offer this interpretation with some reluctance because it
is made in the absence of definitive information about the
hazardous properties of these other wastes or their mixtures with
combustion wastes. We therefore believe it is imperative that we
proceed to collect all available data on this matter within the
next several months and reconsider this interpretation when these
data are assessed. Toward that end and consistent with the
discussion at our meeting of November 21, we are asking that you
assist us in collecting these data. Specifically, we ask that
you collect arid submit by August 1, 1981, any available data on
the following questions:
1. What are the “other” wastes which are commonly mixed
with and co—disposed or co-treated with fly ash, bottom
ash, boiler slag or flue gas emission control wastes?
What are their physical (e.g., sludge or liquid) and
chemical properties? Are they hazardous wastes in
accordance with Part 261?
This document has been retyped from the original.

2. What are the co-disposal or co—treatment methods
3. How often are these wastes generated? In what
quantities are they generated? Are they commonly
treated in any way before being co-disposed?
4. Does the industry possess any data on the environmental
effects of co—disposing of these wastes? Groundwater
monitoring data? What are the results?
The interpretation on other associated wastes provided in
this letter is limited to wastes that are generated in
conjunction with the burning of fossil fuels. We do not intend
to exempt hazardous wastes that are generated by activities that
are not directly associated with fossil fuel combustion, steam
generation or water cooling processes. Thus, for example, the
§261.4(b) (4) exclusion does not cover pesticides or herbicide
wastes; spent solvents, waste oils or other wastes that might be
generated in construction or maintenance activities typically
carried out at utility and industrial plants; or any of the
commercial chemicals listed in §261.33 which are discarded or
intended to be discarded and therefore are hazardous wastes.
Further, the exclusion does not cover any of the hazardous wastes
listed in §S261.31 or 261.32 of our regulations. None of these
listed wastes were mentioned in your letter or our discussions.
The interpretation on other wastes is also limited to wastes
that traditionally have been and which actually are mixed with
and co—disposed or co-treated with combustion wastes. If any of
these other wastes (e.g., boiler cleaning solutions, boiler
blowdown, demineralizer regenerant, pyrites and cooling tower
blowdown) are segregated and disposed of or treated separately
from combustion wastes and they are hazardous wastes, they are
not covered by the exclusion. In the same vein, the exclusion
does not cover other wastes where there are no combustion wastes
(or relatively small amounts of combustion wastes) with which
they might be mixed and co-disposed or co—treated—-a situation
which might prevail where natural gas or oil is the principal
fossil fuel being used. Therefore, this interpretation of the
exclusion applies only where coal is the primary fuel. We feel
this is a legitimate interpretation of Congressional intent,
wherein the argument of little potential environmental hazard,
primarily due to the dilution factor, is clearly based upon co—
disposal or co—treatment with the huge volumes of wastes
generated during coal combustion.
EPA Utility Waste Study
The groups of questions raised above bring us to the subject
which you address concerning the study of utility waste
This document has been retyped from the original.

management which EPA is conducting. We agree that the study, as
currently being conducted, does not focus on the matters
discussed in this letter. We would, however, like to address
these matters and include them in our report to Congress, to the
extent possible. To accomplish this, we plan to meet in the very
near future with our contractor, Arthur D. Little, Inc., to
discuss what studies may need to be carried out in addition to
their currently planned activities under the contract. The
inputs of your organization could be quite useful in this effort.
It may be impossible, however, to modify our present study to
include a detailed investigation of all of the issues discussed
Notwithstanding, we would like to address the matters
discussed in this letter within a shorter time frame—-during the
next six months. Based on our meeting of November 21, it is my
understanding that the utility industry, working closely with
EPA, is willing to develop data on the questions put forth above.
We agreed that, as a first step, USWAG will prepare a study
outline designed to obtain these data. EPA staff and industry
representatives designated by your organization will then
mutually review the information needs. The data collection
effort will then follow. Finally, data and analyses will be
presented to EPA for review. This will enable us to reconsider
the interpretation provided in this letter and make any changes
deemed necessary. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would
designate a technical representative as USWAG’s contact person
for this coordinated data collection effort.
In the meantime, and pending completion of this effort, EPA
will interpret 40 CFR §261.4(b) (4) to mean that the following
solid wastes are not hazardous wastes:
(a) Fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission
control wastes resulting from (1) the combustion solely
of coal, oil, or natural gas, (2) the combustion of any
mixture of these fossil fuels, or (3) the combustion of
any mixture of coal and other fuels, up to a 50 percent
mixture of such other fuels.
(b) Wastes produced in conjunction with the combustion of
fossil fuels, which are necessarily associated with the
production of energy, and which traditionally have
been, and which actually are, mixed with and co—
disposed or co-treated with fly ash, bottom ash, boiler
slag, or flue gas emission control wastes from coal
This provision includes, but is not limited to the following
This document has been retyped from the original.

(1) boiler cleaning solutions,
(2) boiler blowdown,
(3) demineralizer regenerant,
(4) pyrites, and
(5) cooling tower blowdown.
I am hopeful that our future research activities together
will prove fruitful and that these issues can be rapidly
resolved. I have designated Ms. Penelope Hansen of my staff as
the EPA point of contact for this effort. You may reach her at
(202) 755—9206.
Sincerely yours,
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
This document has been retyped from the original.

9441. 1981(05)
April 14, 198].
Dr. James Wood
Resource Recycling
2003 Gallatin Rd.
Madison, TN
Dear Dr. Wood:
As you requested, I have enclosed an outline of the
necessary information to be included in petitions for exclusion
of hazardous waste treatment residues. I have also enclosed
copies of several petitions, previously submitted to the Agency,
which may provide guidance in preparing your petition. These
items, along with 45 CFR 33076 §260.22, indicate the areas of
concern which should be addressed in a petition for exclusion.
Tinder 45 CFR 33120 §261.3(c) (2), a treated hazardous waste
remains hazardous for the same constituents and/or
characteristics for which it was originally listed. Therefore,
petitions for “delisting” the residue from the treatment of
listed wastes must address the treated residue in terms of the
hazardous constituents and/or characteristics for which the
initial wastes were originally listed.
If you have any questions concerning these information
requirements please give me a call (703—755—9187).
Sincerely yours,
Myles E. Morse
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division
This document has been retyped from the original.

9441. 1981 (06)
r. George Boyd
Pennsy1vani Foundryrnens Asan.
;u te 512
Qnc P1y’ outh Meeting
Plywøuth Meeting, PA 19462
flear Georgez
Your understan in of the cperetioi’t of the r ixing rule
in 2t1.3(a) (2) (ii) s correct. If ‘ne izee a 1iste
: ou aste w t : a non—hoz i u waste the total wazte
utc tatic l1y becoes a :ardc s waste. For a mixture
t cease to be re 1 t C hazar us wa5te the qe erator
‘ ust putitLon the çcncy to delist t e rixture. For non—tistee’
:. zarous .astes t. e s t .i .. t2 .Ofl s ‘i ferent.
If a waste becocee a hazardous waste only because it
czhib tz one or rnore character2 .stlcs (i.e., It i not a
listed waste), then if such a waste is mixed with another
and the txture does not exhibit any of the characteristics
o a hazardous waste, the oixture auto:4atically ceases to be
a; bazardous waSte. Sucb an action does net requir. any
delisting action by CPA. -
I hope this note is sufficient for your needs.
David Frledl!%an
Waste Analysis Pregzaa
*&zazdeui slid Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
WH—565/DPriedman:na:x59187: 6/3/81 Disk NA- .C1-30

L uestio n: Benzene fra t a storage tank leaked thto the ou’ d water. This leaK
occurred before Noveuber 19, 1980. The grcundwater is na p.rçed
cut and eated th a surface ii txu &i t. Is the surface 1 tços d—
nt receivirç a hazardous waste?
Answer: If a material is a listed hazardous waste, you imist c sify
it as a hazardous waste even t} uh the leak occurred prior
to bvenber 19, 1980. Punping the water is an activity un r
261.2(b), so, 261.3(a)(2)(iv) applies. Therefore, the surface
impcur& nt is receiving U019, bensene. n a site is re-
act ivated, (cleaned—up, waste rum ued, etc.), the facility
nust c tp] y with the hazardous waste regulations. See the
Decanber 31, 1980, FR pre nb1e, p. 86969.
Source: att S aus and Steve SilverrDan ‘1 ‘t’tI .C I C )
Researth: karen Gale end Tony Baney

MAY 25.
SUB EC : Scope of Oil and Gas Waste Exemption
in Section 3001(b)(2)(A) Of RCaAi
lroa Sponge Process
PROM: Lisa K. Fri.dmari
Acting Associate General Counsel
Solid Waste & Emergency Response
Division (LE—1323)
TO: Richard J. Nolan
Regional Counsel
Region VIII
your March 2. l9 3, aemorandul to me, you asked
whether waste iron sponge generated during the sweetening
of natural gas is exempt fran th. requirements of the hazardous
waste regulatory program under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCPA), by virtue of the
exe npt on for oil and gas wastes in Section 300lCb)(2)(A).
Waste iron sPonge ii not within the Section 3OOl(b (2)(A}
exemption and, theref e, is subject to the hazardous waste
regulatory program.
I. Pactual Background
Waste iron sponge is a material which is produced during
a natural gas sweetening process (hydrog.n sulfide removal).
Its ori jin is best understood by reviewing the entire chain
of o eratione used to extract and refine natural gas for
transportation and sal..

Natural gas is extracted from the ground by bringing
reservoir fluids to the surface. The gas nsy be extracted
in association with oil or fron a reservoir yielding
predoninantly gas. In any case, the ga. generally is extracted
together with other gaseous or liquid sub tancss contained is
the ground. The combined extracted material Is passed through
a physical gas—liquid separator so that the gas can be
separated frc the unwanted liquid components or solids (!!q..
sand). (The separated liquids ar, typically return.d to-ibi
ground or discharged to impoundments.)
After physical extraction and separation, tb. gas is
generally processed or treated to isprove its transportability
and to achieve the quality required for commercial sale. If
the extracted and separated gas is ‘sour (i.e., It contains
hydrogen sulfide), it is refined (‘sweetened’) to separate
the hydrogen sulfide gases from the co s.rcially sold gas.
This operation La typically performed prier to long-distance
transportation to reduce pipeline corrosion. Th, sweetening
process often includes a sulfur recovery operation.
n addition to the sweetening and sulfur r.cqvery operations,
a natural gas processing plant often includes several ether
i tartufacturing operations. These include dehydration and
dewpoint control of the sweetened gas, condensation stabilization,
arid distillation (to separate various gases for commercial
Th. iron sponge process involves passing sour gas through
an absorption tower containing redwood chips coated with hydrated
ferric oxide (the ‘iron sponge’). The hydrogen •uUide-b.aring
gas reacts with th. hydrated ferric oxid. to produce ferric
sulfide arid residual water.
After three to four months, the iron sponge Is .pent’.
It is then floode with water, initiating a reaction which
produces hydrogen sulfide. The spent iron sponge is then
removed from the absorption tower and is placed on th. ground,
where, with the increased exposure to oxygen, it generates
beat. The heat dries the wood chip., which begin to smolder.
The smoldering continues until the spent iron sponge is
reduced to ashes. The ashes are then generally disposed of
in a landfilL. 1/
1/ You have not asked my opinion whether the spent irQn sponge
is a hazardous waste prior to completion of treatment. I
have assw ed for purposes of the question presented that it
is hazardous and would be subject to the hazardous waste
reçjuiations unless exe pt.d unc3er 5ection 3001(b)(2)(A) of
CflA. (Footnote Continued on t ext Page)

94 4 1. 198 3 (04)
I —.:
SUBJECT: Disposal of .itdated Ord)4 ance by Incineration
FROM: Steven 3. Levy
Permits Branch
State Programs and Resource Recovery Division (WH—563)
TO: Regional Branch Chiefs
Regions I — X
An issue has been raised about the status of so called popping
furnaces operated by the Department of Defense. These are furnaces
where DOD disposes of outdated ordinance by incineration, but then
recovers brass or lead from the residue. The question is asked
whether this constitutes legitimate recycling for purposes of
40 CFR 261.6.
In general, where DoD directly engages in this sort of activity
one can presume that the primary purpose is to dispose of outdated
ordinance, a hazardous waste. DoD is under an obligation to properly
and safely dispose of these reactive wastes. Recovery of metals
is normally incidental to the performance of that obligation.
Because the intent is to dispose of hazardous waste, 40 CPR 261.6
does not apply and the popping furnace must be permitted.
Of course, in some instances, th. operator of a popping furnace
can substantiate a claim for •xeuçtion under 40 CFR 261.6. The
clearest case would be where a reclaimer purchases outdated or
surplus ordinance as contaminated scrap metal from a DoD facility,
and derives substantial revenue from th. sale of the reclaimed
metal. It may even be possible that a DoD facility could substanti-
ate a claim for legitimate recycling. In the above cases 40 CFR
261.6 would apply and the facility would not require a RCRA permit
under the current regulations.
Finally, it must be recognized that the 4 April 1983, proposed
redefinition of solid whste (48 FR 14514), if promulgated, would
moot this issue. Under the redefinition popping furnaces, even
those used for reclaiming metals, would be required to obtain a
RCRA incineration permit.
Thirefore, unless a claim can be subst..ntiated, you should
go ahead and cal 4 in and process the Part B’s for these popp ng
,. ‘it :,’ /83sRChrismon Disk No. 1
Pin d:plss6/1/83

When is the residue of hazardot,S waste in a containe no longer _,
1. regulated?
If the waçte is listed in 261.33(e), the container or lnhçr
liner must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or
cleaned by another method which will achieve equivalent removal.
Alternatively, the Inner liner could be removed and disposed of
as a hazardous waste. In the latter case, the rinsate would
also be a hazardous waste.
If the waste Is a compressed gas, regardless of tne waste type,
the container Is empty when the pr essure in the container approaches
atmospheric pressure.
or all other wastes, a container is no longer regulated If the
container has been emptied by usual methods and less than one
Inch remains; or if the container Is less than or equal to 110
gallons and no more than three percent by weight of the total
capacity remains; or If the container Is greater than 110 gallons
and no more than 0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity remains.

OCT 211983.
Mr. M.C Vasuki
General Manager
D. laware Solid Waite Authority
P.O. TIox 455
Dover. Delaware 19903—0455
Dear Mr. Vasuki,
Thank you for your follow-up letter of September 30 r.questL
clarification of th. news iteli on leachats that appeared in the
American City County magazine. Also, please accept my apologies
for not responding to your letter of August 9 that was apparently
The statement that appeared in the July, 1983 issue of
American City and County magazine is correct. L.achate from a
municipal landfill is subject to the hazardous waste regulations
if it is found to be hazardous by any of the hazardous waste
criteria. These criteria include ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity. and toxicity. If the leachate is a hazardous waste
by any of these definition., the landfill becomes a hazardous
waste generator and the leachate is subject to all, the hazardous
waste regulations unless the landfill can qualify a. a small
quantity genera pr. At the present time, a hazardous waste
generator producing less than 1000 kg. per month is exempt frcm
most requirements of the hazardous waste regulations.
If the leachate is not found to be a hazardous waste, the
leachate can continue to be recycled back into the landfill.
However, if the l.achate is a hazardous waste and does not qualify
under the small quantity generator exclusion, the leachats
must be treated or disçviod of in a permitted hazardous waste
facility or, as you noted, discharged into a public sewer system.

I hops et this clarifies this issue for you. Once again
pl eas. accept my apologias for not responding sarlier.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Offic, of Solid aat.
cci Thomas P. Lichier
R qion II I Administrator
WH—565E:Kent Anderson:pj:S206:3824654WSM10/19/ 83

9441.1983 (10)
December 13, 1983
Mr. William R. Shocklee
Tn—Rinse, Inc.
P.O. Box 15150
St. Louis, Missouri 63110
Dear Mr. Shocklee:
Thank you very much for the information you forwarded on the
TRI—RINSE process. It does appear that if properly operated this
process is capable of meeting the requirements of the RCRA
regulations for those instances where triple rinsing is required.
However, you should check with the appropriate State or EPA
Regional office for any specific explication to assure that all
regulatory requirements are met. This is covered in our
definition of empty containers in 40 CFR 261.7.
The referenced regulation, in dealing with empty
containers, divides containers into two groups: those which
formerly contained acutely hazardous wastes, and all others. For
the latter group, there is no specific requirement for rinsing;
the regulation merely requires that the waste be removed in its
normal manner, whatever that is——pouring, pumping, aspirating--
and that no more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of residue
remain (in order for the container to be considered as “empty”).
However, for containers that formerly held acutely hazardous
wastes, triple rinsing (or its demonstrated equivalent) is
required (see 40 CFR 261.7(b)(3)). The regulation further states
that a suitable solvent, for the particular material, must be
usea. Your process and equipment appear to be capable of meeting
this requirement.
When we proposed and then issued this regulation, we
indicated that such emptying, or triple rinsing, did not
constitute treatment, and thus, a permit is not required. Since
the solvent might vary according to the former contents of the
containers, a priori approval of a specific solvent/process is
not possible. Your equipment, if the correct solvent is used,
would accomplish the triple rinsing. As stated in the
regulations, whatever residue remains in the “empty” container is
no longer considered to be a hazardous waste.
This interpretation applies in those States where the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is implementing the RCRA
This document has been retyped from the original.

program. As you know, RCRA is intended to be a State-operated
program; where the State has been granted the authority by EPA,
it is the State’s regulations that apply, in lieu of the Federal
program. Also, State rules may be more stringent than the
Federal rules. Therefore, you should check with each State
within which you expect to market your process to determine its
position with regard to triple rinsing and empty containers.
I hope this has been of some help. If you have further
questions please call me or Alan Corson, of my staff, at
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Office of Solid Waste
This document has been retyped from the original.

9441.19 84(01)
- b
. 4 iO RAN J fr i
SUBJECT: S0L15 from Missouri Dioxin Sites
FROM: John . Skinner, Director
.)ff ice of Solid Jaste
TO: David Waç oner, Director
\ir and Jasta Manaçement Division, Reç,ion Vu
e nave reviewed the results of the analytical rograrn or
soils from Missouri dioxin sites, in response to jour request
tor an i terpret tion as to wflether or not tnese soiLs are RC.
hazardous wastes.
The analyses indicate the presence of a number of toxic corn—
pounds in many of the soil samples taken from various sites.
However, the presence of these toxicants in the soi.l loes not
automatically make tne sci l a RCRA hazardous waste. The ori;in
of the toxicarits must be known in order to determine that they
are derived from a Listed nazardous waste(s). If the exact
origin of the toxicants is not knowyi, the soils cannot be con—
sicered RCRA hazar oua wastes unless they exhibit one or more of
the characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e.. ignitability, cor—
rosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure toxicity).
If there are any questions, please contact Matt Straus in
the Waste Identification Branch (PTS 382—4770).
DFagan:r1mf:l/5/84:disI Pagan 6

9441. 1984 (03)
February 16, 1984
Walter F. Biggins
Technical Director
Hazen Paper Company
Holyoke, MA 01041
Dear Mr. Biggins:
This letter is in response to your letter, dated November
23, 1983, to Mr. Alan Corson who has referred it to me for
response. In your letter, you indicate that the dirty wash—up
solvent ( i.e. , spent solvent) which you generate is placed in an
apparatus which completely removes all solvent from the residue
( i.e. , the resulting residue is in a dry state which contains
both pigment and various resin binders). The residue, you claim,
exhibits none of the hazardous waste characteristics ( i.e. ,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction produce (EP)
toxicity); therefore, you believe your waste is non—hazardous.
Misses Suskind and Gayle of the RCRA Hotline, you indicate, share
your opinion and believe the residue is non—hazardous.
However, based on my reading of the regulations, your waste
(that is, the residue from the reclamation operation) is
considered hazardous since this waste is derived from the
treatment of a hazardous waste. In particular, §261.3(c) (2)
indicates that any solid waste generated from the treatment ,
storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste, including any sludge,
spill residue, ash, emission control dust, or leachate (but not
including precipitation run—off) is a hazardous waste. In
addition, these wastes remain hazardous unless and until: (1) in
the case of any (non-listed) solid waste, it does not exhibit any
of the characteristics of hazardous waste ( i.e. , ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity),
or (2) in the case of a listed waste, or waste derived from a
listed waste, it has been excluded from regulation under §S260.20
and 260.22 (so—called delisting procedures). Since the residue
is derived from a listed hazardous waste——namely, F003, F004, and
F005-—the residue remains hazardous until your waste is
specifically excluded.
If you wish to handle this residue as a non—hazardous waste,
you should petition the Agency to exclude this waste from the
list of hazardous wastes. Procedures to follow are outlined in
40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Further detail is provided in the
enclosed information requirement sheet. In addition, the Agency
is considering modifying the delisting procedures (see enclosed
This document has been retyped from the original.

Federal Register notice). Should you have any further questions
regarding this determination, please feel free to give me a call,
my telephone number is (202) 382-4761.
Matthew A. Straus
Waste Identification Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.

9 4 4 1. 198 4 (03)
FE t6f9B4
‘I ’
Walter F. uigglns
TecPrntcal Director
Hazen Paper C npany
Holyoke, UA 01041
fear tr. i 3 jins:
This letter is in response to your letter, dated
Novo ber 23, 1983, to Hr. Alan Carson who has referred it
to no for response. In your letter, you indicate that the
dirty wash—up solvent ( i.e. , spent solvent) which you
generate is placed in art apparatus which c pleteLj re oves
all solvent troa the residue (i.e., the resuLting residue
is in a dry state which contains Doth pi oont and various
resin binders). The residue, you claim, eznibits none of
the hazarUous waste character2stics ( i.e. , i, nitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction )roduce (CP) toxicity);
therefore, you believe your waste is non—hazardous. Hisses
Suskind and Gaylaof the RCRA Hotline, you indicate, share
your opinion and believe the residue is non—hazardous.
However, based on my reading of the re ulatjens, your
waste (that is, the residue from the reclai ation operation)
is considered hazardous since this waste is derived from
the treatzrient of a hazardous waste. Zn particular,
S261.3(c)(2) indicates that any solid waste generated from
the treatment , storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste,
includir. j any slurlçe, spill residue, ash, emission control
dust, or loachate (but not tncludLnç precipitation run—off)
is a hazardous waste. Zn audition, tnose wastes regain
ha’zar ious unless and until: (1) in the case of any (non—
listed) solid waste, it coes not exhibit any of the
charactoristics o hazardous waste ( i.e. , i nitabilLti,
corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure ( P)
toxicity), or (2) in the case of a Listed waste, or waste
derived frori a Listed waste, it has been excluded troci
regulation under 55260.20 and 260.22 (so—called delistinj
procedures). Since the residue is derived from a Li3ted
hazardous waste——namely, V003, F 04. and P005——the residue
remains hazardous until your waste is specifically excluded.

If you wish to handle this residue as a non—hazardous waste,
you should petition the Agency to exclude this waste from the
list of hazardous waste. Procedures to follow are outlined in 40
CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Further detail is provided in the
enclosed information requirement sheet. In addition, the Agency
is considering modifying the delisting procedures (see enclosed
Federal Register notice). Should you have any further questions
regarding this determination, please feel free to give me a call;
my telephone number is (202) 382—4761.
Matthew A. Straus
Waste Identification Branch
This document has been retyped from the original.

Requirements for Interim Status for Military Facil:ies
The military clain open burriir can be used to train soldiers in detonation
techniques. Under 26l.6 a) • they do not feel they reed interim status
f the r open ning area. £s this leçitimate recyclirç?
This is not considered leçitimate recyclirç. The facility i Ist
have interim status. —
LP sour ,t aus

9441. 1984(05)
FEB I 9 ;g 4
nr. Robert E. Bleria
Ce; tj Director, Progras O .erat1ons
Departi nt of Pollution Control
and Ecoloçy
8U0l National Drive
P.O. oz 9583
Little Pock, Arkansas 72209
Dear Pir. Blansa
Your 1stter.dated Pebruary 15, 1904 asks whether the residue
froe the treata.nt of a listed haziirdous vast, is also a hazardous
t ’ y’ur letter, you correctly interpret 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)
and Cd) to ear that the scrubber brine and sludg, produced while
incinerating listed hazardous wastes ar. theiselves bazardcius
wastes unless delteted. Where, however, the incinerated waste is
hazardous only by virtue of th. characteristics identified IT t
Subpart C of 40 CPR 261, then the scrubber brine and sludge are not
hazardous wastes if they no longer •xhibtt any of these characteristics.
In your letter, yc u nention an applicant who une surface
inpoundnents to store scrubber sludge and brine produced while
Incinerating listed hazardous vaat.a. Based on our Interpretation
of 40 CPR 2 l.3(1)(2) and Cd). the applicant either aust atesept
to have his sludg. and brine d.listed or he Rust have his surface
itpoundnent permitted for hazareous wasts.
• If you need any additional .Lnformation or assiatanc., pi.as.
contact r. sandy Chria.on at (202) 382—4691. -
Peter Gut rrero
Special Assistant to the Director
Psr 1t.s and Stats Progress Division
cci f rucs P.ddle
Alan Corson

While tbe Agency certainly .ncourajes the recycling of
atert .iLs wherever posst’le, W are not aware of any facilities
that recycl, carbon—zinc batteries. cloT 40 we currently have any
posters or other materials that discuss th. recycling OT
roper disposal of household wastes. However, you ray viah
to contact the Indiana State Hoard of Hesith since that Agency
has reeponsihtlity for the Ptaz,irdous waste program in tnc t, na.
Their address is!
Land Pollution Control Division
Hoard of Health
1330 b st ‘4ichti an Street, Pm A—304
Indianapolis. Indiana 46206
(317) 631-0144
In 1ditton. several netional or anjzattons diss.minate
information on hazardous waste recycling programs. You
may wish to contact the Hazardous waste Project of Bnvironisntal
Action Foundation, t apont Circle uildtng, Wasnington, P.C.
I hope this information will ha of us. to you.
Sincerely yours.
John N. Skinner
Offics of Solid lrl$StS

94 41.1984 (06)
APR10 1984
:S;i VCO40f
Robert 3. !4e]Sofl
Associate ‘Director
National Paint and Coatiri js
Assoc tat ion
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, ‘l.W.
2 u 3
Dnar Mr. Jel o’
This letter responds to your inquiry of March 2Q, 1934,
regarding the regulatory status of mixtures of spent o1vent
listed in 40 CFR 261.31 (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F0O1—F005).
As you correctly stated in your letter, the solvent listir’)
pertains only to the technical grade or pure form of the solvent.
Thus, solvent mixtures are not regulated unless they exhibit one
or more of the characteristics of ha:ar ous waste. At this
time, however, we are in the process of revising the solvent
listinL3 to includ, these mixtures. We expect to propose an
a sendx ent by early next year. When this rule is pro!’ u1ated,
spent solvent mixtures will be regulated when treated, stored,
transported, or disposed of and when treated, stored, or
transported prior to use, reuse, recycle or reclamation.
Mowpver, pursuant to the new proposed definition of solid
waste, certain recycling/reclamation activites will be exempt
from regulation. As a practical matter, this means that
solvents (and solvent mixtures) that are reclaioed either
under certain batch tolling arrangements or on—site by the
generator for use as a suostitute for t1 o co’m ercial product
will be exempt from regulation. (See PR 14472-14512, April 4,
1983, for details.)
Should you have further questions or require additional
information, feel free to contact Jacqueline Sales, of my staff,
at (202) 382—4770.
Sincerely yours,
Eileen 5. C]aussen
Acting Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (WH—5 2R)

Miss Bonnie Stuckey
W.as.lman Park Nature Center
551 brth Roeke Road
Evansville, tH 47711
Dear Miss Stucksy
Thank you for your letter of narch 21, 1984, in which
you request information on the proper disposal of household
battsr tea.
Under the Resource Conservation, and Recovery ct (RCRM,
EPA is r.sponsLble for establishing regulations for controlling
the generation, transportation, storage, treatment, and
disposal of hazardous vast.. In passing RCRA, Congress
exençtsd household vast.. from control under the hazardous
waste regu latory program • Neither Congress nor the Agency
believes that requiring homeowners to id.ntify which of their
wastes may be hazardous and to comply with the significant
regulat tons other hazardous waste generators ast follow
would prove feasible either from an economics or enforcement
point of view.
As a result, household C and D c.ll batt.rt.s are •zsepted
from re ulatton under RCRA. Tb. Agency doss not blieve that
this poses a significant environmental pr )a. sic, most
household battsriss are of the carbon—zinc variety • Carbon—zinc
batteries, while disposed of by many households, contain only
very small quantities of hazardous constituents and are generally
dispersed throughout a landfill. It is the nickel-cadmium
and rcury batteries which are. hazardous. R vsr, sic.
nickel-cadmium batteries are considerably more .zp.nstw
than most household batteries and also are rechargeable, they
ar. seldom disposed of in significant quantities by homeowners.
Consequently, the Agency do.. not believe that thes. batteries
pose a serious environmental hazard. Mercury cells. while
of concern if. disposed of in larq. quantities (! .. by .a
manufacturer), generally ar. very small ( e.g. , he ring aid
and watch batteries) and thus contain only very small amounts
of mercury. These would also not be ezpsct .d to result in
locally large concentrations in the landfill since household
use of these batteries is small.

9441. 1984 (08)
May 3, 1984
Mr. Len Devaney
Plant Engineer
Pettibone Corporation
4700 West Division Street
Chicago, Illinois 60651
Dear Mr. Devaney:
In response to your letter of March 5, 1984 and as clarified
in our telephone conversation, it was determined that the
emission control dust that is generated from your electric arc
furnace is not considered a hazardous waste under the EPA
hazardous waste classification of K061 — Emission control
dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric
furnaces. This determination is based solely on the fact that
your facility is a foundry.
The November 14, 1980 background document for the
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste makes it clear that
the Agency did not intend to apply this listing to dusts/sludges
that are generated at foundries (see Enclosure). This
distinction was made in response to comments submitted by the
American Foundryinan’s Society (AFS) on the original interim final
listing K061 - Emission control dust/sludge from the electric
furnace production of steel. See 45 33124, May 19, 1980.
Although your facility’s emission control dust is not
classified as a K061 waste, it may still be considered hazardous
if it exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste
( i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity). It is incumbent upon you to determine
if your waste exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics; if your waste exhibits any of the
characteristics, your emission control dust is hazardous and must
be managed in accordance with the hazardous waste regulations.
(See 40 CFR 262.11).
This document has been retyped from the original.

Should you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
This document has been retyped from the original.

441. 1984(09)
Ay;9 1984
Mr. Thosas 3. ?ronapfsl, P.1.
St at. of iVsda
Dspart .nt of Cons.rvst ioo.
and Matural Resources
Dicision of in,irona.ntal Protection s
Capitol Co.pl.z -
Czr.on City, livads 09710
Dear Mr. rronapfsls
2 an writing in respons, to your .saorandi of April 19, 1914
regarding th. status of nining laboratory vast.. under the a
exclusion of 40 Cfl 211.4Cb)(7).
3usd upon the infornation •u tttsd irs your asaerind . the
Agency has detsrnmrs.d that. bath the nitric acid vast. and the fir.
assay oupsia irs solid waits fron th. extraction, .b.rs.ficiation and
processing of ores and ain.rsls. As such, th. wastes t. erarily
are •xclud.d by 3001 (b)(3)(A) of the Resource Conservation and
n.cov.ry Act (RC*A) fro. regulation as hasardous wastes under
Subtitle C of ICRA. Tb. exclusion is •ffeett.. until at 1.ast
six aonths after the date of subaission to Congress of tb• aining ¶
waits study being conducted under Sections 1002(f) and (p) of
•aCRA and after prch.ulgatLon ‘of regulations is aocordanc with
s.ction 3001 (b)(3)(C) of RCPA. Th•ewaat•s are óxclud.d regardless
of wh•thar they are gsn.rat.d by nining ppsratioria or a’— rcta1
Tb. Agency is now L a the proces, of re’.valuatiag its
ovanber 19, 1910 interpretation (B.. 45 f 7161$) of the atning
waste ezelus ton to d a t 1a nor. accurately the wastes that Congress
intended to •zclvde fron regulation uad.r ttt1. C pending
co.pl.tLon of the cuing vast. study. If the Agency .odif L.a iti
interpretation, viii notify you.
If you have any questions or r.qutr. any further infot ation
on this aitter, pleas, contact Jases Anttsso of sy staff at (202)
John P. t..hnan
Waste Manag.n.nt & !cor oaics Division

Us Disk VCOS doc
Lloyd I. Cress
GrI•nsba%, Doll & McDonald
1400 Vine Cent.r Tow.r
P.O. Boz lIOS
Lexington, L.ntucky 40593
Dear ax. Creass
In your letter of April 25, 1954, you requested coat irnotlon
of our earlier discussion regarding th. regulatory status of
sesidu. fr str.a —.tripping of process vast. containing teluen.,
As I •zplais.6 La our recent conversation, tb.. solvsnt
listings (SPA Sasardous Waste be. PO0I?OOS) pertain to
the pure fore or t.ehnical grad. solvent, vts.n sp.nt or discarded.
The listings do sot pertain to industrial process waste containing
solvents, Since process vastivater g.n.rat.d fr your clt.nt’s,
facility. is sot ths lLst.d hasardous waste, the residue fr
tr•a nt (I..., str.a strippLng) of the vast, is also not a
hassrdaua vast., unless it exhibits or.. or sore of th. charact•r-
istics of basardous vases ( i.e. , ignitability, reactivity, corrosi—
vity or BP toxicity).
I trust that this letter adequately responds to your inquiry.
Should you require additional ialoreation, p1.... call so at
Jacqueline V. 5.1..
Invironm.ntal Engin.u
W}I—562:JSALES:ld:382—4807:S-248:5 - ll-84:Disk VCO5 doc. 9

ZRA.’Superfund Hoti me
April 1984 Report
Page 5
4. If equipment fror’ drilling for crude oil or natural gas is steam—cleaned o”-
site from tne drillin; site, i the waste excluded from regulation by 261. .D)( )
even if tne waste ex!ilbit s a Subpart C characteristic?
Wastes uniquely associated with tile exploration, development or production
of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy are excluded from reguat lon
by 261.4(b)(5) reçard)ess of whether the waste exhibits a Subpart C
characteristic. Since only water is used for steam—cleaning, the drilling
waste is still excluded from re ulat1on. If another c)ean ng agent no:
uniquely associated with the exploration, development, or production of
crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy was used, then the waste Could
be Subject to regulation. For exançle , if methylene chloride was used to
clean the equipment, the waste would be subject to regulation as FOU2.
Source: Meg Silver
Research: Denise Wright

9441. 19 84 (12)
Status of £up.rnatant from Li.. Meutralisation of Spent
Pickle Liquor
Mstth•w Straus, Acting Chief
‘Waste Identification Branch (WH 562B)
Karl Kl.pitsch, Chi•f
Waste Manag..snt Branch (k.gion V)
T? is memorandum address.s your inquiry r.garding th.
status of sup.rnatant from It .. trsata.nt of spent pickle
?ir.t, you are correct in stating that the supernatant
is not included in the industry-wide exclusion of Ii ...
atabilLz.d waste pickl . liquor sludge (LSWPLS) (form.rly
known as li .. n.utralis.d wasts picki. liquor sludge)
g.n.rat.d from the iron and steel industry. The exclusion
p.rtains only to sludge g.n.rat.d from th treatment process.
Second, the sup.rnatant a a hazardous waste. However,
it is not regulated when stored in a tank connected to thO
vastewater tratasnt system. (This material is generally
stored in a sedimentation tank (clarifier) prier to discharge).
In addition, vh.n discharged, the •up.rnatant is •xclud.d
from th. presumption of being a solid waste, and thus, a
hazardous waste (see 40 C?R 261.4(a)(l)(ii)(2)), If it is
discharged either to navigable waters pursuant to th
provisions of the Clean Water Act or to a POTW. Supernatant
that is removed from the wastewater treatment systm, and
is otherwise managed, ii regulated under SCIA.
WH—562B:JSALES/WSTRAUS/pes/475 - 855 1/S/3 1/84 Disk P 1 5840201

M Y 84
5. API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry (KOSi) is placeø
in a surface iliçoundment where it further separates into slud9e and water.
is the water fraction a hazardous waste’
The water fraction is not a hazardous waste because the KOSI listing
was meant to cover the sludge generated from this process 1 regardless
of the nuliDer of separations.
Source: Bill Sproat
Research: Tom Gainer

9 441.1934(14)
MAY 84
CRA/Superfund HotI,ne
May 1983 eport
Page 5
4. Sect,on 251.3Ca)(2)(IV) excludes from regulation the discharge of certai’
wastewater mixtures which are Subject to Clean Water Act regulotior’s
(3O7( ) and 402) (including wastew3ter at facilities which have emina:e
the discharge of wastewater).
A) What IS the significance o this section’s parenthetical pnrzse
addressing eliminated dlsci%arge?
8) Do surface ItlVoundme’its qualify under that parenthetical reference?
A) The intended application of the parenthetical phrase in 261.3 a)(2)(Iv)
is to SituatiOnS where effluent guidelines or pretreatment stanaar s
require zero discharge as the most environmentally sound practice,
or where a facility surpasses these requirements by achiev1n j :ero
B) If a surface inpoundment Is subject to Clean Water Act zero discharge
guidelines, then the exclusion applies. Information specific to the
purpose and management of surface iIv oundments mjst t e supplied to
determine if this exclusion applies.
Source: Steve Silverman /
esearcn: ken Jennings

1-3 1 ’
SUBJECTt Ig nitabilIty Charsct.ristic Application to Mot
Gaseous Proc.su issiona
John A. Ikinrier, Director
Offic, of Solid Waste
TOs James A. $carbrough, Chief
Msidua].s 1 agsmnt Branch, a. ion IV
In your June 27, 1984, memorandum you requested our guidance
as to whether the hazardous determination of a waste is or is not
supposed to be mad. at standard tsaperaturs and pr.ssur. or
whether this determination is to be made in the form ( I.e. , ;as,
solid, liquid) that it is generated.
In particular, you rais.d concerns about th. destruction of
mat.rials in fum. incinerators arid arclu.d that facilities could
avoid r.gulation by simply sot condensing vent gas and overhead
emissions. !ou also argued that 5261.21(a)(2) stat.. that
wastes which are sot Liquids must be evaluated for the ign itabiJ.ity
charaet.ristic at standard temperature and pressure.
At the facility In question, the generator had been
condsnsinjj tb. gaseous emissions and fe•diriq them along with
other gasous wastes into an incin.rstor. These gaseous
emissions v.r. previously condensed prior to treatment in a fuse
incinerator. This same facility now plans to teed uncendensed
reactor vent gases directly to the fume incinerator (i.e.,
will not be condensing the gases and vi31 only De s.n tEi
gaseous emissions to the incinerator).
As you may be aware, our attic, previously addressed
tnis issue when vs finaljsed th. incinerator regulation in
June of 1982. In the preamble to that rule, we said that tho
teed to fuse incinerators are subject to re uL.tion onlj uncer
the Clean Air Act and not under ACRA since these jaseous
ertissions are not soJio westes (see 47 27530, June 24,
l9 2). In particular, we stated&

‘SPA aqr..s with c antsrs that f . incinerstar.
are subject only to r.gulstion under the Clean Air
Act end doe. not intend that the Parts 2 4 and 2
regulations apply to these facilities. rum. incinerators
which ar. used to destroy gaseous is.ion. tr
various industrial process... for example, are not
Siib j.ct to r.gulation under RCRA. In general, the
C A standards do not apply to fum . incineration
sic, the input is not identifiable as a solid
waste, according to the definition set forth
in S2 l.2 ’.
However, we recently indicat.d in the r.d.ral Register
(49 rR 3l4, ?.bruary 10, 1984) that we are re-considering this
position. In particular, in a proposal to list light end vent
gases fr th. production of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons,
vs stated that ga..ous sals Lons which are cond•nsabl to
liquid, at standard temperature and pressure can be subject
to regulation and would not b. included in the exclusion of
gaseous at.rials under RcZA (s . c section 1004(28)). 5es
preamble to proposal vb•rs vs •t*tez
‘.... The light •nds component of these overheads
Lu in fact liquids at standard temperatur, and
pressure, but because of elsvated temperature and
and admixture with gases ( .c.!. hydrogen, methane)
they require same form of h tcal condensation to
b. isolated a. liquid...,,
Th• Aq.ncy considers Utes. light ends to be solid
wastes within the aning of S.ction 1004(28) c i
RC A. Although these vast.. age g.n.rat.d as gas.s,
they an, liquids at standard tmeperaturs and
pr.ssur., and can feasibly be condensed to th.
liquid phas. after generation.
The exclusion from SCRA of gaseous .at.nials’ that
are not contained (Section 1004(28)), in the Agency’s
view, applies only to tru. gas.a , namely those
which at. not capabl, of being condensed and which
remain gases at standard tamperatur. and pE.. .ur..
Th•refone, until we decid. whether and how to finalix.
the proposal, vs must defer a final answer to your question.
In the interim, however, any incinerator that just r.c.iv.a
gaseous emissions would be excluded from control under 1CM.
as stated in th preamble to th . final incinerator rulsa.
At the same tin., you should be aware that rh. rules may
change and that incinerators that receive gaseous emissions,
wnich are liquid. at standard t.n .rature and pressure nay
be subject to regulation in the tuturo.
If you have any further questions, please call $att Straus
of m’j staff at 47S bbS1.

Response to Questions from State Pesticide
personnel: Triple Rinsing
(3) Container disposal, particularly LILY product. ar in
impregnated fertilizer situations. What if triple rir ing
is impossible?
Section 261.7 ii pertinent only if the product is
listed in 5261.33. Section 261.7. Residues of
hazardous waste in espty containers, is explicit.

PUG I 5 1984
SUB3ECT: Regulatory Interpretation on Mineral Processing
Residuals Generated by Combustion Units Burning
Hazardous Waste Fuel
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division (2Aw?I)
I am writing in response to your memorandtm of Nay 25, 1984,
in which you requested a regulatory interpretation regarding mineral
processing residuals generated from the thermal expansion of shale
in rotary kiln5 that are fired with hazardous waste fuels. The
issue is whether these mineral processing residuals, i.e., shale
fines sludge, which would otherwise be exempt from Subtitle C of
RCRA under the mining extraction, berieficiation, and processingu
exclusion of 40 CFR 5261.4(b)(7). are subject to regulation as a
hazardous waste due to the use of listed hazardous waste as a fuel
source for the process. This letter responds to the questions
that you raised in your request, and also addresses the points
that Nor].ite Corporation has made in response to the Region’s
complaint against thea.
In response to one of your questions, we are net aware of any
explicit precedent or policy that has been established regarding
the applicability of either the mining waste exemption or the
cement kiln dust exemption where waste solvents are employed as
fuels. Therefore, we have consulted with the Office of General
Counsel and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement in developing
the following responses.
Norlite Corporation. located in Cohoes, New York, mines shale
and thermally expands it to produce a li htweight aggregate that
is used in construction products. The thermal expansion takes
place in two rotary kilne that are fired by listed hazardous waste
fuels (hazardous waste nos. FOOl—PODS, according to Norlite) that
are purchased from waste generators and fuel blenders. Before

entering the stack, the kiln gases are scrubbed with an alkaline
aqueous slurry. The shale fines captured by the scrubber are
collected in surface impoundr’erits from which they are subsequently
dredged at a rate of 40,000 tons year. The shale fines s1udg
dredgings are accumulated in waste piles at Norlite’s facility.
Oueation 1 : Is Norlite’s shale fines sludge exempt from
regulation under Subtitle C of RCPA by virtue
of the mining waste exclusion in 5261 .4(b)(7)?
Answer : Yes, the waste is currently exempt.
Discussion :
Section 261.4(h)(7) provides an exemption from Subtitle C
control for ‘Solid wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and minerals...’. In the preamble to the rule
providing this exemption, the Agency said we would interpret the
exclusion to include solid waste from the exploration, mining,
milling, smelting, and refining of ores and minerals (see 45
Federal Register 76618—76619, ovet ber 19, 1980). This interpre-
tation includes residuals from mineral processing, including air
emission control wastes.
The process ti at Norlite uses involves heating shale to produce
a lightweight aggregate, thus enhancing its value. This approach
is analogous to many other thermal processes used to dry, smelt,
or otherwise upgrade an ore or mineral. Therefore, the Norlite
process would be considered beneficiation or processing, and the
wastes from that process fall within EPA’s current interpretation
of the 5261.4(b)(7) exclusion. The use at hazardous waste fuels
as the total or partial energy source does not, in our opinion,
change the status of the waste as beneficiation or processing
waste, EPA made it clear in the November 19, 1980, preamble that
‘the exclusion does not apply to solid wastes, such as spent solvents,
pesticide wastes, and discarded c wnercial chemical products, that
are not uniquely associated with the mining and allied processing
industries. The solvents that we were addressing in the 1980
notice are those that right be generated as a result of equipment
maintenance or some other general plant operations, but not as a
result of extraction, benef ciation, or processing operations.
We arrive at the same conclusion for cement kiln dust waste
that may be generated during a cement manufacturing process that
employs hazardous waste fuels as an energy source. Cement kiln
dust waste is currently exempt from Subtitle C by c261.4(b)(8).
The use of hazardous waste fuels in this process would not negate
the exclusion.
We emphasize that this interpretation of the mining waste
exclusion does not necessarily exclude all solvents from regulatior

under Subtitle C. As described above, wastes that are not generated
from extraction, beneficiation, or processing operations, e.g.,
spent solvents generated during equipment maintenance, are not
excluded from Subtitle C regulation. Therefore, if Norlite mixes
its shale fines sludge with r*onexcluded listed hazardous waste,
the resulting waste is subject to the mixture rule in 5261.3(b)(2).
The Office of Solid Waste is currently reviewing its 1980
interpretation of the mining waste exclusion to define more
accurately the wastes that Congress intended to exclude from Sub-
title C pending completion of the mining waste study. rJe will
keep you advised on the progress of the reevaluation and the
supporting studies.
Question 2 : Is Norlite’s shale fines sludge exempt under
the beneficial reuse exemption provided for
by 5261.6?
Answer : No. Wastes resulting from a beneficial reuse
process are not covered by the 5261.6 exemption.
Discussion :
Sections 261.3(c) and (d) state that any solid waste generated
from the treatment (which includes some recycling), storage,pr
disposal of hazardous waste, including any sludge or emission
control dust, is a hazardous waste until the generator proves
otherwise. In the case of a waste that is derived from a listed
hazardous waste, the solid waste is considered hazardous unless
and until_it is delisted in iw ordance with 55260.20 and 260.22.
In the case of• Jorlite Corporation, the shale fines sludge is
considered to be derived from the treatment of hazardous wastes,
i.e., the solvents that are used as fuel. Burning of hazardous
wastes, albeit for legitimate energy recovery, is still considered
treatment. If the shale fines sludge had not been considered a
beneficiation or processing waste under 5261.4(b)(7), and therefore
excluded from regulation, it would be classified as listed hazardous
The beneficial reuse exemption contained in 5261.6 applies to
the beneficial reuse process only, and not to any wastes that may
be generated as a result of such processes. This exemption thus
applies solely to hazardous wastes prior to and during legitimate
It should be noted that listed hazardous wastes, such as the
solvents that Nor]ite uses, are subject to certain transportation
and storage requirements prior to reuse. These requirements are
contained in 5261.6(b). I assi e that Norlite’s tanks used for
storage of these listed hazardous wastes prior to firing in the
kiln are subject to these provisions.

Question 3 : Is Norlite’s shale fines sludge exempt under
the wastewater exemption of f261.3(a)(2)(iv)?
p nswer : No, this exe ’ptton does not apply to the shale
fines sludge.
t iscuss ion :
The wastewater exemption contained in c261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A)
arplies only if solvents are com ingled with process wastewater as
part of routine housekeeping procedures (e.g., minor release of
solvents during degreasing operations that would collect in the
wastewater sewer). The provision has no applicability to sludges
that are mixed or otherwise corm’ingled with wastewater, or to
sludges that, in effect, generate a wastewater through the settling
of solids from the sludge,
You expressed concern that the mining waste and cement kiln
dust exclusions could lead to burning hazardous waste fuels with
high levels of toxic organic or metals constituents, resulting in
the generation of hazardous residues. are presently developing
standards to regulate burning of hazardous waste in boilers and in
cement and aggregate kilne, and intend to require that these units
generally meet the same performance standards applicable to incin-
erators. The residues from burning hazardous waste in these units
may contain high levels of toxic compounds, particularly metals.
Consequently, if we find through our research that aggregate kiln
residuals or cement kiln dusts pose a substantial hazard, we will
consider eliminating their respective exemptions under Part 261,
and subjecting the wastes to regulation under Subtitle C of RCPA.
Your letter and Norlite’s response to the Region’s complaint
necessitated this lengthy response. However, it has enabled us to
develop a position on a highly complex regulatory interpretation
issue. I trust that our response can be used by the Peg ion in
resolving the Norlite case, as well as providing advice to similar
waste fuel/mineral processors that you mentioned. John Heffelfinger
of my staff has discussed our findings on this issue with BobS
Harris, of your office. You may contact him at FTS—3P2 —7923.
For further information on the subject of burning and blending
hazardous waste fuels and our regulatory development efforts,
please contact bob Holloway at FTS-’382-7936.
cc: Solid Waste Piranch Chiefs
Regions I-X
w/attac)unent (Pegion II ltr. dated 5/25/84)

9441 . 198 4 (20)
NJS I 6 984
Mr. Toe Tiesler, Director
Division of Solid Waite Manage snt
Bureau of nvitonental Services
Depart*snt of Public Health
150 9th Avenue, North
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Dear Toe:
At the request of Liz CottinghaJ. in Congr.ssan L.ath’s
office. I ae writing to clarify 5261.4(b)(4) of the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations. This section codifies a Con..
gressional •xeaption that was enacted in the 1980 RCRA
Aendments. The .e.ndeent (a.. RCRA S.c. 3001(b)(3)(A)(i))
r.aov.s fly ash waste botto. ash waste, slag waste, and flue
gas ecission control vast, generated priasrily f ro, the co
bustion of coal or other fossil fuels froe control under RCRA
Subtitle C until at least six contha aft.r a study under RCRA
Section 8002(n) is subeitted to Congress. Other applicable
provisions of Pederal and Stat. laws, including RCRA Subtitle
D, r.aain in effect.
While EPA’s study under CRA Section 8002(n) to date has
concentrated on waste generated by coal. .fir.d el.ctric utility
power plants, the Congr.ssional .zsaption is not halted to
these plants, in our opinion. Ply ash, bott ass, slag and
flu, gas dust and sludges f roe the coabuatlori of coal, oil, or
natural gas troe any source would also be •z.apted t porarily
f roe RCRA Subtitle C control.
John P. L.bean
waste Manageasnt and
Iconoeics Division
cc: Liz Cottinghani
John Skinner
Fred Lindsey
bruce Weddle
Martha Kittel
Torn Devine—Region IV
JPLEHMAt1:gb:WH—565 :rmM2l06 :382-4756:8/14/84

4 • A natural as proóction c ny insects thar 1 into b e1l h ads
9’H 1. I ‘Y i to ke then £ freezirç ó.aring the winter nths. The water/
natural as/ etharol mixture is piped t 4 a central pip irlQ
station i t ere the natural s is separated fr a the water/tethar l
mixture. The water/setharci mixture is piped to a 1ir d pond
arid finally di harçed to a series of per olat Ion ponds. The
di har e to the percolation ponds is reulated tmdsr the State
u d-water permit pro am The setham3 is lgdtable; wewr,
it even ’ ily 3atilizes into the ab sphere. Is the uethanol/
water mixture e 1ia d fr regulation a et rding to 261.4(b)t5)7
Yes; the mixture is e luded according to 261.4(b)(5). This
e hmion is specifically referer ed in section 3001(b) (2) (A)
of A A report to Congress on the e c1u d waste is ete
section 8002 of A.
Source: xter Rirckley
searth: Bill Thisth

9441. 1984 (22)
f I ? 7 • A of listed was t is ó.rçed into an ai -site vastewa tar
trea nt f i1ity at a 1a ratory erati t. Is this covered
by the lab e 1usion in 5261.3(a)(iv)(E)?
This tivity is not covered in the 1 e luslon. 5261.3(a)
(i v) CE) was ant to r s ial1 .mt.s of wast adcS d essentially
a’ idab1y lare o1i.mes of wastewater. E 1es
irc 1u 1a ratory Ll1s washed into a sink ath, ar r idues
fran the washirç of glas ars i tkich are carried in the was ’ater
into the se r.
Source: Alan r n
sea : TbC Gainer

,,, 3(j ’q’) 3. e1ter a l e c mste birieri ar .nd 1900 is c rztly irç e aveted.
ITIT Is this vasta e,cluded irm r 261.4 (b)(4)7
1 e 1usi t in 5261.4Cb)C4) co e boiler slaç (eclt
boc asZ ) b t _ r t co r 1ter slaQ. ‘ e lter
alec aald pro b1y fall tri r the mu e,cli.zs t
(S261.4(b)C7)) tke pr sirç of ard minerals.
S xoes 3oIwt Beffelfirçer
search: T n Gainer

WASH!NGTON. D.c. 20460
. t.r 0
• r. Harold Nash SO iDW*SiE £ O £MEUGI 4CY E5P P SE
Vice President
EnvLronmencal Technology, Inc.
Ashland, Virginia
Dear Mr. Nash:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to our telephone
conversation of September 4, 1984 and the de].isting petition
submitted for Rappahannock Wire, Inc. Fredericksburg, Virginia.
The petition addresses the waste generated from zinc phosphacing
on carbon steeL and requests an exclusion from EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006 (wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
There are several processes which are exempt from the F006
Listing, one of which is zinc plating (segregated basis) on
carbon steel. Since the Agency’s current definition of
electroplating includes phosphating processes, the exemption
for zinc plating on carbon steel also applies to zinc phosphating
on carbon steel. As indicated in the petition, Rappahanock
Wire’s waste is generated from a zinc phosphating operation
which soley involves carbon steel as the base metal.
Furthermore, you indicated chat the phosphacing process is
not used with any other process which could generate a
hazardous waste, and the wascescream from this process is not
camingled with any ocher hazardous waste. Therefore you
characterize Rappahanock Wire’s process as segregated. If this
representation of Rappahanock Wire’s zinc phosphacing process
is accurate, the Agency considers the waste to be exempt from
EPA’s F006 Hazardous Waste Listing and therefore not a
listed hazardous waste under the Federal Hazardous Waste
Management System.
As a result of this determination no further action
will be taken ott the delisting petition received on August 29,1984.
The phosphating waste may be handled as a non-hazardous
waste providing that the generator has fulfilled the
requirement of testing the waste for the four characteristics,
(ignicabilicy, corrosivicy, reactivity, and EP Toxicity),
identified under 1261 .20 of the RCRA regulations. With
regard to this .1asc point it should be noted chat sample
number 4-3187 itt the petition failed the EP Toxicity Limit
for cadmium and therefore the waste represented by this
sample would be considered hazardous by the EP Toxicity
characteristic. Rappahanock Wire is required to handle all
waste that fails any characteristic as a hazardous waste.
The waste may be retreated and if it no longer exhibits the
characteristic it may then be handled as a non-hazardous waste.

Due to the variability of heavy metal mobility exhibited
.by Rappahanock Wire’s waste (as revealed by the EP Toxicity
data in the petition), the Agency is very concerned about
the potential fertilizer use option cited in the petition.
Due to the ability of this waste to leach high concentrations
of cadmium, the Agency cannot recommend the use of this
waste Lfl the production of fertilizers. This potential
problem has been noted by this office and we have informed
both the EPA Region UI Office and the Virginia Depart erit
of Health/Division of solid and Hazardous Waste Management
of this situation.
If you have any questions regarding this letter do not
hesitate to call me at (202)-382-4782.
S incerly,
Myle( E. Morse
Envirnmental Protection Specialist
Waste Identification Branch
Office of Solid Waste
CC: Sam Rotenberg
OSW/!PA Region UI
William Gi].].ey
Solid & Hazardous Waste
Virginia Dept. of Health

I13 4
‘ ?or)e Noble
No eL S. I ssociatog, Inc.
‘. osti oroland Buildiricj
oi 1 Orcn rct Road
II. 60077
fl r r eor;c,
This will recap our t 1o?hone conversation and clarify the
Z . oricy position on residues from empty containers. CP A recognizes
tnree çinds of er pty containers. Containers that hold col%pressed
qa are empty whon.they approach atmospheric. Containers that
hold acutely hazardous wa to fror S2 l.33 Ce) are empty when
they are triple rinsed, the linor is resoved, or an equivalent
rertova]. rnethod is enployed. Rinsate from containers that forr er—
ly held an acutely hazardous co morcial chemical product is, by
tfle iixture rule, a listed hazardous waste subject to RCRPI
rejulation. Al ]. other containers are onpty when they hevo
boon e iptied (by their norrnal means) and one inch or less
re iins in the bottom or a given percentage by weight of the
contents remains. -
Residue that remains in an oai ,ty container is not con-
sidered, by definition, to be a hazardous waste. The contents
of an ernpty container are only hazardous if they are hazardous
by characteristic. As I told you, not all harmful waste
would exhibit a characteriatic. Although the residu’ remaining
in empty containers is not presently an issue under review,
the Agency has retained the the right to regulate it at a future
As you know, the 44 States and territories that have
instituted hazardous waste pro’jrams that operate in lieu of
RCRA i ay have slightly ditieront viewpoints on this issue.
You should be familiar with regulatory standards of any states
you deal with. The RC A/Superfunc1 Hotline at 8OO —424— 346
can send you a copy of the State hazardous waste agency addresses
and phone numbers if you need it.

Althou h the urtre’julated residues in empty containers is
still of concern, at present F.P resources are being e’ ployed
for other, higher priorit prr)ects. If you have any other
questions on the Agency position regarding possible future
regulation of residue from empty containers, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
A13n S. Corson
Studies and Methods ranch

Noble & Associates Inc Errwironm.ntaj Con tan
W.stmoreland BulIdIng
Old Orchard Road
Skolde. llllnot 60077
(312) 6774410
August 20,, 1984
Alan Carson
13.5. E tvironmenta1 Protection Agency
Washi.ngton, D.C. 20460
Re: R .nsate from Empty Containers
Dear Alan,
Further to our recent telephone conversations, I would like
to formally request an opinion on the subject of rinsate
from empty containers.
As you know 40CFR261.7, establishes an exemption for
“Residues of Hazardous Wastes in Empty Containers.N
However, the August 18, 1982, preamble to this regula-
tion created an expectation that we might in the near
futur a see seine new regulation which would control these
res .dues after removal from the container.
If I understand you correctly, the current view is that
tnese residues (from empty containers) are thought to
be less of a problem than was supposed at the time the
preamble was drafted and that EPA does not propose to
regulate them.
I would very much appreciate a confirmation of the current
EPA positio on this subject.
corge oble,P.E.
Copy to: Mark Wright
Steve Rubin

ir. WiLliaa M. Parker 111
AkZO C e ie As rica
3U0 South acker Drive
Cnica o, U. 60606
Dear Mr. Parker:
I a responding to your r. uest for a written confirmation
of the interpretation that. tne RCaA/Supertund Notlin. gave you.
According to 40 CFR S261.7(b)U), containers that held com ierctal
cnemical products from 40 CF S26 1.33(f) ar. empty 1 hert they
have oeen emptied usitw] the practice commonly used to remove
materials ‘ md no re than one inch of residue remains on tn.
Dotto!1 of tne container, or no more than 3 percent øf the weight
of the containeç’s capacity r. ins if the container is 110
gallons or less in size. -
Thus, pouring at the cont.nts fr a bag, then shaking
and tapping the outs ds of bags containing solid maleic anhydride
(U147) or solid phthalic anhydrid. (U190) isa common emptying
practice. This practice would Likely result in empty containers
meetir the definition cited above. These .mpty centain.rs are
not su ect to Federal RCRA regulation.
Of course, the 44 States and territort.s that have institut.d
nazardous waste programs tnat operate in lieu of RCRk may have
sli 3htly different viewpoints on this issu.. You should be
familiar with r. julatory standards of any States you d.al with.
The RCRA/Superfund Rotline (800/424-9346) can s.nd you a
list of the State hazard s st. agency addresses and phon.
numbers if you need it. -
I am glad to be able to confirm the Hotline’s assessment
of your emptjing practices. Lt me know if I can be of any
future assistanc..
Sinc.rely yours.
Alan S. Corson
Studies and $.thods Branch

94 4 1 . 1984 (27)
r. Don Stanley
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Route 1, BOX 7
Harrieville, VW 26362
Dear r. Stanley:
This will confirm our telephone conversation of August 20,
1984, regarding the RCRA regulatory statue of dibutyltin difluorid.
You wanted to know about protective clothing contaminated with
the raw product and baghouse dust collecting unused product.
Dibutyltin difluoride is not a listed RCRA waste. It L u
the generator’s responsibility to test or apply knowledge of.
the material in order to determine whether, as a waste, it
exhibits any of the 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C characteristics.
The Material Data Safety Sheet and the Ohio EPA analysis of
product appear to confirm your decision that a vast. contaminated
with dibutyltin difluoride would not b.a hazardous waste on
the basis of the dibutyltin difluorid..
of course, the 44 states and territories that have instituted
hazardous waste programs that operate in lieu of RCRA may have
a different viewpoint, especially in view of the TLV. In any
case, you. and your customer should be aware of the regulatory
standards of any States-you deal with. The RCR /Sup.rfund
iiotline (800/424—9346).can.send you a list of the Stat. hazardous
waste agency addresses and ohone n bers if you n.ed . it.
Sincerely yours,
Alan S. Corion
Studies-and Methods Branch

2. Is r offz;rclflcatlor., ufiletoø t .1 i 1 )r.%I ,es S.q!
in oU e, , 1Gr ticn ,overned by t e exclusion le ‘art 2C .1.i(b)( i)?
9 1 +’H . fli ez,losIvs or not 1nc1ud l 1, th dv ’ t Ian hmC USi
they are not un qu 1y assnciaWd with z;3Ior.tIwt. t re—
fore, d1s os C? these vx osives I a re uljtad ctIvitj.
Source: P.r.t y.
s.srcn: To Ca lner

9441 . 1984 (29)
S 2 4 4
SUUJECT: Zinc Plating (s.gr.gat.d basis) on Carbon Steel.
FROM:: Matthew A.Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch 1 (Wa-562B
TO: Michael. Sanderson,
Air and 1 azardous Waste Compliance Branch
Air and Iazardous .nat.rials Division
E?A Re iOr% VII
This is written in response to your September l8, l984-
request for clarification regardingzinc plating (segregated’
basis) on carbon steel.
With respect to electroplating operations, vast at.r
treatment sludges generated from zinc plating on carbon steel
are considered non—hazardous only when the waste str.am
from this operation is maintained and treated separately
(segregated) from other hazardous vast•streaws generated at a
facility. In many cases,- however, zinc plating is often
followed by chemical conversion coating, which includes
coloring chromating, and immersion coating, as well as
other plating operation.. Chemical conv•rsiorb- coating
i. defined in EPA’s listing background docua.nt as a component
of electroplating and theref or., the wastevats: treatment
sludges g.n.rated from this operation would be eonsid.r.d
hazardous. If the wastevater from a zinc plating line
is combined with wast•vaters from other electroplating
operations, th. resultant wastevat.rtreata.nt.. sludge
would be considered hazardous.
Therefore, wastewater treátment.sludg.s generated from
zinc plating opera ions, wher• the zinc waste stream is
combined with other hazardous waste streams, ar. considered
EPA Hazardous waste No. P006 and sub ject- to regulation under
40 CFR 262—266. It you av. any. iurther questions en this,
matter, please do riot”hesitateto contact Mr. William Sproat
of my staff at rrS-382—4713. -

22 OCT 1984
Or. A. R. T rrer
Auburn University
r.en rt nt of Che”ical Encyjneerjna
23 Foss ?‘all
Auburn University, Alabama 36849—3501
De tr Pr. Tarrer:
This is in response to your letter of September 20, 1984, in
which you recuested a clarification of the Environmental Protection
nencys (F PA) policy for distincuishina leçitimate fror sham
rr cyclino. In aenaral, burnino a hazardous waste with little or
no enerriy value does not constitute lecitimate recvclinv,, even if
the waste has been blended with a hicih—DTtJ material (e.n., used
r il or fuel oil) thstrak .s the mixture a marketable fuel. ISee
the deral ister notice of March 16, 1983; 48 FR 11158 and
the riuidance nemorandums of February 28, 1984, and July 5, 1984,
‘hi1e th enclosed guidance docui’eentg pertain to hazardous
was s hurn.d as locitiriat. fuels, the same princinles az’r ly to
used oil. The riain issue is whether the used oil becane eon —
taminated with hazardous constituents as listed in 4fl CFP 2 1,
Ar,pen’lix ‘7711, throuc h normal us. or throuah pury osefu1 rixinc
with hazardous wastes. As you probably know, used oil can
pickun sw all ounts of chiorinatod materials from various souree .
For examrile, leaded nasoline contains chlorinated additives
(scavencers) that are deposited in crankcase oil. Also, used
oil from vessels can easily pickup chlorine from salt water that
nay enter the encine room, etc. In fact, a recent study by-my
office found that 568 of 5Q0 samnies of used oil contained s.’na
amount of chlorine. In general, if th used oil acauires these
contaminant throuch normal use it is not a ha,ardous waste and
the enforcement policy doos not apply, while kf it acoutres the
contaminants throuoh mixinc it is a hasardous waste ann the en-
forcement policy does apply. In practice, whether used oil is
subject to the enforcement policy depends on how much information
is available to the enforcing aoency rocarelina the oricdn of the

We are In the process t f dovelopin a number of regulations
‘hich will set standaras for thc manayement of used oil, and of
hazardnuR wastes used an fuels. The first of these re ulatlon.,
the Waste—as—ruels Adrtinietrattvp Standards, is planned to be
propoeer fri January l9€ 5. These standards will, in addition to
a nui’ihcr of othor requirerients, set a specification for us. d i1
that will clearly distinguish between used oil used as a fuel and
hazardous waste used as a fuel. We have recognized that an effi-
cient wi ans ‘ust be established to distinguish between used oils
t .at have pIcked up incidental, le min1i iis at”ounts of chlorinated
r’aterial, and used oil that has been grossly adulteratel with
larçe arcunts of spont solvents. In the proposal, a lfi it of 4000
art par r vi1lion (0.4%) is the di ingtiahing criterion. Us.d
c Il with çreater than 4000 L m total chlorine will be j,resused to
hSvC hoen uxed with spent chlOrlr.Ated solvents, and, unless a
person can snow no.mixin has rceurred, the material will ho rogu—
latect as hazardous waste (not used oil). Used of] with less than
4OflC) p ’i chlorine will not be presumed to contain hazardous waste.
(IIc wever, if EPA received infori etion that mixing had in fact
cccurrce, we would retain authority to regulate th.mlxture as
hazardous waste.)
I hope this explanation will help you clear up your prohle .s
with the Alabama D parersont of Invirer.mental Mana e ent. While
our interpret t ion of our March l , l 3, Fe .r l Notice
r. ardir Ap anCtiX A constituents and our intentions regarding the
uqe of uscc! oil and hazardous wastes as fuels differs from the
Stat, ot Alabama, you s ould be aware that States can, under the
CRA system, estahlish standards more stringent than £PAs. If you
require further assistance, contact Michael Petruska of my staff
at (202) 3 2—79l7.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
D lrsctoz
Otfice of Solid Waste (WH —562)
cc: Mr. Dan Cooper, AD!M.
Mr. Larry Punning, Pegion TV
Mr. Fred Rraswell, AD CA

F 28
SUBJECT: Guidance on Determining When a Hazardous Waste Is a
Legitimate Fuel That May Be Burned for Energy Recovery
in a Boiler or Industrial Furnace
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
TO Thomas W. Devine
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region IV
This is in response to your January 13 memo requesting guidance
on allowable concentrations of halogenated solvents in waste fuels
‘ urned in high—efficiency boilers and rotary kiln incinerators.
This issue is understandably creating some confusion in your
Region and others as well. I believe that clarification of the
following three points can clear up the confusion: (1) the types
of combustion devices that can legitimately recover energy; (2) the
hazardous wastes that are legitimate fuels; and (3) the status of
our efforts to regulate burning in boilers and industrial furnaces.
Legitimate energy recovery can occur only when a legitimate
fuel is burned in a legitimate energy recovery device. The enforce-
ment guidance you referenced (48 FR 11157 (March 16, 1983)) and
the subsequent proposed amendments to the solid waste definition
(48 FR 14507—511 (April 4, 1983)) provide guidance to identify
legitimate energy recovery combustion devices and legitimate fuels.
A legitimate energy recovery device must be a boiler that
recovers usable heat (i.e., not just to preh.at combustion air) or
an industrial furnace (e.g., process kiln, amelter, or blast fur-
nace) where the waste replaces other fuels. An incinerator cannot
burn hazardous waste without a RCRA permit.
A hazardous waste is a legitimate fuel if it has substantial
heat value, as generated. A blended hazardous waste is a legitimate
fuel if the mixture has substantial heat value, provided that the

mixture does i ot contain a hazardous waste that does not have sub-
stantial heat value . The enforcement guidance indicates that a
waste has substantial heat value if it has a heat value of 5,000
to 8,000 BTU/lb, as a rule of thumb. Thus, a hazardous waste with
less than 5,000 BTU/lb heat value as generated is not considered
to be a legitimate fuel, and any waste that is intentionally mixed
with such a low heat value waste is not a legitimate fuel. For
enforcement purposes, if a waste fuel contains high concentrations
(say, >5%) of low heat value hazardous wastes, the Agency would
have good reason to assume that intentional mixing has occurred,
and should request documentation to the contrary from the party
claiming the exemption. If it can be shown that each hazardous
waste in the mixture has substantial heat value as generated, i.e.,
>5,000 8TU/lb , the waste is a legitimate fuel regardless of the
concentration of low energy constituents (e.g., halogenated compounds
like chlorinated solvents) in each waste or in the blended fuel.
The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate waste
fuels is, at this point, a temporary necessity. We are regulating
the burning of waste fuel in boilers and industrial furnaces under
a two—phased approach. We will propose a rule this si.mmter that
prohibits burning in nonindustrial boilers of any hazardous waste
and used oils that exceed a specification for toxic contaminants.
Marketers and burners of hazardous waste fuels burned in industrial
boilers and furnaces (and utility boilers) would be subject to
notification, transportation, and storage requirements. Marketers
and burners of off—specification used oil fuel would be subject to
notification requirements and an invoice system to track shipments.
Technical controls on burning waste fuels in industrial boilers
and furnaces will be proposed in spring 1985. We are now looking
at regulatory alternatives for these units. When these regulations
are promulgated, we will have controls for burning of hazardous
wastes in these units regardless of purpose (i.e., regardless of
whether the waste is a legitimate fuel burned for energy recovery
or a low energy waste burned for destruction).
If you have comments or questions, please contact Dave Sussmart
of our Waste Treatment Branch at 382—7917.
cc: iazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I—X
Ginny Steiner, Solid Waste Enforcement
Steve Silverman, Legal Counsel
bcc: Steve Lingle, Waste Treatment Branch
Bob Holloway, Waste-Treatment Branch
Dave Sussman, Waste Treatment Branch

SUBJECT: 1 (001 Sludge Use as a Boiler Fuel
JUL 5 l9
FROM: John H. Skinner
Director, Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
TO: Thomas W. Devine
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
EPA Region IV
This is in response to your memo of June 5, 1984, concerning
whether 1(001 sludge qualifies as a legitimate fuel. A rn.m ber of
wood preservers around the country are routinely burning KOOl
sludge along with wood waste in their process steam boilers. 1(001
sludge Contains a n* nber of constituents, some of which (such as
pentachlorophenol) have little or no heat value. Others may
have high heat value, bringing the average BTU of the sludge to a
level that would constitute legitimate recycling, i.e., approximately
5000 BTU per pound. In order to make the determination as to
whether burning a specific 1(001 sludge is legitimate recycling, it
must be determined that th. sludge has not been mixed with high
HTU wastes to upgrade its heat value in order to circ vent the
policy set forth in the March 16, 1983, }ederal Register , page
1uSd, second paragraph.
As you know, we are developing standards to regulate the
burning of hazardous wastes in industrial boilers and industrial
process furnaces. When those standards are in place, we will
regulate the burning of hazardous waste in these devices regardless
of purpose, i.e., energy recovery or destruction. The performance
requirements will be basically the same as for hazardous waste
incinerators under 40 CFR 264.343. At that time, the policy
stated in the March 16, 1983, Federal Register will become moot as
burning for ‘energy recovery’ or ‘beneficial usage’ will no longer
be the issue.
When these regulations are in place, burning 1(001 sludge in a
wood fired boiler that generates process steam will require a
RCRA permit and probably a trial burn. However, should we decide
to change the listing of 1(001 to include the dioxins and require
‘special management standards’ as we have proposed for the F020

to 025 cerise of wastes, vs would probably not allow combustion of
this wast. in a boiler. Until all these regulations are in plac.
you must us. the guidance in th. Plarcb 16, 1983, and rabrusry 28,
1984, policy doct .nts to determine whether this sp.cif ic OO1
waste is a legitimate fuel. We simply do net have ad.quat. data
to declare all 1001 waste non-l.gittmat. fuel, and require the
owners of these boilers to obtain RCRA incinerator p.rmits.
Purth.r.ors, we know that this practice will fall under a dtff.r .nt
regulatory prograit in the futur. and thus, such a declaration is
not appropriate.
Our advice in thi. situation is to inform the Lsngdal.
Company and the other i ood pressrv.rs thati
(3) The current regulatory exclusion for burning hazardous
waste in •n.rgy recovery fact liti.s s granted only for
legitimate recycling (cite guidance) and that it is their
responsibility to have appropriate doct .nt.tion of STU
values of their 1001 sludge and to demonstrate that high
STU wastes hay. not been blend.d into the 1001 sludge to
increase heat value.
(2) The burning of 001 sludg, as a fuel in industrial
process st.am boilers will be regulated under a forth-
coming EPA rule and that they will likely be required to
obtain a RC*A permit when that rule becomes effective.
(3) In addition, they will probably have to meet performance
standards similar to hazardous waste incinerators and
probably perform a trial burn.
(4) We still have the authority to regulate this activity
under Subpart 0, if appropriate. The decision of using
thi, course of action will be clarified with the new
detinitton of solid vaste to be promulgated this fall.
(5) There is a possibility of changing the 1001 listing to
include dioxin and the possibility of .p.cial management
standards that may preclud, the burning of the waste in
boilers if the performance neceseary to protect public
health cannot be assured in these device..
(6) The storag. of the.. wastes prior to burning is
subject to full regulation for storage over 90 days
(7) The residue fro. burning the.. listed wastes is also
presently regulated under Subtitle C and requires disposal
in a Subtitle C facility or must be diluted. Iik.wt.e,
cbaract•ristio waste residue must be d .p..ed is a ubt itl•
C facility ml. .. it me longer meet. tb. criteria is
40 CFR 261,21 through 261.24.

For more- information on the waste—as—fuels regulatory approach,
please contact David a. susaman, Manager, Waste Combustion Program
(FTS 382—7927).
ccs Regional Waste Management Division Directors
Regions 1— 11 1 and V—X

94 41 . 1984 (31)
OCT 25 1984
Tom Carlisla
Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
State of Ohio Environmental
protection Agency
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216—1049
Dear M . Carlisle:
This letter. responds to your inquiry of October 5, 1984,
regarding further ci.arification of the Federal Register notice
pertaining to lime—stabilized waste pickl. liquor sludge (LSWPLS)
from the iron and steel industry (June 5, 1984).
Each point raised in your letter and our responses are
outlined below. Please keep in mind, however, that the Porcelain
Enamel Instit .zte has filed a petition for review against the
Ac ency (August 24, 1984) regarding our interpretation of the
spent pickle liquor listing.
1) Although the June 5 exclusion applies only to iron and steel
industries (SIC codes 331 and 332), Mid—West Fabricating Company
(SIC code 3714) received notic. from EPA that the exclusion
applies to LSWPT.SS generated at their facility.
The Agency is aware that due to computer error a few
facilities listed in the June 5 notice are not actually ir s
the iron and steel industry. At this time, we are working
to identify these facilities and to determine a cours• of
action. At a minimum, we would expect to notify them in
writing of the error and inform them that their E.SWPLS is
net excluded by our decision on June 5, 1984.
2) How does EPA interpret the term moot’ as it pertains to
delisting petitio .5 submitted to.exclude LSWPLS generated
from the iron and steel industryt
EPA used this term in stating that site-specific d.Itstirsg
petitions submitted by the iron and steel industry (to
exclude LSWPL.S) no longer require Agency action since the
June 5 final rule automatically excludes these waste from
regulation (effective December 5, 1984). ? dministrative
procedures dictate that cot’msersts are not solicited when
rules are promulgated in final form.

3) Data frc M c1olistin j pctitictt3 subrtitted by the iron and i teel
irtdu try, as cited in the June 5 notice incluie at least tour
facilities from industry cat’! oric3 other than iron and steel
( .uanex £a ricaein , 511n Cor v,ration and Union Carbide). ow
can this data be used to support rulemaktn j fnr t’te iron anl
steel in’lt:stry, and are those pntitions also conaLderec moot by
the rule akir ?
Oata fr the Raza ctottq Iastc O.tts !Ianao ent Syste’
indicates that Union—Carbide (Ohio) SIC codes 331c , 3471,
3436, 33 i3; Olin Cor or3tiort (Conn.)— SIC codea 331 , 335],,
3356; and Quanex Corporation (Michigan)— SIC coda 3317 are
within the iron and steel iriluetry or have processes that
jonetate uflt pickle liquor and are in the SIC eo es (i.e.,
331 and 332) covered by the exclusion. Since FPA data
conflicts w tn your data, I suJgost someone from your staff
contact Jac uoline Sales, of y staff, at (202) 392—4770 to
furtner discuss this matter.
4) e) state that altnou h fifty percent of porcelain enaselers
have notifieo as ;enersting ! O 2, this doe. not indicate general
knowlc e of the broad a;plica i1ity of the ltsttn j since many
of these otif tars are protoctive ftlars. You further state
that the spont pLC cle li..luor 1istin should have been listed
generically under ‘261.31 if It w s intended to apply to
industries otnor than iron and steel.
The \‘ ency has always interpreted the listing to include spent
pickle lt uor ;eneratod from sil steel ftntshin’ industries
ret ardless of industry catejory. This is the plain sense
of thc iCD62 listing, which ap ltes to wastes from steel
fLntsnirt operations. As a setter of fact, vs have taken
nction on several dolisting petitions for industries other
than iron end steel, At tiUs time, however, we believ. it
prueent not to elaborate further on this issue until we
have litigated the suit filed by the Porcelain namel
5) It Is not clear what ?ortion of the waste stroam has bean
excluded from regulation (i.e., does the exclusion apply to both
the supernatant and slud je, or to the waste pickle liquor at
the noment it is Use stabilized).
The exclusion applies oni’ , to the elud e from li•”io treatnent
of waste pickle Liquor. AS a practical matter, this means
that the sludge is considered non—hazardous fld may be
disposed of in a Subtitle D or municipal landfill, Mowever,
the supernatar%t frort the trcat ent of this waste renains a
hazardous waste, unless doliatod. Therefore, the exclusion
does not app]’j to the entire was e strean.

I trust that this letter adoçuately addresses your concerns.
Should you have questions or re’uiro additional information,
please call Jacqueline Salos, of y staff, at (202) 382—4770.
Sincerely yours,
eileen M. Claussen
Characterization and Ase.ss ent Division

NOV .7 984
Mr. Stephen S. Odo)ewski
waste Resource Associates, Inc.
2576 Seneca Avenue
Niagara Falls, Uew York 14305
Dear Mr. Odojewski:
This letter reponds to your September 18, 1984 request for
clarification of the RCRA regulations that apply to wastes that are
only hazardous on the basis of a characteristic.
If a waste tt at is hazardous because of a characteristic is not
a listed waste, then 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(i) says it is not a hazardous
waste wnen it no longer meets that characteristic. Your under—
standing or 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) and 261.3(d)(1) is correct in saying
that this treated waste residue is no longer hazardous when it no
longer is hazardous by characteristic. The treatznent itself may or
may not re uiro a RCRA facility permit, depending on if the treat.’nent
is subject to regulation. exceptions to treatment can generally
be found in S264.l(g).
On the other hand, some wastes are 1ist d solely because of a
characteristic, such as F003 (ignitables). In this case the waste is
no longer hazardous when it is mixed with solid waste and the mixture
does not exhibit any characteristic according to S261.3(a)(2)(tii).
On the other hand, it a waste like F003 is not mixed with solid
waste duririj treatment, 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) and 261.3(d)(2) says the
treatment residue remains a listed waste until the waste has been
excluded under SS260.20 and 260.22. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.22(c)
requires a delisting petition to demonstrate that the waste no
longer meets the characteristic criteria.
I do want to point out that all but 7 States a d 3 territories
have programs that operate in lieu of the Federal RCRA program —
and 8 of these programs have received full authorization. When a
State has been granted authority to operate the RCRA program, you
are subject to the $ .tato r.’julations which nay have a slightly
øifferent viewpoint. The RCR*/SuperfundHotline at 800—424—9346
P96 1! ACN

can send you a copy of the State hazardous waste a;ency addresses
and phone numbers if you need it.
In riost cases, characteristic wastos would no longer be a RCRA
hazardous waste when they no lon jer exhibit the characteristic, except
as previously itientioned. Please do not hesitate to contact me
again if I nay be of further assistance.
Alan S. Corson
Ch i . f
Studies and Methods Branch

9441.1984 (33)
NOVE1(B 84
2. Solid wastes that result fr the extracti , beneficiatxa , an ____
of es and minerals (including .l) are excThthd fr the regu1ati
per 5261.4(b) (7). Solvents are often used to clean the equtpserit used f
suth extxactia , beneficiatia , and o ssirç. Are tt se cleaning solvents
also eza çted per 5261.4(b)(7) are they A hezardDas wastes?
_ - 52614 Cb)(7) ex çtion i s f wastes whidi are generated in direct
associatia , with the extractia%, beneficiati , and processing of es
and minerals. The cleaning of equLpi nt with solvents is r directly
associated with these processes. Theref e, solvents used in cleanLng
the mathinery wa.11d be A ‘srd zs wastes if they ar. listed et
a 5261 Subpart C d aracterLstic.
Sa.gce: Alan C sQ (382—4770)
Research: ailary S r tI 33( t)

Empty Container Rule
H. Skinner, Director Vtj
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
Karl 3. Kiepitech, Jr., Chief
Waste ManaQement Branch
This is in response to your October 24, 1984, memorandum
in which you requested a clarification of the Headquarters
position on emptying ta * cars. Let me reiterate the position
Man Corson took during his conversation with Gary Victorine
and relate it to the information included in your memorandum.
At that time, Gary did not emphasize that the tank care had
bottom valves.
Alan told Gary that if only top wtloeding is available, the
tank car is empty only if as much has been removed as possible
and no more than an inch or no more than 0.3% of the total capacity
(weight) remains. However, the Agency expects bottom valves to
be used, when present, if they provide maximum removal of waste.
Likewise, a 55-gallon drum should be emptied as completely
as possible. If pouring fran an inverted drum removes more
residual than a hand pump does, then pouring i. obligatory. Of
course, removal must be performed to achieve maximum possible
removal, not just to the one—inch level or 0.3% capacity, in order
to produce an empty container according to 40 CFR 5261.7(b)(1).
40 CFR 5261.7(b)(1)(i) states in part: ‘All wastes have
been removed that can be removed using the practices commonly
employed ..., pouring, pumping, and aspirating....’ The
August 18, 1982, pr.ble says that one inch of waste can be left
in an empty container only if it remains after performing normal
removal operations. Taken together, th.se citations support the
interpretation that all c only employed emptying thods
have to be employed to pty a container. ‘C c’ri1y employed’
refers to the normal practice of industry, not to what a given
person doss. Thus, containers that have not been subjected to
all crv Morily employed emthods of emptying are still subject to
If you hav• any further questions on this issue, please do not
hesitate to contact Alan Corsort of my staff at FTS —382-4770.
cc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
SPa P. 32S4 (S. .. )441

94 41 . 198 4 (3 5)
I ,l
C t
MZ 1ORU4 L ! —
p - I
SUBJECT: November 20th Meeting with Texas Department of Water
Resource. (?DW ) and Texas Hid-Continental 01].
and Gas Association (ThOGA)
/S/ Jack W. gcGra. “I
FROM: Jack McGraw
Deputy Assistant Administrator
TOt Dick Whitctngcou
- Regional Administrator. Region Vt
I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with you, Charles
Nestr and his associates from TWR. and the representatives r
from THOGA on November 20. HopefulLy, our conversations
clarified any confuaLon that say have arisen vith respect
to th. scop. of current regulation of oil/water emulsions
generated by refinery wastevater systems. In the way of a
follow up to the meeting, I thought that it might be useful
to s marize th. main point, that were made,
First, with respect to the question of which emulsions
are hazardous wastes, the answer is relatively straightforward.
Slop oil emulsion solids are generated in the first vessel
where the oil/water esulsioct is allowed to stratify. The
emulsion Layer that form. La th. listed hazardous waste
(K049-Slop oil emulsion solids from petroleum refineries)
independent of the subsequent treatment, storage, reclamation
or disposal step. to be applied to th. waste. Consequently,
whether K048 (Dissolved aLr flotation float) La added to
this mixture is irrelevant, since the material La already a
Listed hazardous vase.. On the ocher hand, the oil reclaimed
in a slop oil or other oil recovery system is a reclaimed
product and is not currently regulated. Consequently,
petroleum refinery production units are net hazardous waste
treatment facilities.
Turning to the subject of re*utacions applicable to
the onaite management of K049, th. oil reclamation process
La presently ezempced from regulation with cw exceptions.
Emulsion breaking in surface impoundments or ether. earthen
devices uld constitute storage of a hazardous waste.

Such tmitzvould require a permit since there La no 90 day
ex ption for storage in those tmits. c the other hand,
e nulsion breaking or storage in tankr.a u1d be subject to
per ittLng only if storage exceeded 90 days (provided the
requirements o S262.34 are compLied with).
Generators of X049 also need to be aware that the
shipeenc of oily emulsions off-site constitutes transport
of a hazardous vaite, regardless of the intended recipient
or their plan. for the waste. Furthermore, although it
was not an issue at the meeting, any final mixture of -• -
e.taulston and solids that is not reclaimed is regulated as
a hazardous ste. -
Turi irig to..th. off-sits rectpi.ntaàf tha emulsion,
they are receiving a hazardous saste. Therefore.; they are
required tonotLfy , coap]et.the manifests, and obtain peru
for storag. tanks and any other devices that are oc direct:
involved in the reclamation process. However, the recl.amat
process is not currently regulated. Non-reclaimed emulsion
(even if it La reclaimable) ii ahazardous vests .
In closing, Lets. again say that we vers pLeased to.
b. of assistance. ;l not hesitate to contact *.or
1att Straus of our staff, if you should require further
assistance in this or other matters.
CC: Regional Adninistrators I—X.
John Skinner
•MatC Seraus
Francis Jacoff
Ben Smith

9441. 1984(36)
DE 1 7 1984
SUBJECT: RCR.A Implications of Treating Gases
Vented Prom Compress.d Cylinders
PROM: John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH—5628)
James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals ManaQement Branch
Region IV
This is in response to your November 28, 1984, memorandum
regarding a facility built to treat fluorine (P056) and other
gases vented from compressed gas cylinders. You are correct
in your application of the response to the letter to the
Compressed Gas Association from Christopher Capper, dated
November 6, 1981.
According to that letter, customers return cylinders to gas
suppliers for ref illing, not for disposal, and no waste is involved.
If the gas supplier decides to discard th. contents of the returned
cylinders, any liquid or physically solid w i& removed from
the cylinders are suhj. _ tr R.ç _ RA if they are hazardous vast..
Cylinders containii g regulated quantities of hazardous waste
would need to be manifested to off—site facilities for treatment,
storage. or disposal. However, th. letter goes on to say that
the handling renoved from the cylinders and
neutralization or i b ing of gá i prior to release are not
subject to RCRA regulation. Any liquid or physically solid
wastes derived from the treatment of hazardous compressed gas
is still subject to RCRA regulations, if it is derived from listed
waste or if the residual is hazardous under Part 261 Subpart C
Therefore. ycur conclusions are correct. The facility is not
a RCR,A treatment facility for any handling of the gases removed
from the cylinders. Any liquid or solid residues derived from
the cylinders or from treatment of cylinder contents that are
listed in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D or are hazardous under Part 261
Subpart C are subject to Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact Alan Corson or Irene Homer, of my staff, at 382—4770.
cc Hazardous Waste Rranch Chiefs. Pe;ions I—Ill and V—X

• / !‘ j 4
•P I
Maneqement of Precipitation Run—off from Land Treat”ient Units
John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WM—562)
Hazardous Waste Division Directors,
aeg torts I—X
In the attached April 10, 1984 memo addressed to David
Wagoner of Region VI I, I described OSW’S policy on the management
of precipitation run—off from active, inactive, and closed portions
of hazardous waste management units. The April 10 memo focussed
vimari1y on scenarios applicable to waste piles and landfills.
This mei o clarifies some of the intportaot concepts discussed in
the Aoril 10 memq and describes how OSW’s policy on management of
run—off applies to hazardous waste land treau ent units.
Under 40 CPR 261.3(c) (2), precipitation run—off is not
— prestv ed to be a hazardous waste. In contrast, leachate generated
from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste
is a hazardous waste by definition (c261.3(c)(2)). A mixture
of precipitation run—off with a listed hazardous waste is a
hazardous waste unless the mixture is deliated, and a mixture of
2 orecipitation run—off with a characteristic hazardous vast’e is
presu’ned to be a hazardous waste unless it is shown not to. exhibit
any characteristic of hazardousness (5261.3 (a)(2)(iii) and (iv)
and S251.3Cb)(2)). Because leachate from hazardous waste is a
hazardous waste, a mixtur. of precipitation run—off and leachate
is a hazardous waste.-
Run—off from the active portions of hazardous waste Landfills
and waste piles, because of their design, will almost inevitably
consist in part of leachate and should, therefore, be presumed
initially to be a hazardous waste. The owner or operator can
overcome this presumption by demonstretinq that—the collected
run—off consists only of precipitation run—off. Because it is
unlikely that the precipitation run—off from closed portions of
hazardous waste landfills and waste piles will have mixed with
leachate, run—off from these portions can generally be presumed
not to be a hazardous waste. -
Rec ardinq land tze tment units, the rules and preambles do
not specify whether precipitation run—oft and leachate should be
presumed to mix. To clarify, the Agency will not presume that
collected run—off from a typical land treatment unit is a hazardous

In all cases, the owner or operator must still collect all
run—off in accordance with the Part 264 and 265 re’julations and
is still responsible for deternining whether the run—off exhibits
any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste defined in Subpart
C of Part 261.
Clarification of Anril 10 memo
My April 10 memo explained the key definitions and concepts
reciardincj the management of run—off from land—based hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal units. Zn underatandin
that policy, it is i” portant to recognize the relationship between
leachate and run—off, and the applicability of the mixture rule
(52613(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and 261.3(b) (2)) and the ‘derived
from rule ( 5261.3(c)(2)).
. Precipitation Run—off
‘Run—off’ j defined in 5260.10 as any rainwater, leachate,
or other liquid that drains over land from any part of a facility.
Run—of f qenerally consists of precipitation (rainwater) run—off,
and may also contain leachate. EPA intends run—off’ to cover
liquid that flows over and quickly off of the land surface of the
facility. flecause of this, any contact b een precipitation
run—off and waste will et be minimaL Zn the preainbl. to the
regulations issued on May 19, 1980 (45 FR 33096). EPA expressed
this by statings ‘... the water in precipitation run—off in many
cases may not have had sufficient contact with the waste to
solubilize waste constituents.’ Becaus. of the belief that in
many cases run—off would contain neither leachat. nor significant
levels of waste constituents, EPA did not categorically list
run—off as a hazardous waste and because of the lack of significant
contact between precipitation run—off and l.achate, EPA specifically
excluded precipitation run—off from th. ‘d•riv•d from’ rule in
526 1.3(c) (2).
Ther. are two situations, however, in which EPA classifies
run—off as a hazardous waste. First, it is a hazardous waste if
it exhibits any of th. characteristics of a hazardous waste
defined in Subpart C of Part 261. Second, under the mixture rule
(S261.3(a)(2)(Lii) and (iv)), it is a hazardous waste if it is
mixed with a hazardous waste, including leachate. Regardless of
whether the run—off is judged to be hazardou. or nonhasardous, it
still must be coll ted in accordance with the Part 265 and 264
• T..eachate
‘Leachate’ is defined in 5260.10 as ‘any liquid, including
any suspended components in the liquid, that ha. percolated
through or drained from a hazardous waste.’ EPA intends that

leachete ’ broadly refer to any liquid that has made significant
contact with a hazardous waste by draininq from it or passing
throur h it. Although leachate varies in quality, it typically
contains sieinificant levels of solubilized waste constituents.
EPA is particularly concerned about liquid that has passed
downward through the wastes in the waste management unit and
emerges from the bottom or side of the unit.
tJnder the ‘derived from’ rule, leachate from a hazardous
waste is defined as a hazardous waste. L.eachate derived from a
listed hazardous waste is considered a listed hazardous waste,
and it must be handled as such unless (1) it is delieted pursuant
to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, or (2) in the case of the few
listed wastes listed soley because they failed a characteristic
of Part 261, Subpart C, it no longer meets the characteristic
($263.3 (a)(2) (iii)). Leachate derived from characteristic
wastes is presumed to be a hazardous waste until it is shown
that the leachate dots not exhibit any of the characteristics
of a hazardous waste defined in Subpart C of Part 261.
Mixture of Precipitation Run—off and Laachate
The mixture rule in 526 1.3(a)(2)CLv) states that a solid
waste is a hazardous waste if it is a mixture of solid waste
and one or more hazardous wastes listed in Subpart D. [ Waste
mixtures containing characteristic hazardous wastes are treated
just like any other solid waste, i.e., they will be considered
hazardous only if they meet the characteristics.)
The mixture rule applies to precipitation run—off (and
indeed any other solid, nonhazardous waste or material that
is mixed with a listed hazardous waste). Because leachate
from hazardous waste is named as a hazardous waste under
$261.3 (c)(2), a mixture of precipitation run—off and leachate
is a hazardous waste. The key factor in determining whether
precipitation run—off has mixed with leachate is the unit
deai yn. The evaluator must determine if the design allows
leachate to migrat. from the bottom or side of the unit and
nix with precipitation run—off in a common collection facility.
Figure 1 in the appendix to my April 10 memo illustrates a
typical landfill scenario i t t which leachat. and precipitation
run—off mix. In this scenario, leachate percolates downward
through the waste and then moves laterally along an underlying
intermediate cover. This l.ac Piate then seeps from the active
face and accumulate in the same areas as the precipitation
run—off from the acEive area.
Because of the usual design of landfills and waste piles,
it is highly likely that in the active portions of these units
the run—off and leachat. will mix. CM exception would be a
pile or landfill operated under a roof). Because Parts 264 and
265 require collection of the run—off, the collection unit vii ]

likely contain a mixture of prccipitation run—off and leachate.
Due to the mixture rule, this run—off will likely be a hazardous
ecause the generation of leachate is minimized in
properly closed portions of these units, it is much less likely
that leachate and run—off will commingle in properly closed
and maintained portions. This run—off, therefore, is usually
not a hazardous waste becauce it is unlikely that the precipitation
run—off has mixed with leachate.
Policy for Land Treatment Units
My April 10 memo did not specifically describe how the
above policy is applied to hazardous waste land treatment units.
however, references to land treatment units were made in the
a7pendix to the memo. Several of these references need further
clarification. mI.slee ii j . These references suggested that the
run—off from active and closed portions of these units should be
presumed to he a ha.zardous waste because the run—off would in most
cases come into contact with surface—applied wastes.
The regulations and preamble discussion on run—off from
hazardous waste land treatment units do not specifically address
whether precipitation run—off and leachate will usually mix
in the active or closed portions of these units. To clarify,
the Agency will not initially presume that this mixture viii
occur in the active or closed portions of typical land treatment
units. Therefore, run-off from these units will generally not be
considered a hazardous waste (unless it exhibits a characteristic).
The following discussion explains the basis for and possible
exceptions to this general policy.
The same general concepts described above for landfills and
waste piles apply to land treatment units. First, the derived
from rule does not apply to precipitation run—off (i.e., unlike
leachate from a hazardous waste, precipitation run-off is not
presumed to be a hazardou. waste). Limited contact of precipitation
run—off with the waste on the soil surface does not automatically
render the run-off a hazardous waste. Second, run—off is a
hazardous waste if it (1) exhibits any of the characteristics of
a hazardous waste, or (2) mixes with a listed ha!ardous waste or
].eachate. Third, the most important factor in determining whether
run—off and leachate have mixed is the design of the unit.
The design of land treatment units is fundamentally different
from landfills aid waste piles. Land treatment units rely on
successful treatment rathec than physical barriers to prevent
escape of waste components. They are open systems in that
they are not required to have liners for containing waste. At a
typical land treatment unit, wastes are treated in the treatment
zone and treated soil pore liquid (or aleachatee)* is then allowed
to move out of the bottom of the unit (see Figure 1 in attachment

2). The absence of restrictive layers in the treatment zone of
a land treatment unit, such as intermediate covers for lifts in
a landfill, limits the Lateral movement of 9eachate. Also, most
land treatr ent units are relatively flat, which decreases the
chance for leachate seeps out side elopes should any lateral
movement occur. Because of this design, it is unlikely that
leachate will ‘nove laterally and mix with run—off from active or
closed portions of typical land treatment units. Therefore, tP%e
run—ott tro typical Land treatment units will, not e Dreaumed to be
a hazardous waste. The issue of soil pore liquid versus leachata
(see footnote) doeB not affect the run—off policy for this caae.
There are certain land treatment unit designs that
may allow the mixing of leachate with run—off, and for which the
run—off policy is still unclear. For example, certain units may
be desiqned to include a liner system that promotes the lateral
movement and cotiuningling of leachate and run—off. Figure 2
in attachment 2 illustrates this case. Another example is where
the ground water at least periodically discharges to a run—off
co11o tion ditch or impoundment, e.g., where the run-off collection
ditch or impoimdment is constructed below the water table and
downaradient of the facility. In this case, leachate’ and
run—oft would mix, as illustrated in Figure 3 of attaGhment 2.
The run-off policy for these two cases (i.e., figures 2 1, 3), as
well as esiqns that may be used to lower the water taDle (e.g.,
drainage systens), is dependent on th. resolution of the leachate/
soil pore liquid issue. When we complet. the evaluation of this
issue, additional çuiddnce addressing these cases will be provided.
* e petitioner, in the Part 264 regulation litigation recently
questioned whether treated soil pore liquid should be considered
leachate.’ It may be arqued, for example, that soil pore liqu
should no lon;er be iazerd.,u 1 .iLter it La Utreateds and
from the bottom.ot the treat’ ent s pro. iv .ratinq land
trsst’,ant uniP. If such liquid is dsem.d to be leachate, any
qround water or other liquid with which the leachate mixes would
also be a hazardous waste. Thus, any ground wat.r withdrawn to
artificially lo% r the water table (to c sply vith.tho one meter
separation requirement under S264.271) would have to b! managed as
a hazardous waste. Osi: is currently.valuatinq this issue, and
its ramifications on LT unit designs, particularly in high water
table areas. Additional guidance will be providsd on this issue
when this evaluation is completed.

Please contact Ken Shuster, Chief of the £..and Dispo5al
Rranch, at rrs 382—3345, or Art Day at 382—4680 Li you hav, any
questions or additional information is needed.
ccs John Lehman
Eileen CLauseen
Bruce Zeddl•
Day Wejti an
Nancy Rutz.l