United States Solid Waste and EPN53O-R-93-012E Environmental Protection Emergency Response July 1998 Agency ( OS-343 ) RCRA Permit Policy EPA Compendium Volume 5 9442.1980 - 9444.1986 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (Part 261) • Criteria for Identifying Hazardous Waste • Characteristics of Hazardous Waste • Lists of Hazardous Waste TcchLat ’ l/5949/Covcrc/ 6 ------- DISCLAIMER 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. ooo oa uo 6uiqso, - ?jg ioy t lJ1PlIfl J 4S A Vd3Sfl USEPA West Building Headquarters Repository ,,4 I; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW. Room 3340 - Mailcode 34041 o 4 • Washington, DC 20004 rerlflclfleflt o e tiorJ ------- p vUG Criteria For Identifying The Characteristics Of Hazardous Waste And Listing Hazardous Wastes EJBD ARCHIVE EPA 530— R- 98— 012E v.5 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CATE S’ EC 261984 9442. 1964 (01) SUBJECT RCRA Regulatory Status of Contaminated Grouriiwater FROM John Skinner, Director ‘L(. L4._ ç 1 Office of Solid Waste (WH—562) TO James Scarbrough, Chief Residuals Management Branch, Region IV The memo dated July 20, 1984, which you retransmitted December 7, 1984, explores the regulatory status of contaminated ground water. Actually, the issue is not whether groundwater that contains Appendix VIII constituents is a hazarlous waste, because generators do not use Appendix VIII . identify hazardous waste. Rather, EPA designates solid wastes that contain kppendix VIII constituents as listed hazardous waste after considering the criteria listed in 40 CFR S261.l1(a). Then a generator identifies hazardous waste using the criteria listed in 40 CFR §261.3(a) and the decision matrix of 40 CFR §262.11. Thus, to answer the question: “IS ground water contaminated by hazardous waste considered to be hazardous waste?” one uses the criteria in §261.3 to see if the water was a solid waste, and either derived frQn listed waste or hazarlous by characteristics identified in Subpart C. Note that S261.3(c)(2) says that any solid waste generated fran the treatment, storage or disposal of a hazardous waste is a hazardous waste, and §261.3(d) says a waste is no longer hazardous when It no longer exhibits the characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C or until a listed waste (or waste derived fr listed waste) has been excluded under the petitioning process. Therefore a contaminated groundwater that Is “collected” and derived fruit listed waste or hazardous by characteristic is a hazardous waste and subject to Subtitle C regulation. However, the reauthorization bill allows underground injection of contaminated ground water that has been treated to substantially reduce the hazardous constituents. Ofcourse, the implications on permitting, interim status compliarrce order corrective actions, and treatment of ground water will need to be studied. If you have any further questions, do not hestitate to contact Irene Homer of my staff at 382—4804. cc Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I—Il l and V—X Gene Lucero, Enforcement EPA P . 13204 (Ri ,. 3•761 ------- 9442.1985(01) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUIO(ARY DECEMBER 85 urninç and Blend ing 8. A generator of used Oil-.buzns the used oil on—site in an industrial oiler. The used 021 neither exhibits a Subpart C characteristic of a hazarcous 4aste nor exceeds any of the specificati levels listed in S266.40(e ( ove er 29, 1985, Federal QiSter (50 FR 49164)). If the generator oLenos urn sed product xylene (hazardous waste n ber U239) into the used oil, does he then have a hazardous waste fuel (per S261.6 (a)(2)(ii)) which is Subject to regulation under Suopart D of Part 266? Xylene is a cu rcial chemical product listed in 5261.33(f). U.S. EPA has determined, howaver, that Listed c u rcjal chemical, products are not solid wastes (or hazardous wastes) when burned for energy recovery if they are themselves fuels or normal cauponents of ccmnerci.aL fuels per S 261.33 which states that such materials are not NdlscardedN, and resti teci in footnote 8 of the Nov er 29, 1985, Federal ister (50 FR 49168). Xylene is a normal ca nent of fuel. rs ore, the unused xylene is neither a regulated solid waste nor hazardous waste when burned for energy recovery. The çjenerator’s used oil has not been mixed with hazardous waste and is not a hazardous waste fuel. Therefore it will not be subject to Part 266, bpart 0 regulation p .r S26 1.33 aid 261.6(a) (2)(ii). The used oil, wavsr, is being burned for energy recovery aid so is regulated under Part 266, Subpart E. per 5266.40(a). Sscticn 266.42 states that generators burn used oil are subject to $266.44. 1? burner st notify under Section 3010 of M for his used oil manageient activities aid maintain docis ntation or analysis s ing that the used oil maets the specifications. Source: Bob Ibll ay (202) 382—7917 ------- 9442.1986(01) AN I 6 66 Mr. John Slemner nvjronmenta1 Manager Solid Tek Systems, !r.c, 5371 Cook Road P.O. Box 888 Morrow, Georgia 3O2 O-O88e Dear Mr. Slema . , this is in respons. to your letters dated November 27 and December 27, 1985, conc•rning the identification of residues generated f to. the treatment of hazardous vast.s, in particular, You ask vheth.r the identifiction numbers that go on the manifest that accompanies th. treated waste should be based on the hazardous waste characte,jstjcs of the treated vast., the composition of the treated vast., or both. The answer to this question depends both on which wastes are being treated and the characteristics of the treatment residue, it the TSD facility is treating onLy characteristic hazardous wastes, the identification number that goes on the manifest for the treatment residue would be that number that is assigned to the characteristic for which the wast, still exhibit, ( i.e . if the treated waste exhibits the characteristic of ignitabitity, the identification number would be DOOl). of course, if the treatment residue no longer exhibits any of the characteristic, of hazardous waste, the vast, would no longer be hazardous and subject to Subtitle C control. If, on the other hand, the treatment facility treats both listed and charactexjsttc hazardous wastes or just listed hazardous waste, the identification number that goes on the manifest for the treatment residue would be that of the untreated listed waste and that numbe, that corresponds to the charactexistjc for which the waste exhibits, if any. Thus, in the example provided in your letter, you are correct that the identification number for the treated residue is u012. You ar. also correct that the TSD becomes a generator of the treated waste. ------- I hope thu adequately eeponde to your request. If I can be of any fuith. assistance, please feel free to give ac a call at (202) 475—8SSI. Sinc ec. Iy. Matthew A. Straus Chief waste Identification Branch (WH5625) ------- 9442. 1986( 02) P(EMURAND ! SIJ JECT: Oieoosal of Anti—leoplasttc Agents in Fios ital Wastes FROM8 Jeff Dent, Deputy Director Office of Solid Waste (Wii—562) ros Kinneth D. Feigner, Chief EPA, Reaton X laste Managosent 3rancfl The lasus reqardinq possible hazards oosed by anti—neoplastic drugs has been brought to our attention within th. last couple of years. Iitrt larg. incr.ase S in both the numbers of anti-’neonlastics available for us. in chemotherapy arid the number of petisrits betr treated with these drw s, riospital. personnel have expressed con- cern with handling and disposal of these chemicals (and materials contaminated with these chemical.). Mtt—n.oplastics, as a class of chemicals, are not r.qulatel under RC A. ‘iodsver, the foll in41 are List ‘1 as hazardous waste under 4 ) CFR. 261.33(f)* U035 Ch.Iorassbucil uosa Cyclophospha itde U)5 Daurtomycin UlSU Melpha]ari UU1J Mtto’ iyctn C 3206 Streptozotocin U237 iracti ustard Io,.ver, since these wastes are ilentifLYt only’ as toxtc wastes, under 261.22(f) they are subject tO the sta’vlard soall quantity g.nsrator exclusion. As a ,racttcat iattar, thi means that asless large voLui ies of these chet itcaLs are c1t c4r 1e’ ( t.s. , 100 kg/so or ,ors) i* ich in nost cases is ‘inltlieLv. or the facility Is a larg, quantity g.nerator, the ‘iajority o’ these wastes wilt rwain unreçjulated. me Agency is aware that anufactur.rs arid health care facilities recQamend incin.ratiori of arti—neoplastics arid aterials contaminated with the., chemicals. Although thi . Is no conconsus among health care professiOfhals a. to the aporoortate teripecature ------- niciasary for diatruction, many ficijjti.i sri incin.ratj, thisi was at tsspsraturse bet en 1800’-2200’p. Sj c. the Aqsnay Ms not invistigat.d the efficiencies of tncin.r,tjn this. have not pro,idd guidance or takin a POsition with respect to this issu. At this ti!ss, VS tiVS no plans to c .it resources to the study of antineoplastics or to initiat, any further rul.sakj, action. is rec a.nd that State officials (in Seattle) contact the manufactur.rs of these drugs to gather infori atjon on recom- nended handltnq and disposal practices. ------- 9442.1986(03, MEP ORANDWM StJ8JECT Carbon Reqeneratton Facilities PROM: Marcia Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste (WH—362) TO: Stephen R. Wassersuq, Director Hazardous Waste Nanagement Division (3HI O) This is in r.soortse to your March 11. 19U. me. eandu regarding the applicability of the RCRA hazardous waste rules to carbon regeneration facilities. In oarttcular: 1) Is the spent carbon a solid waste? In general, yes. As you correctly state in your letter, soent carbon can be defined as a spent material or a sludge (i.e., spent carbon would normally be considered a spent material, unless it results from pollution control in which case it is consid.red a sludge). Sont materials (whether or not they are listed or contain a listed hazardous waste) end listed sludges being reclaimed are colid waste. In addition, if the spent carbon contains a characteristic spent material (and th. spent carbon itself exhibits a hazardous waste cItaracter lsttc), it also is a solid waste. On the other hand. ie the spent carbon contains a characteristic sludge or by oroduct. it is not defined as a solid waste (even if the soent carbon exhibits a hazardou. waste characteristic). 2) Is the spent carbon a hazardous waste? Yes. That spent carbon d.ftned as solid waste (as described above) is also hazardous it it contains a l1st d hazardous waste or exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic. 3) Which Part 264 standards apply? If the spent carbon is a solid and hazardous waste. the owi er or operator of the facility must comply with t 1 te ------- f .*ty 1 SSl dIiq r.oeivt a pez ie. m. ..t Incie 11 the is •i - -- IsSulati. , bs • Ii s%j g recyclable Raterlal. thai those i’e constituting dispeasi re Surrestly subj.et osly to trisep t.a jos stOraq. stj The r.cc j iL Ity Itself, esi.si. . I roe th. facility, are not ourr. Subject to r.guia j 5 (Toy should sot, that if the t CI lity did not us. as to inj j 5 orqasj ajssj 5 the qv..%j of adA applicability wo.aj,j so eves ha,, boys raised.) In the fUt r., v intend to lea at other recyclI, ape such as carbon reg.a ,ra j to deterni,,, ig stan(jard. are varrant.d. Your cOflc. that a d•tet j, ,tj 05 that the 01 f-gas is an rega j s j would hs, adverse rauificaei for incin .. oration faciliti., does not •ppear to be a oejo pro enproseed concero that as Inc Ia ’rator operate, could vaporize his wose. is a nonfles, devise prior to i 5je j i an and c1aj. that the vae.fj a is an unregyla trta. •Ri 5i • such a clajo I . not lihely to be beosus. t operate, vou d ed to show that the vaperiseties essijeyto. a showing ass be nod•. tide recycling not integral to the iasiae dss’ If you ha,. further queatj or Snts, coetact asee Straus at 7$ i i or 1ob. IOllovay at 3S2-7g3 1/ Psoyclabl• asterials burned for energy recover ar. only subject to the transportation and storag. rules. The actual burning itself viii be regulated in the futur. (i.e., v plan to propos this si:r standards that would control e.issioas from boilers and industrial furnace. burning hasardoom waste and off”specificstio. used oil fuels). ------- 9442. 1986( 04) M Y 5 Honorable Richard G. Luqar United States Senate WasPungton, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Lugar; Thank you for your letter or April 9, 1986, concerning the Union Carbide tacility in Henderson County, Kentucky. ou asked about the location of the plant and the listing ot Tf-l under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). I would like to tirst clarity my understanding of the proposed Union Carbide operation. Union Carbide ha. applied for a permit to recycle TF-1, used a. a flushing agent in electrical transformers, that has been contaminated with PCBS. Solid wast. from this recycling process will be transported oft—sits to a permitted TSCA facility tor Lncineration. The TF—1 will b processed at t Henderson facility after Union Carbide drains and flushes the trar storme s at its customer s site. The State ot Kentucky issued Union Carbio a construction permit under the authority of the State’s Air ?ollution Control Act in December 1985. Union Carbide also applied to EPA for a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) permit. Union Caroide submitted its application to EPA’s Region IV office in February 1 )86 and a test demonstration plan in early April 1986. both eubmittais are now under review by the Region. TSCA requires that EPA consider location during this review to ensure that permit issuance would not constitute an •unr.asonabl. risk to human health and the environment. In addition, du• to cititen and Congressional concerns,, EPA Region IV is voluntarily conducting a public health and environ- mental .ss.swnt of the area surrounding the facility. Prior to operation, Union Carbide must successfully conduct demonstration testing. and secure a TSCA operating permit and a Kentucky Air Pollution Control Act operating permit. Once in operation, th. facility must conduct routin, testing to ensure permit standards are continually met. Secondly, I would like to clarify why the information presented by Dr. Howard E. Dunn is not sufficient in itself to list TF—l as a hazardous waste. The possible inclusion of one or more ot the ------- 2 chemical constituents ot TP—1 in 40 CFR 261.33 wouLd not auto- matically make a mizturq of these constituents a hazardous waste. This ]iseinq refers only to the commercially pure grade of the chemical., any technical grades ot the chemical that are produced or marketed, and all formulations in which tlie chemical is the sole active ingredient . Thus, TF—l could contain a constituent listed In 413 CFR 261.33 and not be a hazardous waste. I cannot comment on the specific chemical composition of TF—l, due to regulations concerning contidential business information. In order for EPA to promulgate a rule listing a waste as hazardous, factors in addition to toxicity must be ConSidered. These include the concentration of the constituents, quantity at waste generated, the persistence and potential of the constituent. to migrate from the waste and move into the environment, and the plausihie types of mismanagement to which the waste may be subject. Based on these factors, a waste will then be ‘li.t.d when the data allows the Agency to conclude that the waste may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed. Because of the absence of existing data in this area, PA has scheduled toxicity tests for several of the TI—I components. Once this testing is completed, a determination can be mad. on whether these constituents are hazardous and whether the waste should be listed. If you should have specific questions on the permittina process, you may wish to contact Connie Jones, EPA Region IV (404—881—2091), or 3. Alex Barber, Kentucky De artaent of Environmental Protection (502—S64—6716). Please let me know it you have any zurther question.. Sincerely, 3. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator cc: 3. Alex Barber Connie Jones ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442 .1986(04a) p * g Mr. ‘.ichar T. Cnander 3 oL) darry n rews oaJ i est Gre nwicn, Rnode Island 02816 C C Dear ?ir. Enander* your inquiry of April 22, l9 6 has been referred to tP o C aracterization and Assessment Division of the Office of Loud Ei’ ’. has evaluated tt e relative carcinogenic potencios a onq 54 suspect hutaan carcinogens. rhese are published in many of the Health Assessment Documents developed by the Off ice of Health and Environmental Assessment (O IEA). I have enclosed a copy of such a table from a recent Health Assessment Document for tetro— c loroethyiene. For further information concerninq othe.r suspect carcinoiens, mutagen , or teratogens, I sugqest you contact :lr. t eter ereuss, i.n.rector of OH A. Me can be reached at (202) •1 I•i 7 I u _ fJ s The Office of Solid Jaste uses this health assessment ini ormation along with other evaluations of potential exposure ano mismanagement in making a ruqulatory decision on whether a waste is hazardous. The criteria EPA uses are codified at 4 )CFi sections 261.10 and 261.11, a copy of which is alco en— closeth I hope these lists are useful to you. Sincerely, Eileen B. Claussen Director Chardcterization a Assessment Qivision ( iH—562B) nclosures ------- 9442.3.986(05 :‘r. 1eil Gincold General counsel nvi rosure 333 Carison Street Puffalo, NY 14203 Dear Mr. Gintold: This is in response to your letter of June 12, 1987, in which you recuested clarification regarding waste tracking and classifi- cation. First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in respondinq to your letter; I hope my delay hasn’t caused you any problems. The answers to your questions are as followez 3. EPA’s current policy on string low and high Stu wastes is sunmarized in an enforcement guidance memo publiahed in the Federal of March 16, 1983. (Enclosure 1.) AS th. guidance memo explain., a determination of what constitutes ‘sham burning’ d.psnds on a number of factors presented by the circumstances of a particular ease, the energy valu, of the wastes being blended or burned is likely to bi of primary significance in most cases. 8l.ndirig a low StU waste ( i.e. , less than 5000 Rtn/lb.) with a higher Btu waste would not normally change th. ‘sham’ character of th. subsequent burning. You should not• that, as the guidance memo point. out, other factors ar. considered in distinguishing sham from legitimate burning, and that EPA will ait a priority on sham burning in non-industrial settings. Also, as you correctly point out, EPA baa proposed a n.y fuels policy in tk. fern of revisions to th. hazardous vast, burning tions. On May 6, 1917, EPA proposed standards for ra and furnaces burning hazardous waste. (See En— a • 2.) The proposed standards would apply to boil- ers aid furnaces burning hazardous wast. regardless of whther the purpose was energy recovery or destruction, so the ‘sham recycling’ distinction would no longer be relevant. ( Id. at 16989.) EPA baa accepted public com- ments on the May 6 proposal and we will be making deci- sions regarding th. final rule within the nest year. Until this regulation is ainde final, the enforcement policy will remain in effect. ------- —2— a a final ont on burning of wastes, you should note th.3t t u ‘J.S. Court of Aopeals for tne Distr c of Col— r ched ecisiori on July 31, 1 7, tnat calls r.to uestion E?A’s authorLty to regulate certain wa3te r cvc1ing activities. SPA is Studyinc the opinion to eter ine its scope. ecause the Court has not y t issued its r’andate, the requlatiorts currently in tne Code of Federal Regulations definirta what is “solid waste,’ and establishing regulation. for recycled hazardous waste, remain in effect. 2. Listed waste. never ‘lose their identify.’ Wastes are tracked on the manifest by waste cod. under U.S. Deoart— rnent of Transportation (DOT) regulations at 49 C!R Parts 171 and 172.1/ For mixtures, you must enter each waste code in the mixture on the manifest. Further, you should note that facilities in interim status must specify on their ‘Part A’ permit application the hazardous waste they will be receiving (see 40 C?R 5270.13(j)) and must amend the Part A to receive new wastes (5270.72(a)). Also, a RCRA permit granted to a treatment, storage, or disposal facility may specify the sp.cific hazardous wastes the facility is authorized to accept. Finally, a treatment, storage, or disposal facility must keep an operating record with very specific information on each hazardous waste at the facility. (S.c 55264.73 and 265.73.) 3. All of the requirements referenced in answer number 2, above, require tracking of individual wastes by shipment (and if necessary, by container). 4. The proper classification of waste treatment residuals (the filter cake in your case) depends on the wastes enter— ring your treatment system. Under 40 Cr1 1261.3(c)(2)(t), a vast. derived—from treating a hazardous waste is itself a hazardous waste. Such ‘derived—from’ wastes 11 Please note a couple of points regarding waste shipment tracking. First, the DOT rules referred to above do not require the EPA vast, code for ‘U and ‘P’ listed wastes. This is because t3 and p chemicals muse already be described by their specific chemical names under 49 Cr1 Part 171. Tog should also note that although EPA does not require the EPA waste codes to be placed on the hazardous wast, manifest, some States j require EPA’s (or their own) codes to be entered on the manifest in addition to the DOT requirements. ------- —3— 3t’ ssi ’r d the waste code(s) of the incomir.’ (L.e., r eted) ast 5. us, i .ore than ne listed 3St w s treated, the treated residue would be identified y ll t! e listed wastes treated. If you have further questions in this area, please contact •‘ike Petruaka of my staff at (202) 475—6676. Sincerely, Sylvia Lowrance, Acting Director Characterization and Assessment Division ------- 9442. 19B 6(01) Mr. Richard t. BouJ.ware Vipont Botanical Laboratories 2403 E. Kivett Drive High Point, North Caroline 27260 Dear Mr. Boulware. This is in r soonse to your May 27, 1986 letter, requ 9eing an int. rpretacion of the iederal hazardous waste ru1 s as they apply to the wastes to be generated in your extraction process. As you state in your 1 tter, this process uses the solvent aethylene chloride to recover alkaloids from plant matter. The two wastes or which you request speciric intormation on are: (1) the solid cake remaining in the basket centrifuge, and (2) the wastewater stream discharged to a POTW. Solid Cake - I agree with your understanding that the solid cake in the basket is not a listed hazardous waste, namely, a spent solvent——and would only be Pazardous it it exhibits any or the hazardous wastw characteristics ( i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity). in addition, when the ?CLP is promulgated, you will also need to determint whether the solid cake exhibits this characteristic. Wastewater — mis wastestream, as you state in your letter and as we discussed on June 27, comes otf th centrifuge as a wastewater that contains methylene chloride; the methylene chloride is then stripped ott to be reclaimed while the wastewater is diachargeci to a POTW. Under this scheme, the wastewater also is not considered a ltsted waste (nor does it contain a listed waste). Th.retore, this stream also would only be hazardous if it exhibit. any of the existing or future hazardous waste characteristics. Finally, although you did not request an interpretation of the status of th. spent mathylene chloride under the federal hazardous waste rules, you should be aware that the spent aethylene chloride that comes ott the liquid extractor is considered a listed hazardous waste and may be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of 9CM. (See the Final Detinition ------- 2 or Solid Wait. Rulemaking. 50 FR 614k January 4, i 85 and the Final Tank Rules that were sign d by the Administrator on June 30, 1986, to determine the actual regulatory status of the solvent spent methylene chloride.) Please tee]. free to give me a call. f I can be of any rurther assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely. Matthew A. Straus Chiet Waste Characterization Dranch ------- tIED! 1ESEP4VIR0HMEHTALPROT .(IONA iCY 9442.1986(08) Gz 986 Ms. Janet Matey Q nical Manutacturers Assn., Inc. 2501 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Matey; I cu1d like to su,isrize the info tion you discussed with Eileen Claussen during your phone conversation regarding the Office of Solid Waste’s progran for relistirç hazardous %estes. Oir goal is to ai nd the current hazardous waste listings so that their apç licability can be better dat ined; cur current thinking is to redefine the listings by setting concentr tian l2Jnlts (either in the waste or in the lea te fran the waste) for the various toxic constituents currently identified or expected to be edded in Appendix VII of Part 261. That is, waste or leachate fran the waste that contains the toxic tstituents or concern bel the levels to be set In the anertded listings, icu1d r longer be designated as a listed hazardous waste; the waste i uld still bj hazardous, hc*.ever, it it exhibits one or itore of the hazardous characteristics detined in 40 CFR 261.21—261.24. Based on a review of the available data, the Agency has identitied the need to obtain additional constituent concentration data for the currently listed wastes in oruer to detecnine the level at thich the constituents of concern could present a hazard. Thus, wa plan to visit a n r of facilities generating the listed hazardous wastes, and collect swples of these streans for analyses. We are in the pr ess of identifying plants to visit and will contact thoae plants within the next few waeks to neke arrange nts for ling this fall. We encourage your i ers to etbnit any available data on waste or leathate ca!position, ground water z nitorinj, and toxic effects that will help the qency establish appr riate concentration levels for toxic constituents in their wastes. Your cooperation and assistance in this ef tort will be appreciated. Should you have any q estions regarding this progran or need additional infornation, please contact at (202) 382—4766. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief - IiR Pc p Før4, Pi Pr rv h ------- 9442. 1987( 0 2J ( UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. Z0450 24 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS Mr. Richard Ekfelt Director of Regulatory Affairs American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute 1255 Twenty—third Street, NW Washington. DC 20037 Dear Mr. Ekfelt: Jeff Denit and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you on June 3, 1987, to discuss the Agency’s study to determine whether additional residual streams from by-product coke plants and coal tar refineries should be listed as hazardous wastes under RCRA. This meeting helped us understand the concerns of ACCCI members about the study; we hope that it clarified the objectives of EPA’. study of the coke industry. This letter pro- vides additional information to address the questions and concerns that were raised by ACCCI in your meeting with Ed Abrams and Dennis Wallace on May 14 and your May 26 letter to Mr. Abrams. The responses below axe organized to be consistent with your letter. la. To date, trigger levels for specific constituents pre- sent in coke wastes have not been established. When established, these NtriggexN levels will be health—based, not technology-based, and will be determined by first developing exposure limits for human consumption via drinking water and inhalation. Next, the exposure limits will be used to calculate leachate and air emission concentrations using model, developed by the Agency that predict transport through ground water or dispersion through air. Finally, models that predict rate of constituent release from the waste will be used to calculate the regulatory levels in the residual stream. lb. The term primarily aqueousN, as used in Mr. Wallace’s letter to Mr. Eagle, referred to waste water streams. Specific examples include waste ammonia liquor, waste waters from direct contact final coolers and light oil recovery operations, and tar refinery waite waters. The Agency ha. not established specific limits fox solids content, organic. content, or percent water to define these streams; they essentially are the stream . that are commonly defined by the industry as waste waters. The leachate procedure that will be used for the streams ------- —2— is the same TCLP procedure that will be used for all streams. The TCLP procedure is defined in Appendix I to 40 CFR Part 268. (See 51 FR 40643 for a definition of the procedure.) For residuals that have less than 0.5 percent solids (a condition that we assume will hold for most waste waters), the residual stream is the leachate per that procedure. 2. Any waste water discharges that are point source dis- charges under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act are excluded from the definition of solid waste (and con- sequently are not hazardous wastes) per 40 CFR Part 261.4(a)(2). Further, persuant to 40 CFR Part 264.1 (g)(2), the requirements of azt 264 do not apply to the owner or operator of a wastewater treatment unit as defined in 40 CFR Part 261.10. Among othez require- ments, Part 261.10 defines waste water treatment unit as a device which is Part of a waste water treatment facility which is subject o regulation under either Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act; and meets the definition of tank (also defined in Section 261.10.). Thus, tanks may meet the criteria for the exclusion, but the exclusion would not apply to surface rmpound— ments. As you are aware, some coke plant wastewaters are treated in surface impoundments rather than tanks; therefore, OSW is obligated to examine the need for regulating these waste streams and treatment units under RCRA. The samples that we are collecting are necessary to determine the need o regulate these streams. 3. The decisions related to listing additional coke plant residuals as hazardous wastes will be based on the criteria established in 40 CFR Part 261.11. These criteria are based on the potential hazard posed by the wastes and the potential for mismanagement of the waste and, as such, are not related directly to waste minimization concerns. The listing of these wastes probably will not require major changes in the recycling and recovery practices that are used by many coke plants. The pro- posed rule for burning waste in boilers and industrial furnarices (see 52 FR 17019), May 6, 1987), specifies that the coke and coal tar produced when ar decanter sludge (1 (035) is used as a feedstock are classified as products not wastes. The rationale for this proposal was that the residual and the normal feedstock or product have common constituents and that the residual streams and products are associated with the same ------- —3— process. Based on our understanding of the residual streams that we are examining and the current recylcing practices for those streams (use as a feedstock in the coke ovens or combination with tar in the aecanter), these practices are likely to be deemed acceptable under the rationale established for the 1(035 stream. 4. The “trigger” levels that will, be established under this listing/relisting study will not define technology—based limits to whcih residuals must be treated; they will be used to determine whether a waste stream is a “listed waste.N When a waste stream has constituents at or below the “trigger” levels, or if it is treated to reduce constituents to those levels, it will cease to be a hazardous waste, unless it exhibits one of the hazardous characterisitics defined in 40 CFR 261.21—24. If the residual stream has constituent concentrations above the “trigger” level, it will be a hazardous waste and must be treated, etored,and disposed in a manner that complies with the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 262 through 266 and 270. - 5. As a part of this study, detailed information on waste management practices has been requested from most coke plant and tar refinery operators. These data will be compiled and summarized in the background documents that form the basis for the listing decision. Based on the recent proposal related to tar decanter sludge that was described above, we anticipate that the information presented in these background documents will enable the Agency to make sound judgemente on environmentally acceptable management practices, as well as the potential for a given waste to be improperly managed. I hope that these responses have addressed the concerns that you raised in your May 26 letter. If vu have questions about the responses please call me at (202) 382—4769. Sincerely, Robrt Scaberry Chief, Listing Section cc: Jeff Denit Matt Straus Ed Abrams Dennis Wallace ------- 9442.1987(03) J.L2S Ms. 8hi ee 8chiifaan, Chief Bureau of Uaurdou. Waste Regulation and C laOsificatton Stats of M Jersey Dspaztasnt of Rnvironn.ntal Protection 401 Last Stat. Street Trenton, IT 05625 Dear Ms. Schiffasa, This is in respons. to your letter of Jun. 10, lU?, in which you reqiu.st.d our int.rprctation an several issue, invoLving electroplating rins.wat.rs. Specifiosl ly, you re umst.d cant ira eiaa of your caac luaiona drawn as a result ot your tel ce v.rsa4 tions with Mr. David Tapping, of ny staff. In addition 1 you requ.st.d our answ.rs to five specific questions relating to the haaardous vaste/non.hasardous wait. status of used Las enahang. r.sins that w.r. us.d to treat electroplating riisewat.rs. T ixst, I would lik, to respond to the two questions you discuss.d with Mr. David Topping. In particular, I agree with your conclusions thats 1) rinsesaters izos electroplating opera.’ tion. war. not neant to be included in the F009 listing (spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions fran electroplating opera.’ tians where cysnides are used in the process), and 2) residual droplet. of stripping, cleaning, or electroplating solutions pr.s.nt on the aetal would not aske the rinsewat.rs hasazdous by the nizture ruls when the astal parts are rinsed of f. In the first case, rinsewat.rs are not considered spent stripping or cleaning bath so luticnsj in the s.aond case, trace anounts of plating bath solutions that are cazri d over to rinse tanks ax. not conoidared to be a solid vast. aining with another solid waste. Th asteriels are in use and are not wastes until they are spent f reaovsd f ion the process. The r.asininq questions will be sn red in the san. order that they ax. presented La your letters 1. Your first question aski •aan a wastewater trsatnt cyst.. which only is treating a noe -’hawdous electra. plating waste (such as rinsewaters) produc. an 7006 listed hasardous waste7 The answer to this question is yes the sludge ftes the tresenent of electroplating wastenater contains tone astals at concentration asny tines higher than their concentration in the wastewaters theaselves. It should also be noted that although electroplating rins.waters are not specifically listed ------- in 40 ‘R 261 Subpart D, they nay exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic ( P toxicity) under 40 CPa 261. Subpart C for certain toxic setals. 2. Your second question asks ‘would an ion erchang. canister which has been used to capture .stals and cyanide iron non—hazardous electroplating rinsewaters only, be considered to contain wastewater treatnent sludges iron •1ectroplatthg oparstions (EPA Hazazdcua Waste No. P006)?’ The answer to this question also is yas. Sction 260.10 of 40 CIR defines sludges as U y solid, seat—solid, or liquid waste generated iron a sunicpal, co.a.rciaj., or industrial wast.watar treatnant plant, water supply treateant plant, ox cii lu•nt fro. a wastewatar treata.nt plant.’ Thus, any residuals generated iron treatnent of waatewae.rs iron electro- plating operations for pollution control would be considered an 1006 listed waste. 3. Your third question asks ‘is ths ion exchmng• zes .n, which is sinilar in function to activated carbon ( i.e. . used to zenovi pollutants iron wast.wat.ze) considVi4 a ‘sludge’ in this situation? Onc. again, the answer is yes for the san. reason given above. 4. Your fourth question asks ‘do rin..wst.rs iron electro- plating operations fall within the scop. of any listed hazardous wastes?’ The answer to this question is no, electroplating rinsewaters are not a listed hazardous wast. under 40 CPR 261, Subpart D. However, as I indicated earlier, electroplating rins.wat.rs nay exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic under 40 CIR 261, Subpart C. 5. Your fifth question asks •does the ‘nixture rule’ apply to rinsewat.rs iron electroplating operations due to ths presence of ‘residual droplets’ of stripping, cleaning, ox electroplating solutions?’ This question was answered previously. If • have further questions relating to this subject, pleas. fe.l free to call Mr. Edwin 1. Abrass at (202) 382—47o7. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Characterization Branch ------- TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROT ION AGENCI 9442.19 87(06 -‘ ,_ Ronald J. Senna Director - Environmental Compliance International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc. 800 Rose Lane Union Beach, N.J. 07735 Dear Mr. Senna: This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1987, concerning the regulatory status of your fragrance ingredients. Based on the information you provided and the subsequent phone conversation with our consulta nt, Geo/Resource , Inc., EPA’s understanding of the waste generation process jg that Acetone, ethyl acetate, and xylene solvents are periodically used to clean out the reactor vessel. The spent solvents generated from that cleaning operation are drummed and sent off site for proper management as F003 wastes. A light coating or residue Consisting of fragrance oils and trace amounts of solvent remains on the walls of the vessel. IT T then washes the vessel out with soap and water. This waste washuater carrying the oil and solvent residue then flows to an oil/water separator for treatment. Based on this scenario, the Agency’s interpretatjon is that the solvent-contanjnated washuater is not within the scope of the Hazardous Waste No. T003 listing for spent nonhalogenated sol- vent. The subject waste stream is generated from the washout of a reactor vessel containing residues of solvent and fragrance oils. Therefore, the waste is not a spent solvent, but a process vastewater contaminated with solvent constituents. This waste is very differ from a solvent stream that has been used and as a result of ccmtaminatjon can no longer be used as a solvent without fux%Mr processing (see Section 261.2(C)(l) and 50 II 53316). It ic not the Agency’s intent to regulate water from washout of a reactor vessel as F003. ------- —2— If the washwater sent to the oil/water separator is igriit- able, it would be classified as a DOOl hazardous waste, and would remain such for as long as it exhibits the ignitabi] y charac- teristic. According to 40 CFR Section 261.3(c) and Cd), any residues resulting from treatment of DOOl are hazardous wastes only if they continue to exhibit a characteristic found under 40 CFR, Part 261, Subpart C. If you have further questions in this area, please contact Michael Petruska of my staff at (202) 382—7729. Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams Director, Office of Solid Waste cc: Kurt Whitford, N.J. DEP Sam Ezeicwo EPA Region II Air and Hazardous Waste Division ------- 944 2.1988 31) FEB iO- Alex S. Gere, X.E. C.C.L . Vice President STONIMPEX, Inc. 24-16 Bridge Plaza South Long Island, NT 11101 Dear Mr. Gere: I recently received your letter and accompanying information about a patented process for sewage sludge treatment which STONIM- PEX, Incorporated would like to market in the United States. I appreciate receiving the information. However, the Agency is not in a position to endorse or support specific processes. -— —. — - While this may not be a problem, YOU should also be aware,that residuals generated as a result of your process must be evaluated against existing requirements. Specifically, you must determine if the residuals are characteristic hazardous waste prior to disposal (see 40 CFR 261.11, 260 and 261 enclosed). This determination can be made by testing the residuals or applying knowledge of the hazard characteristic of the waste in light of the materials or the processes used. --— - - - Additional requirements for the use and disposal of sewage sludge are under development under the Clean Water Act. These may require you to test sewage sludge residuals prior to use and disposal. Please contact Mr. Alan Rubin (202) 475—7311 of the Office of Water concerning current and future requirements. Thank you for your Interest in solid waste management. If I can be of further assistance to you, please contact me. I Marcia E. Williams Director - - -- -. Office of Solid Waste Enclosure ------- 9442.1988(02) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MAR30 I98 ) MEMORANDUX SUBJECT: Health-Based Level for Cyanide FROM: Priscilla Halloran Health Assessment Section THROUGH: Alec McBride, Chief Technical Assessment Branc TO: Carolyn Bosserman, Regulatory Analyst SAIC In response to your letter dated March 14, 1988, I recommended the health-based level of 0.7 mg/L for “free” cyanide since this is based upon the Agency verified reference dose (vRfD). (Please note, all vRfDs and unverified RfDs are health-based numbers.) it is the Office of Solid Waste’s policy to use MCLs if one exists. If an MCL does not exist, then the full value of the corresponding drinking water concentration limit based on the vRfD is used. In addition to the vRfD for “free” cyanide, there are numerous other forms of cyanide for which there are vRfDs. These are as follows: Form (CAS nuinber _______________ Barium Cyanide (542—62-1) Calcium Cyanide (592—01—8) Chlorine Cyanide (506-77-4 Copper Cyanide (544-92-3) Hydrogen Cyanide (74-90-8) Potassium Cyanide (151—50—8) Potassium Silver Cyanide (506-61—6) Silver Cyanide (506—64-9) Sodium Cyanide (143-33—9) Zinc Cyanide (557—21—1) Corresponding Drinking Water Concentration Limits based on the vRfD Date RfD Verified 1.0 mg/L 8/05/85 2.0 ag/L 8/05/85 0.2 mg/L 8/05/85 mg/L 7/16/87 2.0 mg/L 8/05/85 7.0 mg/L 8/05/85 4.0 mg/L 8/05/85 1.0 mg/L 8/05/85 mg/L 8/05/85 ------- 2 Most of the verified cyanide numbers, except for barium cyanide and copper Cyanide are based on the Howard and Hanza]. study which measured the effects of HCN-fumigated—feed on rats for two years. The differences in the numbers reflect adjustments for the molecular weights of the metals or salts. The barium cyanide number is based on a barium study. The copper cyanide number is based upon the copper cyanide study sponsored by osw. The RfD workgroup did not reject the copper cyanide study, but merely deemed it applicable only for copper cyanide. A separate study of potassium silver cyanide, also sponsored by Osw, was presented at the same workgroup meeting but was rejected for technical reasons. Again had this study been accepted it would have been appropriate only for development of a potassium silver cyanide number. In studies such as these, the metal concentrations are such that they are believed to be the driving force in the toxic effects observed. Thus, such studies are only applicable for development of reference doses for those specific chemicals. All of the health-based cyanide limits are chronic, lifetime reference doses. With regard to the health advisory used in setting the Office of Drinking Water’s advisory level of 0.154 mg/L, this too was based upon the Howard and Hanzal study. Please note that the Office of Drinking Water’s procedure is to take 20 percent of a drinking water equivalence level, which is developed using the same procedure used to develop a drinking water concentration limit, in lieu of a site—specific exposure assessment. The Variance Section uses the VHS model to estimate exposure. Further note that health advisory numbers are not enforceable standards, they are advisory limits for specific exposure durations, in this case, lifetime. Other limits (including one— and ten-day health advisories) address acute and less-than—lifetime expsore durations. Perhaps when referring to a cyanide number, the particular compound should be stated, otherwise it will be assumed to be for “free” cyanide, etc. Again, the “free” cyanide vRfD of 0.7 mg/L is peer reviewed by the RfD workgroup and verified by them. I hope I have explained the apparent anomalies in the cyanide limits. For your information, I have attached the IRIS cover sheets for all the verified cyanide numbers. These are difficult concepts. If I can be of further assistance please call me at 475—6726. Attachment cc: Reva Rubenstein Bob Kaiser Terry Grogan Jenny Utz Mark Colangelo ------- UNlitO STATES ENVIRONNEI4TAL PR0TECTI W AGENCy 9442.1988(03) MAY 2 988 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: California Authorization — Evaluation of the Waste Evaluation Test FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director Office of Solid Waste. TO: Jeff Ze]ikson, Director Toxics and Waste Management Division, Region IX This memorandum is in response to your March 29, 1988 memorandum requesting a determination as to the technical - adequacy of California’s Waste Extraction Test (WET) for testing wastes to determine whether they meet the toxicity characteristic. Based on the description of the test and the results you have provided, we believe that, for any waste matrix, the WET will extract at least as much of each inorganic constituent as the EPA Extraction Procedure (EP) test. Also, since this action is an authorization issue, the WET does not need to go through the Part 260.21 petition process for equiva- lency. As you are aware, our Office of General Counsel (0CC) has some concerns regarding the issue of possible Federal enforcement of regulations based on the WET. Currently, 0CC is of the opinion that regulations utilizing the WET are broader in scope (cover more waste) rather than more stringent (tighter control of covered wastes) than regulations utilizing the EP. These concerns affect the overall authorization, and they still need to be resolved. - Please contact David Friedman (FTS 382—4761) of my staff if you have any questions on the technical evaluation of the WET or Josh Sarnoff (FTS 382—7706) of OGC if you have any questions on the legal review. ------- —2— If the washwater sent to the oil/water separator is ignit- able, it would be classified as a DOOl hazardous waste, and would remain such for as long as it exhibits the ignitabil$ y charac- teristic. According to 40 CFR Section 261.3(c) and Cd), any residues resulting from treatment of DOOl are hazardous wastes only if they continue to exhibit a characteristic found under 40 CFR, Part 261, Subpart C. If you have further questions in this area, please Contact Michael Petruska of my staff at (202) 382—7729. Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams Director, Office of Solid Waste cc: Kurt Whitford, N.J. DEP Sam Eze]cwo EPA Region II Air and Hazardous Waste Division ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, Ca. 94105 I I i ,Mr i. r .i MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: California Authorization — termining the Technical Equivalency of the Waste Extraction Test to the EPA Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test FROM: Jeff Zelikson, Diz’ r Toxics & Waste Manage, Division, Region 9 TO: Sylvia Lowrance, Director Office of Solid Waste WH—562 As you may be aware, California is in the process of amending its hazardous waste management statutes and regulations for the purpose of obtaining authorization to implement the RCRA program. California would like to retain its Waste Extraction Test (WET) for testing characteristic waste rather than adopting EPA’s EP Toxicity Test. At this time we are requesting an official written determination from your office as to the technical adequacy of the WET. We requested this information previously and understand that David Freidman of the Technical Methods Section did some research on this issue. Based on previous discussions between Headquarters and Regional staff, we believe there is agreement between the Region and Headquarters that the WET is at least as stringent as the EP Toxicity Test required under RCRA and therefore, meets the authorization requirement that the State program be equivalent to or more stringent than RCRA. California’s regulation development schedule requires that we give them a final decision on this issue within the next few weeks. For this reason, if we have not received a response by April 30, we will inform California that the WET is as stringent as the EP Toxicity Test and, therefore, will be acceptable for the purposes of authorization. ------- —2— If you have any questions or need more information, please call Kathy Papalia of my staff at FTS/454—8123. Thank you for your assistance on this issue. Attachment cc: Susan Absher, WH—563B David Freidman, WH—562B Cindy Byron, WH—527 Lillian Bagus, WH—563B ------- - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fr.mont Street $an Francisco. C . 94105 2 5 NOV 198 p emorand From: Jeff Zelikson, Acti or ToxiCs and Waste Mani Division Region IX To: Sylvia Lovraflce, Director Characterization and Assessment Division, SE—240 Office of Solid Waste Subject: California Authorization: Headquarters Assistance in Determining the Technical EquivalencY of the Waste Extraction Test to the E.P. Toxicity Test As you’re probably aware, California is in the process of amending its hazardous waste management regulations for purposes of authorization. California would like to retain its Waste Extraction Test (WET) in lieu of adopting EPA’S E.P. Toxicity Test. We need your assistance in determining the technical adequacy of the WET, and have enclosed two copies of the materials sent to us by the state. Given the regulation development schedule California is attempting to meet, we’d appreciate a written analysis of the WET’S technical adequacy within three weeks of receipt of this request. Please contact me if you feel that the review time frame cannot be met. If you have any qQeStiOnS please call. If you need further information, your staff may contact Karen Ueno at FTS 454-8128. Thank YOU for your assistance. enclosures cc: with enclosures - David Friedman, Technical Methods Section (SE—240) Bruce Weddle, Permits and State Programs Division (WH-5638) Susan Absher, Permits and State Programs Division (WH—563B) — (i -- ------- i I 1 U #1 : ?Z I1’DC 1 S W1 _ - 1 0? 1 A UTh IZATI 4 I E 261 A lDIX II p ‘ITI’IZ 22 66700 ibid (916) 322—1003 H&SC 9JBmrr: ($E OF LtY 1Ik WET . EP. i aa’r c lifornia art it of I a1th Servi ( ) is aarzwtly kirq tJ se dw in State hazar iaste iL l law i ry to thtain t1 rizati for california to rwi a h .quivaleit hazard is ste p Mi . This effort involvas ldi o.i ei t r ulatiu with those of 40 _. in t a y as to iia.intain tk se pzwisia bt)extin State law is s izq %t than ral law. As y a axe prthably re, Title 22 of tha 1iforrd.a kkthistaative ( C) ifias e of t2 1 sta tracti t st (WET) f rd in S ti 66700 ibId to 1d tify t) ee stas ithid are hazard .e to ctrectabLe hazaz tit3 ts. Title 22 lists 20 setals ard 18 or ruc ç zds ithicth i2er a ste hazaz en f .u i i.n tr t L tha WET in t ti greater than tha Soluble Threahold Tt it t.. 1 ati (STW). T. . I p ose ify iae of tia 1 in pl of ti acti Pro e ( ) d.city tt pr e t.d in A ix U to Part 261, 40 R to itify imstas bazaz ó to tha aracte.ristic o 1 fasi that tha wET istantlv .c cts hi r Ji nic. ta1i han tha tast, t2 s satisfyirq tha t jz it that lifornia I . .ia11y or sti i t than P exal law. Zn feal t lab ratozy tifi ti prt as wi a level of qa ity L l ti t is , y ival t to or . strizii nt than that prwi by ti 40 R r ulati . lifornin will be appr to apply ti i r F ctx ti tast in pla of the E.P. T dcity t for m e 1 ificaticxt, as rt of -_ Autt rizaticm. This will eçaz tha n er of 1 stas r -1 c i2i as a hazax ts. ‘ fl ase i1d be t to A ia% DC A Hse axtaxe t ni l p.rs r 1 for reviaw ard u rai a. A written r e regard.ü ‘A’ s official .valuatim of this is : )Wa 1 r.e . J crt rt Sl s ------- SIaN if CsSIurni. e,. _ .-L,.,.. 1 , if Ksifft S.,-, Memorandum M.tke & enaT C tro Div sio A.lternative Te lol y SecU P terials ta ratori Please fire attached the WE?/ ’ doc iaent wt we have disc sed. If a have any ticr . olease give se a jl. CC: Bob Step ai w Rcthl T Li Stan £a.i. -TSU Attac tt Date Octo r 5. 1987 S b,c’ Ccacarisa Fta., Barton P. s- . I ------- C CgIIA C AR1 €iT c i S VtC AN LVAWAIICI OF l WASTE C ACTICN !ST (WE ) P I IZARE S AS ! w vr ICATI0t4 9bi!! As part of the RCRA authorization process. the Californ a •Department of Mealth Services is evaluating tts criteria for hazardous waste characterization vis-&-uis the k system. - — issue wh.tch has arisen is whether the California Waste Extraction Test (WET) is at least as s rinqent as the A Extraction Procedure (EP) for the purpose of determining the extractable inorganic constituents. A related issue is the comparison of the California system - tJ Federal system for organic compounds. That issue will be addressed in a future document separately from the issue of inor .nic s tances. II. Com rison of the two Extraction Tests i WET proce 2re is desribed completely in Section 66700 of the Caflforn.ia Admin.tstrative Code. Title 22. A c of that section is included in Attachment A. The EP is des:ribsd in 0CFR Part 261. kppendix II. and a copy is ineluce as Attachment B. Briefly. hoth of these procedures axe hetch extraction tests. The principal difference between the two tests is the choice of extraction solution. The EP uses an acetic acid extraction solution, while the WET uses a 0.2 14 citrate bnffer solution. Citrate is recognized as a much stronger chelating agent than acetate. The stability constants for acetate and citrate compl of selected metal ions are listed in Table 1. Teble 1 - Stability of Metal Complees (Kragt.n. 1978) Metal Ion Citrate C c Acetate lex thx i (III) 7.69 1.80 Merc gy (II) 10.90 5.30 t (II) 6.30 2.20 As shown in Table 1. the cttrate s predicted to be a stronger chelating agent than acetate. - III. Comparative Performax ce of the WET r The prediction of greater stringency of the WET has been ------- d.s trat.d er vers.l ‘ ai of tegtirc a diverse col1ecti i of 5 elid wastes. Some examples of documented studies are given bo l . A. 1 k Ridge t ti .l IaP ratOZ ”if ( ) L d’L±X St Y The California Waste pianagesent ëoard sponsored a study of leaching tests. which was conducted at ORNL under the zariagement of C. W. Francis. 1 study irc1’ i the WET. the EP. and two leaching tests which were be nq considered to reolace the EP. These tests were used in the development at the TCLP. . One conclusion of the ORNL Report was “Generally spe* I rq. c icentrat ions of all the trace metals were higher in the WET extracts than in other leach extracts...(F2aflCiS. 1984)” This - the res .Lit whether ctraCtS were ialy2ed cy atomic absorption (AM or inductively coupled plasma (ICP spectromcopy. indiceting that the ttfferer S were d to the extraction method. A copy of data from the ORZIL study is included as Attachment C. B. Battelle Leaching Studf As part of the evaluation of leaching tests for hazardous waste identification. the Battelle Columbus LaboratorJ conducted a comparison of leaching tests on several solid wastes. includirç_ UeOUS sludges organic chemical wastes, and ir rganic solids. A conclusion of the study wes: “Citrate b.iffer i s often much more aggressive ti. - tate buffer for leaching metals (Warner. 1981).” This was in spite of the tact that the hi t w centration of c -rat. batter — - lass than that required In the WE. C. ceri iCe in rd is Waste tdentifiomtion The cperi ce of the r several rs has been that the WET is coniist*fltly at least as strirtqen as the EP for hawd te i tificeti i. M —t .asple. lead ltir slag from the Marco haxar te site in Selby. California tt.d by both the EP and the WET. kltho 4 the site has a documented source of arsenic contamination in the groundwater. the EP identified it as nonhazardous by the PP crit.riom. whereas it easily eeded hazaz te criteria by the WET. This situation is typical of EP and WET cospariwi ’s (CIa 18’ . files . ?J. QualIty of ta Ge rated The WET and the PP have both several years of us in the commercial and Izó strial laboratory co munit’1. The formalization of procedures in regulation has eliminated ig istency prc blemS which formerly existed. Unlike the EP. the WET is included in a m& ated xard Waste I. * ratory Cart if iomtion Program which is conducted by DRS. This program includes requirements for ! r5onnel. joment. m alyticel aet )! . qual itv arance pl . ------- and test ux . Int.rl. ratOrY testiT tich t bS conductd to date indicates that the pr.CisiOfl of the WET is as good as. OX better thafl the precision of the correspond±nq j alyt Lc d proced’ .ires and s in genera] far better than the ieCi3ion of asnipi.irç proCe& reS C G 1 4t. files). J 9 ?y — The experience of HS. federal laboratories and commercial laboratories is that the WET is at ieast as stringent as the EP for the purpose of identifyinq hazarous wastes by extractable metals. The OHS certif:catlon program will help to assure that the quality of data generated by the WET is adequate for the Ca] ifor!ua Hazazdous Waste Mari esent PrQ4r.m. ------- Rafer cs Frartci . C. W.. ter sti of Ra o e As p.ici 1 W te Z dfi1:5, &idqe N t cna £aboratori. DOE Pro ect I4 —83-289. 1984. Kragtefl. 3.. Atlas -Li i bria eous ltit ion . John Wiley 6 S . Yor c. 1978. Watner, .J.S.. et. al.. “Development of a Method for Determining the Laachability of Org ic Compcw’ S from Solid Wast .” Kazard Solid Waste Testir : First Conference . ASTM STP 760. RA. Conway and B.C. Mailoy. Eds.. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1981T pp. 40-60. ------- MrACQIENT A TITLE V C4VThONMEXTAL HEALTh 4 a. . . u. $-‘ ) (p. 1 O .77) Calculated oral or dermal LD IT sail As e’bee%Az the wei t r ut of each component hi the waste mim e and the ac’ae oral or derznal LD or the acute oral LD .o of each component. NOTE: Aaibor i 5scui gu 00$. 00141 sad 5100. Stealth sad S.kly Cods . sai’ Ss ii 00141. Hadth sad Safety Cod.. I. Ethtariol 00.d 1G54( deagaited 10i?4s ( s Is P4 .. 41). I Penhteal and $ioasaumialative TOEC Substance. (a) Any waste o a hazardous waste which onthn.i a hstinee listed to mluecbocs ( b) or (e) of this secton (1) at a c omn anon in milligrams per liter u determined pw sant to Sec om 65700 which ezce4s Ito listed s LiibLe threshold limit concen anoa, or (2) sta coii a on in milligrams per kilogram to the waste which eaceeds ito listed total threshold limit coocentea on. (b) List of Inorganic Per steut and Bioaccuinulath’e TOEc Substances and Th r SiJvb1m Threshold Limit Co trthan (STLC) and :xal Threshold Limit Co& ttsl1. 1 (T LC) Vslnmt W e t W.#1 ft- gi1 ikg JL sad1 f ads ___- IS Aiwaic sadlw _____.... 3.0 ___ _________________ - to a I .a hui. rn ( °i bst 100 Io oolf Ssry sa esdi . ....._ 07% 7% - - - — dlor ‘ - - _ rmds . ...... 10 - 100 - (VI) __ : .-...-.-.-.— S 1 00 sa (WI .._ .._._. 00 0000 ‘ -vr S . _. 00 L%0 r . . ..—__ 100 L I lad - . .ds 3.0 M..blI 4:ue CtMy — ________ — . 0.2 10 iLq — li r- i i —. 33 N sl diw ae*al : ads . 10 3.000 adior i.Ii.-- ae Ir i ... ___ 10 100 5 t i adif a ! b.*—. e’ apiids..... . _...... 7.0 V—A ’-a ad a vu i csapc sadi - .. 14 L D Z c adior S’ItC d T LC values are calculated on the cooceo a cm of the ek not compounds.___ ___ j Inthe o(14 tes and elemental metals. ap liec cmlv if they asema friable. powdered or finely divided itate. Asbestos includes chrysotile. - or 4 ’ih’, . “ .nhte. anthcphyUite. sod ac nthte. ft benign sulf . ------- 66700 L’4v1 oNME 1AL HEALTh TiTLE (p. l 0.78) in. us. a—i.nml -(C) List of Organic Pernstent and Bioaccurnulathre To c Substaaces arid Their Soluble Threshold binat Concen anoo Sfl.C) and Total Threshold Limit neu a oc LC) Values. w mc wit w AJdi i .—..—.-..— — - —..-.-.-.-•- — 014 1.4 loedsn.- - -.. —...— .... 0-in 2 .3 DDT.DDE.DDD.... -- - - 0.1 1.0 L4D cbke iss1o1y eac and - _...... .... .— -. 10 — .. -.. -. -- - - — -—. -. 01 00 Diana (L3 7J .T D) ....-—-.-——--.--- ----—.--—-—. 0. 1 0.01 Eadna.. -....—-.--—-—-- ........_...... —. —....--..----—----------- O. 0* Heptath lot... — .- __ - .. .. . . .. ._.. 047 (7 - 2.1 21 L csanpswids. vpmc .. ...-. -. - - 13 .... ....__ _ ._. . -. — 04 4.0 M thO*yCh 1 10 2.1 21 ______ __________ - .—. 1 - 17 __ ________ 5.0 10 Toi.pk 0.5 5 _______ ____ 1.010 I D 10 NOTE. Agd NY atsd. 3 aw 10141 sad 5110. N and Ssktv Cod. ftsfrr- UQs 10141. Hadth and Sdssy Cods. FflSTOR : _____ 1. Eth iaI Sod 103-k dangnatsd Itsiu a 101744 as,w $4. So. 411 66700 W £gb.thos T.d (WL1). (a) The WET described in this sec on shall be used to determine the imowtt of eataictable aab nce in a wade or other material as set forth in Secnoo CC 0 0 0(s). - (b) Eacept as pro ded in Sec on 66700(d). the WET shall be carried out if the total concem thon n the w or other materiaL of any aibiunce listed in Sscbon G0 equab or eaeee the STLC value, but does not eed the TTLC vuhin, even for that ashetance. The total ctinc ib0fli of asbitancan l .d Secbou 66669 shall be determined by analyas of samples of wastes, or tbev materish. whcll have been prepared or meet the ccndiboin. for unalyns psb.ec ons (C) and (d) of MedforanIlYan for total anb1bOi of aibstances lined in Secbon 66699 shall be thme pven in the following dorwnenta or alternate methods that have been q auved by the De,sr ent purniant to Sec on 6 lOle ): (1) For metal elementa and their ccinp u dL the waste aiD be digested according to the imbtoted methods described in Iest Methods for Evaluabrig Solid Wade. Yay cslICb2WACal Methods, SWM6. id edinon, Li Eavwaa• mental Pmtec ao Agency. 19 ------- TITLE 90 r4v1ao,i dTA1. HEALTH 4 ta. ,ii . a i.-’ . .) (p. t600.79) (A) All I ed metal e1einen and the compounds, *cept heuvelent cb,o mium Method 3050. (B) Heweient chomium: Method 3060. (2) For the foIlo ing n betances. the indicated methods as deacnbed in Test Methods for Evaluanng Solid Waste. P yncal!Qaemical Methods. SW. 846, d edi on , US Eirnroiunentai Protection Agency, t dial! be ualize& (A) An ocy Method 7040 or Method 7041. • (8) AneuicMethod7060orMethodl06l. (C) Baru Method 7 a, Method 7051. (D) thnit Method 7131. (E) Total chrami* Method 7190. (F) Hexavalent hr 1 miwn Method 7195, Method 7196 or Method 7197. (C) Method 7 I. (H) Mercury Method 7470 or Method 7471. (I) NickeL Method 7560 or Method 7521. (I) Selenium Method 7740 or Method 7741. (Tv) Sdver Method 7760 or Method 7761. (U TrithIoraetby1en Method 8010 or Method 0540. (M) Pen lwuphe L Method 8040. Method 0 or Method 0571 (N) Aldr !n. L i 4 iie. Qilordane, DDD, DDE. DOT, Dieldrin, Heptachior, Tozaphene and PCBS Me d 8060, Method 8 0 or Method 05’O. ( 9 blo ophasio’yscebc acid and LGlorophenosvprociothc (3) For the kUowtag asbstancei, the huii ’ ted methods as deiccibed in Methods far emicsl Anai iis of Water and W t&, EPAIOO 4. 9180, US. Fa*onmental Prvtmellun Amy, 1979 tha I be nIi1 paAr (A) Baythi Method 2111 or Method 210.1 (B) Cabal’ ) Lethr.d 219.1 or Me d 2191 (C) Coçper Method 900 1 or Method t (0) Mt ybd Method I 1 or Method $ 1 (E) Thelhian Method 279.1 or Method 2791 (F) V..Ah n’ Method 9061 or Method 9011 (C) Z Method 1 or Method 1 (H) 9baacide Mu14 3 1. Method 3405 or Method 340.1 (4) For the fcllo th acas the indk’ted methods as deacribed l4emaI of Analybod Methods for the Analyns of Peabcides irs if n’ ’ and F mntal Seuplas”, øA100I6.80 8 US Favüonmental Piaae is Agasii y. 1960 aball be dilh ud (A) 2.poae_Sec oo 5A .(5),(s). _____ (8) U7 T tr&b1hrohbfitZO .p4 tiIi Section 9.G. (5) For N 1 e w the indI” ' ed method as described in the Federal BeVster. Vohene 47, Nmeb,r 105, Appendis A. pages 376- 3!i May 7.1905 thaI be (c) cii ip1 dial! be oreosred for ana1y s for total and icub1e —‘eu ’ of aibeances l ed th cecbcm 60 (b) and (c) as followt ------- 4VT ONM 4TAL HEALTh TITLE ( h 1IOo D ) (1) T fftheorotha j be pined directly, or shill be milled to peso. through a No.10 (two mil meter) s adard nave before it Li analyzed. 11 the mmple cootsom ooo4nable solid paz cler which do not pen directly through a No. 10 óeve and which ere extanecw and irrelevant as hazardous ccn tuenb to the waste or other material, they shill be removed to the extant feasible by mechanical mesa and discarded. Solids which r’ - ” in the waste or other material after removal of theaforeraid emaneous psr clea shall be milled to pen through a No.10 ve and sha ll then be combined and mixed well wi the sthdà which pe.. d throuó the nave without t iifli g . The Iec ns tuted sample shall then be analyzed so prescribed in this ,ec oo. ( ) Typeg. If the waste or other material s afiltenbie mixture of liquid and solids in which the solids ccosbtute five-tenths (0.5) p. roeat hr weight or pester of the sample , the liquid and solids shall be seperated by filtration through a 0.45 micron membrane filter. The fil ate so obtained ó to be dang. nated as brinal FUtrate. Ito volume deteruiuied, and it retained. The sope- rated solids shall be sieved in a No. 10 nave and any ocofriable extraneous pertdai of the hinds desciibed in mbsec on (C) (1) which do not pen through the nave shall be removed to the extent feasible by m ’hii i al - sso and discarded. The solids which remain after removal of the e aneow psrnder shall be milled to pan through a No.10 nave and shall be recombined aith solids which pined through the-nave withodt milling . This recombined solid material shall be extracted_Following the procedure in sobrecbon if A rabo of 10 nuflihters of e action solubon per pam of solid dial) be ublized with a p ri- ate modificaboru for e acboc vane! ze. After t- , OtIQO of solids ewic- boa, the filtered e a iant e’- bined with luitial FItr.L mtirmd thoroughly and anl ied so described in (I) (3). (3) Type di. If the wag or other material isa nomfilterable and niwuvi fl.I4 oludge, horny, or oily, ry or rannous material, it shall be analyzed as i&a..’ed mle it coatha non-friable ex aneow and irrelevant solid parbcles of the hinds desi i bed in psragraph (C) (1) of s ss tioa . If it ccntasso nach solid pivtiderandtheo1aachazesonottopaathros sNo l0aeve, they shall be removed to she - n t f ha . by ni J vwj and dirudad . The remainder of the annrlm dial) be analyzed so , iL ed in this en. ( 4 ) Uyto&sialidsampleorthesobdsfrac auuofaoan before evmg, milling or removal of ez aneow lids . or ía sample dined prime to analy weight 1 s due to shying dial) be determined, and se Ioa d the “ 1 tl m of eying shall be (d) I the wWe or other material u a liquid C it inin$ lan thai flve.tenths (05) tWwe tof lvedsoli l)onebeaa ecttotheWFF diallie analyzed directly for the , iheuiees listed in Secboo U9. The . e shall be clamifled as a hazardous waste d the total coecentre- in the w e of any sobatances ed in Secboa 0 0 exceeds the 1TLC vabsa atvoa for that uab e. If, however, the total cencestrabos is lam the T1’LC but ‘ -‘MdI the STLC hai uptesesd ens inillipains per liter b , the waste or other material dial) be llltc 1 ed through a 145 micron membrane filter, the solids docarded and the filtrate shall be analyzed directly for the naheances hated in Sectiu 66 0. The waste shall be clamifed so a hazardous w e if the concenfrabon Us the filtrate of mv dthe & anees hated in Seebon - exceeds the STLC value even for that eib nce. ------- TTTLE V4v1 O L’irA1. IIFAI.Th woo s iis I-4.si) (p. 100031) (e) The WET extraction silution shall cosinat of 0.2 M sodiwn citrate at p 11 5.0 ± 0.1, whith g prepared by btratng an appropriate amount of analytical — thc acid dmomzed water with 4.0 N NaOH. e ept that the maction solution for the deternunaison of chromium (V I) shall con of dev’sw’d water. (I) The extinction p ocedure shall be askllows ( 1) Fifty rams of simple. or le if it is a type ii simple 1 pa 1 ed pussiant tosib. ction (c)(2), oh edp nt b ieC oii (c) or d) of this ectioo shall be planed a clean polyethylene or glen container I.’ gi”. d the Treat- ment. of pby caDy wieh dthg the extinction procedwe and hith was rimed previowly with. in pjcceeaon. an aqueous 1:1 ratio by volume citric acid solution and deionized water. U the extract will be analyzed for any c i the organic ashitanres listed in Section 66009(c), a glen container shall be med. Fiutbermore, a container of the mine ze. shape and material shall be wed for an eenac on detigaated as the Blank. which shall be carried through the - rucedure the T ea ent. but without addition of the simple. (2) The hiiu’ ed milli$ten of extraction solution, or 1cm if the wsite simple is a type ii ample prepared pursiant to sobaecticn (c) (2) shill be added to Trea ent and Blank containers, which shill be then fitted with covered at scrubbers extended well into the extraction solutions and flushed vigorosidy - with sitrogen gas for 15 minutsi so as to remove and exclude auzioçhciic oxygen from the extraction medium. U the sample is to be andvzed For any volatile eabetance. nach as trachioroethylene, the simple shall : . added after deserabon with nitrogen to avoid volatilization lo s. After deaeuoon the con. neca ll be qidchly sealed with tightly fitting capa and atated. sing a table dmkev,an overhead oraro y emacter , operated at a speed wh ll m n the asnp 1 ’ in a te of vig rowly agitated cion. 8. shed eawoment as described in teas method 1310 in Test Methods for Evahabug Solid W ?byicili mical Methods, SW.846, d edition. ljS . Envison- mental Protoction Agency, 19 The temperature during the e actias shill be mam d between and 48 degrees cenbçade. After 48 bows of extract- ing, the cont b of the Ti’ ’ ”t and Blank containers shall be either Blt d d ctly or centrifuged d th e. filtered. Filtering shall be throu a pcrndty prefliter d n through a 143 micron membrane Iliter, g a. c4v thick-walled naction flash. For coarser solids . prefiltrabon shall n be oaeeswv. Premise filtration thafl be an optional alternative to vaciam flint- If the axuwta see fig centrifuged. g asa or polyethylene bottles shill be med an prem*md for acticn. For very fine solids. centrifuging at as high an 1O 0 x C may be nac y . After ccnthfupboc. the bqwds shall be de _____ ___ if m.eesanry . and then passed through a 043 micron main- braise . All BlIss shall be of low and identified extractable bea’vy metals, fluoride end orgame content __ (3) Ii the filtered eenacta see to be analyzed only for the metal l.” nta ed in S cslun 00000(b) . the BlL J ezuacta from the Trea ent and Blank shall be tra d J to clean polyethylene bottles and . ‘ d with nitric acid to five p nt by volume ndd conteàt soon after each extinct is filtered. For those wsites or materials clinified under uabaection (c (2 . the Treat- ment shall be the Initial Filtrate combined with the extract generated by the WET extraction of the initially separated solids. 9” 1 ’ly the Blank in this inatance shill be the filtrate generated by the WET Blank accompanying the inithily separated r k to which is subaequently added a volume of deionized ------- 4 667w v1aosM rAL. RL LTh TITLE (p t am ii,i..u . us water eq ñvalent to that of the lai ai Filbite. These procedores di ii! be fol. lowed prior to .ndiflca oo at Tresttnent and Blank ‘ olutlons with aithc d to Ave ier eat (by volume) acid content. The bottle thai! then be st ed at room temperatwe or frozen. If the eziracte are also to be analyzed for the organic substances listed in Secrion 6M09(e . or for the oreanac substances ooiy. the filtered eatacta thai! be an1erred to clean glen bet e If the eztzcta are to be analyzed for fluoride, they thai! be sn erred to clean polyethylene bottles . These eztrscta , cootaüung organic substances or fluoride. thai! not be lI!Idifled . but dial) be frozen soon after each ezttact obtained and held frozen oo J the day of ana1y * unlen the ez acta are analyzed within 24 in. (a) Samp . anslyns and data entwent thai! be es follows (I) Each of the filtered ez acta from the Tren ent and Blank ez actlcw thai! have been a thfled to five percent by volume ni ic add , and stored at roam temperatwe or frozen polyethylene bottles or kept frozen without uddibonolacidinglaw bott dayofanab betEachof the ezincta dial) be thoroughly inized just prior to being individually analyzed for the substances ed in Secboo 666 9 in order to determine whether the extractable coocentrabon (EC) the wade or other material wee4s the STLC for any of the nthstan ’es listet The acta dia l ) be analyzed according to the procedures idesbfled in Secbcos 66700(b) (2), (b) (3) and (b) (4). (2) The net EC of a substance in the Tr.” ’t semple which bated in Secbon 66%9 dial) be calculated and reported as miflipinas per liter at semple (mg i ! ). This value denved after subtracbng the ccscen thon of the sub nce to the appropriate Blank ez zct from that coucentrabon determined in the Trea ent eittact NOTED AglIiaUy atsd S.ctM w 51 5 141 5130. )Ieut Safe ? Code. sfsr sne £ Uos 5141. Hndth and SMy Cods I 1U1T: 1. LbiiwW Sod lO54 J., U.. . 1O.V41 Isçste IS, Ns 41) (a) A wade, or a material, içiitable and bawdone lit (1) Isa bqibd. other than an aqueous solubon t mg len than 24 p nt alcohol by V 1 usTW . and bee a Audi point lees than S I d#gro cenbgrzde (149 daç s Fabrenbest), determined by a Fenaky-Mastens C3osed Cup Tester. mat the test methad suecifiad in American Society far T”bng and Materials ( ASTM ) Standard D13.79, or a Setaflaib Q ued Cup T ar. tang the ten method ecdled in AS!M Standard D. . 5T&73 (2) Is not a llqcid and capsbL , tader standard temperanae and premise. dcaiaog fire through friction . absorpbon of moisture or ontaneoim chemical &llIr . and, when igmit.4L horns so vigorously and perbstendy that it creates a ar or ___ ( 3) Ii a flammable comprewed gas as defined in 49 R LOObi (codified Oeteber 1, 19k) and as determined by the tad metbuâ dennbed in that 1’r anjuuiiii,i.r defined in 49 CFR 173J51 ( codified O -t Lz 1, 19k). N011 &ekfti , dI.d S l s 51 5141 and 5130. Kedth lusty Code l. sr- — St*u i 5141, Nmith and S tp Cads. ------- Attachisent B Thia naii I SIsO cnnta. aigtjn j in. foraataoat on a II U.n oI orsocesla. AHT.i I X IT—tP TOZIe,y ‘g y - £ £croegi.rtPv.g,,g ,,agp 1. £ l,PfesentaLIve wiple oZ e waste to be 1uSd (minimum sue 100 granu) sItail be obu ir.*d inuil the nwthods specified in AD- pen i ’ I Or any O P.?r m,th .0lc Of yigi i g & rc r a n :a .i- son .e i. flin tIC eanang of Part 2d0. (For detailed guidance on conducting the ‘anous s.iDecu of the EP see “Test Methods for the E aLation of Solid Wiate. P vaJ/Chean s: Me tIoda’ (ineorporaled refereit.e see S 30 O.lla.3 2. The sample shall be paza.ed into Ito component li uii and salad phis s .sing the method described In •Separa .on Proce dure” buoy. U the sohd residue • obtained using iris method totals less than O.5’ P of the onginal veight of cite aiste. in, residue can be discarded and the operator shill treat the liquid p!tue as the ezract and proceed irninetately to Step I. 3. The solid material O fa ed frota the Separation Procedure shall be e:aluated for Ito particle sue. If the solid material baa a surf ace area per gram of inatenai eq’ial so. or greater thin. 3.1 cot 1 or Dames through a 0.5 mm 0.375 Inch) standard sae e. erie oper- ator shall proceed to Step 4. 1 he surface area is sanaller or the partcle ge luger than specif led above, the solid material shall be prepared for ezuaetjost by crush- I t t. cuwog or 1T1Ms%( Site material so thai It psuu through a 0.5 mm (0.37$ uicn) sieve or. If the material as In $ single pasce. by subjecting the materiel so the “SIr.ictwaJ Znte fty Procedire” described beo.. 4. The solid ina iriai obtaiit ed in Stop 3 aliall be veighed and Olaced in an e rsctor aith 16 tImes l ’s eg t of deiong.i a’a:er. Do not sb. the material to dry pri:- : aelghlng. For pur, oses of this test. ar ic cepsaWe extractor is one atuch wili lr : .’t luizigiesit Ig nition SO the mixture to 3&. only prei’eni Eratificailon of the sa. ;.e and extraction fluid but also Inawe ha: LU sample surfaces are conhaaiuogsjy broLg;Il into vIth veil ouxed extraction find. •The percent solids is deteraitrd by 7Isl1 the lUter pad at SrC wnal ii reaches constant weight said then cslciiiatgi g the p.rent solids using the foUow4.aig equs&lo& Fo. .ut solids — • — lise pid coo 0 5. Alter the ni.: msae.ea said dv —. water an JiSLI4 In 1h eiirsc —.r ute c . £ tsr .anai legSii Mitasies aid meamrc a’. pH ii the soluusot is t . etiroctor, U :: — pH g,estav thin OS. the sit of ‘it. Las shaD be decr.aar.3 ‘.) 53 0.3 1 acetic ace. If e r i c p 14 u to or Ima than 5.0. no ace::: icc • added. The tit at the so:iuio’. snail be — 1141 ,4, a. described bclo d nhtg the coi.’ - of the e aecuori and . the rt%e 5 %. - 5.2. 0 OH $cetig acid staJ e iCerJ :0 :- - : e ;Si co”, :c ‘ ‘ • ‘ . ‘ - event snail the ai1?it? c amour: c a:.: added to the solijtaon exceed 4 ml G “ per gram of solid The ax .-r shall 5 , ‘: taled for 24 hogr aid —a: — .a:Ited a 40C (Sr- 104T) during : :.me it J OlotSended that the oprra:,: t ionitai & : adAut She D I I during the coa.rse o i ’e e traction o’ith a device 5i Cli as the T,pc 4: - pfl Coanrofler mc.tt ,f*c .t ,eo y Che—: Inc., Ifiilsboro. Oregc.ri 9 3 or iii e:- lent, in suniunctien a Ci(ra Pu—: said reservoir of OW ace::: ac:d l si.:’ system is not availacie the foUc -: manual procedure shall be enl;aoyeg’ ($1 A pH meter shall be ca rated : esedagice wIth She n act ,;er s spec. (b) The pH of the solution shall t’ sheeted end if neceswy, OW acetic ac. shall be manually added so the ealacto? wttfl the PH meches $0 0.3. The PH the soluttait shall be adjusted at 15. 36 anc 10 minute intervals, moving to the nee longer interval U the pIt ‘oot tint have to e adjusted more then OW pH wW& (C) The adjustment procedWv sttau be contInued for at least I hoi rs. - (43 U U he said of he 24-hoot ext act , , period , the pH of the sosulion Is not be!c-i, 5.2 and the wtct m &sio..at .at acid ii pet ram of solids) has nsi bees added. in: pH shill be sdPis1 1 to 5.0 2 a. t e r: traction continued for an additional ft.: hours, during which the .E .ha be I4I..J: ed atone hour Intervals I. At the end at the 24 ‘nour e trsc:r ’- period, deionized water shell e adaec :4 the extractor an en smouai de ined v the following eitusalcr V —(20XW — IHW)A V.S3 Ioohed V a Sar to be added W.Tslghe In rain, of Solid cha.’ged to cx tractor A—si of 0.3W amtlc sc:d added dir.og cx tractIon 1. The material In the extractor s sJi be s,parsta4 into tin component licuid and mild p’ cs as d ibed iinde: Sepa..-miIoh Pro o odw ” & The liquids meufting !rom S:eps 2 are shill be combined, Thie contb:hed iqutd .c: he yam. Itself If it h i less thalt am voted in su as crie eti .,”ac said 380 ------- Twe .1 Env1r.o.en Chapler l Environmentet !t.bu 0 Agency P.r 2 t. Ap i. U S. After the w ii matenal and de,Onged are IIC 0 :i :ie .ztracter the u;er- tot $ltZ!I begin $(fl 5 ijfl and measUre the Dif of the SGliiti in iii extractor U the is ireater thai s o the ;U c the solu. turn sPiaJi be doused 10 30 = 02 bY adding OS N ac tc aeø If the pH 3 10 Jr Ie than S i) no acetic acid should be added ‘he pH 01 the w 1.:.on si .’l be ino:i ‘toted U described bel.)a. the co’,rse ,r ne ex Irac:ion t . ‘ e p 14 rise 3.be’.e 2. 0 SN i ti . acid slia!l St aadi.d to bring t l,rf d sn to SO 02 Ho &ever. in Cri1 IPSU tne sggregrste amoir . Of acid d *d to the soli.uon e*ceed 4 ml of acid ?r gram o’ so: J TP e ri.x:ure sha;l agi :ta for 24 hours and !3ta:?t.1: ed at 20- 0C (63.10471 di nng th.$ :.ine It (a tee. :nrriended that he operator monitor arid the p34 during the course of the cx- rac1 on uih $ device such as the Type 45* H Controller mani4actvred by Chemiri,. iC.. Rifl.iboro. Oregon Y7123 or its equi a- tin, in eon;ug 1on 3-ith a metering putp ilid reservoir of 0.314 acetic acid. If such a )StIm is not available, the foiloi ing 1riuai procedure ittili b employed: ($1 A pH meet shall be calibrated in ac Oldarics with (1 e manufactiarir’s specifies- OhS, (b The giN of the solutio’i shall be ? eC a . It aecesaa ,, 0.SN kelly i lQ be .lia:.ua!y added t’ i ’ extra:: r tn. pH reacl’es 5 0 0.2. The pH ef “.itlon shall be adjusted at l ., 30 aM w:e r.. .’r.’a1 . mo lag i.) the hett mg., intor:al I’ the pz dies r.o: t%ve U Oc gji ,tid riot, than 0.5N pH units. Ic) The adjustment procedure shall be lncm’.zid for at least S houca. id) it at the end of the 24-boor extraction enod, the pH of the soltg ion is no’ below 2 and the xi uin amount of acid (4 ml c? uian solids) liii ito: beef’ added. the H sOall be adiusted :o5.0 = 0,2 and the es action continued I or an adda1, nal four 3W’!. during ihich tta p shai tc adjust’ I at. one hour iutervals. 6. At Ute end of Ilte 24 hour e trs’tlon riot de:eiuzot. eater shall be added to e extractor in an amount determined by e foUowlng equatioru —420XV)- 16(W )—* sesI deioniaed water to be added —weight io grams of aot.d charged 1 es tractor -m l of 0.514 acetic said added dw1 ze- traction 7. The material in the extractor ahafl be araLed Into its component MOuld sod 1d phases u described mder ‘Separauon ‘scedure.” • The liqwth resulting from Steps 2 and? all be combined. This com btne d liquid or e waste itself if it has less than I percent ida. as noted in step 2) i i the extract and shall be ana!yted !c the presence of any of th .inar ’isttt3 s:e’ec . ‘e’. 2G 2% uSJig he . ,t.cal Pxoce4 res d.sigTt4Icd belC%. Sepatchcn Proerds’e Eq’j.pme?lt’ A f. er tolc’r desieried for fi :r tiOn lltcd;a having a nominal pore sizc al 0.45 micr:tetera an. cxpabk of applying a 3 3 kg;ec-.’ t 5 C lii h dzost.t:c pressure I) the s iut.0fl being tittered shall be used Fe- fliit’Je S er.naitwti ncstabsorptwe soi.ds a !.Cre separati ’ can be effected axthoJI ,mr s i a 5 3 kg/an’ pressure da t. fererit.al. ‘aC. U . 1i1e1 entp!o)sng a C.4 5 — m crometers fitter med.a cast be used. (For fi.rther gu dance on ftItra ’ .:oit eqg*pm—nt Or proceditea see ‘Test Methods for £vslisst’ ing Solid Waste. Physical,Chemlcal teeth- ida” corporated by referenee. see 4 260 11). Priced ire” ( I) Following manufacturers dttsctiom. the fIller taut stall be s’ .sembled with a filter bed consutiztg of a 0.43 micrometer filter membrane. For dfticuft or slow 10 filter Mixturil a Dre!Utet bed consisting of the following prefllterl in increasIng pore sze (0.65 micrometer membrane, fine glass fiber prefilter. and coarse glass fiber pee- filler) can be used. ul) The waste shall be poured Into the fij. tration unit. ‘liii 7; e re er.oli shall be slowly ;i’esaur. ired until liqu.d begins :o ow front f t c fil• :ra e o’itlct at which potn: the preer’:re in ft c jilter shill be i ed r ely !pwe- to 1o-:S , . Filtration shall be cortt”tued u’til ht’::d flow’ ceases. (iv) The pressure scaM be incrcuee tiep- wise in 10 psi incrementa to 73 pslg an (U- tration continued situl flow c: the :ThJ procedire is ..ttectded to result in separation of ice “tree’ liqud portion 01 ne waste from any solid matter having a particle s*e p045 .nt. U the saoigle w’:1 not filter, various other separation tech- niqises can be used to aid in the filtration. La described aboae. pressure fUUu&aon is emeloyed to speed uo the filIraz$oht process . This does riot alter the nature of the sepsis. lion U liquid does oi separate during hI. tistlon the sine ease be coninfuged. U aep asation ice-in dunni centrifugation. the liquid portior. centritugatei is filtered through lie 043 an filter prior to bee.uung fiuxed with Pie liquid portion of the wina obtained from the initial filtration. Any . lerial that will not pass through the filter after ceritrtfuga1io as iens.de d a solid acid is e tractee. CressuruT’; gas belins to cx : ’ . fr:r , t’te .:- 1—tIe o,tle I T”C filter lhit shall be ile’..re’... :— . the soiad mater-at limbed and 2.i1r-’ a-: then transferred to the ex’.r:ct: . r a:,.’.r..- tus. or. in the c x ii of final hil:rst.on cm cm — : -sJy!i’. d:wsrd.d not &jjo ‘n’ ri al retained on the filter pad to dry .m’o weighing. (vi) The liquid phase shall be s:erei ‘t’. for subeequent use in Step $ 0 StractvroI ltite”t7 Pro cu-, tqii:;rmnt: A Sinicturi) L’tte;r:ty ere’ having a 3. IS em c1.25 in.) diaete: ha’. :- weighing 0.33 kg 10.72 Wa.) an: !.a .:t a free tall oh 15.34 an (6 In.) *t tc This device is avaIlable from #ss :.wt-c Duiga and Maatutacturuag Cem;any, andna, VA 72314. as Part No. 123. or it & r be fabr *ad to meet the specaLacat -j shown in Figure 1. - I. The sample holder shall be filled i-ti- — the material to be tested. If the sarape j a-ut. a Lute mmohthfp .brOeIt. a oor.cn shad be cut from the ..bfoc having the . mensioni of a 3.3 c m i 1.3 Ira.) diaeti? x .L cm 2.1 tn .) cyl der. For a fIxated waste. samlm ssaf be cas in the for of .2 = (1 3 l rd I .1, g . cm (2.1 In.; c1 c: ,t’n purpssei .,f coMvc.Ing this test. I .— s • casea. the waste may be alleaec to “tire 30 cays prior to tsethei testing. 2. The sample holder shall be ar .ttc. the Stzucturai integrity Teste:. icer. ..;e hammer shall be raised to its ma i.’n height and drooped. This shall be repea:ed fifteen tones. 3, The material iliad Dc removed from the sample holder. weighed. and transferred to the extraction aparatus (or ex:raet:o t An&P(! 1 Ppgcettu,u/ OrAftalvsViQ £. c.: Conlcma*a* ss Tue test etethoda for a alytg the ex- tract are as follows: I , For arsenic, barium. cadmium. cftr,ma- urn, lead, mercury. selerui.m. sthe?. en:r’n. landahe. inethCx)C.’tloT, loaa hene. 2 4’ 0t2.4dichlorophef,CXYacetl ac d3 or : 1? (2,4,S IrichloroPheflOx ypropioni: ‘Tess Methods (or ills £.w iat;0’ o Sc..: Wag., P ysicai.CMiuC$I Methods pirated by reference. see 1360 i i) 2. tReservedi For all analyses. the methods of s:sr:.r addition shall be used for quara :itia:.0:. c: species concentration. 381 ------- Purl 2 l; A . I! rc. (3—Pre )ecf. •ELASTOMERIC SAMPLE MQLDIR FAS CATE 0$ MATERIAL FIRM £ OUGH TO SUPPORT THE SAMPLE Figure ;j- SAM ILAS1OMERIC 5M?Lf ,,OLUER COMPACTION TESTER 143 FR 3311). Xay 11. 1110. as amended U 4$ FR 3547. J.iy . 11113 382 - : a I I 4 I 73:;i II 2SI 7 1c (2 1 — WI ------- £ttac)aent C (Source. .Francia, 1984) 7.b.is 40. P.rcento9. ef .1...nt. • tr•Ctsd by ••t• •fttr.ct&en ..t (WET) traa ..cA of th. r..os xc. r.cov.ry s.h..a Rscoiars r.covczy cab • E1..siit Cha c. o 5 iac.r leaptan AuD rn £1 6.9 17.1 10.5 23.5 1. 1.3 2.0 3.4 5. 1 C. 29.3 42.9 46.1 39.7 Cd 52.1 cc 59.5 Cr cc cc cc 2.5 2.3 -cc cc F. 4.6 9.4 3.4 9.3 N, 35.6 30.0 29.0 24.6 Ic 24.4 42.0 19.4 51.4 No cc cc cc 24.1 p 15.6 19.1 64.8 Pb 18.1 20.4 29.1 41.0 Sb 13.3 27.2 21.0 25.3 0. 0.77 0.93 3.6 Sr 17.5 29.4 34.9 2 .3.1 Ti 0.46 0.68 1.02 0.31 V cc cc :5.0 cc Zn 48.9 29.8 1 .I 32.4 4 Thass .2e ..nt$ in wb&ch the percent extrected e aid net be c* e111..t.d for *21 feux rsoiaxcs r.e.v.ry ashen nra net anclvdd. • coiiiJd net be c.LcvJ.tsd. ------- TabIs 41. Ccac.ntrst ans of ar..fl C a•a tizsd an foiar a.t. £..e sat. W ast. R..ouzcs rsco .ry ash lasell ts.t lank -. Chicago 3iisna H..pton Aub irn (.Q /L.) WET 1 155 950 17 EP (1 3 9 17 2 Carbonic acid (2 3 2 (1 1 Aestats 5 1 2 3 Tabi. 42. Conesntataefla a cadsaus an four wasts .aclI t.sts Weats R•so c• rsco sry a•h .ach tsat I l ank Chaeaqo Zuansr Naapton Auburn (1O /L) vET 0.5 1d00 $10 1520 110 EP (0.5 710 240 500 20 Carbonic acid 40.5 1$ 12 70 S Acutai s 40.5 190 50 330 30 ------- 9442. 1988 (05) 0 F - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 I OCT 3 ;g OFF;CE OF SOLIO WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE Ms. Robyn-Marie Lyon McDermott, Will and Emery 2049 Century Park East Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3108 Dear Ms. Lyon: I am responding to your letter dated September 7,1988, to Bob. Dellinger which requests confirmation of a hazardous waste interpretation of a waste stream generated by one of your clients. Specifically, your client uses a bronze plating process- which plates a copper-tin alloy on carbon steel wire. No electrodes or electrolysis are employed in the process. You have spoken with Mr. David Topping of my staff regarding this process. As Mr. Topping has informed you, this process is characterized as “immersion plating”, rather than electroplating and, therefore, treatment of this process’ wastewater will not generate F006 unless electroplating rinse waters are mixed with the immersion plating wastewaters prior to treatment. You should advise your client that any wastes generated by the immersion plating process should be evaluated prior to disposal to determine whether they exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics ( i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity - see 40 CFR 261.21—24). Also, you should be aware that the States may have a regulatory program more stringent than the Federal program ( i.e the State hazardous waste program may consider these wastes as hazardous under State law). Therefore, you will have to contact the various States where your clients are located to determine how these wastes should be handled under State law. ------- —2— If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Edwin F. Abrams af (202) 382—4787. Sincerely, Devereaux Barnes Director, Characterization and Assessment Division ------- 9442.1989(01) Mr. Richard Torrito Assistant General Counsel Continental Can Company, Inc. P.O. Box 5410 Norwalk, Connecticut 06856 Dear Mr. Torrito: It was a pleasure meeting, with you on December 22, 1988 to discuss the regulatory status of wastewater treatment sludges from the zirconium phosphating of aluminum cans which are generated and managed by Continental Can. As we discussed at that meeting wastewater treatment sludges generated by Continental Can are within the scope of the listing for wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum. Based on the process chemistry and information received by the Agency, we do not believe that these wastes contain or form Appendix VIII constituents in hazardous concentrations. Therefore, it is the Agency’s belief that wastewater treatment sludges from this process should not be classified as hazardous waste and that Continental Can and other can makers employing the same process and chemical constituents should be granted regulatory relief from managing their sludges as hazardous wastes as quickly as possible. The Agency believes that the best way to accomplish this is to modify the F019 listing to exclude the zirconium phosphating of aluminum cans process through an expedited rulemaking. One issue you raised during the meeting was whether the modification to the listing would retroactively apply to previously generated wastes. According to our Office of General Counsel, the listing modification would be retroactive (i.e., once the F019 listing modification is final, previously generated wastes would not be classified as F019). This has been retyped from the original document. ------- I want to assure you that making the modification discussed with you is a high priority within the Office of Solid Waste. It is already underway and will be carried out as quickly as possible. We will keep you informed. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9442.1989(02) tAN25 1989 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Fluff Analyses FROM: Alec McBride, Chief Technical Assessment Branch, OSW TO: Cynthia Stroup, Chief Design and Development Branch, OTS The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify some of the details of the analytical procedures that we understand will be used in the fluff sampling and analysis project. We appreciate the efforts that your office has put into dealing with the difficulties encountered in collecting and analyzing the fluff samples. As you know, OSW has asked for analyses of lead and cadmium in both the total fluff samples and the Extraction Procedure (EP) extracts from those samples. Both sets of analyses should be conducted on the samples after they have undergone appro- priate size reduction steps to meet the EP requirements. One thing I have not brought up in our discussions but would like to mention now is that the EP does not require size reduction of materi ls whose ratio of surface area to weight is greater than 3.1 cm’/g. Materials such as pieces of fabric or wire could likely be put directly into the extraction bottle without being reduced in size to pass through the 9.5 mm sieve. Please call me on 382-4761 if you have any questions on the EP requirements (although MRI should be familiar with them). Also, we would like to take care of our share of the costs of the project as soon as you have your final estimates. Thanks again for all your help. ------- itayii INVIIOSSIUTAL 1989(03) 9442. APR 20 i9 Mr. Richard S. Leonard Quality Control Coordinator NET Pacific, Inc. 435 Tesconi Circle Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Dear Mr. Leonard: I am writing in response to your letter of February 9, 1989 requesting guidance on what analytes to look for when performing R RA analyses. One selects the list of target analytes based on the regulatory purpose for which the analysis is being performed. For example, if one is a land disposal facility which is required to monitor its ground water, then one analyzes the ground water for those analytes listed in Appendix xx of 40 CFR Part 264. On the other hand, if the reason for testing is to determine if the waste is a hazardous waste by reason of Extraction Procedure Toxicity, then one only needs to analyze the Method 1310 extract for the 8 metals and 6 organic Compounds listed in 40 CFR Part 261.24. Generally, the analyses a facility must perform are described in its permit and, especially the Waste Analysis Plan. I can understand how the various lists and analytes described in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846) can be confusing. SW—846 is a compilation of methods designed to cover all testing one might need to do to comply with RCRA data gathering needs. It contains testing methods for complying with all aspects of the RCRA regulations and a method may be indicated as being approved for determination of analytes which might not need to b determined in one’s particular situation. If y i hav, any other questions on the RCR& regulations, i suggest that you contact the RCRA toll free hotline at 800—424—9346. Sincerely yours, I vId Fried an Ch e Scton(O—331) ------- 9442.1989(04) .#1t0 3T4 , UNITED STATES ENVIROPJMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20480 - ‘p 4 APR 2 6 9 9 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSf MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Antarctica Waste Disposal Practices FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director Office of Solid Waste TO: Brenda Sue Thornton Office of International Activities The purpose of this memorandum is to provide comments from the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) on the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) Panel of Experts recommendations concerning waste disposal practices in Antarctica. OSW agrees that the present Code of Conduct provisions concerning waste disposal are inadequate in some respects and need updating. In particular, the Code: o categorizes wastes by disposal method, rather than by waste characteristics and the degree of hazard they pose to the environment; o allows land and ocean dumping of untreated sewage, solid and even hazardous waste: o allows open burning and incineration without air emission controls. OSW also generally agrees with the SCAR Panel of Experts recommendations, with some comments and suggestions for changes, as follow: o In general, the language of the recommendations and the present Code is too qualified and conditional (e.g., vague qualifiers like “discourage the use of,” “where appropriate,” and “take into account”). Additionally, waste disposal standards should be incorporated under the Treaty as a new Agreed Measure to make them more binding. o Recommendation #3: To some extent, wastes continue to be categorized by disposal method, rather than by characteristics and degree of hazard they pose to the environment. We believe that wastes should be categorized in the following manner: ------- 2 Waste water containing sewage, domestic waste, and - other organic waste with BOD and mineral nutrients, that viii be discharged to the land, ice, surface water, or ocean, is one class of waste. (This presently falls under class 1.) Hazardous waste should not be mixed with waste water. Wastes that exhibit hazardous characteristics, regardless of whether they are liquids or solids, or combustible or noncombustible, are another class of waste (hazardous waste). (This roughly corresponds to class 2.) Within this class, hazardous waste may then be subdivided into combustibles, noncombustibles, liquids, and solids (2a, 2b, 2c, 2d). They must be managed, handled, stored, transported, and disposed of to prevent their release into the environment. Hazardous waste should not be mixed with waste water or nonhazardous solid waste. Solid wastes that do not exhibit hazardous characteristics may then be divided into the two categories of combustible and flonCombustible (Groups 3 and 4). Radioactive wastes (Group 5), already are a separate waste class, and should not be mixed with any other type of waste prior to removal from Antarctica. o Recommendation #4: While waste management and disposal by each country should be designed to meet that country’s national standards, universal, minimum standards for Antarctic waste management are necessary in order to achieve uniform protection of the environment. It seems inequitable and futile to have some countries achieving high standards at considerable expense, while others, whose national environmental standards are low, escape these costs and contaminate the air, land, and water. Some mechanism also is necessary to make these universal minimum standards enforceable, such as incorporation under the Treaty as an Agreed Measure. 3. In light of Recommendation #4, U.S. waste disposal practices in Antarctica should conform to standards found in 40 CFR. Hazardous waste : Processes should be designed to minimize the generation of hazardous waste. Likewise, the purchase and import of virgin materials that will become hazardous waste should be minimized. Hazardous waste that does not meet Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) treatment standards cannot be land disposed (as defined in the Land Disposal Restrictions Standards in 40 CFR 268). If treated to BDAT standards onsite (For most hazardous waste, properly conducted ------- 3 high temperature incineration often wj1 achieve BDAT.), the residual may then be disposed on or in the - land. However, the land disposal unit must meet 40 CFR 264 design re u1rements, with “minimum technology” such as double liners and a leachate collection system. Note that studies should be conducted to assess the efficacy and feasibility of “minimum technology requirements” in the Antarctic. Alternately (and pre- ferably), the treatment/incineration residuals should be removed from Antarctica. Also, if incineration does not achieve the BDAT standard, waste must be removed from Antarctica. Hazardous waste incinerators must meet design and operation requirements specified at 40 CFR 264. Finally, hazardous waste subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions should be stored and accumulated only in tanks or containers prior to treatment/incineration or removal, and only for up to one year. (40 CFR 268.50) Solid waste : Waste minimization, of both solid and hazardous waste, should be emphasized in order to reduce the volume disposed of. Packaging materials that will, become refuse should be minimized at the time of purchasing and supply. Ideally, purchase of plastics such as PVC, polyurethane, polystyrene should be minimized if these materials cannot be recycled. Materials should be recycled and recovered to the maximum extent possible (e.g., silver recovered from photographic waste). Combustibles should be incinerated separately from hazardous waste and only in double-burning high temperature incinerators with air emissions controls. (See 40 CFR 240—257 for solid waste management regulations.) Waste water : OSW believes that the Office of Water should comment on waste water treatment and discharge requirements. Nonetheless, we raise the following points I or consideration and discussion: At isolated bases, treatment of waste water prior to discharge may be difficult or impossible. However, use of composting toilets, both at bases and stations, is a possible solution to sewage disposal. At coastal stations, primary treatment (physical maceration) alone is inadequate; waste water needs biological treatment to rduce BOD (with Rotating Bioloqicial Contactors (RBC) or equivalent) prior to discharge. Untreated sewage should not be discharged to the ocean. Despite the relatively low population of Antarctica, significant local impacts on the marine ecology could occur from discharge of untreated waste water. Furthermore, because ice-free land is scarce and the ecosystem rare, discharge to land also could significantly impact this ecosystem. Additionally, hazardous waste should not be mixed with waste water. ------- 4 Ocean dumping of solid or hazardous waste, or untreated waste water (sewage) is prohibited in the U.S. (except for dredge and fill materials) and Should be eliminated. Despite the logistic problems caused by the remote location of Antarctic stations and bases, waste disposal standards should not be compromised, either for U.S. activities or for other countries’ activities. This is especially true in Antarctica, where pristine ecosystems must be protected for their Scientific value. Protective waste disposal standards can be achieved in Antarctica, although costs may be greater than in other parts of the world. Please contact Dave Reeves at 382—4679 to discuss these comments further. ------- w- I C T 9442.1989(05) it 5 69 Mr. Jon Greenberg Manager, Environmental Policy Browning-Ferris Industries 1150 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Greenberg: This letter is intended as a follow-up to an Agency letter of October 27, 1988, which was in response to your written inquiry of August 11, 1988. In reviewing our letter, we discovered that some language was not included, due to a computer error. We would like to take this opportunity to correct this omission, thereby avoiding any Confusion. In our letter, we stated, “A residual generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a characteristic hazardous waste (or a waste that has been listed only because it exhibits a characteristic, such as F003) is a hazardous waste only if it exhibits a characteristic.” This sentence should have stated, “A residual generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a characteristic hazardous waste (or a waste that has been listed only because it exhibits a characteristic, such as F003), when mixed with a solid waste, is a hazardous waste only if it exhibits a characteristic.” However, we reiterate that treatment of a characteristic hazardous waste or a non—hazardous solid waste may generate a listed hazardous waste, such as the electroplating wastevaters mentioned in our previous’ letter. In that example, treatment of characteristic wastewaters generates a sludge which is listed as F006, even if the treatment occurçoff- site from the generation of the wastewater. We apologize for any inconvenience this error may have caused. If you have any further questions, please call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 382-3000. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance fli r r$nr ------- IMIT STAm Th 1 W TAt. PRuri iN AG cr 9442.1989(07) t 2 John P. Nash P.O. Box 3473 Whittier, California 90605 Dear Mr. Nash: This letter is written to inform you that your letter of August 8, 1989, concerning the regulatory status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of your system for recycling/treating aerosol cans has been referred to Mr. Jeffrey Zelikson, Director of the Toxics and Waste Management Division in EPA’s Region IX Office (San Francisco, California). EPA’S current policy regarding the regulatory status of non-empty aerosol can puncturing, crushing or shredding is that the appropriate EPA Regional office is to make a determination on a case-specific basis. Althou9h the December 30, 1980, letter from Mr. Gary Dietrich indicates that such activity is not RCRA-regulated treatment, subse 5 uent evaluation by EPA has determined that such activity may, indeed, meet the definition of treatment found at 40 CFR 260.10 (i.e., such activity may, in fact, change the physical or chemical composition of a hazardous waste, or render such waste amenable for recovery). However, until EPA develops a final determination re9arding such activities, the Regional offices, or authorized State re u1atory agencies, will make such determinations on a case—specific basis. Thank you for your interest in the recycling of solid wastes. If you have any questions regarding your letter, you should contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Michael 3. Petruska Acting Chief Waste characterization Branch OS—3 32 - MITcH—PDISK-TJ(-9/ 11/8 9—WCBO2 5A a ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442. 1989( 08) OCT I 9 1988 Mr. Dave Collins Jones and Henry Labs 2567 Tracey Rd. Northwood, OH 43619 Dear Mr. Collins: I am writing in response to our telephone conversation concerning Method 1320, the Multiple Extraction Procedure. Method 1320 states that after the EP (Method 1310) is run on the initial waste sample of 100 grams, the solid phase remaining after filtration is reweighed and a synthetic acid rain solution is added to the solid phase in a 20:1 ratio. The sam ,le is then extracted and filtered. After filtration, the remaining solid is again reweighed and the extraction fluid is again added in a ratio of 20:1, and so on through the remaining multiple extractions. I had originally said that the synthetic acid rain extraction fluid should be added in a 20:1 ratio based on the sample’s initial dry weight. However, this approach does not take into account what would really happen to the waste in a landfill environment. Method 1320 is trying to predict what would happen to the waste when it is 1aced in a landfill and subjected to rainfall over a long period of time. The waste may absorb water after contact with the acid rain or may lose weight due to the percolation of the acid rain through the waste. tn either case, the waste has been modified by the acid rain. Therefore, in order to mimic this behavior in the laboratory, the wet material that remains after each extraction with the synthetic acid rain solution is the material that should be weighed and used to calculate the 20:1 liquid to solid ratio. The dry weight of the original waste sample of 100 grams should not be used. If you have any questions with this, please give me a call at (202) 475—6722. Sincerely yours, Gail Ann Hansen Environmental Health Scientist Methods Section (OS-33] .) ------- TabLe 43. CQncsntrst ofIa .f capper ...iared an Lo in e•t. LCSCPI t..t. en. diet.. R..ourc r,e,,.gy •& 1..eh teet Blink C e C CC e e tag / I.) VET 0.022 2. 0 0.041 0.047 211 EP 0.004 1.47 4.04 0.44 Cerbonac sad 0.006 0.52 0.11 0.12 1.32 Acetata 0.003 1.04 0.15 0.21 242 Table 44. Coentsstioa• at chracivu La tcvr vIsta 1..ch t.at. s ce ne eeefleeefleeeeeeeneeee Ce e.seeaeeeneee Wa it• R.soiirc. r.cov.ry ash laich t.sst Blank e eeeeeeeeae — — — — eeee — cease. - Ch cage 5 a.n.r Isapton £ b rn c c see (ag/I.) V I? 0.024 1.00 2.02 1.2$ 2.72 D - (0.003 0.030 0.042 0.035 0.01 Carbonic acid (0.003 0.004 0.00? 0.004 0.005 Acitat. (0.003 0.012 0.004 0.005 0.016 aeeeen000efleefleeee Sen Seeflee.Sflefleee sea ------- 7a . 45. Concs t st. en. of sad •sasutsd £e r w.. . S 5C S$ $ ssovros r.covsry ash L.aeh t..t ILask Chicago Suan.r 1 npton Auburi (sq ‘Z.) WET 0.07 2 35 6 2 EP 0.007 • 5.SO .40 10.3 3.1,5 Carbonic acid (0.003 0.025 0.004 0.O 5 0.012 Ac.tats (0.003 0.50 O.2S .S2 4.20 _ T.bls 46. Conc.ntr.tJ00 5 of 1snL a La f r waata bach tsata R•ovTCs rscovsgy •sh I •ach ts.t ChAcago Suiaa.r Isapton Aubvrn — C203 sglL) WET (2 c2 (2 (2 (2 3 (2 2 (3 C.rboalc acLd (2 3 4 4 Acetats (2 4 5 - 7 4 ____e_ ------- YsbI. 47. CencSfltSt 0fl 5 of zinc a.os az.d .fl fOui wsStS 1.ecb t.sts West. RsseuTs r.cov.ry ssh ..eh test 8 si k Chjcsgo 5uss sr H..pton Aubur t VET (0.3 - 206 207 403 - (0.3 56 27 92 27 o’u.c .c d (0.3 4.1 1.6 19 5.7 Ae.tsts (0.3 11 1. 56 25 Isbis 4•. pM of fii • .xtzsct fro. four wssts 1ssch t•sts .eee West. RssourcS r.cov.ry ash .ch test $ 2, g e a e eeeeeSe a __eeeeeeeeeSS •• • CbLca o Svaou Mm.pteft Auburn a a__a__a. WET 4.9 . 7.09 7.52 6.52 5.60 EP 2.95 5.27 5.0* 5.06 5.02 C.rbosLC .cid 4.36 - 6.14 6.4 6.13 6.41 Acetate .95 6.12 7•3 6.46 5.54 a aeee• a eeeeee a ------- — ,tO 87% i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON 0. 9442.1989(09) N 13 I9 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS, Mr. Robert N. Steinwurtzel Counsel to the Secondary Lead Smelters Association, Inc. Andrews and Kurth Attorneys Suite 200 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Steinwurtzel: This letter is in response to your letter of September 22, 1989, discussing the issue of waste testing procedures for blast slag generated by lead recycling facilities. I appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. While this type of issue, particularly in the enforcement context, is one in which the Regional offices generally have the lead, I can give you some idea of our thinking at Headquarters in response to your concerns. With respect to the technical aspects of the proper application of the Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity test, we at EPA Headquarters are in agreement with the discussion presented by Mr. James Scarbrough of our Region IV office in his September 27, 1989, letter to you (copy enclosed). Specifically, we believe the sampling procedure used by the Secondary Lead Smelters Association (SLSA) is inadequate because: 1) the sample is not taken from the actual waste material at the point of generation and 2) the physical characteristics and chemical composition of the sample are likely to be different from those of the waste material. Given the actual nature of the waste as described in Mr. Scarbrough’s letter, we also agree with his conclusion that the structural integrity procedure and the stirring procedure for agitation are not appropriate for this type of waste. Furthermore, we understand that the Region, in consultation with EPA’S National Enforcement Investigation Center, has always taken these positions with respect to sampling and analysis of smelter slag waste. ------- We recognize that your clients may be in the position of having to defend against an enforcement action at this point. However, I believe that if you look at Mr. Scarbrough’s letter of September 21, 1989, he indicates a willingness to attempt a proper disposition of this matter without extensive and expensive litigation. I encourage you to explore this suggestion directly with the Regional Office. Thank you for communicating your concerns to me. If I can provide any further clarification on the role of Headquarters on this type of issue, please feel free to contact me. sincerely, / Deputy Director Office of Solid Waste Enclosure ------- 9442.1990(0l) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 MAY 3 1990 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Dr. Bodo Diehn Science and Technology Professionals Environmental Services Post Office Box 3128 Scottsdale, Arizona 85271 Dear Dr. Diefln: This is in response to your letter dated March 27, 1990, requesting an interpretation regarding the regulatory status of paint spray booth air filters containing toluene and xylene. It is my understanding that your client’s painting process generates an air filter which becomes contaminated by overspray that is inherent in the paint spraying process. This filter is replaced when it becomes “spent.” Your letter also indicates that your client’s paint contains the solvents toluene and xylene as ingredients in the paint formulation. Your letter does not indicate that these solvents (or any other solvents listed in 40 CFR 261.31) are utilized for cleaning purposes, nor that your client’s air filters capture overspray generated during paint spray booth cleaning operations. Based on the information provided, it appears that your client is not generating spent air filters that contain a hazardous waste listed in 40 CFR 261.31. Process wastes containing solvents where the solvent is used as an ingredient in the formulation of a commercial chemical product, do not fali. within the scope of the spent solvent listings. 7Ldditionally, the products themselves do not meet the listings. This point is stated in the preamble to several solvent rules (see 50 LB 53316, 51. ER 40606) as well as in the listing background document. However, should a spent solvent (i.e., a solvent that can no longer be used for its intended purpose without first being reclaimed) be mixed with the filter, the resultant mixture is a hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv). W.d m Rscpdmd Papcr ------- Your letter does not provide enough information to determine if your client’s air filter would exhibit any of the four characteristics of hazardous waste. Each generator is responsible for evaluating his individual waste stream to determine if it meets a listing of hazardous waste in Subpart I D of 40 CFR Part 261, or if it exhibits any characteristic of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. Furthermore, State and local regulatory agencies may have regulations that are more stringent than those at the Federal level. Your client should contact the appropriate State agency to determine what, if any, additional regulations may be applicable. Sinc ID ector our ce, Off ice of Solid waste 2 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1990(02) NOV 8 Mr. Michael Paessun Wadsworth/Alert Laboratories, Inc. 4101 Shuffel Dr. N.W. North Canton, OH 44720 Re: Bias Correction on TCLP Dear Mr. Paessun: We are pleased to respond to your concerns regarding the application of bias correction for the TCLP. This response will supplement our initial responses to questions from your company (communicatjon with Mr. Marvin Stephens) and hopefully will cover all of your concerns. The issue of bias correction was covered in the TC final rule of March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11875). A restatement of the requirement to correct for bias and a description of the method for bias correction was issued in the June 29, 1990 correction notice (55 FR 26993), to clarify the intent as well as procedure. We would also like to respond to your specific questions: 1. The TCLP method does indeed apply to both the Toxicity Characteristic program and the Land Disposal Restrictions program. Any time the TCLP is required, any and all requirements within the procedure must be met. It should be noted that the limits set in the Land Disposal Restrictions program were established based on data which was corrected for bias. 2. All TCLP analy ical results are to be corrected for bias, including those which fall below the treatment standards. This is indeed the intent of spike recovery. In some cases the method (or laboratory/analyst) may underestimate the true concentration. It is for that reason that it is critically important that the spike recovery correction factor be applied when the results are less than the treatment standards. ------- 3. Data collected before the mandatory date would not be subject to correction for analytical bias to comply with the toxicity characteristic ruling. However, it should be noted that the facility may be liable for proper disposal of any waste which was improperly identified. After September 25, any hazardous waste determinations should be based on the TCLP with bias correction. 4. If you wish to supply information on the impact of bias correction on generators of hazardous waste, I suggest you send this information to: Steve Cochran Chief, Characteristics Section OS—3 31 401 M Street Washington, DC 20460 I hope we have been responsive to your questions. If you need additional information on the Toxicity Characteristic Rule, please contact Steve Cochran at 382-4769 or contact Jeanne Hankins at 382-4761 for questions on bias correction. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442. 1990(03) NOV I 9 19g0 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Request for US EPA Headquarters Assistance in Selection of Non-US EPA Approved Methods for RCRA Subpart X Permits FROM: David Bussard Director Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330) TO: Terry L. Anderson Chief RCRA Implementation Branch US EPA, Region VIII This memo is in response to the request by Terry Anderson, Chief of the RCRA Implementation Branch, Region VIII, for Office of Solid Waste (OSW) headquarters guidance on appropriate analytical methods for the analysis of the following eleven compounds (with CAS Nos.), in air, from open burning/open detonation, for which no approved USEPA methods apparently exist: Cyanogen chloride (506—77-4) 1, 1—Diethylhydrazine (616—40—0) 1, 1—Dimethylhydrazine (57—14—7) 1, 2—Dimethylhydrazine (540—73—8) Ethyleneimine (151—56—4) Hydrazine (301—01—2) Hydrogen cyanide (74—90-8) Methylhydrazine (60-34-4) Nitric oxide (10102—43—9) Toluene diisocyanate (584—44—9) o—Toluidine hydrochloride (9 5—53—4) United Technologies advocates the use of Draeger tubes for these analyses, while Region VIII advocates the use of supercritical fluid chromatography (SF ). From our experience, OSW agrees with the Region VIII position that Draeger tubes are inappropriate for use in this application, because they are prone to giving false negative responses. However, it is also our opinion that SFC is inappropriate as well for this application. SFC is an unproved technique for ------- environmental analyses, and shows little promise of future applicability, particularly for the above list of compounds. Therefore, SFC has a low priority in OSW’s methods development program. Toluene diisocyanate and o-toluidine hydrochloride (as o- toluidine) can be determined by SW-846 Method 8270. They should also be amenable to sample preparation by one of the methods listed in the “Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air”, EPA-600/4-84-041, and its subsequent updates, originally issued in April, 1984 by EPA’S Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Methods for nitric oxide and other gases in air may be available from the Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards (OAQPS) in Durham, North Carolina. OAQPS has published a number of ambient air methods in the Federal Register as a part of their regulations. Other sources of applicable methodology for analysis or monitoring of these compounds in ambient air include the manufacturers of the compounds in question and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The manufacturers need to monitor the quality of their products through assay methods, and also to monitor air exposure of their workers to these compounds during the course of the manufacturing process. Exposure monitoring methodology is a specialty of NIOSH, and they publish many volumes of analytical methods. Manufacturers of the compounds of concern should be found in the trade publication “Chemical Sources”, which is commonly used by chemical purchasers. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to call Barry Lesnik of my staff at FTS: 382—7459. cc: Chet Oszman ------- 9442.1990(04) I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC11ON AGENCY 94 3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 NOV I 1990 cccicE cc SOLC WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Michael C. Stroh Trace Organics Supervisor PDC Laboratories, Inc P.O.Box 9071 Peoria, Ii. 61614 Dear Mr. Stroh: Here are my answers to the QC questions you raised in your October 19, 1990 letter to me. You indicated concerns raised recently with your data raised during permit reviews. In the Environmental Protection Agency, the responsibility for performing such reviews is a Regional one not a Headquarters one. While I will offer my technical observations on the matter shortly, I urge you to contact Region V (Ms Valerie Jones, Quality Assurance Officer) for Official guidance. I appreciate that PDC intends to comply with EPA’S intent with regard to QC issues, while offering competitive, legally and scientifically defensible analytical services to your clients. Matrix spike recovery intends to furnish two important pieces of information in the analytical process. First, it will assist you in ascertaining and correcting for co-extracted artifacts which attenuate the analytical procedure’s quantitation —- analytical bias compensation. Secondly, it will assist you in determining if the particular analytical scheme is applicable to the specific set of conditions presented by particular samples to your laboratory. As you will see, my subsequent answers to your questions are consequences of these two uses of matrix spike recovery data. Your choice of, “performing a matrix spike on every waste’s TCLP extract” is within the scope of the June 29, 1990 TCLP rule. As you are aware the similarity of samples is more than simply being a TCLP leacheate, and more than being just a solid, liquid, or sludge type waste, and probably quite process specific. Over time your historical data might be marshalled to demonstrate that various waste types really are identical with respect to matrix spike recovery of a given analytical method. You have made the most prudent choice for now. Prusiid o ’ Ricyclcd Popr ------- The proper reporting of non-detected analities is of concern. The limit of detection will vary depending on the analytical matrix as well as the cumulative effects of reagents, technique, procedure, and materials. The matrix spike provides a means of adjusting the level of detection, a compensation for analytical bias. When it is applied, it may as you indicate, “force the waste generator to either certify for that compound, or manage the waste as hazardous.” When faced with this situatation, you can, it seems to me elect anomg several alternatives: o Repeat the analysis o change the process, analyst , equipment handling, cleaning, reagents, instrumental calibration schedule o Choose a different analytical scheme The point being that one is much better off with a positive, identified, measured, constituent than a non detect. If I confused you when we talked, I hope it is clear now. Actually, the way that you were operating is quite acceptable. But it would be incorrect to substitute the QC check standard for the matrix spike. Because the QC check standard provides different information than the matrix spike, it is not possible to substitute one for the other. The QC check standard, reports the degree of control that exists in performing the analytical process within the laboratory. On the other hand, the matrix spike reports the adequacy of the methodology in estimating the true value in a given set of samples. In those instances when the matrix spike associated with a particular batch is below that expected in the method, you need to correct the sample result or alter the process or select a different method. If the QC check sample shows the method to be in control, it seems to me, that you may need to use a different method (assuring yourself that it too is in control) - - hopefully one that has a better recovery. I hope that my comments have been helpful. They are intended to be technical information only. Please seek approval from Region V. Also feel free to call me with any further questions you may have (201—382—4761). Sincerely yours, Charles P].ost Senior Chemist Technical Assessment Branch ------- fe, 9442.1990(05) a UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 4t .uc # OCT30 t 0 OFFICE O SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Regulatory Used Oil Filters FROM: Sylvia Office of Sol. TO: Robert L. Dupre , Director (8HWM-RI) Hazardous Waste Management Division EPA Region VIII Thank you for your memorandum of August 30, 1990, requesting a regulatory interpretation of the status of used oil filters under the new Toxicity Characteristic (TC). In your memorandum, you inquired about used oil filters that are crushed in vehicle maintenance shops, where a certain portion of the residual used oil in the filter is separated from the filter. The answers to the specific questions YOU sked are listed below. 1. The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) is performed on used oil filters by crushing, cutting or grinding the waste (filter plus contents) until the pieces are smaller than 1. centimeter in their narrowest dimension (and thus are capable of passing through a 9.5 mm standard sieve). See Step No. 7.3 of the TCLP. The surface area criterion referred to in Step 7.3 does not apply to used oil filters. (Note: If the generator recycles both the used oil and metal, you do not need to test because recycling of both types of materials is exempted from hazardous waste regulation as discussed below.) 2. and 3. Assuming a used oil filter exhibits the TC, you had inquired whether the act of crushing filters is regulated treatment or exempt recycling. Generally, the types of used oil filter crushers you described would not be regulated if the used oil was being recycled (see 40 CFR 261.6(a) (2) (iii) and (a)(3)(iii)). That is, since the purpose of the crushing is to remove the used oil for recycling, ye view the crushing to fall within the used oil recycling exemption. The crushing may be performed on— or off—site, for profit or not. The determining factor is whether the used oil will be recycled. The filter may be shipped off—site for crushing under the used oil exemption, providing the oil is collected for recycling. hä .d. R.c d.d Pips ------- 3 Finally, in the sales brochures you sent, there was mention of an open container used to accumulate the used oil after the filter was crushed. (Currently, used oil accumulation by generators is not regulated if the used oil is recycled, but EPA did propose that such containers be kept closed. See 50 49252, November 29, 1985.) Storage or accumulation of characteristically hazardous used oil is regulated if the used oil is to be disposed of; in that case, the containers must be closed except when adding or removing the used oil (per §265.173(a)). Please contact Daryl Moore at (202) 475-8551 if you have any additional questions on the applicability of the Federal hazardous waste regulations with respect to used oil filters. cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I — VII and IX - X Jeff Denit RCRA/Superfund Hotline Regional TC Contacts ------- UNITED STATESERVIRONMENThC P TEt’flON A E 1CY 9442 1991(01) V? — 1 Bruce L. Johnson, Chief Environmental Compliance and Investigation Unit Environmental Services Section Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building St. Paul, ) 55155 Dear Mr. Johnson: On December 6, 1990, you sent a letter to our office requesting clarification on information you had heard regarding the applicability of the new Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) relative to the old Extraction Procedure (EP) when testing leaded paint sandblasting waste. This letter responds to your specific concerns. As you know, the oxicity Characteristics (TC) rule was effective on September 25, 1990 for large quantity generators, and compliance must be achieved by March 29, 1991 for small quantity generators. On the compliance dates of the rule, the EP test can no longer be used for hazardous waste identification purposes; the new TCLP method must be used. The likely source of confusion is the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program, which allows use of either the TCLP or the EP test when measuring compliance with the treatment standards for certain arsenic— and lead-containing hzardous -waste (see 55 22660, June 1, 1990; Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled Wastes: Final rule; technical amendment - enclosed). For these wastes, the Agency specified that if a waste does not achieve the nonwastewater treatment standard based on analysis of a TCLP extract, but does achieve the standard based on analysis of an EP extract, the waste is in compliance with the treatment standard. (This action was taken because the data used to develop the treatment standards for these wastes were based on EP toxicity leachate data. Treatment standards for characteristic wastes for the remaining EP toxic metals (D005, D006, D007, D009, DOlO, DOll) and EP toxic pesticides (D012 — DOll) must be evaluated using the TCLP.) This LDR provision is applicable to treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste which must meet required treatment standards prior to land ------- In summary, the information you received at the Mississippi Valley Conference regarding the use of the EP test versus the TCLP with respect to leaded paint sandblasting waste was, as you have also determined, inaccurate. The only circumstance that exists where there is an option of using either the TCLP or the EP is when measuring compliance with the treatment standards for certain arsenic- and lead-containing hazardous waste. As for the information you received from Mr. Jack Ko].lmer at the November 9, 1990 luncheon, regarding the acceptance of the EP Toxicity test for “one time operations” which includes bridge paint removal, this was also inaccurate. Of course, state and local agencies may have additional regulations that differ. The appropriate EPA Regional office or State and local regulatory agencies should be contacted for additional assistance or clarification. If you have further questions regarding the TC rule, please contact Steve Cochran at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, David Bussard, Director Characterization and Assessment Division ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(02) FEB 2 2 1991 Mr. Herschel Cutler a Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. 1627 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006—1704 Dear Mr. Cutler: I appreciate your providing us with the documentation of your analyses of the fluff materials. We are returning the documentation, per your request. Please note that in order to make a copy for our records we were obliged to remove the binding. I trust this will not be too great an inconvenience. The comparison of the results between our contractor (MRI) and your contractor (BCM) indicated a difference in some of the results, as you had previously pointed out. BCM’s EP Tox results were approximately 3 - 30 fold lower than those from MRI for lead and approximately 2 — 10 fold lower for cadmium. The TCLP results were generally comparable, although BCM did have two significantly lower lead values and one lower cadmium value. The attached report describes the evaluation we conducted of the analytical documentation from both BCM and MRI. I would like to highlight those areas we thought were most noteworthy. Since pH is one of the key factors effecting the leachability of metals into an aqueous medium, we have carefully reviewed the data provided by both laboratories with special attention to the pH data. For the EP Tox procedure, it is necessary to adjust the pH to 5.0 +/— 0.2 with an acetic acid solution (see attachment for details on procedure). MRI provided full documentation of the pH adjustment step, including the pH values before and after each adjustment. BCN did not provide documentation of the pH values after adjustment for some of the samples. Therefore, it was difficult to fully evaluate the impact of this step in a comparative manner. Data from BCM indicates that the pH before each adjustment was much higher than 5.0 +/- 0.2, and this may indicate that overall, the pH was higher in the samples leached by BCM than I. That may be one reason that the concentrations of lead derived from the EP Tox test as performed by BCM were significantly lower than MRVs. Also, during the on site review, a discussion with BCM personnel indicated that, due to the large ------- quantity of acid required and the time involved, a decision was made to lower the pH to only 5.2. This is the upper limit of the allowable pH range, and this factor may also help explain the lower levels of lead found in the samples analyzed by BCM. (Details provided in attached report.) When using the TCLP procedure, a selection must be made between two different extraction fluids. This selection is made based on the pH of the material. In two cases MRI used extraction fluid #2, whereas BCM used extraction fluid #1 in all cases. For both of those samples where MRI used extraction fluid #2, MRI reported a higher concentration of lead than did BCM. The use of extraction fluid #2 for these samples had no apparent effect on the concentration of cadMum. ) I provided data to support the use of extraction fluid #2, while BCM provided no data to indicate which fluid should be used. (See attached report.) Relatively minor analytical anomalies were noted in some of the data submitted by both laboratories. It is the opinion of the reviewer that the anomalies would not make a major contribution to the differences observed. However, these are also included in the attached report. We conclude that the data provided does not support the contention that the TCLP is a more aggressive test than the EP Tox. We are aware that laboratories do have more difficulty in using the EP Tox, and we feel that this study emphasizes that observation. Data from MRI show that the results are roughly comparable between the EP Tox and the TCLP. We do not believe that the documentation provided by BCM is adequate to support the proposal that the two leaching procedures are not comparable. We appreciate your participation in this comparison study. We feel it has provided further clarification of our reason for replacing the EP Tox with the TCLP. If you have any questions on this evaluation, please contact Alec McBride on 382-4761. Sincerely, David Bussard Director Characterization and Assessment Division cc: Alec McBride Jeanne Hankins Gail Hansen Steve Cochran John Sca]era, OTS Dan Reinhart, OTS ------- REVIEW OF DATA ON FLUFF SAMPLES This review covers all the data provided by both BCM and MRI. The data was reviewed for internal consistency, calculation errors, compliance with the method, and quality control measures. EP TOX H DETERMINATION After addition of the waste and the distilled water into the extractor, the pH must be measured and then adjusted if it is greater than 5.2. The pH must be monitored during the course of the 24 hour extraction period according to the following schedule: • adjust the pH of the solution in 15-, 30-, or 60-minute intervals, moving to the next longer interval if the pH does not have to be adjusted more than 0.5 pH units. • continue the adjustment for at least 6 hours. • if, at the end of the 24 hour extraction period, the pH of the solution is not below 5.2, and the maximum amount of acid has not been added, the pH should be adjusted to 5.0 +/— 0.2, or until the maximum allocated amount of acid is utilized, and the extraction continued for an additional 4 hours, during which the pH should be adjusted at 1 hour intervals. Data forms provided by MRI allowed for simple and easy determination of the pH adjustment process. The following information was included: time and interval, pH before and after adjustment, volume of acid added and cumulative amount, post 24 hour adjustment, and final volume of water added. Data provided by 3CM was difficult to comprehend. Only in some cases was the time and/or interval indicated. In those cases where the pH was provided, it was apparently the pH before adjustment with the acetic acid solution. It was not possible to determine what the pH was at the end of each adjustment or at the end of the 24 hour period and whether the leaching period was extended an additional 4 hours if the pH was greater than 5.2. It was also unclear whether there was any addition of water at the end of the leaching period. It was noted that the volume of acid added by BCM was approximately two fold greater than that added by MRI, which could indicate a difference in concentration of the acetic acid reagent. Otherwise, one would expect the 3CM results to show greater leaching. The incremental volumes themselves frequently differed by approximately a factor of 10, most notedly at the initiation of the leaching procedure. I in most cases adjusted the pH very 1 ------- close to 5.0, with two excursions below 4.8 (duplicates of sample 5,5 were adjusted to a pH of 4.71 and 4.45 initially). Since BCM did not provide pH data after the addition of acid, it is not possible to determine whether the adjustment procedure affected the amount of leaching. Conversations between BCM personnel and the on site observers from EPA indicated that the pH adjustment was stopped at a pH of 5.2 due to the large volume of acid added and the extended length of time for adjusting the pH. The pH recordings (presumably before adjustment) which were documented by B N were much higher than 5.2. This might mean that the amount of lead or cadmium extracted could be lower because of a higher overall average pH during extraction. In summary, there are several apparent inconsistencies. MRI added smaller increments of acid, a smaller total volume of acid, but, in those cases where it was possible to make a comparison with BCM, MRI samples had a lower pH at the end of the 24 hour leaching period. It should be noted, however, that in no case did data from ! .ffiI or BCM show that the pH was less than 5.2 at the end of 24 hours. Therefore I continued the leaching procedure for an additional 4 hours as per the method, which may have increased the amount of lead and cadmium leached from the fluff. It was not possible to determine if BCM had an additional 4 hour extraction period. TCLP Extraction Fluid Selection In order to determine the appropriate extraction fluid for the TCLP, one must use the following procedure: • weigh 5 g of the solid phase of the waste (particle size 1 mm diameter) into a 500 mL beaker or flask. • Add 96.5 mL of reagent water to the beaker, cover with a watch glass and stir for 5 minutes. Measure and record the pH. If the pH is less than 5.0 use extraction fluid #1. • If the pH is greater than 5.0, add 3.0 mL 1.0 N HC1, cover with a watch glass, heat to 50’ C for 10 ntin.; let cool to room temperature and record the pH. • If the pH is now less than 5.0, use extraction fluid #1. If the pH remains greater than 5.0, use extraction fluid #2. MRI provided information which detailed the pH values at each step. Based on the pH, two of the samples were extracted with fluid #2: samples 3,12 and 5,5. BCM used extraction fluid #1 for 2 ------- all samples, and did not provide any documentation of pH checks. The lead analyses of these two samples revealed significant differences in concentration, but the cadmium results were not significantly different. Sample 6,4 had a higher concentration of lead and a lower concentration of cadmium when analyzed by BCM as compared to MRI. No differences in procedure were noted that might have accounted for this inconsistency. In summary, the differences noted in the TCLP results for lead analyses in samples 3,12 and 5,5 would appear to be due to the use of different extraction fluids. Further information is needed to determine whether the correct extraction fluid was selected by BC)!. The data does not indicate any variation in method for the differences noted in sample 6,4. ANALYSIS BY FLAKE ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROMETRY MRI documented instrument drift in several instances when using flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS). Logbooks from MRI describe the techniques used to compensate for the drift, including 1) manually establishing the baseline from the strip chart recorder and 2) subtracting the blank from the preceding 10 samples. The second practice is not recommended as it would tend to inappropriately lower the concentration in the samples analyzed first. Strip chart recordings would be needed to verify concentrations under the first condition. Examination of the BC)! data also indicated possible instrument draft. Several QC samples had to be reanalyzed before they met QC limits. Also, several analytical runs were missing from the package. No explanation was given for these anomalies. Other observations include the following: In the initial calibration for lead, BCM did not use the 25 mg/L sample to establish the calibration curve. During the cadmium analysis, the auto-zero function was initiated after calibration. MRI had a high spike recovery (approximately 10% higher than expected) for cadmium in sample 6,4. Reanalysis confirmed the high recovery. In summary, the data from MRI may be biased low for cadmium in EP Tox, based on the technique for compensating for baseline drift. Cadmium results for the TCLP leachate of sample 6,4 by MRI may be biased high. However, the effects of these biases on the results would be relatively minor, probably no more than +/- 10%. Further information would be needed to understand what effect the anomalies found in the BC)! data would have on the bias of any results. 3 ------- GRAVIMETRIC DATA Both the EP Tox and the TCLP require the use of a 100 g sample which must be weighed out before commencing the procedure. 8CM provided data on the weight determination of seven samples. Several errors were identified (6 of 7). Although these errors would have only a nominal effect on the overall accuracy of the results it indicates a potential weakness in the quality assurance system. The following data compares the results calculated by BCM and the EPA reviewer: SAMPLE NO BCM EPA 2,5 100.23 99.40 2,5 100.31 99.73 2,4 100.35 100.35 2,4 100.85 100.70 2,12 100.38 100.08 2,12 100.16 99.55 3,5 100.32 100.73 Results for all other weight determinations were not provided by BCM nor MRI. 4 ------- 9442.1991(03) ,to S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 4L g Ct’ (4R I9iggi OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Ms. Kelly S. Swanson Quality Assurance Officer Analytical Technologies, Inc. 11 East Olive Road Pensacola, FL 32514 Dear Ms. Swanson: I would like to clarify the issue of when to add the matrix spike in the TCLP procedure. Because the concentration of the contaminant in the sample is completely unknown, a matrix spike, i.e., a predetermined quantity of certain analytes is to be added to each.sample matrix prior to sample extraction/preparation. This is done to monitor the performance of the analytical method as well as the sample preparation method and to estimate the extent to which matrix bias or interferences reduce the measured value of the contaminant. Section 8.2.3 emphasizes monitoring the analytical procedure as opposed to the leaching procedure. It is to be emphasized that the spike monitors the analytical and preparation procedures, i.e., analytical method encompasses both the preparative and determinative steps. Thank you for your inquiry about spike recovery. I am available to discuss this further, should you wish. My phone ri mber is 202—382—7458. Sincerely yours, Charles Plost, Acting Quality Assurance Officer cc Alec McBride Jeanne Hankins Joe Freedman, OGC Hugh Davis, OWPE Steve Cochran RCRA-Hotl me TAB-Hotl me ------- 9442.1991(04) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 011 G OP ’CE OF SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE March 25, 1991 Mr. Richard S. Leonard Quality Assurance Director National Environmental Testing, Inc. Woodland Falls Corporate Park 220 Lake Drive East Suite 301 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Dear Mr. Leonard: The purpose of this letter is to clarify some of the discussion in my letter of August 14, 1990 to you (copy enclosed) which was sent in response to your letter of August 1, 1990. Specifically, I would like to revise the response to question number 4. The original question and the revised response are as follows: Question 4: Our clients complain that when we dilute a sample (e.g. oil or solvent matrix) to obtain results that meet quality control requirements, that the data so obtained are “useless” because of the high reporting limit. How do we generate analytical data for compliance decisions when dilution must be performed? Answer: First I want to clarify that, at least with respect to used oil that is destined either for recycling or to be blended as fuel, there is no need on the part of the generator to run a TCLP since these wastes are eligible for the used oil exemption (see 40 CFR 261.6(a) (2) (iii) and (a)(3)(iii). In the case of oily waste that is to be disposed or solvent wastes, it is required that generators determine if their waste is hazardous using either knowledge of their waste and/or the process that generated it or by testing. If they choose to test, then they must use Method 1311 (TCLP). The Agency is aware that running the TCLP on matrices involving oily wastes and organic liquid . Pnnted on Recycled Paper ------- wastes may result in labs being unable to determine conclusively that the waste is or is not hazardous. In those cases, the generator must use his/her knowledge to make this determination. Where no additional information or knowledge is available, it would probably be prudent for the generator to manage those wastes as hazardous wastes. Please note that in the case of liquid organic wastes, it is possible that these wastes may already be hazardous by virtue of a hazardous waste listing (e.g., spent solvents, hazardous wastes codes FOOl -F005), in which case the hazardous waste determination with respect to the TC becomes much less critical (e.g., you would be determining if additional wastes codes applied to the waste instead of making the critical hazardous waste determination). I would also add that the Agency is aware of analytical problems associated with oily and organic liquid wastes and is investigating ways to solve them. I would like to apologize for any misunderstanding or confusion which may have resulted from my earlier response, and I hope this revised response addresses your concerns. If you have any additional questions related to this or other TC/TCLP issues, please feel free to call Steve Cochran at (202) 382-4770. Sincerely yours, Alec McBride, Chfef Technical Assessment Branch ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(05) M R 27 1991 Aaron H. Goldberg, Esq. Beveridge and Diamond, P.C. Suite 700 1350 I Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005 Dear Mr. Goldberg: Thank you for your letter of January 25, 1991 concerning our methods for ignitable liquids. In defining an ignitable liquid hazardous waste under RCRA, the Agency’s regulations state that flash point should be determined by either one of two specified methods, or by any other method which might be approved by the Administrator. Only one test method needs to be applied. The choice of the method should be based on the applicability of the method to the material being tested. In this case, one might consider viscosity, among other things, in making the appropriate choice. I hope that this has clarified the intent. If you need further assistance, please call Charles Plost of my staff at (202) 382—7458. Sincerely yours, David Bussard, Director Characterization and Assessment Division cc Steve Cochran Joe Freedman, OGC Joe Lowry, NEIC Hugh Davis, OWPE ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442. 199 1(06) MAY 9 1991 Nicolas H. Roelofs, Ph.D. Nevada Environmental Laboratory 1030 Matley Lane Reno, Nevada 89502 Dear Dr. Roelofs: I am writing in response to your letter of May 1, 1991, to David Bussard regarding the differentiation and equivalency of Methods 8240 and Method 8260. As you are aware, both methods are determinative procedures for the analysis of volatile organics by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. The two methods are very similar and differ primarily in the gas chromatograPhiC column used to effect separation. Method 8240 utilizes packed columns, where Method 8260 utilizes open tubular capillary columns. The two types of gas chromatographiC columns both provide separation of analytes targeted for analysis, but are not technically equivalent in their separation ability. It is Agency policy to allow the substitution of equivalent or superior materials within the analytical procedures of SW-846 unless otherwise specified in regulations. For example, Method 8240 Section 4.12.2 allows the substitution of equivalent packings. Furthermore, Method 8000 Section 4.2 permits other packed or capillary columns to be used provided the performance test requirements of Section 8.6 have been met. Therefore, capillary columns (with or without cryogenic cooling) may be substituted for the packed column of Method 8240, if the ability to generate acceptable accuracy and precision by Method 8000 Section 8.6 has been demonstrated. ------- We are aware that the delay in promulgating the methods of the first update package has added further complications regarding the utilization of Method 8260, which has not been promulgated in its final form. We are expediting the final promulgation of the methods contained in the first update package to remedy this situation as soon as possible. If you have any questions on this issue, please contact John Austin at (202) 382- 4761. Sincerely, Alec McBride, Chief Technical Assessment Branch ------- UPUTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(07) Mr. Timothy 3. Anderson Corporate Senior Project Engineer Environmental Affairs Rayovac Corporation 601 Rayovac Drive P.O. BoX 4960 Madison, WI 53711—0960 Dear Mr. Anderson: I am writing in response to your letter of May 15, 1991 concerning your particle size reduction procedure for TCLP sample preparation of dry cell batteries. Your idea of using liquid nitrogen to freeze the samples before grinding is very interesting. Freezing at those temperatures would certainly tend to make the sample easier to crush afterwards. However, the TCLP states that one must collect a representative sample of the waste as generated for analysis. We have no way of knowing whether this type of freezing will alter or affect the sample’s physical or chemical composition (and therefore its leaching potential) in some way. Since the generator is ultimately responsible for making the determination that a representative sample is collected for analysis, we cannot make an up-front determination that this type of freezing is an acceptable step in crushing batteries. If you have any further questions, please call me at (202) 475—6722. Sincerely yours, Gail Hansen Health Scientist Methods Section (OS-331) cc: Dave Bussard Alec McBride John Austin Carrie Wehling, OGC RCRA/Superfufld Hotline MICE Line ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(08) JJ’1 13 1991 Ms. Elaine McPherson Technical Sales Representative IT Corporation 17605 Fabrica Way Cerritos, CA 90701 Dear Ms. McPherson: I am writing in reference to your letter of April 11, 1991 concerning the handling of TCLP extractions as they apply to oily wastes. We do not recommend performing the extract on the oily waste that passes through the filter as Margo Jackisch of SAIC suggested to you. First of all, the TCLP determines release potential in two steps, the first of which I will discuss here as it specifically applies to your situation. The initial filtration step separates I e solid phase of a waste from its liquid phase. This £ik i ’ phase represents the primary waste leachate or the liquid fraction of a waste that is mobile and can be released from a landfill. In your case, the oil goes through the filter and, by definition, becomes its own leachate which is then analyzed directly. If your waste is a used oil that is destined for recycling, there is no need to characterize the waste since it would be exempt under 40 CFR Section 261.6(a) (2) (iii) and (a) (3) (iii). It is the decision to dispose of the waste, in lieu of recycling, that triggers the waste characterization requirement. If your waste is a used oil that cannot be recycled and is destined for disposal, generators are required to make a hazard determination. If the generator chooses to test for the Toxicity Characteristic, - the generator must use the TCLP or an approved alternative method, as described in 40 CFR 261.24. The extract obtained from the TCLP may be analyzed by any method, provided the method used has documented QC and is sensitive enough to meet the regulatory threshold for the constituents of concern. In cases where the TCLP results on used oil or oily wastes are inconclusive, including cases where the detection limit for a constituent is higher than the regulatory threshold, generators may use their knowledge of the processes involved in the ------- 2 generation of the waste to make a hazard determination or resort to an alternative analytical method to get an answer. This has been necessary with volatile organics. At this time, the Agency is conducting studies of an automated headspace analysis methodology coupled with isotope dilution mass spectrometry in order to achieve greater analytical sensitivity for all TC volatile analytes, including vinyl chloride. We suggest the use of this approach,. Currently, only a working draft method (copy enclosed) is avalilable. Pending the outcome of Agency studies, the draft methoc will be revised and proposed for inclusion in SW—846. I For furthe ! assistance, please call the MICE (Methods Information Com4unications Exchange) at (703) 821-4789. Calls are recorded on Ian answering machine and, for the majority of questions, resp4nses are provided within 24 hours. I hope this information has sufficiently addressed your questions. Sincerely yours, Gail Hansen Environmental Health Scientist Methods Section (OS-331) cc: David Bussard Alec McBride Steve Cochran Mike Petruska John Austin GaiI Hangen- ’ Leon Lazarus, Region II Hugh Davis, OWPE RCRA/Superfund Hoti me MICE Line ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(09) JUN I 9 1991 Esther L. Harper Chem-Bio Corporation 140 East Ryan Road Oak Creek, WI 53154—4599 Dear Ms. Harper: I am writing in response to your letter of June 12, 1991, in which you request written confirmation of our phone conservation regarding surrogate recovery. In judging the validity of a data set, surrogate analytes are used as indicators of the procedure’s ability to recover the actuall analytes of interest. Surrogates are used to demonstrate correct sample preparation and the absence of matrix effects impacting the recovery of the actual analytes of interest. The use of surrogates is an integral part of many of the Agency’s methods for the measurement of organic ana].yte levels. The omission of surrogates from an analytical procedure in which they are called for is a deviation from the suggested or required analytical method. It is frequently observed in the review of analytical data that dilutions needed to achieve quantitation of the analytes in a sample results in levels of surrogates which are no longer measurable. The omission or absence of measurable levels of surrogates provides one less tool for use in the evaluation process for the assessment of data useability. However, the absence of --surrogate data does not in itself invalidate the analysis. If the analysis still indicates that analytes are present at or above regulatory action levels, then the lack of surrogate recovery data would have little bearing on the use of the data. In the case of no detectable analytes, then there is no assurance that the individual sample was amenable to the preparative procedure. Sincerely, John Austin Acting Chief Methods Section ------- 9442.1991(10) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY t LL 31991 Mr. Theodore W. Lund Vice President C/P Utility Services Company, Inc. 119 Sanford St. Hamden, CT 06514 Dear Mr. Lund: This letter is in response to your May 20, 1991 letter to Mr. Alec McBride of my staff in which you requested information and responses to questions concerning the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and lead paint removal debris. Q: a. TCLP as a lead test method, is it applicable to paint residues? A: The Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule requires waste generators to determine whether constituent levels in their waste sample extract, or leachate, exceed specified levels. This determination can be based either on their knowledge of the processes from which the waste was generated or by application of the TCLP. The TCLP is not a test method specifically for lead-containing waste, however, solid waste containing hazardous constituents, such as lead, must be tested with the TCLP unless the generator has enough other knowledge to determine whether the waste is hazardous. Q: b. What kind of sampling protocol should be used on drums, roll offs and containers of abrasive mixtures? A: It is important that you collect samples from drums, roll of f s, and containers of abrasive mixtures that are representative of the waste. EPA has general sources of guidance with respect to the development of a sampling plan. These include “Petitions to Delist Hazardous Waste - A Guidance Manual” (EPA/503—SW—85—003, April 1985) which discusses the concept of representative sampling (section 7.1) and sampling techniques for various sampling situations, such as how you would sample a waste contained ind rns (section 7.3). Al so see % 2 ------- EPA realizes that sampling is a complex procedure and the representativeness of the sample is critical to the accuracy of the waste characterization. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you contact the EPA Regional Office for your area and the state and local regulatory agencies for additional information or clarification on the appropriate sampling protocol for your specific situations. Q: c. Can on-site stabilization be done for these special bridge projects throughout a state without establishing a TSD facility? A: Yes. Based on the above scenario and under the federal hazardous waste regulations, on—site stabilization can be conducted without, establishing a TSD facility. EPA allows for limited on-site accumulation or storage by a generator, regardless of whether the hazardous waste is treated or not treated, without the need of a permit or interim status (90 days for generators of 1000 kg/mo or more of total hazardous waste and 180 (270 if waste will be transported 200 miles or more from site of generation) days for generators of more than 100 but less than 1000 kg/mo of total hazardous waste) (see 55 10168, March 24, 1986). In addition, generators (in this case C/P Utility Services would be the generator) must comply with all applicable Subtitle C requirements. For example, on—site hazardous waste stabilization or treatment processes must be conducted in accumulation tanks or containers in conformance with the requirements of § 262.34 and Subparts J or I of Part 265. Generators not in compliance with the above-prescribed requirements must comply with all applicable RCRA requirements as a TSD facility. Q: d. Is it allowable to inject a percentage of iron shot into a mineral abrasive to mask the lead in a subsequent TCLP test? A: The hazardous waste regulations do not restrict the use of ingredients for the purpose of preventing waste from exhibiting a hazardous characteristic. In fact, this could be a desirable process change to make the waste less hazardous. However, in this case, we understand that introducing iron to the abrasive only temporarily prevents lead from leaching from the waste, so it “masks” the lead, but does not really change the character of the waste. If your clients choose to do this, they should be aware of two points: 2 ------- 1) If the waste passes the TCLP initially, but then fails later prior to disposal, the waste is hazardous, subject to all applicable hazardous waste rules. 2) If the waste passes the TCLP and is disposed of as non-hazardous waste, the generator may, nonetheless, be held liable under CERCL for any environmental damages caused by release of the lead into the environment. Q: e. Can the State DOT choose a central collection point to accumulate waste from several projects? A: Yes. If the State DOT determines that it is necessary that a central collection point to accumulate waste from several projects be established (e.g., in order to eliminate transportation or traffic impediments), and the waste is hazardous, prior to movement of the waste from each site (i.e., “several projects”) to a central collection point, generators are required under the Federal hazardous waste regulations to prepare a manifest. In addition, a transporter must not transport hazardous waste without having received an EPA identification number from the EPA Regional Administrator. Furthermore, a transporter must store manifested shipments of hazardous waste in containers meeting the requirements of § 262.30 at the transfer facility (i.e., “a central collection point to accumulate waste”) for a period of ten days or less in order to avoid regulation as a TSD facility for storage of those wastes (see 40 CFR 262.20, 263.ll—.12). I hope the responses to your questions are of assistance. Of course, state and local agencies may have regulations that are more stringent and would thus, as a practical matter, supersede the Federal regulations. Furthermore, the answers to the questions you raised are likely to vary from site to site and from state to state depending on the particular situation and the particular state’s regulations. Therefore, I suggest that you contact the state waste management agency where specific paint removal activities are planned for relevant requirements and regulatory interpretations. In addition, you may want to contact the local EPA regional office, particularly if you plan on activities within states which do not have approved hazardous waste management programs. 3 ------- If you have any further questions, please contact Daryl Moore of my staff at (202) 475—6721. Sincerely yours, David A. Bussard Director Characterization and Assessment Division cc: Carrie Wehling, OGC John Austin Gail Hansen RCRA/ Superfund Hotl me MICE Line 4 ------- 9442. 1991(11) j UNITED STATES ENVi . 1ENTAL PROTECTION AGE’JCV WASIIINGTON. 0 C 20460 4. . JJ - 9 99I ..\ :. ‘E .C 3 •. , Mr. Craig S. Campbell Regulatory Analyst Health and Environmental Affairs Department American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. Campbell: In response to a request made during a recent meeting with Mr. Jim Greene of Mobil Corporation, we are providing you with the following information on the methodologies employed in our 1989- 1990 used oil sampling activities. To fill data gaps in the pre-1985 generated used oil characterization data and to provide source—specific waste characterizations using improved analytical techniques, EPA initiated a sampling and analysis program in 1989. To accomplish this, the Agency stratified the used oil universe into limited categories based on the source and application of the used oil. Seven used oil categories identified include: automotive crankcase oils; diesel engine crankcase oils from trucks and buses, heavy equipment, and railroads; hydraulic oils and fluids; metalworking oils and fluids; electrical insulating oil; natural gas-fired engine oil; and aircraft and marine engine oils. The Agency developed sampling strategy by conducting literature research, data base searches, and telephone interviews with industry, State, and local officials, as well as telephone book listings. Each facility identified as a used oil generator was defined as a unit selected on a random basis in one of the used oil categories noted above. To use available funds effectively by focussing on the analysis rather than the national representation of used oil sample, the sampling activities were undertaken in the Washington, D.C. area, unless samples of used oil from a specific segment could not be obtained there. The sampling program was not intended to characterize variations in used oil based on geographical location, since it is assumed that no significant differences in constituent concentrations are attributable to geographic area. R.ç.cled Paper ------- When possible, samples of “as generated” used oil and facility storage tanks or containers were taken. This allowed EPA to determine ‘as—generated constituent concentrations and the extent of adulteration endemic to the generator. The Agency developed field procedures to sample numbering and labeling, equipment use and decontamination, sample protocols, and sample containerization and preservation, as well as documentation of sampling activities. Chain of custody forms accompanied each shipment of samples from the field to the laboratory. The analytical program was designed to characterize used oils with respect to the compositional concentration of the constituents of concern and with respect to the Toxicity Characteristic (TC). In order to do this, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was applied to used oil samples, and after filtration, the liquid phase (filtrate) of the samples were analyzed for selected constituents of concern using analytical methods from SW—846, “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (Physical/Chemical Methods), Third Edition,” as noted in the table on the next page. For volatile organic contaminants, the Agency found that the traditional purge and trap GC/MS method (Method 8240) did not provide detection limits that were sufficiently low. As an alternative, the Agency has modified an existing headspace screening method (Method 3810) to include isotope dilution. This modified method includes the addition of several standard isotopes that correspond to each of the target analytes. For semi-volatile organics analyses, the Agency had similar difficulties. The existing SW—846 methods were adequate for analyzing most samples, but the used oil matrix required dilutions that yielded unacceptable detection limits. To improve the detection levels, the Agency utilized a specific ion monitoring (SI!.!) option on the GC/MS. Instead of scanning the sample for a full spectrum of semi- volatile compounds, the Agency found that analytes with lower concentration could be easily detected using SIN. Attachment 1 is a copy of the Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Characterization of Used Oil, and Attachment 2 is the table of SW-846 Methods employed to characterize used oil. The results of the sampling and analysis effort wil... be publicly available at the time of publication of the used oil proposed rule. Thank you for your interest in EPA’s used oil program. Sincerely yours, David Bussard, Director, Characterization and Assessment Division Attachments 2 ------- 9442.1991(12) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAt. PROTECTION AGENCY R 3O 9I SUBJECT: Lead Paint Removal Debris and the TCLP Procedure PROM: David A. Bussard, Director •Characterization and Assessment Division Office of Solid Waste (OS—330) TO: Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule Regional Contacts Regions I - X Since the promulgation of the TC rule (March 29, 1990), there have been a number of generator and state inquiries regarding the applicability of the TC rule (i.e., Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)) to lead-paint removal debris. Specifically, questions have been raised regarding the regulatory status of lead-paint removal debris that are generated with a mineral abrasive which includes an additive which “masks” (intentionally or not) the lead in a subsequent TCLP test. We anticipate that you will be receiving similar inquiries regarding the regulatory status of the above-mentioned waste. In summary, there are two scenarios that may exist regarding the addition of agents or additives to mineral abrasives that are used for lead paint abatement projects: 1. Agents or additives that are mixed with the mineral abrasive prior to the abatement process (i.e., before a waste is generated) for purposes of preventing waste from exhibiting a hazardous characteristic. 2. Agents or additives that are mixed with the mineral abrasive subsequent to the abatement process (i.e., after a waste is generated) for purposes of preventing waste from exhibiting a hazardous characteristic. The purpose of this memorandum and the attachment is to provide you with a copy of a letter that responds to these and ether questions regarding the applicability of the TC rule and hazardous waste regulations to lead-paint removal debris. ------- Should you have any questions regarding the information in the attachment, please contact Daryl Moore of my staff on FTS 475—6721 or (202) 475—6721. Attachment cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs - Regions I - X Nancy Brown (OWPE) Frank McAllister (PSPD) RCRA Hotline ------- 9442.1991(13) OCT 9 1991 Dr. Irving M. Kipnis Gascoyne Laboratories, Inc. 2101 Van Derman St. Holabird Industrial Park Baltimore, MD 21224—6697 Dear Dr. Kipnis . I am writing in response to your letter of September 13, 1991 requesting an exemption from the particle size reduction step in the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The RCR.A hazardous waste regulations allow a generator to use his/her knowledge of a waste (which could include previous testing data on wastes known to be very similar) or the processes that generated a waste to determine if it should be regulated as a hazardous waste. We do not require you to test. If you decide to test for the Toxicity Characteristic, however, you must use the TCLP (Method 1311). At this time, the particle size reduction step is included in the TCLP, and laboratories are required to follow the steps in the method. Because TCLP does not explicitly describe how to reduce the particle size of all materials, a laboratory analyst must use his/her best professional judgement for determining an appropriate method. This might include cutting, crushing or grinding. The responsibility lies with the generator to make that determination. In addition, the TCLP states that one must collect a representative sample of the waste as generated for analysis. If you scrub your subsamples prior to TCLP testing, then you may not be testing a representative sample. We have no way of knowing whether the cleaning procedure will alter or affect the sample’s physical or chemical compo potential) in some way. responsible for making th ion that a representative samp-le - is-collected for analys-le,- . we cannot make an up-front determination that your proposed method is an acceptable or appropriate step. er ,. ------- 2 If you have any additional questions, please fee]. free to call me at (202) 260—4761. Sincerely yours, Gail Hansen Chief, Methods Section (OS-331) cc: Alec McBride Dave Topping David Bussard Carrie Webling, OGC RCRA/Superfund Hotline MICE Line ------- A1t5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(14) OCT 29 1991 Mr. Michael Miller Laboratory Manager Betz Analytical Services P.O. Box 4300 9669 Grogans Mill Rd. The Woodlands, TX 77380 Dear Mr. Miller: I am writing in reference to your letter of October 8, 1991, to Alec McBride, concerning the handling of TCLP extractions as they apply to liquid wastes, including oils and solvent—based products. It is important to keep in mind that EPA does not require esting to determine whether a waste is hazardous; the generator Aay use other information (such as knowledge of the process by which the waste was generated) in making that determination. Also, certain oily material destined for recycling, is exempt (under Section 261.6(a)) from hazardous waste management requirements. Liquid hazardous wastes are subject to hazardous waste management requirements regardless of whether they are destined for landfill disposal. As a result, there are many reasons why a gen rator or transporter would and should want to test the waste that they manage. For example, a generator may need to determine what types of storage, handling or transport requirements are applicable to the waste. The generator may also need to test the waste to determine compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions program, under which wastes are subject to requirements for treatment by specified technologies prior to land disposal. Given these considerations, if the generator still wishes to test his/her waste for the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) determination, then the TCLP must be followed. Once the fluid to be analyzed has been obtained (from either the initial filtration ------- 2 step or the leaching procedure), the laboratory may use any appropriate determinative step for the analysis. If the methods currently in SW-846 do not achieve the required detection limits, then other methods should be used. This has often been necessary with volatile organics for oily matrices. At this time, the Agency is conducting studies of an automated headspace analysis methodology coupled with isotope dilution mass spectrometry in order to achieve greater analytical sensitivity for all TC volatile analytes. We suggest the use of this approach be considered. Currently, only a working draft method (copy enclosed) is available. Pending the outcome of Agency studies, the draft method will be revised and proposed for inclusion in SW—846. For further assistance, please call the MICE (Methods Information Communications Exchange) at (703) 821—4789. Calls are recorded on an answering machine and, for the majority of questions, responses are provided within 24 hours. I hope this information has sufficiently addressed your questions. Sincerely yours, Gail Hansen Chief, Methods Section (OS-331) cc: David Bussard Alec McBride Dave Topping Carrie Wehling, OGC RCRA/Superfund Hotline MICE Line ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(15) BLWP132.9l December 17, 1991. Ms. Sharon Meves Quality Programs Coordinator WMI Environmental Monitoring Laboratories, Inc. 2100 Cleanwater Drive Geneva, Illinois 60134 Dear Ms. Meves: I am writing to you in response to your inquiry of November 18, 1991, concerning the handling and analysis of samples containing volatile organic compounds. You do not mention any specific matrix in your letter, but the tone of it indicates to us that your questions refer to aqueous samples. My responses are also limited to samples regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and represent the point of view of the Office of Solid Waste. In general, aqueous samples should be hermetically sealed in volatile organic vials at the time of sampling, and must not be opened prior to analysis to preserve their integrity. The vials should be completely filled at the time of sampling, so that when the septum cap is fitted and sealed, and the vial inverted, no .headspace is visible. At the time of analysis, the aliquot to be analyzed should be taken from the vial with a gas-tight syringe inserted directly through the septum of the vial. Only one analytical sample can be taken from each vial. If these guidelines are not followed, the validity of the data generated from the samples is suspect. The following is the response to your specific questions: 1) The sample should exhibit no headspace “at the time of sampling” as I have previously mentioned. However, due to differing solubility and diffusion properties of gases in aqueous matrices at different temperatures, it is possible for the sample to generate some headspace during storage. This he Ll v t,u4 t11 appear in the form of micro bubblO, sample ror v lat .les ------- 2) The presence of a macro bubble in a sample vial generally indicates either improper sampling technique or a source of gas evolution within the sample. The latter case is usually accompanied by a buildup of pressure within the vial, (e.g. carbonate containing samples preserved with acid). Tom Bellar of the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Cincinnati (EMSL-Ci) (unpublished data) states from a study that he did several years ago that “pea-sized” bubbles (i.e. bubbles not exceeding 1/4 inch or 6 mm in diameter) did not adversely affect volatiles data. These bubbles were generally encountered in wastewater samples, which are more susceptible to variations in gas solubility than are groundwater samples. 3) There is no reason to “flag” data from acceptable samples. However, finite vola iles concentrations (i.e. values above detection limits) from samples containing excessive headspace should either be identified as minimum values or discarded and new samples should be taken. Non-detectable results are invalid. If you have any further questions, please call me at 202—260- 7459. Sincerely yours, Barry Lesnik Chemist Office of Solid Waste-Methods Section ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442.1991(16) Commanding Officer Department of the Navy Naval Weapons Support Center (PM-4) Crane, Indiana 47522-5000 On December 11, 1990 and April 18, 1991 you sent a letters (#8026 — Ser 50222/U5224, — Ser PM4/U547l) to our office requesting that the Navy be exempted from the provisions of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) when determining if munitions items (DOT Class C, Hazard Class 1.4), which are being processed through an incinerator for disposal, exhibit toxic characteristics. This letter responds to your specific concerns. I want to apologize for not responding sooner to your initial letter. Under the existing regulations, persons who generate solid waste are not specifically required to test their waste to determine whether they exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic or any other characteristic. Instead, solid waste generators are required to make a determination as to whether or not their waste are hazardous (see 40 CFR 262.11). This determination may be made by either applying knowledge of the waste, the raw materials, and the processes used in its generation or by testing. In your initial letter you stated that, “the TCLP requirement to reduce particle size for toxicity determination should not be applicable because of the inherently unsafe procedure of crushing, cutting or grinding of munitions items.” The Agency recognizes that the particle size reduction requirement (step. 7.3 - TCLP) could create an inherently unsafe situation when testing these items. Therefore, we suggest that determinations for these items be made by using knowledge of the process or any other available data that characterizes the properties of the above prescribed waste (e.g., EP Toxicity results). On January 11, 1991, our office called Mr. Keith Sims, and on January 14, 1991 we spoke with Mr. J. Lawson, both of your office, regarding the Navy’s request for exemption from the TCLP. In our phone conversations, we explained that the TC rule does not require generators to test in order to make a hazardous waste determination, as described above. Based on their knowledge of tfle process, ir they think t c N Ove munitions items would ------- fail the TCLP-extract analysis for lead or dinitrotoluene, then these wastes could be declared as hazardous, and no testing would be necessary. However, these wastes would have to be managed and disposed of according to Subtitle C requirements. Both Mr. Sims and Mr. Lawson acknowledged that they understood our explanation and requested that we send you the above clarification in writing. Of course, State and local agencies may have additional regulations that differ. The appropriate EPA Regional office or State and local regulatory agencies should be contacted for additional assistance or clarification. If you have further questions regarding the TC rule, please contact Daryl Moore at (202) 475-8551. Sincerely yours, Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director Office of Solid Waste cc: Mr. J. D. Lynch (PM-4) Mr. G. S. Edwards (5022) ------- 9442.1991(17) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mr. Nathan Fishback Assistant U.S. Attorney Roon 330 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Dear Mr. Fishback: This letter is to follow up on a discussion with Mr. Richard Ross of your office in which he requested a written clarification of the applicability of certain analytical methods for conducting testing under the toxicity characteristic regulation. The Technical Assessment Branch in EPA’S Office of Solid Waste is responsible for developing and promulgating analytical methods for EPA’S hazardous waste program, including the Extraction Procedure (EP) leaching test. Until September 25, 1990, when changes to the toxicity characteristic (TC) became effective, the testing protocol for determining compliance with the TC was the EP test. The EP test was described in Appendix II to 40 CFR Part 261. See 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II (Superceded test) (1990). Appendix II described the various steps of the leaching procedures itself and then stated that the test methods to be used for analyzing the 14 compounds were those specified in “Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical! Chemical Methods”, known as SW—846. Until June 21, 1990, the methods specified in SW-846 for arsenic, selenium, and mercury were Atomic Absorption, Furnace Technique (methods 7060 and 7740 for arsenic and selenium, respectively); Atomic Absorption, Gaseous Hydride (methods 7061 and 7740 for arsenic and selenium, respectively); and Manual, Cold Vapor Technique (methods 7470 and 7472. for mercury). On June 21, 1990, the Agency also promulgated method 6010 (Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy) for arsenic and selenium. The Agency has not promulgated an Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration Method for analyzing arsenic, selenium, or mercury. ------- If you have any questions on this information, please call me on FTS 260—4761. Sincerely, Alexander McBride, Chief Technical Assessment Branch 2 ------- 9442.1991(18) iO S?4p I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY , - N’ / WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 P 4 L .oø ’ OFcICE OF DEC I 9 1991 SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Honorable Slade Gorton United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Gorton: Thank you for your letter of November 3, 1991, regarding Chuck Burr’s concerns about the disposal of used automobile antifreeze. My staff contacted Mr. Burr to discuss his concerns regarding a recent revision to our toxicity test and to the regulations that identify wastes as hazardous. Mr. Burr indicated that there is a lack of guidance for businesses in managing their antifreeze. We supplied him with information about the current regulations and exemptions regarding the disposal of antifreeze. I have also enclosed some guidance documents that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed for small businesses to make it easier to comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. It should be noted that EPA does not regulate household- generated antifreeze. In the case of antifreeze generated by businesses, EPA regulates only antifreeze that fails the revised ‘toxicity test. It may be of interest to you that we have received some information from used automotive antifreeze recyclers and the used antifreeze collection industry, indicating that used antifreeze may, in some cases, fail the revised toxicity test and therefore be a hazardous waste. In addition, EPA allows businesses that generate less than 100 kg/month (about 30 gallons) of hazardous waste to manage their wastes without complying with the EPA hazardous waste regulation. We are considering further special exemptions so that small business owners can comply more easily. We expect to propose this concept within the next few months. Pnnted on Rec, , c . -‘ ------- $I I I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 L p Ø1* 9442.1993(01) SEP 2 0 I99 Lisa A. Matis Halliburtori NT iS OFFCEOF SCUD WASTE AND tMERGEN Y Savannah River Center RESPONSE 900 Trail Ridge Road Aiken, Sc 29803 Dear Ms. Matis: I am writing in response to your letter of August 16, 1993 requesting clarification of the status of discarded off-gas piping, equipment, and off-gas scrubber solution from a tank system used for storage of a commercial chemical product listed in 40 CFR 261.33. The off-gas scrubber solution is not considered to be the listed hazardous waste because the gas contained in the solution is derived from a product, not a waste. Therefore, the derived- from rule is not applicable. However, when the off-gas scrubber solution is being discarded it is a solid waste and you must determine if it exhibits a characteristic. If so, the scrubber solution must be handled as a characteristic hazardous waste. The liquid residuals removed from the tank are the listed commercial chemical product. However, if the container from which the residuals are removed is empty, the residuals are not subject to regulation under RCRA. The definition of “empty” differs based on whether the commercial chemical product is listed as a “P” (40 CFR 261.33 (e)) or “U” (40 CFR 261.33 (f)) waste; 40 CFR 261.7 discusses what constitutes an empty container for both wastes. In the case of a “U” waste, 40 CFR 261.7(b) (1) states that “the container is empty if all wastes have been removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from that type of container...and no more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of residue remain on the bottom of the container or inner liner, or no more than 3% by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the container or inner liner if the container is greater than 110 gallons in size.” In the case of a hIp d waste, 40 CFR 261.7(b) (3) states that a container or inner liner...is empty if the container or inner liner has been triple rinsed using a solvent capable of removing the commercial chemical product or the container 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.” RicyclsdlRscyclabls r ‘ . .I .4 . Iffi UawN .wile i* .rn .i.w ------- 2 In the case of the liquid rinsate, if the material is rinsate from empty Containers or from containers that are rendered empty by that rinsing, then by virtue of 40 CFR 261.3(a) (2) (iv) (D), the rinsate is not the listed hazardous waste. If you have any questions, please call Wanda Levine of my staff at 202—260—7458. Sincerely, Je er nit A ngDrec r 0 Ic f So Id Waste ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 \ amal 9442.1993(02) OCT07 1393 OFF(CEOF SOLO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Gregory L. Crawford Vice President, Recycling Operations Steel Recycling Institute Foster Plaza X 680 Anderson Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15220 Dear Mr. Crawford: Over the past several years we have received numerous questions concerning the regulatory status of used aerosol cans under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. I understand that confusion about these issues may be hindering your efforts to increase steel aerosol can recycling in this country. As environmentally protective recycling is an important part of the Agency’s waste management goals, I hope that this letter will help to answer some of these questions. RESIDENTIAL AEROSOL CANS First, I would like to emphasize that under the federal RCRA regulations, household waste (including aerosol cans) is excluded from the definition of hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.4(b)(1)). Thus, any aerosol cans generated by households are not regulated as hazardous waste. Because this exclusion attaches at the point of generation (i.e., the household) and continues to apply throughout the w2ste management cycle, household aerosol cans collected in municipal recycling programs and subsequently managed in recycling programs continue to be excluded from the hazardous waste management regulations. The data you submitted’ appear to confirm that the majority of used residential aerosol cans contain very little residual product or propellant. Along with your ‘Texas Steel Aerosol Can Recycling Program, Final Report; Steel Can Recycling Institute (now Steel Recycling Institute); December 7, 1992. Q y RscycIedIRscycIabIi 7) <\ Pfln d with SoyiCanols Ink on p.psr that oont n$ at I at 50% ‘Icyclud fibr ------- 2 experience working with many of the 600 or more communities currently recycling these cans, the data suggest that aerosol cans can be effectively recycled. The Agency does recommend that communities running residential steel recyding programs educate their participants to recycle only empty steel aerosol cans. Participants could also be educated to: 1) purchase only the amount of consumer products that they need to minimize the quantities of unused products, 2) give unused products to someone else who can use them, 3) take unused or partially full containers to a household hazardous waste collection program if available, or 4) dispose of the partially full containers as directed on the label. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AEROSOL CANS I understand that you are also interested in facilitating the recycling of aerosol cans generated by commercial or industrial generators. The remainder of this letter discusses only these non-household waste items. We have been asked whether aerosol cans exhibit the characteristic of reactivity. At this time, the Agency is not able to determine whether various types of cans that may have contained a wide range of products are reactive. However, a steel aerosol can that does not contain a significant amount of liquid would clearly meet the definition of scrap metal (40 CFR 261.1(c)(6)), and thus would be exempt from RORA regulation under 40 CFR 261 .6(a)(3)(iv) if it were to be recycled. Therefore, a determination of reactivity or any other characteristic would not be relevant. Aerosol cans that have been punctured so that most of any liquid remaining in the can may flow from the can (e.g., at either end of the can), and drained (e.g., with punctured end down), would not contain significant liquids. It should be noted that since the process of emptying the aerosol cans is part of a recycling process (i.e., scrap steel recycling), this activity would be exempt from RCRA regulation under 40 CFR 261.6(c) (except as specified in 40 CFR 261.6(d)). The Agency recommends that these activities be conducted in a safe and environmentally protective manner and that care be taken to properly manage any contents removed from the container (both liquids and gases). Any liquids or contained gases removed from aerosol cans may be subject to regulation as hazardous wastes if they are listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 or if they exhibit any characteristics of hazardous waste as described in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. We have also been asked to determine whether used aerosol cans would meet the definition of empty’ under 40 CFR 261.7. Again, if the steel cans are being recycled, it is not necessary to determine whether they are Nemptyu under the criteria listed in 40 CFR 261.7. As long as an aerosol can being recycled does not contain significant liquids, the can is exempt as scrap metal. However, in order to dispose of a can as non-hazardous waste (rather than recycle it), a generator would have to determine that the can is empty under 40 CFR 261.7 (or that the product it contained ------- 3 was not hazardous), and that the can itself is not hazardous. If a can is to be disposed of, and either contains or is hazardous waste, it must be managed under all applicable regulations. Please be aware that this letter addresses only the federal hazardous waste regulations. Authorized State agencies implement the RCRA program in their states (although some parts of the program may be implemented by the U.S. EPA Region3), and that state regulations may be more stringent than the federal regulations. Anyone managing aerosol cans should contact the appropriate state environmental agency or U.S. EPA Regional Office to determine how the regulations of that particular state will apply to their activities. I hope this information is useful in your efforts to increase steel recycling. Thank you for the assistance that you and the Steel Recycling Institute have provided my staff in researching these issues. If you have any further questions, please call Charlotte Mooney of my staff at (202) 260-8551. Sincerely, D. Denit Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste cc: Waste Management Division Directors, U.S. EPA Regions I - X ------- .# Io s 7 1? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9442.1993(03) 4 i993 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Ms. Susan S. Ferguson Director, Industrial and Hazardous Waste Division Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 1700 North Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78711—3087 Dear Ms. Ferguson, This letter responds to your letter dated November 5, 1992, requesting an interpretation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations as they apply to hazardous waste fuels. Specifically, you asked for interpretation and guidance regarding whether fuels containing recovered light hydrocarbon would be regulated as solid wastes or as products under RCRA. apologize for the long delay in responding to your letter. Your letter provides examples of three companies that generate light hydrocarbon streams in the production of a primary product and that wish to sell the streams as fuel additives and/or burn them as supplemental fuel in on-site boilers. Your question is whether these secondary materials are RCR.A solid wastes. The determination of whether a secondary material is or is not a solid waste is a complex, largely substance— and situation- specific decision. Therefore, it is difficult to make a general statement regarding the regulatory status of the light hydrocarbon secondary materials referred to in your letter. In essence, the solid waste determination depends on whether the material in question is considered a “by-product” or a “co- product” of the production process. By-products burned for energy recovery are regulated as solid wastes under RCRA; co- product fuels (i.e., products) are not. The by-product/co— product determination is based on a number of factors, each of which must be evaluated in a case-specific context. A by-product is defined in RCRA as “a material that is not one of the primary products of a production process and is not solely or separately produced by the production process” (40 CFR 261.1(c)(3)). The preamble to the 1985 Definition of Solid Waste Recycled/Recyclebla & p,mn wfth SoylCaflO . ln on olnWns st limit 50% ScycIsd 1151 ? ------- 2 final rule provides clarification of EPA’S intent regarding what constitutes a by—product. It explains that EPA means to include as by-products, “materials, generally of a residual character, that are not produced intentionally or separately, and that are unfit for end use without substantial processing” (50 FR 625, January 4, 1985). While there is no explicit regulatory definition of the term co—product, the preamble to the 1985 rule also provides some clarification as to what would be considered a co—product, as distinct from a by-product, under RCRA. The preamble describes co-products as, “materials produced intentionally, and which in their existing state are ordinarily used as commodities in trade by the general public” (50 FR 625, January 4, 1985). Based on these definitions, several factors must be considered in deciding whether a secondary material is a legitimate product or a waste. They include, for example, whether the material constitutes a separate production stream, whether it is fit for end use essentially as is or must undergo substantial additional processing prior to use, whether it is residual in nature or a highly processed material intentionally produced for sale to the public, whether a legitimate market exists for the material, etc. Given the information you provided, we agree that at least some of the materials described in your letter may potentially meet the definition of solid waste. If the materials meet the solid waste definition and are further determined to be hazardous under RCR.A, they must be burned in compliance with the 40 CFR Part 266 standards for burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces. We recognize, however, that the existing solid waste criteria may be ambiguous and difficult to apply. Furthermore, we are aware that the application of those criteria may inappropriately limit the use of clean alternative fuels. Consequently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is currently evaluating the issues surrounding the regulatory status of “clean fuels” through two separate but related efforts. First, as you know, the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force has been established to review the overall system by which hazardous wastes are defined and recycling of secondary materials is regulated. The Task Force will submit their recommendations to me on how to improve the regulatory and/or statutory framework for regulating secondary materials in March, 1994. We expect the recommendations to reflect the issues raised by you and other members of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials’ subcommittee who have participated in the Round Table process. Second, for the past several months, EPA has been developing a “Hazardous Waste Combustion and Waste Minimization Strategy,” ------- 3 to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced and strengthen the controls on hazardous waste combustors (incinerators, boilers and industrial furnaces). Through this effort, EPA is reexamining its existing regulations and policies on waste combustion in order to develop an integrated program for source reduction and waste management. For further information on the combustion portion of the strategy, you can contact Fred Chanania at (703) 308—8420. Both of these efforts provide forums through which we hope to address the “clean fuels” issue (e.g., identifying “clean” fuel not subject to RCRA) in the context of the overall program. In the meantime, if you have additional questions or need further information on this issue, please contact Mitch Kidwell of my staff at (202) 260—8551. Sincerely, I - - • ? Bru.c R. Weddle -- Acting Director Office of Solid Waste ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9442.1993(04) NO! 2 flfl3 OFF ‘C.CF SOLO WASTE MEI GEN Y R SPC’ 1S Mr. Richard h. Guida Asscciate Director for Regulatory Affairs Office of Naval Reactors Departmer t of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Dear Mr. Guida: Thank you for the opportunity to review the reports which you recently subi .1tted to me regarding the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program’s (NNPP) spent nuclear reactor fuels and the RCRA hazardous waste determination. In these reports, the N PP detailed its efforts at characterizing the Program’s spent fuels based both on “process knowledge” and actual analyses conducted in hot cells in accordance with the Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP). First, I want to com.,tend your staff for the extraordinary efforts undertaken to characterize actual samples of irradiated fuel for the Toxicity Characteristic. I recognize that it is a fairly daunting task to sample and analyze these highly radioactive materials, and I believe your Program’s efforts are unprecedented in this respect. I also would like to thank Mark Neblett of your staff for his efforts to clarify for my staff portions of the draft report that accompanied your September 20, 1993 letter to EPA, and to hand deliver additional naterials tQ assst the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) in its review. The entire report was reviewed by both EPA mixed waste policy staff in the Permits and State Programs Division, and RCRA testing methods experts in our Characterization and Assessment Division. Based on my staff’s review, the Office of Solid Waste concurs with the reports’ conclusion that the NNPP’s spent reactor fuels and assemblies snould not present any of the characteristics that identify RCP.A hazardous wastes. Our concurrence is based on o’..ir review and agreement with the NNPP’s “process knowledge” analysis, the TCLP analytical procedures used, and the TCLF/quality control measures described in your report. We also believe, given the conservative assumptions which the NNPP employed in selecting representative spent fuel sarip1e (i.e., selecting samples that contained the highest possible concentrations of RCRA hazardous retals), that the reports support a general determination that none of the Program’s spent reactor fuels would be classified as RCRA ------- hazardous wastes. This latter conclusion is, of course, conditioned Ofl the completeness and accuracy of the infornation shared with EPA on the Program’s “process knowledge,” particularly with regard to projecting the TCLP test results obtained to other fuels than those that were actually involved in the testing. As you are aware, EPA delegates the authority to implement the Subtitle C RCRA program to the States. Currently, 35 States and one territory have received from EPA the approval to regulate RCR.A mixed waste. We recommend that you share your results with the appropriate hazardous waste personnel in those States where the spent reactor fuel is managed. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to evaluate the results of the spent fuel “process knowledge” analysis and TCLP test. If you have any questions on EPA’S review, please contact Susan Jones, at (703) 308—8762. Sincerely, /2 61 Shapiro, Director — Oft of Solid Waste ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 +P4( p flt’ 9442. 1993 C 05) DEC 2 3 1003 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Peter L. Joseph United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 6505 Belcrest Road Federal Building, Room 533 Hyattsville, Maryland 20782 Dear Mr. Joseph: Thank you for your letter of August 4, 1993, concerning the requirements for disposal of discharged M-44 Cyanide Capsules that originally contained a sodium cyanide pesticide. Your letter identifies two exemptions from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations that you believe may apply to discharged M—44 capsules. It appears that either or both of these exemptions may apply to your activities. Each exemption is discussed in detail below. Please note that because these exemptions are conditional and self-implementing, it is your responsibility to determine whether or not the conditions of the exemptions are met. Because generation of this waste is not likely to fit the typical hazardous waste generation pattern, it may also be necessary to contact the agency implementing the hazardous waste program in the areas where the pesticide is used to determine the applicability of these exemptions. First, you identify the empty container provision of 40 CFR 261.7 as a possible exemption. Since the capsules contained a sole active ingredient formulation of sodium cyanide (acute hazardous waste P106, see 40 CFR 261.33(c) and (e)), 40 CFR 261.7(b) (3) would be the appropriate standard. Specifically, 40 CFR 261 • 7(b) (3) indicates that a container that has held an acute hazardous waste listed in 40 CFR 2b1.33(e) is considered empty if: 1) the container has been triple rinsed, or 2) the container 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. In your letter you indicated that the fired capsules are cleaner than triple-rinsed pesticide containers. If the capsules have been cleaned (i.e., the pesticide removed) by a method that has been shown to achieve removal equivalent to triple rinsing, they would be considered empty containers. This exclusion is self-implementing; there is no formal EPA approval process for using an alternative cleaning method under 40 CFR 261.7(b) (3). We would suggest that persons Rscycl.d/R.cyclebl. J & P W ’ d Soy no . mk o.i p .0 ., thE St 2S* 50% iu yUsd fibir ------- 2 using an alternative cleaning method document the equivalency of the method and its use. Note pat under 40 CFR 262.40(c), generators of hazardous wastes are required to maintain records of waste identification determinations. It might also be useful to discuss the use of an equivalent removal method with the agency implementing the hazardous waste regulations in the area of use; the state hazardous waste agency if authorized, or the appropriate EPA regional office if the state is not authorized. Second, you identify the Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) provision of 40 CFR 261.5 as a possible exemption. Specifically, 40 CFR 261.5(e) and (1) indicate that a generator who generates less than one kilogram of acute hazardous waste in a calendar month is a CESQG and is not required to manage that acute hazardous waste in compliance with the full hazardous waste regulations providing that the generator complies with certain requirements set forth in paragraph (f). In addition to waste identification and accumulation requirements, the generator is limited to managing the acute hazardous waste in an on-site or off-site facility that meets one of five criteria listed in 40 CFR 261.5(f)(3)(i)—(v). It should be noted that this requirement would apply to burial of hazardous wastes as well as to burning. The one kilogram quantity limit applies to each generator, which is defined in 40 CFR 260.10 to mean “any person, by site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste . ..“ Depending on where and how the M—44 Cyanide Capsules are used, it is possible that each person or organization using the capsules in an area (and/or the owner of the land on which they are used) may be considered a separate generator. As long as any such generator generates less than one kilogram of acute hazardous waste in a month, that waste may be 2 managed under the reduced provisions of 40 CFR 261.5(e) and (f). Users of M—44 Cyanide Capsules should contact the appropriate state or EPA regional office for assistance in defining individual generators based on the facts of the pesticide use. Alternatively, if the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is the only user of these capsules, it may be possible to identify the total quantity generated annually, and from that determine that all generators generate less than one kilogram per month. Please note that any undischarcied capsules that are disposed of would also be included in this calculation. ‘Except Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators, discussed below. the actual weight of residue remaining in the container can be identified, it is not necessary to include the weight of the container in this quantity. ------- 3 Under 40 CFR 261.5(f), a CESQG of less than one kilogram per month of an acute hazardous waste may dispose of that waste at one of several types of facilities. For M-44 Cyanide Capsules, the most useful type of facility is likely to be one that is “permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage municipal or industrial solid waste” (40 CFR 261.5(f) (3) (iv)). Please find enclosed a letter that further explains this requirement. It may be possible to obtain permitting, licensing, or registration from the appropriate state agency to dispose of 11—44 Cyanide Capsules at the site of use or elsewhere in the field (burning or burial). Alternatively, the capsules would have to be disposed of at an off-site facility meeting one of the listed criteria. This letter addresses only the federal hazardous waste regulations. Authorized state agencies (or in some cases the appropriate EPA Regional Offices) generally implement the RCRA program within each state, and state regulations may be different (although no less stringent) than the federal regulations. Most relevant for you may be that some states do not recognize the CESQG exemption, or may have different quantity limits than the federal regulations. Thus, persons using M—44 Cyanide Capsules should contact the state environmental agency (or EPA regional office) for the area in which the capsules will be used to determine how the regulations of that particular state will apply to disposal of the capsules. Thank you for your interest in the safe and environmentally sound management of these wastes. If you have any further questions please contact Charlotte Mooney, of my staff, at (202) 260—6926. Sincerely, , icpAei Shapiro -7 - . Director Office of Solid Waste Enclosure cc: Bill Jacobs, OPP (7505C) ------- ,ø e % UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 9442.1994(01) JAN —4 1993 OFFICE Of SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY Mr. Michael C. Campbell RESPONSE Katec Incorporated P.O. Box 3399 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454 Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for your letter of November 12, 1993, commenting on our letter of October 7, 1993, cQncerning regulation of waste aerosol cans under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. We appreciate your interest in the safe and environmentally protective management of these wastes. As we indicated in our letter, we are not at this time able to make a categorical determination as to whether various types of cans that may have contained a wide range of products exhibit the characteristic of reactivity. It remains the responsibility of the generator of any particular waste to make this determination (see 40 CFR 262.11). However, as we indicated in the letter, a steel aerosol can that does not contain a significant amount of liquid (e.g., a can that has been punctured and drained) would meet the definition of scrap metal (40 CFR 261.1(c) (6)), and, if it is to be recycled, would be exempt from regulation under 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iv). Scrap metal that is recycled is exempt from RCRA regulation under this provision even if it is hazardous waste, so generators need not make a hazardous waste determination. Scrap metal that is not recycled, however, is subject to the hazardous waste regulations if it is hazardous, so generators must make a hazardous waste determination. We appreciate your safety concerns and stress that persons managing both regulated wastes and wastes that are exempt under recycling exemptions should take all necessary precautions to ensure that the wastes are managed safely. Thank you again for your interest in this issue. Sincerely, Michael H. Director Office of Solid Waste Q RscycI.dIR.cycIabIs & pht with SoyIC.noIa W am csn gms at Issst 50% , Ul ------- 9442.1994(02) HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS February 1994 RCRA 1. K052: Bottoms from Tanks StorIng Leaded Gasoline at Petroleum Refineries According to4O CFR §26132, the hazardous waste code K052 applies to “rank bottoms (leaded)from the petroleum refining industry.” A variety of perrolewn fractions including leaded gasoline are s:orcd in product tanks at refineries. Bottoms from all of these tanks may contain lead. Does the K052 listing apply only to bottoms from tanks storing leaded gasoline, or does it apply to lead-containing bottoms from refinery tanks storing any petroleum fractions? EPA intended the K052 listing to apply only to bottoms from tanks storing leaded gasoline at petroleum refmeries. The listing does not apply to bottoms from tanks storing other petroleum fractions, like diesel, even if those bottoms contain lead. Tanks bottoms that do not carry the K052 code can still be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C if they exhibit one or more characteristics of hazardous waste. ------- 9442. 1994(03) RCRA 1. Off .Speclflcatlon Paraformaldehyde Meets Commercial Chemical Product Usting A ma,u(acturer stores product formaLdehyde (CAS No. 50-00-0) in containers before use in a manufacturing process. While in storage, some of the pure formaldehyde polymerizes to form paraformaldehyde (CM No. 30525-89-4), whic.h is wjusable in the manufacturing process because it does not meet required spec ficanons. The manufacturer separates the paraformaldehyde from the usable formaldehyde and sends the off-specification chemi cal for disposal. Unused commercial chemical products containing formaldehyde are listed as U122 when discarded (40 CFR p261.33(f)). Paraformaldehyde is notfoundon the P- orfi- list (40 CFR j26l33 (e) or (/)). When discarded, is the off-spec ficanon paraformaldehyde a listed hazardous waste? In the above scenario, paraforrnaldehyde is an off-specification form of formaldehyde and meets the U122 listing (40 CFR §261.33(b)). When a commercial chemical product listed in § 26l.33(e) or (f) undergoes a chemical change that renders the chemical off- specification, the applicable P- or U-listing for the original chemical applies, even in cases where the chemical composition has changed sufficiently to require assignment of a different CAS Number. HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS March 1994 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9442. 1994(04) P PR -8 994 MEMORANDTJM Subject: Regulatory Status of Wood Stickers Used For Wood Preserving Operations From: Rick Brandes, Chief Waste Identification Branch To: Jeff Ingalls, Inspector Oregon Department of Environmental Quality This letter is in response to your request that we make a regulatory interpretation as to the status of discarded wood stickers which were used during wood preserving operations. Wood stickers are typically used in wood preserving operations to separate bundled wood to ensure that more surface area of wood is exposed during treatment. Typically, these stickers are reused for multiple wood treating operations. When these wood stickers have reached their useful lifetime, they are discarded, and it is how these stickers are disposed of which is the basis of this letter. Wood stickers which are disposed of by plants following wood preserving operations that use pentachlorophenol, creosote, or CCA are classified as listed hazardous waste for the following reason: Drippage from wood preserving operations that use pentachiorophenol, creosote, and CC is classified as F032, F034, and F035, respectively. Wood stickers, because of their intended use, come in contact with this drippage, thereby carrying the hazardous waste code when disposed. The Agency does not consider these stickers to be treated wood product since they are part of the procesa- of treating the wood. These stickers, however, do not need to be a part of a plant’s monthly hazardous waste reporting requirement until they are ultimately discarded since they are being used as a tool to treat the wood. If you have any questions or comments regarding this issue, please contact Mr. David J. Carver on (202) 260-6775. EI iFcm 1320.IA (1196) OFFICIAL FILE COPY ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9442. 1994(05) APR I 5 1994 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Theodore L. Kinne Vice President Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 555 13th Street, N.W. Suite 300 W Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Mr. Kinne: Thank you for your letter dated July 1, 1991, requesting clarification regarding the status of natural gas pipeline condensate under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. I apologize for the long delay in responding to your request. As you correctly state in your letter, off-specification fuels (such as natural gas pipeline condensate) are not considered solid wastes under 40 CFR Part 261 when burned for energy recovery. While this interpretation has not been altered since 1985, EPA has since attempted to clarify what constitutes legitimate burning for energy recovery and may have caused some confusion as a result. The Agency addressed the issue of legitimate vs. “sham” burning for energy recovery in the February 21, 1991, final rule on Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces. (56 FR 7134). In the preamble to that rule, EPA cited burning of ignitable off-specification natural gas condensate as a motor fuel as an example of an inappropriate or sham type of burning for energy recovery. The Agency further stated that natural gas condensate, when used in this manner, would be a solid and hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C controls (see 56 FR 7184). EPA now recognizes, however, that this was a poorly worded example of what would be considered sham burning for energy recovery. A more precise example, and one that the Agency has found to have occurred, would be the sale or use of contaminated, low energy value “natural gas pipeline condensate” as a motor fuel, or fuel additive (such that additional octane enhancers also had to be added). In general, the January 4, 1985 preamble discussion you cite (50 FR at 630) still applies. Accordingly, use of unadulterated n tura1 ga pipeline condensate Btu/lb content as a Pnnted on Recycled Paper ------- fuel or fuel addititve could, in fact, constitute a legitimate type of burning for energy recovery. It is important to note, however, that energy value is not the sole determinant of whether the natural gas condensate is being legitmately burned as a fuel. Additional shanj ecycling criteria, identified in the January 8, 1988 Proposed Amendments to the Definition of Solid Waste, are equally relevant to a regulatory status determination (see 53 FR at 522; see also 48 FR at 11158 (March 16, 1983)). Of particular relevance to a determination regarding natural gas pipeline condensate is whether the condensate contains toxic constituents not found in normal fuels and if so, whether these constituents contribute to the recycling objective or are simply being destroyed. Assuming that burning is for legitimate energy recovery, high energy value natural gas condensate would not be considered a RCRA solid or hazardous waste when used as a fuel or fuel additive. However, the determination would have to be made case-by-case based on the facts relevant to both the specific material and the manner in which it is being burned. It is also important to note that authorized states generally implement the RCRA hazardous waste regulations and State regulations may be more stringent than the Federal regulations. I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact Mitch Kidwell or Becky Daiss of my staff at (202) 260-8551. Sincerely, Micka Shapiro, Director Of f c of Solid Waste ------- Ito S7 p . - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 L JUL 29 1994 9442.1994(06) OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Ms. Karen Sahier Environmental Committee New York Gas Group 500 Fifth Avenue Suite 428 New York, New York 10110-0469 Dear Ms. Sahier: In your letter to Michael Shapiro of May 17, 1994 you requested EPA assistance in determining the regulatory status of natural gas regulators that contain mercury under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). You write that you believe that these regulators meet the definition of a scrap metal.’ You also correctly point out that scrap metal is exempt from regulation when reclaimed. 40 CFR §261 .6(a)(3)(iii). You have asked EPA whether natural gas regulators meet the definition of a scrap metal so that NYGAS members would not have to manage these materials as solid wastes and hazardous wastes when sent for reclamation. EPA cannot concur with this interpretation. Since your letter states that the natural gas regulators contain mercury, these regulators cannot be scrap metal. When EPA revised the definition of solid waste in 1985, it created a new category of secondary material in the final rule, scrap metal. 50 FR 614, 624 (January 4, 1985). In setting up this new category, EPA stated “Materials not covered by this term include.. .liquid metal wastes (i.e., liquid mercury) [ emphasis added]....” 50 FR at 624. The argument that the regulator taken as whole unit is mostly metal and does not contain a “significant liquid component” is inapplicable here. In general, any quantity of liquid mercury other than trace amounts attached to or contained in a spent material precludes that material from being a scrap metal. In addition, EPA agrees with the New York State position that used equipment of this type cannot be considered to be a commercial chemical product. Based on our understanding of this material, we believe that when removed from service, natural gas regulators containing mercury best meet the definition of a spent material. 40 CFR §261.l(c)(l). Therefore, the regulators are solid wastes and hazardous wastes when sent for reclamation. 40 CFR §261.2(c)(3). These natural gas regulators would be subject to applicable RCRA Subtitle C regulations, 40 CFR Parts 262-265, 268 and 270. - “Scrap metal” is bits and pieces of metal parts (e.g.. bars, turnings, rods, sheets, wire) or metal pieces that may be combined together With bolts or soldering (e.g., radiators, scrap automobiles, railroad box cars) which when worn or superfluous can be recycled. 40 CFR §261. l(c)(6). Q ) Recycled/Recyclable PrInted with Soy,Canola Ink on paper that ‘0 containS St least 50% recycled Ilber ------- 2 Although these mercury-bearing natural gas regulators cannot be regulated as scrap metal, the natural gas regulator may meet the definition of a scrap metal and be exempt from regulation once the mercury component is removed from the regulator (provided it does not contain other liquids and otherwise best meets the definition of scrap metal). Also, you may wish to consider petitioning the Agency to include these regulators as part of the proposed Part 273 Special Collection System regulations when these regulations become final. If included in the Part 273 regulations, these regulators could be shipped under reduced Subtitle C regulatory requirements (e.g., a manifest would not be required). EPA requested comment on the potential usefulness of Part 213 regulations to mercury-containing thermostats in the proposed rule. 58 FR 8102, 8110 (February 11, 1993). Please be aware that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6926) individual States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the Federal program. When States are not authorized to administer their own program, the appropriate EPA Regional office administers the program and is the appropriate contact for any case-specific determinations. Please also note that under Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are more stringent than Federal regulatory requirements. I hope that this letter sufficiently responds to your questions and concerns. If you have any — further questions or comments, please contact Paul Borst of my staff at (202) 260-6713. Sincerely, David Bussard, Director Characterization and Assessment Division ------- NEW YORK QAS May 17, 1994 Mr. Michael Shapiro Director Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response United States Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Mr. Shapiro: The New York Gas Group (“NYGAS”) wrote to you on December 22, 1993, to request your assistance with an issue under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). NYGAS has been working with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) to determine the appropriate classification under RCRA for natural gas regulators; devices to reduce and regulate the flow and pressure of natural gas to the consumer. As we stated in our previous letter, some natural gas regulators contain small amountá (approximately 2 ounces) of mercury to regulate the flow of natural gas. The mercury is located in a small cup in the interior bottom of the regulator. The regulator itself is metal with some gasket and diaphragm materials. In our December 22 letter we noted that in the past, NYSDEC had characterized the regulator as a non-hazardous waste when removed from service and had regulated the mercury within as a separate commercial chemical product. This interpretation changed, and in a letter to the Long Island Lighting Company dated May 7, 1993, NYSDEC concluded that when EPA published its proposed “Universal Waste” rule in February 1993, “it became apparent to us that this policy would be inconsistent with EPA’s position that the mercury in used equipment does not qualify as a N.Y GROUP MEMBERS ------- Mr. Michael Shapiro Page 2 of 3 commercial chemical product” and that “for the present we must consider used equipment to be spent material, and subject to the hazardous waste regulations whenever the unit fails the Toxicity Characteristic.” In our previous letter, we asked whether EPA would allow NYSDEC to reinstate the earlier policy of regulating the mercury as a commercial chemical product. We also brought to your attention an alternative approach adopted by USEPA Region I that the used, but still functional equipment is not a “spent material”. After further discussions with NYSDEC, we have concluded that there is an approach in the regulations which allows the members of NYGAS to reclaim the regulators without having to manage the equipment as hazardous waste, and which also avoids the necessity of deciding whether the regulators are “spent” or if the mercury within the regulators qualifies as a “commercial chemical product.” Specifically, the regulators qualify as “scrap metal” within the meaning of 40 CFR §261.1(c)(6) (and the comparable NYSDEC definition) and are exempt from regulation when reclaimed pursuant to 40 CFR 261 .6(a)(3)(iv). By definition the category of scrap metal encompasses manufactured metal goods such as radiators, automobiles and railroad box cars, 40 CFR §261.1(c)(6), and the definition has been applied to other manufactured goods, such as used naval torpedoes (reference letter dated February 25, 1986 from Marcia Williams to Christian Valz [ 9441.1986(14)]). “Put another way, scrap metal is defined as products made of metal that ...are recycled to recover their metal content.” 50 Fed Reg. 614, 624 (January 4, 1985). Wastes consisting entirely of liquid metals, such as mercury, or of products with a significant liquid component, such as spent batteries, are not regarded as “scrap metal” (50 Fed. Reg. 624); however, metal products which do not contain large amounts of liquid are regarded as scrap metal. Automobiles are a prime example. Scrap automobiles contain oil and other automotive fluids as well as non- metallic materials, nevertheless, an automobile is defined as “scrap metal”. Natural gas regulators are metal products (approximately 15-20 pounds) which contain some non-metallic parts and a small amount of liquid mercury (approximately 2 ounces). Based on the precedent established with respect to automobiles, radiators, torpedoes and other metal goods and equipment, we believe the used regulators are “scrap metal” and are presently exempt from regulation in accordance with 40 CFR 261 .6(a)(3)(iv). Thus, even assuming the used regulators are a “spent material” which exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste due to the presence of mercury, and that the mercury has lost its status as a “commercial chemical product”, the regulators are scrap metal which are not currently subject to regulation. ------- Mr. Michael Shapiro Page 3 of 3 NYSDEC has indicated to us that it may be willing to apply the State’s comparable exemption for recycled scrap metal to our situation, if NYGAS obtains confirmation from EPA that the regulators would qualify as scrap metal under the Federal regulations. In lieu of a response to our letter of December 22, 1993, the members of NYGAS urgently request your immediate assistance in this matter in order to eliminate the uncertainty inhibiting the replacement of our equipment. Please feel free to call me at 716-724-8684 with any questions or concerns; I look forward to receiving your written response. Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. Very truly yours, c A.L EAJL&J Karen Sahler Environmental Committee, NYGAS cc: Steven Silverman, Esq., LJSEPA Mitch Kidwell, USEPA Lawrence J. Nadler, NYSDEC William Yeman, NYSDEC NYGAS Environmental Committee ------- This Page Intentionally Left Blank ------- FILE COPY UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 I “ s o1t ’ JA ” 9442.1995(01) OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Charles D. Duthier Id Composites, Inc. 2055 East Technology Circle Tempe, AZ 85284 Dear Mr. Duthier: This is in response to your letter of July 12, 1994, concerning the characterization of waste streams from polymeric coating u rations. You stated that you are working on a project to ensure that waste streams from polymeric coating operations are properly characterized and you ask several questions related to these waste streams. We have addressed your questions in the discussions below. In some cases , the determinations you seek are based on site-specific factors and are best made by the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e., State, or EPA Region implementing the RCRA program for a rticular State). Where applicable, we have provided general information to assist you in making your determinations, but we recommend that you contact other more appropriate offices for the determinations you seek. 1. How does a generator determine if his/her equipment qualifies as a manufacturing process unit? As you have noted, the preamble language at 45 FR 72025, October 30, 1980, describes examples of manufacturing process units. These include “...distillation columns, flotation units, and discharge trays of screens...” The preamble language also describes these units as “tanks, or tank-like units (e.g., distillation units) which are designed to hold valuable products or raw materials in storage or transportation or during manufacturing.” (45 FR 72025, October 30, 1980) A determination of whether the units you describe are manufacturing process units is best made by the regulatory agency (i.e., EPA Region or State) implementing the RCRA program in the area of operation. In addition, States with authorized programs may impose more stringent requirements. For these reasons, consultation with the State in which polymeric coating operations will take place is recommended. 2. If an ignitable residue is removed from a unit with a wiper, does the resulting waste carry the ignitability characteristic, or is the contaminated wiper to be evaluated to determine if it exhibits the characteristic? How does the mixture rule apply to wipers used to clean hazardous wastes? Q p.cyciedJ .cyctabI Q P d wwi S.YICIAOIa IM on psp.c that ontaIAS iss 50% ttblr ------- A material that is a solid waste is by definition h wdous waste if it either 1) meets one of the listings in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, or 2) exhibits one or more of the Characteristics described in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. Because there are no explicit listings for “used wipers” in Part 261, Subpart D, a wiper can only be defined as listed h rdous waste if the wiper either cont2in listed waste, or is otherwise mixed with ha7ardous waste. Whether or not a used wiper COfltain-c a listed ha7 rdous waste, is mixed with listed h ardous waste, only exhibits a characteristic of h 2rdous waste, or is not a waste at all, will require site-specific determination. Any determiftitions or interpretations regarding this diverse and variable waste stream should be made by the appropriate State or EPA Region. We have enclosed a memo from Michael Shapiro to EPA Regional Waste Management Division Directors dated February 14, 1994, on the subject of industrial wipers and shop towels for your information. 3. What is the status of the proposed nile amending SW-846 to identify the technique suitable to determine if a material contai a liquid for an ignitability determination? The proposed rule is still undergoing Agency review. Promulgation of the Agency’s final ruling should occur in early 1995. In the interim, the Paint Filter test is the method to use to deterrninp if a free liquid is present for ignitahility determination. 4. How does a generator determine if his/her wastes exhibit the potential for sponr neous combustion? No test method has been promulgated for ‘spontaneous combustion’. It is the generator’s responsibility to compare the properties of his waste with the narrative definition at 40 CFR §261.21(a)(2) and determn if the waste poses a h rd if improperly disposed. Also be aware that the U. S. Department of Transportation, at 49 CFR §173.124(b), discusses “spontaneously combustible material’ and describes a Test Method for Materials Liable to Spontaneous Combustion in 49 CFR Part 173 Appendix E. I hope this letter is of assistance. If you have further questions, please contact Ann Codrington at (202)260-4777, or Oliver Fordhan’ at (202)260-4778. David Bussard, Characterization and Assessment Division Enclosures ------- CO SZ4J 4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 FES 7m5 9442.1995(02) OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Richard W. Goodwin Environmental Consultants Associates 14 Ramapo Lane Tipper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 Dear Mr. Goodwin: Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1994 requesting information about policies regarding self—certification of non- hazardous waste. Policies do exist for self-certifying that some types of waste are non-hazardous but not for others. If waste is not “listed” nor derived from a “listed” hazardous waste it would be hazardous only due to characteristics at 40 CFR 261, Subpart C. In this case, a generator may either test the waste or use knowledge to determine that it does not exhibit one of the regulatory “characteristics” in 40 CFR 261 and thus is not a hazardous waste. If the waste is “listed” or derived from a “listed” hazardous waste, that is, if it appears on one of the lists in 40 CFR 261, Subpart D, then the generator cannot currently self- determine that a treated or mixed waste is no longer hazardous. Instead, they must petition EPA to remove their waste under 40 CFR Sections 260.20 and 260.22. The waste is regulated until EPA grants the petition. All of this is true whether the waste is to be disposed of, or beneficially recycled, although EPA has certain special exemptions in 40 CFR 261.2(e), 261.4, and 261.6, for certain kinds of recycling. R.cy I.d!R.cycIabIi .PnnIedwi i Ve e bIe 01 BueC b iii an 100% Recyded Pap t(4C% POStCCn$ljmec) ------- EPA is currently developing a procedure by which listed wastes can also be self-certified as no longer hazardous. That rulemaking is referred to as the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule. We expect proposal of this rule to be published in the Federal Reaister by fall, 1995. Thank for your interest, and I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. Sincerely yours, Shapiro, Director of Solid Waste ------- ,ID $?4i(. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 FEB 7 1S95 9442.1995(03) OcFICE cc SOLO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Daniel Wozniak Environmental and Safety Engineer YKK AP America, Inc. 100 Firetower Road Dublin, GA 31021 Reference: Clarification of FOO6IFO1 9 Interpretive Letter Dear Mr. Wozniak: This letter is in response to your request for further clarification of our October 20, 1994 interpretive letter in reference to wastes generated from your aluminum coating process. The following is the revised version of the letter, reproduced here for future reference purposes. This action is being taken because the phrase “metal salts” was inadvertently included in the original letter and is irrelevant with respect to the intent of the listing. Your process consists basically of three unit operations which are described below, together with a discussion of the relevant hazardous waste listing descriptions: o The aluminum is first anodized in sulfuric acid. The FOO6 listing description (40 CFR 261 .31) specifically excludes wastewater treatment sludges from sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum. o The anodized material is next sealed and colored by immersion in solutions of inorganic or organic colorants. Neither ferrocyanide nor chromate containing solutions are used in this coloring process. The material is finally coated by electro-deposition with a clear acrylic film. Based on the information you provided us, these processes apparently do not involve the use of chromates or cyanides; thus, any wastes generated from this process do not satisfy the descriptions of F006 or F019. Additionally, since these processes are not identified in any of the specific or non-specific source hazardous waste listings in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, any wastes generated from this -- — ..—- . -. - Y RecjcIed.’R.YCIabIe -. _—: . - - - :_ . —. ...: .:... - -- . p,i ,n.ø wn soycaftola n en D$W % ‘IU FaxBa ’J 11940 \ - / II%ISUtS0tCY ’ ------- process would only be subject to evaluation for hazardous waste characteristics, as specified at 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C. Please be aware that under Section 3006 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6926) individual States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the Federal program. When States are not authorized to administer their own program, the appropriate EPA Regional office administers the program and is the appropriate contact for any case-specific determinations. Please also note that under Section 3009 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are more stringent than Federal regulatory requirements. Although this interpretation indicates that the wastes generated from the above processes are not subject to the hazardous waste listings under federal regulations, the wastes may therefore be subject to more stringent state or local regulations. Thank you for your patience in this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Max Diaz of my staff at (202) 260-4786. cc: Jeffrey 1. PaIlas, Region IV Renee Hudson Woodley, Georgia DNR — . - — — ..—-‘:........ ., — — __._____.;. - Chief, Waste Identification Branch ------- dU 1% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 nd 151994 SOLO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Daniel Wozniak Environmental and Safety Engineer YKK AP America, -Inc. 100 FiretOwer Road Dublin, GA 31021 Dear Mr. Wozniak: This letter is in response to your letter of November 24, 1993, outlining your aluminum coating process and inquiring if any of the wastes generated meet the hazardous waste listing descriptions for P006 or P019 published at 40 CFR 261.31. We have consulted with Mr. Jeffrey T. Pallas. Hazardous Waste Management Branch, U.S. EPA Region IV and Ms. Renee Hudson Goodley, Georgia Department of Natural Resources in preparing this respoflS . According to your description in your letter, your process consists basically of three unit operations which are described below, together with a discussion of the -relevant hazardous waste listing descriptions: o The aluminum is first anodized in sulfuric acid. The F006 listing description (40 CFR 261.31) specifically excludes wastewater treatment sludges from sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum. - o The anodized material is next sealed and colored by immersion in solutions of inorganic or organic colorants. Neither ferrocYaflide nor mate .C0ntamnihlg solutions are used in this coloring process. The material is finally coated by electrO deP08itb0n with a clear acrylic film. Based on the information you provided us, these processes apparently do not involve the use of metal salts, chromates, or cyanides; thus, any wastes generated from this process do not satisfy the descriptions of F006 or P019. AdditionallY, since these processes are not identified in any of the specific or non- specific source hazardous waste listings in 40 CPR Part 261, • Subpart D, any wastes generated from this process would only be subject to evaluation for hazardous waste characteriSt S, as specified at 40 CFR Part 26]. Subpart C. - - — --. - — ——- . __.!J__RecycI.dfRICYC btS •• — - - -- • -. ___ __ -- — - - — • — -• -• . - - — — _ . .SSC%fecY ’ — ------- Please be aware that under Section3006 of RcR , (42 U.s.c. Section 6926) individual States can be authorized to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the Federal program. When States are not authorized to.administer their own program, the appropriate EPA Regional office administers the program and is the appropriate Contact for any case-specific determinations Please also note that under Section 3009 of RcR.A (42 U.$.C. Section 6929) States retain authority to promulgate regulatory requirements that are more stringent than Federal regulatory requirements. Although this interpretation indicates that the wastes generated from the above processes are not subject to the hazardous waste listings under federal regulations, the wastes may therefore be subject to more stringent state or local regulations. Thank you for your patience in this matter. further questions, please contact Max Diaz of my 260-4786. cc: Jeffrey T. Pallas, Region IV Renee Hudson Woodley, Georgia DNR If you have any staff at (202) - —- —--. -- ---- - - - - - - -- --: --—-— ——-— -- - - -—— ‘- -.- ——. ..- - — —-——., ---. — - -..-— — — — — -‘ — — — —. —i— ______ 1 - — — WillIam F. Brandes Chief, Waste Identification Branch ------- ,co 5T4?4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 \( PROJ MAY 251995 9442. 1995 (04) OFFICE CF SOLO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Priscilla F. Adler DEMETRIOU, DEL GTJERCIO, SPRINGER & MOYER 801 South Grand Avenue, 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-4613 Dear Ms. Adler: I am writing in response to your May 10, 1995 request for an interpretation of 40 CFR 261.32 with respect the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste No. K052 (“tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum industry”). Specifically, you inquired whether or not tank bottoms removed from tanks containing only naphtha would be deemed to be K052 lwardous wastes. The scope of the K052 hazardous waste listing is limited to only those tank bottoms generated at or as pan c ’t a petroleum refinery from tirnk employed in the storage of leaded gasoline or leaded blending fractions. These tank bottoms are covered by the K052 hazardous waste listing even if they do not exhibit any other characteristic of a hazardous waste. Naphtha is an unleaded petroleum fraction isolated for blending or production of other blending stocks. The tank bottoms from only naphtha storage at a refinery would not be a listed hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.31, and would not otherwise be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste unless they exhibited one of the characteristics of a h2 2rdous waste, as provided for in 40 CFR 261.21 - 261.24. Please note that under section 3006 of RCRA, individual can be authorized to administer and enforce their own h ’irdous waste programs in lieu of the Federal program. In addition, section 3009 of RCRA allows states to promulgate regulatory requirements that are more stringent than the Federal program. Therefore, you should contact the appropriate state environmental agency in your state for other applicabI laws and regulations that may exist. If you have any further questions, please contact John Austin at (202) 260-4789. Sincerely, äL AJ LL 1i , ‘ Michajj)Shapiro , Director Office of Solid Waste -. A.cycI. Ricyclabil • Pnnted w e VeQe Ie 0! Sa3iø Pi s 100% Recydi 140% Pos ’R1TleI ------- RONALD J DCI. OIJCRC’O .iC RCV a • •ø , cc Cg*,o A MOTC APlGC ,.A SMANAKAN STCPMCN A DC L. OIJCRC,O MICHACI. A. RAN I 5 A,J,C C. DAVID SCOIMA LIUOZI(JS Co.. LCSLIC M. SMA IO .JCNNIY CR M SUDMAN ORCOONY 0 TDIMARCI4C C MI? 0. MANSU A CN MCLAU lN CHANO • I5C,LL& ADLc AdD Cwj SDACILCO CMPI S 0 DCMCT IO J II9I5.I9 0’ COU %CI . AICMAAO A DCL CUCPC.O SCOT? LOVC.j0 , = JAMCS P DCL 0UC CIO WILLIAM CLUe?? VINCY JOMN $ MCDONALD MA GADC? S HII.DCSPAND ?A* 1 513I 024•0I?4 Mr. Michael Shapiro Director, Office of Solid Waste U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, Room 2101 Washington, D.C. 20460 Re: Reauest for Rule InterDretation c IY I5 / i / — Dear Mr. Shapiro: We are herewith requesting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) provide to us a written interpretation of 40 CFR § 261.32 with respect to the scope of the EPA Hazardous Waste No. K052 (“tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum industry”). Specifically, are tank bottoms removed from tanks containing naptha deemed to be K052 hazardous wastes, if the tanks have never held leaded gasoline? Doug of the EPA RCRA Motlirie informed me on May 9, 1995 that, pursuant to a February, 1994 oral interpretation by the EPA, K052 refers only to tank bottoms from tanks that have held leaded gasoline._we are seeking a written rule interpretation so that we may properly advise our clients of any federal requirements applicable to the disposal of naptha tank bottoms. PFA:mhs Please telephone me if you have any questions. — WPOO8\NP1H O52. LIR DEMETR.IOU. DEL CUER CIO. SPRINGER. 8 MOYER ATTORNEYS At LAW 001 SOUTH GRAND AVCNUC IOM , OOR LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-4613 5131 SA• 5.e, May 10, 1995 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9442.1996(01) MAR 25 1996 OFFIcE OF Patricia A. Tucker SOUDWASTADE jER ( p y Gobe Enterprises RESPCNSE 49 Essex Court Meriden, CT 06450 Dear Ms. Tucker: This is in response to your February 20, 1996 letter regarding the waste e haracterization of the unused chemical upotaasium hexacyanocobalt(II)- ferrate (II) ,“ and of the spent material that results after use of that chemical for the selective removal of Ca-134 and Ca-137. In particular, you ask for the .A gency’s assessment of whether or not the spent material would be considered a hazardous waste and hence a mixed waste (hazardous and radioactive). A solid waste is considered hazardous if it is either listed or fails one of the four cbaracteristics” (40 CFR 261), assuming it has not been otherwise excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. Neither the unused product nor the spent material you describe in you letter is a currently listed hazardous waste and, based on the analysis provided, neither appear to exhibit any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.20). Based upon the Agency’s assessment of the physical properties of the hexacyanocobalt(II)-ferrate(II) ion-axchage media, it also appears unlikely the media would exhibit the characteristics of a hazardous waste. Therefore, the unused discarded potassium hexacyanocobalt(II)-ferrate(II) product or spill residues thereof would not be RCRA hazardous waste. However, if 40 CFR 261.24 tox.icity characteristic constituents are present in the wastes being treated, then there is some potential for the spent ion-exchange media to become a hazardous mixed waste. In general, the Agency would not expect spent hexacyaiiocobalt(II)-ferrate(II) ion-exchage media to become characteristically hazardous due to contaminants adsorbed during the treatment of Cs-l34 and Cs-137 bearing waste streams. However, this eventuality cannot be assessed fully without knowledge of the characterization of the waste stream to be treated. It is the responsibility of the waste generator to determine whether or not a waste is hazardous (40 CFR 262.11) by either testing the waste or by applying knowledge of the hazard characteristic of the waste in light of the materials or the processes used. and to dispose of the wastes in compliance with al]. applicable regulations. If you have further questions concerning mixed waste, please contact Nancy Hunt at (703) 308-8762. If you have questions regarding hazardous waste characteristics, please contact John Austin at (202)260-4789. incerely yo .r t : chael H. 0 fice of Solid Waste Director ------- 1, I? J “ • ..._ tvJ PATRICIA A. TUCKER 6OBE ENTERPRISES 49 ESSEX COURT MERIDEN. Cr 06450 rEL-(203) 2S5 7858 FAX- (203) 237 1855 February 20, 1996 Mr. Michael Shapiro M/C 5301 Office of Solid Waste U.S.E.P.A. 4OlM Street. SW Washington. DC 204 0 Dear Sir On November 17, 1995, my colleagues and I visited staff members in your office to discuss the waste characterization of a chemical which we intend to import from Finland This chemical, Potassium cobalt hexacyano ferrate, is a black granular media resembling ground charcoal. Its intended use, as expressed in our low Level exemption of our PMN, will be the selective removal of Cs-134 and Cs-137 from various liquid waste streams. Our media has a strong affinity and enormous capacity for Cesium removal. The decontamination factor (DF) is two orders of magnitude greater than any other media currently available. Th jesulting volume reduction of solid radioactive waste is equally huge by comparison. We have recently demonstrated, for example, that Callaway Nuclear Plant in Fulton, MO would need to bury 9 cu. ft of our media instead of 375 cu. I L of the “next best” ion exchanger to remove cesium from the asme volume of water. The use of tb4 chemical would be prevalent at nuclear plants and for U.S.D.O.E. cleanup efforts at sites such as Hanfort When the media eventually becomes chemically exhausted, it must be buried in a high integrity container (HIC) at an ajiproved radioactive waste burial site such.as in Baruweli, SC. Our conceni has been th detrimental effect a hazardous waste characterization under RCRA might cause. If characterized as hazardous, the resulting spent media would be a mixed waste (hazardous and radioactive) and undisposable at current burial sites. Concerns expremed by potential clients has made it obvious to us that our media will not be accepted unless they are confident that we have worked closely with your office to insure proper characterization. They must feel confident that they will be able to dispose of the media when it is spent Our media is not specifically listed under 40 CFR as hazardous, and it does not exhibit any characteristics of hazardous materials as defined under 40 CFR 261 Subpart C. During our November 17th meeting, members of your staff were particularly concerned with the possibility of free cyanide gas liberating from the media under various pH conditions. It was agreed that an outside source would test for cyanide liberation under conditions defined in EPA method 9010 (Revision 2, Sept 1994). I have attached a copy of the report from the University of Helsinki verifying that no free cyanide gas is liberated by our media I have also attached copies of a toxicity report, 11/17/95 meeting notes and our written ------- correspondences, to date. as evidence that we have thoroughly explored the question of hazardous classification. Since our potential customers have expressed concerns about this product, we respectfully request that your office verify our findings in the form of a letter. We would like you to state that based on the evidence presented and on the current regulations, this media would not be considered hazardous in either its unused (potassium) or spent (cesium) forms. Thank you in advance for considering this request and a speciaJ th2nkc to your staff members who have been quite helpful in our efforts to work th you. If you need any further documentation or if you have any further questions, please dq not hesitate to call me at (203) 235-7838. Sincerely, (; . Patrica Tucker ------- This Page Intentionally Left Blank ------- UNITEb STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY I . WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 9442.1996(02) OFFICE OF Jul” 5 1996 SOLE WASTE AND EMERGENCY •1 , ESPON Randall A. Jones Director, Regulatory Affairs Molten Metal Technology, Iuió. 400-2 Totten Pond Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Dear Mr. Jones, Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1996 on EPA’s revised “Policy on Enforcement of RCRA Section 3004(j) Storage Prohibition at Facilities Generating Mixed RadioactivelHazardous Waste.” In that letter you express concern that the policy defines “commercially available treatment technology and diipo al Capacity” to include a facility that has a RCRA permit, interim status, a Research, Development, ad Demonstration permit, or a Land Treatment permit. You indicated that based on this definition a generator might assume that recycling facilitIes are not included as acceptable alternatives for mixed waste disposal. I would point out that the policy does suggest several available altematives(without specifically endorsing any one of the alternatives) which a generator might exploi’e to dispose of material that is both hazardous and radioactive. Molten Metal’s trademarked Quantum-Catalytic Extraction Proce is mentioned in the policy as a recent technological development. There was no intent in the definition to exclude legitimate recycling facilities, but rather to emphasize the use of permitted facilities for waste treatment and disposal Of course, if the material is legitimately used as an ingredient in a manufacturing process, or if a legitimate recycling facility that meets, or is exempt from, RCRA requirements is available to accept materials EPA would not extend the enforcement policy to generators that did not avail themselves of legitimate recycling opportunities. EPA seeks to encourage the reuse of materials when this is possible. I tnlst this clarifies this issue. If you have fbrther questions, you may wish to contact Nancy Hunt at 703-3084762, since she chaired the EPA workgroup that drafted the revised enforcement policy. Sincerely yours, Matthew Hale, Director Pennits and State Programs Division ------- This Page Intentionally Left Blank ------- ft t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 9442.1996(03) .0C124 1996. - OFFICE OF SCUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Peter H. Weiner Heller, Ehrnian, White, and McAuliffe 333 Bush St. . - San Francisco, California 94104-2878 Dear Mr. Weiner: Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1996regarding the regulatory status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of spent copper etchants managed by Heritage Environmental Services, Inc. (“Heritage”). You raised an imj,ortant question, and we appreciate your interest in this matter. I hope the following discussion addresses your concerns. As we understand it, Heritage receives spent etchants from the manufacturers of printed wire boards. At its facility in’ Indiana, Heritage then uses the etchants to produce tn-basic copper chloride (TBCC), in animal micronutnient. A residue generated in the TBCC manufacuning process is then treated by adding additional chemicals to produce “fresh” alkaline etchant. Heritage argues that they are using the spent etchant as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a product (ie, TBCC). This kind of use would exclude the etchant from the definition of solid waste as long as no reclamation occurred (see 40 CFR 2612(e)(1)(i), adopted verbatimby the State of Indiana at 329 IAC 3.1)). The Indiana Department of Environmental Management ( DEM) has determined that the spent etchant at Heritage’s ficility is indeed being used as an ingredient in an industrial process, and that this use meets the terms of the regulatory exclusion. As stated in your letter, you believe that Indiana was incorrect in it interpretation, and you asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to request that the state revise its determination. Your belief is based upon the Agency’s preamble discussion of this regulation at 50 FR 614, 619 (codified at 40 CFR 261. I(c)(5)(i)). In that discussion, EPA stated that “when distinct components of the material are recovered as separate end products (i.e., recovering lead from scrap metal in smelting operations), the secondary material is not being used, but rather reclaimed and thus, would not be excluded under this provision”. Since Heritage is producing separate products at its plant (i.e., TBCC and “new”etchant), you have argued that reclamation is occurring which would disqualify the entire process from exclusion under 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(i). At issue in this case are two operations. In the first operation, a spent material is used as an ingredient to make a product (TBCC), resulting in a residue. The second operation uses the dth Veoelable C i i Based ItikS On tOO% Re yded Paper (40% POSIconsumef) ------- residue from the first to make another product (fresh etchant), but the second operation may involve reclamation (although the IDEM has not made a formal determination on this point). If we assume reclamation occurs in the second operation, the question is whether a facility would be barred from claiming the use-as-ingredient exclusion because of the subsequent reclamation. The answer to this question depends on whether the operations are considered to be one industrial “process” (in which case the reclamation would presumably disqua1if ’ the facility from claiming the exclusion) or two sequential “processes” (in which case the reclamation in a subsequent process would not generally nullif v the exclusion). RCRA regulations, preambles, and past interpretations do not define how many (or how few) operations may be included in an industrial process. In EPA’s experience, situations at different facilities vary so niuch that it isnot possible to develop a general rule about whether operations should be considered one process or multiple processes. The Agency believes that any such rule would inevitably be too inflexible to address the many different types of industrial operations being conducted throughout the country. For this reason, we have historically left the determination of this question to States authorized to administer and enforce the RCRA program under section 3006, or to EPA Regions where the State is is not authorized. A uniform national interpretation would not be adequate to address the large variety of circumstances prevailing at different industrial facilities. . States and Regions are more competent to evaluate the site-specific factors that must necessarily enter into this kind of decision. We have consulted with Region V after their meeting on June 25, 1996 with representatives from Phibrotech, the illinois Environmental Protection Agency, md the IDEM.. The Region and the States would lik to thank Messrs. Jack Benheim and TomMoran for taldng the time to further discuss these issues with them. As you are aware, most of the issues discussed during the meeting had been evaluated before, but the discussions served to underscore the complexity of these regulatory determinations, particularly with respect to the Heritage operation. Follqw-up discussions between Region V and the IDEM indicate that the IDEM remains committed to its original ruling on the Heritage process. Based on our discussions with Region V and the State of Indiana, and a review of existing policy, we believe that Indiana’s interpretation of 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(i) is not inconsistent with the language of this provision. For this reason, we will not request the State to revise its determination. - As you ma be aware, EPA ii currently engaged in an effort to change the RCRA regulations governing hazardous waste recycling. This effort has three goals. First, we want to clari& and simplif ’ these regulations to make them more “user-friendly” for all concerned, while still filly protecting human health and the environment. We also want to remove disincentives that may lead industries to dispose of their wastes rather than reusing them. As part of this effort, we plan to reexamine and possibly change the current regulatory distinctions between “reuse” and “reclamation”. The Agency hopes to propose these regulatory revisions in early 1997. ------- Thank you again for the time and attention you have devoted to this matter. These are important environmental issues, and we appreciate your concern. If you have any questions, please call me at 703-308-8895. Sincerely yours, A. Cotsworth, Depiity Director Solid Waste ------- This Page Intentionally Left Blank ------- COPY FOR YUJR INFORMATION UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 0.3 (,C — WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9442.1997(01) 1iy iotq i OFFICE OF SCUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. William L. Warren Drinker Biddle and Reath 1009 Lenox Drive Building 4 Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 Dear Mr. Warren: Thank you for your March 5, 1996 letter to Michael Shapiro. In your letter, you requested guidance, directives or policy documents which address the applicability of the domestic sewage exclusion (Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 261.4(a)(1)) in various situations. As explained in your phone conversation with Kristina Meson, my staff and I have closely examined the matters raised in your letter. We have also reviewed the existing regulations and policies to ascertain whether they address the particular issue(s) which you identified. Provided below are responses your questions. Question 1 Is the mixed stream of both chemical process waste and untreated sanitaty waste which is discharged from a manufacturing plant through a seiver line to a publicly owned treatment works excluded from either the definition of solid or hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCR 4) even f it would otherwise be considered a listed or characteristic hazardous waste? A mixed stream of process and untreated sanitary waste which is discharged through a sewer line to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) is not a solid or hazardous waste under RCRA, even if it would otherwise be considered a listed or characteristic hazardous waste. Section 1004(27) of RCRA provides that solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage is not solid waste as defined in RCRA. A corollary is that such material cannot be considered a hazardous waste for purposes of RCRA. This exclusion is known as the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (DSE). The DSE covers industrial wastes discharged to POTW sewers containing domestic sewage, even if - — - - —. .— on _ —a.- O . ,. • ------- these wastes would be considered hazardous if discharged by other means. “Domestic sewage” means untreated sanitary waste that passes through a sewer system. 40 CFR part 261 .4(a)(1)(fi). The DSE, however, does not apply if the industrial waste stream never mixes with sanitary waste in the sewer prior to treatment or storage at the POTW (e.g. dedicated pipe). Mixtures of sanitary waste and other wastes that pass through sewer systems to publicly owned treatment works will, however, be subject to controls under the Clean Water Act, specifically, pretreatment standards at 40 CFR Part 403, including any applicable local limits imposed by the State or POTW, or by nationally applicable categorical pretreatment standards. Question 2 Would a mixed stream of both chemical process waste and untreated sanitary wo sre which is discharged from a manufacturing plant through a sewer line connected to a publicly owned treatment works which would otherwise be considered a characteristic or listed hazardous waste under RCRA be considered a hazardous waste and/or be required to be managed as a hazardous waste jf it leaks from the sewer line before it reaches the publicly owned treatment works? A mixed stream of chemical process waste (considered a characteristic or listed hazardous waste under RCRA) and sanitary waste which subsequently leaks from the sewer line before it reaches the POTW would not qualify for the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (DSE). To qualify for the DSE, wastes must pass through a sewer system to a publicly owned treatment works (261.4(a)(1)(ii)). Specifically, EPA has clarified in a February 12, 1990 letter (enclosed) that wastes removed from a sewer line before they reach the POTW have not met the conditions of the exemption. “The waste, upon removal, loses its “excluded” status under the domestic sewage exclusion and becomes subject to regulation as a solid waste.” Febr 1 12, I i fo je* er=) ‘/49/ . I ’Pi ’O (02) Question 3 I/a manufacturing facility with a RCR4 corrective action permit has discharged waste materials of a mixed process and sanitary nature through a sewer line to a publicly owned treatment works, would a leak from the sewer line beyond the physical boundary of the manufacturing facility give rise to a solid waste management unit for which the operator of the manufacturing facility is responsible or would it fall outside the definition of a solid waste management unit? Under RCR.A corrective action authorities, permits for hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities must require corrective action for releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents from solid waste management units. Corrective action is also required for releases that migrate beyond the facility boundary, as necessary to protect human health and the environment (See, e.g., RCRA Sections 3004(u), 3004(v), 40 CFR 264.101; 50 EB, 28702, July 15, 1985; 52 ER 45788, ------- December 1, 1987; and, 55 ER 1 30798, July 27 1990). The Agency also has the authority to include corrective action requirements in a facility’s permit under its RCRA “omnibus” authotity. See RCRA section 3005(c)(3). EPA has defined facility, for the purposes of corrective action, to mean “all contiguous property under the control of the owner or operator seeking a permit under Subtitle C of RCRA.” (See 40 CFR 260.10.) As discussed in our response to question 2, materials leaked from sewer lines before they reach a POTW are no longer shielded by the DSE and are considered solid waste. Depending on whether or not the pipes from which the materials leaked are considered part of a “facility,” they would or would not be subject to corrective action. Generally, releases from pipes or collection systems controlled by the owner/operator of a facility subject to corrective action would be considered part of the “facility” and would, therefore, also be subject to corrective action, as follows.’ If it is determined, based on site-specific considerations, that a sewer line is part of a “facility” for purposes of corrective action, leaks from the line could likely be addressed as either solid waste management units (SWMU) or areas of concern (AOC). EPA typically distinguishes between releases that constitute SWMUs and releases that constitute AOC by considering factors such as the rate of leakage and whether the release was routine or systematic. (55 R, 30808, July 27, 1990; 61 ER 1 19442, May 1, 1996.) At permitted facilities, releases from solid waste management units that occur at facilities are typically addressed using the authority of RCRA Sections 3004(u), while releases from facilities (i.e., beyond the facility boundary) are addressed using RCRA Section 3004(v). Non-SWMU related releases (i.e., AOC), either within or beyond the facility boundary, are typically addressed using the omnibus permitting authority of RCR.A section 3005(c)(3) where necessary to protect human health and the environment. In addition to the corrective action authorities associated with RCRA permitting, where applicable, the interim status corrective action order authority of section 3008(h) may also be used to address similar types of releases at interim status facilities. Since both SWMUs and AOCs are subject to corrective action requirements. EPA has discouraged extended debate over distinctions between SWMU and AOC; discussions, and resources, should more properly focus on whether there has been a release that requires remediation (60 ER, 19442, May 1, 1996). Note that, application of corrective action requirements typically depends on a number ‘Please note chat the determination of what constitutes the “facility” for purposes of corrective action will be influenced by a number of site-specific factors. En the case of a sewer line, for example. a number of factors might influence whether or not the line was part of a “facility” including, for example. whether the facility owner/operator (e.g.. versus the POTW) also owns or operates the line or portions of the line, whether the facility owner/operator (e.g.. versus the POTW) is responsible for maintenance of the line or portions of the line, and/or the extent to which the line is dedicated to facility operations (e.g.. versus carries wastes from many unrelated facilities). Owner/operators should consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office or authonzed state to determine the extent of their “facility” for purposes of corrective action. ------- of site- and waste-specific considerations that EPA typically uses when developing site- specific corrective action requirements. I encourage you to consult with the appropriate EPA region or adthorized state to ensure that site-specific circumstances are appropriately considered. In addition, whether or not corrective action requirements apply, cleanup of releases of solid waste may be required under a number of federal or state authorities, including, at the federal level, RCRA section 7003 or CERCLA section 106. Question 4 If a manufacturing facility with a RCRA corrective action permit discharges mixed process and sanitarj waste materials to a publicly owned treatment works through a sewer line, does a basis exist for including in that corrective action permit areas of contamination beyond the physical boundaries of the manufacturing facility owned and operated by the permirree caused by a leak from the sewer line at a point beyond the physical boundary of the manufacturing facility owned and operated by the permittee? See response to question 3. Thank you for your interest in the h i rdous waste regulations. If you need more information on the domestic sewage exclusion, please contact Kristina Meson, of my staff, at (703) 308-8488. Questions on RCRA corrective action should be addressed to Elizabeth McManus in the Corrective Action Programs Branch at (703) 308-8657. Also, in authorized states, the state implements its own regulations in lieu of the Federal RCRA program. An authorized state’s requirements and policies may be different than those of the Federal program, therefore, it is important to contact your state environmental agency about this and other RCRA issues. Sincerely, David Bussard, Director Hazardous Waste Identification Division ------- , 8T4; 1% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 ‘L 1q0 9442.1997(02) MAY I 3 1997 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Ms. Lynn West, Chief Regulatory Development Section Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Indiana Department of Enviromnental Management 100 North Senate Avenue P.O. box 6015 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015 Dear Ms. West, Thank you for your May 8, 1997 fax requesting clarification of the regulatory status of iron and steel slags and gypsum. The regulatory status of iron blast furnace slag and basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace slag from carbon steel production under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is found at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) which states that these slags are solid wastes which are not hazardous wastes. Therefore these slags are RCRA solid wastes. The Agency studied ferrous metal mineral processing wastes in the 1990 Report to Congress on Special Wastes from Mineral Processing. On June 13, 1991, the Agency promulgated a final rule which retained the Bevill exclusion for iron blast furnace slag and basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace slag from carbon steel production (See 56 FR 27300). This rule indicated that the management of iron and steel slags under RCRA Subtitle C was unwarranted. This rule did not alter their regulatory status under RCRA Subtitle D as solid wastes. Your fax requested regulatory clarification on the RCRA status of gypsum. I understand from my staff, based upon recent conversations that they had with you, that you are actually seeking clarification on the regulatory status of flue gas emission control wastes. The regulatory status under RCRA of flue gas emission control waste generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels is also found at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7). It states that these emission control wastes (which often contain large amounts of gypsum) are RCR.A solid wastes which are not hazardous wastes. R.cycIsdlRSCYCI*bII • Printed wiSt Ve e e oa Based flu cri 100% Recyded Paper (40% POsI fl,uT%eI1 ------- If you have any further questions regarding the regulatory status of RCRA special wastes, please feel free to contact Rich Kinch, Chief of the Industrial and Ex active Wastes Branch at (703) 308-8424. Sincerely, Eliza th otsworth, Acting Director Offi olid Waste ------- MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT June 1997 9442.1997(03) 1. Air Emissions from Electroplating Operations RCRA hazardous waste code F006 applies to sludges resulting from the treatment of electroplating wastewaters (p261.31(a)). Filters used to remove contaminants from electroplating wasrewaters fit the definition of sludge under §260.10 and are F006 hazardous wastes when disposed (Memo, Abrams to Duncan; May 5, 1987). An electroplating facility has a vent associated with the electroplating line that captures volatilized air emissions from the line and concentrates them in a filter. If the contaminated filter is to be discarde4 would it cany the F006 listing? The filter used to concentrate air emissions from the electroplating line would not carry the F006 listing because the air emissions are not wastewater. Although the filter does meet the definition of sludge, it does not result from the treatment of an electoplating wastewater, and therefore does not meet the F006 listing description. EPA has defined “wastewater” only within the land disposal restrictions program, and has not provided a general definition for purposes of the electoplating listings. For clarification regarding the general definition of wastewater as it pertains, to the F006 listing, individuals should contact their EPA Region or authorized state. ------- This Page Intentionally Left Blank ------- Characteristics Of Hazardous Waste (Subpart C) ------- 9443.1980(02) Mr. Jack L. Cooper, Director Environmental Affairs National Food Processors Association 1133 20th St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Cooper: I am writing in response to your letter to me of July 30, 1980 and your visit to the Agency on July 25, 1980. You raised several issues in these communications which relate to the impact of the hazardous waste regulations (as promulgated in the Federal Register on May 19, 1980) on food processors. Specifically, the food processors frequently use a dry- caustic peeling process which produces a waste which may, on occasion, exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of corrosivity since its pH would equal or exceed 12.5. You further indicated that this waste is always neutralized to well below a pH of 12.5 and thus would not be a hazardous waste when it leaves the plant for final disposition. You also indicated that you feel such wastes, and the facilities generating and treating such wastes, should not be included in the RCRA Subtitle C program. In re—evaluating the regulations and our intent to only control those hazardous wastes which if improperly managed may present a potential hazard to human health and the environment, it appears that some modification to the regulations may be warranted. The Agency disagrees, however, that the appropriate approach is to declare caustic food processing waste non— hazardous. To do so would be inconsistent with EPA’S May 19, 1980 regulations which identify highly corrosive wastes (pH above 12.5 or below 2.5) as hazardous wastes. Such wastes can cause serious burns or seriously pollute surface waters. In the case of your industry, overflows and leaks resulting from improper operation could result in injuries to persons who might have access to the area. Improper management could also result in the release of toxic lists and fumes. This has been retyped from the original document. ------- —2— In sum, we don’t think it appropriate to exempt a waste as non—hazardous because it is usually adequately managed. Such of the Act. The structure of RCRA involves a determination first appropriate regulation, the Agency is directed to assure the public that management is safe. Unless regulations requiring, proper handling are imposed, the Agency and the public have no assurance that proper management is being achieved. To make this same point another way, an interpretation such as the one you are requesting would allow a great majority of waste producers to seek exclusion from the program on the grounds that they manage their wastes properly. On the other hand, the Agency agrees that imposition of some of the provisions of the May 18, 1980, regulations may be unnecessary for relatively simple neutralization facilities. A more appropriate approach might be to establish a special set of standards applicable to neutralizations to implement such an approach. We hope to make a decision on this regulations before November 19, 1980, the effective date of the May 19, 1980, regulations. I would like to thank you for bringing this particular problem to our attention. Our goal is to promulgate a set of regulations which will protect human health and the environment from the improper management of hazardous waste, but yet not place an unnecessary burden on American industry. Please feel free to call Mr. Alfred Lindsey if you have any further questions. Mr. Lindsey can be reached at (202) 755-9185. Sincerely yours, Eckardt C. Beck Assistant Administrator This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9 443.1981(01) - - a UN!TE sT, rE ENVIROt. ! A_ P ETI3F A !N = 23 6: 3FFI : _:: OP!1E 0 WATt P AND WASTE MANAGEMEN Mr. M. 3. Boris American Steel Foundries 3761. Canal Street East Chicago, IN 46312 Dear Mr. Boris: I am writing in response to yor letter of May 11, 1981 requesting a ruling on whether the American Poundryiten’S Society CAPS) Standard Test Procedure in which the container is handshaken twice daily by inverting it 15 times is an acceptable agitation procedure to employ when conducting the Extraction Procedure toxicity test (40 CFR 261.24]. The AFS thod is not accepta 1e since it does not meet the definition of acceptable agitation; ...an acceptable extractor is one which il1 impart sufficient agitation to the mixture to not only prevent stratification of the sample and extraction fluid but also insure that all sample surfaces are continuously brought into contact with well mixed extraction fluid. SpecificallY the APS method is deficient in that during the 12 hours or more that the sample remains undisturbed, stratit .Cati0n is likely to take place. The magnetic stirrer method you also asked about may however be used if, after application of the Structural Integrxty Procedure, the waste material is a monolithic piece. By suspending the sample in a continuouslY stirred bath of extraction fluid, the objectives described in the aforementioned specification will be met. I hope that this answers you question. If you have any additional questionsi please feel free tO give me a call at (202) 755—9187. Sincerely, L*. - David Friedman Manager, Waste Analysis Program Hazard Us and Industrial Waste DiviSiOn (WB—565) ------- 9443.1983(01) JAN I 0 983 RE WCbDFO34 MEMORANDUM SURJECT: Iç nitab1e Solids Definition PROS: John H. Skinner, Acting Director Office of Solid Waste (WH—562) David A. Wagoner, Director Air and Waste Management Division, Region VI I s you requested in your memo of December 15, I am writing tc clarify th* definition of an ignitable solid under 40 CFR 261.21 as it applies to materials such as titaniua swsrf. s Gene Crumpier correctly advised Greg Weber ot Pegion V. In order for a solid waste to be an ignitable waste it nust be capable, under standard tei perature and pressure, of both causing fires through friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous chemical changes and burn so vigorously and per siatently that it creates a hazard. Thus, if the titanium warf is very difficult to ignite it uld not be classified as a hazardous wast, even though, once iç nited, it may pos. a hazard. rn order to remov, the ambiguities inherent in such a definition, OSw is in the process of developing specific testing methods and hazardous waste definition thresholds tor ignitable solids. However, s\ich tests are not expected to be ready tor proposal until FT 84. If you have any coements or question. concerning the ignitabl . waste definition please give Davio Friedman or Florence Richardson a call at PTS 382 4770. WR—565B:DFRIEDMAN:df:S248:382—4770:WSM 1S 83 Disk DF:03:45 ------- 9443.1983(02) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY JANUARY 83 Question: . wastewater which is not identified or listed in 40 CFR Part 261 is placed in a surface izn undment for dewaterir . A constituent of the wastewater is reactive when dry. Does the surface impoundnent becQne .ibject to RA if it never dries out.ouring its active life? Answer: The surface impounó ent b cr iteS subject to RCRA when it dries out after receiving its final volu e of waste. If the waste is in mediate1y renoved as it becones reactiv4 (dewatcre ), then the operator w u1d be a generator for that waste . If the waste dries out first and becones reactive, then the surface woul be subject to the regulations. f’f’13. 0.2 (f3 Source: Fred Lindsey Research: Irene Homer cI ------- p443.1983 03) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY FEBRUARY 83 . jestiofl: If a material is 80% solid ar 20% water, can the 3 be meas ed .rtder 26].22(a)(l)? .inwser: It is still testable if .: contair free liquids (water). The uea.is phase of the Lxopcsed paint filter test c ald be used to dete nine if there are.ftee liquids. S ce aren Gale 9’1’/3. e’.bCC. ) Research: Florence Richardson ------- 9 443.1983(04) J L -51983 . I. S. Conlin Kem•x Consultants Ltd • $300 lIlS lSt Avenue S.W. Calgary. Alberta, Canada ?3C 0.77 Dear Mr. Con1.in i writing to you an response to your letter of May 18, 1983 • regarding practices and regulations for containment and disposal of solid wastes an the resourc. processing industry. At the present time, waste gyps mt produced as a by-product of proc.sang phosphate rock as exempted by statute from regulation as a hagardous waste. ‘Ths exemption, under Section 3001(b)(3) (A)(ji) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), i an effect until at least sax sionths after the dat. of su tission of a report requir.d under S.ction 80 0 2(p) on materiala generwted from the extraction. bneficiation. and proc.ssing of ores and minerals. including phosphate rock and overburden from uranium m.uung. EPA plan. to submit the required report in October 1984. The Agency is conducting two studies relat.d to the phosphate industry. Th. first study, which focuses on the metals minAn and processing industry, also includes sampling and analysis of phos- phat. industry solid wastes in Regions IV and X. A total of 77 waste sample. (64 olid and slurry samples and 13 liquid samples) were collected and analysed from the phosphate mining industry. Although most of t ?1ese samples wer, collected from mining and ben.- fleiatinq wastes, twa samples vex’s collected from gypon waste— gyp.nm p liquid end qyponm pond ..b.n ent • Analytical results indicate that metals concentrations in the gyp.on pond liquid exceeded EP xicity values for ca iem and iromiun. Acetic acid extract frem the qyp. pond embankment did not fail any of tbs EP toxicity eritecia • The gypeon pond psnd ankm.nt sample • h svsr, contained $4 pioocurias/graa of Indium 226. On Decebr IS, 1 7S, EPA proposed basardeus waste regulations containing guid.Lines in th. form of an advanced notice of proposed rulak.ing concerning Mdium 226. According to the sdvanced notice of proposed regulations • a vast, would be considered )tasardous when the total analysis for Radium 226 was equal to or gr.at.r than a concentration of $ picocuries/gres for solids. ?o date EPA has not ------- 2 pro . ilgat.d this contsmpjst.d standard. If !PA does pr u1gat . the standard at S picociirj.s/gzan, the vast• gypsum sould be OonsLdsr.d hazardous again pending co letiom of th. study and Z rt to ngr.ss. In addition to this ongoing in.taq study, IPA has rsaestly initiated aaodi.r study focussd sp.cifLeally on wast. qyp. from h. phosphate pwoosssLng industry. Initial ss ling of wast.. .Ls sehsduled t b.qLn July 11, 1 l3. Currently, the IPA is osgo- tnt aq wish the florid. Institute of Pho.pbat. sesxOh (losst.d Lu Hart , florid .) to omodust th. study as a eiat ef tort. At the pr.sont tin., !PA is not regulating phosphat. wastes as hazardous vasts • The Stat. of Florida, h .v.r, has raqula— tory rquiroments for phosphate vast.s. ‘Ybss. raquirsuonts include groundwater monitoring of gypsum piles and will, in tl’i. a.ar future, include groundvater monitoring of other phosphate waste disposal practice.. As you ention.d in your letter, wastes from th. ga. proces- sing industry are fr.qvently hazardous under !PA’ s hazardous waste characteristics (40 CPR 261). If wastes fail a characteristic or are .list.d as hazardous, th. full standards for hazardous waste tr•atont, storage, or disposal facilities (40 C? 264-265) apply. There are no special r.quirsuants for gas processing wastes. You may obtain a copy of up-to-dat. regulations from the U • S. Government Printing Office at (202) 655-4000. If you ha,. any further question., plea.. contact N.. Pmi. lop. Hansen of my staff at (202) 352—4761. Sincerely, J a H • Skinner Dirsotor Of f io. of Solid Vast. (VH-562) eLosur. ------- 3443 . 198 3 (05) - - REs CBNA34O8 Mr. Leroy J. Wilder, Jr. Ray-O—Vac 630 Porward Dr iv. Madison, WI 53711 ar Mr. Wilder, I writing in response to your July 14, 1983 r.qu.st for clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste identification r.gulations as they apply to waste batt.ri.s and c.lls. Ps wa discussed in our t.l.phone conversation on July 7, 1983, aost c iuon batteries and c.lls rapidly degrade when placed in a landfill. Thus. i.n t.sting such products to deteraine if they exhibit the Sxtraction Procedur. Toxicity characteristic (40 CFR 261.24) the batteries and cells should b cut up into mall pieces (i.e., to pass 1 os sieve). If, after such preparation, none of th. concentrations listed in 40 CPR 261.24 Table 1 are ezãeded the batteries are not hazardous wastes and aay be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Batteries that yield extracts exceeding one or sore thresholds ar. hazardous wastes and .u.t be disposed of in a RCRA p.raitt.d facility. C.rtain batteries and cells, however, are anufactur.d in such a aanner as to peov.nt disintegration after disposal Such products say be tested without being out up. At this tise, we have not developed testing thresholds for identifying such abuse resistant products. Pending d.velopaent of such tests you say evaluate the corro ion resistanc. of your products using a salt water solution. If at ter subsersion for 1 aonth in a salt water solution no leakag. occurs, the product can be considered to be corrosion resistant. If the package is also structurally resistant to crushing, it can b• evaluated in the EP Toxicity test without being cut up. I.trvst that this .zplanation assists you in evaluating your wastes. I would like to also bring to your attention the fact ------- that hay. a toll ft.. hotlina (l-aOO-.424-9346), te r ead .isiatar ce with ar y asp.ct of th. RCRA r.gulations, Sir cer.ly your., David Fri.daan - Manag•r Waste Analysis Proqr WH-565B/DPRI EDMAN :NA:S248 :X24770 :7/26/83 :DISK: NA3408 ------- 9443.1984(03) June 4, 1984 Tooele Army Depot Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief Waste Identification Branch, (WH—562B) Jon P. Yeagley, Chief State Program Section (8AW—WM) We have reviewed your submissions related to the Chemical Agents Munitions Disposal System facility. Our preliminary assessment of the properties of agents GB (isoproplyl methyl phosphonofluoridate) VX (Ethyl-S-diisopropyl aminoethyl methyl phosphonothidoate), and HD (Bis-2-chloroethyl sulfide) lead us to conclude that the wastes should be considered hazardous due to their reactive nature. While the wastes are not specifically listed at this time, we believe them to be reactive according to the definition of S261.23 (a) (4) -- namely, when mixed with water, they generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment. The gases of concern in each case are as follows: for GB, emissions of hydrogen fluoride which has a TLV of 3 ppm in air; for HD, emissions of hydrogen chloride which has a TLV of 5 ppm; and for VX, emissions of diethyl methyl phosphonate, bis- ethyl methyl phosphonic acid and bis-S—(diisopropyl amino ethyl) methyl phosphonodithiolate. In the case of VX, the emitted gases are indicated as toxic decomposition products that would be emitted upon addition of VX to water. (The reference for these anticipated emissions is the Army’s field manual on military chemistry.) Sufficient quantities of any of these chemical agents, when mixed with water, would be expected to emit gases at levels of concern and, thus, exhibit the characteristic of reactivity. In addition, mustard gas could meet the criteria in §261.23(a) (5), due to emissions of suif ides. With respect to our ultimate plans vis—a—vis these wastes, we do expect to develop listings for all three agents. These listings would probably be developed under the criteria of §26]..1l(a)(2) and result in the designation of the wastes as Acute Hazardous Waste. Unfortunately, other priorities and a general dearth of available information will hinder our efforts and may result in the passage of considerable time before these listings are finalized. We are not overly concerned about this delay, however, since the State’s letter suggests that these wastes are being managed in a manner consistent with their extreme toxicity. In addition, as we have stated above, the wastes are currently regulated. Nevertheless, it would be useful to our efforts if your group or the State agency could submit information on the wastes and the corresponding treatment and disposal options under discussion. This has been retyped from the original document. ------- Do not hesitate to call Ed Abrams (382-4775) of my staff if you require further information. cc: Julia Bussey (T-2—2) Region IX This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 944 3.1984(04) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONThLY SUMI4)RY JULY 84 A/SL,ethrd tline . u1y 1.984 R rt Pa 3 S. a. r _ & es one per o u the toxicity test on oily vestes? The waste in question es not pass t 4 tIE filter and is j Lj 3Q 1J br i ib1 in water. b. Is there ar ther .xtr ticn ptvceó&re test for a ch wastes? a. e toxicity test is ccnô.cted usinQ tie filtrate frou fUterirç a srple. Solid or oily material that not pass tr .4i tIe filter axe subject to tie extx t icr a ad tie resultirç extr t ely d to ta ine if tI waste is b. There is a variaticn of the toxicity test ecifically for oily wastes thich is used in tie deltsting prow. It is r regulatory, t ver, i der 261.24. A c çy of this e6.e e may obtained for use in e erimants It dd Jav ll L A 0S J by callir (202) 382-4795. S ez ve Frie n eazth: Xen 3er in ------- 9443.1984(0 5) SU8J CT: Status of Ulasting Cads as Reactive Wast FROM: John Skinner, Director Otfice of Solid Wasto (WH—562) TO: David Wagoner, Director Air and Waste Management Division Reçjion V I I - p p This is in response to your recent memorandum requesting -clarification of the aefinition of a reactiv, waste as it applies to out—dated bListthg caps. According to 40 CFR 261.23. a waste • which is capable of detonation or explosiv, reaction, if subjected to neat or a strong initiating force, is a reactive hazardous waste. Blasting caps clearly fall within that definition. • As you brought to our attention, Section 2.1.3 of “TeSt Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW—846) appears, however, to suggest otherwise. A note in the manual states that bLastin . caps in quantities of less than 1000 are not a hazardous waste. This is a mistake. SW—846 is a compilation of sampling and analytical methods that may be used to test for the presence of A .ipendix VII or VIII constituents. It is not, however, the basis on which the identification or’ listing of a particular material as a hazardous waste is made. Thus, Note 5 in Section 2.1.3 of Sa—846, should be disregarded. A package of revisions and updates to 511-846 is currently in preparation; as part of this update, Note 5 will be deleted to prevent future misunderstanoings. We appreciate your bringing this problem to our attention. If you have any questions, please contact Florence Richardson of my staff. She can be reached at FTS 382”4801. ------- RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY AUGUST 84 9443.1984(06) An aqueous waste containing small amounts of an organic co ound flashes in a Pensky—MarteflS Closed Cup Tester. Is this waste CRA Ignitable or Is ft excluded from that definition because ft ‘contains less tnan 24 alcohol?’ The waste has no alcohol In It. If an aqueous waste contains no alcohol, It Is not ezclude d from the definition of ignftabte as i wine or latex paint. Hence, if the flashpoint Is less than 140F. the aqueous waste Is deemad ignitable. EPA Is working on developift9 a test for such wastes to determine If they would sustain conoustlon or only flash In the Closed Cu Tester. Source: florence Richardson Research: Denise Wright ------- 9443.1984(08) wcV23 E 3 ir. Donald Dean Environrnental Mana. er Irn eria1 Manufacturing Company Underwood Avenue P.O. Box 280 Plattsbur;h, N.Y. 12901 Cr Dear fir. Dean: ‘- This letter respbnds to your inquiry of November 9, 1994, regarding tha correct designation for waste ink and solvent mixtures generated from printing facilities. First, waste inks containing solvents are not listed hazardous waste; however, these inks are considered hazardous wastes if they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignit bil1ty, reactivity, EP toxicity and corrosivity). In your particular case, waste ink containing MEL, MI3K, toluene, xylene, arid acetone will probably exhibit ignitability. Should this be the case, these wastes are deemed hazardous waste and, as such, should be designated as EPA Hazardous Waste Number DOOl. Solvent mixtures from the cleantn of pwips, lines and tanks, as described in your letter, are not currently covered by the solvent listings in 40 C?R 261.31. Therefore, they are hazardous waste only if they also exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste. Within the next few months, the Agency will propose to amend the listing to include certain solvent mixtures. Thus, many of these solvents will be brought under Subtitle C control. If your waste managei ient activities.occur in a state that has been authorized under RCRA, then the State rules, rather than the Federal rules, apply. We recommend that you consult with the appropria e States to determine wheth r they interpret their listing as covering solvent mixtures. Agency data indicate that New York State ------- 2 interprets their listing as applying to selvont mixtures as well as single solvents. In addition, it is within the authorized State’s discretion to deteritin, the appropriate classification for wastes that are both listed and exhibit a characteristic. Should you have questions, or require additional information, please contact Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (202) 3R2—4807 . Sincerely, Eileen Claussen Characterization and Assessment Division Office of Solid Waste - ------- ATJV 29 1c84 9443.1984(09) ,_I T% - - ZL Baroia ML Industrici, Inc. \. ‘ir. W. d. Yancey P.O. liOx l67 Houston, TX 77251 Dear M . Yancey: I ar glad to clarify the issues of hazardous waste identification you r iised in your letter dated November 15, 1934. First, you •asked if physically solid forms of sodiu hydroxide and potassium hydroxide (granular or pellets) are currently regulated as 1(CRA corrosive hazardous waste. The answer is no. Title 40 CFR S261.22(a) defines corrosiVity for aqueous iolutions within given pH rangos and for liquids th&t corrode steel faster than a quartcr of an inch per year under specified test conditions. The !4ay 19, 1980, preamble, 45 FR 33109 states: ...there is no demonstrated need to address corrosive solids at this time. EPA will, however, continue to seek information on the dangers presented by these wastes and will consider specific regulatory measures if the neod for more control becomes apparent. At this time, the Agency is developing a test protocol to evaluate the leachability of solid-phase corrosives. Further- more, the new RCRA amendments direct EP to minimize effects of hazardous waste on ht.unan health and the environment. So ynu can see that tho status of corrosive solids may be subject to cnango in the future. Socond, you wondered if products that contain preservatives listed in 40 CFR 5261 .33(t) are subject tO regulation as RCRA hazardous waste. In particular, you asked abaaLt ..po L . . . ._ &tarch that has been treatecL!j _fA’& d* td5.__Xhe comc%ertt iöPT tTTtTT 1aitts that com”tercial che iCal products are manufactured ror comrierçial use and are commerciallY pure or technical grades or formulations in which the chemical is the sole active ,ngrediont. The comment also says that a waste that contains a che’nical listed in ;;26).33(e) or (f) is only a RCRA waste if the waste is listed in 526l.31 or 261.32 or if the ------- 2 waste i z b a .‘ in 55261.20 to .24. The comment is in brackets and thus is not o re ulatiens, but it conveys the intended meaning of the definition of co orcial che’nical products. Thus, the potato starch, when a waste whether it is used or not, does not contain a commercial cher’tical product, since the fori,ajdehyde has already been used in the r ixture as a preservative. Furtherr ore, there are no listed potato starch waste streams, You should deeer ine whether or not the potato starch meets the criteria for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity. In any case, th. starch is not a hazardous waste by the mixture ruLe. Third, as you know, 40 CFR 5261.23(a)(5) does not specify the amount of cyanides or sulfides that would identify a waste as reactive. Presently, EP is in the process of developing test protocols to quantify the reactive characteristic for cyanides and sulfidee. In the meantime, the enclosed regulatory interpretive letter, RI!.. $2, outlines the Agency’s suggested guidelines. elov 10 ppm, the waste will not be considered reactive, and above 200 ppm, it will be considered reactive unless the generator can show why it is not. Between 10 and 200 ppm, the decision will be based on the potential t’eloasibilLty of 111$ or HCN on a case-by—case basis. - All but about seven States and three territories have progr ams that operate in lieu of the Federal RCRA program, and eight of these programs have received fullauthorization. When a State has been granted authority to operatethe RCRA program, you are subject to the State regulations which may be slightly different The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)424—9346 can send you a-copy of the State hazardous waste agency, addresses and phone mmibers if you need it. If you wish to discuss those questions further, please do not hesitate to call me at (202)382—4804. - Sincerely yours, Irene S. Homer Studies and itethods Branch Attachment ------- 9443.1984(10) 30 NOV 1984 C p p C ( iF’1ORA’1D J’1 r Classification of 5 a1l Arms Amnunition With Respect to Reactivity L OM: John H. Skinner, Director Office of Solid Waste (wq—562) T : David 1agonar, Director Air & Wasto Management Ulvision Region V111 Recently, aquestion arose as to the status under ( ‘ k of off—specification small arms & munition thall or sporting artmunition of calibers up to and including () .50) intended fear disposal. The issue concerned whether such vestos are reactive wastes within the tieanirq of 4() CPR 2 l.231e)(i) and, t refor , subject to XCRA hazardous waste requirements. ecausa the a”r iunition contains n ignition urce that may he shnck arid heat sensitive and is designed to qenerate high preesure luring use, it had been our opinion that it jq probably reacttve. However, on the basis of infor tatton that was received from the *emtnqton &r s Ccxtpany and the Army, nov conclude that such materia]c £ are not sreactive within the , anLng of 40 CPR 261.23 (a)( ). Section 261.23 (a)(6) of Title 40 provides that a snlid waste which is capable of detonation or exploeive reaction if it is subjected to a strong initiating source or if heated under conf i neme nt is reacttve. As discussed in the May iq, iqqn, preamble to 40 CPR 2 1.23, shock and thermal instability are important elements of this definition. While presently there i no Agency guidance regarding these criteria, the Remingtnn ri’ ComL)any of Independence, Missouri, and the U.S. Army have provided information which i idresses both of these factors. Re”tin’jton Ar fts C ipany submitte1 detaiLs on the effects of heat and impact to small arms aqmunttion. There was no exptostelft when a box of a munitLori was set afire. Small a s, when subjected to the SAA!41 (Sporting Ar ia ani A ’iunttton flanufacturør’s Institute) Impact Test, showed no evidence of ina.is propaqation or e*pLosiori. ------- —2— The Oepartment of the Army has a ri jorous safety and hazard testing program on all, munition items. The tests, which tncludt’ drop tests from 5,’ 7, and 40 feet to ei ulate handling errors :‘ • and heating under confinement, 160F for 4R hours, also showed no evidence of detonation or explosion with resp3ct to small arms ammunition. The tests were performedon both the individual munition and a package containing a prescrtbel number • of items. - - As noted above, feel that resutts from those tests show that off—specification small caliber nmunttion up to and includtng 0.50 is not’reactive wi ’thin the meaning of 4fl CFR c2 l.23 ((s)..; We, therefore, believe that thedisposal of such ammunition is not subject to Subtitle C hazardous waste requira”ents. We appreciate your’c operation. If you have any questions’ rejardirig the matter, please call. David Friedman or Florence Richardson at FTS 382—4770. - - - —‘ cc: Air S Waste Man em.nt Divisions Directors,; • Regions 1—VI and VIII—X, ‘ - -- ------- 443.1985(o1) FEB 2 1 1985 Mr. R. B. Morris, Jr. IBM 44 South Broadway Z White Plains, NT 1fl 01—449S Dear Mr. Norriss p This is in response to your letter of January 7, 19R5, which questions th. proper management of excavated construction soil that contains detectable quantities of volatile organic coi pounda. RCRA regulate, the characteristic wastes discu e in 40 CVR Subpart C and listed wastes designated in 40 CP Subpart 0. To gualtfy as a characteristic waste, the soil tx,uld have to be ignitable (5261.21(a)(2)),, or contain a lirTuid phase that is corrosive (5261.22), or exhibit any of the reactivity criteria (S261.23), or be above the EP toxic levels ( l.24)A In order to be a listed waste, the soil would have to contain known listed waste that ares 1) commercially unused 5261.33(e) or (f) chemical, or off—specification specie., formulations containing theii as sole active inaredients, and container residues or spilled material of the above; 2) specific industrial waste streams snecified in 5261.32; or 3) non—specific waste streams listed in S261.31. As you stated, in i any cases, the exact source of th ’ volatile orqantcs cannot be determined. Under the Comprehensive Environrtental eenons., roMnens ir n, and Liability ct, hazardous substances are currently only those snecified under th Clean :ater Act, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control t, and CRA listed and character— istic waste. Therefore, disnosal of aoil conta’ inat d with hazardous substances must follow C PCLA guidance also. ------- You should be in touch with th. Statss because they say regulate soils that contain ,olatile organic coiipounda in a different manner. Pleas. f..l fre. to contact me or Alan Gorson of my staff again if you hay, any other questions. Cordially yours, ti1.en . Clauss.n Division Director Characterization and Mse. .nt Division cc Patrick Aurrichio ------- 443.1985(O2) FEB 26 Mr. Kevin 3. Walter Bureau of Technical Services Division of !r ,irovva,nt&l nfore aent Department of Environmental Conservation State of New York 50 WoLf Road Alban7, New York l223 —OO01 Dear Mr. Waltert I am writing in response to your recent letter requesting clarification of the definition of the characteristic of i nit— ability for huardous wastes. Your unierstaflclitr3 that the word’ 1t is a liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing less than 24 percent alcohol by volume were interKied to exclude alcoholic beverages, such as wine, and non-liqutd materials is correct. Rowever, while the Agency’s intent was that this exe” ption apply to potable bvera G ; only, because the term alcohol was used instead of etha’tol. all aqueou* waste, which are iqnit&ñe only because they contain alcohols (here using tne term alcohol tO mean any chemical ontainin’ the hydroxyl L OM) functional group) are exclu’ied from rI! qulettf’r ’e while the Agency completes the process of off iciafly aloptirui a method for identifying fre’ liquids,’ for use in the’lani disposal regulations, it is OUr current practice to e’ ploy Methol 9095 (see ‘Test Metriols for evaluating Solid Waste, SW 4 ’) for such purposes. Any material passing through the paint filter is deemed to be a liquid. With respect to what con tttutes an ‘aqueous solution.’ such a solution is one in which water is the prinary co!, to’%eflt. This ,‘ earts that water constitutes at least S’ pørcent hy weight of the sample. Although, Wø have not officially approve 1 any test methods for deter’ ining a wsst ’s water cont€it, any c n etent laboratOty should be able to make such a 4eter 1Iinatiofl usincj star iard techniques (e.g., Karl Fisher titration, (n) . We share your concern o r the a”ibiguitie’ in the current ignitabtlity d finttiOn ard h e a prngr ’ underway to correct the characteristic’s shortcomings. specifically, change! ate under ievelopner’t to replace the aleoholic nlutton exclusion ------- with a generic exclusion for those w tes which, while p e sing a flash point below 60C, neither COntir e to burn nor, if they do burn, release enough energy to cause a major fire. In &ldition, steps are being taken to expaixi the ignitability characteristic to include wastes which ar. physical solids. Both of these changes will involve proposal ar 1 pr u1gation of sp ,lclftc definitional test methods and thresholds. I hope this infotmation clears up eny eTuestinns you may hav, about the ignitability characteristic. U you have any further qu..tions concerning any of the hazardous waste characteristics, please contact David Priedman, of my staff, t 202—382—4770. Sincerely yours, John inner Dir.ctor Office Solid Waste bcc: G. A. Lucero, *i—S27 A. Corsor’ Waste Branch Chiefs iiotline ------- 9443.1985(04) July 16, 1985 Mr. Terry L. Thoem Manager, Environmental Conservation Conoco Incorporated P.O. Box 2197 Houston, Texas 77252 Dear Mr. Thoem: I am writing to clarify several aspects of the sulfide reactivity characteristic that you asked about in your letter of June 24, 1985. At present, there is no approved test method for determining whether a waste exhibits the characteristic of reactivity. I have enclosed a draft of a test method for determining Total Available Sulfide. Work currently being done on the agitation and waste introduction steps may result in significant changes in the subsequent proposed test. However, pending the conclusion of our investigations, we recommend, and will accept, use of this draft procedure. While threshold concentrations have not yet been promulgated by the Agency, we have adopted 500 mg/kg Total Available Sulfide as an interim action level. We consider any waste that yields sulfide values at or above the action level, using the draft procedure, to be hazardous. The 500 mg/Kg action threshold was arrived at by considering a scenario in which a truckload of waste is discharged into a pit containing (non-hazardous) acidic waste. As a result of the reaction of the waste with the acid, a rapid, high level release of toxic gas ensues. The objective of the characteristic is to identify those wastes which, if such an activity were to take place, pose a hazard to those persons in the general vicinity of the disposal site. While we have considered dispersion in arriving at the action threshold, the specific dispersion model that will be used in the upcoming proposal is still under development. Ground water monitoring of all wastewater treatment lagoons containing hazardous wastes, is required including those containing only reactive wastes. The only exemption from ground water monitoring that is defined by the RCRA regulations is in the case of neutralization ponds receiving wastes hazardous only by reason of corrosivity ( 265.90(e)). This monitoring is necessary because the Agency is not aware of any mechanism which can assure that such wastes will not also have toxic chemicals which pose a hazard to ground water. The This has been retyped from the original document. ------- fact that a waste is not listed or does not exhibit the characteristic of Extraction Procedure Toxicity does not insure the absence of leachable toxic species in the waste. If you have further questions concerning the reactivity characteristic please contact David Friedman (202/382-4770) of the Methods Program. For information on the regulatory requirements pertaining to ground water monitoring, contact Robert April (202/475—8860) in the Ground Water Program. Sincerely yours, John H. Skinner Director Office of Solid Waste bcc: Claussen Lehman Weddle Corson Shuster Friedman April Hotline Region VI This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9443.1985(05) UNITED S ES ENVIRONMENTAL PR( JUL 22 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Regulation Interpretation for Pesticide Applicator Washing Rinse Water PROM: John H. Skinner, Director Office of Solid Waste (WH—562A) TO: William hathaway, Acting Director Air and Waste Management Division (6AW) Region VI This is in response to the memorandum from Al].yn Davis dated April 22, 1985, regarding the regulatory status of washwatere that are generated by washing the exterior of a pesticide aerial applicator’s airplane. As we stated in a previous memorandum to Region VII (dated June 16, 1982), the airplane washing rineewater is a hazardous waste via the mixture rule (S261.3(c)) if the pesticide residue on the aircraft is listed in 40 CPR 261.33(e) or (f) (see attachment). This regulatory interpretation has created some concern, especially regarding the excessive impacts the hazardous waste rules will have on pesticide applicators and regulatory agencies. Consequently, we have been asked to reconsider our position on this issue. Upon reconsideration, we now believe that we have misinterpreted th. rules and that the airplane washing rinsewater is not hazardous via the mixture rule. In particular, the mixtur. rule states that when a hazardous waste is mixed with a non—hazardous waste, the entire mixture is hazardous, unless the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity) or, in th. case of a Listed waste, the mixed waste is delisted pursuant to 40 CPR 260.20 and 260.22. In the case of the airplane washing rinsewater, the mixture would have to be one of water and commercial chemical product——namely, the pesticide. The Agency does not believe that the pesticide residue left on the aircraft is a discarded commercial chemical product. The residue does not qualify as material discarded or intended to be discarded. See aenerally 45 Federal Register 33115, May 19, 1980. In C OMC U R R E HCE S _________ • 0%. wI) ? Wt b’2 : . . t .z -c.L. 1 T j cl JRNAME ( Qa fr ld 4LL DATE £4k c P/s/er i(/Ir 77iz/ ‘ ‘f, (tc ?/iif -l,’/7Irc EPA Fenn 1320.1 (12.70) FFICIAL FILE COPY 19e5-467—e53 ------- W3. o5(’ 5) 2 listing commercial chemical products, EPA intended to Cover those products which, for various reasons, are thrown away. id . The Agency did not intend to cover those cases, as here, when the chemical is released into the environment as a result of use. Unless we take such a position, one could argue that the pesticide that is Sprayed that does not fall directly on the crop (but falls on the ground next to the crop) would be disposal of an unused conu erciaj chemical product; such an interpretation is a distortion of the commercial chemical product rule. Consequently, we are withdrawing our previous interpretation that airplane washing rin..water is a hazardous waste via the mixture rule.y Rather, this rinsewater would be defin.d as hazardous only if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics identified in Subpart C of Part 261. Should you have any further questions concernj g this matter, please contact Matthew A. Straus of my staff on (202) 475—8551. Cc: Air & Water Management Division Directors (I to V and vi i to X) Air & Waste Management Branch Chief (I—x) S. Schatz P. Gray R. Ehardt B. Wedd].e J. Lehman Li’ It should be noted that the remainder of the regulatory interpretations discussed in the June 16, 1982 memorandum are still appropriate and should be considered valid. Ii—562B/HFRIBUSH/ecm/475...8551/7.8...85 Disk HF#l—32 ------- 9443.1985(07) September 18, 1985 Mr. John Pouch, P.E. Gabriel and Associates 1814 North Marshfield Chicago, Illinois 60622 Dear Mr. PoUch: I am responding to your letter of July 18, 1985 requesting clarification of the RCRA permit requirements that apply to a specific wastewater stream, which is a mixture of methanol and water, and which possesses the following characteristics: Volume (30,000—50,000 gpd) 5-day BOD (25,000 mg/L) Suspended solids (300 mg/L) Methanol (20,000 mg/L) This wastewater stream is a listed RCRA hazardous waste (EPA No. F003) under 40 CFR §261.21. Since the waste is listed f or the characteristic of ignitability and because it is a mixture of a solid and hazardous waste (S261.3(a) (2) (iii)), it can only be exempted from all RCRA requirements if you can demonstrate that the waste is not ignitable. To make this demonstration, you must follow the procedures in §261.21 using a representative sample of the wastewater stream. If your waste is not ignitable, as a result of analysis according to these test methods, you should notify Mr. Horst Witschonke, Chief of the Illinois RCRA Unit, U.S EPA Region V at (312) 886-0987. He will evaluate the test data and consider exempting the waste from RCRA regulations. Another option is to seek approval from the local POTW, which has an NPDES permit, and which meets all the other requirements of 40 CFR §270.60(c) for a RCRA permit-by-rule, to accept your hazardous waste. The POTW could allow you to pipe the wastewater stream directly into a sewer, pipe, or other similar conveyance at the point of generation, or to discharge the waste at the POTW. In the latter case, the hazardous waste must continue to be manifested and transported according to the RCRA requirements of 40 CFR Part 262. Finally, you should be aware of a new RCRA requirement (Section 3005(h)) mandated by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendaents of 1984 requiring the owner or operator of an on—site This has been retyped from the original document. ------- RCRA facility to certify that he has a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste generated. (See 50 FR 28733—34, July 15, 1985.) To comply with this requirement, I recommend that you consider reclaiming or recycling the spent methanol in the wastewater (see 50 FR 616- 668, January 4, 1985 for the definition of hazardous waste recycling activities). If you have any additional questions on these permitting issues, please call Nancy Pomnerlean at (202) 382—4500. Sincerely, Peter Guerrero, Chief Permits Branch cc: Art Glazer Bob Scarberry (WH-562B) Rorst Witschonke, Region V This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9443.1985(08) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 85 EP Toxicity for Oily Wastes 1. With ;eç ad to the EP toxicity test specified in 5261.24, tj re w $ a .-nethod 1330 for oily wastes proposed to e added to SW-846, Test Metr f va1u — ting Solid Wastes, which appeared in the tober 1, 1984 Federal R ister (49 FR 38804). At what oil concentration sh jJA one use this r j ied EP tox — city test for oily wastes? Meth 1330 Oily Waste ctraction Procedure was developed for wastes con aining oil or gease in concentrations of 1% or greater. This iietrx has been used by EPA for generators petltionizq EPA to excl their oily hazard js wastes fras the hazard s waste listings (I .e., deiisting•). Currently, when dete nining if a non-Listed waste is hazrda is witj respect to EP toxicity, a generator .&st foll the proredu e specified in 40 R 261 Appendix II, not iier.rcd 1330. Meth 1330 sh .ild be used only when requested by EPA for the purpose of delistuç a hazard .as waste. S irce: JUn Poppiti (202) 382—4665 ------- 9443.1985 O9) oCT 3 198E Mr. Donald A. Robbins Departrtent of Environmental Sciences ASARCO Incorporated 3422 South 700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119—4191 Dear Mr. Robbins: Thank you for your recent letter and suggestions on approaches to the difficult problem of regulating the management of those mining wastes which pose a hazard if improperly managed. We share your concerns both with respect to the suitability of using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to identify which mining wastes warrant RCR.A reaulatory control and the need for tailored management standards for hazardous mining wastes. The TCLP was developed primarily to simulate the leachability of an industrial waste co—disposed with sanitary refuse or other putreacible materials. Mining wastes, because of the relatively large volumes of material involved, are not likely to encounter such disposal conditions even if not regulated. However, although mining wastes are generally not acidic, many mining wastes contain pyritic minerals which generate an acidic leachate upon exposure to air. Thus, the acidic environment modeled by the EP/TCLP may be appropriate for mining wastes even if the model environment used to develop the TCLP is not. In fact, the leachate generated by mining wastes can often be more acidic than the refuse derived leachate. Thus, a different leach procedure (which, for soi e mining wastes, could be more aggressive than the TCLP) might be appropriate. No decision has yet been made as to what type of test procedure to use in identifying which mining wastes require regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. A decision tree process is one approach that is being considered. Any such decision tree will require a method for determining the waste’s acid generation potential. While we do not presently have any work ongoing to develop test methods for determining a waste’s acid generating potential, we welcome your thoughts on this problem. We would also be willing to work with you and other interested parties in a cooperative effort to develop such a test. ------- As to your reciest for tailored manaqei en standards, we aqree with the need to develop tailored manaqenent standards for mining wastes before subjecting thei to Subtitle C control and will indicate same in the 1986 Report to Congress, I appreciate ASARCO’s offer of assistance in developing protocols to assess the leaching potential of mining wastes. I would suggest that you contact Alan Corson or David FriedMan (202/382—4770) to follow up on developing a cooperative program in this area. Sincerely yours, Marcia E. Willams Director Office of Solid Waste bcc: E. Claussen A. Corson D. Friedman 7. Lehman W. Porter T. Kimmell ------- 9443.1985(10) O T 2 I 1985 Mr. Robert B. Carroll P.O. Box 442 Laramie, Wyoming 82070 .)ear Mr. Carroll: I am writing in response to your petition requesting a change in the extraction medium employed in the Extraction Procedure (EP) from mild acetic acid to the tetra sodium salt of diethylene triamine pentaacetjc acid (DTPA). We apologize for the delay in responding to your petition, but your original letter was lost. The EP is designed to model waste leachability under a specified mismanagement scenario. This scenario assumes disposal of the waste with municipal refuse. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act charges EPA with identifying, as hazardous, those wastes which may pose a danger to human health if mismanaged . The codisposal scenario was chosen because we believe hat it accurately represents a reasonably aggressive mismanagement scenario ( i.e. , it is unlikely that wastes which are not regulated as hazardous will be exposed to leaching conditions more aggressive than those modelled by this scenario). While the EP is an accurate simulation of this disposal environment, it is possible that oil shale management constitutes a more aggressive leaching situation than the codisposal scenario. How poorly the EP procedure Simulates the leachability of the oil shale waste under cawicnly occurring oil shale mismanagement appears to be the question? In your petition you cite the study by Esmaili, et.al., to show that the EP “does not work for retorted oil shale waste.” While DTPA may. admittedly, be a more aggressive extraction medium than the mild acetic acid employed in the EP, we are not aware of any data which indicates that D PA more closely simulate “real world” leachate generation than the EP does. The fact that DTPA is more aggressive does not, in and of itself, make it more accurate. ------- 5ii ico the LP .j3sa not r del tte specific .nvironc ent — countered duriu tn disposal of oil snale waste, it , f 3 j . to iuentjfi SuCh a di5posal situ tiOu s hazardous. The lisr ng procesb coull be used. howover. to bring such ma iage wnt unJer re ui tury control., if the este cai ba shown to pr.se t a si..jnificant c t er tO health OZ tne OTIVjrYlflent. te te loachiiig ,roceU r.s can be used in ak.ing such a demonstration. if you nave apecif 20 iata with w iich we can assess the accuracy of this CoceOur* or other candidate ieachinj procedures under tao 1is osaL c.. 2ditions encountered during oil a ’.ale managetent. it niçnt u.lj .p i p the deve1op oat of such procedures. nc., i.n the ce o . of ptitions. the .arden of rovinj the value oL a 1 ropose.l test falls on the petitioners, unless we receive 4dit ional. data to su port the need for the chang. you have re u.ated (e.g.. a cocaparison bet sn actual leachat. fron retorted L •hi1.o .i ts diaposal fac2tities and EP and L7TPA l.a htng data) we will r 1 ot be aoie to proceed .nj further with the petitions. ou hal also requested that we publis your ptition in the Fecieral .ejister . It is our policy only to publish a notice of r.ceLpr f pet3.tl .Ofls &n.t ot the caiplets pettt on. We anticipate puDl.i.hia such a notice in the near futurs. If you would ILke to discus. tue specific LnLor sation n.eded to proceed with this petition. please contact £)avid Friedman, of ny staff (202-382—4770). ôinc.rely youth, t t si a. ,ti1t Harcia . wiLliams Director Off ice of Solid Waste Enclosure ------- 9443.1985(11) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY NOVEMBER 85 A. R& 1. Solvent Mixture male A product ntaina t active ir redients, toluene and benzene. This unused gr uct is spilled on the groard. H i is the spill and spill residue regulated undar RA? Wilt the proposed solvent mixturs rule in the April 30, 1985 Federal ister (50 FR 18378) affect this? Qzrently, If a pr ict with e than one active Lri edient is spilled, it will not classified as a P U’ spill residue per S261.33 since the pr uct caitains re than one acti,. Ingredient. ‘1 proposed solvent mixture rule (50 FR 18378) does not thange the ans since the proposed rule only ad±ssees spent solvent mixtures. tf the soil mixed with the spilled product i .ts a characteristic of hazar- d m t. in Part 261 Subpart C, then the soil is & ) A wast. If the soil dose not oeet a characteristic of hazcz s waste, RA is not p1icabl.. CE A reporting m y be required it the reportable quantity is sx d.d since benzens and toluen. are hazardous betances. Sourcs: Jackie Sales (202) 382—4770 Stevs Hirsch (202) 382—7703 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 944 3.1986(O2 ., , , 7 ,. - ‘Ir. Jack Corpuz Indiana State Board of Health 133J Uest Michigan St. Indianapolis, I 46236 Dear Mr. Corouz: This is a follow up to our conversation of January 14, 1 c3G concerning spent iron sponge. A spent iron sponge r aterial which evolves r ore than 500 nq/kg H 2 S is considered reactive by our current reactivity “iethod. The Departr ent of Transportation (DJT) requires a ten day oeriod of exposure to the at osr,here as a staoilization time prior to shipment (43 CFR J73.174). The facility perfor”ninq this stabilization requires a periit fr t the CPA to operate (40 CPR 270.10), and if they can show that tne waste is nonreactive after treatment, then the waste’s dia-’ posal can be re u1atod as a non—reactive naterial. tnclosod is a copy of an iron epooge renort which may b ,f interest to you. If you have any further questions please qive me a call (202) 475—6722. Sincerely yours, a 4 14 Gail Ann Hansen Environ enta1 Health Scientist Methods Program ( J}1—562! ) Enclosure ------- zZ 9443.1986(04) Mr. Randall F. Andrews Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals’ tnc. ROute 2 BOX 521—C Red Springs. N.C. 28377 Dear Mr. Artdrews: This is in response to your letter of D.csebet 27, 1985. concerning the regulatory status of th. copper plating solution that you receive at you: plant site. As t understand your situation, you obtain f roe a copper plating operation a copper sulfate bath (which exhibits the ctia:acteristiC of coirosivity) at you: plant sits and react it with a chelating agent to produce a material that is registered with the Soith Carolina Department of Agriculture as a co.tcial tertilts.r. This material no longer exhibitS the coirosivity cha:aCteiiitic. This material is then sold to farmers for use as a fertilizer or is sold to fertilizer companies for inclusion into fertilizes for resale. Undei this scenario, the copper sulfate bath that you receive at your plant site ji a solid and hazardous waste and is sub)ect to the transportatiOn and storage requirements under the hazardous waste regulations. The matinal that is produced at your plant sits (i.e.. the ccrctal f.rti1i* i). however, is no longer subject to regulation under the ha?ar7dOuI waste rules and may be managed as such. The basis fox thi decision is as follovsz on January 4, 1985, EPA promulgated its final rules which deal with the question of which materials are solid and hazardous wastes when they are t,cyCled. AmOng other things. these rules state that all hazardous secondary materials that are placed on the land for benaf teal use or incorporated into products (referred tO as waste -derived products) that axe placed on the land for b.neftCai use are solid and hasaldOus vast . (sew enclos.d copy of regulations.) In the AgenCy’S view, these practices are virually the equivalent of unsupervised land disposal. a situation RCRA is designed to prevent. The many damage incidents resulting from wastes being placed on the land for benfiCsl us. bear Out the Agency’s coccStfl. This type of recycling activity has also ------- 2 beers a psitiaviar concerTi of Congress. Iii particuLar. Irs a riiube: at Comgr.seioral reports they describ, various damage iricidersta isvolvlrsg wastes that are placed On the land for betet Ical us.. Itess reports reflect tsot ohly Congress’ COTsCSTT S but its intent that EPA regulate this type of activity. Therefore, we believe that this type of recycling activity cots stitue 5 waste management &isd need be subject tO regulatory control. By asserting jurisdictiOn over waste—derived products that are placed oi the laid, we are also asserting jurisdicatiors (atsd regulatinc) the materials that go into these products, provided these materials are hazardous (i.e., exhibit Oh• or more of the hazardous waste characteristics or are specitically listed). Therefore, si C, the copper plating solution Is corrosive, it is subject to regulation. P r. specifically. the generator and transporter of this material is subject to the appropriate generator arid transporter standards, including the hazardous waste manifest, while you (being ths r.cycler) would be subject to the appropriate storage standards. (See 40 CVR 261.6(b) and (c) for specific regulatory r.quir IfltS.) Aa indicated earlier, however, the material that is produced at your facility the c erical f.xtiliier —— is no Longer subject to regulation since this material is Is O longer defined as hazardous. Since this regulation has gone through tormal rulemaKing, your only alternative (at this time) is to submit a ruieaakiri9 petitions wider 40 CFR Part 260.20 (S.. enclosure for specific information requirements). please feel free to give me a call if I car. be of any further ass1stau,ce my telephone r umber ii (202) 475—8551. sincerely yours, Matthew A. Straus Chief waste Ider ,tificatiOil Branch (WH— 562B) ------- 9443. 1986(05) RCRA/SupERF D HOTLINE MONTHLY SUJQ y JANU j y 86 1. ent SolVent MiXtUres In the ( cenber 31, 1985, Federal 1 gister (50 FR 53315), A a ended the hsting of hazardous wastes in 5261.31 to include certain spent solvent mixtures. En this final rule, spent solvent Listings P00]., F002, F004, and F005 re redefined to include mixtures containing ten percent or riore to aj listed solvent (by volje). the ten percent threshold for solvent mixtures was not applied to the P003 solvents listed solely for igrutabi]jty b c us the Pgency deteruu ned that these solvents IMy not be ignitable at such low concentrations. die .onail the Agency did not retEve these ignitable spent soLven .s fran the list of hazar- dous waste since the solvents have not been eval . . .ed for their toxicity. Fbw then are mixtures of ignitable solvents regulated? If a spent, non-halogenated solvent has been listed only for showing the ignitability characteristic (i.e., listed as P003), then mixtures or olertds of such solvents will remain listed as F003 wastes as long as the mixture or blend consists only of P003 listed solvents. For exanple, a blend of 80% ethyl acetate and 20% xylene ould be classified as P003 while a blend of 80% ethyl acetate and 20% petroleun solvents uld not be F003. Ib ver, the ethyl acetate and petroleun solvent iculd probably exhibit the iynita— bility characteristic and be classified as DOOl. Finally if a solvent blend consists of a solvent listed under F003 plus 10% or nore of any solvent listed under FOOl, P002, P004, F005, then the resultant spent mixture will be listed as F003 and the other spent solvents (i.e., FOOL, P002, F004, or P005) respectiveLy. Source: Jacqui Sales (202) 382—4807 ------- 9443• 1986 (06) MAR I2 86 Paul Acid Des e Moor. 155 N.E. 100th Street Suite 500 Seattle, ashin tori 95125 Dear Mr. Agidi In our telephone conversation of March 11, 1956, v. discussed th. detection limit for the U leachate oonc.ntration of silini ((0.2 ppm) cited in the dslist inq p.tition (0620) filed for the residual veste/contaminatad 011 pit at the Dosing C .rcial Airplane Company Fabrication Division facility in Auburn, Washington. I indicated that, if the d.tectton limit vs. used as a ia U leachate value in the !I ground water model analysis, the predicted complianc, point coric.ntration would exceed th. Ag•ncy’s regulatory standard of 0.01 ppm. Further analysis is necessary in order to produc. lower detection limits, (0.1 ppm, that would r t produce a negative VHS finding. It should be possible, if the samples are archived, to re—t.st the •zisting sples using a method permitting fin.r detection limits. oth.rviss, additional representative samples must be tested to achieve lower detection limits for seleni . I have recently assted responsibility for the riview of Boeing’s petition. Pleas. forward this data to me as soon as possible, so that the timely review of the petition may be assured. It you have any question., please call me at (202) 382-4783. Sincerely, Scott 7. Maid nvirora.nta1 Protection Specialist Office of Solid waste (WH-562B) ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1986(09) pç Hr. Ritchey Vaughn Quicksilver Products, Inc. 200 Valley Drive, Suite 1 Brisbane, California 94005 Dear Mr. Vaughn: I an writing in response to your request for a definitive opinion on whether discarded fluorescent and mercury vapor lamps would be classified as a hazardous waste under Section 261.24 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery ?ct (RCRA) regulation.. With only the data you submitted, it is not possible for me to give you a definitive answer to your question. For ekample, using the data presented on the GC MVR1000/VDU lar as a worst case, the amount of mercury that is potentially available is 223 mg/kg of waste. If all the mercury was extracted into the Extraction Procedure (EP) extract during the test, this would yield an extract concentration of 11.3 mg/i. However, mercury is a relatively inert metal, with respect to reactivity toward nonoxidizing acids such as the acetic acid used a. the extraction medium in the EP. In addition, while mercury has a relatively high solubility in water (as compared to moat metals), it aoiubility is only .02 mg/i which is substantially below the regulatory threshold of 0.2 mg/i. While I do not believe that eith.r fluorescent or mercury vapor lamps would be hazardous waste under the RCRA regulation., actual EP testing would have to be conducted before any definite conclusion could be drawn. You should keen in mind, however, that RCRA is a State administered program in those States that have applied for and r.ceived authorization. In such States it is the State program which must be adhered to. Some States have more stringent regulation. than those of the Federal program. Thus, it is possible that a State may elect to regulate a waste as a hazardous waste bassd on it. total mercury content and not on leachable mercury. California may be one such State. I recommend you contact the California Department of Health Service, for State—specified regulations. ------- —2— If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at (202) 382—4770 or you may call, the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (600) 424—9346. Sincerely yours, David Friedman Manager Methods Proaran bcc: E. C],aussen A. Corson S. Wei], H. Strauss ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1986(10) tAAI —5l9 Mr. Dave Alff Analytical Testing and Consulting Services 1947 Brook Lane Jarnisori, Pennsylvania 16929 Dear Mr. Aiffi This letter is to confirm our conversations regarding your intent to market equipment used to run the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). As we discussed, your designs for the rotary apparatus indicate that the device meets the requirement for end—over—end agitation at approximately 30 rpm. I will be adding your device to the list of auktable rotary agitation equipment. You also presented designs for a aero—headepace extractor (ZHE). Unfortunately, it is not possible to ‘ ake a decision regarding suitability without data comparing the performance of your device to the other equipment. To reduce potential variability, it I. necessary to insure that all devices are capabable of producing similar results. As I suggested, you should consider evaluating your device for conDarability in two steps. Pirst. to insure that you are in the right ballpark, you should initiate experimental work to determine recoveries of spiked volatile, from water (or from TCLP extraction fluid) that has been run through the VIE. We have done this work through one of our contractors with the other two ZR! devices, and comparable results would provide evidence that your ZR! should be suitable. Please call Dr. David Taylor of S—Cubed at (619) 587-8369 for information regarding identity of the volatile, we used, the spike levels, the spiking method, and th. expected recoveries. I have alerted Dr. Taylor to expect your call. ------- —2— Assuming that your recoveries are acceptable, testing of actual wastes, and comparison to results obtained with the other ZHE devices, would be the next step. Since you understandably wish to avoid having to buy other devices in order to make these comparisons, participation in our collaborative study, also being managed by S—Cubed, would be advisable. Please contact Dr. Taylor if you wish to participate. Another alternative would be for you to initiate comparative work through a laboratory that has already obtained these devices. Thi, alternative has several distinct advantages. For one, it. would eliminate several variables that always exist in collaborative studies, such as analytical variability. A sore distinct advantage to you would be time. You indicated that you wished for your Zif! to be listed with the other ZHE devices when the proposed TCLP becomes published in the third edition of SW—846 (our solid waste testing manual), even if it was listed with the caveat that it was still undergoing evaluation. I have talked this over with my management, and the decision was made that the manual should only indicate that equipment which has bean shown to be acceptable. For time reasons then, you may wish to elect this other alternative. Of course if you choose this alternative you are still welcome to participate in our collaborativ, effort. The time factor may be the deciding factor for you ‘since we will have to make a decision on equivalency by the end of June to include your equipment in the 3rd edition of SW—846. I recognize that this leaves you with less than two months to initiate and complete the necessary comparative work. If you choose this route, however, I would be glad to provide you with more assistance. I am sorry for having to present you with these hard choices. You have obviously put a lot of effort into your development work, and your design seems feasible. I wish you had contacted me much sooner with your intent. We could have probably avoided the time factor. Good luck and please call me at (202)382—4795 if I can be of more help. Sincerely, Todd A. imaell Environmental Scientist Studies and Methods Branch (W74—5628) ccs David Friedman (osw) David T3ylor (S—Cubed) ------- 0. 9443.1986(11) 1r. William R. blackburn Travenol Laboratories, Inc. Ueertield, Illinois 60U15 Dear Mr. Blackburn: This is in response to the letters you have submittea to the Agency ir which you raise a number of questions tor our consideration. First, let me apologize for tne time it has taken to respond to your letters; I hope this has not created any problems for you. You first request that we confirm that the deionization (DI) acid that is generatea at Travenol’s plant in Cleveland, clississi pj is not a waste. Based on the information provided, we agree with you that the DI acid is not a waste and, therefore, is not subject to the Federal hazardous waste rules. In particular, before a material can be a hazardous waste, one must first determine whether the material, is a solid waste. In general, corrosive materials that are neutralized are normally Considered wastes. However, where such corrosive materials can e shown to: (1) meet relevant specs with regara to contamination levels, (2) be as effective as the virgin material for which they substitute, and (3) be used under controlled conditions; we believe such materials may not be wastes. The informat on provided in your letters clearly indicate that the DI acid generated at your Cleveland plant is benefically reused and, therefore, is not a waste. As a result, this material is not subject to the Federal hazardous waste rules. This material would be subject, however, to any State regulations. With respect to your request regarding the exclusion and whether it applies retroactively under the old regulations, we believe that since the DI acid has always been benefically 1/ See tters dated: November 14, 1985, from William L . Blackburn to Jack Lehman; L)ecember , 19d5, trom Michael, bmitn to Robert Tonetti; January 13, 1986, from Michael Smith to Matthew Straus; February 6, l9 5, trom William R. Blackburn to clatthew Straus; and April 17, 1986, from Michael Smith tO Matthew A. Straus. ------- 2 recycled and since this acid is neither listed nor a sludges this naterial is not now (and has flayer beeft) subject to regulationS. Therefore, Travenol does not need to go through closure ror this impoun rnent; we have discussed this inter— pretation with our Otf ice or General Counsel and they agree. Finally, you requested written explanation as to why no hazardous waste perrnit is required to dispose or the alcohol to the drain; a verbal response was provided to you by Us. Irene lorner. A written response, however, has been prepared and should be sent to you shortly. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any rurther questions. Sincere y,. i.4 . Marcia E. Williams Director Office of SolidWaste ------- UNITED S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A( CT 9443 • 1986(12) MAY 2 3 Mr. Frank Neiderkofler Supply Service (95) Veterans Administration 810 Vermont Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20420 Dear Mr. Neiderkofler As we discussed last Friday, the National Association ot Photographic Manufacturers (NAPM) provided data to the Agency to indicate that used x—ray films, in and of them- selves, do not appear to be hazardous under RCRA. Theretore, used x—ray films are probably not subject to the Federal hazardous waste management regulations (see enclosure.) You should be aware, however, that each generator is still responsible tor making this determination.!’ In addition, wastes not hazardous under EPA’s regulations may be hazardous under authorized State programs. You, therefore, need to contact the States to determine the regulatory status of these tilins under their program. Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone rnmtber Is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Branch Chief Waste and Identification Branch WH—562B/MSTRAUS/ecm/475—855l/5—].9—86 Disk 8601—27 1/ If the generator determines that these films are hazardous, — the only requirements under the Federal regulatins imposed upon the generator would be to get an identification number and to comply with the uniform hazardous waste manifest. ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1986(13) MA ôr 1 Patriclc 1. Lo aiy ‘ n’cini 1inoritv ‘ “ er 1’JD—IndeD fldent Vtencies Ap roprjatjons Subco rijttee Committee on Appropriations Untted States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 O.ar Senator L.ahyi Thank you for your litter of May 7, 1986, regarding an inquiry from your constituent, in Bristol, Vermont. You requested information regarding residues from municipal. waste resource recovery facilities and any federal laws that apply to the disposal of these residues. Solid residues from municipal waste combustion (lqlIC) processes consist of fly ash and scrubber sludge recovered from air pollution control equipment, and bottom ash. Disposal of these residues I. accomplished by landf tiling. Ply ash as well as other residue, from PI processes sometirnes exhibit the characteristic, of hazardous waste and, therefore, are regulated under the applicable disposal standards in 40 C?R Parts 260 through 265. Other than those occasions when the wastes meet the definition of hazardous waste, the Federal regulations that apply to the landf tiling of any nonhasardous solid wastes, including most residues from MIC processes, an, the •Criterja for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practic,s (40 CPR Part 257), which were pzo lgated on September 13, 1979, under authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Criteria include general performance standards that are used to determine which solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable probability St having no adverse effects on human health and the environment.-. A copy of these standards is enclosed for your informatjon.- The 1904 Rasardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA require the Invironmental Protection Agency (EPh) to - complet. several new efforts with regard to solid waste disposal. By November 8, 1907, EPA must complete a study and report to Congress on nonhazardous waste land disposal facilities and practices to determine whether the current Federal Criteria ------- 2 are adequate to protect human health and the environment. in addit .on, by March 31, 1988, EPA must revis, th. current Criteria (40 CF1 Part 257) for disposal facilities, including municipal waste landfills, that receive household hazardous waste and small quantity generator hazardous waste. HSWA also r.quires the Agency to develop a report to Congress and guideline. on dioxin .misIiOnB from municipal waste incinerators or r.source recovery facilities. In response to these HSWA mandates, we have recently initiated several projects in an effort to address problems per- tinent to your inquiry. EPA is currently developing a technical information document for use by State and local governments in evaluating municipal waste combustion projects. We anticipate that thi, document will be available in February 1987. The EPA contact for this effort is Stephen Gr•sne, (202) 382-4608. We ar. also currently engaged in a co r.h.nsivi study to determine the characteristics of ash from MWC processe . and to assess the potential health and environmental impacts from the disposal of these residues. Th. results of this study will be incorporated into the February 1987 information document mentioned above. The Agency contact for this ash study is G.rri Dorian, (202) 382—4688. Your letter presented several questions regarding this matter. I have specifically addressed each of them b*l i. I. Ma. EPA tested the wastes from municipal waste resource recovery facilities to determine t! characteristics of such wastes ? If so, what did those tests find? Have such wastes ever been characterized as hazardous? Various agencies. domestic and foreign, have performed a range of analyses on these residues. A list of technical papers available to the public is enclosed for your information. EPA will not complete its full evaluation of this until February 1987. However, it is kn n that ash residues (predominantly fly ash) sometimes exhibit the characteristic of EP toxicity as deterrained using the RCRA Extraction Procedures (EP) for toxicity (40 CFR Parts 260.20 and 260.21). because of the presence of certain u.etals, such as lead and cadmium. If a waste iB charac- terized as P oxic. it is a CRA hazardous waste. Additionally, r ci t testi .; ot 1y ash .i:; flue as from r.iunicipal waste rj jUStjO!& hci , i:’. sc: e cases. deio strate’3 the ‘,rc nce polychiorinated ibez:f r1flF .eL lc. ip.:enyls in both i odia in re1 tiV lY S’ a1 - . :: Li COt. CL’. LflC t: Ce C ’ L ...L_:.. .. . r. 1 :fil1’ ------- 3 2. Do EPA’s tests for toxicity of the waste include a full range of organic chemicals ? The EP toxicity test (40 CFR Part 261.24) addresses eight 1.norganics and only six organic Constituents. These organjca include: Endrin, Lindane, Methoxychior, Toxaphene, 2 ,4—D, and Silvex. EPA is currently developing a new toxicity characteristic arid associated leaching procedure (TCLP) that will result in the evaluation of a broader range of organics. For further information on the TCLP, your constituents should contact Todd Kimmel at (202) 382—4795. 3. If the waste were determined to be a hazardous waste, what requirements would apply to a landfill in which the waste is disposed ? Owners and operators of hazardous waste landfills must comply with all applicable requirements in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 265. You should be aware that certain States have more stringent or specific standards for the disposal of MWC ash, whether or not the ash is classified as a RCRA hazardous waste. The State of Vermont has proposed regulations that address the disposal of MWC ash. For further information on the State of Vermont regula- tions (existing and proposed), your constituents should contact: Mr. John Malter, Director Waste Management Division Agency of Environmental Conservation State Office Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 (802) 828—3395 4. Under the Clean Air Act, are there any authorities for controlling the blowing dust particles that may result from the disposal of these wastes ? Under the Clean Air Act, the Agency has the general authority to investigate and regulate emissions, including particulate emissions, from various sources that may pose a threat to human health or the environment. The Agency also has authority under RCRA to control dust. For your general information, the State of Delaware has experienced some dust control concerns regarding municipal. waste combustor residues. For more detailed information on the approach Delaware has used, your constituents may wish to cc.m’..act: ------- 4 Mr. William Razor, Supervisor Solid Waste Management Branch Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control P.O. Box 1401 Dover, Delaware 19901 (302) 736—4781 5. Under the Clean Water Act or any other watö related federal statutes, are there any authorities for controlling leaking ground water from a landfill in which such waste is deposited ? The Clean Water Act does provide EPA some authority for ensuring ground—water protection, but these authorities are less specific to this purpose than those delegated under RCRA. EPA’s primary authority for ground—water protection at active landfills is derived from RCPA. For more detailed information regarding these Federal authorities, your constituents should contact our Office of General Counsel, either Dov Weitman at (202) 382—7703 or Ken Gray at (202) 382—7706. I hope this information is useful to you and your constituents. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us aqain. Sincerely, 3. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator Enclosures cc: Mr. John Malter Mr. William Razor bcc: M. Williams J. Lehman K. Shuster M. Flynn G. Dorian ------- 9443 • 1986(15) Mr. Peter R. Drew PME Pty. Ltd • •‘ i 2 jQ ’r 17A Nortotk Court Coburq 3058 P4 lbourne,. Australia Dear Mr. Drew: This Letter is in response to yours dated June 12, 1986 which torwarded intorination concerning your company’s electrolytLc silver recovery eauipment. The high recovery rates attributed to your equipment are indeed tmpressive. I wish you success in marketing this equipment. Regarding your request t or intorinstion about EPA limitations on silver discharges to sewer systems, I am unable to comply. I believe you may have some Misunderstanding ot EPA regulations concerning silver, which I will attempt to remedy. As you are rrobably aware, the EPA has established a limit of 0.05 mg/I of silver in public drinking water supplies. Drinktng water containing concentrations ot silver above this limit are considered to be unsafe. Under EPA’S hazardous waste program, oursuant to the Rusource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), materials which have a silver concentration of 5 mg/i or hit her in the liquid phase or in an extract from the solid phase are considered hazardous waste and are sub3ect to handl,ina and disposal regulations. However, these regulations o not restrict the discharge or hazardous waste to the scwer. Discharge of materials to the sewer is regulated by the C1.an Water Act (CWA) through EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Program. Generally. EPA Ettluent Guideline regulations are industry and process specific. In the case of photo—finishing, the Agency has not, as yet, issued a regulation to limit the discharge ot used photographic fixers to the sewer. The decision to delay issuance of such regulations is based, in part, on the Agency’s belief that current silver recovery practices greatly reduce silver discharges to the sewer. ------- 2 There are EPA regulations limiting siLver discharqee to the sewer fro. metal finishing and electroplating operations. These silver concentration limits are below I mg/i. If you desire additional infor ation ot CPA effluent guidelines, I suggest that you contact Marvin B. Rubin (mail code WH—552) in EPA’s Otf ice of Water Regulations anti standards. Also for your intor ation, in case you don’t already know, there is a trade association of photographic equipment manufacturers, in the United States. You can contact this association at National Association o Photographics Manufacturers, Inc. (Attention; Thomas Dutticy) 600 Namaroneck Avenue Harrison, NY 10528 RespectfulLy. Bernard J. Stoll Waste Charact rizatjon Branch ------- 9443.1986(16) . SSNORA$DUM !U&JZCTs Mow Typical are the Charsctaristic Maaaz ss Waatss Gisusrated at Priasry Setal eesltirtg and Refining Sit..? Prank . Smith. Icanomist aconosic Analysis Staff (WH-565) J tn Lehman, Director lasts Mana ensnt Division This rt addresses th. inestice of wbthsr the characteristic wastes produced by primary nonferrous metal smelting aI refining plants are different in quantity and locational aspects from the characteristic wastes generated by other manufacturing sectors. Three basic c ari .oss Were conducted to answer this questions (1) waste qu.antitites produced at indivilual sites, (2) resident hn &n pqpu]ations residing 4ithin on. and five mile radii from the plants. and (3) lations served lie water su 1 s st. cant near onsa vs es •generatng sttss. The question of wb•th.r these wastes are re or less hasardous in tires of constituent coaoeetz*tiOfl$ will be adlxr..sed in a separate me regarding toxicity scoring of smelting/refining wastes vs. other similar wastes. Hasardous smelting and ref ininq plant wastes are typically hasardoiss due to presence of !P toxic metals and/or ..rroai.ity l. els. The basis for comparison in the following su ary of results is a11 fasturing sectors (SIC 2OOO-3 9S) as represented by responses from IPA’s l 82-’R3 mail questionnaire surveys of Generators and on -site TID General waste handlers • Data for smelting and refining are from 0$W’e 1 4-8S survey, of selected smelting sod refining sertors. including’ aluminum. bond, sine and sine oxide, ferroalloyl. titanium metal sad titanium dioxide ------- 2 trio 2 ). For the st part, this. are the largest generators in the primary nonferrous rntal sectors since they reDres.rtt ‘sostly the large volume metals oroiue.r.. Results 1. Quantity of Waste Generated TabI. 1 compar.s th. salient statistics for six primary nonferrous Smelting and Refining (SaR) sectors (1984) aqainst the OSW 1982 TSD General Survey for manufacturing facilities. In terus of averag, waste per generator, the S&R’s other than ‘ri o 2 iave a ainificantly lower ‘sean (6, 200 vs. 62, 500 metric tons p .r y.ar par facility) than that for all sanufacturing. On the other hand, S&R’a also exhibit a sub.tantially median (3.800 v i. 300 tons), indicating that they typi iD fall above the median six. az ng .nerators. However, 90 percent of these SIR’. generate less than 25,000 tons per year. which is about on a par with the manufacturing sectors a. a whole. Ezc1udLn. ‘ riO 2 , the ..!!2!! . individual en.rstors within thea. six S&R sectors prod iii Kiiact.ri.tic wastes in the 30.000 to 34.000 ton per year rang.. compared with sevsrl million tons per year for the largest individual generators in some other Sectors. Statistical estimates based on th. ?SD general survey indicate that there sre about 250 manufacturing facilities in other sectors generating in excess of 36.000 tons per year in 1981. In sumeary, two conclusions can be statel. (1) Most rimary nonferrous S&R facilities that generate characteristic hazardous waste oroducs larger quantitie. than do a majority of facilities in other sectors, but (2) SIR generation rates are not extremely large in comparison to the larger waste generators in other sectors. Titanime dioxide vould constitut. an exception to these findings. Iats of characteristic hazardous wait. generation for the g.earstors in this sector are equivalent to the 85th to 99th percentiles of all wait. generators. What if all hazardous waste except for aluminum potlln.r. is considered characteristic waste? The table below provides a bri•f comparison with the addition of copper to th. list of sectors. ------- Tabi. I Individual Facility Characteristic Usurious Waet• 0n•ratiovi Rat•s (M.tric tons p.r year) Hasardous Wast.. TAD Six sectors Primary Non—P.rrou. 8 . .ltinçj and Refining S.ctors Muinum Zinc Zinc L.ai P.iro— T1tantjun Statistics surYsy 02 alloy. rietal sean 62,545 5,791 4,325 10,150 23,595 11246 4,900 1.850 Hadien 269 3.800 1,920 8.380 23,595 9,710 5,300 1,500 Minimum C l 40 140 2,670 7,320 3,790 40 150 Mazimum 10.000.000 39.870 29,030 19,400 39,870 25.280 32,400 4,600 Total NW 234,784,000 341,670 103.800 30.450 47,190 56,230 93,000 11,000 Number of fact liti•s 3750 59 24 3 2 19 6 ------- 3 Six Sectors All t lfgr. Par ! lPR Ssv.n Sectors Sectors Number of faciLities 59 74 3.754 Total H.W. 341,670 750,500 234,784.000 sean M.W. 5,791 10,140 G2,545 Median 3,800 4.600 169 Minimum 40 40 less than 1. ‘l aZj 1num 39,870 91,930 over 10 million !ss.ntially, th. transfer of pro osed list.d wastes to th. charact.rjstje,• category does not chang. the conclusions. it adds a sctor with substantial vast, quantities (copper) and adds additional eharact.rigtjc wastes to several facilities in the lead end sine Sectors. Raw.ver, it only increu.s by four th. number of f cLlitj,. with wastes in •xc.ss of 30,000 tons p .r year. Figure 1 ‘rovid.s a cumulative frequency di$ttjb tjo of facility hazardous waste quantities to illustrat, th. relation between the 74 SiR facilities and other manu icturing. 2. That if Large Volume is defined in t.r , of Sector. (industry groups) instead of individual facililti.s7 The 1982 TSD Generator Survey was analyzed in terms of individual four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) industry hazardous waste manag.m.nt quantttiss. Comparisons were than drawn between the 194 manufacturjn 3 Sectors represented j the survey and sevsg of the lax5er nonferrous s’t.tal smelting and refining (SiR) sectors studied in the reinterpre atj, , Sector Totals The lar est hazardou, waste generating S&T sactor as co!,ner with 360,000 astric tons oer y.ar. Thirty-two (32) other individual manfacturtag sectors (16 percent of all sectors) in the Offic. of Solid Wasto 1983 Mail Survey reported larger azsrdous waste quantittee than copp.z. The second largest SiR sector in our sample of seven was aluminum with 104,000 metric tons oar year (excluding potlin.rs). ?orty’.. .igat (48) other manufacturing sectors, or 23 p•zc.nt of all sectors. •zc•eded 104,000 tons per year of total haardous waste. Th• average sector total for all seven SiR sectors was also about 104,000 tons per year. ------- 4 Ths smallest SIR s.ctor the s•v•n in t•r s of estir iated hazardou, waits was titanium msta], with 11,000 toni per year. This was exceeded by 109 (56 p.rcsnt) oth.r manufacturing sectors and, in turn, was larger than 85 (44 p.rc.nt) of the othsr non SIR sectors. On th. basis of thes. data, we conclude that th. smelting and refining wa it. quantities when viewed as sector totals are ei1 within th. normal range of sector hazardous waste quantities for all manufacturing categories. 3. Population and Proximity to Public Jatsr Suoolies Smelting and refinery facility locations wer• comoar.4 to locations of other generators based on th. 1982 generator survsy (rIWOMS). ?wo types of comparisons were p.rforn.d, Population density in the vacinity of the facility (on. and five mile radius) • Population ssrvsd by public watsr suEply intakes located within one and five mu, radii. Uonf.rrous smelting and refining sit.. are somewhat ‘nor. rurally located than other generators. vsr ;s population living within on. mile for SIR’. was 4,500 vs. 11.800 for other gsnsrators; and within fivs dl.. average population vas 51,000 v i. 198,000. The conclusion is not warranted, however, that SIR’s ax, mainly Locat.d in remot. areas: 75 percent of SIR’s hay, a population of at L.a.t 7.500 within a mile, compared with 15,000 for other generators. Regarding distance to public water supply intakes, 59 percent of SIR’s showed a public water supply intake within on. mile, vs. only 40 percent of all generators in the 0S 1 generator survey. Both SIR’s and all generators show.d a public water supply intake within Liv ’s miles for every facility in the respective samples. On average, the water supply systems near SIR’ a served somewhat smaller paçslations (2.500 vs. 5.000 for system. with intakes Located within a mile of th. facilities). cat Mark Greenwood Meg Silver Eileen Clauss.n Matt Straus J.ff Dnit ------- 9443 9e6 (17) LIMIT STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTetTI GEt Mr. David J. Aiff, Analytical Testinri and Consulting Services, Inc. P.O. Box 537 Warrington, PA 18976—0537 Dear Mr. Aiff: I enjoyed meeting you and getting the chance to discuss your company’s zero—headspace extractor (ZHE) during the OSW symposium. The EPA has tentatively decided to add your ZHE to the list of extractors deemed suitable for conducting evaluations of volatiles. We would like to remind you that your device, as well as others, is in a proposed status as the rules that specify use of the TCLP have not yet been finalized. If we encounter any information which leads us to change our evaluation, we viii let you know. Otherwise, you can expect that your extractor will receive formal approval when the TCLP is finalized later this year. If you have any questions . please call me at (202) 475—6722. Sincerely yours. Gail Ann hansen Environmental health Scientist Methods Section (WH—562B) cc: David Friedman Peter Guerrero Todd iCimmell Pdmela W tkln5, AFC3 ------- UNITED STATES EP Oe E T4L PROTECTIOH AGENCY 9443.1986(18) SEP 4 I9 6 onorable Alan Cranston United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Cranston: Thank you for your August 4, 1986, letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Martin Schisegel, concerning the disDosa l of dry cell, batteries containing mercury and the potential dai iaqe they may cause to the environment. We, like Mr. Schlaeael, are concerned with the toxic effects of mercury on the environment. As you may know, regarding dry cell batteries, the Acency’s hazu’dous waste rules define hazardous as any waste where the leachate exceeds 0.2 mg/l of mercury. Wastes are also defined as hazardous if they are specifically listed by the Agency. At this time, mercury dry cell batteries are not listed as hazardous by the Aqency. klthouah we have no data indicating whether disDosed mercury dry cell batteries are hazardous waate under our rules, we require generater’s of such waste to make this determination. To the extent that these batteries are hazardous (i.e., the leachate from the dry cell battery would contain greater than 0.2 mg/i of mercury), they must be managed at a hazardous waste management facility. There are two exceptions to the requirement that hazardous waste from these batteries be managed at a hazardous waste management facility. First, if the batteries are discarded by a householder, they are not subject to the hazardous waste rules. Second, if the hazardous waste from these batteries is generated in small quantities (defined as less than 100 kp per month), they also are not required to be manaaed at a hazardous waste management facility. In these cases, the batteries generally would go to a municipal sanitary landfill. Municipal landfills are non—hazardous waste facilities. Because the Aaency is concerned that discarding this type of waste in municipal landfills could be a problem we are re—eval- uating our non—hazardous waste criteria. After we co’ plete our review of the criteria, we will revise the regulations for non—hazardous waste facilities, including nunici al landfills. We will issue these regulations in March of 19RR. ------- If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, J. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator S ------- UNI STATES ENVIRONMEP4TA . PROTECT AGENCY 9443. 1986(19) Ms. Jacc,u . .Lir . Daitch Marketing Manager Mill ipore Corporation 8u Ashby Road Bedford. MA 01730 Dear Jacquie? As per our phone conversation ot September 4. l9 6 con- cerning your glass fiber tilters, both David and Todd will not reconsider the ERCO study results. They still feel that your filters do not have the durability recyuired for the rigors of the TCLP. These tilters have a tendency to bccoine trayed around the edges while undergoing the pressures of the test. This could contribute to irreproducibility and may cause confusion amoung analysts. We theretore cannot add your filters to the list of the ones deemed suitable for TCLP purposes. It you have any questions about this decision, please call me at (202) 475—6722. Sincerely yours, Gail Ann Hansen Environmental Health Scientist Methods Section (WH—562B) cc; Peter Guerrero David Friedman Todd Xi ell ------- 9443.1987 (01) January 6, 1987 Mr. Thomas Duff icy Executive Vice President National Association of Photographic Manufacturers, Inc 600 Mamaronech Avenue Harrison, NY 10528 Dear Mr. Duff icy: This is in response to your letters of September 15, October 24, and November 4, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of properly washed chemical recovery cartridges (also referred to in your letters as steel wool cartridges), flake silver from electrolytic recovery cells, and silver—containing ion—exchange resins, under the federal hazardous waste rules. These units ( i.e. , chemical recovery cartridges, electrolytic recovery cells, and ion-exchange resins) are used to recover silver in a number of operations in the photographic industry. Based on the data and information provided in your letters ( i.e. , analytical test data and discussions regarding the representativeness of the data), it appears that when these units are properly washed (in accordance with the instructions provided in your letters), they do not exhibit the characteristic of EP toxicity for silver. You also state that these recovery units do not exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity, and I presume that these recovery units are not EP toxic for any of the other toxic contaminants. Thus, those recovery units that are properly washed appear not to be hazardous wastes and, therefore, are not subject to the federal hazardous waste regulations. However, each generator is still responsible for determining whether or not the wastes contained in the recovery units are hazardous. See 40 FR §262.11. In addition, as we’ve discussed previously, to the extent that these recovery units would be defined as a sludge ( i.e. , a pollution control residual), they would not be subject to the federal hazardous waste rules when they were sent for reclamation, since they would not be considered a solid waste. Thus, if any of these devices was used to treat wastewater (for example, to comply with the new BAT/PSES rules), the residues contained in the units would be considered a sludge; if the sludge is sent for reclamation, it would not be considered a solid waste. See 40 CFR §261.2(c) (3). This has been retyped from the original document. ------- Finally, as you are aware, States may choose to regulate these recovery units under their State hazardous waste program differently than under the federal program. Therefore, representatives in the various States will need to be contacted to determine the regulatory status of these recovery units under the State hazardous waste rules. Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Characterization Branch This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9443• 198 7(02) , tO S?a f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460 4p c:’ 1& ,.O t I. 7 OFFICE OF SOLIO WASTE Ar D EMERGEP4CY RESPONSE Honorable Les Plspin House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Aspin: Thank you for your December 18, 1986, letter requesting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make a determi- nation as to whether lithium thionyl. chloride (SOCL 2 ) batteries are hazardous wastes. As you may know, wastes are considered hazardous under regulations issued pursuant to the.Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) if they are either specifically Listed as hazardous wastes or if they exhibit one of four characteristics ( i.e. , ignitability. corrosivity, reactivity, o Extraction Procedure Toxicity). Lithium batteries are not listed hazar- dous wastes at this time and the Agency is not currently planning to list them as hazardous. With respect to the characteristics of hazardous wa te, determinations as to whether a particular material exhibits a characteristic is, by regulation (40 CFR §262.1 1(c)), the responsibility of individual generators. Although t e Agency rendered art opinion in March of 1.984 with respect to Lithium sulfur dioxide (LI/S02) batteries, we did so only after repeated requests from the Army and because there had already been considerable work done on LiSO 2 systems which allowed the Agency to render an opinion without exteneiv additional study. Further work on other Lithium battery systems is not currently underway and other priorities estabLi shed by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (H WA) will preclude us from initiating such a study any time in the immediats future. Consequently, we suggest that the Depart- ment of Defense, perhaps in cooperation with the battery manufacturers, evaluate these other lithium systems against the characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261.. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate tO call.. Sincerely, 3. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator ------- 9443.1987(04 , itO 97i. ( UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCy WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 HMII 8T 0F’CE 0; Mr. Lawrence D. Aniballi SOt.IO WASTE AS . EMERGEr Cv PESpo sE Research Products International Corporation 410 north Business Center Drive Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Dear Mr. Aniballi: This is in response to your letter of December 16, 1986, in which you requested an interpretation of the regulatory status of your liquid scintillation counting cocktail, Bio—Safe II, under the Federal hazardous waste regulations. Based on telephone conversations you had with Miss Filomena Chau, of my staff, and your letter of January 12, 1987. Bio-Safe II contains less than 0.05 microcuries of radioactive tritium (hydrogen-3) and carbon 14; in addition, this material contains the following scintillatori: primary ecintillator of PPO: 25diphenyloxazole; secondary ecintillator of B rtyl PBD: 2_(4’_tbutylphenyl)_5—4”bipheflYl)1s3 , 4 oxadiazole. The waste, as you described, does not seem to be subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations under 10 CFR 20.306(a). since your waste contains less than 0.05 aicrocuries of hydrogen—3 and carbon—14 per gram of medium. However, your waste appears to be subject to 1.0 CFR 20.306(d), which states that the generator is not relieved from complying with other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials. EPA’S hazardous waste management regulations would be an example of such “applicable regulations.” Thus, you must compare the characteristics of your waste against the criteria outlined in 40 CFR Part 261 (see enclosure) to deter- mine whither or not your waste is hazardous. Specifically, you must determine whether your waste exhibits any of the characteris- tics of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, “Character- istics of Hazardous Waste”), or whether your waste is a listed hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261, Subpart D, “Lists of Hazardous Waste”). ------- —2— With respect to the hazardous waste characteristics, you must determine whether your liquid Scintillation counting cocktail is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Liquid ignitable wastes are defined under §261.21 as those with a flash point of less than 140P. Corrosive wastes are defined under §261.22 as those having a pH of less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5 or is able to corrade steel at a rate greater than 6.35 mm (0.250 inches per year at a test temperature of 55’c (130°F)). Reactive wastes are defined under §261.23 as those exhibiting any of eight properties (see the attached regulations). Section 261.24 defines the characteristic of extraction procedure (EP) toxicity and indicates the test methods to be used to identify the presence of this characteristic for any contaminants listed in Table I of the Section. Your letter stated that your waste has a flashpoint of greater than 300°F, greater than the highest flash point of regulatory concern, 140°F. The ingredients of Bio—Safe II, as you described, are not any of the contaminants listed in Table I of §261.24; thus Bio—Safe II does not seem to be EP toxic. Your letter did not address whether Bio—Safe II was corrosive or reactive. In addition, neither liquid scintillation cocktails nor laboratory wastes, as a general category, are presently listed as hazardous wastes under §261.30—.33. Therefore, provided the liquid scintillation cocktail is not corrosive or reactive, it does not appear to be a hazardous waste. However, each generator is still responsible for determining whether or not their waste is hazardous. See 40 CFR 262.11. In addition, you will need to check with your State or local authorities to determine whether this waste is regulated under their authority. If you have any further questions, please contact Miss Filomena Chau (202—382-4795) of my staff. Sincerely.. f. , Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Characterization Branch Enclosure cc: Michael Bandrowski (ANR-460) Paul Friedman (WH-5623) Filomena Chau (WH—562B) ------- 9443. l987( 5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF S LID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE P.tAR I 8 :3 T Mr. Carl Berger, Director Power Sources Division U.S. Army Laboratory Command Electronics Technology and Devices Laboratory Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 07703-5302 Dear Mr. Berger: I am responding to your letter of August 18, 1986, in which you request an Agency opinion that Lithium/Sulphur Dioxide (Li/SO 2 ) batteries that have been fully discharged to zero volts no longer exhibit the characteristic of reactivity. Based on information supplied by the US Army Electronics Technology and Devices Labor- atory (LABCOM) , we generally agree that such batteries are unlikely to be reactive. Under the hazardous waste regulation., each generator of a waste is responsible for making a hazardous waste determination under 40 CFR 262.11. If the waste exhibits one of the four characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C of Part 261 or is a waste listed in Subpart D of Part 261, it must be managed in accordanc. with the hazardous waste regulations. A l you know, on March 7. 1984, in response to requests from the De- partment of the Army. EPA rendered an opinion that spent or discar- ded Li/SO 2 baterie. appeared to exhibit the characteristic of reactivity, as defined in 40 CFR 261.23. The Agency further noted that 264.312 and 265.312 of the hazardous waste regulations prohibit the placement of reactive (or ignitable) hazardous waste into a landfill unless the waste, or waste mixture, is treated, rendered, or mixed before, or immediately after, placement in a landfill such that th. waste or waste mixture no longer exhibits the characteristic. Thus, the prohibition would no longer apply if the waste no longer exhibited the characteristic of reactivity (or ignitability). ------- —2— The Agency continues to believe that fully charged and duty- cycle Li/SO 2 batteries are reactive hazardous wastes and should be managed as such. However, information provided by LASCOM during the Aug It 5 meeting with members of my staff and in your follow—up submission of August 18th indicates that a Li/SO 2 battery that has been fully discharged to zero volts would contain substantially reduced quantities of reactive materials such that the battery is not likely to exhibit any of the properties of the reactivity characteristic. We assume that by fully discharged, LASCOM means that each cell within each battery will have been discharged. It is our understanding that the mechanism by which the Army intends to effect discharge of all Li/SO 2 batteries to zero volts would be through a battery redesign that would incorporate an additional resistor circuit that would be activated by an external, manual switch. While such an approach would appear to.be capable of producing the desired results, it remains the responsibility of the generator or the disposer to ensure that all batteries so discharged have in fact reached a fully discharged state and, thus, are no longer reactive. In conclusion, the Agency agrees that a Li/SO 2 battery which has been fully discharged is unlikely to exhibit the characteristic of reactivity. However, the responsibility for determining whether a waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste either before or after treatment still remains with the generator and treatment or disposal facility. Sincerely, Marcia Williams Di rector Office of Solid Waste Enclosurs ------- 9443.1987(06 APR 8 i j Honorable Robert Walker U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 2051,5 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your March 5, 1987 letter regarding your constituents’ Carol and Richard Kushner concern about incinera- tion. Generally speaking, EPA considers combustion to be a viable alternative to direct landfilling as a means of managing municipal vaste. We recognize, however, that concerns have been raised about certain aspects of combustion facilities, including the disposal of residual ashQ The solid residues from municipal waste combustion consist of bottom ash, fly ash from air pollution control equipment, and miscellaneous debris from uncombustjb le materials. Because these residues an contain potentially toxic metals, proper disposal practices are important. The presence of large amounts of such metals could cause ash to be classified as a hazardous waste. One way to determine whether a waste must be managed as a hazardous waste is to perform what is referred to as the extraction procedure (EP) toxicity test, which determines the concentrations of metals that are likely to leach out of the waste when placed in the type of weakly acidic environment typical of a landfill accept- ing (unincinerated) municipal garbage. 1n 1986, EPA performed a search for published reports of the results of EP tests on ash to see what the results of those tests typically showed. These tests had not been scientifically reviewed, and some of the results were several years old. The results indicated that fly ash may exhibit the EP toxicity hazardous waste characteristic, however, when combined fly and bottom ash was tested. This combined ash frequently did not exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic. EPA recently ini- tiated a study of the characteristics and leachability of ash from municipal waste combustion to address these issue. in a more complete and careful fashion. Following EPA’s evaluation of ash characteristics, the Agency will be in a position to evaluate what types of management practices are most appropriate ..h r..44, ,ms ------- If ash residues are found to routinely contain sufficient amounts of metals to be of concern, there are a number of technical measures that may be appropriate for their disposal. First, basic housekeeping practices can be used to cut down on the wind dispersal of ash. Second, the common approach of mixing the acidic fly ash with the alkaline bottom ash to achieve a buffering effect will decrease the tendency of the ash to leach metals. (Acidic conditions tend to enhance the leachabi].ity of metals). Third, some design and location practices can reduce the tendency of ash to leach or limit the extent to which leachate would affect groundwater. Monof tiling, which is the disposal of ash in a landfill that accepts nothing else, can keep the ash segregated from acids or materials - which produce mild acids when they decay. Also, covers can be designed to minimize rainwater infiltration and proper siting of ash landfills can limit contact of the landfill with ground- water. EPA is also evaluating other aspects of municipal solid waste management. Later this spring, EPA will submit to Congress a report on air emissions from municipal wast. combustion facilities. Additionally, EPA is reviewing its program in the general area of solid waste disposal, and will be proposing rules, sometime in 1988 to improve disposal of solid waste at municipal landfills to protect health and the environment. If I can be of any further assistance, plea.. let me know. Sincerely, J. Winston Port.r Assistant Administrator ------- 9443.1987(07) APR 6 Mr. David L. ungara.r enzon 200 Putnu Street Marietta, 00 45750 Dear Mr. Suagarmex’s This brief nets viii respond to your letter of inquiry to David Friedman regarding the interpretation of the Characteristic of Ignitability, 40 Cfl Part 261.21. Your questions axe repeated below with the appropz’iat. respoass s o We have observed apparent flashes on solvent mixtures whose composition would imply they are nonf1 ,bl. i.e., 99% Preen 113 mixtures containing tgtce levels of cyclohezane. The flashes occur at low tenperatur. (20 — 40C) and are usually not reproducible on the Sam. aiiquoe. Should these initial flash.. be reported as true Flash Points for 1CM characterization? Yes, according to the present regulations. o Many solvent mixtures, including Freon 113, boil at temperatures below 60C and cannot be properly evaluated by Peneky-Nartene. How should such 1CM data be reported to agencies and other clients? Only those liquids that flash are consid.red ignitable. o Many elients request Flash Point data for soils and other solid aat.rials. They indicate that vast, haulers or stat. ox Federal agencies are requiring such data. Doe. PA have a standard policy on this matter? Current test methods (40 CV I Part 261.21) are designed for liquids only. At the present tim. there are no suitable, validated procedures for determining the ignitabi]ity characteristic of solid (non-liquid) wastes. We hope these answers are sufficient for your use. If you have additional questions please feel free to call us. Sincerely, Florence M. Richardson Chemist, Methods Section ------- 9443. 19C 7(08) - RCRA/SU?ERT D HOTL INE MONTHLY SU1 RY APRIL 87 2 • Solvent Drippings Iran Degreasing erations A tall—bearirç ‘ nüfacturer dips natal parts Lfl a degreasing tank of pure 1.,], 1—trichloroethane. Once the parts have been dipped, they are gr .1r%d. The cooling systun (either oil, or water is used as the fluid) picks ups the grinding sand, netal flakes, and traces of solvent left on the part. The fluid is then filtered for reuse, and the sand-natal-solvent mixture is discarded. Are the traces of solvent Left on the parts after degreasing class .ified as P00]? Is the sand—ne tal-solvent mixture regulated as a hazarifois waste when discarded? The 1l ancunt of solvent runs ining on the part after it has been dipped will not be regulated as FOOl. If the sand-I!etal- solvent mixture exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste as defined in Su art C of 40 CFR Part 261, then the mixture would be regulated as a hazardous waste. Source: Matt Straus 475—8851 Steve Silvetman 382—7706 Research; Becky Cuthbertson 382-3112 ------- 9443.19 87( 09) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF SOUO WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RES Mr. John Whitehead Assistant Product Manager May 13, 1987 Madison Chemical Industries, Inc. 490 McGeachia Drive Milton, Ontario L9T 315 Dear Mr. Whitehead: I am responding to your letter of May 4, 1987, to Mr. Alan Corson requesting confirmation of your interpretation concerning the regulation, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), of containers that pac) aged urethane coating chemicals. Specifically, you stated that since none of the chemicals used in your two-part urethane coating system are curren 1y listed as “P” or T3” wastes in 40 CFR 261.33, the residuc . in the containers are not hazardous wastes and, thereforo, you vould not need to determine whether the containers are empty in accordance with 40 CFR 261.7. Your interpretation is partially correct. Part 2617 deals with any hazardous waste residues left in contair €rs, not just the commercial chemical products listed in Part 261.33 (or those hazardous wastes listed in Parts 261.31 and 261.32). Therefore, it also will be necessary to demonstrate that the container residues do not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity) before stating that the residues are not hazardous. If the residues, in fact, are hazardous ( i.e. , they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic) then Part 261.7 should be used to determine whether the container is empty. If you r.quire additional information, please contact Ed Abrams at (202) 382—4787. Sincerely, flO .’ A.r ,i ) Robert M. Scarberry f Chief, Listing Section cc: Alan Corson, EPA/OSW ------- UN .) STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC1.. ..i AGENCY 9443.1987(11) U1 8 BT Mr. Adolf o Valdes Environmental Labs Inc. 67 Concordia Street Ponce, Puerto Rico 00731 Dear Mr. Valdes Thank you for your telephone call on June 5. 1987 concerning the Agency position on regulating chromium. The Agency under CPR part 261 ii currently regulating chromium as total chrociium. Until the Agency decides to change its position, cor.tinue to analyze for total chromium. Sincerely, Martin Meyers ------- UNIT iTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIL CENCY 9443.1987(12) M l 23 UT Ms. Karen Eglinton Free—Coil. Laboratories P.O. Box 557, Cotton Rd. Meadville, PA 16335—0557 Dear Ms. Eglinton: The Third Edition of SW-846 requires that the method of standard editions be used whenever the percent recovery of a matrix spike is outside of the range 75% to 125%. The method of standard additions consists of TM spikes M of three different levels of analyte into three aliquots of the sample to correct for interferences. This requirement applies to analysis by both atomic absorbtion and ICP. However, it should also be pointed out that the method of standard additions is required, in all cases, when anaiyL— ing Extraction Procedure toxicity extracts (see 40 CFR 261, Appendix II). Thank you for your kind remarks about the Third Edition of SW—846. We welcome any suggestions that you might have for further improvements. I hope this a].eviates your concerns. If you have further questions, please feel free to call me at (202) 382—7458. Best Regards, Denise A. Zabinaki, Chemist Methods Program ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1987(14) IU3II t Mr. Prian Monson tatø ot North Dakota Tent. Of flealth 1200 1ssourI Ave. P.O. 5’ x 5520 ‘ isn ark, NO 5E502—5520 t ear yr. onson: As you recue te , durino our recent telenhone conversation, I ar writinr to review the rec’ulatory status of P4ethod 1310 (F xtraction Procedure) and Method 1330 (ExtractIon Procedure for Oily waste. when testire a waste to ciet r!nined if It exhibits the rhar cr ristic of rxtraction Pr codure Toxicity one e p1oye rnethod 1310. This is so even if the waste would t’e conr-idered to be an C11y Wasteu. The Aqency proposed the Extraction Procotiuro for Oily IJaste on October 1, j9R4 (49 Federal er7I tcr 3 , U6 and to rerlace Method 1310 with the new Toxicity Char s eri tjc L.eacP ina Procedure, see Janu ry 11, (51 Federal Rc’ ist’r 16O ) end June 13, 19 6 (51. Federal Re.yiqter 21, 64 !). T is cti nc . has not yet been promulnated. Vethod 1310 rename the desiqnated accsptable procedure (see 40 CFR 261.24). The Anency however )taa been concerned that Method 131C r icr t not ade uat.1y model the potential leachability of toxic species fro ’ certain listed oily wastes. Method 1330, therefore, was developed as a worst case estimation of potential toxicant release. For delistinc , petition evaluation purposes, It erv s as a copservative indication of the i’iotIle metal fraction. Th mobile Metal concentration ( U4C) values are compared with de- listinç, thresholds developed using • specially developed fate and transport model. We ar rec that the forirula for ca1cu]atin M C in th recently nubtisPied 3rd edition of Test :ethods for Evaluatinq Scud .ast (S —l 46) contains an error. Th° we lott of crude solic’ (L2) shoulc be in c1rai net mlllinramc. This error will be correcte’ in rext urrli tc e4 tJld ii nu . ] . ------- 2 In summary, under the RCRA renulatory program, Method 1310 Is the only i,iethod currently approved for use in identifying wastes that exhibit the characteristic of Extraction Procedure Toxicity. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused you and trust this clarifies the status of Methods 1310 and 1330. Should you have any additional auestiona in regard to this matter, please contact me at (202) 382—4761. Sincerely, David Friedman, Chief Methods Section cc: Suzanne Rudzinski Myles Morse Martin 9. Schock (ND) Ken Kary (ND) Larry Wapensky (Req. VIII) ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443. 1987 (16) WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 O ICE O SOuD WASTI ANO EUE OENCv RESPONSE AUG I 3 B7 Mr. Martin Lueck Material Engineer Nelson Division Exhaust and Filtration Systems Highway 51 West, P.O. Box 428 Stoughton, WI 53589 Dear Mr. Lueck: This is in response to your u1y 13, 1987, letter requesting an interpretation of whether and how the EPA hazardous waste rag— ulations apply to vehicle filters contaminated with pesticides. For the use you describe, i.e. , in farm equipment, it would seem most likely that the filters would become contaminated with pest- icides via contact with ambient air near application areas. As such, the filters do not really contain waste pesticide. Rather, the spent filters are themselves a waste that may contain pesticide ingredients as constituents. The generator of any waste must deter- mine whether his waste is hazardous waste, and if it is, must com- ply with applicable regulations. Most likely, these fiters would only be hazardous if they exhibit the charactertst c of E.P. toxicity. (See 40 CFR S261.24. I have photocopied and enclosed the relevant pages of the regulations for your information.) You should also note that generators of less than 100 kilo- grams (about 220 lbs.) of hazardous waste per month are condition- ally exempt from regulation. (See 40 CFR S261.5.) Many farms, if the filters are hazardous waste at all, may be eligible for this conditional exemption. You might advise customers to deter- mine the aaount of hazardous waste they generate each month inclu- ding the filters in the amount. If the farmer’s monthly total is below 100 kilograms, the waste may be sent to a municipal landfill. If the total exceeds 100 kilograms, the farmer may then want to have the filters analyzed to determine if they exhibit E.P. tox- icity. ------- —2— If you have further questions in this area, contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 475—6676. Sincerely, • I , i —; • t. ; . Marcia E. Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste Enclosures ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443 • 198 7 (17) ____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 JJG 181987 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EME GENCV RESPONSE Mr. Kevin T. Rookstool Mineral By-Products, Inc. 240 West Eliuwood Drive Suite 2011 Dayton, OH 45459 Dear Mr. Rookstool: This Is in response to your letter of May 20, 1987, in vhich you asked whether the characteristic of corrosivity, as discussed In 40 CFR 261.22, applies only to those wastes which are aqusous and or liquid. Section 261.22 presently applies only to aqueous and liquid wastes, unless and until EPA promulgatfs a definition of corrosivity for solids. The Agency has no p1ar to do this at the present time. Sincerely, ‘/L4’4 ‘ Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Characterization Branch cc: David Friedman Filomena Chau ------- 0I?.; UNITED STATES EN VIRONMENrAL PROTECTION AGENC • 1987 C 18) WASHINGTON D.C. 20450 AUG I 91987 OFFICE OF SOUD WASTE APdO EMERGENCY RESPONSE Dr. Harold Edelstejn Director, Technical Develop rent Fisher Scientific Company Chemical Division 1 Reagent Lane Fair Lawn, NJ 07410 Dear Dr. Edelstejn: This is in response to your letter of May 1, 1987, in which you requested an interpretation of the regulatory status under the Federal hazardous waste regulations of your liquid scintillation cocktail, Scintiverse BD, if disposed. Under 40 CFR Part 261, a waste can be determined to be hazardous in one of two ways. Specifically, as defined in Subpart D, a waste could be a RCRA listed waste, or a waste, according to Subpart C, could exhibit one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste (ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, or toxicity). It is clear from the information you provided that your material is not a RCRA listed waste. See 40 CPR Part 261, Subpart D. However, the data did not provide the Agency with enough information to determine if the material would or would not exhibit one or more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste. It must be pointed out that, under 40 CFR 5262.11, waste generators are responsible for determining whether or not their wastes exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics. With respect to the hazardous waste characteristics, you must determine whether your liquid scintillation cocktail is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Liquid ignitable wastes ar d fjned under S261.21 as those with a flash point of less than 140?. Corrosive wastes are defined under S261.22 as those having a pH of less than or equal to 2 or greater than or eaual to 12.5, or that are able to corrode steel at a rate greater ------- —2— than 6.35 mm (0.250 inches) per year at a test temperature of 55°C (130°F). Reactive wastes are defined under S261.23 as those exhibiting any of eight properties (see the enclosed regulations). Section 261.24 defines the characteristic of extraction procedure (EP) toxicity and indicates the test methods to be used to identify this characteristic. You should also note that the Agency has proposed a new leach procedure, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (51 FR 21648, lune 13, 1986). When this proposal is finalized, waste generators will be responsible for determining whether their wastes meet this characteristic. In addition, you will need to check with your State or local authorities to determine whether this waste is Tegulated under their authority. If you have any further questions, please contact Filomena Chau of my staff at (202) 382—4795. Sincerely, 6 - Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Characterization Branch Enclosure ------- 9443.1987(19) SEP i 4 198T Mr. Stuart 3. Cock !nvironmental Coordinator Printing DevelOD ent5, Inc. 2010 Indiana Street Racifle. WI 53405 T)ear Mr. Cock: The following inforP atiOfl is being provided in response .o your letter of April 6, 1QB,. regarding the definition of aqueous as used in the CorroeiVitV CharacteristiC, 40 CP Part 261.22(a)(l). As you are aware, the cortoei.VttY characteristic does not specifically define what constitutes an aqueous vast.. However. we have developed guidance in defining the term ‘aqu .ousU In I particular, we consider a waste to be aqueous if it has a liauid ohase containing tore than 50 percent water. (See attached letter from I)r. John Skinner, titrector of the Office of Solid Waste, on •ebruarv 26, 19 5.) This oosttiOfl is currently in effect and you ghould use the 30 oercent water cut-off as a basis fo • aluating N whether or not to test your wastes for corrosivity. I should D0 flt out that we are considering reviewing this oosition, as well as the need for a regulatory c2eftnitiOn of aaueoua waste. Therefore, you should be aware that a requlatory definition of aaueous ay be proposed at some r oint in the f t u re. If you have any additional cuestiOns, please do not Pesitate to contCCt me. sincerely, Robert ScarberrY, Acting Chief waste Characterization Hranch Attachment ------- 9443. i987(20 ) RCRA/SUPE D HOTLINE MONTHLY SWO ARY SEPTEMBER 87 6. sw-846 test Method 3060 Why was Method 3060, for alkaline digestion to hexavalent chromium, dropped from the third edition of EPA’s “Test Method for Evaluating Solid Waste?’ Is there a replacement method? The SW—846 Test Method *3060 is used to deternine the total concentration of hexavalent chromium in solid waste. It uses a basic digestion of the waste sample to solubilize both water-insoluble and water-soluble hexavalertt chromium compounds. Method 3060 was dropped from the third edition of the SW-846 Manual because it yielded inconsistent results from sample to sample within the same matrix and from matrix to matrix. The method also provides the analyst with no way of distinguishing when it would or would not work. An evaluation study of Method 3060 indicates that not only is it possible to oxidize Cr 3 to Cr 6 , but that Cr can be reduced to Cr 3 during digestion. In fact, there is more likelihood that Cr* is reduced than Cr 3 oxidized. A..so during the digestion. precipitates are formed which can present problems. It may be appropriate to continue using Method 3060, provided the user can demonstrate that it works by doing spike recoveries. At this time EPA does not have a current or expected replacement method for Method 3060. Source: Denise Zabirtski (202) 382-7458 Research: Joe Nixon ------- 9443.1987(23) RCRA/SUPERPUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY OCTOBER 87 4. Natural Gas Pipeline Condensate and Ener v Recovery Is natural gas pipeline condensate that exhibits the characteristic of ignitability and that is going to be burned for energy recovery a hazardous waste? According to the January 4, 1985 page 630, off-spec fuels burned for energy recovery are not by-products, thus are not considered wastes. This includes natural gas pipeline condensate. The condensate contains many of the same hydrocarbons found in liquif led natural gas and certain higher hydrocarbons that have energy value. It is generated in the pipeline transmission of natural gas and is not considered to be a by-product nor a waste when burned for energy. By-products that exhibit any characteristics of hazardous wastes are, however, hazardous waste when burned for energy recovery. Source: Ed Abrams (202) 382—4787 Research: Kate Anderson This has been retyped from the original document. ------- STTVD STATES EIIVIRO,SiENTAJ P!OTEC’ 9443.1987(24) MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Appropriate leaching test to use in evaluating soils contaminated with lead. DATE: October 30, 1987 FROM: David Friedman, Chief Methods Section (WH—562B) THRU: Alec McBride, Chief Technical Assessment Branch (WH—562B) TO: Thomas Spittler, Chief Laboratory Branch, Region I As you requested, I am writing to review the regulatory status of the various leaching tests that have been developed for use in the hazardous waste program with respect to the problem of assessing the regulatory status of contaminated soils. When evaluating a soil, or other waste, to determine whether it is a hazardous waste by reason of the toxicity characteristic one should use Method 1310, the Extraction Procedure. While, sometime in the future, we expect to replace Method 1310 with the new Toxicity Characteristic leaching Procedure (TCLP), the TCLP has not yet been promulgated for such use. As I indicated at the recent meeting In Annapolis of the Regional laboratory chiefs, OSW has recently developed Method 1312 for use in evaluating the leaching potential of in-place soils and debris. This test, which is a modification of the TCLP, employs regional specific simulated acid precipitation as the extraction medium. As you recently noted in your work on neutral soils contaminated with lead, the high acetate concentration of the TCLP relative to the EP means that the TCLP is significantly more aggressive than the EP for such materials. For this, and other reasons, 05W feels that use of the TCLP for 3aLe!mi!tlng the g eund uater e j pa ien et soils — Lh L a 1 e to re ain i plaee i r’ I 5 1ieatie at the YPIB Ledure n upcomitg pnbpt4 mak1n9 1ean ------- closure terminatjons, and Ofl facility investigations, the Agency w l approve Method 131.2 for use as the leaching estimatiw .too]. for those situations. For your convenience, I have enclosed a draft copy of Method 1312. I hope I have clarified the use of the different methods for you. I want to thank you for calling my attention to the problem you faced when the TCLP was applied to the contaminated soils in your area. I am sorry that I did not get a chance to see you in Annapolis last week. cc: All Regional Laboratory Chiefs All Regional ESD Directors All Regional Solid Waste Branch Chiefs Enclosure ------- PR0TECTl0P .. EpCY 9443.1987(25) N I 4 BT Bernard E. Cox Jr., Chief Hazardous Waste Branch Land Division Alabama Department of Environmental Management 1751 Federal Drive Montgomery, Alabama 35130 Dear Mr. Cox: This is in response to your Letter of October 7, 1987, to Matthew Straus concerning previous correspondence from my office on recycling of zinc oxide baghouse dust. In your letter you request that the Agency clarify whether a sludge (zinc oxide) is subject to subtitle C when used to make fertilizer. I apologize if Matt and my previous letters to you and Mr. Tate were not entirely clear. The rule that applies in this situation is that the determina- tion of whether a material is a solid waste depends on the ultimate management of the material. (See 50 634; January 4, 1985.1 Certain ultimate management methods, including incorporation of waste into products that are to be placed on the land, result in designation of the material as solid waste. Therefore, if zinc sulfate is recovered from the zinc oxide and then t sed to produce fertilizer, the zinc oxide is a solid waste. The dust in question has not been listed as a hazardous waste; therefore, it would be hazardous only if it exhibits one of the characteristics at 40 CTR Part 261, Subpart C. It is the gene— rator s responsibility to use his knowledge of the waste or to perform the tests described in sections 261.22-24 to determine whether the waste exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste. The solution that you propose (i.e., to regti late the process until the metals are removed) is allowable; but the issue is not when the material ceases to be a solid waste, it Is rather when does it cease to exhibit a characteristic. Finally, you should note that a facility which treats a hazardous sludge to recover a material ( i.e. , zinc sulfate) that is used to produce fertilizer is subject to 40 CFR section 261.6(c), the requirements for hazardous waste recycling facilities. ------- 9443.1987(26) I I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY J WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 v4 .4tpuI_ NOV i 2 1981 OFP ICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEMORANDU?1 SUBJECT: Pulverizing Waste Prior to EP Test FROM: Scott Maid Variances Section TO: Carolyn Bosserinan SAIC Linda Cessar and I discussed the “pulverizing” issue you raised concerning Eli Lilly (#564A) and we reached a consensus that the metal rings and lids should be included in the ash samples. Our justification for this is that these materials are contained within the volume of hazardous waste, and should be evaluated as such. HSWA requires such an evaluation of other constituents and factors in our evaluation of hazardous waste. Also, the EP toxicity test procedure in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II explicitly requires that solid wastes shall be evaluated for particle size, and large pieces of waste should be ground up, crushed, or cut until the waste will pass through a 9.5 nun sieve. This regulatory requirement is quite important since it does not allow for the waste in question to be separated into different sized particles prior to testing. The 9.5 mm sieve will still allow pieces of metal over l\3” square to pass through it, which are really pretty large chunks. The connotation of “pulverizing” implies reducing the metal chunks to powder, which we agree is inconsistent with the requirements of the EP toxicity test procedure. If the paragraph about the sampling of ash were re—worded to specify that the waste ash (including metal rings and lids) should be crushed to a uniform particle size in accordance with the EP test requirements, then it may not be perceived to be a problem by Eli Lilly. Call me if you have questions. ------- 1987 (2 8 ) j LJNI D STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT oN AGE SCY WASHINGTON 0 C 20460 ¼ PU NOV 20 1987 ..—3 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Lead—Based Paint Residues and Lead Contaminated Residential Soils in Private/Public Housing Units FROM: Jeffery Denit, Deouty Director Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) TO: 1a1ter Kovalick, Deputy Director. Office of Emercency and Remedial Response (WH—548) The following information is being provided in response to your draft memorandum requesting classification of lead—based paint residues. BACXGROUND As you are aware, the question of lea -based paint dis- posal has been of concern for a lonq time. As early as 1904, it was recognized that ingestion of paint and paint chips poses a serious health hazard to children. Many buildings, both individual residences and public housing units, especially those built before 1950, contain lead—based paints on interior and exterior walls, window sills, and other surfaces accessible to young children. In addition to paint, some plasters and putties have also been found to contain high levels of lead. Some older primers have been found to contain from 30,000 to 600,000 mg lead per kg of primer. Soils adjacent to residences also have been found to contain high levels of lead due to the leaching of the lead as a result of the weathering of the painted surface. For instance, in a study of lead contamination in Urbana, Illinois, lead was found in concentrations up to 12,000 ppm in soil. Many other cities throughout the United States have similar problems. ------- —2— Numerous state and Federal agencies have been aware of and concerned about the problem for some time and are pursuina oroorams to identify lead poisoning and to remove lead-based - paint from residences. The Lead—Based Paint Poisoning Preven- tion Act, as amended, provides the Deoartment of Mousing and Urban Development (MUD) with authority to eliminate the hazards of lead—based paint poisoning in MUD—financed and other public residential housing. Unfortunately, the program has been hindered by the lack of a determination of whether or not lead—based paint residues (paint chios, peelinas, etc. ) should be managed and disposed of as a hazardous waste. ISSUES Currently, the question of whether or not lead paint wastes are hazardous is confused by Section 261.4 “Exclusions” of 40 CFR Part 261, Identification and t isting of Hazardous Waste . If these wastes are generated at a commercial facili y and exceed the EP toxicity limit of 5 ppm for lead, then they will be hazardous wastes. However, when the paint residues are generated at private and public residential units., the question arises as to whether the household waste exclusion applies (See 40 CFR 261.4 (b)). This provl:jon excludes household wastes from regulation as solid hastes, and therefore, as hazardous wastes. Household wastes are defined as “any material (including garbage) trash, and sar. tary wastes (in septic tanks) derived from households (including single and multiple residences , hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day recreation areas 0 )” In the pre&mble to the Federal Register notice addressing hazardous w&ste identification and listing (Vol. 49, No. 220, November 13, 1984, page 44998), EPA states that “there is rio basis for extending the household waste exclusion to waste such as debris produced during building construction, renovation, or demolition in houses or other residences, as EPA does not consider wastes from these sources to be similiar to those generated by a consumer in a home in the course of daily living.” Furthermore, in the preamble to the Final Hazardous Waste Rules, Federal Register , Vol. 45, No. 98, May 19, 1980, EPA noted that wastes generated by Federal agencies are not subject to the household exemption since they cannot qualify as households. ------- —3— Paint wastes are exempted from regulation as a hazardous waste if they are gererated at indivtdual households by the houseowner doing his own removal. On the other hand, if the removal at an individual residence is done by a contractor, the residues are solid wastes and must be evaluated with respect to their hazardousness (EP Toxicity) and must be disoosed of according to hazardous waste regulations if found to be hazardous. In cases where paint residues are regulated under Sub- title C, then commercial contractors who are performing the renovation work and who generate less than 100 kg per month of paint residues (which we believe is likely), will be a condition- ally exempt generator (Section 261.5) and their waste wi ] ]. not be subject to reaulation under Sections 262 through 266 of RCRA. We believe that only large renovation projects will exceed the 100 kg per month limitations. While paint residues may not be regulated as hazardous wastes, especially at private individual households or small housina units, information should be made available t homeowners warning them of the hazards associated with improper disposal of paint residues. Directions should be prvided regarding the prooer disposal of these wastes. In the case of a larger commercial contractor whose activi- ties result in the generation of more than 100 kg per month of waste, for instance, at a public housing renovation project, then the “hazardousness” of the waste must be determined. In the case of lead—paint wastes, the EP Leachate Test should be performed. If the leachate lead concentration exceeds 5 ppm, then the paint waste is a hazardous waste. If the residues are indeed hazardous, then the generator (removal contractor) must comply with all appropriate regulations, ( e.g. , Parts 262 Standards A licab1e to Generators of Hazardous Wastes and Part 263 Standards A licable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste) , and ‘ust send the waste to a facility that is permitted or operating under RCRA interim status. ------- —4— PROCESSES THAT MAY GENERATE HAZARDOUS WASTE There are several methods available for removing lead-based paints; however, the conventional lead paint removal techniques currently available are not totally effective and may exacerbate the lead problem by dispersing lead—containing particles throughout the residence. Newer, more effective abatement methods which may be used for lead removal include: Peel Away — This consists of a caustic paste that is covered with a plastic film (calcium, magnesium, and sodium hydroxide). This paint removal system can be used on wood, metal, stone and brick, flat and irregular surfaces. it should be noted that in a demonstration project conducted in Baltimore, waste water from the peel away process was found to have a lead content greater than 66 ppm, which was well in excess of the EP toxicity limit of 5 ppm. - • Off-Site Dipping - Wood trim, •.oodwork, and doors are stripped of paint in encloi d chemical tanks containing methylene chloride. When used for this purpose, spent methylene c lori e is a listed hazardous waste. • Hiyh Efficiency Particle Accumulator (HEPA) Sander - This is a power disk sander that attaches to a HEPA vacuum to trap debris. It is used on flat surfaces only. This method would generate a dust which could, depending upon the lead content, fail the EP Toxicity Test. • Re lacement — Removal and replacement of wood trim an o w].ndows with new materials. All, of the painted wood products from the residence should be sampled and the EP performed on the wood samples. In any of the above methods, if the extractable lead exceeds 5 ppm in the waste, then it is a hazardous waste. If the household waste exclusion does not apply then the wastes must be handled and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 262, 263, and 264, 265 and 270 as appropriate. ------- —5— CO!’ TAM INATED SOILS in addition to painted surfaces, the soils immediately adjacent to residences may have high concentrations of lead, due to the lead being leached from the exterior of the structure as the paint weathers and ages. For example, in a study of lead concentration in Urbana, Illinois, concentrations of the lead in the soil were found to range from 1.32 to 11,760 ppm ad)acent to and 240 to 6,640 ppm away from the houses. Whether or not “contaminated” soils are considered hazardous wastes depends upon whether or not they are 1) removed and transported off—site or left in place, and 2) exceed the lead toxicity limit of 5 ppm. If the contaminated soil is removed for off—site disposal, it must be evaluated against the characteristics to determine whether or not the soils are hazardous. If the soils fail the existing EP toxicity characteristic, then they must be taken to a RCRA Subtitle C facility. In the case of CERCLA sites such soils must be taken to a RCRA facility which is in compliance with CERCLA requirements for off—site disposal. (See OSWER Directive number 9834.11 “Revised Procedures for Planning and Implementing off—site Response Actions; November 13, 1987.) The reauirements for on—site treatment of lead—contaminated residential soils, which may seldom be practical, differs for CERCLA and RCRA sites. For CERCLA sites, such on—site treatment can be performed without a permit being required. However, for on—site treatment at RCRA sites, a permit is required unless treatment is performed in tanks or containers in compli- ance with Section 262.34. It should be noted that any on—site treatment must consider the requirements of the individual states in question, which may be more stringent that Federal reaui rements. In the case of soil left on site, the property owner will not normally be required to determine whether the soil is a hazardous waste. For soils that are left in place, EPA or the aopcopriate state agency should set clean—up levels that will ensure that the site will not pose a hazard when returned to normal residential use. I know that the CERCLA program often makes such determinations. For your information, described below is the procedure OSW plans to provide in the RCRA Clean Closure and RFI Guidance Manuals for determining when contaminated soils may safely be left in place and the site returned to residential use. We have had a number of discussions with your staff and we think that there is a general agreement on this approach. ------- -6— There are two approaches which should be used in making a determination if further soil removal is required. The first is to look at health—based concentration limits in surface soils; the second is an acid precipitation leach test (method 1312 in SW—846). The health-based limits should be used to determine how much contaminated soil will have to be removed. The RCRA Clean Closure and RFI guidance Manuals provide direction on the appropri- ate health—based levels to use. Excavation would terminate at the point where soil no longer exceeds the health—based concen- tration limits. At that point, method 1312 should be run on soil samples to determine the threat, if any, that might be posed by remaining residual contaminants leaching into ground water. For testing for lead, a pM of 4.2 should be used. In the absence of better numbers, the 5 ppm threshold used for the EP should be the limit for method 1312 as well. Since method 1312 is new, no data on its use is available. Once such data are available, the ppm limit may be revised. The removed soil should be tested agains- the EP after removal to see if it fails the 5 ppm limit. if so, it must be sent to a Subtitle C facility. If it does not fail, it can be sent to a Subtitle D facility. If you have any questions pertaining to the above, please do not hesitate to contact Jerry Coalgate of my staff. Attachment ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1987(29) PD! 18 r Mr. Pat O’Brien Rashid Geotechnical and Materials Engineers P.O. Box 10476 Jubail Industrial City 31961 Kingdom of Saudia Arabia Dear Mr. O’Brien: In response to your request of October 24, 1987 for an updated copy of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) I have enclosed copies of the two Federal Registers where it has appeared. The TCLP was actually created for two separate EPA rule- makings. The first rule, the Land Disposal Restrictions Program, was finalized on November 7, 1986. The TCLP was to be used in this rule to determine if a waste could be land disposal by testing it for solvents and dioxins. The second rule, the Toxicity Characteristic, was designed to determine if a waste is hazardous based on its chemical toxicity. This rule was proposed on June 13, 1986 but has not yet been promulgated and will not be finalized until late 1988. At that time, it will replace the current Extraction Procedure (EP) and wastes will then have to be tested for not only the 14 EP constituents, but for an additional 38 organic constituents as well. If you have any further questions about either of these two rulemakings, or the TCLP, please give me a call at (202) 475-6722 or write me at the following address: Ms. Gail Hansen U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid waste (WH—5628) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 United States of America Sincerely, ai1 Ann Uansen rlvironjnefltal..Np 1th Scientist methods Sect ion ------- 9443.1987(30) j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 NOV 30 OF CE SOuO WASE NO EME GENC ES?cj Mr. Phillip C. McGuire Associate Director, Law Enforcement Department of the Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Washington, D.C. 20226 Dear Mr. McGuire: Thank you for your October 14, 1987, letter regarding the disposal. of explosive materials under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We have reviewed the information you provided concerning the detonation of seized explosives that you believe would not fall under the RCRA Subtitle C program. We think, however that the Seized explosives may indeed be a solid waste from the moment a decision is made that the explosives must be destroyed and not returned to the original owners. The basis for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) opinion is that the explosives are not being used for their originally-intended purpose (e.g., demolition of a building, military use, etc.), but rather are being detonated to discard the materials. The explosives, therefore, would meet the definition of a solid waste as defined in 40 Section 261.2(a) and (b). If these explosives exhibit the characteristic of reactivity as defined in 40 C 261.23, they would be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations for storage, treatment and disposal. For example, detonation of reactive waste is considered a form of thermal treatment that is subject to Section 265.382, and shipments to the disposal site are subject to 40 CTR Parts 262 and 263. We recognize the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATT) has considerable experience in handling explosives. Your internal procedures appear to be comparable to EPA’S rules in many respects. There are, however, some differences that may need to be examined. For example, you state that the detonation areas must be at least 1,000 feet from buildings, woods, etc. EPA’S regulations (Section 265.382) require farther distances for quantities in excess of 100 lbs. ------- I woui like to suggest that EPA staff meet with your staff to discuss how to reconcile the RCRA rules as they apply to BATF detonation activities. Rulemaking efforts may be required of both agencies to resolve any inconsistencies. In order to schedule a meeting that will be mutually convenient, please contact Mike Petruska, of my staff, on 475-8551. We believe that this meeting will provide the opportunity to discuss several PO flt5 including what ruleinalcings may have to be undertaken by either agency, and what exemptions may be possible. If I can be of any further assistance , please let me know. ‘Sincerely ,J. Winston Poter ‘ ssistant Adm’ inistrator ------- 9443.1987(31) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIC M ENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. ZO4 DEC 7 I 87 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEMORAND SUBJECT: RCRA Status..of Surface Impoundments at Rockwell Internationai, Ashtabula Plant FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director i. tL — Off ice of Solid Waste I TO: Judy Kertcher, Acting Chief Solid Waste Branch (5H5-13) Region V This memorandum is in response to your August 6, 1987 inquiry, and subsequent communications between France Norling and the Characteristics Section staff, regarding the RCRA status of the surface impoundments at Rockwell International ’s Ashtabuj.a plant. Specifically, you requested assistance in determining whether the wastes managed in the impoundments exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of reactivity. As you are aware, the reactivity characteristic promulgated in the regulations is a narrative definition. In particular, the regulatio define a sulfide bearing waste as reactive when it is exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5 and can generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment. To assist the Regions and the regulated Community in interpreting this rule, the Charac- terization and Assessment Division provided interim guidance which indicated that wastes releasing more than 500 mg H 2 S/Icg waste should be considered hazardous (see enclosure). In addition to the level, a testing method was also provided. We are evaluating the reactivity of the waste in question based on this interim guid- ance. However, YOU Should note that any final decision as to the hazardousness of the waste (I. , reactivity) must be based on the regulation. See 40 dR 261.23. ------- Based upon the analytical data provided by Region V 9 the average concentration of sulfide in all the lagoons is below our guidance level of 500 mg/kg; therefore, the wastes are likely not reactive under the hazardous waste rules. The upper bound of the 90% confidence limit, however, is above the guidance level for two of the lagoons in question (lagoons 1 and 3). This suggests that the true concentration of the waste in the impoundments might be above the guidance level. Therefore, before a definitive decision can be made on the true concentration of Sulfide in the Sludge in lagoons 1. and 3, additional sampling and analysis is recommended. Should you, or Rockwell, require assistance related to the analytical methods or ample handling procedures, please contact Gail Hansen of th ds Section at FTS 475—6722. Questions regarding the rea ti- v ty characteristic in general and its applicability sho d directed to David Topping of the Characteristics Sect on at FTS 382-4798. Enclosures Cc: Gail Hansen David Topping ------- 9443. 1987 (32 DEC 1 6 Ms. Barbara E. Pace Hogan & Hartson Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004—1109 Dear Ms. Pace: This is in response to your letter of August 19, 1987, in which YOU requested an interpretation of 40 CFR Section 261.31 as t applies to the iron cake waste generated during the production of methy ldopa at a Merck and Company facility. Based on the information provided in your letter, the Agency has determined that the iron filter cake generated during the production of methylciopa does not meet the listing description of a spent .olvent waste (i . , EPA hazardous waste No. F005). The basis for our docision is discussed below. Our understanding of the process is that the iron cake is generated when iron is filtered from the product; toluene is being used for its solvent properties because it is acting as a caz-rier for the product. Next, the toluene is reclaimed for reuse in the sante process. With regard to the iron filter cake, the preamble and the background document to the rule state that the Agency did not intend to include Within the scope of this regulation process wastes that are contaminated with solvent (see Hazardous Waste Listing BD, p.81 May 1980; letter from Steve Silverman to Michael Rodbury, December 16, 1982). The iron filter cake resulting from the production of methyldopa at the Merck facility is a process residual that is Contaminated with the toluene solvent. The filter cake, therefore, would not be EPA hazardous waste No. F005. Please advise your client of our interpretation and make them aware that as a generator of this type waste, they are responsible for determining whether the filter cake exhibits any RCRA hazardous characteristics corrosivity, toxicity, reactivity, or ignitability (see 40 CTR 261.21—24]). Also, you should investigate whether this waste is regulated by the state, which may have more T i i& f 1 1 t c ‘ cQntainina CERCT3 ------- Our determination is based on the information provided in your letter and any deviations to the described process could result in different interpretation. If you wish to discuss this matter in further detail, please call Yvonne Garbe at (202) 475—6679. Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste ------- 9443.1987(33) UNITED STATES ENVIRONM’t,4TAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEC 3 I Ms. Joanna CoJe £460 Singleton Rlvd. tallas, TX 75212 Dear Ms. Col.: As mentioned in our telephone conversation of Decenber 16, 1987 regardlna the difficulty of analyzing for chlorinated COlIflOUfldS in the leachate from your waste samples, I would succ est that you 1o the following. Perform a total constituent analysis of the waste Itself using SW—846 methods and assume that all of the compounds leech from the waste. It the quidance levels of the compounds are not exceeded assumIng 100% leaching, then no further analysis or testing is reautred. To determIne 100% leachabllftY , the following calculation may be performed on the cor pound8 found in the total analysis: maximum theoretical concentration of compound extract concentration in waste (mg/kg ) (mg/L) 20 ‘ liquid to solid ratio in the TCLP If the maximum theoretical extract concentration Is exceeded, then the waste should be considered hazardous. If you have any further guestions. please give me a call at (202) 475—6722. Sincerely yours, Gail Ann HanSen Environmental Health Scientist Methods Section (WR—5628) ------- 9443.1988(01) January 4, 1988 Ms. Teresa Fort Vice President Environmental Options, Inc. Post Office Box 4132 Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dear Ms. Fort: This letter responds to your inquiry of November 23, 1987, requesting a written statement clarifying the regulatory status of waste generated by skimming off a toluene—containing paint product floating on water which is the overspray trapped by a waterfall when wood pieces are painted. The waste has a flashpoint below 140°F. The spent solvent listings (i.e., EPA Hazardous Waste No. FOOl, F002, F003, F004, and F005) cover wastes generated from solvents which were used for their “solvent” properties, namely, to solubilize or mobilize other constituents, and which cannot be reused unless regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed. The listings do not cover manufacturing process wastes contaminated with solvents that were used as reactants or ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical products. Hence, waste solvent—based paints are not within the scope of the F001—F005 spent solvent listings because the solvents are ingredients in the paints. Therefore, your ignitable hazardous waste, having EPA Hazardous Waste No. DOOl, is not subject to the requirements of the land disposal restrictions final rule (51 FR 40572), November 7, 1986) which is applicable to the spent solvent listings. If you have any further questions, you can call me at (202) 382—4770. Sincerely, Stephen R. Well, Chief Land Disposal Restrictions Branch RETYPED FROM THE ORIGINAL 7190E—AL ------- 9443.198802) Dr. Stephen W. Wunderly Senior Chemist Beckman Instruments, Inc Fullerton, CA 92634—3100 Dear Dr. Wunderly: This letter is in response to your letter of December 4, 1987, requesting an interpretation of the regulatory status of your liquid scintillation cocktail solution product, Ready Safe, under the hazardous waste regulations. Under EPA’s hazardous waste regulations, a waste is considered to be hazardous if it is listed specifically under 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, or if it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic under Part 261, Subpart C. The four hazardous waste characteristics are ignitabj]ity, corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity for certain metals and pesticides. Section 261.33 contains a list of products that become hazardous wastes when discarded. Based on the information you provided, the product you describe does not meet any of the listings under Part 261 Subpart D or to exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics under Part 261 Subpart C. Radioactivity is not presently included under the RCRA hazardous waste characteristics or listing criteria. Therefore, your liquid Scintillation cocktail product when discarded (or intended for discard) does not appear to meet the definition of a RCRA hazardous waste. Some State and local authorities, however, do regulate radioactive materials as hazardous wastes. Therefore, your customers should contact their State and local authorities for further information on proper disposal of radioactive materials. ------- 9443. 1988( 03) W4R 22 1988 Steve Simpson Chief Process Engineer Associated Technologies, Incorporated 212 South Tyron Street, Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28281 Dear Mr. Simpson: This letter is in response to your January 25 letter to Marcia Williams regarding the regulatory status of asphalt materials used at Associated Technologies, Incorporated. Specifically, you requested a determination as to whether the asphalt is a hazardous waste. If the asphalt were to be used as a commodity, e.g., for paving roads, then it would not be regulated under the hazardous waste regulations. However, since the asphalt is disposed (buried in a trench) it is a solid waste. In the RCRA program, wastes are defined as hazardous if they: (1) are included on the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Subpart D of 40 CFR P&rt 261 or are derived from, or are mixtures containing, such wastes; or (2) exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics described in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261 ( i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity). The descriptions and analytical data you provided for the asphalt materials (AC—20 and Type I) indicates that they do not appear to be hazardous wastes. However, the descriptions and analytical data you provided appear to relate to the asphalt materials only, rather than the mixture of the asphalt materials and the concentrate from the film evaporator. Thus, if any of the wastes that contribute to the concentrate are listed wastes, or if the asphalt/concentrate mixture exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics, the mixture would be a hazardous waste. ------- —2 Please note that the interpretation is based upon the information contained in your January 25 letter and reflects current Federal regulations. Since State and local regulations may differ, you are encouraged to contact these authorities to ensure that you are aware of all applicable regulations. Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation, please contact David Topping of the Waste Characterization Branch at (202) 382-7737. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste CC: Emily Roth David Topping Dr. Malcolm Knapp U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ------- 9443.1988 (04) • iIO S7 I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 L CRO1 March 14, I 988 OF ICEOF SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE Dr. Jeffrey Mirsky, President National Diagnostics 1013-1017 Kennedy Boulevard Manville, NJ 09935 Dear Mr. Mirsky: This is in response to your letter to Mr. Matthew Straus dated February 4, 1988, in which you request an interpretation of the regulatory status of Ecoscint A and Ecoscint 0 under the Federal hazardous waste rules. My staff has reviewed the data on the two Ecoscint formulations that you enclosed with your letter dated February 4, 1988. Neither Ecoscint A nor Ecoscint o is listed under 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32, or 261.33. However, a waste may still be hazardous if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity) as described in 40 CFR 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, or 261.24. The data you enclosed indicates that neither product is EP toxic and, based on their flashpoints, neither product is ignitable. There is, however, insufficient data provided to make a determination on whether the products are corrosive or reactive. Therefore, if you wish to dispose of these formulations as non-hazardous wastes, you must first determine that they do not satisfy any of the criteria for corrosivity (see section 261.22) or reactivity (see section 261.23). In addition, any State in which you generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of these formulations may have regulations that are more stringent than the Federal hazardous waste rules., You., therefore, should check with the State agencies ta ,deterznine what regulations, if any, apply to handling w t Ecoscint A and ECOSC1nt 0. ------- —2— If you have any further questions, please Contact Wanda LeBleu-Biswas at (202) 382-7392. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste ------- 9443.1988(05) Sr 4 , UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEN. L PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. DC. 20460 MAY -2 1988 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. G. R. Boulden LadiSh Co., Inc. Kentucky Plant Cynthiafla , KY 41031 Dear Mr. Boulden: This letter IS in response to your telephone conversation with, and March 1, 1988 letter to, David Topping of my staff. Specifically, you have requested an interpretation as to the applica1 i1itY of certain hazardous waste definitions and regulations. As you are aware, wastes are considered hazardouS if they either (1) are listed Ifl the lists of hazardous wastes described in Sections 261.31 through 261.33; or (2) exhibit any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste described in Sections 261.21 through 261.24. For purposes of clarity, it should be noted that the wastes you describe do not meet the first criterion. That is, since the plant’s sic code is not 331 or 332, the wastes do not meet the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062, which appears to be the only listing that applies tO pickling operations. Therefore, the wastes would only be considered hazardous if they exhibit one of the characteristics or are mixed with another waste that is listed. The responses to your specific questiOnS follow: 1. Is the spent pickle liquor a hazardous waste if it corrodes 1020 steel at a rate of .. 0.25 inches/Year? Yes. This IS the definition of a corrosive liquid waste as described at Section 26l.22(a)(2). 2. Is the sludge from the bottom of the pickle tank a hazardous waste if its pH 2? Yes. This iS the definition of a corrosive aqueous waste as described at Section 26l.22(a)(1). ------- —2— 3. Does paragraPh 264.314 apply tO the dewatered lime neutralized pickle sludge that is taken tO the local landfill? No. Part 264 applies tO hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal units. To the extent that the “local landfill” is not a hazardous waste facility. Section 264.314 is not applicable. 4. In regards to the wastes discussed above, what if any, regulatory requirements does the EPA have? Since it is not clear whether the wasteStrealflS of the Kentucky Plant do or do not exhibit the characteristics described above, a general answer to this question cannot be provided. It is suggested that you direct this questiOn to our Regional Office at the following address: U.S. EPA Region IV 345 Courtland Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30365 Attn: james H. carbrOugh Residuals Management Branch Also, please note that State regulations may differ from Federal regulatiOnS. since the Regional EPA offices deal more directly with the States, they are better able to provide the information you desire. Should OU have any questiOnS regarding this response, feel free tO contact David Topping of my staff at (202) 382-7737. Sincerely, DevereaU X Barnes, Director characterization and Assessment DiviSiOn ------- 944 3.1988(06) May 31, 1988 Mr. R. Wade Knight U.S. E.P.A. Region IV College Statiorp. Road Athens, Georgia 30613 Dear Wade: We have reviewed the data package submitted by Joseph Stewart of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in support of his petition to use the SOXTEC extraction system, in place of the - conventional Soxhiet extraction system (Method 3540), for preparation of PCB samples for Method 8080 at ORNL. The PCB data generated from split samples, run concurrently, using the conventional Soxhiet and the SOXTEC extraction techniques for sample preparation, shows that these preparative techniques are equivalent, within allowable standard deviation limits. These data also demonstrate that Method 8080, utilizing either extraction technique, is appropriate for the analysis of PCB’s in soil and clay matrices at the low ppm level. The SOXTEC system actually proved to be the superior technique when time constraints were considered, taking only 2 hours for sample preparation vs. 17 hours for Soxh] .et. From the submitted information, we believe that ORNL has demonstrated the equivalency of the Soxhiet and SOXTEC extraction procedures for generating PCB data, and their petition to use the SOXTEC extraction system for preparation of PCB samples in place of the Soxhiet method (Method 3540) should be granted. Furthermore, we in the RCRA program, with support from Superfund, are in the process of using this ORNL data to develop a general extraction procedure for SW-846 using the SOXTEC apparatus. ------- —2— We are in process of assembling samples to be split for a Inultilaboratory validation study of the SOXTEC extraction procedure for PCB’s. This will be followed by a program to expand the utility of this technique into a general SW-846 method with a scope equivalent to that of Method 3540. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please call Barry Lesnik at FTS 382-4761. Sincerely yours, David Friedman, Chief OSW-Methods Section (WH—5628) cc: Barry Lesnjk ------- 9443.1988(07) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 L 2 OFFICE OF — SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Classification of Discarded Class C Explosives FROM: Sonya M. Stelmack, Acting Chief Alternative Technology and Support tion TO: Incinerator Permit Writers’ Workgroup our section has recently received several inquiries regarding whether Class C explosives intended for disposal are classified as Subtitle C hazardous wastes. Since it is apparent that confusion exists, I would like to clarify this issue. To date, only those Class C explosives identified as off-specification small arms ball ammunition up to and including 0.50 caliber have been demonstrated not to be subject to the Subtitle C hazardous waste requir 1uents. The Office of Solid Waste concluded that these materials are not “reactive” within the meaning of 40 CFR 26l.23(a (6) based on information provided by Remington Arms Compan’j and thG Army (see attached memorandtim). Furthermore, in a letter from Marcia Williams to J. Carricato of DOD (also attached) it was emphazised that the OSW determination only applied to the ball ammunitions since other ammunition types of similar caliber may be subject to RCRA. For the remaining Class C explosive wastes, as for any other solid waste not listed in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D, the generator must determine whether his particular waste exhibits the reactivity or other characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C. We viii be working with the Army on the Class C explosi issue as it relates to popping furnaces. If you have any questions on the Class C explosives issue, please contact Lionel Vega at FTS 475-8988. Attachments cc: Bruce Wedd].e Elizabeth Cotsvorth Lionel Vega David Friedman Major Jessie Cabellon ------- 9443.1988(07) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 L 2 ‘2 OFFICE OF — SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Classification of Discarded Class c Explosives FROM: Sonya M. Stelmack, Acting Chief Alternative Technology and Support .1ttion — TO: Incinerator Permit Writers’ Workgroup Our section has recently received several inquiries regarding whether Class C explosives intended for disposal are classified as Subtitle c hazardous wastes. Since it is apparent that confusion exists, i would like to clarify this issue. To date, only those Class C explosives identified as off—specification small arms ball ammunition up to and including 0.50 caliber have been demonstrated not to be subject to the Subtitle C hazardous waste requiremen s The Office of Solid Waste concluded that these materials are not “reactive” within the meaning of 40 CFR 2 6l.23(a (6) base d on information provided by Remington Arms Compan7 and the Army (see attached memorandum). Furthermore, in a letter from Marcia Williams to J. Carrjcato of DOD (also attached) it was emphaziged that the OSW determination only applied to the ball ammunitions since other ammunition types of similar caliber may be subject to RCRA. For the remaining Class C explosive wastes, as for any other solid waste not listed in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D, the generator must determine whether his particular waste exhibits the reactivity or other characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C. We viii be working with the Army on the Class C explosj issue as it relates to popping furnaces. If you have any questions on the Class C explosives issue, please contact Lionel Vega at FTS 475-8988. Attachments cc: Bruce Weddle Elizabeth Cotsworth Lionel Vega David Friedman Major Jessie Cabellon ------- 9443.1988(08) r1/ ‘i/a’ MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Ignitability Characteristic FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director Office of Solid Waste (05—300) TO: William E. Muno, Acting Associate Director Waste Management Division (5HS-13) I am responding to your request for clarification of the phrase “under standard temperature and pressure” as used in the ignitability characteristiC (40 CFR 261.21). The phrase rcf rs to the conditions used to determine whether the waste is a liquid or a solid. Wastes are evaluated at standard temperature (20 C/68 F) and pressure (1 atm) and, if not a liquid unthr these conditions are not subject to the flash point crite .ia of 261.21(a) (1). Based on the information in your memorandum, Chevron’s polystyrene production distillation still bottom tar wou cc. not be a liquid within the meaning of the ignitability characteristic and therefore only evaluated against the criteria of 261.21(a) (2). If you have any further questions, please contact David rriedman of my staff at (FTS) 382—4761. ------- 9443.1988( 9) SEP 91988 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Use of the LD5O in the Office of Solid Waste FROM: Priscilla Halloran Health Assessment Section (OS—331) T} U: Stephanie Irene, Chief Health Assessment Section (OS—331) TO: Garet Lahvis Science Applications International Corporation In response to your inquiry about the Office of Solid Waste’s use of the LD5O, these values are used as one of the criteria for listing hazardous wastes. Specifically, it is used to designate any Acutely Hazardous Waste. The LD5O value is used unchanged, i.e. there is no extrapolation to humans. “...in the absence of data on human toxicity, it has been shown in studies to have an oral LD5O toxicity (rat) of less than 50 milligrams per kilogram, an inhalation LC5O toxicity (rat) of less than 2 milligrams per liter, or a dermal LD5O toxicity (rabbit) of less than 200 milligrams per kilogram...(Waste listed in accordance with these criteria will be designated Acute Hazardous Waste) . CFR 40 Part 261.11 (a)(2) The Office of Solid Waste generally evaluates the chronic hazards, systemic and/or carcinogenic, of the constituents of concern in its various regulatory activities. ------- 9443.1988(10) SEP I3 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 8, 1988 SUBJECT: Definition of Reactive Waste - Explosivity FROM: David’Friedman, Chief Methods Section, (OS-33l) TO: Sonya Stelmack, Assistance Brar, h, (OS-343) As ‘ou requested, I have reviewed the testing protocols and classification criteria used by the Department of Defense in evaluating the explosivity of material. (Army TB 700-2, Navy NAVSEAINST 8020.8, Air Force TO 11A—1—47, DLA DLAR 8220.1). It is my judgement that the only materials that would exhibit the reactivity characteristic (40 CFR 261.23), due to their potential explosivity, are those that fall into Department of Defense Hazard Classes 1.1, 1.2, and 13. Materials rated as Class 1.4 would, therefore, not be an explosive within the meaning of the reactivity characteristic. cc: Suzanne Rudzinskj Reva Rubenstejn Robert Dellinger ------- 9443 . 1988 (1 1) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEC 6 988 ! ORANDUI4 SUBJECT: Regulatory Status of Solvent-Contaminated Wastestreazns from a Pharmaceutical Manufacturer FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director Characterization and Assessment Division (05-330) TO: Arthur Moretta, UIC Control Program Water Division, Region V (5WD-TUB—9) This nemorandum is in resoonse to your request fcr etermina .on ot t1 e regulatory status of aqueous a3testreams generated at an Upjohn Company pharmaceutical facility in Kalamazoo, MI. All answers are based on our best understanding of the process flowsheets whiCh you sent and the information which you provided over the telephone to my Staff. The spent solvent listings cover those streams that are used to solubilize or mobilize other constituents (e.a., for degreasing or fabric scouring, as diluents, extractants, reaction and synthesis media, and similar uses) and through such use, have become contaminated to the extent that they must be reclaimed prior to further use or reuse. See 50 53315, December 31, 1985. Use as a reactant or an ingredient in the manufacture or formulation of a coi wiercial chemical product is not classified as a solvent use for the purpose of the RCRA hazardous waste listings 1001 — F005. Therefore, spent materials from these “non-solvent’ uses do not meet the listing descriptions for spent solvents. Also, process wastes that become contaminated with small amounts of solvents during processing are not within the scope of the spent solvent listings. An example of this is an aqueous effluent from a liquid-liquid extraction step, in which a solvent has been used to extract a product from the water and the water becomes contaminated with small amounts of solvent. In this example, the solvent is removed with the product and the solvent-contaminated water is not a spent ------- —2— Based on our review of the data submitted, we have made the following determinations: o All streams being sent to disposal wells from the acetone, methanol, and methylene chloride recovery processes (pp. A, B, C, and D) either meet the listing description for spent solvents or are residuals derived from the treatment of spent solvents and therefore should be designated as an EPA hazardous waste (FOOl - F005). o Those aqueous streams which result from liquid—liquid extraction steps involving solvents are Considered process wastestreams and as such, do not meet the listing description for spent solvent streams (see above). o Filter press effluents such as the one exiting the unit designated “ST-ho” (p. 2—1) are Considered spent solvent streams because they consist of a solvent that was used as a carrier for the product in the filtration step. However, filter press effluents, such as the one exiting the filter d siqnated “VT-” (p. -2) are pr3cess wastewater streams, not spent solvent streams, because water was introduced into the production process as the carrier for the product in filtration. In this configuration, the solvent was removed prior to filtration; the small quantity of solvent remaining in the system does not render the wastevater filter press effluent a spent solvent. o Rinse wastewaters, such as those from product or equipment rinsing steps (pp. 1-3, 2-1) are not considered spent solvents because they are process streams which may have become contaminated with organic Solvents. Although a particular waste stream may not meet the listing description for spent solvents, it may be hazardous if exhibits one or more of the hazardous characteristics described in 40 CFR 261.20—261,24. Certain states may also have special restrictions on the disposal of solvent-contaminated wastestreams. - Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Ron Josephson at FTS 475—6715. Attachments cc: Eric Callisto, OW/ODW (WH-550) ------- 9443.1989(01) FILE COPY JAN 2 7 989 Ms. Karen Heyob Environmental Engineer 0 M Scott & Sons Marysville, OH 43041 Dear Ms. Heyob: This letter will clarify our telephone conversation, and your follow up letter, with respect to use of total concentration to demonstrate that a waste does not exhibit the characteristic of Extraction Procedure Toxicity. The evaluation to be performed is as follows: 1. Determine the concentration of the analyte of concern in the waste expressed in g/lOOg (A). 2. Determine the waste’s percent liquid (B). 3. Calculate the maximum theoretical extract concentration, in mg/L, (MTEC) using the formula. MTEC = ( A [ B + (20) (100—B)] 4. If MTEC is below the Extraction Procedure Toxicity characteristic regulatory level, then the waste does not exhibit the characteristic. If MTEC is above the regulatory level, then one would have to run the test to show that the waste is non-hazardous. Sincerely yours, David Friedman Chief, Methods Section cc: Gary Daugherty Manager, Environmental Engineering 0 M Scott & Sons Rebecca Strom EPA, Region V ------- LIUTED STATES ENYIRI*IENYAL PQOTECflO$ AGENCY 9443.1989(02) Mr. John P. Stockli White, Osterman, and Hanna One Commerce Plaza Mbany, NY 12260 Dear Mr. Stockli: This is in response to your letter of March 27, 1989, in which you asked about the regulatory status of waste solvent- based glue. Specifically, you wished to biow whether or not the F-listings (40 CFR 261.31) apply to characterization of waste dried or non-solidified glue. The spent solvent waste codes (FOOl - F005) apply only to solvents that are used for their solvent properties. See 50 53316 (December 31, 1985). These listings do not apply t solvent-containing products that may become wastes if the solvents are ingredients, such as for paint or glue. However, the waste glue could meet one of the hazardous waste characteristics, especially if it is in the non—solidified form. (See 40 CFR 261.20 — 261.24.) The generator is responsible for ascertaining whether the waste exhibits one or more of thes • hazardous characteristics. In addition, the generator should review state regulations, which may be more stringent than Federal regulations. Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at (202)475—6715. Sincerely, Devereaux Barnes Director Characterization and Assessment Division ------- 43.1989O3) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 APR 20 I98 OF CE OF SOuO WASE AND EMEP E’ CV ESPONS Ms. Lenore H. Schupak Director, Environmental Technology American Standard, Inc. 40 West 40th St. New York, NY 10018 Dear Ms. Schupak: This letter is in response to your March 7, 1989, letter regarding the proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for barium in drinking water. In addition to your support for the proposed MCLG, you suggested that the EP Toxicity level for barium (Table 1 in 40 CFR 261.24) be revised immediately upon any change to the McL. The EP Toxicity levels are based upon the constituents’ expected fate and transport as well as their MCLs. Currently, the estimated fate and transport processes are represented by a factor of 100. That is, the EP Toxicity levels are equal to 100 times the MCLS. The Agency is currently re-evaluating the fate and transport of the EP constituents to determine whether the 100 factor is an appropriate estimate of these processes. Since this factor may change, it is not resent1y clear whether a change in the regulatory level (which depends upon both this factor and the MCL) would be appropriate. Therefore, needed changes to the EP regulatory levels (resulting from changes in either or both of these values) will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and any warranted changes to the regulatory levels will be proposed as modifications to 40 CFR 261.24. Should you have any further questions on this issue, feel free to contact Reva Rubenstein, Chief of the Characteristics Section, at (202) 382—4798. Sincerel Director ffice of Solid Waste ------- 9443.1989(04) UNITED STATES rn4v1RONMEsTAL. PROTECTION AGENC Honorable Lloyd H. Bentsen United States Senator 961 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Senator Bentsen: Thank you for your April 24, 1989, letter regarding Hol]is E. Ervin’s concerns about the March 14, 1989, court opinion supporting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of the regulatory status of contaminated environmental media (such as soil and ground water). EPA believes that a hazardous waste does not necessarily lose its hazardous characteristic when it is combined with an environmental medium, and that, unless demonstrated otherwise, the contaminated medium shou).d be marn’ged as a hazardous waste because it contains ha ardo is waste. (The environmental medium itself is not & haza’rc1ou waste.) To consider contaminated media a i:ewly generated wastes for purposes of determining whether they are hazardous could be an incentive for the purposeful contamination of environmental media vith hazardous waste in an effort to avoid regulations otherwise applicable. EPA has established a process under which persons may petition the Agency to have their waste removed from regulatory control on a case-by-case basis (sometimes called “delisting”). Under this process, EPA evaluates the waste in question and determines whether it needs to be regulated as a hazardous waste. In addition, EPA is currently examining ways to streamline this process - e.g., setting de minimis levels of contaminants which, when met, would allow for the management of wastes outside the structure of the hazardous waste regulations. As found by the D.C. Court of Appeals, the “contained in” rule has been a consistent and reasonable interpretation since the promulgation of the applicable regulations in 1980. To change an established regulatory interpretation, the Agency is required to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment (i • e •, regulatory interpretations cannot be changed at the “whim” of EPA). ------- MITID STATIS I RONMINTAL PROTEC1 iON AGENCY Thank for your interest in the hazardous waste program. I can be of further assistance to you, please feel free to call me, or have your staff contact Bob Dellinger at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Sylvia K. Lovrance, Director Office of Solid Waste 0S305/DELLINGER/T. M MANUS - 382-4646/CSH/5—16-89/ CONTROL #AL892 146/DUE DATE: 5-19—89/DISK #23/NAME:BENTSEN ------- p443 . 19 89 ( 07 JtI lroI 9 Laura Be. Regu1ato - St UsPCI Suite 400 South 2000 Classen Center Building Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73106 Dear Ms. Belcien: This is in response to your letter of May 12, 1989 to Joshua Sarnoff of the Office of General Counsel. You requested that EPA clarify an April 1987 Hotline report on 1,1,1—trichioroethane (TCA) contained in a sand-metal-solvent mixture, created from degreasjng metal parts in TCA, grinding the parts, and filtering the cooling fluids. EPA continues to believe that this waste stream does not meet the FOOl listing description. The sand-metal-solvent mixture is a process waste st.re m contaminated with solvent, not a spent solvent waste or mixture of wastes with spent solvents. The Agency clarified thc scope of the spent solvent listings on December 31, 1985 (50 and clearly indicated that listed spent solvent wastes d’ i,ot include such process wastes. Further, unless these pro wastes are characteristically hazardous (see 40 (TR 261 2 - 261.24), the waste minimization certification of RCR. Section 3002(b) does not apply. Please be aware that state may have more stringent hazardous waste regulations. Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotl$.ne at (800)424—9346. Sincerely, Devereaux Barnes Director Characterization and Assessment Division ------- 9443.1989( 08) Si , - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ______ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 I P gO1 . OIH989 OSC’CE O SOL’O WASE . NO MEPCENCV ESPO’ SE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Clarification of RCRA Authorities Regarding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredge 1 S ’l4iments FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Direc q(r / Off ice of Solid Waste (OS- / TO: Basil G. Constantelos, Director Waste Management Division Region V This memorandum responds to your May 30, 1989, request for clarification concernig& RCRA authorities to re9ulate dredged sediments that exhibit one of more characteristics of a hazardous waste. As you st ted EPA ’s policy regarding such materials is defined in the January 2 , 1986, memorandum from Marcia Williams to David Stringham. However, the U.S. Army CorVs of Engineers (USACOE) published a Federal Register notice on April 26, 1988 (53 FR 14902), in which USACOE concluded that dredged materials are not solid waste aM, therefore, not subject to RCRA. These contradictor r statutory interpretations and policies have caused confusion in properly implementing RCRA authorities over dredged sediments. The Agency’s policy regarding the applicability of RCRA to dredged sediments remains unchanged from the January 23, 1986, memorandujn. The pertinent points of this policy are: 1) point source discharges subject to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are exempt from RCRA, 2) hazardous wastes dumped into surface water in a manner that does not trigger Section 402 of the CWA subject to R RA regulation, as well as any sediments that are contaminated by such discharges (under the contained-in rule), and 3) in cases where the pollutants discharged into surface water are not subject to RCRA, sediments would be regulated_wider Subtitle C of RCRA only when they are dredged from the surface waters and only if they exhibit one or more characteriticg of hazardous wastes. The Office of Solid Waste and the Office of General Counsf]. are currently evaluating the best approach to take in addressing USACOE’s April 26, 1988, Federal Register notice. I agree that a definitive statement of RCRA authorities over dredge sediments is needed to clarity the regulatory requirements. Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. Should you have any questions, your staff should contact Mitch Ki.dwell, of my staff, at FTS 475—8551. ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443 • 198 9(oBa) Mr. Travis P. Wagner OCT 5 1989 Labat-Anderson Incorporated 2200 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22201 Dear Mr. Wagner: - I am writing in response to your letter requesting written clarification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) definition of a liquid as it applies to ignitable and corrosive wastes. There are three RCRA definitions which include the term “liquid”. The definitions vary depending on the specific regulatory application. For hazardous waste identification by means of the three relevant characteristics (Ignitability, Corrosivity or Extraction Procedure Toxicity), the general term liquid applies. “Liquid” is defined as the material (liquid phase) that is expressed from the waste in Step 2 of Method 1310 (the Extraction Procedure). As Mr. Friedman indicated, only those wastes that contain a liquid component are subject to testing against the flash point criteria of Section 261.21. Therefore, if a waste does not yield a liquid phase when subjected to Method 1310, it cannot be an ignitable waste under the criteria of Section 261.21(a) (1). Similarly, Section 261.22(a) (2) states that a liquid waste is a corrosive waste if it exhibits a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5. If a waste does not yield a liquid when subjected to Method 1310, it is not evaluated against this criteria and is not a corrosive waste. A second definition of liquids which is applied to determine whether a drummed waste is prohibited from land disposal because it contains “free liquid”, is found in Method 9095 (the Paint Filter Test). If any material drips from the filter during the test, the waste is deemed to contain “free liquid” and is banned from land disposal. SJ D AT — COKCURUNCfS .ME E o 3;, O - I ••• p a.r &.P” ‘° 5I%l ot 19 I c’S—330 I C D ..I c .....3 .%...O.. I J419b0 I $O 4I ...._ •....I... .flS•S . S... ... e...s•s..• •.•••• a OFFICI .........e . .. . .s ..•S AL FILE COPY EPA Fore 320.1 02.70) ------- Many people have used the Paint Filter Test to evaluate wastes for ignitability or corrosivity. This is done to save time and effort. Since liquids that separate out of the waste using Method 9095 are generally also liquids using Method 1310 wastes that contain ignitable or corrosive liquids using Method 9095 can generally be considered to be ignitable or corrosive wastes. The third definition of liquids was developed when the 1984 amendments to RCRA prohibited the use of adsorbents to solidify liquid wastes if the adsorbents would release the contained liquids under landfill pressures. Prohibited adsorbents are those that contain “releasable liquids”. While the Agency has not yet promulgated a specific test procedure for defining when a waste contains “releasable liquid”, a draft procedure has been developed and proposed — Method 9096 (the Liquid Release Test). I trust that this explanation clarifies the RCRA definitions. Please contact us if you need further assistance. Sincerely, Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste ------- 9443.1989( 09) UN STATES EHVIROHUENTAL PROTEC’ N AGENCY NOV I 7 1989 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Waste that Exhibits Two Characteristics FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director Characterization and Assessment Division TO: Conrad Simon, Director Air and Waste Management Division This is in response to the October 23, 1989, letter from Christine McCulloch to Steve Cochran, and follows up on my memo of September 28, 1989 to you regarding Fisher Scientific. Apparently Fisher generates a nitric acid waste that is both an oxidizer (which makes it ignitable under RCRA rules) and is corrosive. If this is the case, then this waste is both DOOl and D002. EPA Federal regulations do not require a generator to place waste codes on the manifest, but the waste must be managed in compliance with all special requirements for ignitable (e.g., 264.17) and corrosive waste. Please feel free to give me a call at 8—382—4637 •if you have any further question. 11111111!!!!! 11! 1 1111!!!!! 1111! 11111! 1111!!! 111!1111! 11111111!!!!!! cc: Christine McCulloch, Region II (Fax 264-4359) bcc: Steve Cochran Hoti inc ------- 9443.1989(10) UNITED STATES EI4VIRO*WERTAL PRumcriOR AGENCY RILE COpy December 13, 1989 Mr. William Berning CC Johnson & Malhotra, P.C. Suite 215 215 Union Boulevard La3cewood, Co 80228 Dear Mr. Berning: I am writing in response to your letter requesting clarification regarding when it is necessary to digest EP (Method 1310) and TCLP (Method 1311) extracts prior to metals analysis. The Extraction Pr cedure Toxicity Characteristic (40 CFR 261.24) states that a waste is a hazardous waste if the extract of the waste contains any of the listed constituents above the indicated regulatory levels. Method 1310 and 1311 extracts should be digested prior to metals analysis for several reasons. The two most important ones being: 1) Extracts often consist of a mixture of phases. Unless the extract is digested prior to the determinative step all of the metallic species may not be in a form which gives an accurate detector response (e.g., ICP or AA). 2) During cold storage of Method 1310 extracts, it has been reported that precipitation sometimes occurs. Unless the extracts are digested prior to the determinative step, any metal that precipitates would not be counted and this would lead to an underestimation of extract concentration and a potentially incorrect hazard classification. ------- —2— The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations hold the regulated individual responsible for accurately characterizing the properties of the wastes. Some wastes may yield extracts which do not require digestion to yield accurate concentration results. However, persons who analyze Method 1310 or 1311 extracts without prior digestion of the extracts, and who therefore incorrectly characterize their waste would be deemed not to have made a good faith effort to characterize their waste. Zn fact, Step 8.14 of Method 1311 (40 CFR 268, Appendix I) specifically states that, “TCLP extracts to be analyzed for metals, other than mercury, shall be acid digested.” I hope that the above answers your questions. Sincerely, David Friedman Chief, Methods Section Office of Solid Waste (OS-331) ------- 9443.1990(01) UNITED $TATESERVI ONMEYITIL PRb’r tYIO1l A EkC?’ James W. Poirier t ILt COp Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton 1752 N St., NW Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Poirier: I am writing in response to your letter of December 1, 1989 regarding the igriitability characteristic. The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) currently has two test protocols for determining the ignitability of a liquid - the Perisky-Martens Closed Cup (SW—846 Method 1010) and the Setaflash Closed Cup (SW-846 Method 1020). These methods are for liquids only and do not establish that a solid possesses the ignitable characteristic. For solids, there is only a narrative definition set forth in the regulation itself: “It is not a liquid and is capable, under standard temperature and pressure, of causing fire through friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous chemical changes and when ignited, burns so vigorously and persistently that it creates a hazard.” The OSW has been conducting work to develop test methods for ignitable solids. A method has been developed but has not been evaluated and no decision has been made on the appropriate regulatory thresholds. Presently, other priorities have resulted in the work being put on hold. If you have any further questions, please contact Gail Hansen of my staff at (202) 475—6722. Sincerely yours, Devereaux Earnes Director, Characterization and Assessment Division cc: Alec McBride David Friedman Gail Hansen Ann Ryan ------- UNiTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1991(01) SEP 6 1991 Ms. DeAnna N. Senegal AnalytiKEM Inc. 2925 Richmond Avenue Houston, TX 77098 Dear Ms. Senegal, I am writing in response to your letter of June 28, 1991 requesting clarification on the determination of the ignitability characteristic. The characteristic, as defined in 40 CFR S261.2l, is applicable to both solid and liquid wastes; however, test methods are currently not available for solid waste. Because standardized, approved methods are not available, the characteristic determination for solids (e.g., determining whether solids will cause vigorous and persistent fires through friction, absorption of moisture, or spontaneous chemical changes, as listed in the regulations) has to depend upon knowledge of the waste stream, as noted in 40 CFR bI.’°( )( )(; ) ‘-s- Gl. 2(a) (2)1. -i- ) and S262.ll(c) (2). Waste analyses of solid materials may be helpful for determining if any of the detectable compounds are known to be ignitable. Please note that meeting any (not all) of the properties specified in the definition of ignitability qualifies a waste as characteristically ignitable. There are no specific definitions of “liquid” ( i.e. , 5%, 10%) in the ASTM method D-93 (Standard Test Method for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Tester) but the types of materials that may be tested are specified in the method as “fuel oils, lube oils, suspensions of solids, liquids that tend to form a surface film under test conditions, and other liquids of similar vis- cosities”. You are correct to note that results obtained from applying the test outside of the specifications ( e.a. , paddle does not turn freely) do not provide proof for a characteristic determination. However, if you are assured that the paddle moves freely, then you may accept the determined flashpoint as reliable. i r ppjn.jj pa n.i.i iii y enat useu int rcnan — ealb 2 ’ 4 J ’eL a4h..point.. 4s ..used..asl .an..indichtor..oi. ------- ignitability. As stated in the 1990 D—93 method, “flash point measures tendency of the sample to form a flammable mixture with air under controlled laboratory conditions. It is only one of a number of properties which must be considered in assessing the overall flammability hazard of a material”. Regarding your question about how the results should appear to clients if the procedures are not followed as written, specific notations according to any deviation from the method should be cited in the client’s report. If you have any further questions, please call me at (202) 260—4761. Sincerely yours, Gail Hansen Chief, Methods Section (OS—33 1) cc: Alec McBride Dave Topping John Austin David Bussard Mark Badalamente, OGC RCRA/ Superfund Hot line MICE Line ------- 9443.1991(02) Rc RA/SUPKRFUND ROTLINE MONThLY SUMMARY NOV 1991 3. Removal of ToxIcity CharacterIstic Wastes from a Surface Impoundment A generator produced a solid wane and di sposed of his waste in an on-sire surface impoundment. After the September 25, 1990, effective dare of the :oxicky characteristic (TC) rule, the waste would meet the definition of a newlyidennfled TC waste (40 CFR 526124). If he chooses to remove the waste from his surface irnpoundmera and dispose of it off-sire. would his surface impoundment be a reguiaied unit under Subtitle C of RCRA? No, not under the following circumstances. The generator may remove the waste from the surface impoundment prior to the effecn e dateoftheTCrule andtheunitwillnotbe regu1at 4 as a subtitle C unit. EPA has also clarified that the Agency would not normally consider the one-ume removal of waste from a unit on or after the TC effective date to bring the inro the hazardous waste management system (e.g., as a storage unit). As sated in the September 27, 1990. Federal Rec icter clarification notice, “EPA does not consider one-time removal of waste from a unit on or afterthe TC effective date, in andof itself, to make the unit a storage unit and thus subject to Subtitle C. The Agency does not view one- time removal of waste as part of a closure as changing the status of the unit, as long as there has not been ongoing management of the waste in the impoundment.” The preamble language goes on to state that this removal is beneficial” to human health and the environment since it would eliminate potential sources of oundwater contamination. (55 EB 1 39410) Should the generator choose to remove the hazardous waste from the unit on a one-time basis, he may use the impoundment as a non- Subtitle C unit (provided no other hazardous wastes are generated, managed, or disposed of in the unit). On the other hand. if the generator chooses to leave the waste in place and does not use the unit for hazardous waste management after the effective date of the TC rul&(for example. if he intends for the surface impoundment to be the final disposal site for the waste), the unit would not be a regulated Subritle C surface impoundment. ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Charles A. Licht, President CLEA, Inc. P.O. Box 315 Olympia Fields, IL 60461 K4R 9 1992 9443.1992(01) Dear Mr. Licht: I am writing in response to your letter of February 13, 1992 to Sylvia Lourance concerning clarification of the corrosivity characteristic as it applies to solids. The current characteristic defines a corrosive waste as a solid waste that: a) is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5 b) or is a liquid and corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 mm per year. We have two methods in SW-846 for measuring the corrosivity of these liquids. One method is for aqueous liquids (Method 9040, pH electrometric measurement) and the other method is for non— aqueous liquids (Method 1110, corrosivity of steel). We realize that the existing corrosivity characteristic has two problems: 1) it applies only to liquid wastes, thus corrosive solids such as lye, solid acids, or in your case, baghouse dusts, are not covered and 2) the term “aqueous” (as in aqueous liquid) has not yet been defined, thus, there is a chance that some users of our method for pH determination will incorrectly apply the method to certain non—aqueous wastes. With respect to solids, the Office of Solid Waste has developed a method that appears to be suitable for determining their corrosivity. This method, Method 9045 — Soil and Waste pH (copy attached), mixes a waste sample with water in a 1:1 ratio and determines the pH of the solution with a pH meter. Method 9045 will be included in the proposal for the second update to the third edition of SW-846, “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods.” We anticipate the proposal appearing in the Federal Register sometime this spring, with promulgation sometime in 1993 . cowcuuiwcu — JRNAME JL DATE 3/ 7/ J. C45-3 I 1 EPA Fo,m 1330.1 fl2.7G) :I i r OS.33 I CPO9S942 .S .. :::: :::::::::::: .:::::::::::. — OFFICIAL FILC C’ PY I MIS. ------- 2 Promulgation of Method 9045 would not by itself expand the scope of the corrosivity -haracteriStic. This requires that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft regulatory language to include corrosive solids and to employ Method 9045 for their determination. We are not sure at this time when that will happen. In the interim, we recommend the use of Method 9045 for the determination of corrosive solids. If you have any additional questions, please call Ollie Fordham of my staff at (202) 260—4778 or call the Methods Information Communications Exchange (MICE) at (703) 821-4789. NICE calls are recorded on an answering machine and, for the majority of questionS, responses are provided within 24 hours. hope this infor1T atiOfl has sufficiently addressed your questions. sincerely yours, Gail Hansen Chief, Methods Section (OS-33l) Enclosure cc: Alec McBride Ollie Fordham Kim Kirkland Rafael DeLeon, OGC ------- 9443.1992(03) 3. Alcohol-COntent Exclusion far the Ignitability Characteristic A generator produces a wastestream with a flash point of 54 degrees CeLsius that contains the following three componenLc: water (77 percent), alcohol (13 percent), and a non- alcoholic liquid component (10 percent). According to the u ohol exclusion” in 40 CFR 26121(aX1), the characteristic of ignitabiliiy will not app’y to an aqueous solution that contains less than 24 percent alcohol and which has aflashpouU less than 60 degrees Celsius. Does the presence of a non-alcoholic component cause the aqueous solution to be reguJa e4 as an ignitable waste (DOOl)? No, the additional non-alcoholic liquid znponent will not cause the wastestream to te regiilatedas a 1)001 waste. Despite the presence of the non-alcoholic liquid component, the wastestream continues to qualify for the alcohol exclusion in 40 CFR §261.21(a)(1). According to the May 19, 1980, Federal Register (45 EB 33108), EPA origix ally intended for the alcohol exclusion to exempt alcoholic beverages and some types of latex paints, which exhibit low flash points due to the alcohol content, but do not sustain combustion because of the high water content. The alcohol exclusion in 40 CFR §261.21(a)(1), however, is not limited to those wastes mentioned in the May 19, 1980, Federal Register . It applies to all aqueous solutions containing less than 24 percent alcohol, even if additional non-alcoholic components arc present. EPA clarified in the June 1, 1990, Federal Register (55 ER 22543) that the term ‘alcohol” in §261.21(aXl) refers to any alcohol r combination of alcohols. The Agency notes, nowcvcr, that if the alcohol is one of those alcohols specified in EPA hazardous waste codes FOOl-FOOS and has been used for its solvent properties 1 the waste must be evaluated to determine if it should be classified as an F- listed spent solvent waste. The alcohol exclusion for the ignhtability characteristic was adopted from the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) defini- tion of “combustible liquids” in 49 CFR §173.115(b). The alcohol exclusion in 49 CFR §173.115(b)(2)(ii) applies to aqueous solutions containing 24 percent or less alcohol by volume which contain no less than 50 percent water. Since EPA originally intended to be consistent with DOT regulations when promul- gating the alcohol exclusion in §261.21(a)(1), the 50 percent water stipulation may be applied to the ignitability characteristic. Therefore, as clarified in an internal EPA memorandum, for the purpose of the ignitabiity characteristic in §261.21(a)(l), “aqueous” means a solution containing at least 50 percent water by weight. RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION JULY 1992 ------- 9443.1992(04) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 PUG 26 1992 OPPICE OP SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Larry F. Runyan American Furniture Manufacturers Association 223 South Wrenn Street P. 0. Box HP-7 High Point, NC 27261 Dear Mr. Runyan: I am writing in response to your letter of July 1, 1992 to Mr. William K. Reilly, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in which you petition EPA to accept ASTM D4982— 89 (Method B) as an equivalent method of testing for the ignitability of solid waste. In order to determine whether a method is equivalent to one in SW-846, the SW-846 method it is intended to be equivalent to must already be promulgated and be required for use in a regulation. In your case, a method for the ignitability of solid waste has not yet been promulgated. Therefore, equivalency cannot be demonstrated. The Office of Solid Waste is currently developing a test to determine the ignitability of solids. Our procedure is based on the Department of Transportation burn rate test. As we do not have a promulgated method to test for the ignitabilitY of solids at present, we recommend ASTM D4982-89 (Method A) as interim guidance. This ASTM method is a good qualitative test of ignitabilitY, but is not quantitative enough to be considered for a SW-846 promulgated method. It only addresses ignition and does not provide any quantitative measurement of how vigorously the material burns. We do not recommend ASTM D498289 (Method B) as it only tests the vapors above the sample and not the solid sample itself. We do not require generators to test or to specifically use the methods listed in SW-846, except under the five circumstances listed in the following sections of 40 CFR: Painted on Recycled Paper ------- (1) 260.22(d) (1) (i) — Submission of data in support of petitions to exclude a waste product at a particular facility (delisting petitions). (2) 261.22(a) - Evaluation of wastes against the Corrosivity Characteristic (corrosivity). (3) 261.24(a) - Evaluation of wastes against the Toxicity Characteristic (mobility of toxic species). (4) 264.314(C) and 265.314(d) — Evaluation of wastes to determine if free liquid is a component of the waste (free liquid). (5) 270.62(b) (2) (i) (C) — Analysis of wastes prior to conducting a trial burn in support of an application for a hazardous waste incineration permit (incinerator permit). SW-846 methods are only intended to serve as a guidance for the regulated community. If the generator can demonstrate that his/her method has documented QC and is sensitive enough to meet the regulatory limits, then the generator may use that method in place of an SW-846 method. I hope that this information will be of use to your analytical program. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (202) 260—4778. Sincerely, Oliver M. Fordham, Jr. Chemist Methods Sect ion cc: Alec McBride, TAB Gail Hansen, TAB Dave Topping, WIB Tom Beisswenger, OGC ------- 9443.1992(05) RCRA/SUPERFUNDIOUST HOTLINE - : SEPTEMBER MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION 1992 2. “Aqueous” as Applied to the Corrosivity Characteristic According to 40 CFR 526122, a solid waste exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity f it has either of the following properties: 1: is aqueous and hasapll less than or equal to 2.0 or greater than or equal to 125 (526L22(aXI)) • I: is a liquid which corrodes steel a: a rate greater than 6.35 mm (0250 inch) per year (5261.22(aX2)). Many aqueous wastes are liquids. Must aqueous liquid wastes be evaluated for both pH and rate of steel corrosion? While nonaqueous liquids need only be tested using the steel corrosion test, aqueous liquids must be evaluated for both pH and rate of steel corrosion, If an aqueous liquid has a pH less than or equal to 2.0 or greater than or equal to 12.5, QZcorrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 nun per year, it is regulated as a corrosive waste (D002). Therefore even if an aqueous liquid passes the §261.22(a)(1) pH test (pH greater than 2.0 and less than 12.5), if it corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 mm per year, it exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity. According to the background document for this characteristic, Corrosivity Characteristic: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste a rate greater than 6.35 mm per year. Several factors influence the rate of metal corrosion. In addition top1 -1, other important factors include temperature, metal(s) involved, and aeration and composition of the corrosive medium. The background document indicates that although alkaline solutions, in practice, do not severely damage steel, “. .. a corrosive material with a pH less than 4.0 will cause iron to dissolve rapidly.” In other words, although an aqueous waste in liquid form that has a pH between 2.0 and 4.0 (i.e., an acidic solution) passes the pH test, the ‘ -aste may nonetheless fail the steel corrosion tL.st and be regulated as a corrosive (D002) hazardous waste. Although there is no regulatory definition of the term “aqueous,” for purposes of the corrosivity characteristic an aqueous waste is defined as a waste for which pH is measurable. Since not all liquid wastes are in a form amenable to pH measurement, this operational definition of aqueous implies that the presence or absence of measurable dissociated hydrogen ions divides the universe of liquid wastes into two mutually exclusive categories: aqueous and nonaqueous. While all liquid wastes must be evaluated for rate of steel corrosion, those liquid wastes classified as aqueous are subject to both the pH and steel corrosion tests. The background document explains that those who generate or manage a waste can best determine whether it is in a form suitable for pH measurement, and therefore an aqueous waste requiring the pH test. Under RCRA Subtitle C. Section 3001 , an aqueous waste with a pH between 2.0 and 12.5 may, under certain conditions, corrode steel at ------- RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION SEPTEMBER 1992 (CONTINUED) This working definition of aqueous means that aqueous wastes can be in nonliquid form. Suspensions, sols, or gels for which pH is measurable are examples of aqueous nonliquids. The background document for the corrosivity characteristic states that, during a pH determination, the form of the waste should be taken into account. As nonaqucous liquids are subject to the steel corrosion test only, aqueous nonliquids only require evaluation for pH. Therefore, by definition, an aqueous nonliquid with a pH greater than 2.0 and less than 12.5 cannot be regulated as D002, since §261.22(a)(2) applies only to liquids that corrode steel. The operational definition of aqueous for the characteristic of corrosivity differs from the meaning of aqueous as the term applies to the ignitability characteristic. Under §261.21(a)(l), aqueous solutions containing less than 24 percent alcohol by volume axe excluded from regulation as ignitable liquids. In an internal Agency memorandum clarifying this exclusion, an aqueous solution is defined as a solution which contains at least 50 percent water by weight. Applying this 50 percent water stipulation to define “aqueous” in the context of §261.22(a)(1) is inappropriate. Instead, for purposes of the corrosivity characteristic, aqueous means in a form amenable to pH measurement ------- 9443.1992(06) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION DECEMBER 1992 1. HydrochlorofluOrOCarbOflS Used In Degreasing According to 40 CFR 526131, chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) used in degreasing are classified as FOOl. EPA included CF’Cs used in degreasing in the FOO l listing because of concern for their potential contribution to the depletion of stratospheric ozone. Are hydrochiorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) used in degreasing also regulated as FOOl? Because the IDOl listing description includes all chlorinated fluorocarbons, hydrochlomfluomcarbons used in degreasing operations are also classified as FOOl. Of course, the solvent formulation must meet the 10 peicent (by volume) before-use criterion in the FOOl listing. Hydrogenated fluorocarbons (HFCs), however, are included in the scope of the FOOl listing. ------- 9443.1993(01) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ‘I 3 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 ‘ L pqØ .JaflUalylS, 1993 OFFICEOF SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mssrs. 31 . Broadhurst and M.W. Godfrey General Minh Metals and Minerals Lkuited Process Research 200 Hans Sttijdom Drive, Randburg Prn te Bag X10014, Randburg 2125 Republic of South Africa Dear Sirs, I have received your letter of 22 December 1992, requesting additional information on three hazardous waste testing issues, and am pleased to be of service. In your first question, you noted that some people believe that atmospheric oxidation of Cr(m) to Cr(VI) in a landfill containment may pose a risk to the environment. The Agency does not have any data which suggest that Cr(III) will oxidize to Cr(VI) in a landfill, and that If managed properly, the wastes indicated in Part 261.4(b)(6)(i)(A) will not pose a threat to human health and the environment. The Agency will, however, be pleased to receive and review any such data which you rward to us. in your second question, you expressed concern that the TCLP is not a realistic indication of the long-term stability/mobility of elements in solid wastes, and requested additional information on the choice of experimental conditions used in the test. The TCLP was developed to model leachability of hazardous constituents in a specific waste management scenario, e.g., co-disposal of solid waste with municipal waste in a sanitaiy landfill. The test is not expected to model other waste management conditions. Data from the test are useful for comparison against toxicity standards, or against other TCLP data sets, only when the sinRJc specified set of experimental conditions are used. I am including with this letter (as Attachment 1) additional information that discusses the rationale and process for selection of experimental conditions. Finally, in your third question, you asked which analytical methods should be used to determine the concentrations of total cyanide and cyanide amenable to chlorination. I have endosed the appropriate methods (Methods 9010 and 9012 from Test Methods for Evaluathur Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical Methods (SW.846)) to this latter as Attachment 2. U I may be of thcr asaistance, pkasc do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, OWe ForiIh National Inorganics Program Manager, RCRA ------- 9443.1993(02) RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE FEBRUARY MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION 1993 1. Mixtures of Used Oil and Characteristic Hazardous Waste A manz(acturer generates used oil that exhibits the toxicity characteristic (TC)for lead (D008). On one occasion, the used oil is mixed with an unlisted spelu solvent that is hazardous due to the characteristic of ignitabilüy (DOOl) and the TCfor benzene (D018). On another occasion, the used oil is mixed with a spent solvent thai is hazardous solely because it exhibits the characteristic of igni:abilily (DOOl). After mixing, both wastestreams exhibit only the TCfor lead and are Sent to be burned for energy recovery in an industrial boiler. Do both mixtures qualify for regulation as used oil under 40 CFR Pan 279 standards for used oil management? The first mixture must be managed as hazardous waste (D008) and the second mixture must be managed as used oil. Section 279.l0(b)(2) specifically addresses mixtures of used oil and characteristic wastes, drawing a critical distinction between the two mixtures described above. The first mixture is addressed in §279.10(b)(2)(i), which states that a mixture of characteristic hazardous waste and used oil must be handled as a hazardous waste if it displays anx characteristics of hazardous waste. This section applies to y mixture of used oil and characteristic hazardous wastes, other than wastes that are hazardous solely because they exhibit the characteristic of ignitability. Since the first mixture contains a characteristic hazardous waste that is hazardous because of ignitability an toxicity, and the mixture continues to display the TC for lead, it is considered hazardous waste. In order to qualify for classification as used oil, this mixture must be free of all characteristics, including those originating from the used oil (D008) and those stemming from the hazardous waste (DOOl and D018). Section 279.1O(b)(2)(iii) addresses the second mixture and is more specific. It dictates that a mixture of used oil and a characteristic hazardous waste, which is hazardous solely because it displays the characteristic of ignitabiity, may continue to be managed as used oil provided that the resulting mixture is not ignitable. Since the second used oil/waste mixture is no longer ignitable, it is classified as used oil, even though it still displays the TC for lead (D008). The difference in these two scenarios is that used oil that is mixed with a characteristic hazardous waste (other than a solely ignitable waste) must be free of li characteristics to qualify for classification as used oil, whereas used oil that is mixed with a waste that is hazardous solely due to ignicability needs only to be void of the ignitabiity characteristic to be considered used oil. The difference in the two scenarios is critical because used oil often inherently exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste. The standards in Part 279, while tailored to used oil handling, do not negate the requirements placed on handlers by the hazardous waste regulations, and mixing an ignitable waste with used oil to render the waste nonhazardous constitutes treatment of hazardous waste and is subject to all applicable hazardous management standards, including permitting (50 fR 49180; November 29, 1985). Note that Part 279 standards, other than those related to burning and marketing, are effective March 8, 1993, in unauthorized states only and in authorized states they are not effective until those states amend their program to incorporate the standards. Standards regarding the marketing and burning of used oil for energy recovery are simply transferred from existing Part 266 regulations and remain in effect. ------- 9443.1993(03) iO S?4 w UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \ 3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 L M R 3 1993 OFFICE OF SOLIO WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE Vanessa J. Schiller Industrial and Hazardous Waste Division Texas Water Commission P.O. Box 13087 1700 North Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78711 Dear Ms. Schiller: Thank you for your January 25 letter regarding the availability of criteria and/or guidelines EPA uses in evaluating the characteristic of reactivity. EPA currently has a test procedure in place that evaluates the reactivity of waste which releases hydrogen cyanide or hydrogen sulfide gas when mixed with a weak acid. EPA has not proposed a test method for evaluating a waste which releases hydrogen gas when mixed with water. I have enclosed with this letter a copy of the Agency’s supporting guidance for the reactivity characteristic. This guidance explains EPA’S position and rationale for developing this characteristic. In addition, Appendix 3 of this document describes and evaluates available reactivity testing methods, one of which is for water reactivity. This may provide you with a guideline for evaluating waste that may be reactive with water. EPA attempts to define our hazardous waste characteristics in terms of specific, numerically quantified properties measurable by standardized and available testing protocols. However, in the case of reactive wastes, it is difficult to construct a numerically quantified definition of reactive wastes because the term “reactivity” embraces a wide variety of different (although overlapping) effects, each of which can be triggered by an equally wide variety of initiating conditions or forces. Further, the properties embraced by the term reactivity are relative properties. The determination of whether something “reacts vigorously with air or water” or is “unstable with respect to heat or shock” is a relative determination, not an absolute one. Because the effects being measured proceed along a continuum, it is difficult to draw the line at any particular point. EPA is currently looking into procedures for testing wastes for hazardous characteristics, and determining wastes that react with water is a part of this research. Pnnted on Recycled Paper ------- If you have any further questions regarding this subject or if you find a test procedure that is useful in determining water reacLivity, please contact either Valerie Wilson (202—260—4678) of the Characteristics Section or Oliver Fordham (202-260-4778) of the Methods Section. Sincerely, , Director of Solid Waste Attach ment ------- 9443.1993(04) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APR — 2 S 3 Debra K. White Chief Inorganic Scientist Enseco Technology Group Enseco, Inc. 4955 Yarrow Street Arvada, CO 80002 Dear Ms. White: Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1993 concerning the November 24, 1992 Federal Register notice on revisions to the Toxicit’y haracteristiC Leaching Procedure (TCLP). In r sponse to your first question regarding the conditions under which the method of standard additions (MSA) must be run for metallic contaminants in TCLP samples, both conditions listed in the FR notice must be met before MSA is required. These criteria are linked together. Unless both are met, MSA is not required. The intent here is to lighten the burden on laboratories. If a waste is clearly hazardous or clearly non-hazardous further testing is unwarranted. It is those cases where the analyte is near the regulatory limit that additional work is required to prove its “true” concentration. Your second question concerns the proper procedure for administering the method of standard additions, when MSA is required. You should do the full 4 point procedure as stated in the Federal Register notice. This overrides the QC procedures for MSA found in Method 7000 and 6010. I hope that this information will be of use to your analytical program. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at (202) 260—4778. Sincerely, Oliver Fordham National Inorganic Program Manager for RCRA SJRNAME D AlE )j ) I; OFFICIAL FILE .u.s. Go nv, nt Prrthig OlIN: 1092 — 0 .85I,4OI72 EPA Form 13201A (1/90) prkded O’i Recyckd Paper ------- 9443.1993(05) I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 4t APR 2 3 1993 MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF ______________ SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUBJECT: interpretation of “Aqueous” as Applied to the corrosivity CharacteristiC (40 CFR 261.22) TO: Joseph Rb FranZmatbes, Director Waste Management Division FROM: David Bussard, Director ‘ Characterization and Assessment Division This memorandum responds to your memorandum to Bruce Diamond dated March 11, 1993 requesting clarification of the term “aqueous” as it applies to the corrosivity characteristic. Your memorandum references a September 1992 “Hotline Questions and Answers” publication produced by the RCRA/SUperfufld Hotline contractors and concurred upon by my Division and by OSW. The Hot].ine publication correctly defines “aqueous”, for the purposes of the corrosivity characteristic, to mean in a form amenable to pH measurement. This interpretation is consistent with the supporting documentation found in the background document for the corrosivity characteristic final rulemaking (Background Document: Section 261.22 — Characteristic of Corrosivity, May 2, 1980). I have attached the applicable section for your information. A more specific interpretation of “aqueous” for the purposes of the corrosivity characteristic may be found in the method referenced in the actual regulatory text for the corrosivity characteristic at 40 CFR 261.22(a)(1). The regulation states that “(t)he EPA test method for pH is specified as Method 5.2 n “Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods” (see attachment). Method 5.2 D l i ElectrOiTtetriC Measurement , which was renumbered to Method 9040. specifies under scope and application that the method “is us.d to measure the pH of aqueous wastes and those wastes where the aqueous phase constitutes at least 20% of the total volume of !i• waste.” Therefore, any waste for which this method is appl1ceb s must contain at least 20% free water by volume. This method is also attached for your information. If you or your staff should have any questions regarding this memorandum, please call me or have your staff call Al Collins, of my staff, at 202—260—4791. Attachments Pnnt. ------- j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 L 9443.1993(06) OFPICE O SoLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE OCT I 2 1993 Dr. Ed L. Schrader Associate Professor Director of Sorbent Laboratory Milisaps College 1701 North State Street Jackson, MS 39210—0001 SUBJECT: Paint Filter Liquids Test Technical Guidance Dear Dr. Schrader: Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1993, and our subsequent discussions in which you raised questions about the applicability of the Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFT, Method 9095) to the sorbent industry. The test determines if a free liquid exists for the purposes of the Liquids in Landfills Rule. Five items in particular seem to be of concern to sorbent manufacturers, users, and landfill operators in complying with the Liquids in Landfills Rule: (1) the light bulk density of some sorbents, which causes them to overflow the filter, (2) the need for clarifying that sorbents and sorbates are to be uniformly mixed prior to placement in the paint filter, (3) the size and shape of sorbent pillows, socks, and pads, which prevents them from fitting into the paint filter without modification, (4) the need to standardize filter paper specifications, and (5) the need to test each sorbate/sorbent combination. With regard to the first item, if a lOO-g sample of sorbent is of such low density that it would overflow the filter (potentially causing liquids to flow between the filter and funnel, yielding a false positive), then two options exist. First, the procedure specifies a “100-mi or 100—g representative sample,” so a 100—mi rather than a io0-g sample may be used, if the material can be measured volumetrically (i.e., lacks major air spaces or voids). Second, the sides of the filter can be extended upward by taping a similar paper to the inside of the filter paper (so any flow will stay within the filter) and above the mesh. In either case, settling the sample into the paint filter may be facilitated by lightly tapping the side of the filter as it is being filled. - Regarding the second item, liquid should not be poured over Pnnted on Recycled Paper ------- Page 2 of 3 the sorbent after the sorbent has been placed in the paint filter. The sorbent and liquid material should be thoroughly and uniformly mixed and then a representative sample placed in the filter. Regarding the third item, the PFT does not address how material such as sorbent pillows, socks, pads, sheets, and rolls should be placed into the paint filter. How such items are placed into the filter could result in significant variations in test results. As this is a gravity test with no external applied pressure, it is not intended for sorbent pillows, socks, etc. to be squeezed or compressed to fit into the paint filter. In order to assure uniformity and standardization of the test, a 100-g or 100-ml sample of sorbent pad, roll, sheet, or other material which does not conform to the shape of the paint filter, should be cut into small pieces and poured into the filter. Sample size reduction may be accomplished by cutting the sorbent material with scissors, shears, knife, or other such device so as to preserve as much of the original integrity of the sorbent fabric as possible. Sorbents enclosed in a fabric should be mixed with the resultant fabric pieces. The particles to be tested should be reduced smaller than 1. cm (i.e., should be capable of passing through a 9.5 mm (0.375 inch) standard sieve). Grinding sorbent materials should be avoided as this may destroy the integrity of the sorbent and produce many “fine particles” which would normally not be present. For brittle materials larger than 1 cm that do not conform to the filter, light crushing to reduce oversize particles is acceptable if it is not practical to cut the material. Materials such as clay, silica gel, and some polymers may fall into this category. Regarding the fourth item, the PFT specifies “ Conical Daint filter : Mesh number 60 (fine meshed size). Available at local paint stores such as Sherwin-Williams and Glidden for an approximate cost of $0.07 each (as of September 1986].” EPA recognizes that most paint filters today are not labelled by actual mesh size, and that the specified “fine meshed size” available commercially is actually a mesh size of 60 X 48 threads or holes/inch. Since this is coarser than a 60 X 60 mesh, it has the potential to give more conservative test results (i.e., may fail more samples) and is therefore acceptable to EPA, as would be a 60 X 60 mesh. Mesh sizes greater (i.e., finer) than 60 X 60, however, would not be acceptable. Regarding the fifth item, no materials, whether sorbed or not, may be placed in a hazardous waste landfill if they release free liquids as determined by the PFT. This should be implemented through the landfill operator’s Waste Analysis Plan (WAP). The WAP should identify when samples will be tested using the PFT. In cases of controlled treatment by sorbents, it may not be necessary ------- Page 3 of 3 to test each treated sample if sufficient data have been obtained by testing each sorbate/sorbent combination to establish the loading ratio that assures no free liquids, and the treatment is done to assure such ratios are not exceeded. Each sorbate/sorbent combination should be tested because sorbents have different sorption characteristics and sorption ratios based on the type of sorbate (e.g., oily vs water-based sorbates). As we discussed, this test j not designed to evaluate the efficiency of a sorbent product relative to other sorbents. It j designed to determine if a specific sample, be it sorbent or other material, contains free liquid and thus should not be placed in a hazardous waste landfill. As discussed under item 5 above, the PFT may also be used to determine the “saturation” or pass/fail level of a particular sorbent/sorbate combination. Our testing shows that at the “saturation” level some failures may occur since the “saturation” level is more a range than a line, but that at some lower liquid loading level, that can be determined in the lab, passing the PFT is consistently achieved. This knowledge is invaluable to a treater using sorbents to assure successful treatment (i.e., a high pass rate). It is less valuable when sorbents are used to control or clean up spills since sorbate/sorbent ratios are less controlled. I hope this information will help clarify technical details about the applicability of the Paint Filter Liquids Test to sorbents and assist you in your analytical program. EPA plans to incorporate appropriate parts of this technical guidance into Method 9095 when we propose a third update to the third edition of SW-846. Realistically the proposal and promulgation of this update is several years away, so I hope this technical guidance will serve your purposes in the interim. Sincerely, Oliver M. Fordham, Jr. National Inorganic Program Manager for RCRA cc: David Bussard Mike Flynn Alec McBride Gail Hansen Tom Beisswenger Matt Hale Ken Shuster Dave Eberly RCRA Hotline ------- Ur’,IITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 9443.1993(07) NOV -. 8 O FICEC SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPC SE MEMORAN UM SUBJECT: Reactive Sulfides in Paperrnil.1 Waste FROM: Office ef Solid Waste TO: Larry Brill. Chief MA \Vaste Management Branch Region I I a’t writing in response to your October 6, 1993, memorandum asldng for clat rication on the 1 ve1 of sulfide for determining if a waste is hazardous under the reactivity characterstic. The regulation in 40 CFR 261.23 defines reactive wastes to include “cyanide or sulfide bearing wastes which, when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can generate toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment”. This definition is intended to identify wastes that, because of their extreme instability and tendency to react violently or explode, pose a problem at all sagz s of We waste management process. The definition is to a large extent a paraphrase oi Inc narrative definition employed by the National Fire Protection Association. The Agency chose t rely almost entirely on a descriptive, prose definition of reactivity because most of the available tests for measuring the variegated class of effects embraced by the reactivity definitioti suffer from a number of deficiencies. For determining reactive sulfide content in particular, one of the deficiencies is poor r overy. Chapter 7 of SW-846 contains the method for determining total releasable sulfide. It should be noted that different versions of the test method have existed that yield substantially different results. In September of 1990, EPA proposed increasing the strength of the sulfuric acid used in the test from 0.0 IN to 0. IN. The Agency reevaluated the stronger acid digestion and concluded that the original acid concentration of 0.01 N more accurately represented the mismanagement scenario the method is cesigned to emulate (see attachment 1). In 1992, EPA revised the method to include the original sulfuric acid concentration of 0.O1N This version was finalized on August 31, 1993 (58 FR 46040, attachment 2). The current EPA guidance level is 500 mg/kg for total releasable sulfide. If a waste contains grea cr than 500 mg/kg total releasable sulfide, then the waste is usually considered to meet ------- the narrative definition of a characteristically reactive waste under 40 CFR 261.23. Since recovery can be as low as 10% under certain circumstances, any test result greater than 500 mg/kg would be deemed a characteristic hazardous waste. In your letter you included data on slaker grit and green liquor dregs wastestreams from an International Paper facility. It is unclear which version of the test method was used to measure total releasable sulfide. If the most recent method (attachment 3) was used, then the wastestreams have concentrations in excess of 500 mg/kg (684 mg/kg and 1004 mg/kg respectively), and would therefore be considered a hazardous waste. If there is any question as to which version of the method was used I recommend having the analysis repeated using the most recent method. The older proposed method employing 0. iN sulfuric acid would yield higher levels of releasable sulfide and inaccuately classify the waste as hazardous. If you have an:, further questions on the reactivity characteristic, please contact William Morrow of my staff at 202-260-3657. Attachments ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1994(01) - 2 994 Mr. Stephen Siegel Industrial Hygienist ENV Services Inc. 1016 West 8th Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Dear Mr. Siegel: Thank you for your November 1.6, 1993 letter in which you requested guidance on whether or not any Federal disposal guidelines apply to the disposal of metal casings containing spent powdered metallic oxide catalyst (i.e •, manganese dioxide and copper oxide). Based on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) you provided, manganese dioxide is a strong oxidizer which reacts exothermally, may ignite certain organics, and cause lung irritation or serious central nervous system disorders through inhalation. The spent catalyst is not a listed hazardous waste under Federal regulations. However, the spent material may need to be tested to determine if it exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity). The limited information provided suggests that the catalyst may exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability or reactivity. Even if it is not ignitable or reactive, when the spent catalyst is discarded, its characteristic. may be different (e.g., it may be contaminated with other hazardous constituents). Therefore, you must determine if the waste contains any of the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) constituent . listed in Table 1. of 40 CFR 261.24 at levels of regulatory concern. If the spent catalyst powder is determined to be a hazardous waste, then it must be handled according to the hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Even if the spent catalyst is not a characteristic hazardous waste, the nature of the material (a strong oxidizing agent) may still require special handling. To insure full compliance with state’s solid waste regulations and safe handling and disposal of the metal casings, you should contact the waste management authority of the State in which the waste will be handled. EM Fain 1320 .IA (1190) j, Pi ed Paper O?FICIAL FILE COPY ------- Should YOU have any questions or require any additional clarification regarding this correspondence, please contact Shen-yi Yang of my staff at (202)-260—1436. in el ck B ndes, Chief Waste Identification Branch cc: Bob Kayser, EPA HQ Shen-yi Yang, EPA HQ ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 9443.1994(02) OFFICE OF SOLIUW STE AND EMERG JCV I4ESPONSE FEB —4 1g94 Mr. Kevin Igli Director, Environmental Management Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 3001. Butterfield Road Oak Brook, illinois 60521 Dear Mr. Igli: In EPA’S letter of November 10, 1993, the Agency stated that mercury batteries, meeting specific criteria, are not considered debris under the current definition of debris (see 57 FR 20767, May 15, 1992). In your follow-up letter dated November 23, 1993, you requested further examination on whether certain mercury batteries are hazardous debris. In your letter you discussed, among other things, the fact that debris capacity variances are based on both the “old” and current definitions of debris. The Agency’s determination that the battery carcasses described in your April 30, 1993 letter are containers and not debris has not changed. In the context of a capacity variance, you are correct that both the “old” and current definitions apply. As you point out, the old definition includes containers as being debris (55 FR 22686, 22650, June 1, 1990). EPA re— addressed this issue in the “new” definition, stating that in many cases debris will be mixed with liquids or sludges, and that EPA will determine on a case-byCase basis whether all or portions of such mixtures should be considered debris (55 FR at 22650). However, this does not necessarily mean that the materials to which you refer are entitled to a capacity variance. For example, it would not be appropriate to provide such a variance to a drum (i.e., container) of liquid waste or sludges. In your specific case, the EPA Regional office has informed us that the mercury sludge contained in the battery carcass does not meet the definition of debris, and that the mixture (i.e., battery carcass and mercury sludge) also is not debris. To address other questions regarding battery carcasses containing hazardous waste sludges or mixtures of debris and hazardous waste sludges, please contact Mr. Richard lUnch, Chief ------- of the Waste Treat uent Branch at (202) 308—8434. Thank you again f or you letter. Sincerely, ±el ro Director Office of Solid Waste cc: Bruce Long Richard Kirich ------- 08 ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 4)4k 9443. 1994(03) MAY 24 994 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Mark Veckman Comprehensive Environmental Assessments 8662H Lee Highway Fairfax, Virginia 22031 Dear Mr. Veckman: This letter addresses the questions raised in your Freedom of Information request of March 11, 1994. You requested information on the applicability of information provided in 1990 by EPA Region V to the State of Ohio. The issue centered on the status of wastes generated from abatement of lead-based paint (LBP). Since the enactment of the Residential Lead Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 requiring the elimination of lead paint haz ards to children, there has been a significant increase in the generation of L3P waste. Several federal agencies, States, and advocacy groups have raised concerns about the effect the RCRA hazardous waste management regulations may have on residential LBP abatements. The Agency is currently evaluating various disposal alternatives for LBP waste resulting from abatement, rehabilitation, and demolition. EPA may amend the existing RCRA regulations or may propose different rules governing LBP waste disposal. In response to your specific request on the applicability of household waste exemption under RCRA to the disposal of LBP waste, we have reviewed the information contained in the September 12, 1990 letter from EPA Region V. Disposal of LBP waste has been subject to RCRA Subtitle C since 1980 and some LBP wastes may be hazardous due to Toxicity Characteristic for lead (see 40 CFR 261.24). In the preamble to a Federal Register notice addressing this issue (49 FR 44998, November 13, 1984, copy enclosed), EPA discuss s the limited scope of the RCRA exemption for household wastes. This notice indicates that the EPA Region V letter should be clarified on the following key points. Household waste, to be excluded pursuant to 40 CFR Section. 261.4(b) (1) must fulfill two criteria: first, household waste has to be generated by individuals on the premises of a household and, second, “the waste stream must be composed primarily of materials found in the waste generated by consumers in their homes.” LBP waste from construction, demolition, or renovation does not meet Q RcycId/Recyclabl. J 9 Pilnad with SoyJCanda k on pap.v COnaIl’$ it 1s1t 60% rscyc!Od flb.q ------- these two criteria. Therefore, these wastes are not excluded from RCRA Subtitle C as household waste. EPA does not distinguish between waste generated at a household by a homeowner and waste generated at a household by a person other than the homeowner (e.g., contractor) provided that the waste is generated as part of daily living (e.g., routine residential maintenance). Under EPA’ a current reading of the household waste exemption, LBP waste is not similar to the waste typically generated by household (e.g., household trash comprising of discarded consumer goods), and should, therefore, be evaluated for its potential to be RCRA hazardous waste. However, solid waste generated by a homeowner, resident, or a contractor at a home as part of routine residential maintenance (as opposed to building construction, renovation, and demolition) would be part of the household waste stream, and thus would be covered under the RCRA household waste exemption. LBP waste that is hazardous (i.e., exceeds the toxicity characteristic limit of 5 ppm for lead in waste leachate), if generated in small quantities (i.e., less than 100 kg per month of hazardous waste), may be exempted from RcRA Subtitle C as the conditionally exempted small quantity generator waste, if State programs provide the federal exemption. Nearly all States are authorized to implement the RCRA program. Therefore, you should contact the State waste management agency where the LBP waste would be generated and disposed, for further assistance in determining the appropriate waste management and disposal requirements. If you have any other questions on this issue, feel free to call Ms. Rajni Joglekar of my staff at 202—260—3516. Sincerely, Michael Shapi.ro, irector Office of Solid Waste Enclosure cc: Directors, Hazardous Waste Division, EPA Regions I - X Chief, Ohio Permitting Section, EPA Region V Mr. E.A. Kitchen, RCRA Technical Assistance Section, OSHWM, Ohio EPA ------- STi,. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON,DC 20460 t 9443.1994(04) ILIL 12 1004 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERCEUCY RESPONSE Mr. Christopher R. Rhodes Director of Environmental, Safety & Governmental Relations Programs ‘PC 7380 N. Lincoln Avenue Lincoh vood, Illinois 60646-1705 Dear Mr. Rhodes. This letter is in response to your March 9, 1994 letter in which you requested a regulatory interpretation regarding photoresist solids (“skins”) generated in the printed circuit board manufacturing industry. You asked for a decision as to whether these wastes are or are not F006 list hazardous waste. This longstanding issue arose originally when the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality asked EPA’s Region III office for assistance in making a site specific hazardous waste determination at a printed circuit boari manufacturing facility in Virginia. We have reviewed the data available to us, including the State and Regional interpretations you have provided, and have conducted further analyses of the manufacturing processes involved. Based on this review, I have made the following determination regarding the status of photoresist solids, For the reasons stated below, we cannot categorically state that photoresist solids generated in stripping operations are not F006 wastes Their regulatory status is dependent on the type of operation employed at each individual facility. Therefore, the determination as to whether or not skins are hazardous waste will be dependent on the analysis of the individual facility by the State or Regional regulatory authority. Regulatory authorities should make this determination based on the following interpretation of the F006 hazardous waste listing description: o The crux of this issue is whether the stripping of photoresist solids from printed circuit boards is an electroplating operation included within the scope of the F006 listing as defined by the Agency in the Interpretative Rule on this subject which was published in the Federal Register on December 2, 1986 (51 FR 43350). Please note that although the printed circuit board manufacturing industry is no longer specifically identified in the F006 listing as a result of the December 2, 1986 interpretive rule (51 FR 43350), the processes used (e.g., electroplating, chemical etching, and cleaning Q ) Recycled/Recyclable Prtntd with SoylCanoIa ink an gaper that — contain. at east 50% recycted fIber ------- and stripping) may still cause wastewater treatment sludges to meet the F006 listing. The interpretive rule was merely a correction to reflect the Agency’s policy of referring to “processes” only, rather than specific industries in the “non-specific source” F listin , the notice did not otherwise change the scope of the listing with respect to the printed circuit board industry. This was also explained in the attached memorandum frnm Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste, to Ted A. Hopkins of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. If stripping solutions are within the scope of the listing and are, therefore, electroplating wastewaters, the filtering of skins from that solution should be considered the generation of wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations and thus would be considered F006 listed hazardous wastes. If stripping solutions are not electroplating wastewaters then the skins would not be wact .vater treatment sludges and thus not F006. o Because the “cleaning and stripping” subcdregory of electroplating operations is a conditional one (cleaning and stripping operations are only defined as electroplating operations when they are associated with common and precious metals electroplating, anodizing, or chemical etching and milling operations), and because there has not been specific guidance issued as to when there is a strong enough “association” between a cleaning and stripping operation and another included process, we are issuing the following determination as to when a cleaning or stripping operation is defined as an electroplating operation for purposes of the F006 listing: - If the stripping operation is in line with or contiguous with an electroplating operation, then the stripper solution itself becomes an electroplating wastewater. “In line with or contiguous with” in this case would mean the stripping operation is not physically separated from these operations and the printed circuit boards are not rinsed and dried prior to the photoresist stripping operation. The stripper solutions thus could be mixed or intermingled with electroplating wastewater. Photoresist solids generated in this case would be F006 wastes. - If the stripping operation is not in line with or contiguous with an electroplating operation the stripping solution itself does not become an electroplating wastewater. Photoresist solids generated in this case would not be F006 wastes. The rationale for this interpretation is based on the intent of the listing of F006 wastewacer treatment sludges. F006 hazardous wastes were listed for reasons explained in the November 14, 1980 RCRA Background Document for listed hazardous wastes. Among the reasons was the conclusion that these wastes frequently contain cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and complexed cyanide in significant concentrations. The listing process is designed to insure that wastes which meet the listing criteria are managed as hazardous ------- wastes (Please note chat wastes which meet (he listing description but do not contain (he constituents or do not exhibit the properties for which they were listed can petition the Agency or authorized State for a site-specific exclusion). If there is any possibility of skins stripping solutions being mixed or commingled with other electroplating wastewater, or if the hazardous constituents generated by other electroplating processes can otherwise be ‘carried forward” by the nature of the association of the two processes, the skins themselves cc_d become contaminated with these hazardous constituents. Our analysis suggests that physical separation of the two operations together with rinsing and drying operations of printed circuit boards prior to stripping serve to prevent the carryover of potential hazardous contaminants from the electroplating and etching operations to the stripping operation. Conversely, our analysis suggests the lack of separation and rinsing and drying operations can result in the carryover of wastew ter from the electroplating processes into the stripping solution. In these cases, the filtering ot the skins from the contaminated stripping solution would constitute treatment of an electroplating wastewater and would result in the generation of F006. Although skins may in some cases be determined to not be F006 listed hazardous waste under federal regulations, the skins may be subject to more stringent state or local regulations. However, even if the skins do not meet the listing description for federal or state regulations, they are still subject to evaluation for hazardous waste characteristics, as specified at 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C The Agency may revisit this issue at a later time based on new information or facts which it may gather. Thank you for your patience in this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Rick Brandes of my staff at (202) 260-4 ’70. Sincerely yours, Attachment cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - X Shapiro, Director Solid Waste ------- This Page Intentionally Left Blank ------- 7380 N Lincoln ve le, 08 677 2850 L,ncomwood Illinois Fax 708 677 9570 60646-7705 Te!e 274874 IPCUR THE INSTiTUTE FOR INTERCONNECTING March 9, 1994 AND PACKAGING ELECTRONIC CIRCUITS Mr. Michael Shapiro Director, Office of Solid Waste U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW/5301 President Washington, DC 20460 Samuel Alrschuler .llzren Incoroofated Dear Mr. Shapiro: Wmingron MA Vice Pres’aent For almost two years, the IPC arid the American electronic interconnection industry have Pewr Sarman,an been seeking a resolution from your office on a regulatory Interpretation problem brought Printed Circwr COrD about by the EPA Region Ill office. Unfortunately, we have still received no written response. Therefore, we are writing you today on behalf of the 800 independent circuit board rreasurer manufacturers in the United States and strongly requesting an expedited resolution of this Ron Underwood issue. C.rcu. Center ‘nc O yton H To briefly restate the Issue, on 24 June 1991, John Humphreys, Chief of the General States Immediate Past President Permits Section for U.S. EPA Region Ill, issued a written Interpretation to a PWB fabrication Lam, N Vehe facility In Virginia that photoresist solids separated from the facility’s stripper solution Circuits Inc (commonly called “skins’) should be classified as a hazardous waste, designated as F006 Cosia Mesa C4 As you know, the RCRA waste code F006 Is reserved for waste water treatment sludges E ecut,ve Director from electroplating operations. rhoma5 J Oammncts Mr. Humphreys’ decision was apparently based on two opinions. First, Mr. Humphreys Technical DiOf considered an in-process filtration operation that separates photoresist solids from the stripper solution In order to recycle the stripper solution to be a waste treatment operation. In additIon, Mr. Humphreys considered the residue resulting from the recovery of the resist stripping solution to be a categorical hazardous waste because of its connectIon with electroplating operations. A copy of Mr. Humphreys’ letter Is enclosed. This issue has been carefully reviewed by members of the IPC Environmental, Health, Safety & Transportation (EHST) Committee, as well as several industry suppliers who provide photoresist for cIrcuit board manufacturing and other uses. After carefully reviewing all facts including process flow Information, TCLP data, and other regulatory documents, IPC’s EHST Committee feels that Mr. Humphreys’ interpretation is erroneous for numerous reasons First of all, we disagree that solids filtered from an in-process recycle loop should be considered ‘waste water treatment sludges.’ This filtration process Is a closed recycle loop. and the resIst skins are filtered out to prevent plugging of spray nozzles, prevent redeposition on panels, and prolong bath life for the stripper solution. Such a closed loop recycling system qualifies for the 261.4 (a) (8) ‘closed-loop’ exemptIon. Second. we argue that photoresist skins are not categorical F006 waste because they are not inherently connected to the plating operation. Photoresist application and stripping is distinct from electroplating in PWB manufacturing. In fact, in some cases, no electroplating appears anywhere in the manufacturing process at all. This operation is called ‘print and etch’ in which a photoresist pattern is applied to copper clad laminate, which is then etched prior to photoresist stripping. ------- In addition, the PC has collected TCLP data from more than 20 companies on their photo- resist skins and solid resIdues. All samples passed the TCLP test. None showed toxicity characteristIcs high enough to be classified as characteristic hazardous waste. In order to properly monitor and control the filtered skIns, IPC encourages all of its members to conduct periodic TCLP testing on the skin residues. We feel that these photoresist skins are already properly regulated through the present TCLP testing regimens. Despite letters and supporting data from the IPC (enclosed) and state EPAs as well as extensive communicatIon from DuPont and other photoresist suppliers, we have still received no written clarificatIon or resolution of this issue from the Federal EPA off Ice. As a result, the Region Ill interpretation has caused industry-wIde confusion and is increasing waste handling costs for circuit board manufacturers without yIelding any environmental benefit. Capturing non-hazardous photoresist solids under the RCRA F006 classification greatly increases manufacturing costs while using up precious hazardous waste landfill capacity that is needed for genuine hazardous waste. If the Region Ill ruling is allowed to stand, it could add up to 10 million pounds annually to the national hazardous waste stream. This unnecessary and costly expense would further reduce the competitiveness of an industry already hard pressed by foreign competitors operating under tess stringent environmental and safety regulations. While waitIng for a response from your office, a number of IPC member companies or regional circuit associations have proceeded with seeking interpretations from the state and local authorities. We have enclosed copies of all such rulings received to date. Thus far, every single state ruling has contradicted the Region Ill interpretation. For these reasons, we feel that the Region Ill decision Is clearly erroneous and should be overturned by your office. We respectfully ask that you please expedite resolution of this issue at your earliest convenience. If you need additional information or have questions, we would be happy to discuss this issue and answer any questions at your convenience. Thank you for your time and consideration. SIncerely, ,1. , : Christopher R. Rhodes Dr. John Lott Michael Kerr Director of IPC Senior Technical Circuit Center Environmental, Safety Consultant Chairman of IPC & Government Relations DuPont Company EHST Committee Programs 919-248-5046 513-435-2131 708-677-2850 cc: Rick Brandes, Chief Waste Identification Branch ------- DuPont Electronic Materials 14 1W Alexander Drive P 0 Box 13999 Research Triangle Park. NC 21709-3999 Tel (919)248-5000 DuPont Electronic Materials Chronology of Appeal on Resist Skins • June 16, 1992 - DuPont letter to U.S. EPA asking for clarification on why resist stripper skins and sludge were classified as F006 classification, based on industry data that there were no hazardous materials in the skins and sludge. • July 2, 1992 - IPC letter on behalf of the industry was sent to Sylvia Lowrance, USEPA, asking that a clarification and reconsideration be made onof EPA Region III decision on F006 classification for photoresist skins. • Feb. 3. 1993 - Meeting between EPA Chief of Waste Identification Branch, Rick Brandes, and his staff with DuPont representatives and their lawyer. EPA asked for additional information to confirm the contention that PWB manufacturers do not intentionally allow metals into their stripper solution in order to dispose of them. EPA indicated at the time that Federal EPA was in agreement with at least the skins NOT being F006, but would need some time to “mend their fences with the regions”. Nothing was put into writing. • August 2, 1993 - letter sent to EPA by DuPont with arguments answering questions raised at the February meeiting, among them were ones showing that the metal concentration in strippers were not being used as a method of disposal for metals. • December 6, 1993 - DuPont spoke to Rick Brandes by phone to find Out what had been done with respect to the P006 issue. Mr. Brandes indicated that there were still problems with some of the regional EPAs as to their interpretation. DuPont indicated that Minnesota had decided that both skins and sludge were NOT F006 and give Mr. Brandes the name of the EPA official who had been sent the Minnesota information. • January 24, 1994 - DuPont discussed the problem with Mr. Gregory Helms (Chief, Characteristic Section - Waste Identification Branch) who was standing in for Mr. Brandes at the AESF/EPA convention in Orlando. Mr. Helms indicated that Region III was still not cooperating with Washington EPA on the interpretation. Mr. Helms said that another follow-up letter might help. • February 3, 1994 - DuPont sent a follow-up letter to Mr. Brandes - reiterating all the above, indicating that the Minnesota state EPA had found that the material are not F006, and that the interpretation was causing the industry an unnecessary expense and loss of competitiveness. A copy of the letters from Minnesota and Midwest Circuits Association was included. • March 1, 1994- We met with Mr. Brandes, but were unable to reach a resolution of the skins issue. JWL-3/ii/94 I du Pent de Nemours and Company ®Printed on Recycled Paper El 65 Rev 11/93 ------- Summary of States/Regions Findings on F006 Region 2 - New York State - finds resist skins and sludge are NOT F006 [ Hadco] Region 4 - Florida State - finds that skins and sludge are NOT F006 [ Name withheld] Region 5 - Minnesota State - finds that resist skins & sludge are NOT F006. [ Midwest Circuit Association] Region 9 - Arizona (and soon to be California) - find that resist skins & sludge are NOT F006. [ Continental Circuits Inc.] [ Printed Circuit Alliance] JWL - 3/11/94 ------- S1,, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 PRO1 9443.1994(05) JUL I5 994 Mr. Scott Tease OFFICEOF Technical Representative SOLID WASTEANOEMERGENCY HUBBARD-HALL INC. RESPONSE P.O. Box 969 Inman, S.C. 29349 Reference: Applicability of Hazardous Waste Codes to the LASER EX chemical polishing system Dear Mr. Tease: This responds to your letter dated June 15, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the potential applicability of hazardous waste codes to your process for chemical polishing. It is our understanding, that LASER EX is a peroxide-based chemical polishing system, which entails the chemical oxidation of the surfaces of brass and copper alloys as the final step after production and prior to plating, lacquering, antiquing, or assembly. Specifically the process dips parts to be chemically polished in an oxidative chemical bath. The actual process entails an aqueous wash followed by a sulfuric predip, the LASER EX bath, and a sulfuric acid post dip. A cold water rinse is performed between each step. The process reportedly does not employ electroplating or use cyanides. Based on the information you have provided us, the process does not employ electroplating or the use of cyanides and is separate and distinct from any such operations. Such. process wastes are not within the scope of the wastes listed in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D. However, solid wastes which are not listed hazardous wastes in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D, may also be classed as hazardous wastes, if they exhibit any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste found in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C. For example, based on the reported compositions of the baths it is possible for waste baths or rinses containing sulfuric acid to exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity (40 CFR 261.22). Aqueous wastes which have a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5 must be managed as EPA Hazardous Waste Number D002. In the case of the LASER EX bath and subsequent washes, these waste baths and subsequent rinses may exhibit the characteristic of ignitability and would require management as EPA Hazardous Waste Number DOOl (40 CFR 261.21). This is because the bath contains the inorganic oxidizer hydrogen peroxide, which is capable of severely exacerbating a fire once started by yielding 1 J RecycIediRacycIab e PIlntd with SoyICanoia ink on paper mat ntiin, it least 50% 5C Cld fiber ------- oxygen to stimulate the combustion of Organic matter. Once the hydrogen peroxide has been chemically decomposed, the wastes would no longer exhibit the ignitability characteristic due to the presence of an oxidizer. Wastes which are hazardous because they exhibit one of the 40 CFR 261 Subpart C characteristics of hazardous waste remain hazardous and subject to the regulations governing hazardous waste management, until they no longer exhibit the characteristic. However, as stated in the final sentence of 40 CFR 261.3(d) (1), “wastes that exhibit a characteristic at the point of generation may still be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 268, even if they no longer exhibit a characteristic at the point of disposal.” The above discussion is limited to hazardous waste codes which are most likely to be produced in the LASER EX process, as described to us. This in no way limits the obligation of any waste generator to fully characterize solid wastes being generated (see 40 CFR 262.11) and to manage such wastes in accordance with all. applicable federal or state regulations. States may impose regulations more stringent than the federal program. Therefore, you should also consult the local RCRA regulatory authority for where the process is to be utilized. s, Chief Waste Identification Branch ------- HUBBARD-HALL INC. 0 BOX 69 NMAN S C 29349 aO3 .172-9031 FAX 803 47221 June 15, 1994 Mr. Micheal H. Shapiro Office of Solid Waste United States Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW Washington, DC 20460 Dear Mr. Shapiro: I am writing you to request a ruling on the waste classification of a new chemical process. We have named our newest chemical polishing system the Laser EX; it is based on hydrogen peroxide and a stabilizer package. The polish is intended for use on brass and copper alloys. I have already met with Max Diaz on the line, his initial response was that the waste should not need to be classified as long as the sludge produced in waste treatment passes a leech test. I have given him much more information than I can include in this short letter. The Laser EX process is very simple. It involves an aqueous clean, a sulfuric predip, the Laser dip step, and a sulfuric acid post dip. There is cold water rinses in between each step; it is the waste that is carried over into these rinses that we need the ruling on. I have included with this letter a product data sheet and an M.S.D.S. for more information. Unlike most peroxide based systems, this system does not etch the surface. Rather, it oxidizes the surface to form a protective brown copper oxide coating over the alloy. When we remove this dark brown oxide film a bright, leveled, and very clean surface is the result. Some examples of where the Laser EX may find uses is as the final step after production prior to plating, lacquering, antiqueing, or assembly. Laser can take the place of hand buffing which leaves a very difficult soil to clean off the part. The Laser EK is also a good replacement for strong acid mix bright dips. There is no chance that there will be water carried over into this step from a plating solution. Laser EX does not use any electrical current for brightening. It may MAIN OFFICE 563 SOUTH LEONARD ST WATERBURY CONNECTICUT ------- HUBBARD-HALL INC. 3 BOX :NM,\N S C 29349 803 - 2 03l • FAX 803i -172-21 i7 not effect your ruling but the system uses no chelators, cyanides, chromates, phosphates, or ozone deleting solvents. Mr. Shapiro, I would like to thank you in advance for your help. If there are any questions that you need answered please feel free to give me a call. You can leave me a voice mail message at (800) 632 5017 box #256, or you can contact me directly at (919) 217 8281. Along with the information on the Laser LX, I have included information on our company. We have been in business for over a century and a half; I hope you can tell by our literature that we our a responsible supplier. Again, thank you so much for your help. Please take care and God Bless. S cQr$ r— cott Tease Technical Representative cc. Max Diaz t 1AIN OFFICE 563 SOUTH LEONARD ST WATERBURY CONNECTICUT 06708 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE November 3, 1994 9443.1994(06) MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Classification of Discarded Ammunition of 0.50 Caliber or Less FROM: Sonya Sasseville, Chief Alternative Technology Section (5303W) Office of Solid Waste TO: David Neleigh, Chief New Mexico/Federal Facilities Section (6H-PN) Region VI This is in response to your request of June 14, 1994 in which you ask for a clarification of EPA’s policy regarding the disposal of munitions less than or equal to 0.50 caliber. EPA’s policy was set forth in a June 2, 1988 memorandum on Classification of Discarded Class C Explosives. In that June memorandum, EPA stated “To date, only those Class C explosives identified as off-specification small arms ball ammunition up to and including 0.50 caliber have been demonstrated not to be subject to the Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements.” However, EPA did not intend to imply that small arms ball ammunition could not be regulated for reasons other than reactivity. The Agency has maintained that small arms ammunition intended for disposal, up to and including 0.50 caliber, is not reactive within the meaning of 40 CFR 261 .23(a)(6). The sole fact that small caliber ball ammunition is not reactive does not necessarily exempt the waste from Subtitle C regulation. Non-reactive wastes exhibiting another hazardous waste characteristic would be regulated. For example, certain small caliber ammunition may fail the TCLP for lead. Generators of discarded small caliber ammunition must determine whether their waste exhibits any other hazardous waste characteristics identified in §261 Subpart C. Your memo also describes an instance where a waste is disposed of in a popping furnace “that does not fit the description of an incinerator and the munitions are less than or equal to 0.50 caliber, then this would not be regulated under Subtitle C ...“ You are correct in that a device treating discarded ball munitions less than or equal to 0.50 caliber, would not be subject to Subtitle C regulations, unless the waste fails for another characteristic rendering it hazardous. However, please note that EPA classifies “popping furnaces” as incinerators because the process that occurs in the enclosed unit is controlled flame combustion, as discussed in the attached July 17, 1987 letter from Bruce Weddle to Jesse Cabellon. This documeiu has been retyped from the original ------- If you have any questions, please contact Jeffrey Gaines at (703) 308-8655. Attachment cc: Permit Section Chiefs, Regions I-V, and VII-X Subpart X Permit Writers’ Workgroup Waste Combustion Permit Writers’ Workgroup Frank McAlister, PSPD Jim Michael, PSPD Jeffrey Gaines, PSPD This document has been retyped from the ong:na ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FEB 24 995 9443.1995(01) MEMOR !DJJM SUBJECT: Debris and Soil contaminated with Explosive Residues PBOM: James F. Michael, Chief Disposal Technology Section (5303W) Office of Solid Waste TO: Lawrence A. Wapensky, Chief Utah/North Dakota Section Region VIII This responds to your January 20, 1995 memorandum requesting assistance in answering questions raised by the State of Utah concerning regulatory issues pertaining to wastes contaminated with explosive residues. The first question raises concern with the reference at 40 CFR 261.23(a) (8) to certain Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations concerning explosive classifications, that are cited as criteria for determining the characteristic of reactivity. The DOT regulations cited at §261.23(a) (8) have recently been changed and expanded to conform with Department of Defense hazard classes, therefore, presenting difficulties in implementing the Federal regulatory definition of reactivity under RcRA. Until such time that §261.23(a) (8) is updated, those referenced DOT regulations can not be used for determining reactivity. Reactivity determinations should be made using the remaining criteria at §261.23(a)(1)(7). The second question asks whether and when liquid, solid, or debris mixed with explosives would be considered reactive. Wastes, whether themselves explosives, or media contaminated with explosives would be considered reactive by meeting the definition of reactivity as described in §261.23(a)(l)(7). Wastes that do not meet the criteria in §261.23(a)(1)—(7) would not be considered reactive. The third question regards other Federal criteria for explosivity. If agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) have regulations, or protocols, for determining whether or not a substance is explosive, those regulations or protocols would not be enforceable unc3er EP r TTl lJ UlD’ rruiua ‘ Kscyc4ed Paper 1. S G arvT.M Pr %t$flg OIVcs 1992— ------- • regulations, unless they became incorporated into our rules. Specific methods used by agencies such as BATF to determine if a substance is an explosive could, however, be applied to determine whether a waste is reactive according to §261.23(a) (6) or (7). Thank you for the opportunity to address questions related to the reactivity characteristic as it relates to explosives. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gaines at (703) 308- 8655. cc: Frank McAlister, AB, PSPD, OSW Jeff Gaines, AB, PSPD, OSW ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 AUG24 5 9443.1995(02) OFF E OF S .O WASTE AJ EMERGENCY l Jr. T. L Nebrich, Jr. RESPONSE 11echni I DirectOr jaste Technolo ’ Seryices , Inc. 640 Park Place Niagara Falls, NY 14301 L ear Mr. Nebrich Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1995 requesting a clarification of the difference between the definition for the characteristic of ignitability as It pertains to s4lids vs. liquids. As you are aware, there is no officially pro’nulgated or required method for determining the ignitability of solid samples or sludges at this time . Of the t o fl* h point methods, Method 1010, Pensky-Martens , has some utility for liquid sinpies with non-filterable, suspended solids. If your samples contain filterable solids, th ey are not amenable to the Pensky-Martens fIA I point test. Flash point testing is only a propriate for liquid s n’ples . It should not be applied to solids. The Office of Solid Waste has developed and proposed a test to determine the igpitability of solids (SW-846 Method 1030). Our procedure is based on the Department of Transportation (DOT) burn rate test listed in 49 CFR *173.124 and Appendix E. You shbuld separate the solid/liquid phases of your s ’r les and test each phase separately li4uids by f) th point and solids by the DOT procedure. It Is the generatoi’s responsibility to sure ibcfr waste is not h rdous for th characteristic of ignitability as described in 40 CFR *26121. As we do not have a p*mulgated method required by regnhtiom to test for the ignitability of solids or zl4dges at present, we recommend you usc generator knowledge of the waste when av*ilable supplemented by tests appropriate to the waste If necessazy. When specified methods are not av fl hle and generator knowledge Is insufficie nt to make a l’a ’dous waste deter ,nin don, It Is always wise to check with your state or regional EI A office for approval of the protocol you wish to follow in n ig a hazardous waste detcr?nin2tion. There have been clarifications to our guidance on how to determine a free liquid sii ce the 1989 letter to Mr. Travis P. Wagner on the subject. In a J maary 13,1995 Federal Register Notice (60FR3089) in Section 1V.C there is a paragraph on “Free U4uids and Characteristic TeStS.N A copy is enclosed for your convenience. ------- 2 I hope that this infOrmation will be benefidal to your industzy. if you have any q slion, please feel free to caD Ollie Fordham of my staff at (202) 260-4778. Sincerely, ctor Waste ------- wTs WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC. July 31, 1995 Mr. Michael Shipiro, Director Office of Solid Waste Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S. W. Washington, DC. 20460 Dear Mr. Shipiro: There has been a discuss ion ragging in our industry (hazardous waste consulting) for the past few years regarding a DOOl ignitable solid. Some of our clients (generators) want to identify their solid (non-liquid) wastes as DOOl when it’s only based on a flashpoint test as outlined 40CFR261.21(a)(1). They then want to ship the waste as a DOT Flammable Solid. We have tried to point out that non—liquid, s lid waste cannot meet the definition of a RCRA characteristic of .ignitability 4OCFR 261.21 unless it is “not a liquid and is capable, under standard temperature and pressure . . . (4OCFR261.21(a)(2)]. Now with the subcategories for DOOl on a LDR Notification it makes it even more difficult to identify a DOOl solid as ignitable since there is no category which fits a Flammable Solid in 40CFR261.21(a)(1). Could you please clarify the difference between the definition for the eharacteristic of Ignitability as it pertains to solids (non—liquids) vs. liquids. Has there been any change since the 1989 to letter Mr. Travis P. Wagner (see enclosed). If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, WASTE TE OLOGY B VICZS INC. T. L. Nebrich, Jr., CE *1 Technical Director TLN/kjl Enclosure 40 Park Place, Niagara Falls. New York, 14301 Telephone 716-282-4100 • Fax 716-282-6986 ------- This Page Intentionally Left Blank ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9443.1995(03) Mr. T. L. Nebrich, Jr. Technical Director Waste Technology Services, Inc. 640 Park Place Niagara Falls, NY 14301 Dear Mr. Nebrich: Thank you for your follow up letter of August 31, 1995 to Michael Shapiro requesting further clarification of the characteristic of ignitability as it pertains to solids versus liquids. 40 CFR 261.21(a) (1) is only applicable to liquids as a definitive test for the characteristics of ignitability. There is no promu1g ted definitive test for the ignitability of solids (i.e., physically a solid with no free liquid). If a solid flashes using some modification of the flash point test, this may indicate there is a potential problem with the sample such as contamination with ignitable volatiles and further investigation may be in order. The flash point test alone is not definitive for determining the ignitability of solids, but may be used with other evidence to build a case for a waste being classified as an ignitable hazard. I hope that this information will be beneficial to your industry. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Ollie Fordham of my staff at (202) 260-4778. Sincerely yours, Gail Hansen Chief, Methods Section (5304) ------- wT WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC. August 31, 1995 Mr. Michael Shipiro, Director Office of Solid Waste Environmental Protection Agency / , 401 M Street, S. W. Washington, DC 2O I6O Dear Mr. Shipiro: As a follow up to my July 31, 1995 letter and your response (enclosed) regarding the characteristic of ignitability as it pertains to solid&vs. liqui ds, Ivould li}.e to request a.further clarification. Is it possible or correct to identify a solid waste (ie. physically a solid with no free liquid) as RCRA DOOl (characteristic of ignitiabjlity) according to 4OCFR 26l.21(a)(1). I realize that you could have a R RA DOOl non— liquid as defined in 4OCFR 261.21(a) (2) or (4). However, since there are only flash points for liquids, could you have a solid waste characterized as a RcRA DOOl based solely on. a flash point? If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours,. WASTE TECEWOLOGY 8ERVI E8, INC. di T. L. Nebrich, Jr., CHM!( Technical Director TLN/kjl Enclosure 640 Park Place, Niagara Fails, New York i oi Telephone 716-282-410C ------- c.o St 11 • ? . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 9443.1997(01) MAy 9 10O7 OFFICE OF I ‘PU SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE T.L. Nebrich, Jr. Technical Director Waste Technology Services, Inc. 640 Park Place, Niagra Falls, New York, 14301 Dear Mr. Nebrich: Thank you for your letter of March 5, 1997 in which you request a clarification of the definition of the characteristic of reactivity in 40 CFR 261 .23(a)(6) as it pertains to aerosol cans. Over the past several years we have received numerous questions concerning the regulatory status of used aerosol cans under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. We are not at this time able to make a categorical determination as to whether various types of cans that may have contained a wide range of products exhibit the characteristic of reactivity. It remains the responsibility of the generator of any particular waste to make this determination (see 40 CFR 262.11). However, a steel aerosol can that does not contain a significant amount of liquid (e.g., a can that has been punctured and drained) would meet the definition of scrap metal (40 CFR 261.1 (c)(6)), and, if it is to be recycled, would be exempt from regulation under 40 CFR 261.6 (a)(3)(iv). Scrap metal that is recycled is exempt from RCRA regulation under this provision even if it is hazardous waste, so generators need not make a hazardous waste determination. Scrap metal that is not recycled, however, is subject to the hazardous waste regulations if it is hazardous, so generators must make a hazardous waste determination. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please call Anna Tschursin of my staff at (703) 308-8805. Sincerely yours, (c1i beth A. Cotsworth, Acting Director Office of Solid Waste ------- wT WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC. March 5, 1997 Mr. Michael Shapiro, Director Office i f Solid Waste Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Mr. Shapiro. I am requesting a clarification of the definition of the characteristic of reactivity in 40 CFR 261.23 (a) (6) as it pertains to aerosol cans. The only guidance I can find on the subject is a RCRA/Superfiind/OUST Hotline Monthly Report (see attached). However, the questioner may have presented his/her case utilizing a leading question by stating ‘ .. making the cans reaci ive... “. My question is... .are aerosol cans, which still contains ingredients/propellants or which are evacuated with still some propellants in them (empty as per common industry practices), considered D003-ráctive? Does it matter if the ingredient or propellant is flammable? I guess I have a couple of scenarios. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, WASTE TECHNOLOGY INC. T.L. Nebrich, Jr., CHMM, Technical Director UN/tin Tøteohone 716-282-4100. Fa 2 -698 \ / I ------- UNITED SThTES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG NCY 9443.1997(02) MAY 2 2 ‘ 7 Mr. T.L. Nebrich, Jr. Waste Technology Services, Inc. 640 Park Place Niagara Falls, New York 14301 Dear Mr. Nebrich: I am responding to your March 5, 1997 letter to Mr. Michael Shapiro where you seek clarification as to how ignitable solids, which you believe include solvent contaminated rags or shop towels, fit into the D00 I characteristic of ignitability found in 40 CFR 261.21 (a)( 1) or (a)(2). A solvent-contaminated rag can be a hazardous waste if it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic. EPA recommends that the state program or EPA regional office implementing the RCRA program make such a determination on a site-specific basis. With respect to ignitable solids that could be characteristically hazardous, the Agency currently does not have a specific test method for hazardous waste handlers; i.e., generators, transporters and treatment, storage and disposal facilities, to use in determining whether an ignitable solid is characteristically ignitable (DOOl). Instead, handlers are advised to use their best engineering judgement in determining whether an ignitable solid material is characteristically hazardous, and therefore subject to RCRA regulation. Unfortunately, the information you provided in your letter is insufficient for us to determine whether you have a material that should be regulated as a hazardous waste. Two additional pieces of information may help you in this determination. In May of 1995, the EPA proposed Test Method 1030 for ignitable solids as part of SW-846. (See attachment.) This test method is based on the test procedure adopted by the Department of Transportation from the United Nations regulations for international transportation of dangerous goods and is contained in Appendix E to Part 173 of 49 CFR. The EPA expects to promulgate this test method in May 1997. However, we have yet to determine if and when we will modify 40 CFR 261.21 (a)(2) to specifically include Test Method 1030 for ignitable solids. In the meantime, I would recommend that you evaluate your site-specific circumstances and determine whether this method can assist you in determining whether you ------- placed on the rag, the type of rag used, and the number of rags used daily in the workplace, and ow these rags are stored. I also would point out that it is quite possible to have solvent-contaminated rags with no free liquids that are still capable of failing the tests found under 40 CFR 261.21 (a)( 1) or (a)(2). In the first instance, this can occur when numerous solvent-contaminated rags are placed in a container, and through the force of gravity, cause solvent to percolate from the rags on top of the container to the bottom creating free liquids. These free liquids, in turn, would have to pass the tests cited under 40 CFR 261.21 (a)( 1). In the second instance, this can occur when ignitable solvent-contaminated rags are placed in an environment with oxygen present, “causing fire through friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous chemical changes and, when ignited, burns so vigorously and persistently that it creates a hazard.” (See 40 CFR 261.21 (a)(2)). A few states have identified situations where fires occurred in trucks transporting solvent- contaminated rags that were stored in an original non-saturated condition. We also are aware of industry practices involving the application of large amounts of solvents on wipers that would probably be considered saturated, but still not have any free liquids. Facilities may want to be diligent in checking the bottom of containers storing these spent solvent-contaminated rags both because that determines if the test for ignitable liquids is relevant (40 CFR 261.21 (a)(1)) and because many state policies distinguish between containers with free liquids and those without -- particularly with respect to reusable shop towels. Many States also have addressed the solvent-contaminated rag issue. You should consult your State regulatory agency because their policies may assist you in making a determination of how these materials should be managed. If you have any further questions, please contact Jim O’Leary of my staff at (703) 308-8827. Sincerely yours, ( . David Bussard, Director Hazardous Waste Identification Division ------- wT WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC. March 5, 1997 ceIved W/9/4 ] Mr. Michael Shapiro, Director Office of Solid Waste Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Mr. Shapiro: At the risk of beating the proverbial dead horse, I would like get an additional clarification of my DOOl flammable solids question which I have proposed in the past (see attached letter). However, this time I would like to be specific. The question again revolves around the definition ofDOOl ignitable solids (non-liquid) and how it may fit into the DOOl definition in 40 CFR 261.21 (a)(1) or (a)(2). The material in question would be rags and/or miscellaneous debris which contains solvents. Whether these solvents are spent (i.e., F003, F005), I think is irrelevant (7?). .._- .,“ - The rags and/or debris are not saturate and there is no free liquid (solvents). There may be a flash point to the rags but, again, I assume that is irrelevant also since there has to liquid to have a flash point relevant to the definition ofDOOI ignitability. These rags would not meet the criteria in 40 CFR 261.21 (a)(2) (i.e., ...fliction spontaneous chçznical changes, etc.). (- .-‘c- ’. ‘ - -- Therefore, under this scenario, would this type of material meet the DOOl ignitable fL -’ oi... criteria for designation as EPA Waste Number DOOl? Also do you think there is any p U chance of these rags meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 261.21 (a)(2) (i.e., ...fiiction spontaneous chemical changes, etc.)? If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Veiy truly yours, WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC. 7Z7 J T.L. Nebiich, Jr., CHMM, Q 4 \ Technical Director ¼ ToleDhone 716-282-4100 ------- wT WASTE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC. July 31, 1995 Mr. Michael Shipiro, Director Office of Solid Waste Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S. W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Mr. Shipiro: There has )‘een a discu$sion ragg&ng in our inciustry (hazardous waste consulting) f or the past few years regarding a DOOl ignitable solid. Some of our clients (generators) want to identify their solid (non—liquid) wastes as DOOl when it’s only based on a flashpoint test as outlined 40CFR261.21(a)(l). They then want to ship the waste as a DOT Flammable Solid. We have tried to point out that non—liquid, solid waste cannot meet the definition of a R RA characteristic of ignitability 4OCFR 261.21 unless it is “not a liquid and is capable, under standard temperature and pressure . . (40CFR261.21(a)(2)]. Now with the subcategories for DOOl on a LDR Notification it makes it even more difficult to identify a DOOl solid, as ignitable since there is no category which fits a Flammable Solid in 40CFR261.2l(a) (1). Could OU please clarify the difference between the definition for the Characteristic of Ignitability as it pertains to solids (non—liquids) vs. liquids. Has there been any change since the 1989 to letter Mr. Travis P. Wagner (see enclosed). If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, WASTE TECENOLOGY SERVICES,) INC. T. L. Nebrich, Jr., C Technical Director TLN/kjl Enclosure 640 Park Place. Niagara Falls. New York. 14301 Telephone 716.282.4100 • Fax 716-282-6986 ------- Lists Of Hazardous Waste (Subpart D) ------- 9444.1980(01) September 4, 1980 Mr. Robert Goodell Regulatory Affairs Specialist Betz Laboratories, Inc. 4636 Somerton Road Trevose, Pennsylvania 19047 Dear Mr. Goodell: This is in response to your letter of August 1, 1980 in which you requested confirmation of our previous telephone conversations related to interpretations of §261.33 of the hazardous waste regulations promulgated on May 19, 1980. In an attachment to your letter you described a hypothetical waste stream which contained several constituents which, as products, are listed in §5261.33(e) or 261.33(f); you concluded that the waste stream was non—hazardous. As noted in the regulations, SS261.33(e) and (f) relate only to commercial chemical products (or variants thereof) which are hazardous wastes if and when they are discarded. They are not to be applied to wastes which incidentally contain substances listed in these sections. Thus the waste stream you described is not one of the commercial chemical products listed. (The exception to this would be those cases where, citing your example, the product is known by the generic name of and purchased for the active ingredient, pentachlorophenol.) Also you did properly indicate an evaluation against the characteristics of hazardous waste. A Regulatory Interpretation Memorandum (RIM) on this specific issue (5261.33) has been prepared and is being revised within the Agency. It should be published in the Federal Register in about two weeks. A notice indicating that RIMs would be prepared and a tentative schedule for a group of RIMs was published on August 19, 1980 (45 FR 55386). A copy is attached. This has been retyped from the original document. ------- I have this provides the information you requested. Please call or write If I may be of further assistance. Very truly yours, Alan S. Corson, Chief Waste Characterization Branch Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division Attachment This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9444.1980(02) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NOV 1 3 1980 Mr. John D. R. lright Independent Valley Cnargy Co tpany 11.0’) ? ila Euilding Suite 3765 Houston, ‘exas 77002 Dear i?r. right: ‘-is is in response to Hr. Finis C. Carleton’. let r to e dated October 2R, l SO (copy attached). In his letter Carleton as)cs for verification of his interpretation of our RCRA H ardoua Waste Man ge ent Regulations with respect to wastes that will, be 7eneratPd by a refinery your firs intends to build in 2aker,fjeld, aixfcrnia. Eased on the facts pre.e ted in his letter, I conclude that Hr. Cari.ston has reached correct interpretations of our e u1atictns. It a ears that th. refinery wast.water to be treated is not a z r.ic’i .‘este because it is not li sted ia 2GL.31 or 2 1.32 of the re 1cti ns, . ,es et contain (by rnixture) any of the hazardous wastes listed in 2Gl.31 er 261.32, or does not cxhibit any of thy hazardous :te c 1arectpri3ties identified in £ubp rt C of Part 261 o the rc ’1latjc ts. s such. this waatewa q would not a subject to our re uiatjor e an4 it would not a necessary to subnit a Pert A a plicetion o ;over , ,er 19. ]9e0 . or obtain intcrj ’ status in accordance with G122.23. I would ht t.n to point out, however, that if any of the th:ce azardeus waste, to be generated by the ref thery (K048 , P049 and K051) are discharged into’an nixed with the refinvry wastewater. they will cause the wastewater to b. a hazardous waste-—jn accordance with the i iztur. rul. of S 2 61.3(a)(2)(ii)—and, thereby, subject to our RCPA regulation.. It appear, that one of the ha ardeus wastes to be generated by your refthery—na .1y skii ir gs fron the ir floatation unit (T04?3)-- will be recycled to the coker after aec nu1ation or .toraj. in the slop oil tank. Although the recycling of this waste is not n subject to our regulation. Cs.. !261.6(a)), the storeg. of this waste i the slc.p oil tank is nc subject to our regulation . bcauee it is ra ’ju of a list ’! iazardous waste (see 52G1 ,.G(b)). I• the rogulation ry now written. the sLop oil tan would have to be pe itted or hnve ------- —3— I hcp that I avo been hclp ut in this reipor.se. I regret that cur reyulaticfl$ are so c p1icated but believe thQt this cu p1exity is caused by the ccrplexity of the problert being regulated. U I can he c any further assistance. please call or. pref3rrably . contact: Arnold Den Chief. liatardous i’ ateriats ranch 23.5 ?remant Street san rr ncieco, California 94105 (415) 556-4606 incere1y yours. Gary H. Dietrich Associate Deputy Assistant Mninistrator for Solid %‘aste rnc lcqure cet inis E. Carleton ------- uMI D STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 3444.1980(03) NOV 171980 Mr. B. E. Hoyle t anager . Operations Koch Fuels Inc. P.O. Box 2338 Wichita. Kansas 67201 Dear Mr. Iloyle: This is in response to your letter of Septexnber 11.. 1980, requesting clarification of our RCRA hez rdous waste nanagement regulations relative to bott n sedinents. water wastes and spilled material and nixtures resulting fr a storage of petrc1e m products. You ask whether these wastes are hazardous wastes by virtue of containing any of the constituents, such as ben:ene , 1 ted in Appendix VIII of Part 26]. of our regulations. These wastes would only be hazardous waste if: 1. they are listed a. hazardous wastes in 26l.3 or 261.32 of our regu1ations or 2. they are mixtures that contain any of the hazaidou . wastes listed in 261.3l or 261.32 of our regulations. 3. they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste, described in Subpart C of Part 261 of our regulation.. Frc n the information provid.d in your letter, it appears that your wastes do not meet either of the first two criteria. Your letter does not provid, sufficient infornation to make a udgez .nt based on the third criterion. Belative to your questions about Appendix VIII. that Appendix is only meant to be us.d by EPA in making judgew.ent. about listing wastes as hazardous wastes. It is not intended that th. regulated c unity must us. Appendix VIII to determin, whether a waste is a hasardous waste. Put in other words, a waste that contains an Appendix VIII constituent ii only a hazardou. waste becaus. of this if PA has listed the wast. for this reason in 26l.3l or c2€l.32. ------- —2— I your wastes contain any of the I ppendix ‘Jill constituents but these wastes are not listed in 26l.3l or 261.32. this does not necessarily r ean that EPA ha. made a deter inat .cn that these wastes are non—hazardous. It nest 1i ely means that we have not yet nade a deternination with respect to these wastes. I hope I have clarified our regulations with respect to your questions. If I can of further assistance, please call ne. Sincerely yours, Gary U. Dietrich Associate Deputy Assistant Adninistrator for Solid Waste ------- 9444.1980 (05) c . E so ichae1 5. P a ren Tectr ica1 irector u.S. Cytinders 1Cr’ Inthistri.al ?ar) :ne _c•. bara 3S522 ar This is to res:cn to your letter o Octo : 30. IVVO, to s. Ti1 -ter.a C’ au as ing for arificat c? o r .azardous • aste - ent reculations as they a; .y to your c .ny’s . .aste. You indicate that your waste is Ca , and asbe tcs an as ,: if it s a hazardous waste. We Listed as .3stc3 as a hazardous waste in 2 1.33(f) of our reoulatior., it this cr. ’ a es c t c r. cal rade asbesto3 if, for s e reason, it is sc : e or intended tc e d .scaried. This listir. does not cause a r actur .nç rrccess waste containing asbestos as a r.crr%al waste constituent to a hazardous waste. ?r y n erstandin of yc r letter. your waste is such a ar.ufacturing rccess este. f this is correct, it s ct ar cus waste COaUEe of ts cor.tc t of estos. You: waste nay be a ha :dous waste eca F4 t .i its any of the characteristics of hacar cus waste e tif ed r. ert c Part 3d. ?rc the thforr.aticn ;rovi ed ir. your 1 . ’tter. I cannot rah a udr er.t on this po .r.t. You ay want to cheo on th .s. you reed further u .dance, I rec rtend that you eentect Janes Scarbrou;h hief, esiduals anage ’ent 3ranch 345 Courtland Street, .. Atlanta, G.o: ia 30365 (404) 1—30l ’ If you should fine that your waste .s a ha:ardcus waste and are a snail auantity aenerator, you are all ed to dispose of your wastc in a facility that is approved by the State far di?poSal. of ! U! iCi?3al or industrIal waste (not a necessarily ha ardcu! waste facility). . s—all quantIty generator s eno who ercrates less t n 1 00 ki1o rars ef hazardous waste in a calendcr Ycur l ttar ------- states that you ieocse of 5C i ogra s per o th of as estcs. c r re ulation i based Cr. the ouantity cf the tctal waste, ct : st t e oua tity of the asbestos or any other constituent in the waste. Therefc?e, I cannot a udce er.t or. nether you are a s a12. nti ceneratcr. You ay wish to discuss this with r. Scarbrcug . I hc e I have beefl helpful. I a o1oçi:e for the tard ncss of th s resronse but we have been overwhe1 ed with re ests for cla:if .cat .on Cf cur re u1ations. Sincerely yours. Gar ‘. tr h Associ.ate Ceputy Assistant n..s:rator for 5o2.if .aste ------- 9444.1980(06) December 2, 1980 Mr. William English Vice—President, Operations The Massillon Steel Casting Company Massilon, Ohio 44646 Dear Mr. English This letter will confirm the conversation you had with Mr. Myles Morse of my staff on October 20, 1980, concerning your petition to exclude the waste of the Massillon Steel Casting Company from the K061 hazardous waste listing, (emission control dust/sludge from the electric furnace production of steel), under Section 261.32 of the hazardous waste regulations. The Massillon Steel Casting Company’s facility in Massillon, Ohio, as indicated by your petition dated September 9, 1980, is a steel foundry and is therefore not affected by this RCRA hazardous waste classification. This reflects the Agency’s finalized listings (see 45 74890—892 (November 12, 1980)) which clarify that the listing K061 applies only to the primary production of steel and not to steel foundries. This change was made since the listing background document refers throughout only to primary steel production. We are uncertain whether foundry electric furnace emission control dusts and sludges are sufficiently similar in composition to warrant inclusion in the area listing, and therefore have not included them in this listing. Foundry industry wastes are being evaluated and may be addressed by future Agency actions. At present, however, the Agency has formally terminated further processing of this petition. The petition will be kept on file with the Agency for future reference. Your waste stream, therefore, will not be listed as hazardous. You are not required to take any action as a result of the May 19, 1980, interim final listing. You must still determine, however, whether your waste possesses any of the characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., reactivity, corrosivity, ignitability or EP toxicity) as provided in §262.11 of the regulations. If your waste does not possess any of these characteristics, you will be deemed a generator of hazardous waste, and be required to manage the waste under the hazardous waste management program. It should be noted that if your waste meets any of the four characteristics, you should have already obtained an EPA identification number by August 18, 1980. This has been retyped from the original document. ------- Please feel free, to contact Mr. Morse if you have any questions or problems. Mr. Morse’s telephone number is (202) 755—9187. Sincerely yours, John P. Lehman Director Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565) This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9444.1981(01) ,SO SI4 p 11 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 ‘4 I 4 ( t 1 2 MAR REC’D o•.,cI OP SOLID WAIlS APIO IMU OUNeY ES ONSI RE: WCBDE’830108 Mr. John D’Aloia, Jr. Deuel and Associates, Inc. 7300 Jefferson St, N.E. Albuqerque, NM 87109 Dear Mr. D’Aloia: I am responding to your letter of March - , 1983 to Alan Corson requesting a clarification of why the Agency does not identify as a hazardous waste any manufacturing waste that contains any of the compounds Itated in 40 CFR 261.33. The commercial chemical products regulated under 5261.33 are generally products containing high concentrations of toxic chemicals or, in the case of pesticides, products of high toxic activity. Thus, there is no question that such materials are likely to meet the criteria for listing, as hazardous wastes. Manufacturing process wastes, on the other hands genera .ly contain only low levels of these materials. Thus, expanding the hazardous waste identification regulations to enc ompass all manufacturing wastes containing the S261.33 compounds is likely to result in many false positives ( i.e. , wastes identified as hazardous which do not actually contain hazardous levels of the toxicants of concern) unless, and until, minimum concentration thereshoi,ds can be established for each compound. At this time, due to the lack of data, the Agency is unable to set’ thresholds for all the compounds. As the coent to S261.33 explainE’, where the Agency deems a manufacturing process waste to be hazardous waste because it contains 1ev levels of these compounds, such a waste will be listed in SS261.31. and 261.32. In summary, 526L.33 was not broadened to include all process wastes due to the problem outlined above and the technical difficulties in establishing mirtimis concentration thresholds for all the compounds. ------- —2— I hope that I have answered your question. If you need additional background information on these regulations, i suggest that reviewing the S261.33 Background Document may be useful. Sincerely yours, David Friedman Manager Waste Analysis Program cc: ifotline ------- 19811 02) f ____ UNITED STATES ENV RON ’!NTAL. PROTETION AGENCY p WASN!NGT N .C 2046C QFF Z OF SOLID WAST .th 19198, OFEICE 0’ WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT Mr. R. E. McNeill Occidental Chemical Company P .O. Box 300 White Springs, FL 32096 Dear Mr. McNeil ].: I am writing in response to your letter of dune 9, 1981 to Mr. Alan COESOn requesting clarification of the section 261.33 regulations with respect to a sulfuric acid catalyst you use. The hazardous waste listing P120 in section 261.33(e) relates to all the oxides of vanadium’s +5 oxidation state. If the Monsanto Catalyst that you employ in the production of sulfuric acid does not have such an oxide as its sole active ingredient, then the catalyst is not regulated under section 261. One must keep in mind however that, even if it is not regulated under section 261.33, the waste must still be evaluated to determine if it exhibits any of the ch r .cteristic of a hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, reactivityp corrosivity, EP toxicity). I trust the above answers your questions. If I can be of furth er assistance please give me a call at (202) 755—9187. Sincerely, David Friedman Manager Waste Analysis Program Eazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WB —565) cc: Hotline ------- 9444.1981(03) CFFICE F CLID WASTE j 6 g8 Mr. r.d Keough Continental Pipeline P.C. Box 2197 koom 600 kich nd T ev Houston, Texas 77001 Dear Mr. K.oughs This letter is in response to your request for a clarification of the hazardous waste listing 052, Tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining industry. In our telephone conversations, you indicated that your company, as well as other pipeline companies, generate leaded tank bottoms it bulk terminals, distribution points, etc., which are not part of a refinery. Therefore, it was not clear to you whether th. listing t052 included all leaded tank bottoms generated by the petroleum industry or just thos. specifically generated at a petroleum ref insry. As you had discussed with Matt Straus. of my staff, on the telephone, the hazardous waste listing 5052 in limited to only those leaded tank bottoms which are generated • o as part of a petroleum ref insry. A petroleum refinery is described in the listing bckground document as a ...coup lez combination of interdependent operations engaged in the separation of crude oil by molecular cracking, molecular rebuilding and solvent refinishing, to produce a varied list of intermediate and finished producti... (3ackground Documentz SS261.31 and 241.32 Listing of Nasardous Wast.s (PinaL sation of May 19, 1980 hazardOus Waste List), November 14, 1980, p. 685.] Therefore, only leaded bottoms fro, those tanks (i.e., tank farm) wb ith are directly part of a petroleum refinery (i.e., used to store product/crude prior to shipment offeite) and which generate ].ad.d bottoms would be curr•ntly covered by the listing. Thea. leaded bottoms are subject to control as hazardous wastes when they are removed fro. th. tanks. This we believe is made clear in reading th• listing background document which defines the scop. of the listing. ------- This, how.v.r. does not mean that your bottoms are nan— hazardous. !ach g.n.ratcr is ultixnataly responsible for deterr’ ining whether this waste exhibits any of the charac-’ teristics of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, carrosivity, reactivity arid P toxicity) as provided in 262. ].l of the regulations. If the waste exhibits a hazardous waste charac- teristic. the facility will be da ed a generator of hazardous waste, and th. wast. must be nanag.d in accordance with the hazardous west. uanag nt regulations. In addition, if, in further studies, the Agency determines that Leaded tank bottoms generated from oth.r sources ar. also hazardous, th. Agency will amend the listing to include th... source. under Subtitle C control. Please fsel fre. to giv. — or Matt Stxaus of my staff a call if you hays any further questions. Ply telephone number is (202) 755—9185 while Matt’s telephone number is (202) 755—9187. Sincerely your.. Alfred V. Lindsey Deputy Director Hazardous and Industrial Vast. Division (W —56S) WH 565zMStraus2PeSZX5 9 lB 7 t 5—30—81 Disk Fs—51—02 ------- 9444.1981( 05) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 ‘F1CE ‘ SOLID WASTE 16 F181 O IIC, OP . SOLID WAST! ANO EMIAGENGY AESPONSE Division, Region DC ILS. tvtxo! tenta]. Protection Agency 2 . 1.5 Fr ont Street San Francis , Ca1if ia 94.105 ar . Sato: I wr .tir in responee to yo letter of JuJ.y 23, 1981 (E-5—3; DC81— A-O79) requestix c.].ari .ficat .cn of 40 CFR 261.33(e). You axe rrect in yot interpretation that a teria1 containir a listed in S261.33(e) as its sole active ii redient is a h i rda.is ste when di arded even though the original product bas been diluted by the user. Thus if a person p d a es a onncentrated solution of the ticide Aldicarb (P070) az then dilutes it to an application s er th solution; disposal of the application strength solution is neidered to be disposal of the product it eJ.f. A literal reeding of the r u1atione ‘ . uId an that even if the iit of ienical product prior to dilution s less than 1 kilogr disp a1 of i re than I kil / nth of the application sength solution u1d require I nage nt as a h ’ ’dais ste. It is i rtant to Iceap in mix , h ver, the applicability of the Nfa 1r exe tion dis ’ sed in 5262.51. A ciiwi rcia1 applicator rking for a fae r i y mix, apply, rinee ard dispose of pesticide rinaate or r used pesticide solution on the fa rs property if done so in a rdance with the thstructions on the pesticide label . This ex ticrt uld r t apply if the pesticide re beirq applied to a than one fa. ier’s property ard disposal only occ ed at one ff n , or if the see s shipped off the fa xs’ s propexty for disposal. I trust that this explanation Thrifies the issi m for you. If you have arv fizther g stions, please feel free to give us a cm-fl . Sincerely yo s, 1.. L # avid Ft i 4I!Rn Manager ) ste Analysis Prc rsa Eazardous & Industrial ste Division ( i—565) : Fred Lindeey (1 —565) A. Corson ( €—565) D. Fia.1u (1 -565) M. Str is ( —565) Amy Sd affer, force! tt (I —562-M) Susan (1 —564) Fi1 na O au (1 —562) A t1ine ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGtON IX 215 Fr.mont Str.et San Francisco. Ca 94105 JUL 23 1981 In Reply: E—5—3 Refer To: IX—el—RCRk079 Mr. David Friedman, (WR—565) Manager of Waste Analysis Waste Characterization Branch Envirot ental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20460 Re: Request for Policy Statement regarding §261.33(e) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Dear Mr. Friedman: EPA Region 9 is currently engaged in an enforcement action which involves an interpreatiofl of §261.33(e) of Title 4.0, Code of Federal Regulations. - It is our contention that a pesticide containing a listed §261.33(e) chemical product as its sole active ingredient which is diluted to application strength ia a. hazardous waste if discarded. We contend that such application—strength pesticide is a hazardous waste even where the chemical product prior to dilution is less than 1 kilogram. Therefore, so long as an applicator generates 1 kilogram of waste pesticide residues per month he is required to notify as a generator pursuant to section 3010 of RCBL. Jithin our own technical section there has been some dispute as to whether the preceding analysis is correct. to order to obtain guidance on this matter I contacted your office on July 20, and explained our position to Mr. Matthew Straus. Mr. Straus stated that Region 9’s interpretation of 461.33(e) ii correct. Furthermore, Mr. Straus indicated that if the applicator tanks were rinsed, that rinsate could be considered hazardous waste as well. I am writing to obtain a written statement from your office which confirms Mr. Straus’ conclusions. Such a statement will greatly assist us in the successful conclusion of our enforcement action. If you have any questions regarding this request please call me at TTS 556—8000. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Reed Sato Attorney—Advisor Enforcement Division ------- 3444.1982(01) Regulatiofl of Paint Filters David Friedman, Manager waste Analysis Progran (WH—565R) Chet McLaughlin, Chief State Drograns Section (Region V I I) Recently you indicated that the States of Iowa and Kansas have raised questions concerning the reculation of paint filters renoved from spray booths. The questions revolve around how we regulate those filters which are hazardous wastes when removed from the spray booth but not after imiftersion in water. I will try to answer the specific questions raised in your nemo (a copy of which is attached). 1. In calculating the quantity of hazardous waste gererated, it is the weight of spent filters (including occluded paint) that is used. Generators are responsible for evaluating their waste to determine whether it is a hazardous waste or not. If necessary they may have to test their waste to make such an evaluation. However, many tines testing is not required. The necessary evaluation can be made on the basis of engineering calculations. If the water fails the EP toxicity test it is also a hazardous waste and its weight would be added to that of the filters. 2. Waste paint filters are handled the same as any other hazardous waste relative to the small generator exemption. 3. I not sure why this particular waste needs special treatment in the hazardous waste system other than perhaps for a streamlined system of obtaining treatment permits for t?te hazard mitigation operation (the 55 gallon drwi filled with water). Except in the case of the EP Toxic waters, the ismersed filters are not hazardous wastes and can be placed in a sanitary landfill at will, whether the generator is a large or small g nerator. I hope I have answered your questions. If not give me a call at 8.755—9187 (382—4806 after September 311). enclosure cc: Lehman Lindsey Corson St rau s Hotline WH—565B:DFRIEDMM:pes:x59187:9 —]5 82 DISK PS—57—15 ------- 9444.1982(01) Enclosure MEMORANDUM DATE: August 19, 1982 SUBJECT: Regulation of Paint Filters FROM: Chet McLaughlin, Chief State Programs Section TO: Allan Corson, (WH-565) Chief Waste Characterization Branch The State of Kansas and Iowa have raised a series of problems with the regulation of paint filters from pray booths especially those generated infrequently and in small numbers. When these filters are removed, they can be subject to self ignition and are usually treated by immediately immersing them in water. Typically these individual filters are then transporter to a nearby sanitary landfill and immediately buried to prevent auto ignition. This produces the potential for the container, water, filter and waste to become hazardous waste subject to handling as such. The alternative is to allow the filter to ignite and burn releasing small quantities of potentially hazardous air contaminants and handling of the ash a appropriate. The questions raised by the states on this subject are several: 1. Do they consider the weight of the paint or paint and filter for the generation quantity? Does the container and water have to be tested before it can be disposed? If the water fails the EP toxicity test must it be handled as a hazardous waste? 2. Do they have to require the handling of filters as a hazardous waste at firms where other wastes achieve the 1000 kg./mo level and allow others to be treated as small quantity generators able to use sanitary landfills? 3. Assuming the petition route is not appropriate, the use of enforcement discretion is apparently the only available mechanism to allow the states to assume equal treatment and safe handling of this particular wastes? Are others under consideration? 4. Can they anticipate any regulation interpretation memorandum on this related subjects in the next several months? This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9 444.1983(01) JJNIO 983 Dan L:elson : W(P3SflM4 Waste Management, Inc. Ofl3 Rutterfield Road Oak E rook, Illinois 60521 Dear ir. Nelson: In your letter of pril 4, l9 , you requested that EPA confirm your interpretation of the RCRA hazardous wa ste regulations as they pertain to the spent solvent listings, — and the status of leachate from sanitary landfills that have received hazardous waste. I trust that this letter adequately addresses your concerns. As stated in your letter, the solvent listings (EPA ‘ azardous . Waste Nos. ‘0O1—?005) pertain to spent solvents (i.e.,. solvents use’1 for their solvent properties). Industrial process waste containing solvents, on the other hand, are not incluøed in the solvent listings except to the extent that it is a nixture of a solid west. and a spent solvent. Thus, you are correct in stating that spent l,1,l-trichloroethane generated fr a cleaning process is considered EPA Hazardous Waste Pie. P002, while industrial process waste containing 1,l,1 - trichoro thane as a contaminant are not listed spent solvents. These wastes, however, may be listed individually under Subpart D of the regulations. Leachate from a sanitary landfill that has received listed wastes is also considered a hazardous waste. Wowever, as you stated, leachate containing P00 , listed solvents is only hazardous to the extent that it exhibits the characteristic of ignitability. Should you hav, any questions, please feel free to give ne a call at (202) 382-4770. Sincerely yours, Matthew A. Straus Manager Hazardous waste Defthttion Prograffi ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY 9444.1983(02) O*?t: iy ll 1983 $ iS.iLC1. Scope of the Listing 1cC61, nission Control Dust/Sludge from the Primary Production of Steel ,rp ,fiectr.icJUrnaCeS PROM. Alan Corson, Q ief (L ,ci,4,Civaw. .., Waste O aracterizatiOn Branch (WH-565-B) ‘° C ief, Residuals Management Branch Mr & Waste Managepent Division This is in re onSe to your question as to the scope of the listing 1(061 njssion control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel. Interpretation of Scope of 1(061 The 1(061 waste listing is defined under 40 R Section 261.32 as nission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel CT) . — This applies to steel produced in electric furnaces, not blast furnaces. - The listing does not include foundries. — Facilities that use scrap steel as a raw material are included in the listing. — The listing does not inciude iron making. If a facility produces steel in an electric arc furnace using steel scrap, the enission control dust meets the listing of 1(061 • What is done with the steel after this process does not affect the process waste& inclusion in the listing.. IP P . *3204 (I.’. 3-N) ------- 9444.19 83(03) PIIflORANDUN RE: WCBLG2 016 L Subjects Hazardous Wastes from Solar Cell and High Tech Industries - From: John Skinner, Director Office of Solid Waste (WH - 562) To: Leland Modesitt, Director Office of Legislation (A-103) In response to your inqu ry for follow-up with Senator Burdick’s staff, the production of solar cells and other high technology devices (transistors, integrated ciLcuits), involves a variety of manufacturing processes and can inc .ude the use of industrial solvents and metal treatment. Baz rdous wastes generated from these operations include electropisting vastevater treatment sludge . that contain cyanide. and ht j metals that are toxic or reactive; spent solvents that are toxic or ignitable; and discarded commercial chemical pr aduc ts or manufacturing chemical intermediates that are also toxic or reactive. Ba’ever, this does not mean all waste, generated from the production of high technology devices should be considered hazardous. The determination as to whither or not a waste is considered hazardous is made in one of two ways. In on. case, the Agency has listed certain wastes a. hazardous under 40 C?R 261, Subpart D (526.31 wastes from non-specific i . sources; 1261.32 wastes from óp.cif ic souross; 1261.33 discarded se — rcial chemical products). In another sass, vast. ii hazardous if it exhibits one of the characteristics ot a hazardous vast. (i.e., ignitability, oorrosivity, reactivity, and HP toxicity). UndW 0 CVR 261 $ubpart C, each ganorator is responsible for determining whether his waste exhibits ‘i any of these characteristics. If th. waste exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic or is a listed waste, the facility will be deemed a generator of hazardous waste, and the waste mest be F . managed in accordance with the hazardous waste management regulations. If you have any further questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Alan Carson or Matthew Straus, of my staff, at 382—4770 at any time. ------- MEMORANDUM 9444.1984(01) DATE: Mar 5, 1984 SUBJECT: Clarification of the Listings for Metal Heat Treating FOb, FOil, and FO]2. FROM: Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief Waste Identification Branch (WH-562) TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief Residuals Management Branch Air & Waste Management Division Region IV This memorandum is in response to your question regarding the scope of the cyanide listings for metal heat treating operations (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FOlO, FOil, and F0l2). In particular, you asked whether the form of cyanide ( i.e. , complex cyanide or free cyanide) was germane in determining whether one had a listed waste. In short, the answer is . In listing these wastes as hazardous, the Agency was (and is still) concerned with the management (or management) of cyanide wastes (both complex cyanide and cyanide salts). If the Agency felt that a distinction was necessary, it would have done so in the listing. For example, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F012 would have been listed as follows: “Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from metal heat treating operations where complexed cyanides are used in the process (except for precious metals heat treating quenching wastewater treatment sludges) •1 In addition, you should be aware that the form of cyanide often changes during the heat treating operation or subsequent treatment; therefore, although you may begin with cyanide salts (free cyanide) your waste may be primarily complex cyanide. The waste listings take this into account by differentiating between the form of cyanide present in the waste ( i.e. , only cyanide—salt containing wastes (free cyanides) are listed as posing a reactivity hazard). Furthermore, it should be noted that although complex cyanides are less toxic than free cyanides, complex cyanide— bearing wastes are of concern because of their potential to undergo photodecoinposition to form toxic hydrogen cyanide and free cyanide decomposition by-products. (See Listing Background document for Cyanide Wastes, Response to Comments Section, This has been retyped from the original document. ------- Comment No. 3 for more details.)’ Therefore, if the metal heat treating process uses cyanides in any form, the process is covered by the hazardous waste listings. 1 This document is included in the document ff261.31 and 261.32 - Listing of Hazardous Wastes (Finalization of May 19, 1980 Hazardous Waste List), #1941.28 November 14, 1980. This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 44.1984(o2) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMM RY MARCH 84 — C ncarty A et ies se iccnductor S ilic n wafers. C ar v B use the wafers tnar ufact e printed circuit boards. The t c çanies are totally se;arate. ts any A’s wastewater trea nt slucge fran the etchin; process classified as a 1006 waste? Yes • the wastewater treat:nent sluce is regulated is 1006. The c.’ ical etchi; is viewad as electrcplatirç, even though the Backroi nd c.z rtt on elecr.roolat in; did rce include the er.chin; process. The Back ound cu ent was overly narr in includirç only the Aanuf3ctjre of printed circuit oar s and excjudjr etchirç. qqq . Source: Bill Sproat and Myles trse ------- 9444.19 84(03) Hr. John 0. Nalewaja, President RCi SMB SC1A32 Weed Science Society of Morica do A jronoi,y Departa.,tt North Dakota State University Fargo, ND 58105 Dear Mr. Nalewaja: I aje vrttirg in response to your letter of March 20, 1q84, and the resolution of the Weed Scienc. Society of AMerica requestj the removal of 2,4 —D waste from regulatjo under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RcRA) 1 The toxic properties of 2,4—0 ver• evaluated by the P.PA’s Offic, of Drinking Water as part of the process leadinq to the development of the National Int.rj Primary Drinking Water Standards (NIPOwS). Inclusion of 2,4—a in the list of tozicants regulated under 40 CFR 261.24 and 261.33 of the RCRA regulations was based on the evaluation that was Conducted in support of the NIPDWS. The NIPDWS for 2,4—D was derived ass iming that the lowest long term level with minimal or no effects for the rat and the dog is 50 and 8 mg/kg/day rsspectiv,jy, Based on these valueM, a ‘safe level’ for man was derived of 1.12 ag/Man/day. (See National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation,, EPA— 570/9—76 -003, Enviro,a.nta l Prot.ctjon ency, Office of Wat.r Supply). Verschu.r.n (Eandbook of Environmental Data on Organic Ch icaLs, Van P sttand Reinhold, Nw York, NY, 1983) indicates that 2,4—0 La significantly toxic to aaz ala (i.e., oral, rat 1.050 300—1000 ag/kg, oral mouse E.D50 375—521 ag/kg, oral. dog LD50 100 mg/kg), In addition, 2,4-D exhibit, acutely toxic effects at the mg/i level in a variety of aquatic species which indicates that its uncontrolled release into the environ- ment can also affect the ecological balance.. For the above reasons, 2,4—0 and its salts have been listed under the hazardous waste identification regulations. Disk ASCIA.32 AX400797 XE DATEz 4/9/84 ------- You i ay p. tttion the ency to charge it re u1attongt for OSW to r ove 2 .4-0 from regulation undev CRA. you Sust demonstrate that the chemical would not pos. a hazari to humat health or the environment •v.n if improperly disposed of. For mere inforsation, please contact David Friedman of my staff ‘(202-382—4770). Requests or inquiries related to th NIPDWS and their rattonalo should oc directed tot Dr. Joseph Cotruvo Director Criteria and Standards 0tvisio Of tic, of Drinking Water, Wt4 -550 401 i Straet SW Washington. DC 20460 (202)382-7575 Sincerely yours, John H. Skinner Director Offic. of Solid Waste (W9-S628) ces J. Cotruvo ------- 9444 • 1984 (04) April 26, 1984 Dave Dolan Environmental Scientist Waste Management Branch Region V U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Dear Dave: As a result of several inquiries, we wish to clarify which wastes generated by Bell Lumber and Pole, located in New Brighton, Minnesota, are listed as hazardous under Part 261 of the hazardous waste regulations implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. At the present time, one category of wastes from the wood preserving industry is included as a hazardous waste from a specific source: KOOl “Bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewaters from wood preserving processed that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol”. From process descriptions compiled by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and Region V during a recent plant site visit, the following is my understanding of the current and past waste generation points at the Bell Lumber and Pole facility. 1. Work tank/storage tank sludges. These sludges accumulate at the bottom of vertical storage tanks for preservative solutions of pentachiorophenol. In the past, these tanks may have been used for creosote preservative solutions. These tanks receive reclaimed preservative solutions, store them, and in some cases heat the reclaimed solutions prior to reuse in the wood treating tank. Currently, sludges from these tanks are discharged to the mechanical oil/water separator described below. 2. Mechanical oil/water separator sludges. Wastewater contaminated by oil/preservative solutions and sludges are collected at a sump at the wood treating tank and are This has been retyped from the original document. ------- discharged to a tank (81’ x 6’) where oil/water separation takes place. This oil/water separation procedures treats effluent generated after completion of the wood treating process. Although no water is intentionally added to this process, a substantial amount of water is released from the wood itself during hot oil/preservative solution steeping. Some of this wastewater is emitted to the air as steam during the steeping process, and some is entrained in the preservative solution or settles to the bottom of the wood treating tank. The first mechanical oil/water separation device was installed in 1976 at “Tank 8”. A steel belt oil/water separator, installed in 1980, is in current use and operated daily except when the weather is cold enough to freeze the water. This oil/water separator daily receives contaminated wastewater effluent directly from the treating tank. Approximately one time each year, bottoms from the storage/work tanks are also added to the mechanical oi 1/water separator. 3. Thermal dehydration/evaporation sludges. The oil/preservative solutions recovered by the mechanical oil/water separator undergo a secondary wastewater treatment step by thermal dehydration/evaporation. This is currently conducted in the “Butt Treatment Tank” with heating coils, generating a sludge. Other sludges may be added directly to this thermal dehydrator/evaporator without first being subjected to mechanical oil/water separation. Thermal dehydration or evaporation of wastewater from wood preserving solutions typically generates a sludge. Before installation of the mechanical oil/water separation devices, a thermal dehydration treatment was used as the sole procedure for drying oil/preservative solutions from the wood treating tank. Fuel oil, used as the solvent for either creosote or pentachiorophenol, typically will entrain significant amounts of water during the wood treating process. Entrained wastewater must be removed to regenerate dry oil/preservative solutions for good penetration into the wood during the treating process. Thermal dehydration of the used oil/preservative solutions in the past could be assumed based on typical industrial process information, with concomitant sludge generation. From the above description of sludge generating processes, the mechanical oil/water separator sludges and the thermal dehydrator sludges meet the KOOl listing description of wastewater treatment sludges from wood preserving processes using creosote and/or pentachloropheriol. If the storage tank/work tank sludges are mixed with the mechanical oil/water separator sludges or thermal dehydration/evaporation sludges, then the resulting mixture also must be managed as a KOOl hazardous waste. This has been retyped from the original document. ------- Page 22. of the Listing Background Document for the Wood Preserving Industry states “wastewater treatment sludges are generated first at oil/water primary separation”, which includes any mechanical oil/water separation device as described for the Bell Lumber and Pole facility, as well as sludges from surge tanks, drainage pits, etc. On page 21, dehydration of oil/preservative solutions and on page 26, evaporation of wastewater from the addition of heat are also described as wastewater treatment processes generating sludges defined as KOOl hazardous wastes. Based on processing procedures used by the wood preserving industry, it is reasonable to assume in the absence of proof to the contrary that Bell Lumber and Pole was generating a KOOl wastewater treatment sludge prior to 1976, and indeed throughout its manufacturing history. This is because water removal from spent wood treating solutions is necessary to regenerate usable oil/preservative solutions. We do not know if thermal oil/preservative dehydration or another procedure was used. Further indication that KOOl wastewater treatment sludges were generated prior to installation of the mechanical oil/water separation devices in 1976 and throughout the facility’s history comes from the CERCLA “Notification of Hazardous Waste Site”, date June 9, 1981. Thomas E. Doten, then Vice President and Plant Manger of Bell Lumber and Pole, states that KOOl waste was placed in the on-site landfill up until the late 1960’s . He was unable to estimate the amount of KOOl waste deposited in this landfill “given age (circa 1920] of facility”. Generation rates of KOOl wastewater treatment sludges may be estimated by information in the Listing Background Document and the Effluent Guidelines Division Data Collection Portfolio. From the Listing Background Document, the amount of pentachiorophenol treated wood and the amount of pentachlorophenol wastewater treatment sludges generated annually yields an estimate of 0.276 cubic feet of sludge per 1000 cubic feet of treated wood. Effluent Guidelines Division data for all types wood treating processes (creosote, pentachlorophenol), indicates that approximately 0.432 cubic feet of sludge is generated per 1000 cubic feet of treated wood from zero wastewater discharge plants. An average wood preserving plant treats 4000 cubic feet of wood per day. Therefore, the annual wastewater treatment sludge generated by a plant would be in the range of 55—87 drums. Some individual plants have indicated they produce several times as much wastewater treatment sludge. If sludges from other plant sources such as storage or work tanks are mixed with the wastewater treatment sludges before or after oil/water separation procedures, then this volume estimate would be higher. I hope this information is useful in evaluating the waste sources of groundwater contamination from the landfill on the This has been retyped from the original document. ------- Bell Lumber and Pole facility. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely yours, Cate Jenkins, Ph.D. Waste Identification Branch (Wif 562) Characterization and Assessment Division cc: Matthew A. Straus/OSW Francine Jacoff/OSW Steve Si lverman/OGC This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9 444.1984 (05) RCRA/SUPERFtJND HOTLINE SUMMARY APRIL 84 2. The dry cleaning Industry use carbon filters to filter the solvent. perchloroethylene. Are the resultIn carbon filters which contain spent perchloroetPlylene viewed as hazardous waste? The filters are viewed as F0u2, anø the weight of the filter Is counted toward the small quantity generator (SOG) llrdt of 1000 K j. These filters ar typically generated by the dry clean1n Industry and ma 7 contain up to one gallon of perchioroethylene. Source: Alan Corson . (t’ ) Research: Denise Wright ------- 9444.1984(06) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUIQIARY APRIL 84 3. Wastewater fror an API separator discharges into riiltiple sequential surface 1 ’pound nts where the solids fall out. a) is the wastewater froi the P 1 PI se,arator a hazardous waste If It coesn’t exhibit a Subpart C characteristic? b) Is the sludge that precipitates Out In the lirpoundments a Kubi waste? c) If the wastewater Is filtered, are the solids from filtration u5l? a)No. b) Yes; the API separator and subsequent inpoundments used for settlinb of solids are viewed as all part of the API separation system. c) Yes. Source: Miles Morse and Jim Poppiti qr jwL C ” (€‘1’ Research: Denise wr1 jrit . w. ------- 9 444.1984(07) May 30, 1984 W. N. Tancey tilL Baroid P.O. Box 1675 Houston, TX 77001 Dear Mr. Tanceyl This is to confirm our $ay 29, 1984 telephone COn ’ermatjon regarding your letter to Alan Conan dated May 17, 1S O regarding ballast fluid classification. i hop. this dLscusoio i.e your question on the formald.hyd.. Poraald.hyde is listed (as U122) in 40 CPR 261. (t). This listing ref.ra only to discard.d c’ rcim1 chemical g ’oducts, off—specification specie., container residues, and spiU residues having th. generic name formald.hyd..• The c sment i ction 261.33(d) explains that the term co ’.rcia1 chemical p o uct refers to a substance manufactured for commercial use uhich is commercially pur. or a technical grad. and formu1atio in which the chemical ii the sol. active ingr.dient. It does noc refer to a material, such as a process waste, that contain giy of the substances listed in 261.33(e) or 261.33(f). To be € sidered a hazardous waste, such process wastes will be listed i ri either Sections 261.31 or 261.32 or be identified as a hazardous waste by characteristic, as met forth in the regulations. In other words, formaldehyde (and sodium pentachlorophsnate) is being used to keep down growth in the ballast fluid. The fluid is not considered to be the cr:rcial chemical product formaldehyde. Ship ballast fluid would have to be specifically listed as a hazardous waste stream or be hazardou, on the basis of th. characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity), as explained above. ------- If you have any further qu..ttons, f.el free to call me at (202) 382—4804. You should also be able to contact the RCRA/Sup.rfund gotline toiltree at (800) 424—9346 for assistance vith any aspect of the RCRA regulations. SincereLy yours. Irene Homer Studies and M•thods Branch (WH—S62B) ------- 9444.198 4 (08) J11 61981 Mr. snneth N. Mo lyoak American Chemical Company 505 N. Lake Shore Drive Suite 6101 Chicago, IL 60611 Dear Mr. Holyoaks I am writing in response to your Nay 35. 1984, request for clarification of the •xlsting R.sourae Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste idsnttficatton r.gul tions as they apply to deodorants for portable toilets as well as potential additional requirement. due to pending l•gi Letiort. Chemical deodorants containing amall amounts oE formal dehyde are used to provid, sanitary conditions in portable toilet unit.. Let me explain how the current regu tions apply to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a hazardous waste if it is a discarded c umsrcLal chemical product. The ccmm.nt in 40 CFR 261.33(d) explains that the term commercial chemical product refers to substances manufactured for commer- cial use which are cc :rctally pure or a technic&’ 1 grade and formulations in which the chemical is the sole active ingredient. It does not refer to all materials containing any amount of formaldehyde. Zn other words, the formaldehyde is not the sole active ingredient of th. deodorant and is th.refors not a listed hazardous waste stream. Th . deodorant would only be a hazardous waste if it exhibited any of the characteristics defined in the regulation. (ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or IF toxic, as outlined in S.ctions 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24). ------- P.nding l.gisiation in Congr.ss plans to regulate ]owsr quantities of hazardous waste than Ire presently subj.ct to regulation vnd.r the ..all quantity generator regulations. The RCaA rauthozisation legislation cbang•s currently do not ref l.ct any changes in the waste idntification. Thus, th. anticipated changes viii have no inpact on the regulation of deodorants containing for’iald.hyde. Thank you for your inquiry. As you know, 40 C R 262.11 requires any generator of a solid vast, to dt•r in vhethr or not the vast, is hazardous, as I hay. infornally r.vL.w.d above with you. If you have any ether qu..tiona, feel free to contact Iran. Norn.r of cy staff at (202) 312—4104 or the RCRA/Sup.rfund otlin. at (100) 424- 346 far further r.gulatory clarifications. Sincerely yours, John Skinner, Director Off ice of solid haste (WH-’S62) ------- 9444.1984(09) RE: W183s840]02 w ! EI ORAN DUN SUBJ&r : Zinc Plating (8egregat. j Basis) on Carbon st..i U PEN: Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief 1* Waste Identification Branch (WW—562 5 ) TO: William H. Minor, Chief) Technical Permits and C p1janc. Section Waste Managezent Di isi RegionV After evaluating the information suppli.d by the Gulf and Western Stamping Division regarding their phosphat ng operations and zinc plating line, it isour ConC1uij that the a.t.s generat.d from both their operations aset tb. descri tjo of; IPA Hazardous Vast. No. P0 6. More specifically, the HPA Background cuasnt defines phosphating as a compou.nt of electroplating of chemical coversionccatjng, Othe omponsnts of this category include coloring, chromating, and 4 ’ermjon o plating. Accordingly, wastes gIn.rat.d from the operation at Gulf and Western would he considered h& &gdgi 5 wastes. With respect to their other operation, vastewat, r tr.ataent aludg.s generated from zinc plating operations on carbon steel ar. not cons idered hazardciis wastis when th. waste - stream from thee. operations is maintained and treat.d separately (segregated) from other waste stream generated at the facility. liov.v.r Gulf and Western’s zinc plating un. also iflClud. a chromat. passivating bath in which the low carbon steel stampings are dipped after plating. Chrom. passivating is considered a componer of cl emica conversion coating and therefore the vastswat.r treatment sludges generated from this operation would also be considered hazardous. Therefore, vastewater treatment sludges generated by both operations at Gulf and Western are considered £PA Hazardous Waste No. P006 and subject to regulation undr 40 CPR 262—266. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call Mr. William Sproat of my staff at FTS 382—4783. ------- 44.1984(jQ) 25,; ;; 7994 N ! MORANDtJN sgsJ c’ Nsgulation of Waat.vae. Trsat ent If fluent fron Processes that Generate 1001 and P006 Wast,vat.r Treata.nt Sludge r Ns John a. Skinner, Ph.D. Director - Office of solid aat. - Jaa.• 1. Scarbrough, Chi.f lea Lduals Nanagea.nt iranch Air and Waste Ranage..nt Division This o is in response to your rsqu.at dated Nay 21 1984, concerning regulation of EPA Eizardoua Vista 10 .. 1001 and P006. Pint, you requested clarification of the listings 1001 and P006 as to the scope of their coverage, These listings include any sludges derived fran the treatnent of vastswat.rs r.g&gdlss. of where the sludges are famed. Thus, if a sludge is famed in a vastevater tr.atn.nt tank, filtration device, or surface Lnpoundnent, it is 1001, or P006 sludge, These wastswater tmeatnene units u1d be sub .ct to all hazardoui vast, regulations, tncludinç appropriat. p.mnittirig standards, • There is an exceptioni tanks tnat treat or store hazardous va.tevat.ra are •z.spt Ira. the Part 264 and 265 .anages.nt standards when the tank is part of a vast.vat.r treatnent unit as defined in S260.10. ------- 2— - you also r.qu.st.a Iarlrtcation Ôf the regulatorf status of - the ef fluent. free a particular wood preserving facility. Tb. wastewater trsataent train ii illustrated schesatically belows I A J I 8 T I d Pt ezvtrç OiIi ter —‘—. -S F1oe J1aticx% Tank • •T Cylii r j .ratc Twk J rh. effluent. free the oil/wat.r s.parator tank (A’) and the eh.eical flocculation tank (3) are not classified as the listed hazardous waste 00l after the listed hazardous vastewater treat nt sludges ha ,. settled out, even though sos. tlocculat.d eaterial is carried along with the effluent str.aa. When the Agency listed wast.vat.r treataent sludg.. f roe wood preserving process.., the Agency differentiated between sludges which settle out free successive treata.nta of process wastewaters and the vastewater stream itself. The vastewater efflu•nts - f roe these two tanks would, ther.fore, be subject to regulation only if they meet on. or sore of the characteristics of a hazardous waste, as set forth irs 55261.21 -261.24. Thu facility next uses a sand filtration surface impoundment (‘C) to tr.at the vastewater effluent after oil/water separation and flocculation. The sand filter consists of two 20 * 20 x 15 ft. surface impoundments, with natural clay bottoms, and sides constructed of preserved wood. The vastevater is added to the top of these units and collect.d a. an effluent from the bottom, and sent to a holding pond (‘D) wher. addi ional wastevater treatment sludes are generated. Both the sand filter and the holding pond would be subject to all hazardous waste regulations arid permitting standards since they are surface impoundments used to manage a hazardous waste (i.e., the sludge). Th• principal regulatory question presented by this sand filtration unit is whether .th• vaitewater that passe. through the unit loses its status a. ‘vastevater and becomes ‘leachate’ because it percolates through the listed sludge that has been trapped in the unit. We do not believe that the passage of a contaminated liquid (e.g., leachate, wastewater) through a filter should cause us to redefine what that liquid is. even though the filter may chani e the chemical makeup of the contaminated liquid. Per purposes of our ------- regulatory definitions, what c e out of a g tor is t e sane thir that .igos into the lilt.!!. .A vestVat.r that .ps.ses throii h a filt.r in a treatnent systen is still a vastevat.r. That result is not chsr .d by the fact that th. filter happens to be a sar bed and the vaatevater . rges fros the bottos rather than the top of th. trsatnt anit.S The final step in the vastevater tZestnt oystsa used by the wood preserving facility in question is a spray irri atLon field ( •). We are ourrently investigating the statue of this unit to deteraine if It nests the definition of a land trsatnent unit, a surface inpoundnent, or a landfill. We expect to get heck to you on this point In the near future. Tb. above discussion regarding vastevater trsata.nt units, vastewaters, and the storage or disposal of hazardous waste ter treatnt sludg.s wastes is .o applicable to other facilities generating sinilar wastes. • It s) uld be noted that this approach also prevents an operator fr placing a sand filter at the botton of a landfill and then ar juing that the liquid energing fros the bottas of the unit is no longer aleachate. !aachat. ..srging fras waste in a landfill rsnaina a leachate even after it has passed through a filter. WH—5625/CJENICINS/pes/475—8551/7-.12—84/Djsk CJllOl ------- 9444.1984(11) ‘ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 “4 ’ — 27 JUL 1984 0IFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND IPdINGENCV ESP0P4SE MEMORANDUM Sub ject: Clarification of K062 — Spent pickle Liquor Listing From: John H. Skinner, Director Office of Solid Waste To: Directors, waste Managemert Divisions EPA Regions l—X Within the past year, several EPA Regional Offices have requested clarification of EPA Hazardous Waste No 1 (062 — Spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations’ This interpretive memorandum addresses several questiO t and issues which have been raised regarding the listing. 1) Which operations/processes are considered ‘stael finishing operatiOflS and thus are covered by the listirtt ? The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) defines steel finishing operations as processes which impart desired mechanical. and surface characteristics to steel. The following processes are included in this description and are intended to be covered by the 1(062 listing, provided that spent pickle liquor is generated: 1) acid pickling 2) alkaline cleaning 3) cold reduction 4) blast c].earlir%g 5) cold drawing 6) cold rolling 7) galvanizing 8) coating with organic and inorganic compounds ------- —2- 9) tempering 1/ 10) coating of steel with metals 11) tin plating 12) electropoliShing Although the background document for K062 addresses only spent pickle liquor from the iron and steel industry, the Agency intended the listing to cover all industries engaged in the pickling of steel. Indeed, many persons who generate spent pickle assumed that the listing was much broader then indicated in the background document.2/ Furthermore, on January 4, 1984, (see Notice of Availability of Data and Request for CommentS, 49 FR 427) the Agency stated that steel finishing is practiced by a diverse group of manufacturers. The large number of notifiers indicate that generators in many industry categories are aware of this interpretation. Recently, representatives from the porcelain industry informally challenged 05W on its interpretation of the K062 listing. It is their position that the listing pertains only to the iron and steel industry..a/ However, for reasons stated earlier, to the extent that facilities within this industry category pickle steel prior to coating or enameling, the spent pickle liquor (or any waste derived therefrom) is considered the listed waste. The Agency realizes that concentrations of the hazardous constituents of concern for which spent pickle liquor was listed may differ among industries based on process variations; however, wastes that do not meet the criteria for which pickle liquor was originally listed may be excluded from regulation on a site—specific basis (delisting pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22). The Agency also will consider industry—wide petitions to delist these wastes. if Although coating of steel with metal (electroplating) is — considered •stsel finishing, the Agency did not intend the X062 listing to include electroplating processes that generate spent pickle liquor. This would be duplicative since electroplating wastes are specifically covered under P006. 2/ Data from the RCRA Notification data base indicate that a diverse group of industry categories pickle steel and generate spent pickle liquor (e.g., metal working machinery and equipment; refrigeration and service industry machinery; coating, engraving and allied services; sanitary services; aircraft and parts, and others). 3/ Approximately half the facilities within the porce].flfl — industry have notified that they generate either K062 or the lime stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge. ------- -—3- At this time, the Agency has taken action on a rulemaking petition submitted by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) to remove lime stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge (L.SWPL.S) (formerly referred to as lime neutralized waste pickle liquor sludge) from the presumption of hazardousness contained in the regulations. This exclusion however, a pplieS only to LSWPLS that is generated by the iron and steel industry (SIC Codes 331 and 332). (See 49 FR 23284 — 23285, June 5, 1984 for specific details regarding the conditions of the exclusion). 2) Many electroplating operations pickle prior to electroplating. Is the waste generated from this process considered P006, K062, p002, or both F006 and K062? In considering petitions to delist electroplating waste, the Agency has stated that the P006 listing includes the acidic wastes ( i.e. , spent pickle liquor) from the electroplating process. Electroplating operatiOnS typically pretreat the metal using acidic baths pr ior to electroplating. The acidic wastes from this process are generally mixed with spent plating bath solutions and lime treated. Sludge generated from this process is considered P006. For example, an electroplater acid pickles metal parts as part of the electroplating process. The resultant wastewater (including spent pickle liquor and rirtsewater) is neutralized with lime. Sludge generated from this process is P006. In another example, a galvanizer also pickles metal parts prior to galvanizing. Since galvanizing is not included under the electroplating category, spent pickle liquor from this process would be considered EPA Hazardous Waste K062. If the pickle liquor is lime treated prior to disposal, the sludge from this process is a hazardous waste by virtue of the ‘residue rule (5261.3(C)(2)). In cases where acidic wastes from the electroplating operation remain untreated or are segregated from other process waste and treated separately, the waste is then considered K062 (or lime stabilized waste pickle liquor sludge). 3) Does the K062 listing pertain to spent pickling acids other than those listed in the background document for K062 (i.e., H 2 S0 4 , HCL, and 111403 + HF)? In developing the background document for F 062, the Agency listed the most commonly used pickling agents. However, we intended the listing tO include all acids used in the pickling of steel. ------- —4- I trust that this memorandum adequately clarifies the K062 listing. Should you have questions, or require additional information, please call Jacqueline Sales at FTS 382—4770. cc: Gene Lucero, OWPE Kirk Sniff, OECM Bill Hedemart, OWRR ------- 9444.1984(12) July 30, 1984 Kent Gray Utah State Department of Health Hazardous Waste Program P.O. Box 2500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Dear Mr. Gray: This letter responds to your recent inquiry regarding the regulatory status of spent acid from electropolishing of stainless steel ( i.e. , whether the waste is considered EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062--Spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations). As you stated in an earlier conversation with Jacqui Sales, of my staff, electropolishing is a process which utilizes a mixture of sulfuric and phosphoric acids (pH 1.0) to impart a shiny finish to stainless steel. As Ms. Sales explained, the spent pickle liquor listing was intended to include those processes where acid is used to impart a desired surface characteristic to steel or steel products; in particular, to remove oxide scale. Although the background document for the listing addresses only the commonly used pickling acids ( i.e. , hydrochloric, sulfuric, nitric, and hydrofluoric), the Agency intended the listing to include all acids used in the pickling/cleaning of steel. Thus, spent acid from electropolishing is considered the listed waste. I trust that this letter adequately addresses your concerns. Should you have additional questions or require further information, please call Jacqui Sales at (202) 382—4770. Sincerely, Matthew Straus Chief Waste Identification Branch This has been retyped from the original document. ------- MEMORANDUM 9444. 1984 (14) DATE: July 30, 1984 SUBJECT: Dragout from EPA Hazardous Wastes No. F007 - Spent Cyanide Plating Bath Solutions from Electroplating Operations (Except for Precious Metals Electroplating Spent Cyanide Plating Bath Solutions) FROM: Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief Waste Identification Branch (WH—562B) TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief Residuals Management Branch Air & Waste Management Division This is written in response to your inquiry concerning dragout from plating bath solutions listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F007. Briefly, the process described at Georgia Tubing involves the transfer of parts from a plating bath solution to a chlorination tank to stop the plating process. During this transfer, dragout drips of f the plated parts, is collected and transferred to the chlorination tank for treatment. In general, your interpretation that the chlorination tank receives and treats a listed hazardous waste and is therefore a hazardous waste treatment tank is correct. However, it should be pointed out that the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. FOOl refers to spent plating bath solutions only. Therefore, the plating bath solution itself would not be considered an F007 waste until it is spent. Only the dragout from the plating operation or if the plating bath solution itself was dumped would be considered an P007 waste because at that point in the operation it would be considered spent. In addition, any sludge that forms in the bottom of the chlorination tank would also be considered an F007 waste. The sludge would be considered an F006 waste only if wastewaters from the electroplating operation were to enter the chlorination tank for treatment in addition to the FOOl waste. If you have any further questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to call Mr. William Sproat of my staff at FTS 382—4783. This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9444.1984(16) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT AUGUST 1984 LISTING OF BAGHOUSE DUST GENERATED FROM REMELTING OF PRIMARY PRODUCTION STEEL 1. A facility generates a baghouse dust from remelting primary produced steel. The remelting occurs in electric furnaces. The baghouse dust contains fluoride neutralized by calcium carbonate and the heavy metals: lead and selenium. The baghouse dust has been analyzed for the heavy metals (5O.6sppm lead and l3ppm selenium). The analytical methods used were 8.56 and 8.59, respectively, in SW-846 (not the E.P. toxicity test). Assuming that the baghouse dust will fail the EP toxicity test, should the waste be 1(061 (even though it is not primary smelting) or should it be D008 and Dab? The waste generated from this process is 1(061. Although steel is being remelted, this process is considered primary production for the purposes of RCRA. Source: Matt Straus Research: Gordon Davidson This has been retyped from the original document. ------- RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SU)O(ARY 9444.1984(17) AUGUST 84 . RA/SuperfUfld HotUfle August 1984 Report Page 2 3. A cor afly recyc’eS methyl chlorofOrm (P002) through a distlflatior% process. Oftef’ after diStifl4 iOfl. the recovered methyl Chloroform does not meet market specif catioflS and imist be disposed. Is this waste listed as F002 orU226? Off_specification solvents produced from the distillation of listed solvent hazardous waste would be treated as n off-specifiCt40fl cofm erCial chemical product if discarded according to 261.33 of Tit)e 40 and considered 13226 for regulatory purposes. Source: Penny Hansen Research: Tom Gainer ------- RCRA/SUPERF D HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY 9444.1985 (01) FEBRUARy 85 .1.. The New York State Health Department deemed a house unfit for habitation due to excessive chiordane levels in the soil around the house. The soil contaminated with chiordane was removed and placed in 55-gallon drums. The removal resulted in 45 drums of contaminated soil withan average concentration of 50 ppm. Is this contaminated soil a RCRA hazardous waste? The contaminated soil is not a RCRA listed hazardous waste. Chlordane could only be considered a RCRA hazardous waste if it was discarded prior to use or was a container or spill residue. If chlordane met any one of these criteria, it would be a listed hazardous waste (U036), as listed and described in 40 CFR 261.33. In this situation, however, none of these criteria were met because chiordane was applied as a commercial chemical product. The generator must still determine if the contaminated soil exhibits any of the four RCRA characteristics (EP toxic, ignitable, corrosive, reactive). If the soil does not exhibit a characteristic then it is neither a listed nor a characteristic hazardous waste. Although the contaminated soil is not a RCPA hazardous waste (assuming it does not meet a characteristic) the generator must be cognizant of potential liability under CERCLA if the waste is not managed properly. Source: Alan Corson (202) 382-4770 This has been retyped from the original document. ------- This Page Intentionally Left Blank ------- 9444.1985(02) March 4, 1985 Mr. Walter G. Talarek American Wood Preservers Institute 1945 Gallows Road Vienna, Virginia 22180 Dear Mr. Talarek: This letter is in response to your letter dated February 14, 1985 in which you request clarification of the dioxin listing. In particular, you asked for comment regarding the applicability of the RCRA dioxin listings published in the Federal Register on January 14, 1985 to wastes from wood preserving processes using pentachlorophenol. As you state in your letter, the following hazardous waste listings relating to pentachiorophenol were promulgated on January 14, 1985: F021: Wastes (except wastewater and spent carbon from hydrogen chloride purification) from the production or manufacturing use (as a reactant, chemical intermediate, or component in a formulating process) of pentachiorophenol, or of intermediates used to produce its derivatives (H) F027: Discarded unused formulations containing tn-, tetra-, or pentachiorophenol or discarded unused formulations containing compounds derived from these chiorophenols... (H) F028: Residues resulting from the incineration or thermal treatment of soil contaminated with EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027 (T) LPlease note that, contrary to the statement in your letter, the latter is a “T not “H’ waste). Most of these wastes are not typically generated by the wood preserving industry. We, therefore, generally agree with your assessment that the final dioxin rule (published on January 14, 1985) does not include wastes by the wood preserving industry. However, wood treatment facilities could be covered under the listing if: A wood preserving facility makes a derivative of pentachlorophenol ( e.g. , a sodium or potassium salt); the wastes resulting from such a process would be EPA Hazardous waste F021. A wood preserving facility makes formulations containing tn—, tetra—, or pentachiorophenol or its derivates; waste resulting from such a process would be F021 wastes. A wood preserving facility discards unused formulations containing tn—, tetra—, or pentachlorophenol or its derivatives; these would be EPA hazardous waste No. F027. Furthermore, although most of the wastes generated by the wood preserving industry are probably not regulated by the January 14, rulemaking, you are aware that we are presently investigating whether wastes resulting from wood preserving processes using pentachlorophenol should be listed as hazardous (or acute hazardous) wastes, and whether CDDs and CDFs should be added as constituents of concern in the wood preservation process waste This has been retyped from the original document. ------- already listed (EPA Hazardous waste KOOl]. As previously stated, we will take appropriate regulatory action if warranted. I trust that this adequately addresses the concerns expressed in your letter. Please do not hesitate to call Matt Straus, if you have further questions concerning this matter, Mr. Straus can be reached at (202) 475— 8551. Sincerely yours, John H. Skinner Director Office of Solid Waste cc: J. Bellin This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9444.1985(03) U’ Mr. John D’&loia, Yr. D.u.1 and Associatss, Inc. 7304 7.ff.rson St., RE Albuquerque, SM $7109 D.ar Johns There ar., ind..d, ...oral facet. to identifying which solvsnts irs P—li.t.d vasts s. I going to rsvisw th. points vs discussed aver the pbon. en March 20th, in response to your l.tt.r datsd March 6, 1955. Only those solvsnts designat.d in the P ..rj.. at. list.d as P sol..nt vast... In the May 19, 1950 Federal gj r (45 PR 33122), 5261.30(b) say. that App.ndtr !r idi fl.. the constitu.nt which caus.d EPA to list the vast, in 5261.31 or 1261.32 as IP toxic or toxic waste. In Appendix only the listed solvents irs specified. Th. spent solvent listings in $261.31 irs worded The following spent halogenat.d/ non-halog.natd solv.nts... which cl.arly d.signat.s only the listed solv.nts. 1 Moreover, currently, only solv.nts used sep.rstesl at. cov.r.d by the P001—005 listings. Th. kg.ncy issu.d 1.ttsr on July 21, 1951, to the Saf.ty—Ilwt Corporation that I a .d that the $261.31 listings only rsfer to ...spsnt solv.nt d.n ifiable as any tschnical grad, of the chsnical that is producs or aark.ted and not to aiztur.s otherwise containing the chonical (A copy of IlL 95 ii .nclo.sd.) As you observed, this int.rprstatfon is consistent with the approach taken in identifying 261.33 hasardous waits. If individually used soi.snt waits stres are uixsd aftsr generation, the aixturs is a aixture of P—listed waste stres. You can see how faportant it is to be ibis to identify the original source of the vistas in ordsr to classify the aizture. Just knowing ths cc.position of the waits is not enongh to know what waste cod.( 5) to apply to the waste. Regulations under developeent viii identify spent solvents on the basis of total solvent contained in the aixture. Finally, States with authoris.d progr s asy have aors stringent or extensive regulations than EPA or operate a progran with greater scope of coverage than EP A according to 51271.1(i) and 271.121( i) • If States designate aixtures of solvents used ------- in c bination sa P003, th. pro r is aor• •xtansi • than th CRA proqr, but op.ratinq in ]i.u of ICRk. If you hays any furth.r question., p1.... do not hesitate to get in touch again. $ ncsr.1y yours,’ Alan I • uIranJ aL.f Studies aaØ Nsthoda Inclo.ur. ------- 9444. 1985 (05) .Ir. Stuart £. asso11, P.C. Project Planager Lawler, Matusky & Skelly engineers One Slue ii1l I 1aza Pearl River, New York 10965 Uear Mr. L3assell$ I am glad to clarify the issu. that you raised in your letter of April 1, 1985. The identification of RCRA .P’ a 6 ‘U wastes (chemical products that are hazardous wastes t rp discarded) is not as obvious as the identification of oth ’ listed wastes. As you know, 40 CFR 262.11 outlines the gsnerator’s responsibility for identifying hazardous waste a. folloc first, check to see if the waste is excluded from regulation under Part 261 Subpart D, second, see if the wasts is listed in Part 261 Subpart D, third (if it is not a listed waste), determine whether it is a characteristic waste by testing or applying knowledge of the process producing the waste. Neither the fish nor the used foraslin would qualify as a listed RCRA waste. To clarify why the fish and the used formaldehyde ar. not listed waste, the reasoning is as followsi Pormaldehyds is listed (as U122) in 40 CFR 261.33(f). Thu listing r.fers only to discarded commarcial chemical products. off-specification species, container residues, and spill residues having the eneric name formald.hyds. The c nt in c261.33(d) explains that the term eomiusrcial chemical product refers to a substance manufactured for comrcial use which is commercially pure or a technical grade and formulations in which the ch.miCal is the aol. active ingr.di.nt. It does not refer to a material, such as a process waste, that contains any of the substances listed in S261.33(e) or S261.33(f). To b considered a hazardous waste, such process wastes will be listed in either 55261.31 or 261.32 or be id.ntif Led as a hazardous wast• by characteristics, as set forth in the re ju1ationa. ------- The cor ment excludes waste ‘ iateriala that contain any and UUU suOstances unless the waste stresa is listed (i.e., listinj formaldehyde used as a preservative) or the waste meets a i art 261 Subpart C criteria. This means EPA regulates unused cnemica]s but not all wastes containing the aan e chemicals. There are regulatory efforts underway that may eliminate this discrepancy. Of course, the generator also needs to det•rmin. that the discarded fish and formaldehyde are not ha ardoue on the basin of exhibiting any of the characteristics of hasardous waste. It is unlikely that the formalin viii be found to be ignitable, corrosive, r.active, or 8P toxic. If you have any other questions on tPt. Federal policy of r.gulatory hasardous waste, feel free to contact me at (202) 382 477O. Of course, you need to comply with th• New York Department of Snvironntal Conservation determination in the Stat. of New York, since the State prosram is operating in li.u of the F.d.ral program. Sincerely yours, Alan B. Corson Branch Chief ccs James S. Moran, $YDBC ------- 94 44.1985(3fl RCRA Input to Region IV Inquiry: UIC Well Inventory Update Eileen B. Claussen, Director Characterization and Assessment Division Office of Solid Waste (WH—562) Paul Ba].tay, Director State Programs Division Office of Drinking Water (WH—550) Per your request the following paragraph is the RCRA response to the embalming fluid question in the subject inquiry. The RCRA hazardous waste identification regulations contain two mechanisms for identifying a waste as a hazardous waste. lists and characteristics. A waste is a hazardous waste if it either is listed (40 CFR 2 1.3l, 32, or 33) or it exhibits one or more of the definec characteristi.cs ( 26i.2l, 22. 23, or 24). While used embalming flui a do not qualify as hazardous under ny of these criteria, many people mistakenly believe t.h ’y they do because formaldehyde, the key ingredient ii such products, is listed under §261.33. Section 2. 33 lists conunercial chemical products which are hazar our wastes when discarded or intended to be discarded. Ft does not include wastes which result from the intended use of the product. Thqs, embalming fluid, since 1t consists of formaldehyde plus some inert ingredients (e.g., colorants and perfumes). would be a hazardous waste if discarded unused and the septic tank/tile field could classify as a Class 4 well. However, if the generator is disposing of embalming fluid which has been used, for example, to flush body fluids out of the cadaver, then disposal of the fluid does not constitute disposal of a hazardous waste and the tank/field is not a Class 4 weLl. W _562B/DFRIEDMAN/AC0RS0N/margaret/rm S248/382—477Ø/ —l78S DFA Diskette ------- UN’ AlES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC ENCV 9444.1985(08) MAY24 Mr. Robert C. Scott Director ot Administration iohay Chemical Corporation Ac ricultural Chemicals Division P.O. Box 49fl Kansas City, MO 64120 Dear Ir. Scott: I am writing in response to your request for a decision regarding whether certain wastes associated with the manufacture of pesticides at your Kansas City, Missouri plant are considered to be listed hazardous wastes. More specifically, you have inquired whether the manufacturing processes for prothiophos, suiprofos, fensulfothian, and MTMC generate listed spent solvents. These manufacturing processes use either toluene, methanol, or r —cresol as reactants in such excess that large amounts of these materials do not react and are removed from the process as a waste stream. Steve Hirsch from the Office of General Council and I have carefully reviewed the material which you have submitted as well as the Background Listing Document (BLD) arid the Federal Recister notice for the listing concerning wastes from the usage of organic solvents. Based on our review, we conclude that the wastes that contain the unreacted materials are not listed spent solvents. We agree with Mobay t s assertion that the original solvent listing was not intended to include chemicals which are commonly used as solvents when they are used as reactants. As the bases for our decision, we cite the following excerpts and quotations from the BLD and the Federal Register notice: o The footnote on page 33 of the BLD states, “Large amounts of chemicals listed in Table 11—1 are used in such non— solvent applications as chemical feedstock...” Thus, usage as a feedstock was considered to be a non—solvent use. o Pages 40 and 41 of the BLD define solvent application in the production of pesticides to include “... usage as a reaction (synthesis) medium, and usage in equipment cleaning.” The term “reaction medium” does not mean reactant or feedstock; rather, it refers to a substance that is capable of dissolving another substance (i.e., solute) to form a uniformly dispersed mixture or solution thereby enhancing the ability of the solute to undergo a chemical reaction with other soluble substances. ------- —2— 0 The language in 40 FR 56584 (November 17, 1981) clearly states that substances commonly used as solvents, “... may also be used in a manufacturing process as chemical reactants or process intermediates and, when so used, are not considered to be spent solvents.” It should be noted that although we do not consider the subject waste streams to be listed hazardous wastes, these streams may exhibit hazardous characteristics ( e.g. , ignitability). If such is the case, these wastes should be handled under the waste management standards contained in 40 CFR Parts 262—266, Part 124, and the permitting requirements of Parts 270 and 271. If you have any questions regarding our decision on this matter, you may contact me at (202) 382—4761. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief, Waste Identification Branch ------- 9444.l985(15a) r RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE II JULY MONTHLY REPORT QUESTION 1985 The Solvent Mixture Rule 4. EPA published a proposed rule on April 30, 1985, (50 18378) which would regulate certain spent solvent mixtures. 11 ProPosed rule amends S26l.3l so that spent solvent listings having EPA ha7ardous ‘raste numbers FOOl thro h F005 would be canbined under the FOOl listing. p re Importantly, the proposed rule would regulate certain spent solvent mixtures that are not currently regulated due to the ‘sole active ingredient’ interpretation. * p QpQ5ed hazardous iaste descriptiOn for FOOl incliiies ‘spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, in total, ten percent (or more) by volume’ of the listed spent solvents. Ibw will EPA interpret ‘ten percent (or more) by volume?’ F r example: (a) es a solvent blend containing trichloroethylene and methylene chloride (both listed spent solvents under £001), each present at five percent by volume, meet the listing description? (b) es one of the spent solvents ‘isted under FOOl have to be present at ten percent by volume? EPA interprets the pwase ‘ten percent (or more) by volume’ to mean the total per centage by volume calculated by summing the percentages of all FOOl listed spent solvents inclt ed in a mixture/blend. ‘ n percent (or more) by volume’ does not mean that a particular spent solvent under the FOOl listing must be present in the mixture at ten percent by volume. (a) A solvent mixture/blend containing two FOOl listed spent solvents at five per cent by volume each would be considered a FOOl listed hazardous aste. (b) In order for a mixture to meet the spent solvent listing, a single solvent need not be present at a cor entration of ten percent. I ther, the ten percent threshold refers to the total of all listed solvents in the mixture. Currently the FCO1-F005 listings only apply to the spent form of the listed solvents where only one solvent (i.e., sole active ingredient) solvent es used in a process. The F001—F005 listings do rot apply to the spent form of solvent blends or mixtures with more than one active ingredient (i.e., two or more solvents l4sted in S26l .31). ------- UP4ITED STAIr NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN 9444.1986(16) Mr. Randy L. Porter I 8 ig Industrial Hygienist University of Kansas Medical Center Safety Office 39th and Rainbow Blvd. Kansas City, Kansas 66103 Dear Mr. Porter: This is in response to your July 8, 1986, letter in which you request written clarification as to whether your laboratory waste, generated by an investigator performing research using stock solutions of 2 . 3 7 8 —tetrachloro—dibenzo_p_djoxin (TCDD), is covered by the dioxin listings (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027). These wastes include animal carcasses, bedding, feces, urine and other “typical” laboratory dry waste such as paper goods, gloves, syringes, etc. The wastes which you described are not the listed dioxin— containing wastes under 40 CFR S261.31. These wastes would more appropriately be defined at 40 CFR S241.1O1(h) as infectious waste, “...laboratory wastes, such as pathological specimens (e.g., all tissues, specimens of blood elements, excreta, and secretions obtained from patients or laboratory animals) and disposable fomites (any substance that may harbor or transmit pathogenic organisms) attendant thereto.......”. To date, EPA has not promulgated criteria for identifying waste as infectious under §261 Subpart C. The Agency has, however, developed a manual to provide guidance on the management of infectious waste. A copy is enclosed for your reference. I hope this adequately answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Doreen Sterling of my staff. Sincerely yours, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Characterization Branch Enclosure S ------- UNITED STA !NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE. 9444.1986(17) sEP 4 Mr. John L. Cherill Enviro,ut entaj Control Corning Glass Works Corning, NeW York 14831 Dear Hr. Cherjjj: This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1986, regarding the regulatory status of the reject substrates containing vanadium pentoxide (as described in your May 15th 1ett r) under the existing Federal hazardous waste regulatj s . First, I would like to apologize for taking so long in responding to your request; I hope this delay has not caused you any problems. With regard to your specific request, the vanadium pentoxide substrate is not a listed hazardous waste; therefore, this material. (when abandoned) would only be subject to the hazardous waste regulations it £t exhibits one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitabi]jty, corrosivity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity). In response to your specific questions: 1. Would our reject substrates (prior to crushing) be a hazardous waste, POlO, because the vanadium pentoxjde component would be considered a “sole active ingredient”? No. The reject substrates are not considered the listed hazardous waste POlO. POlO, listed in 40 CFR 2 6 1.33(e), covers unused vanadium pentoxjde (either pure grade, technical grade, or in formulations where it ii the sole active ingredient) which is discarded. Since the reject substrates are not considered the commercial chemical product vanadium pntoxide, this material is not Considered hazaraous WUtf POlO. 2. Would crushing the reject substrates (as we normally do) make them a “process waste” which, since such process waste is not a listed waste under 261.31 or 261.32 and would not exhibit any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste given at 261.20, 261.21, 261.22, 261.23 and 261.24, is not a hazardous wasted or, would such crushing merely be considered a “treatment” or a nazarpous to a RCRA Parr OPPICIAL FILE COPY .S. 1HS-4I7-$ 3 ------- 2 Crushing of the reject substrates would not be considered a process waste since this activity is not part of the manufacturing operation (i.e., operation to manufacture the vanadium pentoxide substrate). Rather, the crushing operation is a treatment process to reduce the waste volume of the off—spec substrates. However, since the re)ect substrates are not hazardous wastes ( i.e. , are not specifically listed nor exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (as you indicate), the crushing operation is not subject to the hazardous waste rules. 3. Would the ultimate end user of this new product, e.g. , a power plant, have to dispose of the spent product as a hazardous waste solely because it contained vanadium pentoxide? (Obviously, if the product as a result of its use captured arsenic or lead, for example, from the exhaust stream and it then exhibits the characteristic ot EP Toxicity it would have to be disposed of as a characteristic hazardous waste.) No. As already indicated, the vanadium pentoxide substrate is not a listed hazardous waste. Therefore, this material is not subject to the hazardous waste rules, unless this material exhibits one or more or the hazardous waste characteristics. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further questions; my telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Characterization Branch ------- 944 4. 1986 (19) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 SEP25 1986 OFFICE OF 1EMORANDtJM SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUBJECT: Repromulgation of £006 Hazardous Waste Category FROM: 3. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response TO Valdas V. Adamkus Regional Administrator Thank you for your August 18, 1986 memorandum regarding the repromulgation of the £006 hazardous waste category. After a briefing with the staff from the Office of Solid Waste, Office of General Counsel, and the t ffice of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), I decided to re—interpret the £006 listing to only include those processes that can be implicated, either directly or indirectly, in the language of the listinq. During this briefing, I was presented with five options which are described in the attached material. I selected oDtion three because it orovides a sound leaal argument and is cost effective——it saves resources. Realizing that ontion three may create problems with existing enforcement actioris.invo1vin £006 wastes, I have requested OWPE to develop guidance which you should find helpful. In addition, we expect to re—visit the scope of the £006 listing as part of our relistinc effort. The details of the decision are as follows: the £006 listing would include wastewater treatment sludges from the following processes: (1) common and precious metals electro- plating, (2) anodizing (3) chemical etching and milling and (4) cleaning and shipping associated with commor and precious metal electroplating. The following processes are not included under the. P006 listina: (1) chemical conversion coatina, (2) electrolees plating, (3) printed circuit board manufacturing and (4) the six processes explicitly excluded from £006. Let me elaborate two fine points regarding the processes that are not listed . First, wastewater treatment sludges front the chemical conversion coating of aluminum are listed as EPA hazardous waste No. £019. Second, wastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board manufacturing ooerations that include processes which are within the scooe of the listing (i.e. chemical etching) are listed as EPA hazardous waste No. F006. ------- We have drafted a Federal Reajster notice which oresents our re- interoretation of the F006 listing. This notice has been forwarded to the Regions for comment. In addition, a nieetinq was held with the Regions in Atlanta on Seotember 16, 1986 to discuss our approach. I hope this memorandun and the attached brief inq material explains how I made my decision and how I plan to proceed. If I can be of further assistance, olease let me know. Attachment ------- 9444.1986(20) Ut D STAT NVIR0NNENT PROTECI,ON AGEN . Mr. William L. Ijarren Warren, Goldberg, Berman, and Lubjt aa 112 Nassau Street P.O. Box 645 Princeton, New Jersey 08542 Dear Mr. Warren: This is in response to your letter of August 26, 1986, in which you reguest that EPA confirm that soil contaminated with Chiordane, as a result of application of that pesticide in the normal course of agricultu use, would not automatically be considered a hazardous waste. The pesticide Chiordane is a listed commercial chemical r’roduct (U036; see 40 CFR 2 G1.33(f)) that becomes a hazardous waste when discarded or intended to be discarded. The Agency did not intend to cover those cases when the chemical is released into the environment as a result of use. (See, for example, the enclosed memo regarding the regulatory status of pesticide applicator washing rinse water.) In addition, 40 CFR 261 .2(c)(1)(B)(ii) specifically states that commercial chemical products listed in Section 261.33 are not solid wastes (and, thus, not hazardous wastes) if they are applied to the land and that is their ordinary manner of use. Therefore, the contaminated soil. would be treated as a hazardous waste (if it is dug up) only if it exhibits one or more of the four RCRA hazardous waste characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21 through 261.2.4. Please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew A. Straus if you have any further questions; Mr. Straus can be reached at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely, Eileen B. Clauggen Di rector Characterization and Assessment Divjgjo Enclosure ------- 9444. 1986 (21) Mr. Paul H. Frank ACR Electronics Inc. 5757 Ravenswood Road P.O. Box 5247 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33310-5247 Re: Status of Delisting Petition #0297 Dear Mr. Frank: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Agency has reevaluated its previous interpretation of the hazardous waste listing for F006 wastes (Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations) and has determined that it is overly broad. In particular, we believe that certain of the processes identified in the Listing Background Document that are not directly or indirectly implicated in the actual listing are not covered under regulations as listed hazardous wastes. As a result, we now believe that F006 includes only common and precious metals electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching and milling, and cleaning and stripping when associated with these processes. On the other hand, the following processes are not included under the F006 listing: chemical conversion coating’, electrolysis plating, and printed circuit board manufacturing 2 . The Agency will be publishing an explanation of its determination on the F006 listing in the Federal Register in the near future. 1 Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019. 2 Wastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board manufacturing operations that include processes which are within the scope of the listing (e.g., chemical etching) are regulated as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. This has been retyped from the original document. ------- —2— Our records indicate that your petitioned waste is generated from processes that are not included in the scope of the F006 listing as described above. Therefore, we have discontinued the review of your petition. It should be noted that if your petitioned wastes are mixed with listed F006 wastes or any other listed hazardous wastes, the resulting mixture would be considered hazardous. Also, if your petitioned wastes or any mixture of wastes exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (40 CFR 261 Subpart C) then that waste would be considered hazardous. If our records are incorrect or if your petitioned wastes are mixed with other hazardous wastes for which you still seek delisting, please contact us as soon as possible so that we can reactivate our review. Also, please note that this decision does not apply to any other listed wastes that may be generated at your facility. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Myles Morse of my staff, at (202) 382—4788. Sincerely, Bruce Weddle Director Permits arid State Programs Division This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9444.1986(23) Mr. Alfred A. Levin Director, Toxic Substances Control Regulatory Affairs Velsicol Chemical Corporation 341 East Ohio Street Chicago, Illinois 60611—337 Dear Mr. Levin: This is in response to your March 19, 1986, letter in which you request written confirmation that the wastes generated from the manufacture of 2,4,5-Trichiorophenol (TCP) and Hexachlorophene at your Beaumont plant are not covered by the dioxin listings promulgated on January 14, 1985 (see 50 1978). First, I would like to apologize for my delay in getting back to you; I hope this has not caused you any problems. With respect to your specific request, I agree that all of the wastes that are described in your letter that are generated at your Beaumont plant from 2,4,5-TCP and Hexachiorophene production are not covered by the dioxin listings (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020- 027).’ As I explain below, these waste are specifically excluded activities are being carried out or were carried out in the past, the answer to these questions could change. More specifically: • Wastes from Manufacture of 2,4,5—TCP — Wastewaters — I agree that the wastewaters that are generated in the 2,4,5—TCP process (i.e., streams 1 and 2, as referred to in your letter) are not covered by the EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020 and F023 listings. If, however, these wastewaters are treated on-site and a sludge is formed (e.g., biological sludge, spent activated carbon, spent filter aid, etc.), the sludge is covered by the listings and would be regulated as an acute hazardous waste. (See enclosed, March 29 1985, memorandum from Michael Cook to the Regions). ‘The only stream which I did not address is the spent sulfuric acid from the manufacture of 2,4,5—TCP. However, Mr. Steven E. Silverman already addressed the regulatory status of this stream in a separate letter dated October 6, 1986. Therefore, I will not discuss it in this letter. This has been retyped from the original document . ------- • Wastes from Manufacture of Hexachiorophene Where Highly Purified 2.4,5—TCP is Used — I agree with you (except as noted below) that all the wastes that are generated by this process (i.e., streams 3-11 and 13—19, as referred to in your letter) are not included within the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020 and F023). I agree with Dr. Bellin that highly purified 2,4,5-TCP means any 2,4,5—TCP that contains less than 1 ppb of 2,3,7,8—TCDD. 2 (You should be aware that if the Hexachiorophene Process at this plant was previously operated without using “highly purified 2,4,5-TCP,” the wastes that are currently generated would be covered by EPA Hazardous Waste No. F023.) Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Characterization Branch Enclosure 2 This level is much lower than that typically found in 2,4,5- TCP where the 2,4,5—TCP had not been highly purified. See table 3 in listing background document to dioxin listing where it states that the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in trichiorophenols did range between 0.07 to 6.2 ppm. In addition, based on discussions we had with manufacturers who use to produce hexachiorophene meeting FDA standards with respect to TCDD-contamination and their supplies of 2,4,5— TCP, the 1 ppb level of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was indicated as necessary in order to meet the FDA specification for Hexachiorophene. This has been retyped from the original document . ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444 1986 (2 5) WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 4 L OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSI Andrew A. Rathsack, P.E. Project Manager Andrews Environmental Engineering, Inc. 1320 South Fifth Street Springfield, Illinois 62703 Dear Mr. Rathsack: Thank you for your September 29, 1986, letter requesting written confirmation that floating hollow plastic balls, which are used to control vapors from industrial process tanks containing carbon disulfide, would not be a hazardous waste when disposed. As YOU are aware, carbon disulfide is listed In 40 CFR 261.33(e) as an acutely hazardous substance waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This listing includes commercial chemical product, off—specificatjQn species, container residues, or spill residues when any of these are discarded or intended to be discarded. The plastic balls are a hazardous waste since carbon disulfide has been incidentally deposited on them. ieaning the balls should remove the carbon disulfide and rervi* r the balls non—hazardous. Simple washing may be sufficieu for this purpose. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, . ssistant Ad inistrator ------- ‘JNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 944 4 • 19 86 (27) DEC5 Dr. Gerald S iegei. n nviro t ii oatr Ls .ta ager £er a te Servi s Co. ust 1dr et truet Cau bellto n, Pennsylvania 17010 L ar Ur. piege1nan: Th13 is in rdsponse to your letter of Septe ther 17. 199G. rcyardia; the app1ica ility of the hazardous waste regulations, ecifically 43 Ci 261 anzl 40 CFR 2 , to still ottozn gencrated r a di t .llation of spent zylene from the manufacture of sodium xjienesuifonate. I .rpo1ogi e Lor the delay in respondinq to your letter. During the recant months we have been using all ivailaole resources to develop thu land diejcaal restrictions final rule (51 FR 4u572 . L c ve ber 7. 19 3G). A rocess waste ofltAining solvents where the solvent is a ruact r in the for au1atioii of c i ercial cho tica1 prociuct.a are aoc cuvere,1 b 1 ’ the spent solvent listings (EPA la trdous te r’uU l, h’032, 1033, F004, and FOOS). Accordin] to the infor iation ?r vided in your letter, xylene is used as a reactant i tP e manufacture of sodium zylenesulfonate, therefore, you are correct in noting t iat excess xylene fr i this process woulU not. be covered urauer the F003 solvent Ustira . Still bottoms generated from the distillatioa of the excess rylene would not be a hazarlous wdste unless th.j exnioit one or ; re of the characteristics of nc.zardous waste ( i.e. , corr ivitj, ignitability, EP toxicity, or reactivity). L’urther&ore, as you correctly stated, spent xylcu and stili uottons fro.n the recovery of zylene used in your process does not maet en. listing description for EPA haztrdou wdste number U239, since it is not a discarded comz.iercial chenical rouuct, off-specification species, or other material identified under 40 CF!( 261.33. The first clacs of wastes subject to the Land disposal re- strictions effective November 8, 1996, include th, FOO1—F005 solvents end certain Uiozin—cont ining waets . Therefore, the xylene still bottoms generated from your process would no be subject to these rules. If these wastes oxhioit one or more of the c racterist cs of hazardous waste, they will be SubjeCt to the l nJ disjios a]. rsstrictiens when the Agency promulgates treatrtcnt c h .r rigrit i;isr. .g ni the ipy l 93 , statutory ‘U.S I SS—4S7-•S3 ------- I h 3 this info ation ade uate1y ad r ses ycur concer:is. f el free to contact Bill Fortune, of y staff at (232) 47D—b115, if jou have further questions. Sincerely, Jacqueline W. Sales, Chief Regulation Developn nt Section ------- 9444.1986(28) December 5, 1986 Mr. Eliot Cooper Director of Environmental Affairs Waste-Tech Services, Inc. 18400 W. 10th Avenue Golden, CO 80401 Dear Mr. Cooper: Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1986, in which you request clarification of the regulatory status of spent fluidized bed media used during the destruction of listed hazardous waste as well as clarification of facility changes allowed under interim status. Under the RCRA regulations, spent fluidized bed media would not be considered to be a hazardous waste via application of 40 CFR 261.3(d) since the spent media would not be considered to have been derived from the treatment of a hazardous waste. In addition, the mixture rule in 40 CFR 261.3(a) (2) (iv) does not apply since the fluidized bed media is not a solid waste at the time it becomes mixed with a hazardous waste. Nevertheless, spent fluidized bed media contaminated with a listed hazardous waste (or, in this case, a waste derived from a listed hazardous waste) would still be subject to regulation since it contains a hazardous waste. See §261.3 (C) (a) and (d) (2). Therefore, the treatment, storage, or disposal of spent fluidized bed media contaminated with hazardous waste must be handled as j the fluidized bed media itself were a hazardous waste. However, if the fluidized bed media, as a result of the incineration process or as result of other treatment, no longer contains a hazardous waste, it would no longer be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. In this case, no delisting petition would be required. Your second question concerns whether an interim status facility may add a new incinerator if the facility currently does not have an incineration process. The answer is yes, provided that the conditions specified in 40 CFR 270.72 are met. Under §270.72(c), owners or operators wishing to make any changes in or additions to the processes of treatment, storage, or disposal at an interim status facility are required to submit a revised Part A and a justification for the change to the regulating agency for approval. EPA or an authorized State may approve these changes only when they are necessary to prevent a threat to human health and the environment due to an emergency situation, or when they are necessary to comply with Federal regulations (including the interim status standards of 40 CFR Part 265) or State or local laws. This provision does not preclude the addition of a This has been retyped from the original document. ------- completely new process ( e.a. , incineration) at an interim status facility that currently does not have such a process. It should be noted, however, that §270.72(e) limits the scope of any changes that take place at interim status facilities by prohibiting changes that require a capital expenditure greater than 50% of capital cost for the construction of a comparable entirely new hazardous waste management facility. Therefore, this provision (known as the “reconstruction” limit) may restrict the extent of a change even if the addition of a new process is allowed under §270.72(c). The above response to your two questions describes the operation of the Federal RCRA program for the situations you outlined in your letter. However, 42 States now have final authorization to operate the RCRA program in lieu of EPA. Some State requirements may be more stringent or more restrictive than the Federal program in these two areas. If you have specific concerns regarding your operation in Colorado, I recommend that you contact Mary Gearhart in the Colorado Department of Health (303—331—4830) since the State has RCRA authorization. If you have any further questions on the Federal RCRA requirements, please feel free to contact Larry Wapensky in EPA’s Region VIII office in Denver (303-293—1660). Sincerely, Marcia E. Williams Director Office of Solid Waste cc: Larry Wapensky, EPA Region VIII Mary Gearhart, Colorado Department of Health This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9 444.1986(29) oB . Dr. G.or e V. Razbo National Pest Control Association, Inc. - 1O0 Oak Street Dunn Loring, VA 22027 t)ear Dr. Ra bo: his is in response to your letter of November 13, 1986, requesting an interpretation of the federal hazardous veete rules concerning the disposal of spent ash following fumigation with aluainuz and/or maanesiiam phoaphid. products. As you a z ’s avers, sluzinua phoaphid. is listed as a hazardous vests (IPA ifasardous Vast. 10. P006) in 40 Cfl 4261.33(s). ov.vsr, this listing onl..j applies to the n a.d cosaercial product when discarded as the pur. grade, t. iT i grade, or w iqre it ii the aol. active ingredient in a foreulation . Sinc• th. product has bess used, it would not be considered the listed hazardous waste. Nevsrth.l.ss, the ash—residue of the product would be hazardou, and subject to the appropriate requirements if it exhibits any of the hazardous vests characteristics ( i.e. , ignitabtitty , corroelvity, reactivity, or extraction procedure (3P) toxicity) and if the er ll quantity generator (SQG) level (1 ka! of total hazaz’dous waste calendar month) is exceeded. Thus, when th. ash residue is ollecte4, the •n.rator is responsible for detiraining if it exhibits any of the hazardous waste charact.rietic ; if It ioes, the additional preceasin of the residue (t.e. ezpose to tir or place in a water det.rgenl bath) must be r ana ed in accorlance with 40 CPR P.z’t 262 to 266. If you have any furth.r questions, ilease feel free to call Wen4a L.Bl.u—llsvas of my staff at (202) 382—7392. The 1 j g also anpitee to any off—spec commercial aluminum Ø phjd., container residues, and spill residues of the unused product. Sincere li, Marcia 1. Williams Director, Office of Solid Waste ------- 9444 • 1986(30) December 10, 1986 Curtis Verploegh Hazardous Waste Manager The University of New Mexico Occupational Safety Medical Building 3, #137 Albuquerque, NM 87131 Dear Mr. Verploegh: This is in response to your October 21, 1986 letter in which you requested clarification as to whether your laboratory waste, generated by an investigator, performing research involving 2,3,7,8—tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is covered under 40 CFR §261.31. The wastes in question are: 1.07 ing of TCDD contained in some 361 mouse carcasses, 450 gallons of cages and bedding, and 41 gallons of dry waste. The wastes which you described are not the listed dixoin- containing wastes under 40 CFR §261.31. Rather, these wastes would more appropriately be characterized as infectious wastes, “... laboratory wastes, such as pathological specimens ( e.g. , all tissues, specimens of blood elements, excretes, and secretions obtained from patients or laboratory animals) and disposable fomites (any substance that may harbor or transmit pathogenic organisms) attendant thereto...” see 40 CFR §241.101(h). To date, EPA has not promulgated criteria for identifying waste as infectious under §261 Subpart C. The Agency has, however, developed a manual to provide guidance on the management of infectious waste. A copy is enclosed for your reference. You should be aware that typical infectious waste incinerators are probably not satisfactory devices for disposal of materials highly contaminated with TCDD. TCDD decomposes above 800C. These wastes which you describe can be safely managed by high temperature incineration. I hope this adequately answers your questions. Sincerely yours, Doreen Sterling, Ph.D. Chemist Waste Characterization Branch Enclosure cc: Matt Straus This has been retyped from the original document. ------- I .UICLH0N AGENCY 9444.19 c6( 31) DEC J1 B6 Mr. Randy-M. !4ott... Heron, Burchette, Ruckert and Rcthwell Suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 Dear Mr. Mott& Thank you for your November 5, 1986, latter regarding the September 22. 1986. correction notice (51 FR 33612) for the spent pickle liquor final rule (51. FR l932 May 28, 1986). You stated that the correction notice dramatically changed the spent pickle liquor final rule without prior notice and comment. You, therefore, argued that the Agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the Agency did not provide notice and coie ent, 4, S U.S.C. 553 (1966). You also argued that adoption of the correction notice by the State of Tennessee violates the Tennessee Administrative Procedure Act. We disagree with your argument that our action has violated the Administrative Procedure Act, We think that the Agency’. ir tent throughout the rulemaking process has been to list, as a haxardous waste, spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations from facilities within the iron and steel industry, and that the Agency stated this intention clearly and repeatedly. In fact, t ntil your letter, there has never been any question, or even assertion, that the listing is limited to only those faci liti.s actually producing iron and steel. Thu .. in the September 10, 1985, proposal that led to the May 1986 final rule, the kgsncy explained that the whole debate revolved around th. question of whether the Agency’s existing K062 listing applies to pickl. liquor generated by any steel finishing operation or only from those steel finishing op.rations in the iron and steel industry. See, e.g. 50 FR 36966/li 36967/li 36967/2. rh. Agency laid out several options to resolve the issue, including whth•r the listing appli.s only to K062 wastes generated by the iron and steel industry. (id. at 36968/1). The referenc. to the iron and steel industry referred to facilities in Standard Industrial Cod.. (SIC) Codes 331-332 . as shown by the Agency’s reference to those SIC codes (id. at 36966/1), as well, as, the r.gulaeory lan- guage in §261.3(c)(2) (ii). ------- The final regulation adopted the option of narrowing. the K062 listing to wait.. from facilities within the iron and steel industry. In particular, we stated, ‘The Agency believes that the petitioners and the coiw enters to the September 10, 1985. proposed rule have a valid argu nt that the listing should be read to apply only to those facilities within the iron and steel industry.’ ( emphasis added) (51 FR 19321/2) ‘Therefore, in light of the ccIm ents rec•ived and arguments made, the Agency had decided to i cdify its interpretation and narrow the scope of the spent pickle liquor listing to apply to those facilities within the iron and steel industry. ’ (emphasis added) (51 FR 1932112) This amendment will have no adverse economic impact on small entities since the rule will reduce the hazardous waste requirements to those p.rsons who generate spent acid in non—iron and steel induetrie. . (emphasis added) (51 FR 19322/1) ‘The majority of commenters strongly supported the petitioner. claim that th. plain language of the listing for spent pickl. liquor from steel finishing op.rations...indicat.s that the Listing applies only to facilities within the iron and steel industry.’ The final rule mistakenly applied to facilities producing iron and steel. The preamble to the final rule also occasionally referenced this error. The rule did not r.flect the Agency’s intent and could not reasonably be viewed as doing so. The Agency (as shown above) did not propose such a limited con- struction, and received no ccsznents suggesting such a restricted listing nor wa, the regulatory languag. consistent with the. preamble language cited above. It should also be noted that the May 1986 regulatory language contradicted the language of another regulation regarding waste 1 O62 and so did not reflect the Agency’s intent and could not reasonably be considered to do so. In particular. lime stabilized waits pickl. liquor sludge from the iron sad steel industry liquor (SIC codes 331-332) bad been exempted from ths •deriv•d frc& rut. under 26l.3(c)(2) (ii). Ss 49 FR 23284, Jun. 5, 1984. Thus, a listing of pickle liquor iy from facilities producing iron and steel would have made the listing narrower than the parallel exclu- sion for sludges d•rived from treating the listed waste. We repeat that such a factual contradiction could not be de.med to reflect th• Agency’s intent, and so could be changed by means of a technical correction. The Agency indeed noted this contradiction in making th. technical correction. 51 FR 33612/2. ------- There ote the Agency believes that it has not violated the Administra’ ye Procedure Act. We believe that the regulated nu ity is clear on the issues involving the pickle liquor listing as evidenced by the comments received on the Septebmer 1986, proposed rule. Also, the Agency believes that the commenters and the regulated community understand that the iron and steel industry is defined as SIC codes 331 and 332 (as stated in the June 5, 1984, final rule). In support of this position.the Agency received numerous calls from the regulated community and State officials ques- tioning the contradictory language in the preamble and final rule. Many of these callers indicated that the preamble language of the final rule indicates that the listing applies to all facilities within the iron and steel industry while the rule addressee facilities that Nproduce iron and steel. The Agency recognized the contradiction as pointed out by callers and responded with the September 22, 1986. correction notice. Thus, in light of the phone calls received by the Agency addressing the contradictory language in the preamble and regulatory language of the May 1986, final rule, the Agency concludes that the regulated community understands that the Agency made an error in the final rule, and that it did not have a belated change of heart in the nature of the rule as you allege. Furthermore, the Agency ha. difficulty under- standing the practical consequences to your client of the corrected regulatory language. You indicate that Bristol recycles all pickle liquor and rinse water. We would be interested in an explanation of what operations at Bristol are regulated and which regulations would apply. I trust that thi, letter adequately addresses your concerns. If you have questions, please contact Matthew Straus or Jacqueline Sales at (202) 475—8551. Sincer.ly, r lu Jeok W, U7. Winston Porter 1 Assistant Administrator ------- UNITED STAT ENYI IJ? N N1AL PROTECTION AGENCY 9444.1986(32) Mr. Richard M. Barrett ‘ 2 OFC Teledyne Monarch Rubber Company 10 Lincoln Park Hartvjlle, OH 44632 Re: Status of Delisting Petition #0507 Dear Mr. Barrett: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Agency has reevaluated its previous interpretation of the hazardous waste listing for P006 wastes (Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations) and has determined that it is overly broad. In particular, we believe that certain of the processes identified in the Listing Background Document that are not directly or indirectly implicated in the actual listing are not covered under the regulations as listed hazardous wastes. As a result, we now believe that P006 includes only co on and precious metals electroplating, anodizing, chemical etching and milling, and cleaning and stripping when associated with these processes. On the other hand, the following processes are not included under the P006 listing: chemical conversion coating 1/, electrol€ss plating, and printed circuit board manufacturing 2/• The Agency recently published an explanation of its determination on the P006 listing in the Federal Register 3/ In addition, the Agency notes that your petition also identified the subject waste as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062 The Agency has recently revised the scope of the K062 listing to include wastes from only those facilities described by 1/ Wastewatir treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. P019. Wastewatey treatment sludges from printed circuit board manufacturing operations that include processes which are within the scope of the listing (e.g., chemical etchinq) are regulated as EPA Hazardous Waste No. P006. V Th SL FR 43350, 9eee er i an eiplanatinef ONCU1I1 ------- —2— SIC codes 331 and 332. Based Upon discussions with Mr. Richard Bohaychyk of Teledyne, we have concluded that the SIC code for your facility causes the waste to not meet the K062 listing description. / Our records indicate that your petitioned waste is generated from processes that are not included in the scope of the £006 listing or that of the K062 listing, as described above. Therefore, we have discontinued the review of your petition. It should be noted that if your petitioned wastes are mixed with listed F006 wastes, listed 1 (062 wastes, or any other listed hazardous wastes, the resulting mixture would be considered hazardous. Also, if your petitioned wastes or any mixture of wastes exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (40 CFR 261 Subpart C) then that waste would be considered hazardous. If our records are incorrect or if your petitioned wastes are mixed with other hazardous wastes for which you still seek delisting, please contact us as soon as possible so that we can reactivate our review. Also, please note that this- decision does not apply to any other listed wastes that may be generated at your facility. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Myles Morse of my staff, at (202) 382—4788. Sincerely, Myles Morse Acting Chief Variances Section cc: Alan Debus, Region V William Muno, Region V 4/ S e 51 FR 19320, May 28, 1986 for an explanation of the — 1(062 de Tsjon. Also, see 51 FR 33612, September 22, 1986 (correction notice). ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROT&TION A CY 9444.1986(33) Honorable Lloyd Bentsen g 961 Federa-l Building Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Mr. Bentsen: Thank you for your November 1986, letter requesting information concerning the regul(tory status of electric arc furance (EAF) dust generated by the Bodner Metal and Iron Corporation of Houston, Texas, after treatment with Lopat Industries; K—20 encapsulation process. My office has reviewed the material supplied with the letter, and has concluded that the encapsulated EAF dust is still a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and should be managed as such. The Texas Water Commission, in its letter of November 7, 1986, to Emanuel Bodner of Bodrier Metal and Iron Corporation, was correct in its assessment of Bodrter Metal and Iron’s EAF dust. This EAF dust is a listed hazardous waste (EPA Hazardous Waste No. 1 (061) under 40 CFR S26l.32. The hazardous constituents for which this waste was originally listed are hexavalent chromium, 4 lead, and cadmium. A listed waste must be handled as hazardous, even if treated, unless a regulatory exclusion ( “delisting”) is granted. The delisting process requires detailed sampling and testing of representative samples of the waste generated a partickliar facility. Delisting decisions are based on the characterizations of the wastes generated at individual facilities. The standards that a waste must meet to be delisted are more stringent than the standards set in the RCRA regulations for the hazardous waste characteristics. These characteristics ( i.e. , extraction procedure (EPJ toxicity, reactivity, corrosivity, and ignitability) were established to bring non—listed wastes which exhibited any of these characteristics under hazardous waste regulation. After the promulgation of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), the Agency is now required to evaluate all wastes, for which a delisting is sought, for their originally listed Constituents of concern and for any “Appendix VIII” hazardous constituents reasonably believe to be present in the waste, as veil as the hazardous waste characteristics, in each delisting deaonstratjon. ------- It should be noted that the two series of EP toxicity tests performed on samples of treated LA? dust (the results presented with Mr. Bodner’s letter of November 10, 1986) have produced leachate concentratj ons for lead that are too high to justify a delisting. The Agency uses a vertical and horizontal spread (VHS) dispersion model to aid in th evaluation of delisting petitions. This model uses leachate dat and waste volume to predict potential impacts of a waste upon ground water. The EP leachate data for lead (16 and 3.6 mg/i) in the treated waste, as presented in the Bodner letter, will produce compliance—point concentrations which fail the VHS evaluation ( i.e. , the compliance—point values exceed the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard for lead of 0.05 mg/i). The Agency has required that other stabilization technologies employed in several other delisting petitions achieve EP leachate concentrations for lead below 0.3 mg/i. Several petitioners have been successful in achieving these leachate levels. Although it would not change the regulatory status of the E?If dust the Agency does believe that ertcapeulation processes (such as the Lopat K—20 process) are useful in controlling the mobility of hazardous wastes and thereby decreasing the probability of environmental contamination. To assure that stabilizing treatment technologies will successfully bind constituents over the long term, the Agency requires stabilized wastes to be ground to a uniform 100—mesh particle size prior to chemical testing. This prov 1 ides the Agency with a means of evaluating the waste for the potential effects of weathering or mismanagement. I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have any additional questions concerning the delisting of hazardous wastes, please contact Mr. Myles Morse, of my staff, at (202) 382—4782. Sincerely yours, ‘ ! 7 ’ J. Winston Porter Assistant Administrator ------- 9444.1985( 09) JUN3 1985 MEMORANDUM SuthJEc’rI k aquest for Guidance on Part B Application; PROM: John Skinner, Director office of Solid Waste (WH—562) TO: Jais H. ScarbrougPt, Chief Residuals Management Branch EPA Region IV This memorandum responds to your inquiry of April 29, 1985, requesting concurrence on the status of toluene—]ad.n filter residue generated from the ink production process at Union Camp Corporation. Your memorandum states that both EPA Region IV and Georgia EPD consider the waste to be a spentsolvent——EPh Kazsrdous Waste No. P005. W. disagree with this dcterii nation. In general, chemicals which are used as solvents are not consumed, nor are they physically or chemically altered during the process. When used in this manner, that is, for their solvent’ properties, wastes generated are considered spent solvents when they consist of solvent (4 nd other mat.rial ) which no longer maet the specifications or wi ith thc y er originally used and are intended for discard or urt er proctc ing. The filtering unit at Union Camp is an integral part of the production process, since its primary function is removal of unr.act.d chemicals, excess reactants and other impurities from the product. The filtration cake generated at this unit, however, is not a spent solvent. The waste stream apparently only includes the solvent as a contaminant. As noted in Union Camp’s l.tt.r to John C. Taylor of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, the filter cake waste stream consists primarily of filter aid, unreacted metal oxides, and resinate product. Th listing bsckgr *nd document notes, the wastes .nccmpass.d by this listing do not includs vaste streams where solvent is a contaminant, such that the vast. stream is not spent solvent, as defined above. Thus, wastes which contain as consti— tu.nts solvents which are used in the industrial process are not included within the scope of this ------- -2— listing. Sor are thess waste atrea hazardous by virtue of the sizing rule (S.c. 2613(a)(2)(ii)), since a apsrit iolvnt is not being ciz.d with anothe aolid waste (Listing Background Documont, p 81). 4 Accordingly, the filter cake ii not an P005 waste, but re iatris only an ignitabl. (DOOl) waste. 0 ’ Sines hi r.stdue Is treated On—sit. (partially In a Funds Unit and partially by •vaporation), to decreass solvents content, th. facility suit obtain a trsataent psrclt, and either obtain a storage p.r..tt before treatnt or casply with 40 CPR g262.34. If you have questions or require additional inforRatton, pleas. call Jacqueline Sales, of y staff, at (PTS) 382—4770. ------- 9444.1985(11) C. Jil ’ Mr. J.W. Blos .r naton Corporatiacz Manufacturing Services C.nt.r 32500 Chardon load Willoughby Elil., Ohio 44094 Dear Mr. Bloeners Thu is in reply to your letter of Jun. 3, 18S, vhic you solicitd our opinion as to the statue of .p t ion •xctang. ret in rcs ilting fr astal re ova]. fr electroplating rinse watcra (tfl Easardous Waste P006) • As you •urnis.d in your question, our answer is in ths affir ati,. th. spent ion •xchLnga resin is considered to be P006 and iat bs w ag.d in accordanc, with haaardoqg waste regulations. Should you need additional infornation or, in particular, if you wish infornation relative to szcluding your vsst* iron regulatory control (d1isting), I suggest you call Plyl.. Morse, 202,’3r2 .47B2. Very truly yours. alan S. Cotso , Branch iief Studies and Methods Branch (Vn-562n) ------- 9444.1985(12) RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY MAY 85 Solid Waste DeterTnthatia 4. A ware ise storas product_acrylczd .trile. An aCC3.d 1tal fire destroys the ware- .ise and ro a s an ash £iU the burnB3 acryl itrile. ‘fl acrylcnitrile was not a bazardois waste prior to the fire. La t ash vi as solid waste g erated fr the disp al of a hazarda waste per §261.3(e)(2)(i) and therefore a listslbazardois waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i)? fl ash £ an acrylcr itrile warehouse fire is reg’.ilated as U009 a rdais waste. iri pr ict is vie 1 ed as discarded. Th a. the acryla itrile is a solid waste per §261.2(b)U) and §261.2(b) (50 FR 614. Jars.e.zy 4, 1985). Ash frcsi the ecryl itrile is a listed hazar .i$ waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i). S cez Steve Silverean (202) 382-7706 Mett St.raus (202) 475-8551 ------- 444.1985( 13) a UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 SEP 3 85 SOLID WASTE ANC EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Ken Chiu Solid Waste Branch (HS—13) US EPA 230 S. Dearborn St. Chicago, IL 60616 Dear Mr. Chiu: I am writing this letter in response to the question you posed in our telephone conversation on August 30, 1985. Accord- ing to the manufacturing process description that you provided, the surface impoundment at the Rockwell International, Newark, Ohio facility is considered a hazardous waste impoundmc t, listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006, It is my understanding that Rockwell International manufactures automotive gears. These gears are placed in art iron/manaanese/ phosphate tank to provide lubrication. The gears are th*n dipped in a rinse tank, and this contaminated rinse water enters the impoundment. The F006 listing applies to wastewater tr tm rit sludges from electroplating operations. Any sludge th t Drecipitates out of Rockwell International’s wastewater is classified as hazar- dous. Rockwell International’s lubrication coating process Is con- sidered electroplating, as defined in the listing background document. A number of production processes, including coating, are considered subcategories of the electroplating industry. Electroplating is defined as the application of a surface coating, usually, but not always, by electrodeposition to provide corrosion protection, erosion resistance, anti—frictional characteristics or decoration. In particular, phosphate conversion coating pro- duces a layer of insoluble crystalline phosphate on the surface of a metal that provides a base for lubricants. 1 Consequently, Rockwell International’s iron/manganese/phosphate lubricating process is considered electroplating, and sludge that results from treatment of the wastewater is considered hazardous 1/ Us EPA. Development document for existing source pretreatment tartdards for electroplating point source category. EPA No. 440/ 1—79/003. August, 1979. ------- and listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. If Rockwell Inter- national feels that their sludge is non—hazardous, then please advise them to call this office and discuss submitting a delist— ing petition. I hope that this letter helps to clarify the issue. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call. me at (202) 382—4519. Sincerely, (y tI J) Ann Burke Sarno Environmental Protection Special jet Waste Identification Branch (WH—562B) ------- 9444. 1985(14) September 10, 1985 Mr. Dave Johnson Production Manager Pueblo Chemical and Supply Company Garden City, Kansas 67846 Dear Mr. Johnson: We have reviewed your letter of July 22, 1985, notifying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of your intent to dispose of over 20,000 gallons of rinsates generated as a result of cleaning containers that contained 2,4,5—T and other pesticide formulations by deep well injection. These waste rinsates are listed as acute hazardous wastes under EPA regulations (see enclosed Federal Register notice) and subject to all regulatory provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Thus, the waste ririsates can be disposed only at a deep well facility which is permitted to handle dioxin-containing wastes. If the facility at which you intend to dispose the waste rinsates is permitted to handle such wastes, you may proceed with the disposal plan. However, if the facility is not permitted you can either seek a facility that is permitted to handle these wastes or petition the Agency to exclude your wastes from the hazardous waste list. While wastes described in the regulations generally are hazardous, a specific waste meeting the listing description from an individual facility may not be. For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a site-specific basis from the hazardous waste list. To be excluded, petitioners must show that a waste generated at their facility does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed. (See 40 CFR 260.22(c).) In addition, the Agency is required to consider factors (including other 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 hazardous. Accordingly, a petitioner must demonstrate that his waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics and present sufficient information for the Agency to determine whether the waste contains any other toxicants at hazardous levels. This has been retyped from the original document . ------- If you wish to delist the subject waste rinsates from the hazardous waste list, you can petition EPA to exclude the rinsates from the listing under CFR Part 261. The petition must include sufficient information for the Agency to determine whether the waste meets the criteria for which it was listed as well as information to determine if any other hazardous constituents are present in the waste rinsates at levels of regulatory concern. The analysis data included in your letter to EPA can, in part, be used to support a delisting determination should you decide to petition the Agency for an exclusion to the listing. If you have any questions or need further information on the delisting procedures, please contact Dr. Howard Fribush, Office of Solid Waste, or (202) 475—6726. Sincerely, Jack W. McGraw Deputy Assistant Administrator Enclosure This has been retyped from the original document . ------- 9444.1985(15) June 24, 1985 Mr. Martin H. Lewis Smith & Schnacke Suite 2250 41 S. High Street Columbus, Ohio 43215—6199 Dear Mr. Lewis: This letter responds to your inquiry of June 14, 1985, regarding the regulatory status of a solvent mixture (Nalcast 6015, water and wax) and residue from a water—wall paint spray booth in which solvent-based paints are sprayed. First, you are incorrect in stating that Nalcast 6015 (used in the removal of wax) is considered a process waste when intended to be discarded. Since Nalcast 6015 is used as a “solvent” ( i.e. , to clean wax from metal parts) it is considered “spent solvent” when it has served its intended purpose and can no longer be used without further processing. However, you are correct in stating that under the current hazardous waste regulations, spent solvent mixtures are not regulated, unless they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste ( i.e. , ignitability, EP toxicity, reactivity, and corrosivity). At this time, the spent solvent listings pertain only to the technical grade or the pure form of the solvent, thus, solvent mixtures remain unregulated. On April 30, 1985, the Agency proposed to close this regulatory loophole by expanding the universe of wastes considered “spent solvents” to include solvent mixtures containing ten percent or more of one or more listed solvents (see enclosed Federal Register notice). When this rule becomes final, Nalcast 6015, when spent or discarded, will be considered a listed hazardous waste. In addition the Nalcast 6015/water/wax mixture also will be considered hazardous waste based on the provision in the “mixture rule” (40 CFR 261.3(a) (2) (iii) which states that a mixture of solid waste and hazardous waste is considered “hazardous waste.” With respect to the water-wall spray booth residue, these wastes are not hazardous waste unless they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste. As you correctly stated, solvent-based paints are not listed hazardous waste when discarded nor are they covered under the spent solvent listings. The listings do not apply to waste streams where solvents are a contaminant. This has been retyped from the original document . ------- I trust that this letter adequately responds to the questions raised in your letter. Should you have additional questions, please call Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (202) 382—4807. Sincerely, Eileen Claussen Director Characterization and Assessment Branch Enclosure This has been retyped from the oriQinal document . ------- 9444.1985 (16) September 26, 1985 Mr. Robert E. Broyles Purina Mills, Inc. Checkerboard Square St. Louis, MO 63164 Dear Mr. Broyles: This is in response to your letter of September 6, 1985, and pursuant to your conversation with Dr. Judy Bellin. In particular, you requested that EPA clarify whether persons who solely blended commercially available materials are exempt from the dioxin regulations; whether the rinsate from the equipment so used is EPA hazardous waste; and whether EPA can provide for an expedited delisting petition. Concerning the first point, the dioxin regulations promulgated on January 14, 1985 provide that the past manufacturing operation described in your letter and discussed with Dr. Bellin ( i.e. , the formulation of chemicals derived from 2,4,5—trichiorophenol) presently results in the generation of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F023. This applies to the waste resulting from the company’s mixing and formulating tanks. Two courses of action are available to change this determination. The company can replace the mixing tanks, or it can submit a delisting petition showing that the waste in question does not contain chlorinated dioxins or -dibenzofurans or other toxicants at levels of concern. Waste generated after substitution of “new” equipment, or after delisting of the waste, would no longer be considered EPA hazardous waste. With respect to the evaluation of a delisting petition, we cannot guarantee that the petition will be processed expeditiously. The Agency already has approximately 300 petitions that are currently being reviewed and acted upon; your petition would have to be considered in an appropriate order. I trust the above adequately responds to your concerns. If you have further questions, please call Judy Bellin at (202) 382— 4789. Sincerely, Matt Strauss, Chief Waste Identification Branch This has been retyped from the original document . ------- ,sI. 9444.1985(17) ___ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _____ WI SIUNG TON D C. 20460 l 4c .suo OCT 3 OFFICE 3 SOLID WAS1E ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE Honorable Virginia Smith House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Ms. Smith: I have reviewed EPA’S classification of spent pickle liquor as a hazardous waste as you requested in your September 12, 1985, letter to the Administrator. However, the Agency has taken the position that spent pickle liquor from any source, including hot dip galvanizing, is a listed hazardous waste (it is listed in the regulations as K062) 0 This interpretation is consistent with the letter from Jack McGraw (then Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response) to Mr. Satterfield on April 10, 1985. In that letter, Mr. McGraw stated that hot dip galvanizing is excluded from the electroplating category; however, no such statement was made with respect to the pickle liquor waste. I should point out, however, that a numbe of comp nies, especially those in the porcelain enamel industry, have taken exception to this view. In fact, a law suit wa filed b 1 ’ the Porcelain Enamel Institute (PEt) disputing the Agency’s application of the K062 listing beyond the Iron tnd Steel Industry. As a result of this suit and a rulemaking petition filed by several m.mbers of PEt, the Agency recently requested comments on the Agency’s application of the K062 listing. This request for Comment appeared in the Federal Register on September 10, 1985. I have included a co TThis notice for your convenience. In the notice, you will find a discussion of the issues and background information on the Agency’s poaition. Since the coc nt period is now open, Mr. Sodsrquist may make any comments he believes appropriate about the K062 Listing. I can assure you that all cOmments will be evaluated as part of the Ag.ncy’s rulemaking procedure. The delieting m.chanism is also an alternative; it need not take three to four years. The tim, it takes for processing a delisting is directly dependent upon our receiving a complete delisting petition from the company filing the petition. We ------- 2 recently published a guidance document (EPA/530—SW—85—003) to help petitioners file complete petitions. This document is available from the National Technical tnformation Service. I realize that compliance with EPA’S regulations may be costly, however, we believe that the costs are justified in order to protect our ground-water resources. I thank you for your concern in this matter. If Mr. Soderquist or you would like any additional information, please contact Mr. James Poppiti at (202) 382—4788. Sincerely yours, Winston Porter (7 Assistant Administrator Enclosure ------- 9444.1986(02) January 27, 1986 Mr. Abe Esral Plant-Roberts Chemicals 1644 Tullie Circle, Suite 118 Atlanta, Georgia 30329 Dear Mr. Esral: This letter is written in response to your December 16 letter to J. Winston Porter, regarding the Office of Solid Waste’s definition of primary and secondary production of steel in electric arc furnaces. As you are aware, the electric arc furnace is the most versatile of all steelmaking processes because it can be operated as either an acid or basic, oxidizing or reducing process and, thus, can accommodate any combination of raw materials including ore, steel scrap, and pig iron (plus fluxes such as limestone and fluorspar). In general, nearly all steelmakers using the electric arc furnace use a combination of all of these raw materials. Therefore, the Agency does not have a definition for primary and secondary production of steel in electric arc furnaces and does not differentiate between the wastes generated when a specific combination of raw materials are used. The Agency’s use of the term, “primary steel production” is meant to distinguish between manufacturers who produce steel using the electric arc furnace and foundary operators who use the electric arc furnace to melt steel scrap for castings. The Agency made this distinction clear when it published its response to a comment received on the interim final rule for the K061 listing (see 45 33124, May 19, 1989) in which a clarification on the scope of the listings was requested. The interim final rule read, “Emission control dust/sludges from the electric furnace production of steel.” The commenter indicated that it was not clear whether the listing description applied only to primary steel production or to both primary steel production and to foundries using steel scrap in their electric furnace production. The Agency’s response was that the listing was intended only to include wastes from primary steel production and that this intent is reflected in the listing background document, which refers throughout to primary steel production. Also, the Agency stated that it was uncertain whether foundry electric furnace emission control dusts and sludges are sufficiently similar in composition to warrant inclusion in the same listing. This has been retyped from the original document. ------- —2— In summary, all dusts and sludges from the production of steel in electric arc furnaces are listed hazardous wastes unless generated from foundry operations. In addition, dusts and sludges from foundry operations may be hazardous wastes if they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes as described in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C. Please feel free to give Matt Strauss, of my staff, a call if we can be of any further assistance, his telephone number is (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Original signed by Marcia E. Will jams Marcia Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9444.1986(03) February 12, 1986 Mr. Kevin J. Igli Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 3003 Butterfield Road Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Dear Mr. Igli: Thank you for your letter of January 2, 1986, regarding the disposal status of containers formerly containing pentachloro- phenol (PCP). In your letter, you request that I explain how the January 14, 1985 dioxin rules deal with the management of these wastes. As you stated in your letter, an emptied, unrinsed container which formerly contained an unused formulation of PCP is EPA Hazardous Waste No. F027. Under the rules promulgated on January 14, 1985, these containers must be disposed either at a fully permitted facility having a waste management plan for this (“dioxin”) waste; at a permitted incinerator that has demonstrated 99.9999% destruction and removal efficiency (6-9s DRF) for the chlorinated dioxins (CDDs) and -dibenzofurans (CDFs) or for the principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs) that are more difficult to destroy than the CDDs/CDFs; or at an interim status facility which has received certification from the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response as satisfying the performance standards in Subpart 0 of Part 264. These containers may also be stored at an interim status facility in compliance in the tank or container standards. At present, the residues of such incineration are considered to be an EPA acute hazardous waste. However, on September 12, 1985, the Agency proposed a regulation that would change their status to hazardous wastes (rather than acute hazardous wastes), which could then be managed at interim status land disposal facilities (see enclosure). This has been retyped from the original document. ------- At this point in time, I am not aware of any potential rule change which could allow these wastes to be managed any differently than described above. Please feel free to call Dr. Judith Bellin, if we can be of any further assistance; her telephone number is (202) 475-8551. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus Chief Waste Identification Branch Enclosure This has been retyped from the original document. ------- UNITED STA _, ENVIROP4MENTAL P ECTL’ . AGCr • 9444. 1986(05) t44R3 1966 Wi.Llian: ?!. Warren Eder Associates 85 Fortst Avenue Locust Valley, N.Y. 11560 Re: Fi1 509—1 Dear tir. Warren: This is in answer to your letter ot February 13, 1986. You requested claritication concerning the regulatory status ot spent carbon used to remove dissolved pentachiorepheno]. (PC?) from ground water. You also asked what type of disposal tacility could properly dispose of this waste. Your letter indicates “product spillage” as the source of the contamination. If the product spilled was unused formulations (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F027) and this is what migrated into the ground water, the spent carbon is an acute hazardous waste (F027), and, therefore, would be subject to the hbzardous waste regulations promulgated for dioxin—containing wastes. It this is not the case, the waste you describe is not aub3ect to rc-gulation under RCRA. In any event, you snould be aware that the improper management of this waste could certainly be hazardous to human health and the environment. Regeneration of the spent carbon would result in desorption and distribution ot the chemicals it contained to air (in this case, pentachlc rophenol anø chlorinated dioxins and -dibenzofurans are of principal concern). Land disposal of the spent carbon in a situation where solubilizing solvents are co—disposed could ultimately result in once again polluting ground water. Th retore, the management of this waste should be carefully controlled. With respect to your request regarding disposal options, incineration of this waste in a hazardous waste incinerator that is permitted to burn PCBs is probably the most prudent option. If you decide to incinerate you may wish to speak with Dr. ?aul des Rosie s of our Office of Engineering Research. His telephone number is 202—382—2722. Sincerely, 11 Matthew A. Straus, Chief Waste Identification Branch FILE COPY 19I5—467—e 3 ------- 9444. L986(O7 Dr. Tom Thing RE: CJL3OS Conservation and Protection Ontario Region Environment Canada 25 St. Claire Ave. E. Toronto, CA M4 Ti M2 t ar Dr. Tsenq: Current U.S. EPA regulations control environmental r.l.sses from wood preserving and surface protection facilities under uev.ra1 Congressional statutes, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). In addition, exposures of workers and consumers to the preservative formul&tion. during application and usage of th. treated wood s controllid by ths Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The cur .rtt applicability of the authorities to environmental releases is sua aris.d below, along with a description of our present investigatIon. under RCRA. Wast.water Effluents under the CWA Process wastewaters effluent discharges from wood prsea vinq facilities which use arsenical/chromates, creosote, and/or p.nta— chloroph.nol are regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWM. The final regulations were promulgated in 1981 (46 8260—8295) and vary according to whither a facility was in •zisterce at the time of the regulation (pretreatment standards for existing source., PSES) or for new plants (new source performance standards, NSPS). Th. release of pentachiorophenol and creosote in wood preserving wastswat•rs is controlled by th. use of the indicator pollutant. oil and grease. The effluent standard for arsenic, chromium. and copper I. based on specific concentration limits. 140 discharge of any vastevatire is mandated for Boulton processes and non—pressure processes. Process vastevaters for the wood preserving subcategory of timber products ii defined as all wastewat•r sources excepting noncontact cooling water, material storage yard runoff (either raw mat.rtal or processed wood storage) and boiler blowdown (46 ?R 8297 cot. 2, 1 4). However, precipitation falling in the i/Tto 1/2 acr. around the treating cylinders and tank areas is defined as a process wastewatlr which must be collected and treated. c iidance may be found in the Dvelopssnt øocuaent for ft fluent Limitations and Guidelines and Standards for the Timber Products ------- Point Source Category (EPA Publication No. EP&—440/l 91/023, p. 82), whichstates: “ ainwatsr that falls on or in the immediate vicinity of the retorts and work tank area——an area of from about on-quarter to one—half of an acre for the average plant-—becomes contaminated and can present a treatment and disposal problem at any plant, but especially at plants in areas of high rainfall. For example, a plant located in an area that recieves 152 cm (60 in) of rain annually must be equipped to process an additional 1.5 to 3.0 million titers (400,000 to 800,000 gallons) per year of contaminated vater. Current Dioxin/Furan Chiorophenolic Regulations under RCRA Certain associated wastes from oil or water based chiorophenolic formulations used by wood preserving or surfac. protection facilities (eith.r at sawmills or at wood treaters befor. air seasoning) may be subject to regulation a. acutely hazardous wastes because of their contamination with polychiorinated dioxin, and furan. under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Th. hazardous waste listings which may apply are found in Part 261.31. Volume 40 of U i. Code of Federal Regulations as Hazardous Waste tao.. P020, £021, £026 or P027. If a facility mixes chloroph.nolic formulations on—site, then it may be covered by either the P020 (tn— or tetrachiorophenol) or £021 (pentachiorophenol) listing if wastes are generated during the process. An example would be filtering tha unused formulation b.fore storage, thus generating a filter residual. If a facility discards an unused (not spent) formulation containing chlorophenolics the associated wastes and forriulation itself are covered by Hazardous Waste Ho. P027. If a vast. is generated from the use of •quipnent (tanks, etc. that previously was used to mix chiorophenolic formulations, then thess wastes would be covered by Hazardous Waste Plo. P026. An exampi. would be mixing t—butyl tin oxid. in the same tank that was used for chloroph.noflcs previously, and generating a filter waste when the flO fonitulation was transtered to the process or storag. tank. A container or an inn.r liner removed from a container that that has held art acute hazardous waste such as P020, P021, or P027 must be •ith.r tnipl. rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by another established scientific m•thod or the inner liner must be rsmoved and discarded (as a hazardous waste). Otherwise, this container itself is considered to be the hazardous waste itself, either P020 or £021. This regulation may be found in the Cod. of Federal Regulations , Vol. 40. Part 261.7(a)(3). Examples would be a seorag. tank taken out of servic. that nr.viously ------- contained unused formulation. a formulation mixing tank, or eripty chioroohenolic drums or kratt bags. When a waste is listed as Acutely Hazardous under Part 261.31 (Hazard Code (H)). then special management standards apply under RCRA over those normally imposed for other hazardous wastes. For example, under Part 261.5(a), e7enerators of less than 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste a month would normally be exempt from the management standards contained in Parts 262—265 and Parts 270 and 124 (surface impoundment specifications, ground water monitoring, hazardous waste manifesting, etc.). Part 261.5(e) instead states that the generation of 1 kilogram of acutely waste generated a month or a total of 100 kilograms of contaminated soils subjects the generator to the full management standards of Parts 262—265, 270, and 124. (As described below, we are currently investigating the addition ot other wood preserving wastes to the acutely hazardous waste categories because of their contamination with polychlortnat.d dioxins and furans.) Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Creosote and Pentachiorophenol under RCRA At the present time, wastewater treatmer t sludges from wood preserving processes which use creosote and/or pentachiorophenol are regulated as Hazardous Waste No. KOOl und ’r Part 261.31. This includes oil/water separator sludqes, the sludges which form at the bottom of surface impoundments used to treat or dispose of wastewater (percolation or evaporation ponds), filter media (carbon, sand, soil), spray irrigation fields (considered land treatment units), sludge dewatering/drytng beds, etc. There has been a lot of activity over the nast years in closina unlined lagoons, ponds, etc. used f or process wastewaters. The issue of ahoy clean is clean for removing the sludges and contamtnatt d subsoils (much less pumping and treating contaminated ground water) is decided on a ci.. by cas. basis. The criteria to be used for closure of vast. management units such as surface impoundments. land treatment units, wast, piles are given in Parts 265 and 267. If all contaminated materials cannot be removed, then post closure care as sp.cifi.d under Part 265.310 is required. This would include maintaining a cover for the unit, leachate collection, etc. The RCRA management standards would not apply to wastewater treatment sludges (or wastewaters if they are listed as hazardous wastes in the future) while they are managed on—site in tanks which meet certain design requirements (Part 264.1(ri)(6) and Part 265.1(c)(l0)). However, as soon as the sludqes are removed from these units, the full RCRA permitting requirements apnly. Many facilities have therefore chosen to install wastiwater treatment trains in structurss that meet our tank specifications. rather than surface impoundments, to avoid ground water monitorina and other RCRA oermittinn rernitr”ment . ------- Creosote or Pentachiorophenol Wastewaters under RCRA in 1980, we proposed to add wastewaters themselves from creosote and/or perttach]orophenol facilities to the list of hazardous wastes under Part 261.31 (45 FR 33137). In 1984, we started obtained the necessary analytical data by site sampling missions to supoort this proposed hazardous waste listing. We have been obtaining analyses of the wastewaters themselves as well as documenting ground and surface water contamination with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chioropheflolS. and polychiorinated dioxins/furar Since wastewaters are typically managed in the same units that manage the currently regulated wastewater treatment eludces (Hazardous Waste No. KOOl), few additional controls of wastewater units under RCRA would occur. However, if vastewaters were listed, we would have the authority of controlling such waste management practices as their ‘treatment’ by evaporation in the treating cylinder or the plant boiler. Any RCRA authority over wastewaters would be limttsd to their management on—site at a facility (Part 261.4(a) (2) rCo vsentJ). When released to the navigable waterways or sent to a publically owned treat’i ent work (POTW), the statustory authority becomes the Clean Water Act (CWA). Thu means that it is possible to have different toxic substances of concern or ‘action levels’ for a wastewater while it is managed on—sit. unier RCRA than after release off-site under the CWA. For example, under RCRA we may be conaLderil wastewater contamination with polychlorinated dioxins and furans, yet the CWA standards currently only consider the indicator pollutan oil and grease. inorganic Arsenical and Chromate Wastes (Wastewaters, Sludcies, Contaminated Soils) under RCRA At the current time. any wastes generated by a wood preserving facility that fails the ‘Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test’ (EP Toxic) is a r.qulatsd waste. This test procedure (described in Appendix L I of Part 261) involves extracting the waste with 20 times its w.ight with water, adjusted to a pH of 5 with acetic acid. ‘The extract is analyzed, thus yeilding the ‘EP Toxicity’ value. If the sample is an aqueous liquid, then the sa’tple itself is analysed. giving the EP Toxicity’. The iaximum allowable concentration for ‘ etallics in the ‘EP’ extract is compared to the values given in Table 1 of Part 261.24. If either the total arsenic or chromium in the EP ’ extract exceeds 5.0 parts p .r million, then the waste is classified as either EP t Hazardous No. D004 or 0007. respectively. Thus many inorganic saitwood preserving wastes are contrOll by the RCRA management standards of Parts 262—265. 270, and 124. This would include contartinated soils in the treated wood drit a(1e area, process wastewaters, sludges, syilled forsulations. etc. ------- We are currently investigating whether or not to snecifically list inorganic salt wood preserving wastes under Part 261.32. This would aive the Agency the additional advantage of oversiriht of treatnent of all the wastes generated through its delisting nrocess under Part 260.22. Currently, for ‘EP Toxic wastes, the facility has the ability to determine on its own whether or not waste is hazardous and whether or not treatment is adequate. Corrective Action under RCRA As the result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste .Ar endmentg of 1984 ( SWA) (Congressional Records of Oct. 3 and 11, 1984), the authority of RCRA has been extended to other solid waste manage’ tent units (SFIUq) at facilities, even if these unite do not not manace a waste that is listed in Part 261. This is the corrective action requirement for continuing releases at permitt.d facilities under Section 3004(u) and (v) of HSWA. This requirement for permitting all solid waste management units applies only to facilities that current have hazardous waste management units subject to the oermitting standards of RCRA. Since few facilities, if any, have final permits, any plants with surface impoundments managing 1 (001 wastewater treatment sludges must also obtain a permit for the treated woo. drippaqe/itorage area, process areas, and any landfills. If there is any contamination in these areas (release) corrective action “iust be undertaken. A release from a solid waste management unit is defined in terms of whether or not the unit is designed f or adequate containment. For example, treated wood driopaqe (currently a ‘solid waste’ but not a ‘listed hazardous waste’) is tyoically managed by land disposal (dripoage to the ground). This round usually does not have a clay liner, runoff containment, etc. Therefore, disposing of this drippaqe on the open ground constitutes a releas. for the purposes of corrective action. Leakage from a tank would also be a release. Current Efforts under RCRA to List Additional Wastes At the present tim., our branch is involved in investiaattnq whether or not to add additional wastes from wood reservtnq and surface orotsction facilities to the list of hazardous wastes under Parts 261.31 and 261.32. New wastes which are being considered are listed below, and apply to either wood preservation or surface protection facilities and to any of the preservative formulation types, whether creosote, chiorophenolics, or arsenical-cPiromates: ‘Storage tank, treating tank, retort, dip tank, spray booth sludges ‘Treated wood drippage/etoraqe residuals ‘Fugitive emissions, drippage in the process and tank area ‘Piaintenance area, shop area wastes ------- wastewaters (includin’ storm water runoff) •Wastewater treatment sludges from arsenical—chromate processes or chiorophenoUcs from surface protection processes All of these wastes, where applicable, are bein studied to determine whether or not they should be listed as acutely hazardous waste because of contamination with polycPtlortnated dioxins and furans. This includes any wastes that can be cross contaminated with chiorophenolics, such as wastes generated from a creosote process where a common oil/water separator is used for both creosote and pentachiorophenol, sludges from an arsenical process that uses pentachlorophenol make—up water, waste, from a non—chloropbenolic dip tank that previously held chlorophenolics. etc. As described in previous sections, all of these wastes are covered under the RCRA authority at some wood preserving facilities. especially becaus. of the corrective action provisions under HSWA. Very little coverage under RCRA currently exists for sa ills practicing sapstain control, however. Mding new waste streams to th. list of hazardous wastes would make hazardous waste management standards uniform at all, facilities, and ease “he burden to State and Regional enforcement personal in foriitulatin’ a regulatory authority rationale. If you have any questions, olease do not hesitate to call me at (202)382—4786. Sincerely. Cat. Jenkins, Ph.D. Project Officer, Wood Preservina and Surface Protection Waste Identification Branch Nail Cod. WH—562 B ------- 9444.1986(08) May 2, 1986 Mr. Gregory J. Harvey Industrial Hygenist Occupational Medical Services Newark Air Force Station, OH 43057-5000 Dear Mr. Harvey, This letter is written in response to your request that EPA determine whether activated carbon canisters that are used to collect vapors of the solvents Freon 113, 1,1,1-trichioroethane, and methylene chloride, which are generated during the application of certain paint products, are considered to be a hazardous waste. As you are aware, the Agency has listed these compounds as hazardous wastes when they are used as solvents and have become contaminated with physical or chemical impurities and are no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise re—processed. Use as a solvent is defined as being used for their solvent properties, that is, to solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents. For example, solvents used as a cleaning or degreasing agent, a medium for chemical reactions, an extraction agent, a diluent, and similar uses are covered under the FOOl through F005 listings under §261.31 of RCRA. These listings, however, do not apply when the solvents are used as reactants or ingredients in commercial chemical products ( e.g. , paint and coatings). (See 51 6538, February 25, 1986.) Since the incorporation of solvents into paint formulations does not constitute solvent use as defined in the listing, the solvent vapors collected from paint application are not spent solvents. Unless these canisters exhibit one or more of the hazardous characteristics described under 40 CFR 261.20 — 261.24, they would not be a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This has been retyped from the original document. ------- Nevertheless, we believe that sufficient toxicological data exists on these solvents to indicate that the subject canisters may pose a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the environment, if improperly managed. We, therefore, urge you to manage these canisters with proper controls (i.e., as if they were hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA). Sincerely yours, Matthew Straus Branch Chief This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9444.1986(09) May 2, 1986 Mr. Donald P. Duffy Pace Laboratories, Inc. 1710 Douglas Drive North Minneapolis, MN 55422 Dear Mr. Duffy: This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of the electroplating listings (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F006 and F019). Our responses to your specific questions are as follows: 1. “Electroplating operations” includes electroplating of common metals, electroplating of precious metals, anodizing, coatings, chemical etching and milling, electroless plating, and printed circuit board manufacturing. 2. The only phosphating processes that are not included in the F006 listing are phosphating on aluminum. These processes are included in the F019 listing. 3. The exclusion “...(3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel...” refers to non-cyanide zinc plating processes. That is, zinc plating processes which use cyanide are not excluded from the F006 listing. 4. The zinc plating exclusion does not encompass any wastes from chemical conversion coating processes (e.g., chromating). Thus, when chromating processes contribute to the wastewater stream, the resultant wastewater treatment sludges are included in the F006 listing. 5. The F006 and F019 listings are currently being re- evaluated. At present, the primary focus of this effort is on phosphating processes; several trade associations are now gathering data to support our re—evaluation. This has been retv ed from the original document . ------- -2— Should you have any questions regarding this interpretation, please contact either Mr. Matthew Straus or Mr. David Topping of niy staff at (202) 475—8551. Sincerely yours, Eileen Claussen Director Characterization and Assessment Division (W}I-562B) This has been retv ed from the original document . ------- 9444. 1986(11) May 22, 1986 Mr. Paul Yancey Facility Engineer Whirlpool Corporation 6400 Jenny Lind Road Fort Smith, AR 72903 Dear Mr. Yancey: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your question regarding the classification of sludge generated from treatment of cleaner solutions at your Fort Smith, Arkansas facility. It is my understanding that the first stages of your phosphating process are the cleaner stages. Treatment of the wastewater from the cleaning baths involves pH adjustment, flocculant addition, and filtration. The sludge that results from this treatment is not considered listed hazardous waste as long as wastewater generated from the listed process is kept entirely separate (the listed process occurs further down the line). The cleaning process is not a listed process, so this wastewater treatment sludge is not listed. This sludge may still be hazardous by characteristic, however, and you will need to test for that. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 382—4519. Sincerely, Ann Burke Sarno Environmental Protection Specialist Waste Identification Branch (WH— 562 B) This has been retyped from the original document . ------- 9444. 1986(13) Mr. Reggie W. Carden Chemical Safety Manager June 24, 1986 Lisle Corporation 807 East Main Street Clarinda, Iowa 51632 Dear Mr. Carden, The purpose of this letter is to confirm our telephone conversation held on June 23, 1986 which dealt with the question of whether the Lisle Corporation’s manufacturing process should really be considered an electroplating operation. Based on the information the Agency requested and received from Lisle Corporation on June 23, 1986, the mechanical plating system is not an electroplating operation as listed under 40 CFR 261.31. On May 19, 1980, the Agency promulgated as an interim final rule the listing of “wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations” in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. As indicated in Appendix VII of Part 261 (45 74892), the constituents of concern for this waste are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and complexed cyanide. (This waste listing was finalized on January 16, 1981 (46 4619) with some modification). The mechanical plating operation utilized by Lisle Corporation involves the deposition of metallic coating on a base metal through mechanical action (i.e., impact of glass beads on the object to be coated in the presence of the coating metal) and is not considered an electrolytic process. We feel, therefore, that mechanical plating would not be considered an electroplating operation as defined in the background document and that wastewater treatment sludge previously generated from mechanical plating operations would not be considered a listed hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.31 and thus, would not require delisting. This, however, does not mean that the wastes already generated from this operation are non-hazardous. Each generator is ultimately responsible for determining whether his waste exhibits any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and EP toxicity) as described in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C. If the waste exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic, the waste must be managed in accordance with the hazardous waste management regulations. This has been retyped from the original document. ------- 9444. 1986(13) Mr. Reggie W. Carden Chemical Safety Manager June 24, 1986 Lisle Corporation 807 East Main Street Clarinda, Iowa 51632 Dear Mr. Carden, The purpose of this letter is to confirm our telephone conversation held on June 23, 1986 which dealt with the question of whether the Lisle Corporation’s manufacturing process should really be considered an electroplating operation. Based on the information the Agency requested and received from Lisle Corporation on June 23, 1986, the mechanical plating system is not an electroplating operation as listed under 40 CFR 261.31. On May 19, 1980, the Agency promulgated as an interim final rule the listing of “wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations’ t in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. As indicated in Appendix VII of Part 261 (45 74892), the constituents of concern for this waste are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and complexed cyanide. (This waste listing was finalized on January 16, 1981 (46 4619) with some modification). The mechanical plating operation utilized by Lisle Corporation involves the deposition of metallic coating on a base metal through mechanical action (i.e., impact of glass beads on the object to be coated in the presence of the coating metal) and is not considered an electrolytic process. We feel, therefore, that mechanical plating would not be considered an electroplating operation as defined in the background document and that wastewater treatment sludge previously generated from mechanical plating operations would not be considered a listed hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.31 and thus, would not require delisting. This, however, does not mean that the wastes already generated from this operation are non-hazardous. Each generator is ultimately responsible for determining whether his waste exhibits any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and EP toxicity) as described in 40 CFR 261, subpart C. If the waste exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic, the waste must be managed in accordance with the hazardous waste management regulations. This has been retyped from the original document . ------- Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions, at (202) 382—4488. Sincerely, James R. Kent Environmental Protection Specialist This has been retyped from the original document . ------- 9444 .1986 ( 14) RCRA/SUPERFUND MOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY JUNE 86 —5— 2. Spent Solvent Listings (5261.31 ) A manufacturing facility uses a Liquid—liquid extractor in its production process. An jnfluent water stream bearing the product to be recovered contacts an thfluertt stream of pure hal enated solvent fl iing countercurrent. The solvent stream preferentially absorbs the product fran the water. The solvent bearing product stream exits the extractor. Because the solvent is not capletely inTniscible with water, the production prooe s yields an effluent stream consisting of water and solvent at the other end of the liquid—liquid extractor. If the solvent used in the extraction process is a RPI listed hazardous waste when spent, ald the water/solvent effluent stream be RCRA regulated? Mo; although extraction constitutes solvent use, the effluent stream is not a spent solvent covered by the spent solvent listings in S261.31 as revised on December 31, 1985 (50 FR 53315). The effluent waste water stream becate contaminated with solvent during the actual production process (i.e., during use of the virgin solvent) resulting fran the incai lete miscibility of water and solvent in the extraction process. It did not becaTe contaminated as a result of spent solvent being discharged into it. It, therefore, w .i1d not be regulated as a A hazardous waste, unless such waste stream were listed as a manufacturing waste in 5261.32 or exhibited a characteristic in Subpart C of Part 261. Source: Matt Straus (202) 475—8551 Research: Dave Phillips ------- UNITED ST S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC1IQ4 AG. 9444.1986(15) Mr. 3. w McAdans andyr r, Environm..’nta]. Services 4G 4 MobiL Chm. ca1 Company P.O. Box 26683 Richmond, VA 23261 Dear Mr. McAdams: I am writing in response to your request for a written determination ot whether the pre—coat’ waste that you gcni rate as part ot the process is a Listea hazardous waste. I have reviewed the information that you have submittea in your June lU, 1986, letter and conclude that the use of 2—ethoxyethanol in your poLypropyiene extruding process does not constitute use as a solvent. As you have stated in your letter, the spent solvents listings do not cover manutacturing process wastes that. are contaminated with solvents when they are used as reactants or ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical, products. This is because the chemicals are not being used as solvents. I am satisfied that you have provided aufticient evidt nce that 2-ethoxyethanol is an ingredient of the pre—coat torinulation. Thus, this pre—coat waste cor1tainin 2—ethoxyethano.L is not a listed waste. Although the subject waste is not a listed haste, 2-ethoxy- ethanol is known to be teratogenic in animals by oral, inhulation, and derinal routes, and causes adverse reproductive eftects in animals. The concentration ot 2—ethoxyethanol in your waste (1 to 5%) is many times greater than the health-based values tor 2—ethoxyethanoi. Furthermore, the Agency has listed still bottoms from the recovery of spent 2—ethoxyethanol because it contains similar levels or the subject solvent (1 to 10%). Thus, this pre—coat waste may pose a substantial threat to human health and the environment, if improperly disposed and We suggest that you manage it accordingly. Sincerely, Matthew A. Straus .vS. 19 11—467- 153 ------- 9444• 1986(26) Mr Gar 7 Wtr&8].Oi, Sanuo: Cz’og Protection Corp. Chemjc Manuractur n 1990 &y Road Eaat P410 Alto, CA 9 3O3 Di ar Mr Winslow: Th1 s 1ctt r is in r apon to sour October 8. 1986, iet ie requestj Uidanc& re ardjn the int rpretatjon of the ecop. or th 8 ent eol .,rit liitjfl&i (i.i ., EPA hazardous Waite Nos. POOl, PCQ2, P003, FOO , and F005). In your letter. ou diicusi your W1deratan jfl of theae hazardous Waste and rc uest that we determj whether three i ecjt wastes are listea e cn solvent.. In n ra1, rour underetandjn 0 of the re ,ulatjo rclated to tkw ano C1&B5ijj atj 0 fl oi ap.nt I o1ver&t waste 23 correct. however. bciow are the criteria that we us to determine Whether a particuLar Waite is a hazardous 5 nt iO.LVtflt: 1) the waste mue be a solid Waste as detj e in O CPR 261.2, 2) the Waite must be nersted as a resuit or tht,• solvents bein, used for their 5Olvc; t properties: that is, to •oluoj j e (dia3 1 ) or mobjjj e otner COnstituents. (The li 5ti Go not cover manuracturj process wastes that are COntaminated with •o1vu ts when the •oivtnt are used as Peactante or in&redlente in the formulation of commercial chemical product ..), and 3) in the case Ct solvent mixtures, the Dixtupc, must contain, betore use, a total or ten percent or mori. (b vo1u ) or one or more or the •olve ts liittd in POOl, F002, P00 1 1, or 7005 (see 50 PR 53315). ------- In r rj to th. t:irc s cirtc exa L 3 that QU calaCuss in jour 1 tte . .acl exaz .i invo. v c . n*ration Of b rocecs waetawat r. You are Corrvct tn dour conc ua1on that th event aol oi arc no a .licablr. because tZTh4 Waa;wat rs are manuLact ring rocoe waste str ans and not tb spent Solvents 11 Thus, these wastes wou lø on1 o consi( red ba aimuou wastes it thea exj j j one or more hasardous waa charact rjstjca detin j in O CPR 261.21 — 2G. .24. P1c aae Contact Pir. Matt traus at (202) 75—855l f have additional çueetions re ardin the re u1atorj statue 01’ th st w ate . --------- - 1/ anoujc be noted that ir the Waste streana diSCuSSCd - In our L’ tter Were a mixture o Weetewater ftnd Spent Bolve t (i.e., it is not a wasto wbich contath. a So vr flt as a result o i actu manujacturjn roceea). th vast water niztup would not be rebulated if the mixture m t the COridjtjo in O CPR 261 .3(a)(2)(Iv)(A) or (5). t2arcia Williane Director Office of Solid Waste ------- |